Die Sabbathi, 22. Octob. 1642.  
IT is this day Ordered by the Commons House of Parliament: That none other besides Mr. Nicholas Bourne Stationer, or whom he shall appoint, shall upon any pretence whatsoever, presume to Print the Book called, A Safeguard from Shipwreck, to a Prudent Catholic, with Animadversions upon the same by Dr. Featley, called Virtumnus Romanus, Ordered to be Printed and published by the said House.  
H. Elsing Cler. Parl. D. Com.   

Vertumnus Romanus, OR, A DISCOURSE PENNED BY A ROMISH Priest, wherein he endeavours to prove that it is lawful for a Papist in England to go to the Protestant Church, to receive the Communion, and to take the Oaths both of Allegiance and Supremacy.  
To which are adjoined Animadversions in the in the margin by way of Antidote against those places where the rankest poison is couched.  
By Daniel Featley Dr. in Divinity.  2 Cor. 11 13 14. 
Such are false Apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the Apostles of Christ. And no marvel, for Satan himself is transformed into an Angel of light.  Horat. Ep. 
Quo teneam vultus mutantem Protea nodo?  Tertul. in apol. 
Nefas est ulli de sua religione mentiri; ex eo enim quod aliud à se coli fingit quam colit, negat quod colit, etiam non colit quod negavit.  
LONDON, Imprinted by I. L. for Nicholas Bourne, and john Bartlet: and are to be sold at the South entrance at the Royal Exchange, and at the gilt Cup near Augustine's Gate, in Paul's Churchyard. 1642.   

AN ADVERTISEMENT TO the Reader, touching the Author and the Argument of the ensuing Discourse, AND THE REASONS FOR WHICH it is thought fit to be published to the view of the world.  
AS the ignorance of good is evil: so the knowledge even of evil is good; for knowledge is nothing but the light and irradiation of the understanding by the beams of truth: which herein resemble the rays of the Sun that neither defile any thing nor can themselves be defiled. Set aside curiosity and all kinds of vicious affection and indirect ends, and you shall find that the knowledge even of sinful impurity, is clean, of natural corruption, is sound; of worldly vanities, serious; and of all kind of maladies of the mind and body healthful. And as it is the depth of Satan's malice, è bono malum elicere, to draw evil out of good (as the Spider sucks poison out of sweet flowers and wholesome herbs) so it is a high point of God's goodness, è malo bonum elicere, to draw good out of evil, light out of darkness, and order out of confusion itself. Where it not for this, that God who is the Sovereign and Omnipotent Good, knoweth that it more redoundeth to the glory of his infinite wisdom and power to work good out of evil, then quite to take it away; there never had been, there never should be, any evil in the world, as St. Augustine piously argueth the case. There could be no evil in the world if God suffered it not, 
Encarid ad Lauren: miro & ineffabili modo non fit praeter Dei v●luntatem, quod etiam contra ejus voluntatem fit: ●uia nec fier●t nisi sineret, nec u●ique nolens sed vole●s, nec ●inere● bon●● f●●r● malè nisi omnip●t●ns etiam de malo f●c●re pos●●t b●n●.  and he suffereth it not against his will but with his will, neither would he which is so good, nay, rather goodness itself willingly suffer any evil to be, but that by his omnipotency he can and doth extract much good out of all sorts of evil. This work of Divine providence, Gregory Nyssen, fitly termeth, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the abuse of evil: for what is a●-uti to abuse a thing, but to use it contrary to the nature and condition thereof which if it be good, such an use is an abusive use: if it be evil, such use thereof is an useful and commendable abuse; as wh●n a Grammarian makes a rule of Anomalas, a rhetorician a figure of a Solecism, a Musician an harmony of discord, a Logician a true use of fallacies, and a Physician a wholesome treacle of poison. Such a use (Christian Reader) thou mayst make of the unchristian Treatise ensuing Wherein the Author thereof (now in bold) endeavoureth to show all Roman Catholics a way to escape not only all bonds, and imprisonment, but all other penalties of the law against Popish Recusants, by making their religion and conscience, a leade● and lesbian rule to comply with the religion professed by the Sta●● wheresoever they live.  
This Book together with the Author thereof was sent to the Honourable House of Commmos by the care of some members of that House, employed in a Committee near Portsmouth, and it hath been thought fit to be published for sundry reasons.  
First, to discover the craft of the jesuits in procuring upon unjust grounds, and by indirect means a ●ull from the Pope, prohibiting all Roman Catholics to resort to the protestant Churches, in ●ngland under pain of his Holiness curse, and dreadful thunderbolt of excommunication: whereby as this Priest affirmeth they gained to themselves more disciples, more money, and more Colleges: For be thou pleased (Christian Reader) to take notice, that in the reign of King Edward the sixth of blessed memory, and during the space of the first ten years of Queen Elizabeth (the Phoenix of her sex and age) the Papists in England did usually go to Church, and there was no such thing as Popish recusancy heard of. But after the ●ame soldier Ignatius Loyola with his new regiment, began to outrun all other orders, and ranks of Monks, and the jesuits name was up, and many Colleges built for them beyond the Seas, the English jesuits began to lay about, how their Colleges and Seminaries might be maintained and furnished by those of the Romish party in England, and they find this the ready way to offer to the richer sort of them the education of their children, they paying a good round rate for it: but because the parents then repairing to the Protestant Church might breed up their children at a far easier rate in our Schools of England, the secular Priests (willingly undertaking the care and tuition of them) the jesuits were never quiet till they had obtained from the Pope upon such suggestions as they thought would most take with his Holiness, the Bull above mentioned which frighted all Romish Catholics from our Churches. See here the beginning and original of Popish recusancy in England, and the depth of the Mine which hath since enriched their English Colleges beyond the Sea. 
See page 64.  No wonder if the name of an Author, called Diana (often cited in the ensuing Discourse) be in great request. The benefit accrueing to those of the Society of jesus by the recusancy of Romish Catholics in England, necessitated by them, is a Diana which hath brought no small gain to these craftsmen. Demetrius with his fellow artificers cry out for many hours great is Diana of the Ephesians, not so much honour to that heathenish Deity, but because they knocked and hammered out their living out of the silver shrines they made for her. Sirs, know ye not, 
Acts 25. ●5.  saith Demetrius, that by this craft we have our wealth? And in like manner the jesuits stickle mainly for recusancy not out of any zeal to the Catholic cause, as this Author in his Preface clearly demonstrateth: but because they sucked out of this forced recusancy no small advantage. For the transporting of the children of Romish Recusants beyond the Seas ensuing thereupon, both filled their Colleges with Scholars, and their coffers with money. 
jerom. ●.  And in this respect these jesuits may rightly be called Suits (as jeconias in the Prophet is called in disgrace Conias) not only in respect of their swinish and Epicurean lives in their Sties beyond the Seas, 

 
Epig. l. 1.  
●cta gravi ferro ●●nfossaque vulne●● mater, S●● pariter vitam perdidit 〈◊〉 dedi●. Pluri●us illa mor● 〈◊〉 sa●cia tel●●, Omnibus ut natis ●●iste pateret iter.   but because their society herein resembles that Sow in Marshal which farrowed in the Theatre by a wound there received: so this Order by the wound received from the State (I mean the penalties inflicted upon Romish Catholics for recusancy) hath grown fruitful and exceedingly multiplied. But in the mean while, are not jesuits consciences seared with a hot iron, who every where in their Printed Pamphlets, and Libels most bitterly exclaim against the State for inflicting penalties upon Papists in England for recusancy, whereof they themselves have not only been the Authors but chief Actors therein to enforce it by the rescript of his Holiness procured by them merely for their advantage, as this Author showeth.  
Secondly, to detect likewise the craft of the Secular Priests, verè seculares true worldlings, who for their own advantage counterplot against the jesuits and endeavour by subtle fetches and strains of conscience, to evacuate and frustrate their opposites designs: Sic ars eluditur arte. The jesuits out of pretended zeal to the Roman faith, and religion, mainly contend for recusancy, fearfully adjuring all English Papists with whom they have any power, that by no means either themselves resort to our public service, or send their children to any Protestant Churches or Schools: on the contrary the secular Priests out of pretended care and love to those of their religion, persuade them to make no scruple of repairing to our Churches or Schools: that so they may save both the mulct of the law, and great charges by sending their children beyond the Seas there to be brought up in the Colleges and Schools of the jesuits. As for instructing them in the principles of their Catholic religion, that they will take care of, if the parents be pleased to commend them to their tuition. Thus both make religion a stalking horse to their worldly ends: the jesuit is for recusancy, the secular Priest for Conformity; neither of them truly to gain souls to Christ, but to draw toll to their own mill. If there be no necessity of recusancy, the jesuits may shut up their shops beyond the Seas, and if their be a necessity of recusancy, the Secular Priests may shut up their shops in England. And what care the jesuits though many Families of Romish Catholics in England sensibly decay in their estates, partly by reason of the penalty of the law inflicted upon them for recusancy, and partly in respect of the great expense they are at in the education of their children and transportation beyond the Sea, so long as the jesuits Colleges by this means thrive and flourish? and what care the Secular Priests though their proselytes run a hazard of their souls, by frequenting the Churches and Schools of those they account quite out of the way of salvation, so long as they themselves are well paid for the education of their children, and a good amends is made by the Master's temporal gain for the danger of the Scholars spiritual loss. When I read this Author's Preface and Discourse evidently discovering the jesuits myning and the Secular Priests counter-myning: me thinks I see Pseudolus and Simias in the Poet, outvying one the other in crafty fetches, deceitful subtleties practised by them with dissembling, lies and perjuries.  
Thirdly to lay open to the view of the world the detestable and damnable doctrine of Romish Priests, and jesuits who strain and weaken the strongest sinew which holdeth the members of all Ecclesiastical and Politic Bodies together: who cancel that bond which being made on earth is Registered in the high Court of Heaven, and the three Persons in the blessed Trinity are called as witnesses thereunto. The jesuits teach, that a man may without scruple of conscience or guilt of sin affirm that upon oath in words, which he knoweth to be false, and deny upon oath that which he knoweth to be true, so he be sure to have some clause in his mind, which added thereunto in his inward intention, though not uttered, may make what he saith true in a sense: And this Priest here in his last Chapter teacheth it to be lawful to forge, and fasten a meaning to the words of an Oath clean contrary to the meaning of the Lawgivers, who first made the Oath, and the Magistrate who lawfully requireth that Oath of them, as I will make it evidently appear, when I come to scan his last Chapter. Now what is this else then to use the name of the God of tru●h in taking public and solemn Oaths to confirm a lie, either in words or meaning? what is it else then to mock with Religion, and play fast and loose with the most sacred bonds of Piety and Loyalty. Verily if Religion be derived à religando from binding the conscience, or our faith to God or man; he should not slander these men, who says, they have no Religion. For the surest and strongest bonds of Religion can no more tie them then the green withes could Samson which he broke at pleasure. Let there be an Oath advisedly penned, in terms most express and significant, with all the cautions that the wit of man can devise against all manner of evasions, and backed with never so many direful imprecations and anathema maranathaes upon the soul of him that shall by any slight, cunning, falsehood or perjury either violate or invalidate and evacuate this Oath: yet these men can with a wet finger either loosen it by a forged and forced interpretation, or untie the knot by a mental reservation, or cut it asunder by Papal dispensation, o ubi estis fontes lachrymarum? Suppose a Romish Priest or jesuit be brought before a Magistrate to be examined: if the Oath of Allegiance and Supremacy be tendered unto him, thereby to discover who he is, he will take them both in his own sense though neither in the sense of him who ministereth these Oaths, nor in the sense of the Parliament which appointed them. If he farther demand of him upon Oath, whether he be a Priest or no, he will say he is not: reserving in his mind, (of Apollo) if he question him further, whether he lately came from beyond the Seas: he will forswear it, reserving in his mind (the red or dead Sea) if he farther require of him whether he have received holy Orders from a Romish Bishop: he will deny it reserving in his mind (without a Mitre) if the Examiner ask him further whether he had any speech with any English Nun at Li●borne, he will make no bones to deny it, reserving in his mind● (chaste). Lastly, if the judge or justice charge him to use no equivocation or mental reservation, he will say and swear he useth none, reserving in his mind (to tell you) and so he slips all knots and it may be truly said of him what Pseudolus in the Poet spoke of Ballio non potest pietate obsisti huic ut res sunt caeterae, 
Plautus in Pseud.  this man is oath proof. All heretics and miscreants deliver mendacia doctrinarum, lies of doctrine: but these only doctrinam mendaciorum, a doctrine of lies sodered by mental reservation▪ these only define doctrinally the lawfulness of a lie, so that which is untrue in words, be salved up with a mental reservation. This is the strange monstrous brat of the jesuits like a child half in half out of the mother's womb for so is their mixed proposition half uttered, and half concealed or reserved to themselves. This is conceived to be the invention of a jesuit at the first, and therefore is termed by those who have learnedly impugned it, the jesuits new art of lying, and true it is if we peruse the Catalogues of heretics drawn by Epiphanius, Augustine, Philastrius, together with Alfonsus à Castro, & Ambrose de Rusconibus, you shall light upon no heretic who doctrinally maintained such a kind of equivocation, especially in matter of oath to be taken before a lawful Magistrate. It is true the Priscillianists held it to be lawful to lie and forswear, 
Aug. de haerasib. c. 70. habent Ebar verba juxta Poeta, Imur● perjura secretum pr●der● noli & lib. 1. Retract. cap. 60. Priscillianista ●aresin suam non s●lum negando a●que mentiendo verum ettam pejerando existimabant ●eculendam, & ibid. Visum est quibus●ā Cath●lic●s Priscillianistas se debere simulare, ut ●orum latebra● penetrarint.  and some Catholics in St. Austin's time to feign themselves Priscillianists, that they might the better entrap them and discover them: but this was fraudulent simulation, not mental reservation: the Arch-hereticke Arius, when he was demanded whether he had subscribed or would to the Orthodox faith concerning the consubstantiality of the son, answered, he had or would, pointing to a paper in his bosom, in which he had written his belief touching that point: but this was a fraudulent gesture, and false significatiin of his mind not a mental reservation. Give therefore the Devil his due, this acquaint kind of lie was his prime invention as we may see in the Poet. When the Devil 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 likeness of the Nymph Oegeria answered, I will do it, 
Ovid fast. lib. 3. Coede caput dixit, cui rex, parebimus inquit, Cadenda est h●rtis ●ruta (cepa) mei●: Addidit hi● hominis sums, ait ●lle (cap. 〈◊〉) pestulat hic animam cui. Num● (●isc●●) ait risit & his inquit facit● me● t●la procures, ● vi● coll●qui● non ●big●nd● Deum.  adding by aequivocation (of an Onion) when the Devil added: nay, but thou shalt take of a man's, Numa saith he will, but addeth what he reserved in his mind, (hairs) when the Devil yet farther replied, nay I will have the soul or life, you shall saith the King, adding what he reserved in his mind, (of a fish) and so ploughing with the Devil his own heifer, resolved all diabolical riddles. See here the prototypon of jesuitical equivocation by addition and mental reservation and after what copy either Garnet, or Valentia, or Navarrus, or any other of the like sect wrote who first in our age published in writing, and after in print the doctrine of equivocation by mental reservation.  
Fourthly, to descry to those that sit at the stern in Church and Common wealth, the main scope and mark, at which this Romish Priest and his associates ●ime, in persuading all Romish Catholics within this Realm, to resort to our Churches, and take the Oaths both of Allegiance and Supremacy. It is as be professeth not so much for their indempni●i● from penal Statutes, as to qualify them for other preferments, 
●ee pag. ●3  and even votes in Parliament; to the endangering of our Religion, and government. 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 bar unto them, and these Oaths (he mentions) now serve no more for a partition Wall between loyal Protestants and disloyal Papists: Now the Ephraimites have learned to speak Shiboleth as plain as the Gileadites, 
●eog. 1 〈◊〉 6.  whereas before they could but lisp Siboleth. And if these Ephraimites by this slight come to be admitted to places of greatest trust in this Kingdom, and as their birth and Baronies entitle divers of them to the House of Peers: 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, Laws, yea and lives to? Wherefore it were to be humbly desired of those that love the truth in sincerity, even with bended knees, that his Majesty and the high Court of Parliament would make some more certain distinctive sign between Papists and Protestants then monthly coming to Church, and taking the Oaths above mentioned. This Author points at such a thing while he speaks of some Articles of th●ir faith, which it is not lawful for them in any case to deny. If therefore it should seem good to the wisdom of the State to prescribe such a Confession of faith to be drawn, wherein all or the most fundamental points of their Trent faith are renounced, and by name the twelve new Articles added to the Apostles Creed in the Bull of Pope Pius the fourth, we should either soon see certainly who were Papists, and who were not, or at least give the Romish Religion a smarter blow than it ever yet received. For though this Author speak of a Fox craft to be used by Prudent Catholics, 
Vulpiza●● cum vulp●bus.  and though the Priests and jesuits and the cunningest heads among the Papists would set their wits on the rack to find out some Eshapatoir or evasion whereby they might go beyond the State: yet they must then be enforced to deny their Religion to save it, and to alter the tenets which have hitherto been held for currant, both among their School Divines, and Casuists, namely, that it is a damnable sin to equivocate when a man is called to give an account of his faith. For this cannot be denied to be a plain denial of Christ, and in their own sense, whosoever so denieth him before men, shall be denied by him before his Father in heaven.  
Lastly, to show the great strength of truth and the clear evidence of the Protestant Religion, which convinceth the conscience of most obstinate Papists. For this Author a man of learning and well versed in the book cases of the Romanists, though in some places he jeers at our Preachers, and scoffs 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. recusancy was first brought a●ong Catholics into England by a certain company of men for temporal ends, procured covertly and by indirect means from twelve Fathers of the Council of Trent, and certain Popes upon false suggestions. The false suggestions pag. 7. et deinceps were these▪ viz. That the Protestants of England were idolatrous and blasphemous heretics, hating God and his Church; that the commerce with them, especially at Church, would be an occasion of the subversion and ruin of their souls, pag. 19 In the Protestant Church there is neither idolatry committed nor hurt done, pag. 22. Why should we not communicate with Protestants where there can be no danger of sin? and in pag. 23. Protestants are not to be called properly formal heretics, pag. 41. In going to the Protestant Church there is no moral malignity at all, in so much that scarce the weakest man can invent how to sin by any thing that is there done, it being of its own nature so indifferent and to a good intention good, that à parte rei, there is no appearance of evil therein, pag. 48. I never yet could find any idolatry committed at Protestant Churches as often as I have frequented the same, pag. 52. Protestants are not properly and in rigour formal heretics. If Protestants are not formal heretics it followeth necessarily that they are no heretics at all; for forma dat nomen et esse. If it be a false suggestion that Protestants are blasphemous heretics hating God and his Church, than the truth is, they are neither blasphemous heretics, nor haters of God nor his Church; but lovers of both. If there be no idolatry committed in Protestant Churches than God is there purely worshipped in spirit and truth. If there be no hurt done in Protestant Churches no danger of sin, nor so much as any appearance of evil, then are all Papists justly to be punished who refuse to come to our Church, and they are guilty of grievous sin in disobeying the commands of King and State, and have no pretence at all for their recusancy. Thus as Virgil when he read the obsolete writings of Ennius said, he sought for aurum instercore: so mayst thou find here gold in a dunghill: I have washed away the filth by Animadversions inserted in convenient places; make thou use of the gold to enrich thy knowledge, and confirm thy assurance of the doctrine of the Gospel purely taught, and sincerely professed in the Church of England.  
Octob. 1. 1642.   

A TABLE OF THE SPECIAL CONTENTS.  
LOcks that are screwed with letters are most troublesome to unlock if we know not the particular letters by the setting whereof together the wards fly open: such is the ensuing discourse, consisting of very many heads doubling or trebling the Alphabet as appear by the marginal notes, yet, without any summaary contents premised or directory Titles serving in stead of signal letters to open the several parts and Sections thereof, It was thought therefore requisite to supply that defect in the Romish Author by this table wherein the Reader may readily and easily find those remarkable points which either are professedly handled, or occasionally touched therein.  

First in the Preface, pag. 3.  
Secondly in the Treatise, pag. 16. 

Sect. 1. pag. 26.  
Sect. 2. pag. 57  
Sect. 3. pag. 82.    
Thirdly in the Appendix, pag. 143.   

First in the Preface. 
The original of recusancy in England, 
pag. 6.  The Rescripts of seven Popes in the case all erroneous. 
pag 7.  The determination of general Counsels of great authority, yet not infallible, 
pag. 12.    
Secondly in the Treatise. 
The state of the question touching going to Church with men of a different religion, explicated. 
pag. 16.  Naaman's fact bowing in the temple of Rimmon●iscussed ●iscussed. 
pag. 17.  The words of the Prophet, 2 Kings 5.19. go in peace diversely expounded. 
pag. 18.  None may dissemble his Religion, no not in fear of death. 
pag. 21.  The resolution ●f the Sorbon Doctors in the case of recusancy. 
pag. 24. 

SECT. 1.  The definition of scandal, 
pag. 26.  Several divisions of Scandal, 
pag. 27.  The distinction of venial and mortal sin refuted, 
pag. 28.  Evangelicall Counsels as they call them, are not distinct from precepts, 
pag. 29.  Poverty in itself is not scandalous, 
pag. 31  Whether our Liturgy be any part of the Missal, 
pag. 33.  Prayers ought to be made in a known tongue, 
pag. 34.  What is meant by appearance of evil, 1 Thess. 5.22. 
pag. 35.  In what case the eating meats offered unto Idols is forbidden by the Apostle, 1 Cor. 8. 
pag. 39  The definition of an heretic, 
pag. 51.  That the faith of Protestants is no way defective, 
pag. 53.  The Romish Clergy is grossly ignorant, 
pag. 54  The Protestants manner of preaching in many respects to be preferred before the Romish. 
pag. 55.   

SECT. 2.  recusancy is no distinctive sign between a Papist and a Protestant. 
pag. 57  The Protestants Sacrament is not a bare sign; nor the holy Eucharist common bread, 
pag. 60.  The body and blood of Christ is truly given in the Sacrament. 
pag. 61.  The popish carnal manner of eating Christ's flesh with the mouth, is repugnant to faith, reason and common sense. 
pag. 62.  The Apostle by the Lord's Supper, 1 Cor. 11.20. meaneth not the Agapae or Love-feasts, 
pag. 64.  A foul practice and high misdemeanour of Davenport, alias à Sancta Clara, in procuring a surreptitious Bull against Day the Franciscan, 
pag. 75.   

SECT. 3.  That Papists attribute religious worship to images themselves, 
pag. 85.  That a man being questioned of his faith, though before an incompetent judge is bound to answer the truth, 
pag. 98.  That we may not dissemble with dissemblers, nor play the Fox with Foxes, 
pag. 99  That Papists trust in their own merits, though some at their death have renounced them, 
pag. 104.  The Oath of Allegiance divided into eight branches and every branch justified by Papists themselves, 
pag. 109.  The Oath of Supremacy divided into four branches, 
pag. 114.  In what sense Protestants teach the King to be Head of the Church, 
pag. 115.  Who are meant by foreigners in the Statute, 
pag. 120.  That no Papist can take the Oath of Supremacy, but that he must renounce a fundamental point of his Religion, 
pag. 138.      
Thirdly, in the Appendix. 
1. A form of Recantation enjoined the Lollards in the 19 year of King Richard the second taken out of the Records in the Tower, 
pag. 143.  The Resolutions of the Fathers in the Council of Trent, 
pag. 145.  The Oaths of Supremacy Enacted 35. Hen. 8. & 1 Elizabeth, 
pag. 148.150.  A proviso for Expounding the Oath, 5. Elizabeth, 
pag. 151.  The Admonition annexed to the Injunctions, Elizabeth. 1. 
pag. 152.  The Conclusion of the Author of the Animadversions to the Reader, 
pag. 154.      

Errata sic corrige,  
P. 7. in marg. state r. flat. p. 8. lin. 11. p. 7. r. 12. p. 15. l. 9 Ignorattia r. ignorantia p. 22. l. 22. the r. they p. 28. l. 15. deal the p. 42. l. 17. rejoice r. rejoin p. 54 l. 35. proposition r. preposition p. 64. l. 14. Apollorum r. Apostolorum p. 76. l. 6. add 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 85. l. 12. sede r. sedè p. 97. marg. l. 6. doth r. do p. 99 l. 11. marg. adeo r. add l. 12. r. wizards p. 140. marg. l. 6. d the appendix.   

A 
a Nay rather a Babylonish Marchant putting away a good conscience concerning faith making shipwracks, 1 Tim. 1.19. For this book with the title thereof resembleth the Apothecary's boxes, quorum tituli remediae habe●t, pyxides 〈◊〉. Lactant. divin. institut. l. 3. c. 14.  SAFEGUARD FROM SHIPWRECK, TO A 
b According to that prudence which Saint james brandeth with those three marks▪ Earthly, sensual, and devilish jam. 3.15.  PRUDENT CATHOLIC.  
Wherein is PROVED THAT A 
c By Catholic, he meaneth a Papist, begging after their manner, that which is indeed the main question between us, namely, whether Papists are Catholics: For if he take Catholics in that sense in which the word is used by the ancient Fathers, for a right believer or Orthodox Christian in opposition to all heretics and schismatics; neither are Romanists such Catholics: and such Catholics living within his Majesty's Dominions, not only may but aught to come to our Protestant Churches▪ and take the Oaths both of Allegiance and Supremacy, when they are legally tendered unto them.  Catholic may go to the Protestant Church, And Take both the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy.  Matth. 10.16. 
Be ye wise as Serpents, and 
d If the author had not here rubbed his forehead, he would never have set this text in the frontispiece of his book, for whether we translate the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 innocent or simple, in neither sense it befitteth either the person of the Author and his Associates, or the argument of his book. How innocent Papists are, it is sufficiently known to all the world by the Massacre at Paris, Powder plot in England, and the present Rebellion in Ireland. As for their simplicity, let the jesuits manifold Apologies of Equivocation speak, and this Priest's Treatise in hand, wherein he endeavoureth through the whole to prove it to be lawful to double in point of God's worship, and juggle in matter of most sacred and solemn oaths.  Simple as Doves.  
LONDON, Printed by I. L. for Nicholas Bourne at the South entrance to the Royal Exchange, 1642.   

A Preface to the Reader.  
Gentle Reader,  
I Am to write of a point of Controversy, wherein I know, that I shall undergo the 
e Rubet auditor evi frigida mens est; criminibus tacitâ sundant praecordia culpâ. It seems the Author's heart smote him, and his conscience misgave him, and his ink turned red, when he set his pen to paper to apologise for hollow hearted neutrality, and halting between two religions. If we divide his Pamphlet into two parts, we shall find the first part spent in proof and justification of simulation, the second of dissimulation: in the former part he persuades the Papists of England to make show of what they are not, by frequently resorting to our Church and Communion Table, in the second to deny what they are, by taking the two Oaths: wherein both the temporal and the spiritual power and jurisdiction of the Pope, within these kingdoms are renounced.  censure of divers sorts of people; yea, amaze some at the strangeness of the thing. Yet my intention being good, as tending to the safeguard, as well 
f How the ensuing Treatise tendeth to the Safeguard of the bodies and estates of Papists, by declining the penalties of the laws, every intelligent Reader may perceive, but how this way of dissimulation tends to the safeguard of souls, I cannot understand, sith the Saviour of our souls, who is the Way, the Truth, Truth, and the Life, teacheth us in express words, Mark 8.35. Whosoever will save his life shall lose it, but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the Gospel shall find it. vers. 38. Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father, with his holy Angels, and Matth. 10.32, 33. Whosoever shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven: but whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. But I subsume, to make profession of communion with misbelievers or schismatics, is not to confess Christ, and to deny any part of our Christian Faith, with what art of words, or pretence of good intention soever, is upon the matter, to deny Christ, and to be ashamed of him and his Doctrine.  of souls as bodies of all: and I myself being constrained by a kind of natural necessity thereto; as suffering much, not only by the 
g You may thank Pope Pius his seditious Bull against Q. Elizabeth, wherein he not only excommunicateth her but exposeth her life and kingdom for a prey, and the treasonable practices of jesuits and jesuited Papists for the severity of our laws, not indeed against your Religion, but rather irreligion and disloyalty, medicum severum intemperans aeger fa●it.  severity of the Laws for my Religion (which is the least:) but likewise both spiritually and temporally, by the malice and treachery of some evil spirits, instigating others to take advantage by Religion: do hope to find approbation therein (at least) of the wiser sort. Although I cannot see, but why in reason (not pretending the least prejudice to Religion, but rather the good of God's Church, as I shall make appear) the weakest sort of Catholics should not be likewise pleased therewith. For although Religion, as it is taken for Christian belief, aught of every man to be professed, according to St. Thomas Aquinas and other Doctors, 2a. 2ae. q. 3. at two particular times, viz. when, and as often as the glory of God shall conduce thereunto, or the spiritual good of our neighbour shall be either conserved, or augmented thereby, grounding themselves, upon the words of our Saviour, Matth. 10.32. Qui me confessus fuerit coram hominibus, confitebor & ego eum coram patre meo qui in caelis est. Every one that shall confess me before men, I also will confess him before my Father which is in heaven. Yet it is not necessary to salvation, that any man at all times, and in all places do confess his Religion without 
h Hoc verum est priusquam Theognis nasceretur; This is an extreme verity as the French speak, that it is not necessary to confess a man's Religion without necessity, as if he should say, it is not profitable for a man to drive a a Trade without profit, or not pleasant to recreate himself without pleasure, or not wholesome to take Physic, which conduceth not to his health. But if this were in him l●psus linguae or calami. I am sure his inference hereupon, is deliquium mentis, and argues a defect in his rational faculty: for at this issue he drives, because it is not necessary at all times and in all places to confess Religion, (no more then to go out into the Market place and cry I am a Roman Catholic, or to write upon the frontispiece of his house here lieth a Papist,) that therefore a man may sometimes make an outward profession of a contrary Religion, by joining with them publicly in their Service and Sacraments. If he had stayed longer at school he would have perfectly learned (which he fumbleth at) this lesson from the School Divines, (which looseneth the sinews of this his argument) that affirmative precepts, obligant semper, sed non ad semper, but negative, semper & ad semper. A man is not bound always to exhibit cultum latriae, to God by adoration, or prayer, but he is bound never to exhibit Divine worship to a creature: he is not bound always to offer unto God, or to give to the Church; but he is bound never sacrilegiously to take away from God or his Church: in like manner, he is not bound at all times, and in all places to profess his faith, but he is always bound, not to deny his Faith and Religion, either by word or deed. A man is not bound always to speak a truth, but he is bound never to lie, feign, or play the hypocrite.  necessity. Whence if a man should go out, into the Market place, and cry himself to be of such and such a Religion, or should write upon the frontispiece of his house (in a country contrary to his Religion) here liveth a Christian, a Protestant or Catholic, his act would be thought so far from virtue or religion, as that it would be rather deemed presumption, or the height of indiscretion. Hence it is, that although a Catholic be bound under pain of damnation to profess his religion in the twice before assigned, yet he is not bound to profess a Recusancy of a thing of its own nature indifferent, thereby at all times, and in all places to discover his Religion: for this were as much in effect, as to cry himself, over the whole kingdom, or to write over his door, that he were A Catholic, or at least some Sectary. For (as I shall hereafter say:) Recusancy is common both to Catholics, Brownists and other Sectaries, different in opinion from Protestants) which would be an occasion to call himself in question for the Religion he professeth; whence I may rightly describe the Recusancy of Catholics no otherwise, then to be, an indiscreet discovery of a man's Religion without necessity or obligation: whereby he makes himself liable to the penal laws of England for not going to Church, Which was brought first amongst them into England, by a certain company of men, for 
i See the Advertisement to the Reader. The Apostle saith, Godliness is great gain; if a man be contented with what he hath: but by the confession of this Priest, gain is the jesuits godliness; the zeal of God's house eats not them up, but their zeal devoureth the houses of the wealthiest Recusants in England. What care they though Recusants sink in England, so long as they swim in abundance beyond the Sea? what thought take they for the parents' mulcts and taxes by the state, so long as their Pupils scores are paid in their Colleges?  temporal ends procured covertly, and by indirect means from twelve Fathers of the Council of Trent, and certain Popes upon false suggestions to the ruin of many men: That I prove what I have said, it is necessary, that I relate the manner, how it was brought in.  
In the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's reign, and the alteration of Religion in England, Catholics went to Church to conform themselves to the State, as they did in K. Edward the sixths' time; yet privately kept to themselves the exercise of their own Religion. Which some Priests, perceiving not convenient, for the propagation of their own family, then newly hatched: wrought in the Council of Trent, that twelve Fathers of the said Council (not all Bishops, yet favourers of the said family) might be selected, to declare to English Catholics upon these suggestions following, viz. that the Protestants of England were idolatrous and blasphemous heretics, hating God and his Church: that their commerce, especially at Church, would be an occasion of the subversion and ruin of their souls; denying and betraying of the true faith; giving of scandal to men of tender conscience, as breaking that sign which was distinctive between the people of God and not his people; that it was altogether unlawful for them to go any longer to the Protestant Church, as appeareth by the words of the said declaration, which if I had by me, I would willingly have here inserted. This declaration being thus obtained, they possessed 
k If seven Popes one after another swallowed the same State gudgeons, and after the swallowing of them sub annulo piscatoris, sent rescripts into England forbidding all Catholics under pain of mortal sin, to repair to Protestant Churches, which this Author acknowledgeth to be an error in those Popes, what becomes of the infallible assistance of the holy Spirit annexed to Peter's chair? if so many Popes might be deceived by false suggestions, why not by false arguments, and objections? if they may be deceived in matter of fact, why not in matter of faith, which often dependeth upon matter of fact? and there being more need of inerrability in a visible head for matter of fact, than matter of faith, the later so far as it is necessary to salvation being plainly set down in Scripture. If they may be deceived as men, why not as Popes? surely if the Pope do any thing as Pope▪ it is sending forth his Bulls and Rescripts, whereby he governeth and instructeth the Pseudo-Catholike Church, and decides cases of conscience; and if in such he be subject to error and mistaking, even in a matter of as great weight as any was agitated in the Council of Trent, as this Priest affirmeth, pag. 7. upon what a sandy foundation is the Romish Babel built? and how loose and weak is the main ground of a Papists faith?  certain Popes (to wit: Paul the fourth, Pius the the fifth, the two last Gregory's, Sixtus, Clement, and Paul the fifth) so strongly with the same, and the aforesaid suggestions; that the said Popes likewise declared as it is said by certain rescripts which I never yet could see their going to Church to be likewise unlawful. Which said suggestions had they been, or were they true, I should likewise say and grant it unlawful; but not being true, as I shall hereafter show: the 
l It cannot be the common opinion of Divines that it is lawful for a man to go to Church and communicate with those who are of a different Religion. For seven Popes alleged by him, two Cardinals, Bellarmine and Baronius, twelve Fathers of the Council of Trent, R. P. and other jesuits for the Roman party, and of the Protestant belief, George Abbot Archbishop of Canterbury, in his Lectures at Oxford, Calvine in his tract adversus Pseudo-Nicodemitas, and the Doctors of the reformed Churches generally in their expositions upon the second Commandment, and in their commentaries upon the second of the Corinthians 6. Chapter, 15, 16, 17. ver. determine the contrary.  common opinion of Divines in this point is to be followed; to wit: that it is a thing indifferent and therefore may be lawful to frequent the Churches of Schismatics.  
Now to prove what I have said; that it was first brought in, by a certain company of men. It is evident in itself by the carriage of the business; for it is altogether improbable, that one man's authority (to wit, Doctor Sanders who is named to be the only Agent herein, a man always ill relished in our state, and therefore in this point to be esteemed partial) could select so many Fathers out of the said Council, in a matter of such importance, upon his own bare suggestion; or that the said Fathers would, or aught to have declared the same; unless they had been made believe, that the aforesaid suggestions were true, in the common opinion of most of the Priests then in our kingdom.  
That it was wrought for temporal ends by the said company, the event shows the same: for there is none that have got, or do get thereby, but only the said company; as appears by their abundant treasure, and rich Colleges: for recusancy begets persecution, and persecution alms deeds, that God may assist the afflicted in their distresses. And by this recusancy great men's children can get no learning or science within this kingdom; but must be sent beyond the Seas, each at twenty five, or thirty pound per annum. by which, their said family was and is propagated, and their heap increased.  
Further, the political invention of recusancy was so sweet and pleasing, by reason of the great gain which it brought; that one of the said company (Author of the answer to the libel of Justice) all besmeared with wont piety, so much delighteth in tribulation, which ariseth by this recusancy; that he would not a toleration of Catholic religion in England, if he might. Although in his answer to the Author of the said libel he saith (as knowing him not able to procure of Queen Elizabeth and the State, a toleration for Catholics) that upon certain conditions of his, he would accept of the same: but when he speaks from his heart of the thing itself, he saith in his said Book, cap. 9 pag. 216. That it is such, as to ask it of God, were to ask, we know not what; for that persecution is better.  
That the said declaration and Pope's rescripts were got by the aforesaid suggestions, appears by the writings themselves as they are cited, and further by one R. P. of the same family, who wrote a book printed Anno 1607. Contra Anonymum, against a man without name: (Doctor Wright) that it was not lawful to frequent Churches of heretics: where promiscuously he relates all the aforesaid suggestions, as the ground of his opinion; and bringeth Cardinal Bellarmine and Baronius with eight others, most of them of the same School for the approbation of his case. Which case as he puts it, I think any man living would likewise have approved.  
That these men above others, were so laborious and serious, for this recusancy appears, in that, whosoever would oppose them, were presently blasted for heretics, or at least fallen men, insomuch that Azorius who wrote that it was lawful for a Catholic to go to the Church of Schismatics was so troubled by the importunity of these suggestions, that he was constrained through fear that that part of his family, should have suffered some great temporal detriment by his judicious writing (as they say) to recant his opinion, and hold it not lawful in our case of England. See the said book pag. 106. by all which any man may easily perceive, that the aforesaid company were the busybodies: and that for their own ends (as I have said) upon the aforesaid grounds: otherwise why should they, more than others, have been so importune as to persuade, yea compel Azorius, who (not perceiving (under the species of piety their rare political drift) wrote a common opinion to the whole world, to deny that common opinion to have place in England?  
That the foresaid Suggestions were and are false, it is certain by experience to any, that know the state of the Protestant Church of England: and that to the ruin of souls as shall be proved in the question following.  
That it was procured covertly, and by indirect means; appears in that only twelve Fathers were chosen, and the whole Corpse of the Council left out, and amongst the rest, the Bishop of Worcester there then present; who knowing better the State and affairs of our Country, than all the rest, it seems to me that he might have been one of the twelve, whose authority would have given more satisfaction to this point, to our country: then all the other selected. But it should seem, that it was declared without any debate, as a matter of no great importance, although it seemeth to my weakness a matter of as great weight, as any that was then agitated in the said Council: and therefore to leave a whole Council, in so weighty a matter, that concerned the affairs of a whole Kingdom in point of Religion, and where we might have had an infallibility 
m 
No infallibility in any general Council since the days of the Apostles, much less in the Council of Trent, which was neither a general Council, nor lawfully called, nor free, nor at all an assembly of Catholic Bishops, but of Images, moved like the statues of Dedalus by the sinews of others. See the history of the Council of Trent written in Italian by Petro Soave Polano, and the Epistle Dudith quinque Eccles. ad Maximilianum, 2. Caes. But were the Council of Trent a general Council lawfully called, consisting of eminent Doctors and Pastors as it were stars of the first magnitude, yet they could not without horrible presumption arrogate to that their Synod infallibility: for that not only Provincial but even ecumenical Counsels may err, and be foully mistaken, and that in matter of faith may thus be demonstrated.  
First, every assemby which consisteth of members subject to error may be seduced, and deceived, but general Counsels are assemblies consisting of members subject to error; for all men are so, Rom. 3.4. Therefore general Counsels may be seduced and deceived. This reason is strongly backed by the authority of the most judicious of all the Fathers, Saint Augustine and that in many places, namely, Ep. 112. c. 1. Si Divinarum scripturarum, earum scilicet quae canonicae in Ecclesia nominantur, perspicua firmatur autoritate, sine ulla Dub. tation● credendum est: ali●s vero testibus vel testimonies quibus aliquid credendum esse suadetur tibi credere vel non credere liceat; quantum ea momenti ad faciendam fidem vel habere vel non habere perpenderis: If any thing be confirmed by clear and evident authority of Canonical Scripture that must be beleeeved without all doubting: but for other witnesses and testimonies whereby ye are persuaded to believe any thing you may give credit unto them, or not, as you see cause: & de natura et great. cont. Pelag. c. 61. solis canonicis debeo sine ulla recusatione consensum. In the writing of any such men I hold myself at liberty (namely to give my assent unto them or not) for I owe consent without any stay or staggering to the Canonical Scriptures alone: therefore not to the Pope's Rescripts, or Decrees of general Counsels. And in his second book, De bapt▪ cont. Donat. c. 3. Quis nesciat scripturam canonicam omnibus posterioribus Episcoporum literis ita praeponi; ut de illa omnino dubitari et disceptari non possit utrum vel verum rectum sit quicquid in eâ scriptum esse constiterit. Episcoporum autem literas quae post confirmatum canonem vel scriptae sunt, vel scribuntur, et per sermonem fortè sapientiorem cuiuslibet in ea re peritioris et per aliorum Episcoporum graviorem authoritatem, doctioremque prudentiam et per concilia licere reprehendi, si quid in eyes fortè a veritate deviatum est. Et ipsa concilia quae per singulas regiones vel provincias fiunt, plenariorum conciliorum authoritati, quae fiunt ex universo orbe christiano, sine ullis ambagibus cedere: ipsaque plenaria saepe priora posterioribus emendari, cum aliquo experimento rerum aperitur quod clausum erat, et cognoscitur quod latebat. Who knows not that the canonical Scriptures are so far to be preferred above the latterr letters of Bishops, that whatsoever is found written in it may neither be doubted nor disputed of whether it be true or right: but the letters of Bishops may not only be disputed of, but censured by Bishops that are more wise and learned than they, if any thing in their writings swerve from the truth: or by Provincial Synods, and these also must give place to plenary and general Counsels, and even plenary and general Counsels may be amended, the former by the latter, and it is to be noted that he speaketh of error in matter of faith. For these words are part of his answer to an Objection of the Donatists out of the letters of Saint Cyprian, concerning the point of rebaptising.  
Secondly, If the determinations of general Counsels were infallible, all Christians were necessarily bound to stand unto them, and to submit to their authority: but this Saint Augustine peremptorily denies, l. 3. Cont. Maxim. c. 14. Nec ego Nicenum nec tu debes Ariminense, tanquam preiudicaturus, proffer concilium; nec ego huius authoritate nec tu illius detineris. Neither ought I to allege the Council of Nice, nor thou the Council of Ariminum in prejudice to either part. For neither am I bound to the authority of the one, nor thou to the authority of the other; and it is worth the observation that Saint Augustine speaketh of the first most famous Council of Nice, whose authority was greater and held more sacred and venerable than any Council since, and if that Council concluded not Saint Augustine, shall the authority of a late Conveticle at Trent conclude all Christians?  
Thirdly, If general Counsels may contradict one the other, they may certainly err. For it is impossible that both parts of a contradiction should be true. But general Counsels contradict one the other. Ergo. For the Council held at Ariminum contradicteth the first general Council held at Nice in the point of consubstantiality of the Son with the Father. The general Council held at Chalcedon, contradicteth the general Council held at Ephesus in the point of Eutychianisme. The general Council at Frankfurt, contradicteth your second general Council held at Nice in the point of Image worship. Your general Council held at Lateran under Leo the tenth, contradicteth your Council of Constance in the point of the Counsels superiority above the Pope.  
Fourthly, Cuivis contingere potest quod cuiquam potest, that which hath befallen some general Counsels, may befall any other, unless they can allege some special privilege to the contrary; but divers general Counsels have erred. A general Council of Prophets, 1 Kings 22.12. erred, saying, The Lord shall deliver Ramoth Gilead into the King's hand; a general Council of Priests, Matthew 26.65. erred damnably in condemning Christ for a blasphemer guilty of death. The general Council held at Arminum erred, denying the Son's equality 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 corporeal nature: at Constance, denying the Laity to be bound to receive the communion in both kinds against the express precept of Christ, Matth. 26.28. and john 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 administereth it. Which if it were true, no man in the Roman Church could ever be assured either of his baptism, or of his confirmation, or of his absolution, or of his ordination, or of the validity of his matrimony, or of his safe adoration of the Host, or of the virtue of his extreme unction. For how can he certainly know the intention of the Bishop or Priest who administered unto him these rites, all which they account sacraments? Neither can they evade by saying that these Counsels might err 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 Council at Nice, was confirmed by Pope Adrian; at Constance by Pope Martin, at Florence by Pope Eugenius, at Trent by divers Popes. Lastly, if Counsels had an immunity from error, the prayer which they made at their Counsels registered by Gregory the Great, l. 7. Epist. were a mere mockery. The prayer was conceived in this form: 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 heady will driven us to swerve from justice, for this we pray thee, we beseech thee that if we have done any thing amiss in this great and famous assembly, thou wouldst vouchsafe to pardon it. I conclude therefore with the words of Leo in his Epistle to Anatolius, who lightly phillip's off the authority of the general Council 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 withal most wholesome conusell to all Counsels, nulla sibi de multiplicitate congregationis concilia blandiantur. Let no Counsels flatter themselves with the great multitude of persons assembled in them, as if that might privilege them from error.  ; and to adhere to twelve men fallible by suggestion without any debate or dispute; in my judgement cannot be without great suspicion of sinister proceedings. Partly therefore supposing and partly intending further to prove the foresaid suggestions to be false, and consequently the said Council, and Popes to h●ve been abused: he will endeavour to examine the truth of the matter itself, according to the principles of Divinity within the bounds of the Catholic Church, who wisheth all happiness and prosperity, aswell to the said Church, as to all the distressed members of the same, with as much brevity, as may be, in the ensuing question.   

A SAFEGUARD FROM Shipwreck to a Prudent Catholic.  
Question. Whether it be lawful 
n Here lest the Reader should before he be aware; be bitten by a snake lying under the grass, 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 go to Protestant Churches. The second, whether a Protestant may go 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, than his plaster will salve in the former. The Protestants and Papists in this stand not upon even terms: for there is nothing in the Protestant Liturgy or Service, which the Romanists do, or by their own Rules can except at; The Confession, form of Absolution, Prayers, Hymns, Collects, Lessons, Epistles and Gospels, are either such as the Papists themselves use, or at least such as they dislike not; whereas it is far otherwise in the Roman Missal. 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 unknown tongue contrary to the express order of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 14. all which the Reformed Churches condemn and abhor, and whereas this Author allegeth, there can be no text of Scripture brought, forbidding Papists to come to our Church: I believe him, but on the other side there are many express 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 Liturgy is polluted, can with a safe conscience go to Mass, as namely, Psal. 26.4. I have not sat with vain persons, neither will I go in with dissemblers, I have hated the congregation of evil 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 dear beloved flee from idolatry, 1 joh. 5.21. Keep yourselves from idols, 2. Cor. 6.14. What fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness, or what communion hath light with darkness, 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 unclean thing, and I will receive you.  for a Catholic to go to the Protestant Church.  
I Answer it to be lawful for him, who doth it without a doubtful conscience: or thought of sin, which I say, because if a man should do that, which in itself is lawful; doubting, or not being satisfied, whether it be lawful or no; he would sin in doing the same: because he would put himself in hazard or danger of sin; and as the Wise man saith: Eccles. 3. Qui amat periculum peribit in eo: He that loves danger shall perish in the same. So he that thinks a thing, which in itself is indifferent, to be sin, and doth the same, sinneth: because such a man hath a will to do the thing, although it were sin; and by reason of his sinful will commits sin. Otherwise as I have said before, it is lawful. Which I prove first. The thing in itself is not forbidden by any Law: either by the Law of God, or the Church. Not by the Law of God; for no place of holy Scripture can be showed, by which it is forbidden. Nor by the Law of the Church: for no Council or Canon of the Church can be produced for the prohibition of the same. Ergo, it is lawful.  
It is secondly proved by an example of holy Scripture, Lib. 4. Reg. cap. 5. where 
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 persuade them thereunto: yet I cannot let pass this, wherewith true Professors may be very much scandalised. For what religious heart doth not tremble to think of going in, and bowing in the temple of an ●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 idol. I answer therefore (1) that the case of conscience Naaman put, was not whether he might go with his Master into the house of Rimm●n, and offer sacrifice with him unto the idol: but whether he might not wait upon his Master thither, and perform a civil (for the bowing spoken of was as C●i●tan well noteth, genuflexio obsequii, non imitativa, a bowing to the King not to the Idol) office to him or make an obeisance, whilst 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; Go in peace, do not necessarily import an approbation, or permission of that which Naaman propounded: but either a mere form of valediction, as if he had said in our language adieu, or farewell. 3. Or the meaning of them may be, that which Trem●lius and junius, by comparing this text. 2 Kings 5.19. with the 1 Samuel 1.17. collect, Quieto anim● esto & ne sis sollicitus de istis rebus quae nihil ad pacem conscientiae tuae faciunt, sed potius ill●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 ha●t that thou ●●●nest for, thou art cleansed of thy leprosy, Go home in peace, God send thee a prosperous journey for the thing thou wottest of, shall never 〈◊〉 thee, for thy Master shall never requi●e any such service of thee as to wait on him to his Chapel to worship Rimmon. And fifthly, what if there be an enallage temporis very usual, in the Hebrew. A●l mists of obscurity be taken away, if we translate the words thus, The Lord be merciful to thy servant, for that when my Master went into the house of Rimmon and leaned on my hand, I bowe● myself in the house of Rimmon. Howsoever the Prophet's valediction, Go ●n peace, no more proveth any approbation of naaman's 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 Naaman's conceit was in i●, whether he imagined there were any holiness or virtue in that earth, as the inhabitants of Colubraria (as Pomponius Mela writeth) believed, that the earth of the neighbour Island Ebusitana, was a sovereign remedy 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 encourage 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 Prophet's words carry no approbation, but have some other meaning, the edge of the Priest's argument for assistance at Idol worship is quite dulled.  Naaman the Syrian Prince is permitted to go to the Idolatrous Temple Rimmon, to wait upon the Syrian King, there offering sacrifice. Ergo, a man may be permitted to go to the Protestant Churches; where neither Idolatry is committed or any hurt done.  
Again, by the examples of joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, Joh. 19.38, 39 who although they went to the Synagogue of Jews, and so not apparent disciples of our Saviour, yet they were his disciples in secret. For it is there said: that after the death of our Saviour, joseph of Arimathea, because he was a disciple of Jesus, but secret, for fear of the Jews, desired Pilate, etc. Nicodemus also came, he that at the first, came to jesus by night, etc. by which appears, that the Jews knew not of their Religion. It is manifest likewise, that all the Apostles as freely conversed in the Synagogues of Jews, as out of the same: when thereby they could best exercise their function and mission. For the Rhemists in their annotations upon the 20 Chapter of the Acts vers. 16. Confess that notwithstanding the festivity of Pentecost was established among Christians; yet Saint Paul might hasten to the festivity of the Jews. Therefore as these holy men, might go to the Synagove, and reserve their Religion to themselves: so may a Catholic to the Protestant Churches. And indeed, it is an essential ingredient to the Mission of all Apostolical men, to treat and converse with all men concerning salvation, in all places best for their purpose.  
It is proved, thirdly by Azorius, tom. 1. lib. 8. institut. moral. cap. 11. & 27 punct●, 2.4. & 5. who saith: It is lawful for Catholics to pr●y together with Protestants, to hear their Service, and go 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. Again, the said Azorius saith, in the said cap. 27. puncto 5. That if an heretical Prince commands his Subjects that are Catholics to go to Church upon pain of death or loss of goods, if he do this only because he will have his laws obeyed, and not to make it Symbolum hereticae pravitatis, nor have a purpose to discern thereby Catholics from Heretics, 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 
p So indeed Hurtado de Mendoza and others by him cited. But as the Scriptures saith of Nabal, a fool is his name, and folly is in him; so we may truly say here, that Mendoza is Mendosus, and Mendax too, both faulty, and false; for Christ who is the truth himself teacheth us, that our life is better lost to save it, then saved to loss: Matth. 16.25. he saveth it to loss, who saveth it by denying his Saviour, and he looseth it to his advantage, who looseth it for the testimony of the Gospel, for he shall exchange the loss of a miserable temporal life, with blessed immortality or immortal bliss. If men when they are in danger of death may dissemble their Religion, what shall become of the glory of Confessors, and crown of Martyrs. At such a time to use the habit and ceremonies of a false law (say of Mahomet's, or the Persians, or the brahmin's, or the West Indians; who do all their devotions professedly to the Devil himself, 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?  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 Professor of the Roman faith, being sent into those parts where the Greek Church observes other rites, may go to their service; he allows it, and builds upon this reason. That by the Law of God and nature, it is lawful, and the precepts of the Church (if any there were that forbid this) do not bind Christians, in cases of great detriment to the life, or soul, or honour, or fame, or outward things. See Azor. above cited, for going to the Schismatical Church of the Greeks, where he saith, that a Catholic hearing Mass in a Schismatical Church, there on a Sunday, fulfilleth the precept of the Church commanding the same. See further the Decree of the Council of Constans. and Martin the 5. which beginneth. In super ad evitanda scandala, etc. for the communicating with heretics, as well in service as otherways. Which Decree extends itself further than to our purpose. For by the same we may communicate with Heretics fallen in a Catholic country, if it be not in point of heresy. 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 cit●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 sin, as shall be hereafter proved?  
It is fourthly proved, by the practice of all Catholics in foreign 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 Germane Catholics had been so restrained, persecuted 
q Surely the Roman Catholics in England must needs be thought to suffer grievous persecution, when as the author of the answer to the libel of justice cited by this Priest, pag. 9 and 10. so much delighteth in it that he would not have a toleration of Catholics in England if he might, and to ask it of God (saith he) were to ask we know not what, for that persecution is better. O medicina gravis! The truth is, the little finger of Queen Mary was heavier against Protestants then Queen Elizabeth her whole loins against Popish Recusants. Neither in her reign, no● in the reign of King james, nor of our present Sovereign, was any Papist put to death merely for his conscience: but either for some treasonable practice, or violation of some Statute Law, the penalty whereof is Death. See pag. 4. G.  and put to death, as the English have been these years; and had not gone by halves with the Protestants as in some places the have done: they had had perhaps far more Catholics 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 halves with the Protestants, their country became Catholic long since; whereas his zeal of persecution, hath not converted ours yet, neither is yet like to do. For Scotland, it is confessed by the said R. P. pag. 69. with his judgement of their misery ensuing thereby, (but the truth of the misery I shall show hereafter) who yet in plain terms doth not deny my assertion, but here and there granteth that some learned discreet man, where there is no scandal, and in whom there is no danger of subversion, may go to the Church of heretics, and hear their Sermons. Much more (say I) then to the Church of Protestants; most of whom, are not to be called properly formal heretics: for to heresy (as it is a sin against faith, and maketh a formal heretic) is required obstinacy or pertinacy against the doctrine, declaration and sense of the Church. See Saint Thomas of Aquin. 2●. ●ae. q. 11. ar. 2ᵒ. Cajetan, Bannes idem Aragona art. 1o. Suares disput. 19 de fide sect. 3. Now what obstinacy can Protestants be said to have in their opinions with relation to a Church, they know not? for they know none other but their own: so that although they believe amiss, (whereby they may suffer in the next world) and speak heretical propositions; yet because they proceed not from an heretical mind, or consent, they are not perfectly heretics.  
Add that I myself in Germany with other Catholics of the same country, have gone to a Synagogue of jews, without any scandal or having been judged to have done amiss. Ergo, I and others may go to a Church of Protestants without any scandal, or being judged in reason to have done amiss. And I can assure myself (whatsoever others may think of my assurance) that the lawfulness of going to Church is the common opinion of all foreign Divines that ever I conversed with, in any University. Which in part may be proved by the fact of a certain Catholic 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 Catholic in England might lawfully go to the Protestant Church. That this is true, it may be justified by some persons of great quality yet alive.  
If any English Scholar shall answer, that we went to the Synagogue of jews out of curiosity 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 conveniency unknown to them) to have seen their rites and ceremonies; neither do we set down 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 always conserved: (to wit, a burning lamp with oil for the souls departed, now as they conceive, in Limbo patrum: a place where the oblation of oil to that purpose is always kept: the ten Commandments placed in veneration: a number of linen rolls or bands wrote with Hebrew letters, wherewith they bind the ten Commandments according to their distinction of feasts: the knife of Circumcision and the like). Which may be stumbling blocks to some weak Christians, although the men to perform these rites should not be present, why should we not go to the Protestant Church with some intention lawfully? where there are only men within bare walls saying some Catholic service by them pieced up together without any Catholic form, not to the possible hurt of any but themselves: and whether I went to the said Synagogue out of curiosity, or out of the love of science, to reason with them about their tenets (as then and there I did) the more to abhor them, yet I will assure you, that with neither of these intentions do I go to the Church of Protestants, and yet lawfully.  
It is lastly proved by reason: to go to Protestant Churches is not of its own nature evil (according to the opinion of the above cited Authors, or so much as per accidens evil, as our case now standeth which will be hereafter proved) but a thing indifferent; so that by a good intention it may be made good, as by an evil intention made evil. For the intention and object makes the act good or bad. But a man may with a good intention do a thing indifferent. Ergo, a man may with a good intention go to Church.  
Again, if it be unlawful to go to the aforesaid Church; it is either because of Scandal, or because it is a distinctive sign between Catholics and heretics; or because there is danger of subversion or blasphemy committed. But neither of these things there occur. Ergo, it is not unlawful to go.  
The Minor I will prove in the three following paragraphs.  

§ 1o. That Scandal makes it not unlawful to go to the Protestant Church.  
Scandal is defined by St. Thomas 2a. 2ae. q. 43. ar. 48. and other Divines (out of St. Hierom. in cap. 15. and 18. Matth. To be a word or deed less right (or less good) giving occasion to another of Spiritual ruin or falling into sin. Neither do they take the adverb (less) comparatively, but negatively for that, which is not good; that is: with hic & nunc in regard of some particular circumstance of time, place, or persons, wanteth some moral rectitude or goodness. This Scandal may be divided into Active & Passive. Active is in him that gives it; Passive in him that takes it; both expressed in the holy Scriptures by the verbs Active and Passive: to scandalise, and to be scandalised, Matth. 15.17.18. Active may be subdivided into per se & per accideus. Active per se is, when a man with an express and certain intention gives his neighbour occasion of sinning by some word or deed, either intrinsically or extrinsecally evil. Active per accidens is, when besides the intention of the doer, and nature of the act done, being extrinsecally evil, or at leastwise, having some species or show of evil; by which occasion is taken, to the spiritual ruin of another. Passive scandal is also subdivided, into passive scandal given, and Passive scandal taken. The first proceeds from Active scandal either per se or per accidens, given and received by an other. Such was the scandal forbidden by our Saviour, Mat. 18. ver. 6. He that shall scandalise one of these little ones that believe in me, it is expedient for him that a millstone be hanged about his neck, and that he be drowned in the depth of the sea. And this is called Scandal of the weak or little ones to whom it belongeth (as Saint Bernard saith) to be ignorant and moved through weakness, and so be scandalised. For the perfect (as Saint Hierome saith in the place before cited) are not scandalised. Passive scandal taken is, when a man out of envy and malice taketh occasion of sin by another's words or deeds ill interpreted and misunderstood without any lawful or probable cause. And this is called the scandal of Pharisees, which is a sin only to themselves, and not to be regarded of the speaker or doer; as appears by the answer of our Saviour, Matt. 15. ver. 14. Sinite illos, caeci sunt et duces caecorum. Let them alone, blind they are, and guides of the blind.  
Hence Divines with St. Thomas do infer first, that sometime Passive scandal may be without active, as it was in the scandal of the Pharisees. Sometimes active scandal may be without Passive: as when one by his bad word or deed, or ill example, doth scandalise and giveth occasion to others of falling into sin; and yet none are scandalised, or take the occasion given, to sin thereby. And sometimes they may be both together, as when one by his bad example giveth, and another taketh thereby occasion to sin.  
Secondly, they infer, that no good works which are necessary, as is the observing of precepts, can give occasion of sinning to any man; and therefore not to be omitted, to avoid the the Passive scandal, even of the weak ones, as well observeth Alfonsus Tostatus: Because that were to sin 
r The distinction of venial and mortal sins Tostatus (learned in Peter Lumbards' school, not in Christ's) may teach, but not truly. For although some sins may be termed venial comparatè, in respect of others that are of a deeper die, and so less in their own nature pardonable and excusable: or not at all (as the sin against the holy Ghost: and though all sins of the ●le●t are venial through grace, or quo ad eventum: yet there are no sins which in their own nature are not mortal. For all sins are transgressions of the eternal law, and in them the infinite Majesty of God is some ways slighted: and therefore Saint Hieromes general 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 speak, either appertains to the narrow Way whereby we enter into life, or to the broad way which is the road to death: and in his second book 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 judgement, and a council, and hell fire: what shall the desire of filthy things deserve? and who can say his heart is clean from all these? To make light of sin aggravateth our conscience, even those Naevuli & leves aspergines, & pulviseuli, & prolapsiunculae, & peccadili●es, (as the Romanis●s style venial sins) either are transgressions of the law of God or not: if they are not transgressions of the law, they are no sins at all: for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, all sin is the transgression of the law, 1 john 3.4. or as the Schools ●ut of Saint Augustine define, peccatum est dictum, factum vel concupitum contra legem aeternam, every sin is a desire, word or deed against the eternal law: and if venial sins be transgressions of this law, their punishment is death. For the soul that sinneth shall die, Ezech. 18.4. and the sting of death is sin, 1 Cor. 15.56. and the wages of sin is death, Rom. 6.23. These clear and evident Texts of holy Scripture so dazzled the eyes of three of their sharp sighted Schoolmen, that they not only left the common tract of other popish Divines (as Bellarmine minceth the matter, l. 1. de amiss. great. et stat. pec. c. 4. (non nihil a communi theologorum sententiâ deflexerunt) but went in the direct way of the reformed Doctors: these School men are Gerson 3. part. Theolog. tract. de vit. spirit. sect. 1a jacobus Almain Opusc. tracked. 3. c. 20. & johannes Episcopus Roffensis in refut. 32. artic. Luth. Gersons words are (with whom Almain accords) peccatum mortale et veniale in esse tali non distinguuntur intrinsecè et essentialiter sed solum per respectum ad divinam gratiam quae peccatum istud imputat: mortal and venial sins are not distinguished in their intrinsical essence, but only with a relation to the divine grace which imputes the sin, etc. Roffenfis speaketh to the same purpose, peccatum veniale solum ex Dei misericordia veniale est: venial sin is only venial by the mere mercy of God: not therefore in its own nature.  mortally. (See Bellar. de script Ecclesiast, & Possevin. in verbo. Alfonsus Tostatus. Which for no cause any man ought to do; but if they be 
s He meaneth by counsels, according to the doctrine of his Romish Church, such supposed good works as are not commanded of God, by the performance whereof yet they believe that they cannot only merit at God's hands, but supererogate. An assertion, as far from Theological truth, as Christian modesty. For first, the law of God is perfect, Psal. 19.7. and consequently commandeth all good, and forbiddeth all evil: else were it not a perfect but a scantive and defective rule of good. Secondly, though there may be many good works which the law of God commandeth not, to all persons, at all times, and in all places, in every manner and measure; yet neither is there any good work nor can be, which is not comprised within that great and large Commandment of loving the Lord with all our heart, and all our soul, and all our might: Deut. 6.5. Matth. 22.37. Luk. 10.27. For it implies a contradiction, to say that we can love God more than with all our might, and strength, and we see that all is required by this commandment. Thirdly, the aspiring to perfection itself, so far as it is attainable by us in this life, falleth under the express commandment of our Saviour, Matth. 5.48. Be ye therefore perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect. How can there be any counsels of perfection over and above the law, when the law of Christ requireth perfection itself? What good work is there or can there be tending to Christian perfection, which Saint Paul's Whatsoever carrieth not, Phil. 4.8. Finally brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsosoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report: if there be any virtue, if there be any praise, think on these things. Fourthly, dato et non concesso, admitting for arguments sake, that in some one particular or other, that a man might do more than God commands: yet in other things the best man that is, comes short of the law. For in many things we offend all, james 4.2. and even such a righteous man as job was cannot answer one of a thousand, job 9.3. What then becomes of works of supererogation, when a man's stock or treasure of good works cannot hold out to pay his own debts? Fifthly, though we strive to the uttermost to walk exactly before God, and abstain from all known sins, so far as humane frailty permits in this life, and fulfil all righteousness in doing all the commandments of God with all our might: may we then superarrogate any thing to ourselves, or supererogate to others? No our Saviour teacheth us a contrary lesson, When you shall have done all these things which are commanded you, say we are unprofitable servants, for we have done that which was our duty to do, Luk. 17.10. We are unprofitable servants, therefore not deserving of our Master, and we do but that which is our duty to do, and therefore not more than we are bound to do.  counsels which are not of necessity to be done, or things indifferent of themselves, yet necessary to be done, for the safeguard of a man's life, or goods. Then the scandal that ariseth to some by this, that others do them: either proceedeth from malice; and then that is a scandal of Pharisees, and to be contemned; and no spiritual or temporal good is to be omitted for the same. Or it proceedeth from infirmity or ignorance, and it is the aforesaid scandal of weakness. And for this scandal we must refrain for a time (according to the example of our Saviour, Matth. 17. Who to avoid 
t He foully mistaketh the matter, it was no scandal to Christ to be poor that he might make us rich, no more then to be abased, to exalt us; to be stripped, to clothe us; to take the form of a servant, to make us free; to be condemned, to acquit us; to be in an agony, to comfort us; and to die, to restore us to life. The viler he became for our sakes, the more highly ought we to esteem of him. Neither did Christ go any way about to conceal his poverty, nay he openly proclaimed it: The foxes have holes, and fowls of heaven nests, but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head, Matth. 8.20. But the cause why at that time being destitute of money, he wrought a miracle, was (as the text saith) Matth. 17.27. That he might not offend them, who questioned him about tribute, by not paying it. For though he was free, yet the jews not taking notice of that freedom, in probability would have inferred from his not paying, that he had denied that tribute ought to be paid to Caesar, and consequently had denied Caesar's authority & sovereignty. See Luk. 20.20. But if poverty be scandalous, why do the Friars by a vow of perfection, as they term it, undertake this scandalous poverty?  the scandal of the jews concerning his poverty, bid Saint Peter go to the Sea, etc.) even from the works of Evangelicall counsels and things otherwise indifferent, although necessary to be done. Or we must do them secretly, lest the ignorant, whose mind is weak be troubled. This must be done, until having yielded a reason of our actions, and showed them to be good, or of themselves indifferent, and necessary to be done for safeguard of life or fortunes: and so the scandal cease, which proceeded from ignorance. But if after a reason be yielded, the scandal shall not cease, it is not to be esteemed a scandal proceeding from ignorance, but from malice, and to be contemned. Neither ought we then to refrain from any the aforesaid actions to avoid this scandal. Thus Abulensis in cap. 18. Matth. q. 51. Salmeron, tom. 7. tract. 29. Estius in cap. 8. ad Cor. 1. v. 13. Diana 5. part tract. 7ᵒ. the scanned. p. 186. who expressly teacheth: that a man is not bound to lose his goods and temporal fortunes to avoid the scandal of weak ones after an admonition and reason (for the lawful doing of the act) be yielded. Lorca in 22. q. 43. ar. 8. n. 11. and divers others cited by the said Diana. But if the great ones (such as are Priests and Teachers) take this scandal, and the doctrine, or action be profitable; they are not to be regarded, for they are incurable, because they are blind; that is: they will not see and understand what both God and reason dictates to them. And he that is weak (saith Estius) may be sufficiently instructed and taught, that his brother doth well, and that he ought not to be offended by his fact. After which sufficient and full instructions, if he persevere in scandal; it will be the Scandal of Pharisees as is aforesaid.  
Now to prove the assertion, which is the first branch of the Minor. Scandal, is a word or deed less right, apt to give occasion to another of spiritual ruin. ●ut to go to Church is no deed less right (but prudently and chiefly right) all circumstances considered.) Ergo, to go to Church is no scandal, and consequenter, to go to Church can yield no occasion to my neighbour of spiritual ruin; but rather an occasion of both his temporal and spiritual conservation and edification. This Minor I prove. To go to hear a piece of a Mass in English, is no deed less right. But to go to Church, is to go to hear a 
u I answer that the Mass being rightly understood our Liturgy ought not to be called a piece of the Mass. For though there are some passages alike in both: yet they tend not to the same end, nor are retained upon the same ground. Every part of any thing hath a reference to the whole, and consequently every part of the Romish service to their Mass, as a preparatory or an appertenance, or immediate part thereof; whereas no part of our service tendeth at all to that end, nay we are so far from intending the sacrifice of the Mass in our service, that we disclaim and abominate it and hold it no better than a Mass of superstitions and contradictions; superstitions in the manner, and contradictions in the matter thereof. For they teach it to be a sacrifice properly so called, yet nothing therein is properly sacrificed: not the bread and wine: for they are transubstantiated before the sacrifice; not Christ's body, for no living thing can properly be sacrificed, unless it be slain, but Christ as the Apostle teacheth us, being once dead dieth no more. Secondly, they teach it, to be an external and sensible sacrifice, and yet Christ there appeareth to no sense; but is as they teach, couched and concealed under the accidents of bread and wine. Thirdly, they teach that it is an unbloody sacrifice, and yet Christ's blood is there truly and really shed and drunk by the communicants with the mouth. Fourthly, that it is a perfect and all-sufficient sacrifice, and yet they repeat it and reiterate it daily. Fifthly, Christ's body is there with his humane dimensions, and yet is whole in the whole and whole in every smallest part and point of the Host. Secondly, I say, that Christ indeed forbids us to cast pearl before swine, but no where to take a pearl though out of a swine's snout, if we find any such there. Thirdly, I answer, that it cannot be proved that any part or parcel of our Service book, was originally taken out of the Mas●e. For though there are some of the same Co●lects and Prayers in it, yet they ought not to be said to be taken out of Missals as their original Fountain, 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, than it may be said; That the mud of Popery fell into them, but they sprang not from Popery, but from purer fountains.  piece of a Mass in English. Ergo, to go to Church is no deed less right. The Major I prove thus: to go to hear a whole Mass in English (the nature of the thing considered, and abstracting from the constitution of the Church) is not evil. For the diversity of the language takes nothing from the goodness of the thing. As is manifest in the Greek Church, where Mass is always said in Greek. So that if it be not evil in itself, to go to hear a whole Mass in English, it is not evil, to go to hear a piece of a Mass in English. And consequently not to go to Church.  
Add that in the whole Latin Church; where it is not lawful to say Mass in any other language then in Latin (because of the long 
* It hath been I confess, a long custom in the Latin Church, ever since Pope Vitalian to celebrate the Church Service in the Latin tongue, but it was never the custom of the Catholic or Universal so to do. The Greek 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 allegeth here of any force, namely, That  custom of the Church, kept always on foot for this reason: that as the Catholic Religion 
w as the Catholic Religion is universal, so it should be exercised in an universal language which he will have to be the Latin. For first there is no necessity that the Catholic Religion which is universal should be exercised in an universal language, but rather in all languages. Secondly, since the division of tongues at the tower of Babel, there was no language universal in all the world, the Greek was for a time the furthest spread, and after the Roman: but neither of them, nor any other, was spoken or understood by all Christians, and at this day if we may believe travellers, no language is so generally known and spoken as the Slavonian. Thirdly, the unity of language maketh nothing to the unity 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 known 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.  is universal, so should it be exercised in an universal language) yet it is lawful, and in use to say a piece of the Mass (as Collects, Prayers, Psalms, Epistles, and Gospels) in any Language of any Country 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 evil. For considering the circumstances of time and place, it hath a show & appearance of evil, apt to occasion sin in another. From which we are commanded to abstain by St. Paul, 1 Thess. 5.22. saying, From all show of evil refrain yourselves. To which I answer, first: That all the appearance of evil, which, going to Church hath, is, that in England above other countries, Priests have not been freely left to the Principles of Divinity or Laymen to their Christian liberty; but it hath been procured to have been declared unlawful upon false suggestions, and continued thus thought unlawful 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 glass, & say it were red; when a part rei, it were white. It were very hard, if I eating fish in the lent, and one purblind seeing me eat, & apprehending it flesh, because he goes away scandalised, as thinking me to have eaten flesh, by reason of his false eyes; that I should be said to have given him scandal. So it would seem likewise as hard, if a broken fancy, or an erring mind should conceive evil species from mine actions, which a part rei are no species at all of them, but quite contrary to th●ir species; that I should thereby be judged to give scandal to little ones. No: I hope as the erroneous eyes shall bear their own imperfections; so the erroneous judgement shall bear its own mistake; and neither shall accuse me before God of the scandal of little ones.  
Hence I answer, secondly, to the place of the Apostle before objected, tha● the appearance or show of evil, is to be understood; first that it proceeds really from the act done, and that it be not only a conjectural appearance, but morally certain. That no man play Tom-fool in striking him that stands next him without a cause. Secondly, that the appearance proceeds not from a deed to be done of necessity, either by the Law of God, or nature. Otherwise we might infer the Apostle to command contradictories, to refrain and not to refrain 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 sin. And if it were to be done by the Law of Nature; the blessed Apostle was not so unreasonable, as to bid us refrain from a thing in its own nature lawful, and of necessity to be done; without admittance of some way to avoid scandal. Although by reason of some circumstance, place or person, it might have a show of evil, and so for some time be suspended, as some things of natural necessity; yea, the Evangelicall counsels may have. But in such cases we are to instruct and admonish the weak (as I by these presents do) that although it should seem to them to be evil, or to have some show of evil, yet in very deed it is not evil, but good. And I am constrained under pain of death to do the same. After which instruction and admonition, if they still persist in their scandal; it is not a scandal of little ones, but of Pharisees and great ones. Neither doth it proceed from infirmity or ignorance, but from malice: and is not to be regarded. So that it seems a thing unreasonable, and in the strength of judgement against nature, that a man shall more regard the trouble of his neighbour's conscience at a thing lawful, than the hazard of his own life, and ruin 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 show of evil is really in the act of going to Church, and not as falsely imagined: and that this show of evil appears not only to weak and ignorant people, but to men of understanding of all sorts; and not only to Catholics, but likewise to Schismatics of all sorts: who in going to Church to save their goods, confess that they do it against their conscience, as conceiving it to be unlawful by reason of the aforesaid Declaration of the twelve Fathers in the Council of Trent, and the foresaid Popes; which whether it were gotten by false suggestions or no, they discern not, neither do they dispute, but simply obey. To make up the rhyme in reason, the more simple they. For reason may teach great ones, and men seeming of understanding that are Schismatics or Lay-Catholiques the contrary; (because nothing is done at Church which is either evil or hurtful:) and both reason and learning Priests. And therefore I rejoice with Aristotle: Propter illorum cogitare, nihil mutatur in re, and say, that the show of evil proceeds not from the act of going to Church. For in all King Edward's time, and the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's time, until the thirteenth year of her Reign, when all Catholics did or might go to Church, going to Church by Catholics then being in fashion; none took scandal thereby: because there was then, no show of evil. And why should there be now more show of evil in the act, then at that time? If ye answer by reason of the aforesaid Declaration. I reply that then the species of evil, aught to be in the said Declaration, as gotten upon false grounds, and not in the act of going to Church; which any man might easily perceive, considering the nature of the act itself. And the experience of our distressed country teacheth us, that those indirect proceedings are more apt to generate scandal, than the act of going to Church, which of its own nature is lawful, and hath been lawfully practised and approved by the common opinion of all Divines of any indifferency in other countries, and so might have been in ours, had it not been for turbulent people, who for their own ends have more troubled the Church in procuring of breves and rescripts than all other nations besides of our condition.  
To Schismatics, I say they sin not, in simply going to Church, but in going to Church with an ill conscience, as thinking that to be sin, and doing the same; which indeed is not so: and the ground of their error, they have had from the misunderstanding of Catholics.  
To weak ones I answer, desiring them to be satisfied, because I have and shall prove the thing in itself to be lawful, and that I am (as I have said) in danger and hazard of my life, in not doing the same. So that by a natural necessity I am bound to it. Which necessity if it were not; I might peradventure rest in the common Maxim of Philosophers. Frustra fit per plura, quod potest fieri per pauciora. It is in vain done by more, that may be done by less.  
It may be objected secondly, that it is as much scandal to go to Church, as it was to eat of those meats offered to Idols. Of which Saint Paul speaks, 1 Cor. 8. the eating of which in itself considered, although the Apostle thought no sin in Wise men, or great ones; because they did eat the same without any relation at all to the Idol, as he seemeth to intimate, verse, 4. yet because some ignorant Christians (seeing the said Wise men eat) did likewise eat the same meats with conscience and devotion, as if the said meats had received some virtue or sanctification from the Idol. Saint Paul exhorted the Wise men, to abstain from eating the said flesh; for that out of mistake and misunderstanding of their eating: the aforesaid Christians, then newly converted did take offence and sin. Whereupon in great zeal he said, vers. 13. If meat scandalise my brother, I will never eat flesh, lest I scandalise my brother. So that one would think, that the blessed Apostle would rather have chosen to die (as the aforesaid words may import) then by eating the said meats or any flesh to have scandalised his brother. And St. Augustine in express terms, lib. de bon. conjugali cap. 16. saith: It was far better to have died, then to have eaten of those meats so offered to Idols, conformable to himself elsewhere: who likewise saith. That a man may not commit (or occasion) so much as a 
x See page 28. Letterr.  venial sin, to gain the whole world. Which he that giveth scandal, must needs at the least commit. Therefore what the said Apostle and St. Augustine said and thought of the eating of the said meats; the same aught every Catholic to take as said of the act of going to Church.  
I answer, denying the consequence: and say that there is a great disparity between the said meats offered to Idols, and eaten in the temple with Infidels: and the act of going to Church. First, because in the meats so offered, there was not only a show and appearance of evil, but a moral malignity therein, as well to great, as to little ones. Which although the wise did take away, that the said malignity touched not them; yet the weak neither did, or had understanding so to do. Whence the Apostle said, vers. the 7. that there was not knowledge in all. For the moral malignity; that was in those meats to all, was a profanation and impurity in them, as being things dedicated to the Idol or the Devil. So that as a man receiveth good by holy? bread or things sanctified; so he receiveth evil by a thing: profaned or maligned. Which moral malignity the Wise taking away (as I have said) by blessing the said meats to the use of their bodies, and conceiving both them, and the Idol as they were in themselves, mere creatures, both created for the use of man, did eat what was useful to eat without sin. Whereas the weak, not so much as considering the profaneness of the meats, but (seeing the Wiser eat) with error of judgement conceived virtue and sanctification in the same: as being eaten in the temple and offered to the Idol by Infidels, and so with conscience and devotion they received the same: and were (as the Apostle saith, in the said seventh verse.) polluted thereby. Now in going to Church, their is no moral malignity at all; in so much, that scarce the weakest man can invent how to sin by any thing that is there done. It being of its own nature so indifferent, and to a good intention, good, that a part rei their is no appearance of evil therein.  
If any one say that there is appearance of evil, and scandal by reason of disobedience, in that, the act is done contrary to the declaration of the said twelve Fathers, and certain Popes. I answer, that the declaration is, as if it were not; because gotten upon most false suggestions, as I have and shall say; and consequently the minds of the said Fathers and wills of the said Popes is to us in this matter as yet unknown: and the species or show of evil from thence proceeding, rather to be lamented then regarded. If the reply be made as before, that the suggestions are not examined, but the will of the aforesaid Superiors hath always been held, as declaring that which hath been best for the soul, and dehorting from going to Church, and that so by reason and virtue hereof, there results a certain show of evil, in doing the same, which maketh it appear to most men unlawful, and consequently scandalous. I rejoice as before, that the instruction and admonition of the indifferency and necessity of the act, aught to take away all scandal howsoever apprehended: and that such as apprehend it unlawful, and will not be satisfied, cannot do it. And lastly such as will not be satisfied, but scandalised, are not to be regarded, as I have said before.  
Add out of Navarre Man. c. 23. n. 38. That it is not a sin in a man, not to obey his superior, when he hath probable reasons to think, that his superior was deceived in so commanding, or that he would not have given such a command, if he had known the truth. And if any show of evil result, or scandal arise in that he is not obeyed, the necessity of doing the contrary act, being in danger of death, must excuse and take away all scandal, for in such a case no humane laws bind as I shall hereafter say. I answer to this Objection secondly, that there is a disparity between the said meats, and going to Church, in that the said meats were not to be eaten of necessity: that is, there was neither hazard of life or goods in abstaining; or more gain than prejudice of souls in eating. And therefore it was more requisite, that the wise should abstain in a matter of so little moment or necessity where there was scandal, then that the weak should have been instructed and admonished, that it might have been done without sin, which is not so, in going to Church. For in abstaining from thence, there is both hazard of life and fortunes, and as I shall hereafter say, loss of souls: and therefore of necessity, the weak are to be admonished and instructed, that there is no sin in the act: neither is going to Church prejudicial, but advantageous to souls, as experience teacheth.  
Add that if there were any humane law or Ecclesiastical law forbidding going to Church, it were not to be fulfilled with hazard of life or goods (as all Casuists hold) See Azorius & Navarr. consil. de haeret. above cited: if otherwise it doth not appear forbidden by the law of God. For all humane laws tend to the preservation and conservation of the whole man, even in the greatest state of perfection: and where by reason of keeping a law; disjuncture either of soul or body may probably follow; there that law is for the time to be suspended: as appears in the law forbidding to eat flesh in the Lent, saying the divine office, with danger of being apprehended and the like: where the weak ones are rather to be instructed of the necessity of suspending the law, than the body to perish by keeping the same: the same say in our case. And I do with reason persuade myself, considering the Apostles whole discourse in the aforesaid 8. Chapter to the Corinthians, that notwithstanding his words, verse the 13. if there had been no other food to have been gotten for him, to have preserved him from famine, than the said flesh so offered to Idols, that he would rather have persuaded the weak ones, that there had been no sin in it, if with due circumstances they had eaten, and how, and in what manner they might safely have eaten, and so have prevented his sinning against the brethren, verse 12. and striking their weak consciences, then by abstaining from that (and as is supposed wanting all other food) have perished through hunger.  
It may be objected thirdly, that those famous Doctors of Rheims, William Allen (afterwards Cardinal) Richard Bristoe, William Reynolds, and the aforesaid Gregory Martin; who translated the whole Bible into English with annotations upon the same, in many places, as well of the Old Testament, as of the new, held it unlawful for any Catholic to go to the Protestant Church. Ergo, It is unlawful and scandalous to go to the same. To the antecedent I answer, that the said Doctors were reverend and learned men, and their work renowned: but because they would have the same go forth with more l●stre, as pleasing the Pope; and to avoid all opposition of the aforesaid suggestors, they forsook the common opinion of Divines in two points then agitated: the one, that the Pope could not depose Kings of their temporal dominions. And the other, that Catholics might frequent the Churches of Schismatics. Which they might well do for their ends, being Doct●rs, and giving some seeming probable reason's for the same; the contrary opinions not being condemned by the Church, but left under dispute. Yet hence the consequence doth not appear true. For if the aforesaid Doctors had spoken from their hearts, grounding themselves upon the Church or reason; their interpretation of Scriptures with notes, would with me in these points have had great authority; and the conclusion have stood good. Whereas now one of the said four, to wit: Gregory Martin having delivered his opinion that it was lawful for a Catholic to go to Church, as appears by the said book of R. P. pag. 109. and 110. it seemeth they did not speak in that point their minds freely: peradventure because it was not expedient for all sorts of people: which I confess to be the best reason. Yet for God's sake let us speak the truth in these troublesome times to men (at leastwise) of reason and understanding. Again the very reasons they give in their annotations upon the fifth Chapter and 19 verse of the 4. book of Kings do show, that they did intend but seeming reason, and not wholly convincing; for whereas for our opinion is, and always hath been usually brought the example of 
y See the lettero. pag. 17.  Naaman the Syrian, permitted (as I have said before) by the Prophet Elizeus, to go to the Idolatrous temple Rimmon; which is most proper to our case; the aforesaid good Doctors reject the said example as nothing like to the same.  
1. The first reason is, because of the time, for since the preaching of Christ's Gospel (say they) we are more strictly commanded to profess our faith, then in Naaman's time. Which reason I conceive under favour to be impertinent as well to Naaman's case as to ours: for the doing of an act indifferent, may neither be a profession or a denial of faith, but a mean between both, viz. a not discovery of the same. Neither was it more lawful in Naaman's time to deny God, then now.  
2. The second Reason is, because of the place: For that the Nobleman's religion was not practised in the Country where he went to the temple: and so there could no scandal arise thereby. This reason is in my judgement besides the purpose: for no more is Catholic religion practised in this Country where we go to Church. Again, it proves not Naaman's case hereby more lawful, than the going to Church; for there may be scandal, where a thing of its own nature may be lawfully done: as there might have been scandal in our Saviour's poverty, Matth. 17. if he had not prevented it. And there may be no scandal, and yet the act unlawful. Therefore if it were lawful abstracting from scandal, that being in our case easily avoided, or taken away, the thing may still remain lawful. For if he that goeth to Church be a known Catholic, the weak are to be admonished of the indifferency of the thing, and the urgent necessity he hath, to do it; and so scandal is avoided. If he be not known; how can he give more scandal, than Naaman did? or to whom?  
3. The third reason is, because of the difference of persons, in that Naaman had an Office to serve the King in the temple, and therefore he might go, lest otherwise the King should have thought himself disdained. This reason seems to me very strange: that a man may go to Church to serve his King, and may not go to Church to serve himself (when as charity always beginneth at home: and if a man be naught in or to himself, to whom can he be good?) or that fear of displeasure through apprehended disdain, can excuse a man from doing that which were otherwise unlawful; as though a man were not bound, rather to suffer the displeasure of his King, with loss of his life, then suffer wrack of his own conscience: and if fear of displeasure did excuse Naaman, why should not the danger of death, loss of fortunes, ruin of posterity, and the like, excuse Catholics?  
4. The fourth reason, and most especial difference is (say they) that Naaman made a promise before the Prophet and his own train, that he would from thence forth serve only the true God: and to that purpose carried earth with him to make an Altar for sacrifice. Whereas those that go to the Protestant Church, do not renounce all heresies, nor profess to frequent Mass, etc. But (pray give me leave to say) they do; and that herein, there is no difference at all. For Catholics that go to Church are known to their Confessaries, and their mind and intention is likewise to him known, as naaman's was to the Prophet. And if they be known Catholics, their belief is likewise known, at leastwise to their train, if not to others, by their communion with the See of Rome; so that herein there is no disparity at all. And if they be not known; it is prudence to keep themselves so, more than to their Confessaries; which is a sufficient protestation in these troublesome times. For I wonder by what law a m●n is bound to make any other Protestation of his belief for the doing of a thing indifferent?  
So that (as I have said) for the said four reasons, and likewise because there is Idolatry committed at Protestant Churches, (which I never yet could find, as often as I have frequented the same, and do hope to prove the contrary) the aforesaid Doctors make it unlawful and scandalous to go to Church; and our case different from naaman's. Hence they liken it to that of Eleazarus and the other Maccabees, 2 Mac. 6.7. who were commanded by eating Swine's flesh to depart from the law of God, and their fathers. Which (say they) by no means was lawful to do, or to make show of doing the same: And a man may swear it true. For Swine's flesh being forbidden by the law, they were bound under sin, to abstain from the same. And if they should have made their brethren believe in words, that they had eaten, they would have told an untruth, with dissimulation in a matter forbidden by the law, both which were 
z See the letter R pag. 28.  mortal sins: which is as far different from our case, as light from darkness. For we contend that to go 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 sins are committed: so that for the reasons which I have given, I conceive that the authority of the said rewoned Doctors concludeth nothing against our assertion; unless the Protestants were an assembly of fallen heretics, where there were danger of sin 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 sign of heretical falsehood, and a man so doing is reputed as fallen, both of Catholics and Protestants. I answer, that it is false; and experience teacheth us the contrary. For who made it such a sign? and Schismatics that go to Church with an ill conscience, only to save their goods, notwithstanding in this, they are accounted to hurt only themselves, yet of all Catholics they are trusted and esteemed as honest men, and of Protestants they are esteemed no other. And they sin not (as I have said) in going to Church, but in going with an ill conscience, and being barred of simple Priests from other means of salvation, and in doing so, give scandal. But you will say: they deny their faith in this act. I deny that. They deny only recusancy with an ill conscience, and not religion. Yet I grant that such Schismatics profess 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 believe, that there is sin and scandal 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 Catholics revealing the same.  
It may be objected fifthly. To communicate with heretics is sin, and scandal: but to go to Church, is to communicate with heretics. Ergo. It is sin and scandal. To which I answer, first distinguishing the Major: to communicate with heretics publicly, and particularly denounced to be such, or in their heresy. I grant the Major, but deny the Minor in the same sense; but to communicate with heretics not denounced such, not in point of heresy, to be sin: that is most false: for than we should neither eat, drink, buy or sell, with Protestants which is most absurd. Which absurdity to take away, and all scruple rising from thence by communicating with heretics as well in service as otherways, was the before mentioned constitution of Martin the fifth, prudently made.  
Add 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 himself convicted for a Popish Recusant, that so Protestants may know him to be a Catholic and no Brownist; and so to avoid water he must run into the fire. If you answer, that so he goeth not to Church it maketh no matter what Protestants think of him, for Catholics know what he is. I reply then by the same reason, that if he go to Church, it maketh no matter what Protestants think of him, for Catholics may likewise know what he is.  
I answer secondly, that the Major supposeth what is not granted. viz. That Protestants with whom I go to Church are formal heretics: which I desire to be first proved. For an heretic is he that obstinately denieth any article 
a This definition of an heretic is both defective & redundant: defective, for every obstinate denial of an article of faith makes not an heretic, unless his conscience be clearly convinced of his error out of the word of God, it is redundant also, for a man may be an heretic by denying any article of faith, though that article be not proposed to him by the Catholic Church to be believed; though but his pastor, or any other, religious Christian out of God's word clearly propound it to him and prove, it or it be read by himself in the Scripture: if he obstinately persist in the denial thereof after his conscience is convinced, he becomes an heretic.  of faith proposed by the Catholic Church to be believed. How can a Protestant be said obstinately (which includes a known infallibility rejected) to deny an article proposed by the Catholic Church (as I have said before) when he believes 
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 infallibility in the Roman or any particular Church, nor receive any Church for true and Orthodox, which consenteth not with them in all points of faith either expressly set down, or by clear and necessary consequence deduced from holy Scriptures.  none other Church, but his own? For although Protestants hold divers tenets contrary to the Catholic 
c The Protestants hold nothing contrary to the Catholic Church, though they hold many things contrary to the present Roman Church, which is neither the Catholic Church, nor a sound member thereof, as is proved invincibly by john Reynolds praefat. thesium, Sect. 12. & Thes. ss. 27. & Apol. 5.23. And bilson's answer to Cardinal Allen, part. 4. And Abbot against Bishop, in a Treatise entitled The true ancient Roman Catholic, to which none answer hath yet been given, nor sufficient can be.  Church; which have been justly condemned in their Authors as heretics. Yet whether obstinately held in them (the contrary not being sufficiently proposed at leastwise to most of them) I much doubt. For as Diana saith, 5a. part pag. 240. col. 1a. A man speaking heresy, that is, a proposition condemned by the Church, without an heretical consent, is no heretic: neither in curreth excommunication denounced against heretics; so that although they be incredulous 
d With what face can he say that the Protestants are incredulous and believe not the truth? Who entirely believe the whole doctrine of the Scriptures, together with the three Creeds; that which bears the name of the Apostles, the Nicene, and that of Athanasius, together with the four first general Counsels; in which time the Church most flourished: as also the joint Doctrine and unanimous consent of all the Fathers both of the Greek and Latin Church for five hundred years after Christ our Lord came into the flesh. Let this traducer of the reformed Churches answer punctually, whether he believeth that the learned Doctors, Confessors, and Martyrs who lived and died within the first 500 years, held the entire Catholic 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 canonised for Saints even by the Roman Church? but on the other side, if they believed all things necessary to salvation, how can we be esteemed incredulous, or defective in our faith, who believeth all that can be proved to have been jointly believed, and unanimously professed by them. , and believe not the truth; yet they are not properly, and in rigour formal heretics.  
Add that there is no more sin, to go to the Protestant Church, then to go to them to dinner, or to go with them to a play, or other sports. And I for my part had rather give twelve 
e Is this the holy Roman Religion, to make a May-game of Religion? and to go to Sermons as to a play to make themselves merry, and dispel a Melancholy dump? Besides their own third commandment enjoins them to keep Holidays, and their own Casuists allow the Lords day to be a day that is holy. And is this a piece of holiness to go on such days to a play? yet neither do I believe that he can readily name the man, much less many men that spoke fustian with gravity in our Pulpits, but I am sure he who patched up this Safeguard out of rags of Religion and falsehood speaks Linsewoolsey through his whole Discourse, and contrary to the law ploweth with an Ox and an Ass. The later of which here brayeth irrationally and unjustly against the generality of Protestant Preachers and Sermons. Forsooth, we are silly weak and ignorant men, but they are all profound Gamaliels, nay Angelical and Seraphical Doctors. Whereunto I answer, as Saint Paul did to the calumnies of the false Apostles, 2 Cor. 10.12. We dare not make ourselves of the number to compare ourselves with them that commend themselves, but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves amongst themselves understand not. The Catholics he saith, are Hounds (●lood Hounds I grant) and our Ministers timorous Hares, they dare not encounter the weakest Roman Catholic, 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 Iuv●nal speaks very good reason, Loripedem rectus derideat, Aethiopem albus. And what great Clarks (I pray) were those of whom Boniface Bishop of 〈◊〉 ●p●ke in his time; heretofore we had wooden Chalices and golden Priests, ●ut now we have golden Chalices and wooden Priests; what great Gamaliels were they of whom Bonaventure complains; Quidam sacerdotum, ●lavem habent (he speaketh of the Key of knowledge) quidam claviculam quidam nullam; what was he upon whom Sir Thomas Moor thus plays in his epigram, tu bene cavisti ne te ulla occidere possit litera, nam nulla est l●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 lett●●. What was he of whom Poggius writeth, that after he had said Mass, bidding the Feast of Epiphanie, he spoke to the honest rustics on this wise; My good neighbours, to morrow you are to keep good cheer and celebrate a high feast, the feast of Saint Epiphanie, a most holy wight, but whether Epiphanie were male or female, a he Saint or a she Saint, I find it not in my books. What was he that Christened a child with this form of words: Ego baptizo te in nomine Patria, Filia, & Spiritua Sancta What was he, who reading in the Gospel of Saint john, invenimus Messiam, leapt out of his skin for joy, saying, Now to the confusion of all Hugonots, I have found the Mass in the new Testament. What was he, who reading in the Epistle, Melchisedec Rex Salem panem & vinum protulit, translated it thus; King Melchisedec brought forth salt, bread and wine. What was he, who in a dispute about putting heretics to death, most Clerk like proved his conclusion, that heretics ought to suffer death, because the Apostle saith; Hereticum post unam aut alteram admoni●ionem devita. 1 Titus 3.10 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, eat or avoid but this silly animal mistook the ver●e devita, for a proposition and a noun, as if the Apostle had said; de vitá, out of life with him. Neither doth Pope Siricius better argue against Priest's marriage. Men in holy Orders must not contract Matrimony, because the Apostle saith, They that are in the flesh cannot please God; neither Innocentius against laymen's reading Scripture: The beast that touched the Mount, was to be thrust thorough with a dart. Ergo. The people must not meddle with the Scripture. As for their manner of preaching▪ who so much scorn and deride ours, let all travellers speak, whether it be not thus. A Parish Priest, or some Monk or Friar, gets up into a spacious Pulpit, and there runs himself out of breath, from one side to the other; before his hour glass be half run, of whom a man might well demand, as some one did in Tully of a declaimer. Quot millia pass●um declamasti? When this shaveling between whose head and heaven, there is not a hair first appears to the people, he crosses himself (as their manner is, when they are afraid of evil spirits) then reads the Gospel of the day in Latin, whereof the people understand not a word: and after he hath spent some time in translating it, and scored out his way, he conveighes a prayer into a parenthesis, concluding it with an Ave Maria. After this, resuming the words of his Text, in the handling of them, he robs and deplumes the late written pos●ils upon that gospel's, and like the Crow in the Poet clothes his Discourse with the choicest of their feathers, in the end sticks two or three gaudy feathers out of the Peacock's tail: I mean the golden Legend, telling them how St. Domin●ck spying the Devil sitting in the Church like a Sparrow, called him to him, plucked off all his feathers, and put him to a great reproach: or how St. Dunstane took the Devil by the nose with a pair of tongue's fire hot: Or how St. Bernard●lest ●lest good Ale, and giving the same to certain lewd persons, caused divine grace to enter into them. And here if the Author and his Consorts please to be merry at Sermons, spectatum admissi risum teneatis amici: But if any more ingenuous Papists like Lodovicus Vives, condemn the Author of your golden Legend, for a man of a brazen face, and leaden heart, and bring better stuff; yet even these come far short of the Preachers of the Reformed Churches, in many remarkable particulars. First, all the Popish Preachers take their text out of the Gospel or epistle of the Day: but the Protestants confine themselves not to those parcels of Scripture, but make choice as God shall direct them, for the most profit of their flock; of any part of the Canonical Scripture to expound it. Again, the Protestant Preachers in their translation follow the originals, the Greek and Hebrew: the Papists as they are bound under pain of a curse, follow the corrupt vulgar Latin, which they may not upon any pretence reject. The Protestants deliver no Doctrine of faith, for which they bring not God's word. The Papists ground many of their Doctrines upon unwritten Traditions or Decrees of Popes, or Counsels. The Protestants build upon the true foundation, gold, silver, and precious stones, that is▪ heavenly, solid and precious Doctrine, conformable to holy Scriptures. The Papists hay and stubble, as namely, the putting Thrones and Dominations, with Archangels, Angels, Cherubins and Seraphins, in rank and file; a Geographical description of four Regions under the earth, Hell, Purgatory, Limbus Patrum, and Limbus Infantum; an imaginary treasury of super-abundant satisfactions to be dispensed by the Pope, hallowing of Water, Salt, Cream, etc. Christening Bells, Singing Dirges, and Trentals, Pilgrimages, Whip, Masses, without Communicants, dry Communions, censing Pictures, Invocation of Saints, worshipping of Images, with Relics, and such like trash.  pence to hear a Sermon, then take five shillings to see a play. For there is no such sport as to hear a weak fellow speak fustian with gravity, or tell a fable of the whore of Babylon, or 
f De te fabula narratur, unless you can substantially refute Vigniers his Theatre of Popes, or Plessis his Historia Papatus, or Abbot, & Down. and powel, and infinite others accurate and elaborate Treatises, De Antichristo, you must ask blessing of the whore of Babylon as your mother.  Babylonians (for so now they term Catholics) with erected eyes in earnest. Or why should it be more lawful to see a play where most commonly intercedes scurrility and obscene gestures, and the end of which, is nothing, but vanity: then to hear a Sermon, where perhaps in some places or by some simple men, their may be some untruth told of the Pope to please their Auditory; although most commonly nothing but morality, which is the end and intention of the same? I pray resolve me!   

§ 2. It is not unlawful to go to Church, because recusancy is a distinctive sign. Which is the second branch of the Minor.  
THat Recusancy is a distinctive sign of a Catholic from a Protestant is most false. Which is thus proved. If recusancy be a distinctive sign, it is a sign natural or by institution; but neither can be said. Ergo, it is no sign. The Minor is proved. Not natural, for as Hurtado above cited well observeth. Actions and things are not of their own nature significant: but have natural and political uses independent of any signification. For a bush hung out at a Tavern door doth naturally signify no more wine to be sold, than any other creature whatsoever. Nor doth the habit of a Bishop naturally signify a Bishop more than a Judge: and so of other things. No more do naturally the actions of men.  
But admit that Recusancy were improperly said a natural sign, yet it would naturally signify no more a Catholic then a Brownist (for he refuseth likewise to go to Church) or any other Sectary. Although a posteriori it might be thought by discourse to signify some one displeased with the Protestant Church, but why, or wherefore, it would never signify.  
Not by institution: for if so, who instituted the same? God, or man? Not man; for it is out of his power, to sign the people of God, from not his people. It is only the owner of the flock, that must sign the sheep, and none other; unless, it be by special order from him. Hence when God would sign his people in the old Testament, from the people of other Nations; he himself instituted Circumcision, Gen 17. as a distinctive sign between them and others: that whosoever had that sign, should be of his people; and who so had it not, was to be rejected. Neither was it sufficient that any man had accidentally, and by the institution of Abraham, any other sign, by which he might be known from others: because he was not thought sufficiently marked, nor accounted any one of God's people, by any other sign than Circumcision. Which was the sole mark of God, saying: All the male kind of you shall be Circumcised. And this is consonant to reason. For one man may get a distinctive sign of another man's institution; shall God therefore own him? Brownists (as I have said) have recusancy, doth it therefore follow, that they are likewise Catholics? If a sheep in my neighbour's flock should tear an ear in a bramble, or bush, or accidentally break an horn; this sheep is hereby distinct from the rest; yet the owner, doth not own it by that mark: but by a mark of his own institution and ruddle. So it is in the present.  
That God did not institute the same, it is so evident, that it needs no proof. For where may we find his institution? Unless we should run to the all-knowing spirit of heretics. Hence it follows that recusancy is no distinctive sign.  
If you ask me, what is then the sign to know a Catholic from any other Sectary? I answer. His belief of the Creed of the Catholic Church, and his l●fe at all times in communion with the See Apostolic. So Stratford, lib. 2. de Eccles. cap. 6. pag. 188.  
It may be here objected, first the common opinion of Divines (as the said R. P. saith) 2a. 2ae. q. 3. To use a distinctive sign of a false religion, that properly is such, is a denial of faith, and evil in itself. But the Service said in a Protestant Church is such. Ergo. I grant the Major. For if the sign be proper of a people rejected of God as (since the promulgation of the Gospel) Circumcision is to a Jew, the Major must needs be true. But if the sign be garments or the like, used to the worship and ceremonies of a false law, which some fond call a proper sign, than the Major, meaning the use of such a sign to be a denial of faith is false according to Diana resol. 34. pag. 191. above cited, Azorius, Sanches, and many others there. Because such signs being natural things, may be lawfully used (as I have said before) independent of any such signification; and so not properly signs (whatsoever R. P. saith to the contrary upon his own bare word). The Minor proposition I deny. For who instituted that service to be such a sign? not God, as all Catholics will confess; but rather the contrary, it being Catholic. Not themselves; for it would savour too much weakness, to think that they would institute to themselves, a sign of a false religion. And if it be taken for a sign naturally (although improperly) signifying: then I say of its own nature, it signifies no more a false Religion in a Protestant, than a pious ceremony in a Catholic. For Catholics say the 
g Will you call it the same wine which was poured out into two cups, whereof one hath store of ratsbane in it? See pag. 16. letter ●. and pag. 33. letter ᵘ  same service. Catholics preach morality, and each 
h There was never such a profane gamester heard of as this Masse-Priest, who playeth not only with the word of God, and prayers, but with Sacraments here, and most solemn oaths hereafter? what horrible profaneness, what detestable hypocrisy is it? I will not say for a Lay Papist, but a Romish Priest, not only to be at our Service, but to stay at the Communion, to hear the Ministers exhortation out of the Apostle, to all persons that come to the holy Table, Diligently to try and examine themselves, before they presume to eat of that bread, and drink of that cup: for as the benefit is great, if with a true penitent heart and lively faith, we receive that holy Sacrament (for then we spiritually eat the flesh of Christ, and drink his blood; then we dwell in Christ, and Christ in us; we be one with Christ and Christ with us) so is the danger great, if we receive the same unworthily; for than we be guilty of the body and blood of Christ our Saviour, we eat and drink our own damnation, not considering the Lords body, we kindle God's wrath against us, when we provoke him to plague us with divers diseases, and sundry kinds of death. Nay more, if he join with the whole congregation in the rehearsal of the words of the institution, and the consecratory prayer, will he present himself on his knees (for he excepts no Ceremonies) and receive the consecrated elements, delivered to him with these words; The body of our Lord jesus Christ, which was given for thee preserve thy body and soul unto eternal life; and yet all this while, never think of receiving the Sacrament; but only of eating a piece of bread, and drinking a draught of wine, which shall be better done with the remembrance of Christ then without it. He will say, that our Sacrament is nothing but common bread and wine, and that nought else is to be received a● our Communion Table. The Lord rebuke thee, thou false tongue! What▪ because we believe not that the bread and wine is transubstantiated into Christ's body and blood; must it therefore be nothing but common bread and bare wine. By the same reason he might say, that because the water in Baptism is not transubstantiated into Christ's blood, that therefore it is nothing but fair water; and he may in a jesting manner wash a child in remembrance of Christ's washing us with his blood. It is true, we teach with Theodoret, Dial. 2. That the sacred symbols after consecration, depart not out of their own nature, but still remain, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in their former substance shape and figure: but withal we teach, that they remain not the same in use, signification and supernatural efficacy; by virtue of Christ's promise to all that worthily partake of the same. Neither could this profane scoffer be ignorant hereof, for he saith, He hath often been at our Service, where we profess, that all, who with a lively faith receive the holy Sacrament spiritually, eat the flesh of Christ and drink his blood. He also maketh mention in this Pamphlet of the 39 Articles, which he will have to be the definition of a Protestant, and in those Articles, he could not but read, Art. 28. Christ's body is given, received and eaten in the Supper, but only after a heavenly and spiritual manner; And in the Apology of the Church of England, part. 2. cap. 14. The Supper of the Lord, is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to bear amongst themselves, one to the other, but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's death, in so much, that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, the bread which we break, is the partaking of the body of Christ, and likewise the cup of blessing, is a partaking of the blood of Christ. With which confession of ours, fully acordeth the Helvetian, the French, the Belgic, the Augustane, and the Swevick: as he that hath an ear may hear in the Harmony of Confessions, Printed, 1581. cap. 21. De sacrâ coenâ Domini. What should I need for further proof hereof, either to allege the testimony of Calvin. Epist. 31. Non modo figuratur in coenae communio quam habemus cum Christo, sed etiam exhibetur: neque verba illic nobis dantur à Domino, sed veritas ac res constat cum verbis. Haec porro communio non imaginaria est, sed qua in unum corpus unamque substantiam cum capite nostro coalescimus: There is not only figured in the Supper, that communion which we have with Christ, but it is also exhibited; neither doth our Lord deceive us, but the truth of the thing is correspondent to his words; neither is the communion we speak of, an imaginary, but such a real one, whereby we grow into one body, and one substance with Chr●st, our head; or the testimony of Bucer. Epist. ad Italos addit, hoc est corpus meum, hic sanguis meus, id credamus nec dubitemus haec dari nobis his ipsis symbolis, & dari in cibum & potum vitae aeternae ut magis magisque vivamus in Christo, & habeamus illum manentem in nobis: He addeth this is my body, this is my blood; let us believe it and no way doubt, but that these things are given unto us by or with these very symbols, and that they are given unto us for the food and drink of eternal life, that we may more and more live in Christ, and have him living in us. It never came into the thought of any professor of the Gospel, to celebrate the Supper of the Lord, without the Lord, as Bucer speaketh in this Epistle, or exclude him from his own Table. We teach he is there truly present, and is truly received by all worthy communicants but spiritually by faith, not carnally with the mouth according to the gross Capernaitical conceit of Romanists. For first our Saviour in the sixth of john, where he commandeth all, to eat his flesh, and drink his blood, vers. 53. affirming that his flesh is meat indeed, and his blood is drink indeed; perceiving that some were offended thereat, saying, vers. 60. this is a hard saying, who can bear it; thus he declareth his own meaning, vers. 63. The words which I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life, that is, spiritually to be understood, not carnally and grossly. Secondly, the Orthodox Fathers disclaim this carnal eating with the mouth: St. Cyril in his Anathems denyeth the Sacrament to be hominis comestionem, An anthropophagy or man eating, St. chrysostom saith, it is mensa aquilarum, not graculorum: and St. Austin, that it is cibus mentis, not ventris or dentis; the food of the soul, not of the tooth or belly: Tract 20. in johan. Vt quid paras dentes & ventrem crede & manducasti: Why dost thou prepare thy teeth and thy belly, believe and thou hast eaten: and St. Cyprian, de coena Dom. haec quoties agimus non, dentes ad manducondum acuimus, sed fide sincera panem sanctum frangimus: As oft as we do these things, we do not wh●t our teeth to eat, but with sincere faith we break that holy bread. Thirdly, Christ never instituted any Sacramental action, but it was profitable to the soul; but the eating of Christ's flesh with the mouth, and swallowing it down in the stomach, doth no way at all profit the soul. Fourthly, Christ never wrought any miracle outwardly upon the creature; but the truth thereof appeared, even to sense, when he turned the water into wine, joh. 2. The change was discovered by the taste, vers. 9, 10. When the Ruler of the feast had tasted it, he said to the Bridegroom thou hast kept the good wine till now: In like manner when Christ multiplied the five Barley loaves and the two fishes, both the taste and the stomach, and the eyes of all that were present gave testimony to the truth of this miracle. For they did all eat and were satisfied, and saw twelve bask●ts remaining full of the fragments or broken meat which remained to them that had eaten. Neither can it be showed, that ever Christ the Author of truth deluded the sense. If therefore the bread had been truly and really turned into the substance of flesh either the sight, or the taste, or the touch would have discerned this change, which yet as themselves confess, discover nothing but the whiteness, the roundness, the 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 eat the flesh of the Son of God, which were horrid to imagine and blasphemous to utter. Sixthly, if the Romish Priests undoubtedly believe this doctrine of transubstantiation, as they do 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 do this profession being demanded of them, but a day or two before their deaths, when if ever, men will clearly discharge their conscience and utter whatsoever is in their very heart, it being the last time they are like ever to confess with the mouth unto salvation. Seventhly, if the bread be transubstantiated into Christ's 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 stomach of all communicants: either Christ of necessity must have two bodies, one visible, another invisible, one with the full dimensions of a man, the other of a wafer, one passable, the other impassable, one residing in one place, the other filling a million of places: or at least the self 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 inorganical upon earth: resting in heaven, and moved on earth from the hand to the mouth, and from the mouth to the stomach of millions of communicants. Lastly, I demand of this Priest and his pew-fellows, what becomes of Christ's body after it is conveyed into the stomach, doth it remain there after the form and accidents of bread are changed or doth it some ways, remove out of the stomach, 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 stomach 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 stomach of all Romish Capernaits.  may if he please, receive bread and wine once in a day, in a week, or a month, in remembrance that Christ died for him; and this shall be better done, then to eat bread and wine, without such remembrance: For receiving bread and wine: See that deduced out of Azorius, tom. 1. lib. 8. instit. moral. c. 11. & Navar. consil. 15. de haeret. num. 2. Which were, but to renew (in an urgent point of necessity) the old custom in the Apostles time, as appears by the Corinthian Christians in Saint Paul, 1 Cor. 11. who did eat and drink in the Church, besides what they received of Christ's institution as his true and real body and blood. For after the Sacrifice and Eucharist was ended, there were kept Church feasts for the relief of the poor, upon the common charges and charity of the rich. By which the charity and unity of all sorts were much preserved: for which cause the said feasts were called Charities of the ancient Fathers; and of Saint Paul, vers. 20. they were called Coenae 
i The Apostle in that place speaketh not of Suppers in the plural number, but the Lords Supper in the singular, and vers. 23. delivereth the right manner of administering it according to Christ's institution, and so St. Cyprian in his Tract. de caena Domini, and the most approved interpreters both ancient and modern understand the word, and not of love feasts. As for the reason this author allegeth for this his exposition, it is very frivolous. For if the love feasts must therefore be tearm●d coena Dominicae our Lord's Suppers, because they were made in the Churches which were then called Dominicae, by the same reason the Homilies and Catechise, and Songs should be called Dominicae, because they were made said or sung in the Churches which were then called Dominicae.  dominicae, our Lords Suppers: because they were made in the Churches, which then were called Dominicae, that is, our Lords houses: in which feasts, because there happened, some foul abuses (which the Apostle rebuking, vers. 22. Why have ye not houses to eat and drink in? or contemn ye the house of our Lord, etc.) they were taken away. See Con. Gang. 11. Con. 3. Laod. can. 27.28. Apollorum, can. 39 Clemens Alex. S●. Iust. S●. August contra Faustum, lib. 20. cap. 20. St. Chrysost. hom. 27. in 1 St. Ambrose upon this same place: by which it appears no new thing for Catholics to take some thing with a good intention, besides, what was instituted by Christ.  
Here some may ask, whether it belongs to me out of my authority to institute or renew this pious ceremony in taking bread and wine in remembrance of the death of Christ, generally for the prudent Catholics of England? I answer no. God forbid that I should presume to institute or renew any ceremony in the Catholic Church: but I do only in compassion of their miseries, present to their necessity (if any be in danger of death, loss of fortunes, or ruin of posterity, and cannot expect leave from the supreme Pastor of our souls) the doctrine of Claudius Carinnus de vi & pot. leg. human. c. 10: that even in laws, every particular man hath power to interpret the same to his advantage, and to dispense with himself therein, if there occur a sudden case of necessity, and there be no open way and recourse to the Superior, much more then, said I, in a pious ceremony against which there is no law forbidding the same.  
And if you reply that this is taken in a strange Church. I answer, That in case of necessity, the pl●ce is impertinent to the thing. For Saint Bonaventure, that great and pious Doctor using much jaculatory prayers, and being upon the place of natural necessity, and there uttering some of the said prayers, the Devil asked him, Whether that were a place to pray in? to whom he answered, in opusc. Hic et ubique meum licet orare Deum. That it was lawful to praise God in all places: and to receive bread and wine in a Protestant Church from a Minister, or to receive the same in a Tavern from a Vintner's boy: the godly only know the difference.  
If you reply again, that so we may offer Incense to an Idol in a temple (because we may burn perfume, and the Idol we know to be nothing) I deny that: and the disparity is in this, that in offering Incense, the act and show there tends to the honour and worship of the Devil. For the place being dedicated to him, whatsoever is therein done as an usual ceremony is taken (whatsoever the intention be) as done to his honour. Which act as it is unlawful in itself to be done, because pretended Idolatry, wherein God's worship is given to the Devil, at least in outward show: so it is unlawful to feign in words the act to be done, because it is dissembling (the object itself being likewise forbidden by the law of God) both which are great sins, and apt to cause great scandal: which I shall make appear, not to be in our case, where I contend, there is no sin in the act, nor yet dissembling, nor the object forbidden.  
If you reply thirdly, that there is dissembling in going to Church (as going two ways in Religion contrary to the Scripture) for thereby I seem to be otherwise then I am: the reply is false, for I profess but one religion which is Catholic, and at Church I do but observe the picture of true religion ill form, which is but a humane act not hurtful, but by a pious intention may be made good, by which all hypocrisy and dissimulation may be avoided. And if I seem to Protestants to be a Protestant; what am I the worse for that? I never yet could find any law, to ground an action against the censures of men. If they censure me to be a Protestant, I am not under their scourge for religion, unless they will on purpose make an Act of Parliament to cut off my head, which shall be no precedent for any other judges or justices: and then I must set up my rest with a Noble man, saying, Contra potentiam non est resistentia. There is no resistance against power. But continuing always loyal both to my King and Country, and obedient to God and his Church, and in so doing, giving both God and Caesar their due, and that without either sin or dissembling. I had rather they censure me unjustly (yet according to the laws established, for I always stand pro Rege & Lege) and so miss their aim by an Ignoramus, than I lose my life by a pure might. But hence it doth not follow, for all their censure, that I am a Protestant: for to be so, I must believe the 39 Articles of the Church of England, which is the definition of a Protestant. Which Articles or any other tenants of theirs I meddle not with: for if I must do all things contrary to Protestants, lest I should be thought so▪ when they eat, I must fast; and when they sleep, I must wake; which is ridiculous. As for their thinking me a Protestant, it proceeds from want of knowledge: for they or most of them neither 
k He meaneth a Roman Catholic or Papist, which indeed can hardly be known to be a true Catholic. See pag. 1. letterc. But doth he think that we know not what a Papist is? Let them remember what Polycarp did answer when Martion accosting him said, Nosti me? Dost thou know me? Yes saith Polycarp. Novi primogenitum diaboli. I know the first begotten of the devil. We know you qua tales, to be the natural issue of the man of sin, 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?  knowing what a Protestant, or Catholic indeed is (if Catholics went to Church, they would not know how to distinguish, or persecute them; it being lawful among them, for every one to believe 
l A lewd slander, it is not lawful among us for every one to believe what he pleaseth, but this Priest thinketh it lawful for him to speak what he pleaseth; though against common sense and his own conscience. For within ten 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 Vi●ar do not read these Articles and publicly testify his approbation of them within a month after his induction into his Benefice▪ he lapseth his Living. Besides it is the known doctrine of all Protestants that the Scripture is the sole and perfect rule of faith, and that as we may not believe any thing contrary unto it; so neither any doctrine as necessary to salvation which cannot be evidently proved out of it. Of what brass then was the brow of this slanderer made, who affirmeth it to be lawful among Protestants, for every man to believe what he pleaseth.  what he pleaseth) may easily think amiss of me. And for me to take benefit of their ignorance, and to hide myself in persecution, until either the glory of God, or good of my neighbour shall urge me to discover myself: I cannot yet find myself by any law forbidden.  
It may be objected secondly, that there were divers Statutes made upon the alteration of Religion, in the 2.5. and 6. years of Edward the sixth; and 1. and 23. of Queen Elizabeth in hatred of God and his Church, as that the Mass should be abrogated, and all the King's subjects should come to Church to hear such Service as was then ordained, to distinguish between Catholics and Protestants; and that whosoever should say, or hear Mass afterwards, should incur certain penalties, as by the said Statutes appears. But no man could obey these commands without sin. Ergo. I answer, that I know not much to what purpose this objection can serve R. P. that made it. For all Divines as well Catholics as Protestants know: that all humane laws bind in conscience no ●urther, than they are consonant and conformable to the divine law. And as far as they command lawful unity and uniformity to the good of the common wealth (which is the chief thing that States men aim at, men's consciences being left to themselves) they may be obeyed, as I h●ve said out of Azorius tom. 1ᵒ. lib. 8. instit. moral. cap. 27. puncto. 5ᵒ. And for as much as concerned the abrogation of Mass (which by the law of God was unlawful) they did consequenter to the State government then; for having rejected the authority ●f the Pope, they likewise rejected the Mass; as knowing that there could be no Mass without Priests, nor Priests without the Pope. And therefore taking as much of the Mass, as would serve for their Service, and to be independent of the Pope, they left the rest. But that they did it in hatred of God and his Church: or for any distinction sake, it is altogether improbable. For what would a man get, by hating of God? or the Church, of which himself must be a member, to be saved? or how could they make a distinction of that they knew not; for the Protestant Church was not then known, or scarce established. And therefore without wholly granting the Major, or distinguishing the Minor. I answer, that every one ought under pain of damnation to obey his temporal Prince in matters lawful. Yet to suffer for his religion, and (abstracting from all obedience either to Statute or Rescript) not for Recusancie.  
It may be objected thirdly, that of S. Paul to the Romans 10.10. With the heart we believe unto justice: but w●th the mouth confession is made to salvation. Ergo, No man can go to Church. I deny the sequel, and to the Antecedent I answer, that according to Divines; a man is bound to confess his religion Semper, sed non ad semper: always, but not at all ways: that is, not at all times, and in all places: but as I have said before out of Saint Thomas of Aquin in the said two cases, viz. as often as the honour and glory of God requires the same, or the spiritual profit of our neighbour shall exact it, as likely to be impaired by silence: which to be requisite I have before granted. Yet hence it doth not follow, that I am bound to go into the Market place and cry out; I am a Catholic, who will punish me? or before I am called to publish my religion, to make myself be called; or to live and converse to the same time, as having a settled being, and not going to Church. I read that Saint Faelix going to martyrdom, S. Adauc●us, came to the Officers that led him thither, and said to them, that he lived in the same law with Saint Faelix, and therefore that they should likewise put him to death. Yet I conceive that he had a special revelation for the same; and that it is no warrant for our indiscretion.  
If it be replied, that so a man shall profess no religion. I answer the inference to be naught▪ for suppose a man's recusancy were never discovered, this man professeth some religion; for he doth not live a heathen. Why then recusancy being rejected, should he not profess the same?  
If it be said, that it is written, that no man can serve two masters rightly. Yet a man may serve one Master, and have a servant to serve him, or he may serve one master, and keep or use that Master's picture, howsoever ill it be drawn.  
It may be objected fourthly, that the Rescript of Pope Paul the fifth, in which he writes to the Catholics of England, declareth, that they ought not to go to the Churches of Heretics, or hear their Sermons without detriment of the divine worship, and their own salvation. To which I answer, that the said Pope wrote both piously, fatherly, and Apostolically, according to the aforesaid suggestions by him received: and if he had had the truth of the state of England, I believe he would have written as piously the contrary. For put the case, that those zealous suggestors had presented to the consideration of the Council of Trent, or the Pope himself the truth and lawfulness of Catholics going to Church, with these seven reasons following: supposing an absolute necessity.  
1. First that there is no evil or harm done or said in the Protestant Churches to the prejudice of any Catholic soul, that may not either be hindered, or prevented very well, by the instruction of Priests; for they preach not against any notable point of doctrine held in the Catholic Church (although 
m See page 53. Letter E.  some simple Minister for want of matter may glance at some of our tenets by halves understood: or in these days to please his auditory may rail against the Pope, which he doth so irrationally, that few Protestants of any judgement do believe him) for if he should seriously preach controversies as insisting seriously upon the true doctrine of both sides, his Auditors (or at lest some of them) would be apt to doubt, and so to search and dive further into the truth: for as Saint Augustine saith, doubt begets science, which might be an occasion of sums falling from him, which fearing, he is silent in doctrine, and only teacheth morality: which why a man may not hear in urgent extremity from any man, I cannot conceive.  
2. Secondly, that their going to Church, would be a conservation and a preservation of their lands and goods, with a prevention of ruin to the family and posterity.  
3. That it would be a means to obtain and purchase the love of their neighbours; and a means of their conversion by an affable conversation; by which likewise they might bear the greatest Offices in the common wealth: and become 
n See the Advertisement to the Reader.  Parliament men as well as others: of whom and whose power and force in matters of Religion, these days can somewhat declare.  
4. Fourthly, that it would be a means, that whereas Priests leave their Colleges, and now live in private men's houses, to the benefit of one or two, and to the great danger of themselves and their Patrons; they might by this means more freely converse with all sorts of people after an Apostolical manner, and convert many to the honour of God, the increase of his Church, and good of their own souls. Whereas now they do little good out of that private house, unless maintain some decayed gentlewomen in good clothes to gossip up and down; and like bells to ring their praises, that they may fish one in a year to the disparagement of their function, and great prejudice of their Mission.  
5. Fifthly, that divers Schismatics that now go to Church with an ill conscience, and think themselves in state of damnation, do suffer spiritual detriment, and oftentimes being prevented with sudden death everlastingly perish.  
6. Sixthly, many thousands that are very moral and well affected Protestants, were it not for the stop of recusancy would become Catholics. Which, rather than they will undo themselves and Family, now will not hear of it.  
7. Seventhly, that no poor Catholic that is not able to give twenty pound per annum with their children to some College beyond the Seas, can bring them up, either in science or any other art or trade by reason of recusancy: and this, to the ruin of all poor people: many having a very great charge, and small revenues; and part of that likewise taken away for recusancy.  
Again, if the aforesaid suggestions had presented to their consideration, the means and ways of Conversions of kingdoms in general, as that they ought to be done either by miracles, war, or policy. And have reasoned, that for miracles, they were not to be expected; for that those, God ordinarily granted but to Infidels, and where by secondary causes, they were not probably fezible: that by war they could not be done, without a great deal of bloodshed, which ought to be avoided; and most commonly with a great deal of rebellion and treachery, which were utterly unlawful. And that they were fezible in policy, by civilly conversing, intermingling and insinuating themselves by degrees into the conversation of all sorts of people. So that in time a good effect might have been wrought: would not this discourse have been more consonant to truth and charity, and less displeasing or odious to our State of England, then to suggest that they are Idolatrous heretics, blasphemers of God and his Church, professors (as indeed they are not because they know the true and sincere profess it) of a false religion, subverters of souls (but poor ones God wot), abominable scandalous people, etc. and that it was a scandal for good people to converse with them in things indifferent, and therefore desire that it might be declared unlawful, & commanded that no Catholic might converse with them, as in Christian liberty otherwise he might lawfully do? thereby to introduce for their own ends, our now goodly distinctive sign of recusancy? I appeal to any wise man's judgement. And whether the aforesaid rescript and other briefs were not gotten by mere suggestion (the case being truly set down by me as it is) I appeal likewise to the Pope himself: who, to mine own knowledge hath been likewise lately notably abused in the like manner. Ann. 1639. one Francis Damport, alias a Sancta Clara. 
o We are as much beholding to the stitcher up of this Safeguard for the Relation herein closed as the Church of Rome hath little cause to con him thank for it. For hence we learn first, what credit is to be given to the Pope's briefs which may be so easily procured by false suggestions, to the wrong and prejudice of those that deserve well of the Roman cause. A clear evidence hereof we have in Day the Franciscan who never so much as appearing before his Holiness to answer for himself, is censured by the Pope's Bull, and that for doing a pious and religious act. Secondly, what a silly Consistory the Papal is at this day, the Pope himself as fallible a man as any other, and the Cardinal's slight and weak fellows never a skilful Pilot, sitting at the Stern of Peter's ship. Thirdly, what charity there is between Romish Priests and jesuits, and how they heap coals of hell fire one upon another's 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 darkness for ever: pallentes umbras erebi noct●mque profundam, this man saith he is descending to Lucifer who will presume to be copartner with the holy Ghost, and thus leaving him (the said a Sancta Clara) to him that will, have him, etc. tantaene animis caelestibus irae? are they Friars 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 charitable censure of this Priest Lucifer must have him? He took upon him to draw some Rules out of Scriptures and the writings of the ancient Fathers; For the direction of general Counsels in declaring matters of faith: A capital crime no doubt: but what else hath this Priest against him? this Sancta Clara hath Paraphrased upon the Articles of Religion established in the Church of England, and showeth in what sense and how a good Roman Catholic may with a sa●e conscience subscribe to them all, though eighteen at least of them shoot point blank at their Trent faith and pierce it through and through. Aggravate th●s fact of his to the height, doth this Priest himself do less? who Paraphraseth upon the Oath of Allegiance and Supremacy, and showeth in what sense a Roman Catholic may take both, though the former directly renounce the Pope's temporal, and the latter his spiritual power and jurisdiction. Now I see what the matter is— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. there is and always will be emulation between Artificers that work at the same Trade, this Priest and Sancta Clara are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the same Craft or Trade they both deal in like Commodities, equivocations and mental reservations and witty devices to elude oaths, 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 Christian Magistrates when they are convented before them and unless they both repent their doom is set down, Apoc. 22.25. Without are Dogs and Idolaters and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie. I know well they pretend by this doctrine to keep men from perjury and lying: but they do just as Lycurgus the Lawgiver of the Lacedæmonians did who to prevent adultery enacted community of wives. For equivocation is no better than an artificial and made lie as the Bishop of Duresme, and Mr. Henry Mason prove in their Treatises of this Argument.  being at London, and having written a book (called Deus, Natura, Gratia) which being disliked by one Day a Franciscan, and through the same dislike at Rome, being there called into the Inquisition, was so much displeased both with his Holiness and the said Day; that he publicly ●eered the Pope: saying▪ that whereas before he thought him infallible (which he never thought to my knowledge) now he saw that he was fallible as other men were. And endeavouring revenge against the said Day, substituted a most ignorant and lewd man one George Perrott (his ordinary Broker in seditious matters) to go with the s●id a Sancta Clara his instructions to Signior Gregory Pauzana then the Pope's Agent in London; accusing the said Day with much zealous hypocrisy, that he had put forth certain pictures to the hurt of God's Church, and infinite scandal of Protestants. After went a Sancta Clara cum tanta gravitate, seconding with an abominable deal of zeal and authority (having then got himself to be Provincial) the complaint of the said Perrot. Hereupon the said Signior with the said a Sancta Clara's solicitor, Luke Wadding an Irishman in Rome complains to the Pope: and obtains upon the former men's suggestions, a terrible Bull against the said Day being never cited to answer, admonished, or knowing any thing thereof. The Bull being come to the said a Sancta Clara his lodging in Fleetstreet and safe in his desk, he did me the honour to show me the same. Which I read, and ask the said a Sacta Clara why he procured it, he told me, for the said Day his putting forth of the said pictures, who likewise said, that the said Day knew nothing of the same: and therefore desired me to be silent. At which, I was much astonished, and knowing very certainly the ground of the whole business to be false; and therefore that both the said Day, the Pope's Agent, and the Pope himself were most horribly abused; I thought that if the said a Sancta Clara were permitted in this manner to abuse men; the best men living might be censured, excommunicated, degraded; and what not without ever being heard? Which is no practice among Heathens. As for the setting forth of the said pictures, the matter in them contained, as being from my purpose, I omit, Yet thus much will I speak that it was a thing approved of, through the whole Catholic Church: the said pictures themselves liked, yea desired of the said Day his superiors: who to this day do acknowledge their approbation of the same, countenanced by the said a Sancta Clara, Perrott, and all others ever after they were put forth, for the space of above ten years before, to mine own knowledge. A book at the same time (of a Sancta Clara his complaint) printed at Douai in defence of the same, never proved by oath that any of the said pictures ever came to the hands of any one Protestant. Neither do I think that any one Protestant (unless it might be such, as a Sancta Clara had suborned for his own revenge to speak against the same) ever saw any of them: and therefore there could be no indiscretion or scandal by them proved. Nay, the said pictures being made for some particular friend's devotion, not so much as one Catholic to an hundred had or knew of them: but chose some that had them from the said Perrott, were scandalised through weakness by the said a Sancta Clara his questioning of them in this manner, as though that should be set forth for their devotion, that in itself was false. Yet notwithstanding all this, the malicious suggestions of the said a Sancta Clara against this man's doings, did so far prevail, that Day's innocency was thought worthy to be condemned by the said Bull for doing a pious and a religious act. This indeed I must say, that the said a Sancta Clara when he had him at his mercy, through the remorse and sting of his own conscience, durst not promulgate the said Bull, but kept it dead in his desk, for fear that those who otherwise honour the Pope's Bulls honestly and lawfully gotten, would have called him to the King's Bench Bar for bringing in of this. And had he not taken the benefit of the Proclamation of banishment (notwithstanding his ambitious and seditious wit) he would have been not only questioned for this Bull, but likewise for other matters of a far fouler nature, which made it high time for him to run. Let any man now judge, whether the Pope's Holiness doth not suffer much by hypocritical suggestions: whether he that so notoriously abused him in words, did not likewise do it in deeds. For about the same time, when the said Bull came over, his said book likewise came out of the Inquisition: at which news the said a Sancta Clara again grudging that his said book should be so questioned, and yet pass (although by her Majesty's Servants means, if a Sancta Clara himself may be believed) unblemished; told divers persons seriously speaking, that there was never an able man in Rome. To which some replying, yes: The Pope, and Court of Cardinals: in faith (quoth he) no; (making a sign of contempt with his hand) they are slight and weak fellows. Here is a fellow to get Bulls! here is one that got himself made the Pope's Protonotary, and bound himself by oath, to reveal whatsoever he heard or saw done evilly against the Pope! yet he is as ready as any to abuse him. I wonder what account he can give to the Pope of this his office: but it should seem, that he did except himself in his oath, that he might evilly entreat him at his pleasure. That this is true, it will be deposed upon oath by divers witnesses, whensoever his Holiness will be pleased to exact the same. And further the said a Sancta Clara added, that he was writing a book (conceiving as it should seem, the whole Church to be weak, and to want his help) wherein he would show, what Rules general Counsels ought to observe in declaring matters of faith; which rules (as he said) not observed, the Council should not be held lawful. Oh abominable presumption and ambition! let any man judge, whether this man be not descending to Lucifer, who will presume to be copartner with the holy Ghost, in directing and ●eaching his Church? If this man live, we may perchance in time have broached a quaternity in divinis; but I hope that God will prevent his heretical humour. And thus leaving the said a Sancta Clara to him that will have him: my intent here is, only to show upon what unjust grounds by suggestion a Bull may be gotten from Rome. And whether the aforesaid suggestors for Recusancy, who lived at the Pope's doors, and continually at his, or their favourites sides, might not also get their rescripts, Bulls and Declarations by the like fraud, for their own ends, although questionless with the like pretended zeal and piety I leave to every man's conscience to judge. For as in Catholic Countries where Bulls and Breves are directed to Bishops of Dioceses there can be no thought of any sinister proceedings: so out of such countries where particular men or Corporations busy themselves in procuring such Bulls, etc. there is never want of suspicion and most commonly of abusive dealing. And it stands with reason: because particular men would never sue for general Briefs concerning a whole State, or trouble themselves more than others, if it were not for their own ends, and did not concern themselves above the rest. And therefore the ancient Piety and Apostolical Clemency of Popes in such Cases hath been, patiently to hear wherein they have been misinformed and abused; for it is not their intention at any time to grant any thing either upon a veiled truth, or unjust (though speciously suggested) grounds. Hence Alexander the third, writing to an Archbishop of Canterbury, giveth a Rule of large extent; Extra de rescript. ex parte. That in these kind of letters (that is, such as proceed upon information, as our Case is) this Condition (If the request be upon true grounds) is ever understood, though it be not expressed. And writing to the Archbishop of Ravenna, Ibidem he saith, Siquando, If at any time we write such things to you, as exasperate your mind, you must not be troubled; but diligently considering the quality of the business, whereof we write, either reverently fulfil our command, or pretend by your letters a reasonable cause why you cannot: for we will endure patiently, if you forbear to perform that, which was suggested to us, by evil information: by which appears the worthy integrity of the See Apostolic, howsoever it be by the unworthiness of flattering hypocrites oftentimes abused.   

§. 3. That it is not unlawful to go to Church for fear of danger of subversion or Blasphemy, which is the third and last branch of the Minor to be proved.  
WHich I prove thus. Not danger of subversion: for to what purpose should they preach subversive doctrine? when that supposeth a knowledge in the Minister of some people there present to be subverted. Which supposition is false, and must needs savour of a broken fancy. For the Minister intends no more, then to exhort his Auditors to a good life, and to instruct them in morality. For as I have said, if he should preach controversies, he must know some Catholics to be there; or otherwise he would but engender doubts among Protestants, and doubts science: and by that means would more trouble and disturb the minds of the people, then profit them; which out of prudency, he forbears: and so contents himself now and then, with an untruth, and away. And in Catholic countries I myself have heard Priests rebuked for preaching of controversies to a Catholic auditory, as being a means rather to disturb them, then profit them, as troubling themselves with doubts of things either above their reach and capacity; or whereof otherwise they are infallibly certain: so that generally controversies are never preached, unless it be to bring people from their doubts, to a better and greater certainty than they were in before; which hath only place among people newly converted, or staggering in their religion.  
Secondly. A man is said to be in danger, when that which is feared commonly & oftener happeneth then the contrary: so a man is in danger of subversion by going to a place, where few come, but are subverted: but so it happeneth not in the Protestant Church: as is apparent by Schismatics of all sorts; who many years frequent the Protestant Church, and yet retain their opinion of the Catholic religion without subversion, and become Catholics at last.  
Add that going to Church will rather confirm Catholics in their religion, then subvert them from the same: for than they will have upon their own knowledge, what now they take upon trust: for if what is done in Protestants Churches, be opposite to what is done in Catholic Churches (as the contrary opinion useth to say, comparing them to light and darkness, which are privative opposites according to dialectics; although the comparison be false) I say, opposita per se posita magis elucescunt: opposites being set together do more clearly show each other; then that which is best, sends the best species to the power from the object, and consequently to be embraced. Now if a man hath the best already, it will then more clearly appear; and he is not so mad, as to leave the best, and take the wor●●; but will be more sure and certain, that he hath the best: as seeing the opposite, and confirm himself therein. This appears true to every mean capacity: What danger then can there be in going to Church? shall we be afraid to let a Greyhound go into the 
p Yet some of these Greyhounds have been taken by the Hares he speaks of, as Albertus Piggius by Calvin●, Paulus Virgerius by Bre●tius, and divers others, but of this see pag. 53. letter E.  field, for fear he should be taken by an Hare?  
Thirdly, those that go to Church, either they were borne Catholics, or converted Protestants; if the latter: then that which moved them to become Catholics, cannot move them to be Protestants again. If the first, it were a wonderful thing, that hearing a little morality, should make them fall from the doctrine they were brought up in all their life: or hearing a small piece of controversy mentioned (if it should so happen) by a Minister, they should be presently carried away from the doctrine they have so long known, and never once tell it to the priests, they daily converse with: especially when they go not out of any dislike of their religion, but with a clear conscience for some other ends. I conceive it would rather confirm them, in hearing that spoken, which in their own conscience they know to be untrue, that it will be so far from troubling or striking their consciences, that they will come home rejoicing at the truth, which they heard that day impugned: as that they heard the Minister speak of such, or such a point: as that Catholics adored 
q It is true that the Romanists teach the simpler sort of the vulgar, that they are not to adore Images, but only to use them for memory sake: and Cardinal Bellarmine himself in his second Book De imaginibus sanctorum, c. 22. hath these express words, quantum ad modum loquendi, praesertim in concione ad populum, non est dic●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 contrary, that they ought not to be so adored: Yet the truth is, that the Roman Church maintaineth the religious worship of Images. For in the second Council 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 year of King Richard the Second, the Lollards have a form 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 nearer; the Council 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 Virgin 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 think that this worship and veneration is not to be exhibited, to the Images themselves, but only to glance through them to the Saints. Cardinal Bellarmine in his second book De imaginibus sanctorum, c. 21. most plainly and expressly 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 vi●em gerunt exemplaris: The Images of Christ and Saints are to be worshipped not only by accident and improperly, but also by themselves an● properly; so that the worship is terminated in them as they are considered in themselves, and not only 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, Almain, Carthusian, Capreolus, and others, that the same honour is due to the Image and the pattern; and therefore 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 wisdom and spirit of Daniel, in sign of honour and reverence unto him, commanded that sweet odours and incense should be offered unto him, as we according to our faith use to do to our images: and now let the intelligent Reader judge whether Protestant Ministers are slanderers, or Papists Idolaters and Image-worshippers by their own profession  pictures, or the like; which they knew in their own con●sciences to be false, and thereby stir up an earnestness in them in religion, as zealing their own being opposed by falsehood: and this may engender such passion or distraction in the hearer, that it may be thought zeal of religion or heat of devotion. Which heat, if after this fight of contrarieties or opposition, should not be allayed (the parties being as it were swallowed up, with zeal of the house of our Lord) and the dislike of the Sermon as fraught with untruths, seem too troublesome: they may depart the Church, for there be many cases of necessity, 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 less to be done, and it shall never trouble me) Sermon, or both: for as there are many ways to the wood, so there are many ways to the Protestant Church. And I have always observed, that most commonly Catholics converted from protestancy, have been more firm and solid in religion, as knowing both, than those that never knew but one. And if Schismatics (of whom I have before spoken) from the wisest to the meanest of capacity, that notwithstanding they go to Church, and are void of grace, are never so much as shaken from their intention of being Catholics, or their opinion of Catholic religion; why should those that abound so much with God's grace and professed Catholics, be said to be in danger, or feared to swerve from a religion they so well know?  
As for blasphemy there is likewise none. If you reply (as the contrary opinion useth to do 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 God's revelation, and deny his revelations to Orthodox articles of faith, in which consists blasphemy, and without this blasphemy they cannot preach: and therefore no Catholic can go to Church. I answer the antecedent to be false; and this blasphemy to be much like the Rhemists' Idolatry, as preferring and embracing their own opinions before God: and so honouring a creature and rejecting their Creator: but in truth and charity, we ought not to make them worse than they are: for blasphemy and Idolatry being sins, there must be some formal 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 known creature before the Creator; and so to give the creature what is due to the Creator: or otherwise there can be neither blasphemy nor Idolatry. As no man will say, that I eating flesh on a fasting day unknown or forgotten, commit Idolatry in preferring my belly before the law of God's Church, and consequently God, because I had no intention thereto: so no man can say that in the Protestant Church there is formal Idolatry or blasphemy, because they mistake. For Diana saith, 5a. part tract. de par. mamae. resol. pag. 138. that blasphemy is a sin, in that contumelious words are spoken against God with a mind 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 mind, & c? If you say as before, that they ascribe their heresies to God's revelation, and deny his revelation to Orthodox Articles. I answer, th●t their minds and intentions are not so much as interpretatiuè to dishonour God thereby; or indeed so to ascribe their heresies. For if they knew their opinions to be heresies, and the tenants they reject to be Orthodox Articles, as we do by the light of faith; it would evidently follow, that they spoke sometimes contumeliously against God, which they do not know, but simply interpret Scripture according to their own fancies, and therein they err and mistake. And because they do not endeavour the means to search and know the truth, by the definitions of Counsels, and Doctrine of Catholic Fathers, they sin: yet do not commit Idolatry: for it is not their intention, to make an Idol of their opinion, unless you take Idolatry so largely, as every sinner may be said to be an Idolater: because in every sin 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 unlawful to converse with these Idolaters, or the like blasphemers; that is, such as sin by word or deed; we must converse only in spatio imaginario, or as Saint Paul saith, 1 Cor. 5. vers. 10. We must go out of this world.  
There were divers very learned and holy Fathers, as Saint Cyprian in the question of Baptism administered by heretics, St. Anselm and others, who did mistake and err, before they knew the sense and definition of the Church: whom therefore to call blasphemers or Idolaters were blasphemy indeed. So likewise there are divers points this day controverted among Catholic Divines, as the immaculate conception of our blessed Lady and the like; the Authors of which to count blasphemers, before they knew the sense of the Church, were more than peevish. Neither are they to be so accounted, after the sense of the Church is known, for the time they held their opinions before. So it is with Protestants, for although the Orthodox Articles are known to us by the Church; yet to them they are unknown; and to most of them so unknown, as if they had not been revealed at all; because they know none other Church but 
See page 52. letter ●.  their own. And therefore what they believe, they have by error and mistake, and not as blasphemy. Whence in my opinion it were more proper and Apostolical for such men, as call them blasphemers and Idolaters, to use some prudent and fair way, to propose to the aforesaid Protestants, the true Church, and the authority of the same, without all suspicion of partiality, and then they should see, whether having this mean of belief in a balanced judgement, they would attribute their heresies to God's revelation, and deny his revelation to Orthodox Articles, or no.  
To the authority of St. Thomas. I answer, that he meaneth such as attribute heresies quatenus tales to God's revelation: and deny his revelation to Orthodox Articles quâ tales: as Arch-heretics did in this reduplicative sense to be blasphemers. But not such as take Scripture for the revealed word of God, and misunderstand the same in a specificative sense, through their own ignorance or infirmity, to be blasphemers; Neither did St. Thomas or any other temperate and solid Divine ever intent to say.  
It may be here first objected, that Catholics in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's Reign went to Church, and so did likewise the Catholics in Scotland: and they were all, in a short time subverted. Ergo: there is danger of subversion in going to Church. I deny the later part of the antecedent: and say, that while the plot of recusancy was working, there was a command got, upon the former suggestions, that no Catholics should go to the Protestant Church. So by barring them of their Christian liberty by degrees to bring in recusancy, as a pretended sign, between a good Christian and a bad. Which some few Catholics then believing themselves bound to obey (as indeed they were not, but might as well withal reverence and obedience have beseeched the Pope to have recalled his command) refused the Church. Others (and those the most part of the kingdom, as appears by the afore Author of the Answer to the Libel of Justice, cap. 8. pag. 172. & 182.) fearing the penalties of the said Statutes, did not refuse: but continued to go to Church: who being neglected by Priests (being but a few then in England, and those of most power, being for the said recusancy) as having no spiritual comfort, or instructions in what sense, they might truly and lawfully do what they did, to avoid the said penalties of the Law, and likewise thinking that those Priests thought them to do ill▪ in what themselves found no hurt, they died as they lived. But whether in Protestant tenants or Catholic: or whether they would not have died Catholics if they had had help, especially such as lived before in Queen Mary's time, I present to any wise and pious man's judgement truly considering the state of those times. And afterwards their children being still neglected upon this point of Recusancy, and living in ignorance, engendered the Protestant Religion now on foot. So that the cause of their falling was not their subversion, as may be proved by witnesses yet alive; but over indiscreet zeal in Priests the chiefest heads of whom (aiming as is evident at a temporal end) neglecting and rejecting such as would not obey their unreasonable command: and in the same manner it happeneth with Catholics that now go to Church in these dangerous times. Who going to Church only to save themselves from ruin, and being rejected as judged to be fallen from the true faith by ignorant Priests, and therefore not looked after, with any Christian instructions or admonitions fain themselves Protestants, rather than they will be thought to live against their conscience. Whence I may truly say (and prove by the Author last before cited, who confesseth that in the thirteenth year of Queen Elizabeth's reign the third part of this Kingdom at least was Catholic) that since the fall of Religion in England, by this only Cheat of recusancy, ten souls have been lost, for one gained, which is both lamentable and damnable to those that were the first Authors of the same.  
As for the Scots: their fall was neither subversion or recusancy which was never generally admitted (because not covertly procured) by the Clergy of that Kingdom: but want of Priests to administer the Sacraments, and give them other spiritual comfort; who seeing the soil not so fertile as ours, and the laws more severe; those few that were, rather chose to converse on the Northern borders of England, then in their own Country. And Catholics there, seeing themselves destitute of all spiritual comfort, went to Church to save their inferior portion from ruin; who if they had had but plenty, or sufficiency of priests to have instructed them, I doubt not, but they would have still remained Catholics. And it had been far more easy, so to have conserved them, then fallen now to convert them. And thus came the bane of 
s The bane of Popery not of Catholic religion. See pag. 1. letter C and pag. 52. letter C.  Catholic religion into both Kingdoms; which are like so to continue remediless, unless they be assisted by God's infinite and miraculous power.  
It may be objected secondly; that divers Popes, as Paul the fourth, Pius the fifth, both the last Gregory's, Sixtus, Clement, and Paul the fifth, granted to priests their faculties with an intention, that they should administer the Sacraments to only such, as abstained from Protestant Churches. I answer that it is so said by R. P. but whether it be so in truth or no, I know not: peradventure such faculties might be granted to such as received them from the aforesaid suggestors hands, and to none others. Neither did I ever see any faculties as yet so limited, nor I hope ever shall. For although the aforesaid Popes might be inclined to the said suggestors tribe, & so admit of their suggestions, thinking them to proceed from zeal, and not from hypocrisy: who likewise thought their pretences holy: and what a Christian like thing it was, to suffer persecution for God's sake; and what a number of Martyrs were made in England, & sanguinem martyrum esse semen Ecclesiae: that the blood of the Martyrs was the seed of the Church. Further, what an abominable people Protestants were: Idolaters, blasphemous heretics, subversive of souls, and many other the like exaggerating speeches; upon which any Pope living (unless he had foreknown their drift) would have done the like. Whereas certainly had they but made known, the true State of England in those days, and sought the good of souls (and not themselves) in truth they ought to have done; the said Popes would never have done, as they did to us, more than to the Scots, Hollanders, Germans and other nations: by subjecting us and all posterity by this device of recusancy to all misery and slavery. Neither hath his Holiness that now is, ever declared any such thing, for I perceive that he (better knowing by experience the said suggestors tribe, and their plots, with their moth-like dealings in most Kingdoms) will be advised hence forward, how he granteth any more Rescripts, or limiteth any faculties upon their importune suggestions. As for our Martyrs of England. I hope them truly Martyrs, because they died not so much for recusancy, 
t Nay not so much for Religion, Noah nor at all for it, but for Treason and disloyalty. See pag. 22. letter Q.  as for Religion and a good conscience (although that might be a means to bring them to their death, sooner than otherwise). Yet I dare not call all of them Saints, until the holy Church doth bid me, as having approved of their miracles: but most of them I think truly to be blessed men, and of great charity. For as our Saviour saith, joh. 15. v. 13. Majorem charitatem nemo habet, quam ut animam suam ponat quis pro amico suo. No man hath greater love, than who layeth down his life for his friend. Yet I hope likewise others some, who yet live, to be as blessed, and their charity or love as great; although not so apparent for the present, because as yet not exercised in fight, but when God shall be pleased to call them to suffer for their Religion, they may make it as manifest. For although a man of a thin skin, and a vein transparent with less art struck, doth presently bleed in abundance: yet no man may hence infer, that a man of a thicker skin, and a more obscure vein not lightly struck, hath no blood in his body to shed; so it is in the present, between him that suffers for Religion being discovered by recusancy, and him that suffers not, being undetected by rejecting the same. And in this they differ; that as the one suffers for a good conscience sake; so the other suffers not, with a good conscience. As for the said exaggerating speeches, they do so much strengthen and confirm me, knowing them to be false, that I am morally certain: that the said 
u The Father's heo speaks of were the flower of the Council of Trent, neither were they abused by any false suggestion, for the case was put truly 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.  twelve Fathers in the Council of Trent, selected by the said suggestors for recusancy were abused; aswell as the aforesaid Popes. And therefore as they are said to have granted to some limited faculties, merely upon the said false suggestions (which how far they did bind, the suggestors at their pleasure, to great persons according to their custom, could very well tell) they might as well have granted the same, without any such limitation, if it had pleased them: and I am persuaded more to the glo●y of God and increase of his Church as daily experience teacheth. For it is improbable with me, and against the nature of an Apostolical mission, that men should be sent out of Colleges into Protestant countries to private men's houses, to play bopeep: as fearing to be seen conversing with Protestants, and Protestants not caring to come to them, for any matter of religion. I wonder by this kind of conversation, what kind of conversion could ensue? whereas Saint Paul said to them that were about him, Act. 20. vers. 20. You know how I have withdrawn nothing that was profitable, but that I preached it to you, and taught you openly, and from house to house. Neither do I believe that any man can prove any notable increase of Catholic religion in England, either in great families or in small, from the time of this recusancy brought in, unto this present: only this I see, a great impoverishment of the Catholics here, and half a dozen fair high Colleges built beyond the seas, besides what common purse I know not: and this I conceive to be all the effect of recusancy; for persecution (as I have said) begets prayers to God, and almesdeeds to his supposed servants, which produce great Colleges for refuge to themselves.  
But some may here again reply; that if recusancy had been rejected, and conformity admitted, yet Protestant's would have had some other invention to punish Catholics for their religion. I answer it might be so, if some evil spirits had told them the proceedings of Catholics before hand (as I never yet knew in my life Catholics private to themselves) otherwise why should they have invented more to punish Catholics, than they have hitherto done to punish Schismatics or Separatists? The said Suggestors had best invent for them some way more than they have already, to continue a persecution, which were but conformable as it seems, to the said Author of the Answer, etc. cap. 9 pag. 216. as is before said: who delighteth more to have a persecution (although not to fall upon himself or his tribe) than a toleration in religion. Yet in the mean time, we had done the uttermost of humane prudence, and then we might have left the rest more safely to God; who ordinarily, what second causes cannot do in working to his will, himself mercifully supplieth▪ and then at leastwise, it would have been more apparent to the whole world, that we had suffered merely for religion, and not for a toy, to wit: 
w If recusancy be so small a matter, the more to blame all Papists who for such a toy as recusancy, doth disobey the Laws. The easier the performance of a commandement is, the greater contumacy in disobeying it.  recusancy.  
Add that whatsoever had been invented either by oath or abjuration, or what else, it must have been done in justice, and I hope by a 
x Here he hath found la●●bram periurio, this conceit, of not being bound to answer the truth but before a competent judge (and they will have none a competent ●udge but one of their own religion) is the gyges ring by which the late Papists, especially those that are jesuited go invisible in and from all our Cour●s of justice.. But I demand of them First, why our judges in England are not as competent, as those beyond the ●eas: if the King be, as it is treason for them or any other to deny, our Liege Lord and lawful Sovereign, those that are put in authority under him (being men of learning and integrity) cannot be denied to be competent judges. The Apostles rule is without exception, There is no power but of God, the powers that be are ordained of God, Rom. 13.1. And by higher powers to whom we must be subject, he understandeth not only Kings, but all those that are in authority under them, 1 Tim. 2.2. First the King as supreme, and after governor's, as them that are sent by him, 1 Pet. 2.13, 14. Secondly, I demand of them, whether that command of Saint Peter, 1 Pet. 3.15. may be limited by their distinction of a judge competent and incompetent? surely though in other causes a man is not bound to appear or answer coram iudice non competente: yet in matter of faith when we are required to give an account o● it there is no excepting against our judge. For we must be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh us a reason of the hope that is in us with meekness and fear. Thirdly, I demand of them whether they account Pilate a competent judge in Christ's cause, or Nero in Peter and Paul's cause, or any of the Roman Deputies and Proconsul's before whom the glorious army of Martyrs (who signed the Christian Faith with their blood) were brought, were competent judges? they were no Roman Catholics nor Christians; yet Christ jesus before Pontius Pilate, 1 Tim. 6 13. and Peter and Paul before Nero; and the rest of Christ's noble soldiers before heathen judges, witnessed a good profession. Fourthly, I demand when that confession of faith which the Apostle implieth to be necessary to salvation is to be made, Rom. 10.10. With the mouth confession is made to salvation, is it not when we are brought before Kings and Rulers for Christ's name sake, Luke 21.12. For a testimony against them? If we are bound to confess our faith only to those of our own religion, because they are only supposed to be competent judges, no man ever need to suffer for his religion, and all the noble Confessors and Martyrs of former ages by this jesuitical doctrine deserved rathers fools caps then Martyrs crowns: for they did not shed their bloods for Christ's cause, but they spilt it causelessly. For they needed not to confess what they were, before incompetent judges. Here I will make bold to use the words of David concerning Abner, 2 Sam. 3.33. Did Abner die a fool? Did all those worthies whose souls cried under the Altar, Apoc. 6.10. How long Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth, and to whom white robes were given, vers. 11. Die as fools? it seemed they died so in the judgement of this Priests prudent Catholic, who though by this slight he now avoid all confession of his faith (that he is not examined before a competent judge) yet he shall one day, when he shall come before the judge of all the earth condemn his own folly, and justify and magnify also Christ's noble Confessors and Martyrs, taking up the lamentation of the reprobate set down in the book of Wisdom, We fools accounted their life madness, and their end to be without honour, but now how are they numbered among the children of God, and their lot is among the Saints, therefore have we erred from the way of truth, and the Sun of righteousness hath not shined upon us, Wisdom 5.6.  competent Judge▪ or otherwise I should have taught out of the common opinion of Catholic Divines, as well Schoolmen as Casuists, that putting off their hats, they might have passed by, in Justice: for as Titleman saith, contra vulpem 
y I have read, logicam si vis discere lege Titlemannum, ille Sophistarum crimi●a pandere vult, but I never read, theologiam si vis discere, lege Titlemannum, he is in a very ill case who rules his conscience by this casuist whose divinity is no better here then his Latin. I confess in Machiavels school it is a lesson read to those of the upper form, leoninae assuere vulpinam, to piece out the Lion's skin with a Foxes, but in Christ's school Zuickius teacheth us another lesson, non decet in hac causa cum vulpibus vulpinari et cum astutissimis huius mundi sapientibus, astutia certare, certandum est nobis solâ perseverantiâ pietate simplicitate adeo et patientiâ crucis: we ought not to play the fox with foxes, nor contend with the subtle vizards of this world in craft and subtlety, but we must fight against them, with sole perseverance and piety, and simplicity, and bearing of the Crosse. In the whole Scripture we never read of fox or fox craft commended. The Spouse in the Canticles commanded to take the foxes, the little foxes that spoil the grapes, Cant. 2.15. And it is David's curse upon God's enemies, let them be a portion for foxes: and our Saviour to brand Herod with perpetual infamy, calleth him a fox, Luk. 13.32. saying, Go ye and tell ●hat fox, neither can it be proved to be more lawful for us to play the fox with foxes, then play the wolf with wolves, or play the Sophister with Sophisters, or play the hypocrite with hypocrites, or play the Devil with Devils. Though crafty companions may deserve to be served with their own sauce, yet it is not fit for us to dress it for them. The very Poet could say ac tu indignus qui faceres. That may be very just and fit for one to suffer which is not yet fit for another to inflict or put upon him. However this Priest is not his craft's master. For it is against fox craft to profess it: he will hardly or never deceive a m●n, who brags before hand he will do it, and though it may be this Priest and his complices are annosae vulp●s, old foxes, and the proverb is, annosa vulpis haud capitur laqueo: an old fox is seldom or never caught in a snare: yet if those who are commanded to catch these foxes should be pleased to make snares with this fox his own cords here stretched out by him, namely to put them to an express abjuration of the main and fundamental points of their Trent faith, or set them such a form of recantation of their tenants, and with such conditions as they enjoined the Lollards in the days of King Richard the second, (See the Appendix to the Animadversions infra) it may verily be hoped through God's blessing upon the wisdom and care of zealous Magistrates, that this Kingdom of England may in time be as free of these foxes as it is now of wolves, with which in former ages it much abounded.  vulpizare licet. It is lawful for a man to play the fox against a fox.  
It may be objected thirdly, that it was Decreed in the 63 Canon of the Apostles. That if any Clerk, or Layman did enter into the Synagogue of Jews or Heretics to pray, he should be deposed, and excommunicated. I answer, that it might be a necessary Decree: because then there were but young Christians, and they newly instructed, in very high mysteries, as the mystery of the Incarnation, which was so hard to them, as that God should be borne man, poor, live poorly, and at last be put to so shameful a death, by the hands of men, his own creatures, that the forcible Arguments of the Jews might have 
z There was no fear of the jews perverting the primitive Christians, especially in the Apostles days in which we read in the Acts, how mightily the Apostles and their converts confounded the jews, Christ making good his promise to them that he would give them a mouth and wisdom which their enemies should not be able to resist, Luk. 21.15. but the true reason why they made such a Canon (if yet they made such Canons which is very much doubted) was to prevent the scandal which the Church might receive by the Christians frequenting the jews Synagogues in which the now abrogated rites of Moses were to the injury of the Gospel retained, and Christ himself blasphemed which no Christian ear ought to endure.  easily perverted them. Again, the Jews were formal blasphemers of God; our Saviour telling them himself; that he had done those signs among them, that no other man could do. Whereby he gave them to know, that he was God: all which the Jews rejected as naught, and said, that he did them in Beelzebub Prince of the Devils. And when he told them, joh. 10. vers. 36. that he was the Son of God, they answered that he blasphemed, to whom he replied, vers. 37. If I do not the works of my Father believe me not. And therefore it was requisite, that those Christians should abstain from their synagogue, lest they should have fallen to have been as they were.  
The company of heretics, the Apostles might likewise forbid: because they were such as fell from and amongst themselves, and very likely particularly denounced excommunicate; so that danger of subversion was there imminent: because their intention was formally to subvert, and infected with one or two points of heresy were not so easily to be discerned, as those that profess themselves so wholly different from the Catholic Church, that if they did but know a Papist to be in their Churches, they would go near to pull them down to the ground; and so borne and bred, as they know no other religion, but their own, and there do so rest: teaching their own but to live morally which is both common to Catholic and Protestant. Which motive or reason hath no place in our case, where (I contend) there is no danger at all.  
Hence it may be generally observed that what Scriptures, Counsels, Fathers, or Canons soever, forbid Communication with heretics: they are to be understood of notorious heretics in point of their heresy, or particularly denounced excommunicated for heresy and fallen in Catholic countries or from amongst Catholics. And not of such as are not formal and subversive heretics, but borne incredulous in a country to be converted, and not knowing the Catholic Church.  
After all this, some may yet say, that it hath been a long custom with them to abstain from the Protestant Church above these threescore years: and they have suffered and lost much by refusing the same; and can I have so little judgement, as to think upon mine own bare word or opinion to make them leave this their custom? I answer (how small soever my judgement be) that it is not only my opinion, but the common opinion of Divines in the Catholic Church: and I never spoke with any Priest in England about this point in my life, that was able to give me satisfaction to the contrary. Some indeed have answered me, that it were lawful, if it were not for scandal. Others, if it were not a distinctive sign: and when I have urged, that scandal may be avoided (as I have before said) and for a distinctive sign, I knew none, for who should institute that sign? then they have answered, that a long custom had brought it in: I have blessed myself to think, that men should so unjustly deal with poor Catholics, as to bring upon them a yoke or fetters; which they can keep upon them by no other law, then that they themselves cunningly got them on, or chained them about threescore years since, and now to kick of these chains, or their devises would prove (forsooth) scandal: because they would seem refractory and disobedient to their suggestive humours: but to give me a reason why going to Church was unlawful before the refusal thereof became this supposed distinctive sign, or before the same could be cause of scandal I could never yet hear any man give: but only the aforesaid R. P. hath given in writing the aforesaid suggested untruths (with a great deal of passion that this my opinion was thought rational ●or almost forty years ago and since recusancy was brought in, (as appears by his said book) of many most prudent men in this kingdom,) which is to me no reason at all. For let us propose to any Divine in Christendom these three following questions: relating the true state of the Protestant Church in exterior actions (for we meddle not (as I have said) with their opinions in matters of faith) and withal adding that we are constrained to them under 
a See page 22. letter Q▪  pain of death, and loss of all temporal fortunes.  
1. Whether it be lawful for a Catholic to hear the Prayers, Epistles, Gospels and Psalms of the Catholic Church among Protestants in their Church?  
2. Whether it be lawful to hear a Protestant preach in the same place, some morality, although it should by chance happen that some ignorant Minister should speak of some point of mistaken doctrine: as that Catholics trust in their 
b If Papists trusted not in their own merits, it would go better with them than I fear it will with many, who the more they arrogate to themselves, the more they derogate from our Saviour, and the further they go from salvation. I confess many of them upon their deathbeds have renounced their own merits, and wholly stuck to our Saviour's: yet certain it is that the general doctrine of the Church of Rome is for trust in their own merits. For they teach that faith alone doth not justify us before God, that good works are not only satisfactory for sin, but also meritorious of eternal life, and supererogatory also for others▪ (Consil. Trid. in sess. 16. Bellar. l. 5. the iustif. c. 16.) and they who believe that they can so far stead them do commonly confide in them. Let them return to the more ancient and true tenant with Bernard, saying, Meritum meum est miseratio Domini; Gods mercy is my merit, and if their be any work of our own meritorious it is the renouncing our own merits and flying merely to Christ; sufficit ad meritum scire quod non sufficiant merita. Let them confess with holy job, job. 9.3. that they cannot answer one of a thousand, and profess with Esay, Esa. 64.6. All our righteousness is as filthy clouts; and pray with David, Psal. 143.2. Lord enter not into judgement with thy servants, for in thy sight shall no man living be justified; and close up their last Will and breath also, as Bellar. is said to have done: (For Papists often die in another faith then they lived,) with that holy ejaculation; Lord vouchsafe to receive me into the number of thy Saints, non meriti estimator, sed veniae largitor, not weighing my merits, but pardoning my offences, and we will not only clear them of Pharisaical pride, and trusting in themselves, but also conceive a better hope of their salvation.  own merits or the like falsehood?  
3. Whether it be lawful for a Catholic to receive bare bread and wine in remembrance that Christ died for him, as a pious ceremony? and whether not better, so taken, then without such remembrance?  
I dare say that there is no impartial Divine, but will answer. Yes. And for these opinions I make no question, but if I had been as well backed in Rome, as the said R. P. was, I would have got as great approbation to the same; as he had to the same questions after his subdolous manner proposed as followeth.  
1. Whether it be lawful to frequent the Churches of heretics, where there is both imminent danger of subversion and scandal?  
2. Whether it be lawful to hear the blasphemous and idolatrous Sermons of heretics, in which both God and his Church is notoriously and highly abused?  
3. Whether it be lawful to receive calvin's 
c See a sponge to wipe out this false aspersion upon that worthy servant of Christ and great Instrument of God's glory, pag. 59 letter H.  Communion of bread and wine, which they hold a Sacrament, and is a sign of heretical perfidiousness, whereby a man betrayeth and denyeth his faith?  
To which every Catholic whatsoever would and must answer. No, but this in truth is not our case. For the belief of Catholics is not questioned, nor subversion, or blasphemy, or denial of faith, either apprehended or feared. Neither can they scarce possibly happen in the Protestant Church, as I have before said, but the question only is, what Catholics may exteriorly do, for the safeguard of life with a good intention, and how, and in what manner, they may best converse, and preserve themselves from ruin with most security. Therefore I pray forgive the said R. P. who proposed the said questions in Rome out of his abundant 
d See the Advertisement to the Reader.  zeal (of money, and youth to propagate his family) not once considering that it is an impossible thing for them to be heretics, who never were Catholics. As for their custom of recusancy. I say, first that it is no custom, for a custom is a continuance of a thing time out of mind without any interruption. Now recusancy hath been interrupted oftentimes, first by Doctor Wright who wrote against the same, Ann. 1607. and since him Master Broughton, and now myself. Neither hath it been time out of mind, for there are some yet alive borne in Queen Mary's days, who have known when our recusancy was not in England, and thereupon in these troublesome times do now go to Church. I say, secondly, that an inconvenient custom with imprudency, is better broken, then kept: and the prescription of threescore years not good. Yet if they will needs claim a right in and to their actions by the same. I do hereby promise, not to take it from them, by any suit in law. For I do write, more to avoid the scandal of the weak: then that I do think thereby to satisfy the weak, or rob them of their said custom. As for their sufferings and losses I am sorry for them, and do assure myself, that they will receive a great reward for the same: because they suffered not so much, for the love of recusancy, as for the love of God: for whosoever doth the meanest work (no indiscretion therein being apprehended by the doer) either for God's sake or for virtue sake, although of some (considering the act itself, and not knowing the doers intention) it may be judged indiscreet: yet the work may have a reward from God, and yet another that doth not the same, no punishment.  
Thus the three branches of the said Minor proposition being proved: the Conclusion standeth good for the lawfulness of going to the Protestant Church.  
Me thinks here I hear some storm, that if this my opinion should be admitted as lawful: it would follow, that they must likewise take all the oaths that are made against Catholics, which will tend to perjury. To which I answer, that I would have them to do things consequenter, and any thing for safeguard of life, wherein their is no sin. And to choose: both the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy; which, if with patience they will but hear, 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. Do truly and sincerely acknowledge, profess, testify and declare in my conscience before God and the world, that our Sovereign Lord King Charles is lawful and rightful King of this Realm, and all other his Majesty's Dominions and Countries.  
2. And that the Pope neither of himself, nor by any authority of the Church, or See of Rome, or by any other means with any other, hath any power, or authority to depose the King, or to dispose any of his Majesty's Kingdoms, or Dominions, or to authorise any foreign Prince to invade or annoy Him or His Countries, or to discharge any of his Subjects of their Allegiance, or obedience to his Majesty, or to give licence, or leave to any of them to bear arms, raise tumults, or to offer any violence, or hurt to his Majesty's Royal Person, State, or Government, or to any of His Majesty's Subjects within His Majesty's Dominions.  
3. And I do swear 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 heirs or successors, or any absolution of the said subjects from their obedience. I will bear faith and true Allegiance to his Majesty, his heirs 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 Dignity, by reason or colour of any such sentence or declaration, or otherwise: and will do my best endeavour to disclose, and make known unto His Majesty, his heirs and successors, all treasons, and traitorous conspiracies which I shall know, or hear of, to be against him or any of them.  
4. And I do further swear, that I do from my heart abhor, detest and abjure as impious and heretical, this damnable doctrine and position, that Princes which be excommunicated or deprived by the Pope, may be deposed or murdered by their Subjects or any other whatsoever.  
5. And I do believe, 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 authority to be lawfully ministered unto me, and do renounce all Pardons and Dispensations to the contrary.  
7. And all these things I do plainly and sincerely acknowledge and swear, according to the express words by me spoken, & according to the plain and common sense and understanding of the same words without any equivocation, or mental evasion or secret reservation whatsoever.  
8. And I do make this recognition and acknowledgement heartily, willingly and truly, upon the true faith of a Christian. So help me God.   
This Oath according to every part and parcel of the same may be lawfully taken by any Catholic; 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 think no wise man dares hazard his credit in going about to refute the same. Yet the weakness of some Catholics hath been so great, that they have not only taken scandal, (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 authority 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 Catholics that was not done by their approbation; and to this purpose, the first principles were to lead people into scruples, and being there, to put a ring upon them, abusively termed, the yoke of our blessed Lady; by which they might more easily lead them to their opinions and censures, as men do Bears to their purposes. Oh wise Venetians! how sacred are your laws? would a man think that such blindness, or rather envious peevishness could be in Catholics, 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 than themselves, and very well able to teach most of their guides. But to the purpose, the truth is, that the aforesaid Authors have so fully proved the lawfulness of taking the said Oath, that no man needs speak more in proof thereof, as not being able to speak better to the purpose. And therefore I refer every man to the said Writers to inform themselves lest they demeritoriously suffer for refusing the ●ame.  
This only give me leave to insert, as a caution to some, that considering it is contrary to the Popes (forced) opinion as appeareth by his Declarative Breve; he that shall swear or abjure the doctrine and position (That Princes which be, etc.) in the fourth branch, as impious, heretical, and damnable (I conceive) indirectly abjureth the Pope's opinion, as impious, heretical, and damnable: and what a fault that may be made in Rome (especially by some suggestors, who although to mine own knowledge do teach, this Oath lawful in private, to men of quality: yet in public, and to his Holiness out of a seeming zeal they will lament the fact) I leave to the judgement of wise men. When as they shall swear his doctrine erroneous in such bitter terms, whom they acknowledge to be the supreme Pastor of their souls: questionless in such, it will be interpreted at the least arrogacie and presumption. And I for mine own part should think it very hard to be forced to take the Oath of Supremacy in Rome under any terms directly or indirectly misbeseeming my duty to my natural Prince: howsoever he might err in mistake. And therefore I do humbly present the consideration of our case in this Oath of Allegiance to his Majesty's most gracious Clemency. This caution or consideration I present to such, as having taken the said Oath, intent afterwards to converse at Rome. But if death or ruin urge, than (spectata conscientia) I say as before, follow the opinion of Sir William Howard, and Master Widdrington as secure. For in such extremity it is to be hoped, that his Holiness will be rather a pious and pitiful father, than too severe a Judge.  
If any be urged to this Oath out of any temporal 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 the intolerable abuse which some suggestors did put upon the Pope's Holiness, concerning this Oath of Allegiance; who procured him to send forth a declarative Brief, forbidding English Catholics to take the same; as containing many things plainly repugnant to faith and salvation: and by this means compelled him against his will, to make the Doctrine adverse to the Oath, his own opinion. When as the procurers themselves, and their abettors did (as I have said) counsel in private, some men of quality (who were friends to them) to take the same as lawful, as may be easily proved. And which is more strange, that they should procure it to be declared so repugnant: when as the doctrine to be abjured in the said oath wrote by Santarellus was declared by all the Sorbon Doctors and sixteen of the chiefest Jesuits in France to be wicked: so that what is held lawful by most Divines in the Church (it being the most common opinion, except some few that would seem to flatter the Pope) should be held wicked only for us to take: but I conceive, as I have said before, that the intent and end of the procuration of such Briefs is, that nothing should be thought good or lawful in England to be done, without the special approbation of the suggestors tribe: so that if any man should do what they have not approved, by virtue of the Pope's Brief, he shall be presently blasted for an heretic: and if he do what they approve, he shall be saved harmless by them both at home and abroad, let him be never so bad. Sed meliora Spero.  
Let any judicious man consider all the Bulls, Breves and Censures that have been procured touching the affairs of English Catholics from the first Bull of excommunication against Queen Elizabeth by Pius Quintus to the last before spoken of in Anno 1639. against one who knows nothing of the same, and he shall find, by far, more hurt done to Catholics, then ever good. It were a blessed turn if some order might be taken by our most gracious Queen for the prevention of such mischiefs: which serve for nothing more, then to make Schisms and Rents in the Church of God, and the Pope, and his authority to be less regarded. It were more fitting in my poor judgement, that Catholics were succoured in tribulation, then by barring them of their Christian liberty, in what they may lawfully do, to add affliction to affliction. I must say no more; for I perceive that some begin to swell, but the matter is not great: for I will write nothing by God's grace contrary to the Catholic Church. Yet I fear they will break before I have done with:  

The Oath of Supremacy, which is as followeth, divided into four branches.  
1. I A. B. Do utterly testify and declare in my conscience, that the King's highness is the only Supreme Governor of this Realm, and of all other his Highness' dominions and countries, as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or causes, as Temporal.  
2. And that no foreign Prince, Person, Prelate, State or Potentate, hath or aught to have any Jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority Ecclesiastical or Spiritual, within this Realm.  
3. And therefore I do utterly renounce and forsake all foreign Jurisdictions, powers, superiorities, and authorities.  
4. And do promise that from henceforth I shall bear faith and true Allegiance to the King's Highness, his heirs and lawful successors; and to my power shall assist, and defend all Jurisdictions, privileges, preeminences and authorities, granted or belonging to the King's Highness, his heirs and successors, or united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm. So help me God, and by the contents of this Book.   
Where is to be 
f The head of controversies, between the Romish and Reformed Churches is the controversy about the Head of the Church, which the Papists will have the Pope to be, but reform Churches Christ alone: I say head of the Universal or Catholic Church, but of particular Churches, sovereign Princes within their several Realms may be termed Heads, that is, chief Governors which this Priest here acknowledgeth. For the acknowledgement of this supreme authority and power of the King in his dominions of England and Ireland, the Oath of Supremacy was appointed by Act of Parliament in the 35. of Henry the eighth, to be taken by all his Majesty's subjects; this Act was continued in the reign of Edward the sixth, but repealed in the first and second of Philip and Mary, and revived the first of Queen Elizabeth: now the question here is, whether the Oath of Supremacy thus confirmed by divers Acts of Parliament, exclude not that Spiritual jurisdiction, which all Papists believe to be in the Pope jure divino: or, which comes all to one, whether a Papist ut si●, that is, remaining a Papist and holding his Popish religion, may salv● conscientiâ, take this Oath of Supremacy: this Priest affirmeth he may; but we shall demonstrate the contrary hereafter by impregnable arguments drawn from the intention of the Lawmakers, the letter of the Acts of Parliament, and the Queen's Injunctions, the judgement of the Church of Rome, and the confession of the adversary himself.  noted first, that in the first year and Parliament of Queen Elizabeth's reign; when they abolished the Pope's authority, and would have yielded the 
g Not the same authority which the Pope had in all things, but so far as it is expounded and limited in the Queen's Injunctions in the first year of her reign; the Queen (as her brother and father before) only resumed that power, which the Pope had unjusty taken from the Crown, and usurped it himself; a power which is and was of ancient time due to the Imperial Crown of this Realm, that is, under God to have the Sovereignty and rule over all manner of persons, borne within these Realms and Dominions, and Countries, of what estate either Ecclesiastical or temporal soever they be. See admonition to the Injunctions in the Appendix.  same authority with the Title of Supreme head to the Queen, as it was given before, to her father and brother: divers especially moved by Minister 
h Calvine conceived that King Henry the eighth by the Title of Head of the Church, challenged a far greater power than what the Act of Parliament acknowledged in him, or he ever exercised: but after the Title of Head of the Church was publicly declared and expounded by Q. Elizabeth, bo●h he and all the Reformed Churches rested satisfied in the lawfulness of that Title which imported not Supreme teacher or director unto Trtuh: but Supreme commander for the Truth, in all causes, and over all Persons.  Calvines writing (who h●d condemned in the same Princes, that calling) liked not the term; and therefore procured that some other equivalent term, but less offensive (although in truth, it is all one with the other) might be used. Upon which formality, it was enacted, that she was the Chief Governor aswell in causes Ecclesiastical or Spiritual; as Civil & Temporal▪ because otherwise there could have been no colour, to make new laws for the change of Religion. So the abovesaid Author to the Answer, etc. cap. 1. pag. 7. and 8. And this was the only and sole intention, of making the aforesaid Oath: which was div●rs from the 
i The intention of Henry the eighth, and Queen Elizabeth, was the self same as is expressed in the Act of Parliament 35. Henry the eighth; and the Admonition annexed to the Injunctions of the 1 Elizabeth: namely the extirpation and extinguishment of the usurped and pretended authority, power and jurisdiction of the See and Bishop of Rome: and the recovery of their own right by adorning the Crown with a flower before wrongfully taken from it: and here I cannot sufficiently admire the impudence of this Priest who so confidently affirms that the intention of Queen Elizabeth was divers from her father in prescribing and requiring this Oath, whereas she herself in the above named Admonition declareth to all her loving subjects, That nothing was, is, or shall be meant or intended by the same Oath, to have any other duty, allegiance or bond required by the same, than was acknowledged to be due to the most nobl● King of famous memory, K. H. 8. her Majesty's father, or K. Ed. 6. her Majesty's bro●●er.  intention of King Henry the eighth, and consequently the Oath not the same. For his intention in assuming to himself the Supremacy was not (as I shall say beneath in the third note) to alter any principle of Religion (the Supremacy only excepted) or so much as any ceremony of the Catholic Church: but to give himself a more 
k The liberty he speaks of was given by the approbation of the chief Universities beyond the Sea of the Romish Religion.  licentious liberty in point of marriage and divorce, and to make the same liberty justifiable to his subjects; and because he could not have the same granted to him by the Pope, was angry and displeased with him, and took it of his own accord: and for his sake, disturbed the Church and Clergy of England, and took away their lands, and gave them to his Nobility.  
It is to be noted secondly, that we are to swear, that the King is chief Governor as well in all spiritual things, etc. Where by (All) is to be understood; in all things ordered or to be ordered by him, unless some exception be made in reason touching the establishment or regiment of the Protestant Church of England: that the spiritual things were meant touching the Church, appears by the very words themselves: Spiritual or Ecclesiastical: and that they were meant touching a Church to be established, distinct from the than Catholic Church in England: appears by the intention of the oath which was (as I have said) to enable the Queen to change and alter Religion; and to form an 
l Not to form another Church, but to reform that Church which was before, and restore Religion to her purity by the example of Ezekiah, josiah, and other religious Kings.  other Church divers, from that which then was; which is the Protestant Church: and that there are some spiritual things justly excepted 
m No power at all excepted but the former power explained only how far it extended (viz) Not to the authority and power of Ministry of divine Office in the Church, which none of the Kings or Queens of this Realm possessors of the Crown ever challenged.  from the King; appears by the Declaration of Queen Elizabeth, in her next visitation of the Clergy, after the said Oath was made; wherein she herself made an exception, and declared in print (the same being published by her commandment) that in truth She had not power (we will not examine then, from whence her 
Nor I in this place by what authority your Bishops anoint your thumbs and ordain your Priests to offer the unbloody sacrifice of the Mas●e for the living & the dead. There is nec vola nec vestigium of any such calling in the Scripture or purer Antiquity, as for our Ministry it is ●o clearly justified together with the succession thereof, out of your own best records and tenants by Francis Mason de success. Episc. & Ministerio Angl. that ever since the printing thereof all your Romish cavillers & carpers at it, have been as mute as fishes.  Minister's power came she having none herself) by the words of the Oath and Act, to minister the Sacraments. Neither had she any such intent, and that no such thing was employed in her Title, or claim of Spiritual regiment; nor no other thing, nor more than was before granted to her father, by the term of Supreme Head: requiring all her loving subjects to receive the Oath at least in that sense (which was, she meant, that she might dispose of Church matters, as her Father had: and have power to form 
o See p. 117. letter ●.  what Church she pleased) and so that should suffice her Highness.  
It is to be noted thirdly that the aforesaid oath when it was made, was unlawful to be taken by any Catholic; as the oath before made in the days of King Henry the 8th. Although when it was made, it was not altogether so unlawful, as that of King Henry: because in his days there was no 
p A shameless untruth in his sense: for he taketh Catholic (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 martyrdom as Th. Man in the year 1518. Io. Browne in the year 1517. and divers others set down in the Acts and Monuments of the Church, some before and some after Luther began the Reformation in Germany.  other Church extant, or like to be extant in England, but the Catholic Church: of which 
q A notorious untruth as appears by the very Act, Ann. 35. in which the Oath of Supremacy was first required to be taken, King Henry never challenged to himself the Style of Head of the universal Church, but only to be supreme H●ad under God of the Church of England, and Ireland, and all other His Majesty's Dominions.  contrary to the Law of God, and his own conscience, he made himself head (as appears by a book set forth by the said King himself, in the later end of his reign, and many years after he had framed his Oath of Supremacy; entitled: A necessary Doctrine and Erudition for any Christian man, set forth by the King's Majesty of England, etc. In which he sets forth the Christian faith, then to be professed in England. Which was as absolutely Catholic, and the selfsame in every point, as now it is in Rome. And if any man should have sworn him the supreme head, as he intended of that Church: he would have sworn false: as making the Church a Monster in having two heads: or depriving the Pope of his authority granted him by God: which had been to have denied an Article of faith: but when the said Oath was repealed in Queen Mary's days. And another Oath 
r No other Oath at all in sense, but the former only abridged in words as will appear evidently by comparing them both which are copied out in the Appendix.  of Supremacy made in the aforesaid first year of Queen Elizabeth. It was as I have said to enable her (not so much to be head of the Church then extant, and to be utterly abolished, as) to be Governor of a new Church distinct from the Catholic Church then out of hand to be propagated and established: of which to swear Her Head, before it was: or to swear Her Head of the Church then extant, which she conceived superstitious: of which indeed she was not head, was in a true and proper sense unlawful. And so continued unlawful until after the abrogation of Mass, and perfect establishment of the new Protestant Church within this Realm, and other His Majesty's Dominions. Which being established as now it is: the said Oath of Supremacy ceased from being unlawful: because then there was an apparent face of a Church (distinct from the members of the Catholic Church, which then began scarce to appear, in respect of the greater multitude) of which only 
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 Pope's usurped jurisdiction not over the Protestant Churches which he never had: but over the Romish Catholics or Papists which he before that time enjoyed, and exercised. Besides, the letter of the law carrieth supreme governor of the Realm and all other Her Highness' Dominions and Countries, not only of the Protestant Church within Her Realms. This is made more evident in the Admonition to the Injunctions, 1. Eliz. where Her Supremacy is described to be over all manner of persons borne within Her Realms, Dominions and Countries: therefore over Papists as well as Protestants, unless they be no manner of persons.  she was supreme governor and chief head, and no other person whatsoever had or aught to have any jurisdiction or pre-eminence 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 foreigners to the same.  
It is to be noted fourthly: that a man may be said to be a Foreigner 
t I acknowledge the word foreigner 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 Supremacy, as it is expounded in the Admonition (which is also Enacted) the word foreigner can signify no other but those who are not natives.  in a twofold sense. First, in respect of a temporal Dominion. Secondly, in respect of faith, whence ariseth a spiritual jurisdiction. In the first sense, all that are not Natives of His Majesty's Dominions (although some Lawyers say) all that do no homage to His Majesty) are foreigners. In the second sense, all that are of the Protestant faith with the King, are Domestics of the same faith, and within His Dominions only subject to His spiritual jurisdiction by the Laws of the Realm. And all that are not of the Protestant faith, are foreigners to the same, conformable to St. Paul, who accounted all those of whatsoever Nation, or under whatsoever temporal Dominion or jurisdiction in the world) who were of the same faith with himself which he taught, were Domestics of that faith. And those of whatsoever Nation or temporal Dominion, that were not of the same faith, he accounted foreigners. Whence he saith, Gal. 6.10. Let us do good to all: but especially to the domestics (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 walk honestly towards them that are without, (that is, foreigners to our faith) and need nothing of any man's.  
It is to be noted fifthly and chiefly, what conditions are required in every lawful oath: which according to the Prophet jeremy, are three. viz▪ Truth, judgement, and justice: for he saith in his fourth Chapter. Thou shalt swear 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 learned the same; requiring in every lawful oath, every of the said three conditions. The reason hereof is: because an oath being an invocation of God, as witness that what we speak is true; it is requisite that we should use judgement or discretion, to see that we do nothing rashly, or without due reverence, devotion and faith, towards so great a Majesty, but we must especially regard, that we make not him, who is the chief and Sovereign verity and inflexible justice, either ignorant o● what we say: or Patron of a lie, as witness of that, which either is false in assertion, or unjust in promise. Hence an oath wanting judgement or discretion and wisdom: is a rash and foolish oath, that which wanteth justice: is called an unjust oath. And finally, where there is not truth: it is adjudged a false or lying oath, and is more properly than all the rest, called Perjury.  
These notes premised, I shall now prove, the said Oath of Supremacy to be lawful for any Catholic to take.  
Every Oath that is accompanied with the three said conditions or companions, viz. verity, justice, and judgement (in the opinion of all Divines, Canon and Civil Lawyers) is a lawful Oath: but such is the Oath of Supremacy 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 swear that the King is only Supreme Governor of this Realm, as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or causes, touching the Church of the said Realm: as Temporal touching the State, or of any other his Dominions. Which I do swear discreetly as a thing true and just. For there is no other Supreme Governor of temporal things to be assigned, but the King: as all will confess: nor of Ecclesiastical things, or the Church of England; as by a sufficient Enumeration may be proved. For the Parliament, is not supreme governor of the Churches within this Realm; when as according to the natural light of reason, the King is governor of that: and therefore not supreme. The Primate cannot be assigned supreme governor, when as he hath all his authority of government from the King, and so he hath a Superior. A Lay-eldership cannot be supreme governor, for although it be unknown, what it is, or from whence it receiveth its authority; yet I think no Lay-eldership so barbarous: as not to admit the King chief governor of the same. Neither can the Pope be any way supreme governor of the aforesaid Church: because he professeth himself only supreme head and governor of the Catholic Church and of no other according to Saint Paul, 1 Cor. 5.12. what is it to him to judge of them that are without, of which Catholic Church His 
u Neither can the Pope. Here we thank him for freeing us from all subjection to the Pope and See of Rome. Though he challengeth not to be the Head of the Catholic, that is, the universal Church of Christ scattered far and wide over the whole face of the earth: yet he challengeth to be and is Supreme Governor of all His Subjects within His Dominions, whether they are members of the Romish or Reformed Church.  Majesty d●th not claim to be head. Neither will he be governor 
w The superstition and Idolatry of Papists practised in England doth not any way abridge His Majesty's Supreme power, for he exerciseth His power not in regulating those idolatrous and superstitious rites, but in suppressing them, and punishing those who so defile God's worship in His Kingdom.  of any spiritual or ecclesiastical thing therein, as conceiving the same both superstitious and idolatrous. Ergo. the King must be supreme governor of the Protestant Church.  
That the King is (only) Governor is proved: because none other can be assigned his equal in preeminency of government in the aforesaid Protestant Church.  
For the second or third branch it is likewise proved. For I swear them likewise discreetly, truly and justly. viz. that no foreign Prince, Person, Prelate, etc. hath or aught to have any jurisdiction, etc. within this Realm (in the 
x See this Evasion refuted, pag. 120. letter S.  said Protestant Church) which I add as before, because according to the intention of the Law and Lawmaker (as I have before said) it was so meant. For neither doth His Majesty or did Queen Elizabeth claim to be chief Governor of the Catholic Religion, or Roman Church, or any jurisdiction therein. It being by them both (as I have often said) abhorred as superstitious, and abolished for the same reason by the said Queen and State of England: therefore it is against reason, and a kind of petty treason to swear either of them governor of a Religion which they apprehend so evil▪ but in respect of the Protestant Church established, the Pope is a foreign Person and Prelate: and his jurisdiction foreign. Neither hath he, or any other foreign Person any jurisdiction in the aforesaid 
y The words of the Oath are not that no foreigner, Prince, or Prelate, hath or aught to have any jurisdiction or spiritual authority within the Protestant Church but within the Realms, therefore no jurisdiction within His Majesty's Dominions, over any members either of the Protestant or of the Romish Church.  Church, or aught to have: for as I have said in the fourth note, out of Saint Paul: as all those that are of the Catholic faith, are domestics of that faith: and all that are not of the same faith, are foreigners to it: so all that are of the Protestant faith (of which His Majesty is governor) are domestics of the same: and all that are not of the same, are foreigners to that Religion. Hence appears the truth of the said branches: wherein is said (in the second) That no foreign Prince, etc. and (in the third) I do utterly renounce and forsake all foreign jurisdictions, etc. which I do justly and lawfully renounce as well in respect of the Protestant Church, as of the Catholic: for as I have said the Pope is truly a foreigner to the Protestant Church: in respect of which, I must by the law renounce his jurisdiction. And he is no foreigner in respect of the Catholic Church, in which I am bound to respect him and his jurisdiction: for if all Catholics be domestics one to ●he other (as I have proved out of Saint Paul) how can the Pope who is chief of that faith be said to be a 
z See the Answer to this sophism, pag. 120. letter T.  foreigner? his jurisdiction being as internal and intrinsecall, as innate and natural to every Catholic in the world; as it is to him, that stands next him in his chamber at Rome. And therefore there being no foreign jurisdiction in the Catholic Church, in every sense I may lawfully renounce all foreign jurisdictions.  
The fourth and last branch can have no difficulty at all, with any Catholic. So that the words of this Oath seem to me so clear and lawful, since the establishment of the Protestant Church; that it may be taken of any Catholic without any the least danger of Perjury, or any other sin (scandal being avoided) or without mental reservation or secret equivocation: that I admire that any man hath so long scrupulized to the loss of himself and fortunes: when as being necessitated to take the same, and scandal being easily to be avoided (as I have said out of Diana and others) he might have prevented his own ruin with a safe conscience: as I conceive Sir john Winter and other men of estates did, who are reported to have lately taken the same.  
It may be objected first, that this Oath thus explicated, hath no coherency, the first branch with the second and third; and therefore that it be coherent, and taken conformably to the intention of the lawmaker, as we swear the King to be only Supreme Governor of the Church of England in the first branch; so ought we in the second and third branch to renounce all Jurisdiction foreign to the same. To which I answer first, that coherency is no condition requisite to an oath, but impertinent to the truth or falsehood of the same: for there be many things of a different nature inserted in an oath.  
Secondly, that there is a most perfect coherency in the aforesaid explication: for as in the first branch, I swear the King Head of the Church of England, so in the second and third: I abjure all foreign Jurisdictions whatsoever. Which are the very direct words of the oath: for there are no words in any branch signifying a renunciation of all Jurisdiction foreign to the Protestant Church of England. Whence there is a great difference between renouncing all Jurisdiction foreign to the particular Church of England, and renouncing all foreign Jurisdiction. For a foreign Jurisdiction renounced is rightly described A power or right denied to be extent to the swearer by any law, and is more general, than a Jurisdiction foreign to the Protestant Church: which is only a power not extent to a Protestant quâ talis: which although it be foreign to the said Church; yet it may be properly extent and appertaining to the swearer. So that it is intended by the said oath; that as in the first branch, we swear the King only Supreme Governor of the Protestant Church within this Realm and his Dominions: so in the second and third; we are to renounce all foreign Jurisdictions whatsoever; which either the Pope, or any other foreign Person hath, or aught to have in the same: which every Catholic may lawfully do, notwithstanding that general saying; That the Pope hath jurisdiction over all Christians: for that is meant, a general Jurisdiction in the Catholic Church, either actual or potential, extent to all; which is foreign to none: and which, by taking this oath is not denied. I answer thirdly, that all penal laws (as is this law for taking the oath) in doubtful words, are ever to be 
a It is true if the words will bear it and it be agreeable to the intention of the law & lawmaker, but maledicta glossa quae corrumpit contextum; cursed be the Gloss which corrupts the Text, & quite perverts the meaning of the law as this doth. See the Injunctions.  taken in the more favourable sense, and which makes the law to contain no falsehood, or injustice. And therefore in this law to swear, as the words lie, may be done without any injustice or falsehood; which is and aught to be presumed to be the mind of the lawmaker; for no law or lawmaker intends perjury. And therefore it is a frivolous thing to invent scrupulous crotchets, which the words do not import.  
It may be objected secondly, that the oath must be interpreted according to the intention of the law and lawmaker: for as Suares saith, lib. 6●. de leg. cap. 1. upon the will and intention of the lawmaker (which is the soul of the law the substance and force of the law doth chief depend: therefore it by any means, the will of the lawmaker may be known, according to it especially we must understand the words of the law. But the will of the lawmaker is sufficiently known concerning this oath, to make it apparently unlawful for any Catholic to take as appeareth by the words of King james 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 temporal Allegiance and civil obedience, which all subjects, by the law of God and nature, do owe to their lawful Prince, etc. For as the Oath of Supremacy, (saith he) was devised for putting a difference between 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 james held, both the law and the law maker intended by the oath of Supremacy, to put a difference between 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 Supremacy is to be interpreted accordingly, all doubtfulness of words set aside; and consequenter unlawful for any Catholic 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 be sought, when they interpret the law in a truer sense, than the plain words do, as they lie; otherwise not, lest it want verity.  
To Suarez I answer, that himself saith in the place before cited, that if at any time the property of the words of an oath should induce any injustice, or like absurdity, concerning the mind, or meaning of the lawmaker: they must be drawn to a sense, although improper; wherein the law may be just and reasonable: for this is presumed to be the mind of the law maker, as it hath been declared by many laws in F. tit. de lege. thus Suarez.  
So that although there were in the words of this oath divers significations improper and unusual; yet in the opinion of Suarez, it might be taken; and the words interpreted in the truest sense, abstracting from the real intention of the law maker: how much more than (say I) the words being not improper, or unusual, but according to the intention of the 
b Of the intention of the law and lawmaker in prescribing this oath to that which I have spoken before I shall add something in the close of this Chapter to which prefer the Reader for further answer  law and law maker, may they be taken in the more favourable sense, 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 jurejurando, cap. 21. et de regulis ●●ris in 6. reg. 49. in paenis leg. Benignius F. de leg. Leg. In ambigua ibidem.  
Hence it followeth first out of the doctrine of the said Suarez, that although the words and sentences contained in this oath, being considered barely by themselves, and without due circumstances (to wit, the intention of the law and lawmaker, and to what end and purpose the s●id oath was framed) may seem to some doubtful and ambiguous (although to me they seem not so) that is, not clear and morally certain; and so for one to swear them in that doubtful sense, were to expose himself to danger of perjury: yet considering (as I have said) that such doubtful words, are to be taken in the more favourable sense, and which maketh the 
c The law is just and reasonable without your forced, and forged Gloss: for why should not all that enjoy the benefit of his Majesty's laws as well as Protestants, submit themselves to his Majesty's sceptre, and supreme power over themselves as well as Protestants, especially seeing the power is the same, which the most religious Kings of juda, and most Christian Emperors of Rome, and divers of his Majesty's Predecessors within this Realm have exercised upon all their subjects.  law to be just and reasonable, and to contain no falsehood or injustice. If any one swear▪ those words, which of themselves are doubtful, in no doubtful sense, but in a true and determinate sense, and wherein they are not doubtful, but clear and morally certain, there is no danger of perjury at all.  
It may seem to follow secondly out of the aforesaid doctrine, that such as took the oath of Supremacy in King Henry the eighth days (which rather then those famous and glorious men, Sir Thomas Moor and Bishop Fisher would take, they worthily chose to die) were not to be condemned of perjury; 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 been the intention of the aforesaid King to make the law just; as if they should have sworn the then King, Head or chief of the Church of his country; for that he was Sovereign Lord and ruler of both persons Spiritual and Temporal: all sorts being bound to obey his lawful civil laws and commandments. And so in this sense (although it be a kind of improper speech) every King is Head of the Clergy and all others of his own Country. Or peradventure they might swear him Supreme Head of the Church of England; that is, Chief of the congregation of believers within his dominions: for so in our language, we commonly say him, to be the head of a College, Court or City, that is the chief; and him to be chief who is supreme therein. The Church being then taken by all Divines for a congregation of men; Why might not King Henry be improperly sworn (in the opinion of Suarez) Head of the then congregation in England? So that what Sir Thomas Moor lawfully and piously refused with relation to the intention of the aforesaid King, others might without perjury take with relation to the law of God (abstracting from all unlawful intentions) to wit, that every oath be just and reasonable as being to be taken in Verity, justice and judgement: and so what was unlawful in a proper sense, might at lest be free from Perjury in an improper. Thus understanding the first branch; and the second and third in the same sense before delivered, they might peradventure be excused (as I have said) from perjury; But never from sin. For considering the state of England in those days, and the absolute intention of the King which (well known to the whole world) was; to be sworn Supreme Head 
d See pag. 119. letter Q.  of the Catholic Church, Catholic religion still here remaining as I have said: his oath was as much different from this 
e See pag. 119. letter R.  now oath of Supremacy, as darkness from light: For by this, the Queen claimed not the Supremacy granted by Christ to Saint Peter, as did her father: but only to be Supreme governor of a Church, out of which, she would not only discard the Pope, but likewise root out all Catholic religion, contrary to her father's mind as I have showed: so that the question in the said King's days, was about an Article of faith, viz. Whether the Supremacy were granted by God to the King, or to the Pope. Which Article they were bound with loss of their lives to have professed being called thereunto: for than did occur the times of obligation before expressed (by Saint Thomas and other Divines) for the profession of a man's faith. As when the honour and glory of God, and the spiritual 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 Catholic faith being so opposed? And in whom could there have been more edification and greater example given, for simple and unlearned men to follow, then in Bishops and great men of authority. Neither was it to purpose for them to allege, that they were in danger of their lives and fortunes; for they were bound to lose both, rather than to deny any one Article of faith. For although I have said, that a man is not bound, with danger of life, or fortunes, to abstain from a thing lawful, or of its own nature indifferent (as the going to a Protestant Church in a Protestant Country, taking the oath of Allegiance, or the now oath of Supremacy; every of which is far enough from an Article of faith, or point of religion; only more cried down, because out of fashion, than out of any grounded reason or judgement) to avoid the scandal of we●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 profess his religion in time convenient; or that he might deny his faith, or any part or point of the same for fear of death; but absolutely the contrary: hence I say, that the Supremacy in those days, being a point of religion, and an article of faith, although they might be excused from perjury, yet never from sin and scandal. And therefore I conceive that Suares only intendeth that then laws and oaths invented contrary to the law of God, may be drawn to an improper sense, when scandal may be avoided with integrity of faith. And so those that took the aforesaid King's 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 men's actions, and the secret intentions of each man's heart.  
The Minor of the said objection is denied. And to the words of K. james saying: that as the Oath of Supremacy was devised for putting a difference between Papists and them of our profession. So was, etc. I answer that the said King did not by those words, undertake to give an absolute and total reason, why the said oath was devised, (himself not being the deviser or maker thereof) but spoke according to the effect, which he saw the oath of Supremacy took in his days: who conceiving that Catholics held it, not an oath lawful for them to take (and therefore some in King Henry's days refused the same out of conscience; others since the abrogation of Mass 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 between them and Protestants; so that the said 
f And yet his words as you cite them out of his Praemonitorie Preface, pag. 9 are these: The oath of Supremacy was devised for putting a difference between 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 between Papists & Protestants, it cannot be denied but that it was their intention, to make this oath as a didinctive sign whereby to know Papists in the kingdom from Protestants.  renowned King did not intend by the aforesaid words, to make known the intention of the law or lawmaker, but only spoke what an effect the said devised oath had in Catholics wrought.  
That neither of the said oaths of Supremacy were framed to put a difference between Papists and Protestants is evident by what I have said; for in King Henry his days, there were no Protestants 
g See pag. 118. letter P.  known in England to differ withal: and that oath was made only and solely for his pleasure. And in the said Queen's days, the oath was only made to give and acknowledge her power and authority in Spiritual or Ecclesiastical 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 appears naught; and the assertion for the lawfulness of the oath in force.  
If any simple man (pardon the bluntness of my speech, for I know that no discreet or judicious man of either learning o● 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 than they would admit the same: and which, if it had been lawful, others of his tribe would have found out, before this time: (he should have added to men of great quality) and therefore it being no matter of faith, none ought to believe it. I forgive the poor man; for he speaks out of hypocrisy or ignorance, or both; for he cannot tell you with learning and sincerity why, or how it is scandalous. And if any did suffer for the same, I pray let him likewise whisper when, or in what year, or King's reign? and then compare his speech to what I have said. Yet whensoever they did it, because they would not sin against their consciences; which rather than to offend, they (not understanding the ●ruth of the said doctrine, and their fancy being the contrary way strong) were bound to do. Yet good brother Simple do not persuade me against my conscience; unless 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 certain by divine f●ith. And therein I show myself a true friend to my distressed Country; for certus amicus in re incerta cernitur. A sure friend is tried in a doubtful 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 Catholic Church. (To which and whose censure, I do in all humility submit myself, for all my doings, sayings and writings; as well for the satisfaction of mine own conscience, as that ignorant brains may take no offence). And i● this doctrine were never heard of before; what then? Is it therefore false or scandalous? And if your tribe did not find it out before; is it a wonder? None at all with me: for I should wonder indeed, to hear you the inventors of any thing beneficial to God's Church; (howsoever you may and do write over, and translate other men's works; and so seem to ignorant men, to find out something for the good of the Church, that was never lost, or before wanting therein) because as yet I have never heard or known so much. Those therefore that shall hearken to such whisper, I will wish them no other punishment then that the Vicar of fools may be their ghostly father. In the mean time (maugre all censures) I will thank God, that he hath enabled me to help my distressed friend at a dead lift, by counselling and instructing to a lawful (I had almost said meritorious, but that I feared more anger) and discreet act.  
Thus then seriously to conclude; If any man shall yet remain unsatisfied: I knowing, that an Angel of light cannot infuse either wisdom into a fool, or prudence into a simple man: and nothing harder for the best Divine, then to yield the continuance of a serene conscience to a scrupulous person: do only desire and entreat, th●t what he himself either cannot, or will not receive satisfaction in; he would not judge amiss in others; and so be scandalised, (which will prove to himself rather the scandal of Pharisees then weak ones) according to the exhortation of the Apostle: Qui non manducat, manducantem non Spernat: he that eateth not, let him not despise him that eateth. As for mine own part what I preach with God's grace I will practise. And if any man can give a better reason, for the contrary to what I do, than I can give for what I say: I do hereby promise to subscribe: otherwise let every one look and dive into his own actions, and not into other men's; for he shall render an account, only for his own, and not for theirs. And because All in these times (perchance) are not bound under sin to embrace these opinions (the 
h 
The question whether a Papist may with a safe conscience take the ●ath of Supremacy, may be understood either in sensu diviso, or in sensu composito, in sensu diviso it is true, that a Papist may and aught to take the Oath of Supremacy: for he that is now a Papist may become a Protestant, and then he not only may, but aught 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 implieth the renouncing a main 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 papal Church) namely the Pope's Supremacy: and this as before was promised shall now be demonstrated.  
1. ●irst from the intention of the law and lawmakers, who prescribed this Oath of Supremacy as appears both by the Preface to the Oath: Whereas ther● was a Statute made and ordained against such as would extol and stand to the jurisdiction, power and authority 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 thin●● is mentioned: for as much as in both the said Oaths there lacketh full an● sufficient words, whereby some doubts might rise: Be it enacted by the authority of this Parliament, that this Oath hereafter mentioned in this Act shall s●and in force and place of the same two Oaths. And by these words in the body of the Oath, I shall keep 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 authority, power and jurisdiction 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 foreign power, and authority Spiritual and Temporal, may for ever be clearly extinguished, and never to be used or obeyed within this Realm, or any other your Majesty's Dominions and Countries: may it please your Highness that it may be enacted as followeth, etc. 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 express intention for the extirpation of the Pope's jurisdiction and Supremacy over the whole Church, which he claimeth by virtue of Christ's promise made to Peter, tibi dabo claves.  
But such is the Oath of Supremacy as appears by the Statutes above cited.  
Ergo, No Papist with a good conscience may take it.  
2. Secondly, from the letter of the law and formal and express words of the Oath, which are these: That neither the See, nor Bishop of Rome, nor any foreign Potentate hath or aught to have, any jurisdiction, power, or authority, within this Realm; neither by God's Law, nor by any other just law or means, Henry 8.35. year, hereunto add the Admonition to the Queen's 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 judgement of his Church. But every Papist taking the Oath of Supremacy renounceth a prime Article of his faith necessary to salvation. For so we read 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 subject to the Bishop of Rome.  
Ergo, no Papist may take the Oath of Supremacy.  
3. Thirdly, from the judgement of the Church of Rome, which accounteth Fisher Bishop of Rochester, and Sir Thomas Moor sometimes Lord Chancellor of England, blessed and glorious Martyrs, because both these lost 〈◊〉 heads ●ather than they would acknowledge the King Supreme Head 〈…〉 and 〈◊〉 the Pope's Headship. To omit the testimonies 〈…〉 ●ovius Bishop in Italy, john Cochleus of Germany, William Paradine a learned Historian of France, Cardinal Poole, living in the Court at Rome and writing to the King in the defence of Ecclesiastical unity, saith thus by the figure of Apostrophe: Thy Father O England, thy ornament, thy de●●nce was brought to his death being innocent in thy sight; and a little after, he lef● his life for thy sake, left he should overthrow and betray thy salvation: and Cardinal B●llarmine in his Book De Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis ab Anno 1400. ad 1500. thus writeth of Fisher Bishop of Rochester. johannes 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. john Fisher an English man Bishop of Rochester, and afterwards Cardinal, and which makes him far more glorious, a Martyr of Christ was slain by the coommandement of King Henry the eighth, in the year 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 Moor were no Martyrs, who died for refusing to take this Oath, or they are no good Papists who take it.  
But Fisher and Moor were famous and glorious Martyrs in the opinion of the Roman Church as hath been proved.  
Ergo, they who take the Oath of Supremacy are no good Papists.  
4. Fourthly, from the confession of this Priest, pag. 118. The Oath of Supremacy when it was made in the days of King Henry 8. was unlawful to be taken by any Catholic: and pag. 119. If any had sworn the King to be Supreme Head of that Church, he would have sworn false, as making the Church a monster having two heads, or depriving the Pope of his authority granted him by God. Whence I thus argue.  
The Oath of Supremacy prescribed by that Act of Parliament, in the 35. of Henry 8. was unlawful to be taken by any Roman Catholic, as this Priest confesseth.  
But the Oath of Supremacy 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 Henry the eighth, as appear by comparing both the Oaths together, with a proviso in an Act the fifth of Elizabeth for expounding this Oath, where it is said: That we confess and acknowledge in her Majesty, her Heirs and Successors, no other authority, then that which was challenged, and lately used by the noble King Henry the eighth, and King Edward the sixth: as in the Admonition to the Queens Injunctions more plainly appears. The Queen's Majesty would that all her loving subjects should understand that nothing was, is, or shall be meant, or intended by the same Oath, to have any other Duty, Allegiance, or Bond required by the same Oath, than was acknowledged to be due to the most noble King of famous memory, King Henry the eighth her Majesty's father, or King Edward the sixth, her Majesty's brother.  
Ergo, the Oath of Supremacy prescribed by Act of Parliament the first of Elizabeth, is unlawful to be taken by any Roman Catholic.  
I conclude therefore, super tota materia that the taking of the Oath of Supremacy, is an abrenunciation of the Romish faith, and consequently, that we wrong no Papist that takes the Oath, if we believe him a forswearer who forswears his belief.   question not being, which is absolutely the safest or perfectest way, and all dispositions of each soul, not being alike; but only whether the said opinions are forbidden or not forbidden by the Law of God, or the Church, so that absolutely in case of necessity they may not be done; and what may best in prudence be done; (yet safe enough, with a good conscience, and without sin) the condition of times and persons considered) those that shall not embrace the same; but suffer for their conscience sake; I shall beseech Almighty God to lay no more upon them, than they are able to bear; that they do nothing against their conscience; for that were to carry a continual hell about them: which of all earthly miseries were the greatest: from which God of his infinite mercy preserve us all: Amen.   
FINIS.   

Appendix.  
HEre followeth the form of recantation enjoined the Lollards, Anno Regis Richardi Secundi decimo nono. Together with the resolution of the Fathers in the Council of Trent, 1564. and the Oaths of Supremacy enacted 35. Henry 8. and 1. Elizabeth; as also a proviso for expounding the Oath the fifth of Elizabeth. and the Admonition annexed to the Injunctions Elizabeth 1. whereof there is often mention made in the Animadversions.  

Ex Rotulo clausarum de Anno decimo nono Richardi Secundi— m. 18. dorso.  
MEmorand. quod primo di● Septembris Anno Regni Regis Richardi secundi▪ 
De memorando irrotulat●.  post conquestum decimo nono Willielmus Dinet, Nich-Taylour, Nich-Poucher, et Willielmus Steynour de Nottingham in Cancellar. ipsius Regis personaliter, constituti Sacramenta divisim praestiterunt sub eo qui sequitur tenore.  
I William Dynet byfor yhow worschipefull fader and Lord Archbishop of Yho●ke and yhour Clergy with my free will and full avysede swear to God and to all his Seynts upon this holy Gospels, yat from this day forthward I shall worship images with preying, and offering unto hem in the worschep of the saints, that they be made after. And also I shall nevermore despise pygremage ne states of holy church in no degree. And also I shall be buxum to the laws of holy church and to yhow as mine Archbishop and to mine other ordinaries and Curates, and keep though laws up my power, and meyntein him. And alsoe I shall never more meyntein ne techen, ne defenden Errors, conclusions, ne teachings of the lollard, ne swych conclusions and teachings that men clepyth Lollards doctrine, ne I shall her books ne swych books ne hem or any suspect or diffamede of Lollardery receive or company withal wittingly or defend in though ma●ters, and if I know any swych, I shall with all the haste that I may do yhow or else your ner officers to wytten and of her books. And also I sha●l excite and stir all though to good doctrine that I have hindered with mine Doctrine up my power. And also I shall stoned to yhour declaration which es heresy or error and do thereafter. And also what penance yhe wool for that I have done for meyteyning of this falls doctrine injuyne me and I shall fulfil. And I submit me thereto up my power. And also I shall make no other gloss of this mine oath, bot as the words stoned. And if it be so that I come again or do again this oath or any party thereof, I yhelde me here cowpable as an heretic and to be punished by the law of an heretic, and to forfeit all my gods to the Kings will withouten any other process of law; and thereto I require the Notary to make of all this the which is my will an Instrument again me.  
Et ex habundanti idem Willielmus Dyn●t eodem die voluit et recognovit quod omnia bona et catalla sua mobilia nobis sint forisfacta in casu quo ipse juramentum praedictum seu aliqua in eodem juramento contenta de cetero contravenerit ullo modo.   

Declaratio Patrum concilli Tridentini, circa frequentationem Ecclesiarum, Eo tempore, quo hereticiritus exercentur, aut praedicatur haeresis.  
Pax Christi quae exuperat omnem sensum, custodiat corda vestra & intelligentias vestras, Amen.  
Viri Dignitate conspicui, religione, & multis nominibus illustres aequam & honestam postulationem vestram ad nos detulerunt N. & C. quam à vobis ad se praelatam asserebant cujus hoc est exemplum.  
REligione in Anglia mutatâ, & poenâ propositâ, si quis Diebus Dominicis & festis à templis abstineat, interim Dum Psalmi, & ex utroque testamento lectiones, lingua vulgari recitantur: laici multi catholici, nobiles, & Deum timentes; partim in carcere agentes, partim mox eò conjiciendi, amicorum & consanguineorum precibus ac monitionibus & imminentium periculorum metu invitantur, ut saltem ea tenus, de sententia denuo, se permittant, ut in templis protestantium tantisper interesse velint Diebus Dominicis & aliis festis, Dum Psalmi ex more linguâ vulgari, decant arisoliti & lectiones ex Bibliis linguâ item vulgari depromptae; nec non conciones quae ad eorum dogmata approbanda apud pop. frequentiùs habentur; commemoratae sunt. jam qui huc usque nullo modo deduci potuerint, ut publicis predictis precibus, & concionibus interessent, magnopere 〈◊〉 postulant, quid his faciendum censeant viri pii & 〈◊〉 Nam si nullo animae periculo, aut nulla Dei offensione, ●ubli●o regni sui Decreto parere & obedire liceat: liben●●r ●d fecerint. Contra vero si quid in hac re periculum sit sa●utis aeternae, aut l●sae Divinae Majestatis: quae vis perpeti de●reverunt potius qùam quicquam agere aut committere unde Deum off●nsum iri, aut irritatum intelligant. Haec quest●● cum multas pias & religiosas conscientias exerceat, & co●tu●bet, r●ga●di estis omnes per v●scera misericordiae, & charitatem quam Christus à suis omnibus exigit, ut eam palu● & dilucide quam primùm expediatis, qua multi in ho● regno implicat● torquentur.  
Quod haec charta complectitur, nullius nomine singulariter praefertur quia non ad unum aliquem pertinet, quod hic petitur, sed ad omnes fere nobiles quos Anglia habet Catholicos, quibus jam multis modis pericula intentantur. jis universis in tua illustrissima Dominatione magna spes auxilii effulget, si eadem vel Dei, vel nobilitatis respectu, agere dignabitur cum amicis quos in concilio habet Tridentino ut huic questioni, quae totius nobilitatis nomine his adjuncta est, responsum maturum & Deliberatum accommodetur, & huc commoda tuae D. opera perferatur. In quo haud dubie acquiessent perturbatae nunc conscientiae, si ex tetam sancto & nobili patre certiores fieri possint, quid patres hac de re iudicent. Quanquam fortasse tutum non fuerit, hanc questionem publice in concilio proponi, ne res divulgata nostrorum protestantium animos exacerbet, & aliquibus periculum acceleret, (nisi tuae prudentiae aliter videatur) ideo tua prudentia consultius fecerit, si ita cum selectis quibusdam hanc causam egerit, ut quod ipsi in hac causa piissimi & doctissimi theologi consulti significaverint, id proinde valeat, ac si universi patres sententias dixissent: Caeterum hoc totum tuae Do judicio, & arbitrio relinquendi satius sit, ut ipsa quod magis in rem esse prospiciat, ●d libere agate. Qui in Anglia ●unc sunt theologi partim metuunt, partim varie respondent▪ ideo plane omnibus satisfaciet, quod te procurante ex Triden●●no huc respondebitur.  
Pro quo vestro tam firme christiano & vere religioso animo non possumu● non Deo opt. max. agere gratias, & nobis magnopere gratulari. Etsi enim calamitatum vestrarum sensus, cunctos vehementer tangat & cruciet, ut Christiana charitas hortatur, quae tam arcto necessitudinis vinculo omnes devinctos & constrictos tenet, ut mutuo afficiat membra, atque fratrum commoda & incommoda non aliena sed propria ducat; in illo tamen non est minima consolatio, quod calamitosis hisce temporibus & in eo potissimum regno, in quo fides religiosorum miserè jacet, cernimus nullo iniuriarum concursu, aut metus vi charitatis vestrae ardorem extingu●, aut fidem convelli, aut constantiam labefactari: quinimò vos esse, qui in tanta rerum omnium confusione, ac molestiarum turbulentissimá tempestate nunquam curvaveritis genua ante Baal, non sine magna Divini nominis Christianaeque disciplinae gloria. Ne igitur vestris constans animus, qui nullis commodis ad impietatem torqueri flective unquam potuit, fallacibus rationibus ad vestram perniciem comparatis aut Divinae legis ignoratione pietatisve simulatione deciperetur & minueretur: quod sustinemus dignum & Christiani hominis officio debitum existimavimus vestris piissimis optatis morem gerere; causamque vestram examinandam accuratè, diligenter, maturèque commissimus gravissimis quibusdam patribus ac reverendissimis Dominis Archiepiscopo Bracharensi, Archiepiscopo Lanci●nensi, Episcopo Dombriscensi, Episcopo Lerenensi, reverendo patri jacobo Laine● generali societatis jesu: simulque spectatissimis quibusdam Doctoribus Alphonso Salmeroni Fratri Petro de Soto quem arbitramur vobis & facie & nomine notissimum; D. Georgio de Fr. Francisco Fercensi. Doct. Melchiori Cornelio: jacobo Paiva de Andrada item Doctori, quorum omnium religio, pietas & eruditio certissimis testimoniis explorata est. Quorum sententias nostro etiam judicio comprobatas non dubitamus quin sententiae totius concilii instar sitis merito habituri. H●i igitur patres ac Theologi quibus haec provincia data est, cum s●pe convenissent, atque diligenter & circumspectè divina oracula, & sanctorum patrum sententias & instituta deliberando evolvissent, communibus suffragiis concluserunt minime vobis sine magno scelere, divinaque indignatione licere hujusmodi hereticorum precibus, illorumve concion●bus in●eresse; ac longe multum praestare, quaevis atrocissima perpeti quam in profligatissimis sceleratissimisque rit●bus, quovis signo illis consentire. etc.   

The Oath of Supremacy Enacted 35. Henrici octavi.  
I A. B. Having now the veil of darkness of the usurped power, authority and jurisdiction of the See and Bishops of Rome, clearly taken away from mine eyes, do utterly testify, and declare in my conscience, that neither the See, nor the Bishop of Rome, nor any foreign Potentate, hath, nor aught to have any jurisdiction, power, or authority, within this Realm, nether by Gods, law nor by any other just law, or means. And though by sufferance and abuse in times passed, they aforesaid have usurped, and vendicated a feigned and unlawful power and jurisdiction within this Realm, which hath been supported till few years passed, therefore because it might be deemed, and thought thereby, that I took or take it for just and good, I therefore now do clearly and frankly renounce, refuse, relinquish, and forsake that pretended authority, power and jurisdiction, both of the See and Bishop of Rome, and of all other foreign powers. And that I shall never consent and agree, that the foresaid See, or Bishop of Rome or any of their successors, shall practise, exercise, or have any manner of authority, jurisdiction or power within this Realm, or any other the King's Realms or Dominions, nor any foreign Potentate, of what estate, degree, or condition soever he be, but that I shall resist the same at all times, to the uttermost of my power: And that I shall bear faith, truth, and true Allegiance to the King's Majesty, and to his heirs and successors, declared or hereafter to be declared by the authority of the Act made in the Session of the Parliament holden at Westminster the fourteenth day of january, in the five and thirtieth year, and in the said Act made in the eight and twentieth year of the King's Majesty's reign. And that I shall accept, repute and take the King's Majesty, his heirs and successors (when they or any of them shall enjoy his place to be the only supreme Head in earth, under God of the Church of England and Ireland, and of all other His Highness' Dominions. And that with my body, cunning, wit, and uttermost of my power, without guile, fraud, or other undue means, I shall observe, keep, maintain, and defend all the King's Majesty's styles, titles, and rights, with the whole effects and contents of the Acts provided for the same, and all other Acts and Statutes made, or to be made within this Realm, in and for that purpose, and the derogation, extirpation and extinguishment, of the usurped and pretended authority, power and jurisdiction of the See and Bishop of Rome, and all other foreign Potentates, as afore. And also aswell the said Statute made in the said eight and twentieth year, as the Statute made in the said Session of the Parliament holden the 35. year of the King's Majesty's Reign, for establishment and declaration of His highness' succession, and all Acts and Statutes made, and to be made in confirmation and corroboration of the King's Majesty's power, and Supremacy in earth, of the Church of England and Ireland, and of other the King's Dominions. I shall also defend and maintain with, by body and goods, and with all my wit and power, and this I shall do against all manner of persons, of what estate, dignity, degree, or condition they be, and in no wise do nor attempt, nor to my power ●uffer, or know to be done, or attempted, directly or indirectly, any thing or things privily or apertly to the let, hindrance, damage or derogation of any of the said Statutes, or of any part of them, by any manner of means, or for or by any manner of pretence. And in case any Oath hath been made by me to any person or persons in maintenance, defence, or favour of the See and Bishop of Rome, or his authority, jurisdiction or power, or against any Statutes aforesaid, I repute the same as vain and annihilate, and shall wholly and truly observe and keep this Oath, so help me God, all Saints, and the holy Evangelists.   

The Oath of Supremacy enacted 1 ●. Elizabeth, cap. 1o.  
ay, A. B. Do utterly testify and declare in my conscience, that the Queen's highness is the only Supreme governor of this Realm, and of all other her Highness' Dominions, and Countries, as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical things, or causes, as Temporal, and that no foreign Prince, Person, Prelate, State, or Potentate, hath or aught to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, Ecclesiastical, or Spiritual, within this Realm: and therefore I do utterly renounce and forsake all foreign jurisdictions, powers, superiorities, and authorities, and do promise's that from henceforth I shall bear faith an●●rue Allegiance to the Queen's Highness, her 〈◊〉 and lawful Successor and to my power, shall ass●st and defend all jurisdictions, privileges, preeminences, and authorities, granted or belonging to the Queen's Highness, her Heirs, and Successors, or united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm. So help me God, and by the Contents of this Book.   

A Proviso in an Act 5 o. Elizabeth, c. 1ᵒ. for expounding this Oath.  
PRovided also, that the Oath expressed in the said Act made in the said first year shall be taken and expounded in such form as is set forth in an Admonition annexed to the Queen's Majesty's Injunctions, published in the first year of her Majesty's reign, that is to say, to confess and acknowledge in her Majesty, her Heirs and Successors, none other authority, then that was challenged and lately used by the noble King Henry the eighth, and King Edward the sixth, as in the said Admonition more plainly may appear.   

The Admonition annexed to the Injunctions Elizabeth 1o. follows with this Title.  
An Admonition to simple men deceived by malicious.  
THe Queen's Majesty being informed, that in certain places of this Realm, sundry of her native subjects, being called to Ecclesiastical Ministry in the Church, be by sinister persuasion, and perverse construction, induced to find some scruple in the form of an Oath, which by an Act of the last Parliament is prescribed to be required of divers persons for the recognition of their Allegiance to her Majesty, which certainly neither was ever meant, ne by any equity of words, or good sense can be thereof gathered; would that all her loving subjects should understand, that nothing was, is, or shall be meant, or intended by the same Oath, to have any other Duty, Allegiance or Bond required by the same Oath, than was acknowledged to be due to the most noble Kings of famous memory, King Henry the eight her Majesty's Father, or King Edward the sixth her Majesty's Brother.  
And further her Majesty forbiddeth all manner her subjects to give ear or credit to such perverse and malicious persons, which most sinisterly and maliciously labour, to notify to her loving subjects, how by the words of the said Oath it may be collected that the Kings or Queens of this Realm possessors of the Crown, may challenge authority and power of Ministry of Divine Offices in the Church, wherein her said subjects be much abused by such evil disposed persons. For certainly her Majesty neither doth, ne ever will challenge any other authority, then that was challenged and lately used by the said noble Kings of famous memory, King Henry the eight, and King Edward the sixth, which is and was of ancient time due to the Imperial Crown of this Realm, that is, under God to have the Sovereignty and rule over all manner of persons borne within these her Realms, Dominions and Countries, of what estate either Ecclesiastical or Temporal soever they be, so as no other foreign power, shall or aught to have any superiority over them.  
And if any person that hath conceived any other sense of the form of the said Oath shall accept the same Oath, with this interpretation, sense, or meaning, her Majesty is well pleased to accept every such in that behalf, as her good and obedient subjects, and shall acquit them of all manner penalties contained in the said Act, against such as shall peremptorily or obstinately refuse to take the same Oath.    

The Conclusion of the Author of the Animadversions to the Reader.  
THis Treatise, Christian Reader, penned by a learned and intelligent Romanist, resembles Ortwhinus his Book entitled Fasciculus rerum expetendarum et fugiendarum, or the two baskets of figs, jer. 24.1.2. set before the Temple, one basket had very good figs, and the other very naughty. Among the very good are these assertions. That in the Protestant Church there is no Idolatry committed. That the Liturgy of the Church of England hath not any malignity in it, that may justify Popish recusancy. That the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy are justifiable by the law of God. But among the very naughty, are these that when we are questioned about our Religion before a Magistrate, we may vulpizure cum vulpibus, go beyond the fox if we can in fox-craft: that in taking an oath we may frame a meaning to ourselves which is proved contrary to the meaning of him that made, or ministereth the Oath that we may by our outward gestures and actions make show of that Religion, of which indeed we are not: that a Prudent Catholic may both frequent the Protestant Church in public (as this Priest s●ith he hath done often) and go to Mass, ●r say Mass in private. This is no better than to wear a garment not on our bodies, ●ut on our souls made of 〈◊〉, and to plough in Christ's ●ield with an Ox and an As●e, and to 〈◊〉 between two opinions reproved by the holy Prophet Eliah; t●is is to be of the lukewarm temper, which is so 〈◊〉 to the 〈◊〉 of God, that he threateneth to spew such out of his mouth. Of which beware, Christian Reader, as thou tenderest the everlasting health of thy soul. If the Lord be God follow him, but if Baal be he, go after him. For assure thyself whatsoever the Romish Baal may do, God will retain no halting followers. It is not 〈◊〉 to worship God in thy heart, but thou must worship him also with thy body; for he who hath created both, and redeemed both, will be worshipped in both, and served by both. Say thou never didst worship Baal in thy heart, yet if thy knee bowed unto him, or thy mouth kissed him, God will account thee for none of his servants, 1 King. 19.18. It is not sufficient to believe in Christ, thou must also confess his 
* The Hel●esaus w●re condemned for heretics, for hol●ing a man might deny his faith with his mouth so he keep it in his heart. Euseb. h●st l. 6. c. 31.  Name; for 
a 
Rom. 10.10. Cic. pro 〈◊〉 Am●r. vultu saepe lad●tur 〈◊〉.  
Ep. ●●. contami●ari se 〈…〉 a●am illam vid●●i●▪ 〈◊〉 ibid. Fe●end●m ne est ut, gentilis sacrif●c●t, christianus inter sit?  
S●zo. hist. eccles. l. 5. c. 16. prejecto ad pedes au●o, etc.   with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. It is not sufficient that the Religion we profess be true, if we be not true to it: neither will our faith save us, if we save not it and keep it uncorrupt. What the Orator speaketh of piety towards our parents, may be more truly affirmed of piety towards God: religion is wounded with a gesture, a n●d, nay a look. It was said of old, saith our Saviour, Thou shalt not commit adultery, but I say unto you (Matth. 5 27.28.) That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her in his heart. If we go with a friend to Mass out of a lust or mere curiosity to see the Whore of Babylon in her richest dress upon a high Festival day, we have already committed spiritual adultery with her in our heart. And therefore Constantius the Emperor, as Ambrose testifieth; thought himself polluted if he had but seen an Altar: and the noble Martyrs in the first and best ages of the Church would rather suffer the last drop of blood in their heart to be spil●, then cast but one grain of frankincense to the fire in honour of the Idols. And when julian by a slight, as Sozomen writeth, had drawn some Christian soldiers to do some kind of reverence in this kind to his heathenish Idols, he cunningly sitting by the Altar, where there was an Image of his Pagan Deity, and calling them to bestow some gold upon them; as soon as ever they perceived how they were circumvented, they run back again into the place where incense was burning to the Idol, and cast down all the gold they had received before the Emperor's face. And Valentinian carrying the Mace before julian the Apostata, when the heathenish Sexton cast some holy water upon him, he ●eld him down at a blow, wiped off the water, saying, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Theod. hist. l. 3. c. 15. In like manner when Licinius bade 
* Suidas in Auxent.  Auxentius cut off a branch of a Vine laden with cluste●s of grapes, and he suspecting nothing had ●one it: Licinius bade him put that branch at the feet of the Image of Bacchus: but Auxentius answered, God forbid O Emperor that I should do it, for I am a Christian: and the Emperor replying, either do it, or get thee out of my presence, he presently looseneth his belt and quits his service. To whom I will add one 
* Marcus' Bishop of Arrethusa. Theod. hist. l. 3 c. 6.  more mentioned by Theodoret, who chose rather to be most cruelly tortured than he would be brought to contribute a halfpenny towards the repairing of an Idol temple. Let us warm our zeal at the embers of these holy Martyrs and Confessors, and be ever mindful of the holy Apostles exhortation; Have no fellowship at all with the works of darkness, Ephes. 5.11. but reprove them rather: be not unequally yoked with unbelievers, 2 Cor. 6.14. For what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness, or what communion hath light with darkness: and what concord hath Christ with Belial: and what agreement hath the temple of God with Idols: mark the Apostles gradation, first, What fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness: next, What communion hath light with darkness: and la●, What concord hath Christ with Belial: no more agreement may we have who are the temples of the living God with Idols. Th●re is great opposition between righteousness and unrighteousness, greater between light and darkness; greatest of all between Christ and Belial: righteousness and unrighteousness (the one being a virtue and the other a vice) are opposed contrarily, but light and darkness privatively, which is a greater opposition; but Christ and Belial contradictorily which is the greatest of all: Righteousness and unrighteousness are so opposite that they cannot subsist in the same soul, and light and darkness so opposite, that they cannot subsist in the same room; but Christ and Belial so opposite that they cannot subsist together in the same heaven. Righteousness fighteth with unrighteousness wheresoever it meeteth with it; but light doth more, it presently banisheth darkness; but Christ yet more, he utterly confoundeth Belial: so true religion not only fighteth with all heresy, and superstition wheresoever it meeteth with it; but banisheth it, and in the end confoundeth it: Wherefore come out from among them and be ye separate saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing and I will receive you, 2 Cor. 6.17.  
Finis: Deo Laus Sine Fine.