A Discourse Penned by a Romish Priest, Section 1
§ 1o. That Scandall makes it not unlawfull to goe to the Protestant Church.
SCandall 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 lesse right (or lesse good) giving occasion to another of Spirituall ruine or falling into sinne. Neither doe they take the adverb (lesse) 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 morall rectitude or goodnesse. This Scandall may be divided into Active & Passive. Active is in him that gives it; Passive in him that takes it; both expressed in the holy Scritures by the verbes Active and Passive: to scandalize, and to be scandalized, Matth. 15.17.18. Active may be subdivided into per se & per accideus. Active per se is, when a man with an expresse and certaine intention gives his neighbour occasion of sinning by some word or deed, either intrinsecally or extrinsecally evil. Active per accidens is, when besides the intention of the doer, and nature of the act done, being extrinsecally evill, or at leastwise, having some species or shew of evill; by which occasion is taken, to the spirituall ruine of another. Passive scandall is also subdivided, into passive scandall given, and Passive scandall taken. The first proceeds from Active scandall either per se or per accidens, given and received by an other. Such was the scandall forbidden by our Saviour, Mat. 18. ver. 6. He that shall scandalize one of these little ones that beleve in me, it is expedient for him that a millstone bee hanged about his necke, and that he be drowned in the depth of the sea. And this is called Scandall of the weake or little ones to whom it belongeth (as Saint Bernard saith) to be ignorant and moved through weaknesse, and so be scandalized. For the perfect (as Saint Hierome saith in the place before cited) are not scandalized. Passive scandall taken is, when a man out of envie and malice taketh occasion of sinne by anothers words or deeds ill interpreted and misunderstood without any lawfull or probable cause. And this is called the scandall of Pharisees, which is a sinne onelyonly to themselves, and not to be regarded of the speaker or doer; as appeares by the answer of our Saviour, Matt. 15. ver. 14. Sinite illos, caeci sunt et duces caecorum. Let them alone, blinde they are, and guides of the blinde.
Hence Divines with St. Thomas doe inferre first, that sometime Passive scandall may be without active, as it was in the scandall of the Pharisees. Sometimes active scandall may be without Passive: as when one by his bad word or deed, or ill example, doth scandalize and giveth occasion to others of falling into sinne; and yet none are scandalized, or take the occasion given, to sinne thereby. And sometimes they may be both together, as when one by his bad example giveth, and another taketh thereby occasion to sinne.
Secondly, they inferre, 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 avoyd the the Passive scandall, even of the weake ones, as well observeth Alfonsus Tostatus: Because that were to sinne rThe distinction of veniall and mortall sinnes Tostatus (learned in Peter Lumbards schoole, not in Christs) may teach, but not truely. For although some sinnes may be tearmed veniall comparatè, in respect of others that are of a deeper die, and so lesse in their owne nature pardonable and excuseable: or not at all (as the sinne against the holy Ghost: and though all sinnes of the …le…t are veniall through grace, or quo ad eventum: yet there are no sinnes which in their owne nature are not mortall. For all sinnes are transgressions of the eternall law, and in them the infinite Majestie of God is some waies slig…ted: and therefore Saint Hieromes generall conclusion is true, ep. ad Celantiam, omne quod agimus, omne quod loquimur, aut de angustâ viâ est, quae tendit ad vitam, aut de latâ quâ imus ad mortem: What soever we do, whatsoever we speake, either appertaines to the narrow Way wh…reby we enter into life, or to the broad way which is the roade to death: and in his second booke against the Pelagians, si ira et sermonis iniuria atque interdum iocus iudicio concilioque et gehennae ignibus delegatur, quid merebitur turpium rerum appetitio? if unadvised anger and a contumelious word bring us in danger of a iudgement, and a councel, and hell fire: what shall the desire of filthy things deserve? and who can say his heart is cleane from all these? To make light of sinne aggravateth our conscience, even those Naevuli & leves aspergines, & pulviseuli, & prolapsiunculae, & peccadili…es, (as the Romanis…s stile veniall sinnes) either are transgressions of the law of God or not: if they are not transgressions of the law, they are no sinnes at all: for foreign, all sinne is the transgression of the law, 1 Iohn 3.4. or as the Schooles …ut of Saint Augustine define, peccatum est dictum, factum vel concupitum contra legem aeternam, every sinne is a desire, word or deed against the eternall law: and if veniall sinnes be transgressions of this law, their punishment is death. For the soule that sinneth shall die, Ezech. 18.4. and the sting of death is sinne, 1 Cor. 15.56. and the wages of sinne is death, Rom. 6.23. These cleare and evident Texts of holy Sc…ipture so dazled the eyes of three of their sharpe sighted Schoolemen, that they not onelyonly left the common tract of other popish Divines (as Bellarmine minceth the matter, l. 1. de amiss. grat. et stat. pec. c. 4. (non nihil a communi theologorum sententiâ deflexerunt) but went in the direct way of the reformed Doctours: these Schoole men are Gerson 3. part. Theolog. tract. de vit. spirit. sect. 1a Iacobus Almaine Opusc. tract. 3. c. 20. & Iohannes Episcopus Roffensis in refut. 32. artic. Luth. Gersons words are (with whom Almaine accords) peccatū mortale et veniale in esse tali non distinguuntur intrinsecè et essentialiter sed solum per respectum ad divinam gratiam quae peccatum istud imputat: mortall and veniall sinnes are not distinguished in their intrinsicall essence, but onelyonly with a relation to the divine grace which imputes the sinne, &c. Roffenfis speaketh to the same purpose, peccatum veniale solum ex Dei misericordia veniale est: veniall sinne is onelyonly veniall by the meere mercy of God: not therefore in its owne nature.mortally. (See Bellar. de script Ecclesiast, & Possevin. in verbo. Alfonsus Tostatus. Which for no cause any man ought to doe; but if they be sHe meaneth by counsels, according to the doctrine of his Romish Church, such supposed good workes as are not commanded of God, by the performance whereof yet they beleeve that they cannot onelyonly merit at Gods hands, but supererogate. An assertion, as farre from Theologicall truth, as Christian modestie. For first, the law of God is perfect, Psal. 19.7. and consequently commandeth all good, and forbiddeth all evill: else were it not a perfect but a scantive and defective rule of good. Secondly, though there may be many good workes 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 worke nor can be, which is not comprised within that great and large Commandement of loving the Lord with all our heart, and all our soule, and all our might: Deut. 6.5. Matth. 22.37. Luk. 10.27. For it implyes a contradiction, to say that we can love God more then with all our might, and strength, and we see that all is required by this commandement. Thirdly, the aspiring to perfection it selfe, so farre as it is attainable by us in this life, falleth under the expresse commandement 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 it selfe? What good worke is there or can there be tending to Christian perfection, which Saint Pauls Whatsoever carrieth not, Phil. 4.8. Finally brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsosoever things are iust, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report: if there be any vertue, if there be any praise, thinke 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 then God commands: yet in other things the best man that is, comes short of the law. For in many things we offend all, Iames 4.2. and even such a righteous man as Iob was cannot answer one of a thousand, Iob 9.3. What then becomes of works of supererogation, when a mans stock or treasure of good workes cannot hold out to pay his own debts? Fifthly, though we strive to the uttermost to walke exactly before God, and abstaine from all knowne sinnes, so farre as humane frailtie permits in this life, and fulfill all righteousnesse in doing all the commandements of God with all our might: may we then superarrogate any thing to our selves, or supererogate to others? No our Saviour teacheth us a contrarie 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 dutie to doe, Luk. 17.10. We are unprofitable servants, therefore not deserving of our Master, and we doe but that which is our dutie to doe, and therefore not more then we are bound to doe.counsels which are not of necessitie to be done, or things indifferent of themselves, yet necessary to be done, for the safeguard of a mans life, or goods. Then the scandall that ariseth to some by this, that others doe them: either proceedeth from malice; and then that is a scandall of Pharisees, and to be contemned; and no spiritual or temporal good is to be omitted for the same. Or it proceedeth from infirmitie or ignorance, and it is the aforesaid scandall of weaknesse. And for this scandall we must refraine for a time (according to the example of our Saviour, Matth. 17. Who to avoyd tHe fouly mistaketh the matter, it was no scandall to Christ to bee poore that hee might make us rich, no more then to be abased, to exalt us; to bee stript, to cloth us; to take the forme of a servant, to make us free; to be condemned, to acquit us; to be in an agonie, to comfort us; and to die, to restore us to life. The viler he became for our sakes, the more highly ought we to esteeme of him. Neither did Christ goe any way about to conceale his povertie, nay he openly proclaimed it: The foxes have holes, and fowles of heaven neasts, but the Sonne 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 Iewes not taking notice of that freedome, in probabilitie would have inferred from his not paying, that he had denyed that tribute ought to be paid to Caesar, and consequently had denyed Caesars authority & soverainty. See Luk. 20.20. But if povertie be scandalous, why do the Fryars by a vow of perfection, as they terme it, undertake this scandalous povertie?the scandall of the Iewes concerning his poverty, bid Saint Peter goe to the Sea, &c.) even from the workes of Evangelicall counsels and things otherwise indifferent, although necessary to be done. Or we must doe them secretly, lest the ignorant, whose minde is weake be troubled. This must be done, untill having yeilded a reason of our actions, and shewed them to be good, or of themselves indifferent, and necessary to be done for safeguard of life or fortunes: and so the scandall cease, which proceeded from ignorance. But if after a reason be yeilded, the scandall shall not cease, it is not to be esteemed a scandall proceeding from ignorance, but from malice, and to be contemned. Neither ought we then to refraine from any the aforesaid actions to avoyd this scandall. Thus Abulensis in cap. 18. Matth. q. 51. Salmeron, tom. 7. tract. 29. Estius in cap. 8. ad Cor. 1. v. 13. Diana 5. parte tract. 7o. de scand. p. 186. who expresly teacheth: that a man is not bound to loose his goods and temporall fortunes to avoyd the scandall of weake ones after an admonition and reason (for the lawfull doing of the act) be yeilded. 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 scandall, and the doctrine, or action be profitable; they are not to be regarded, for they are incurable, because they are blinde; that is: they will not see and understand what both God and reason dictates to them. And he that is weake (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 scandall; it will be the Scandall of Pharisees as is aforesaid.
Now to proove the assertion, which is the first branch of the Minor. Scandall, is a word or deed lesse right, apt to give occasion to another of spirituall ruine. …ut to goe to Church is no deed lesse right (but prudently and chiefely right) all circumstances considered.) Ergo, to goe to Church is no scandall, and consequenter, to goe to Church can yeeld no occasion to my neighbour of spirituall ruine; but rather an occasion of both his temporall and spirituall conservation and edification. This Minor I prove. To goe to heare a piece of a Masse in English, is no deed lesse right. But to goe to Church, is to goe to heare a uI answer that the Masse being rightly understood our Liturgy ought not to bee called a piece of the Masse. 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 Masse, 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 farre from intending the sacrifice of the Masse in our service, that we disclaime and abominate it and hold it no better then a Masse 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 Christs body, for no living thing can properly be sacrificed, unlesse it be slaine, but Christ as the Apostle teacheth us, being once dead dieth no more. Secondly, they teach it, to be an externall 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 Christs blood is there truely and really shed and drunke 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, Christs 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 pearle before swine, but no where to take a pearle though out of a swines snout, if we finde any such there. Thirdly, I answer, that it cannot be prooved that any part or parcell of our Service booke, 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 originall Fountaine, sith the most of them if not all might be gathered out of more ancient Liturgies. For which. See Biblioth Patru to 1. And if it be so, then it may be said; That the mud of Popery fell into them, but they sprang not from Popery, but from purer fountains.piece of a Masse in English. Ergo, to goe to Church is no deed lesse right. The Major I prove thus: to goe to heare a whole Masse in English (the nature of the thing considered, and abstracting from the constitution of the Church) is not evill. For the diversitie of the language takes nothing from the goodnesse of the thing. As is manifest in the Greeke Church, where Masse is alwayes said in Greeke. So that if it be not evill in it selfe, to goe to heare a whole Masse in English, it is not evill, to goe to heare a piece of a Masse in English. And consequently not to goe to Church.
Adde that in the whole Latine Church; where it is not lawfull to say Masse in any other language then in Latine (bec…use of the long *It hath been I confesse, a long custome in the Latine Church, ever since Pope Vitalian to celebrate the Church Service in the Latine tongue, but it was never the custome of the Catholique or Vniversall so to doe. The Greeke and Syrian, and African, and other Churches had from the beginning, and have at this day their Service in their own languages. Neither is the reason the Priest alleadgeth here of any force, namely, Thatcustome of the Church, kept alwayes on foot for this reason: that as the Catholique Religion was the Catholike Religion is universall, so it should be exercised in an universall language which he will have to be the Latine. For first there is no necessitie that the Catholike Religion which is universall should be exercised in an universall language, but rather in all languages. Secondly, since the division of tongues at the tower of Babell, there was no language universall in all the world, the Greeke was for a time the furthest spread, and after the Romane: but neither of them, nor any other, was spoken or understood by all Christians, and at this day if we may beleeve travellers, no language is so generally knowne and spoken as the Slavonian. Thirdly, the unity of language maketh nothing to the unitie of Religion or the Church, neither doth the Apostle require that the Divine Service be performed in any one tongue, but that it be done in a knowne tongue, to the edification of the Church, 1 Cor. 14.4.12.14.16. And to that end, among others, was the gift of tongues given.is universall, so should it be exercised in an universall language) yet it is lawfull, and in use to say a piece of the Masse (as Collects, Prayers, Psalmes, Epistles, and Gospels) in any Language of any Countrey whatsoever within the said Church.
It may be here objected first, that although to go to Church, be of its own nature a thing indifferent, yet hic & nunc, it is evill. For considering the circumstances of time and place, it hath a shew & appearance of evill, apt to occasion sin in another. From wch we are commanded to abstain by St. Paul, 1 Thess. 5.22. saying, From all shew of evill refraine your selves. To which I answer, first: That all the appearance of evill, which, going to Church hath, is, that in England above other countreys, Priests have not been freely left to the Principles of Divinitie or Lay-men to their Christian libertie; but it hath been procured to have bin declared unlawfull upon false suggestions, and continued thus thought unlawfull by some erroneous judgements. Which my neighbour likewise phantasing erroneously apprehends it a species cast from going to Church, which indeed is not so; nor otherwise, then if a man with a blood-shotten eye should behold glasse, & say it were red; when a parte rei, it were white. It were very hard, if I eating fish in the lent, and one purblind seeing me eate, & apprehending it flesh, because he goes away scandalized, as thinking me to have eaten flesh, by reason of his false eyes; that I should be said to have given him scandall. So it would seeme likewise as hard, if a broken phansie, or an erring minde should conceive evill species from mine actions, which a parte rei are no species at all of them, but quite contrary to th…ir species; that I should thereby be judged to give scandall to little ones. No: I hope as the erroneous eyes shall beare their owne imperfections; so the erroneous judgement shall beare its owne mistake; and neither shall accuse me before God of the scandall of little ones.
Hence I answer, secondly, to the place of the Apostle before objected, tha… the appearance or shew of evill, is to be understood; first that it proceeds really from the act done, and that it be not only a conjecturall appearance, but morally certaine. That no man play Tom-foole in striking him that stands next him without a cause. Secondly, that the appearance proceeds not from a deed to be done of necessitie, either by the Law of God, or nature. Otherwise we might inferre the Apostle to command contradictories, to refraine and not to refraine from such a deed, whence proceeds the appearance. For if the thing be commanded by the Law of God, it must necessarily be done, or otherwise sinne. And if it were to be done by the Law of Nature; the blessed Apostle was not so unreasonable, as to bid us refraine from a thing in its owne nature lawfull, and of necessitie to be done; without admittance of some way to avoyd scandall. Although by reason of some circumstance, place or person, it might have a shew of evill, and so for some time be suspended, as some things of naturall necessitie; yea, the Evangelicall counsels may have. But in such cases we are to instruct and admonish the weake (as I by these presents doe) that although it should seeme to them to be evill, or to have some shew of evill, yet in very deed it is not evill, but good. And I am constrained under paine of death to do the same. After which instruction and admonition, if they still persist in their scandall; it is not a scandall of little ones, but of Pharisees and great ones. Neither doth it proceed from infirmitie or ignorance, but from malice: and is not to be regarded. So that it seemes a thing unreasonable, and in the strength of judgement against nature, that a man shall more regard the trouble of his neighbours conscience at a thing lawfull, then the hazard of his own life, and ruine of his own family and fortunes in the execution of the same. See Diana for this Doctrine and all the Authors by him above cited.
If any shall here reply to my first answer of the objection, that the shew of evill is really in the act of going to Church, and not as falsely imagined: and that this shew of evill appeares not only to weake and ignorant people, but to men of understanding of all sorts; and not only to Catholiques, but likewise to Schismaticks of all sorts: who in going to Church to save their goods, confesse that they doe it against their conscience, as conceiving it to be unlawfull by reason of the aforesaid Declaration of the twelve Fathers in the Councell of Trent, and the foresaid Popes; which whether it were gotten by false suggestions or no, they discerne not, neither doe they dispute, but simply obey. To make up the rime in reason, the more simple they. For reason may teach great ones, and men seeming of understanding that are Schismaticks or Lay-Catholiques the contrary; (because nothing is done at Church which is either evill or hurtfull:) and both reason and learning Priests. And therefore I rejoyce with Aristotle: Propter illorum cogitare, nihil mutatur in re, and say, that the shew of evill proceeds not from the act of going to Church. For in all King Edwards time, and the beginning of Queene Elizabeths time, untill the thirteenth yeere of her Raigne, when all Catholiques did or might goe to Church, going to Church by Catholiques then being in fashion; none took scandall thereby: because there was then, no shew of evill. And why should there be now more shew of evill in the act, then at that time? If ye answer by reason of the aforesaid Declaration. I reply that then the species of evill, ought 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 it selfe. And the experience of our distressed countrey teacheth us, that those indirect proceedings are more apt to generate scandal, then the act of going to Church, which of its own nature is lawfull, and hath been lawfully practised and approved by the common opinion of all Divines of any indifferency in other countreyes, and so might have been in ours, had it not been for turbulent people, who for their owne ends have more troubled the Church in procuring of breves and rescripts then all other nations besides of our condition.
To Schismaticks, 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 errour, they have had from the misunderstanding of Catholiques.
To weake ones I answer, desiring them to be satisfied, because I have and shall prove the thing in it selfe to be lawfull, and that I am (as I have said) in danger and hazard of my life, in not doing the same. So that by a naturall necessitie I am bound to it. Which necessitie if it were not; I might peradventure rest in the common Maxime of Philosophers. Frustra fit per plura, quod potest fieri per pauciora. It is in vain done by more, that may be done by lesse.
It may be objected secondly, that it is as much scandall to goe to Church, as it was to eate of those meats offered to Idols. Of which Saint Paul speaks, 1 Cor. 8. the eating of which in it selfe considered, although the Apostle thought no sin in Wise men, or great ones; because they did eate the same without any relation at all to the Idoll, as he seemeth to intimate, verse, 4. yet because some ignorant Christians (seeing the said Wise men eate) did likewise eate the same meats with conscience and devotion, as if the said meats had received some vertue or sanctification from the Idol. Saint Paul exhorted the Wise men, to abstaine 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 zeale he said, vers. 13. If meate scandalize my brother, I will never eate flesh, lest I scandalize my brother. So that one would thinke, 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 scandalized his brother. And St. Augustine in expresse termes, lib. de bon. conjugali cap. 16. saith: It was farre better to have dyed, then to have eaten of those meats so offered to Idols, conformable to himselfe elsewhere: who likewise saith. That a man may not commit (or occasion) so much as a xSee page 28. Letter r.veniall sinne, to gaine the whole world. Which he that giveth scandall, 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 ought every Catholique to take as said of the act of going to Church.
I answer, denying the consequence: and say that there is a great disparitie betweene 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 shew and appearance of evill, but a morall malignitie therein, as well to great, as to little ones. Which although the wise did take away, that the said malignitie touched not them; yet the weake neither did, or had understanding so to doe. Whence the Apostle said, vers. the 7. that there was not knowledge in all. For the morall malignitie; that was in those meats to all, was a prophanation and impuritie in them, as being things dedicated to the Idol or the Devill. So that as a man receiveth good by holy? bread or things sanctified; so he receiveth evill by a thing: prophaned or maligned. Which morall malignitie 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 Idoll as they were in themselves, meere creatures, both created for the use of man, did eate what was usefull to eate without sinne. Whereas the weake, not so much as considering the prophanenesse of the meats, but (seeing the Wiser eate) with error of judgement conceived vertue 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 vers.) polluted thereby. Now in going to Church, their is no morall malignitie 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 owne nature so indifferent, and to a good intention, good, that a parte rei their is no appearance of evill therein.
If any one say that there is appearance of evill, and scandall 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 wils of the said Popes is to us in this matter as yet unknowne: and the species or shew of evill 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 alwaies beene held, as declaring that which hath been best for the soule, and dehorting from going to Church, and that so by reason and vertue hereof, there results a certaine shew of evill, in doing the same, which maketh it appeare to most men unlawfull, and consequently scandalous. I rejoyce as before, that the instruction and admonition of the indifferencie and necessitie of the act, ought to take away all scandall howsoever apprehended: and that such as apprehend it unlawfull, and will not be satisfied, cannot doe it. And lastly such as will not be satisfied, but scandalized, are not to be regarded, as I have said before.
Adde out of Navar Man. c. 23. n. 38. That it is not a sinne in a man, not to obey his superiour, when he hath probable reasons to thinke, that his superiour was deceived in so commanding, or that he would not have given such a command, if he had knowne the truth. And if any shew of evill result, or scandall arise in that he is not obeyed, the necessitie of doing the contrarie act, being in danger of death, must excuse and take away all scandall, for in such a case no humane lawes binde as I shall hereafter say. I answer to this Objection secondly, that there is a disparitie betweene the said meates, and going to Church, in that the said meates were not to be eaten of necessitie: that is, there was neither hazard of life or goods in abstaining; or more gaine then prejudice of soules in eating. And therefore it was more requisite, that the wise should abstaine in a matter of so little moment or necessitie where there was scandall, then that the weake should have been instructed and admonished, that it might have beene done without sinne, 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, losse of soules: and therefore of necessitie, the weake are to be admonished and instructed, that there is no sinne in the act: neither is going to Church prejudiciall, but advantageous to soules, as experience teacheth.
Adde that if there were any humane law or Ecclesiasticall 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 appeare forbidden by the law of God. For all humane lawes 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 soule or body may probably follow; there that law is for the time to be suspended: as appeares in the law forbidding to eate flesh in the Lent, saying the divine office, with danger of being apprehended and the like: where the weake ones are rather to be instructed of the necessitie of suspending the law, then the body to perish by keeping the same: the same say in our case. And I doe with reason perswade my selfe, considering the Apostles whole discourse in the aforesaid 8. Chapter to the Corinthians, that notwithstanding his words, verse the 13. if there had beene no other food to have beene gotten for him, to have preserved him from famine, then the said flesh so offered to Idols, that he would rather have perswaded the weake ones, that there had beene no sinne 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 weake 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 Rhemes, William Allen (afterwards Cardinall) 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 unlawfull for any Catholike to goe to the Protestant Church. Ergo, It is unlawfull and scandalous to goe to the same. To the antecedent I answer, that the said Doctors were reverend and learned men, and their worke renowned: but because they would have the same goe forth with more l…stre, as pleasing the Pope; and to avoid all opposition of the aforesaid suggestors, they forsooke the common opinion of Divines in two points then agitated: the one, that the Pope could not depose Kings of their temporall dominions. And the other, that Catholiques might frequent the Churches of Schismaticks. Which they might well doe for their ends, being Doct…rs, and giving some seeming probable reas…ns for the same; the contrary opinions not being condemned by the Church, but left under dispute. Yet hence the consequence doth not appeare 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 poynts have had great authoritie; and the conclusion have stood good. Whereas now one of the said foure, to wit: Gregory Martin having delivered his opinion that it was lawfull for a Catholike to goe to Church, as appeares by the said booke of R. P. pag. 109. and 110. it seemeth they did not speake in that point their mindes freely: peradventure because it was not expedient for all sorts of people: which I confesse to be the best reason. Yet for Gods sake let us speake the truth in these troublesome times to men (at leastwise) of reason and understanding. Againe the very reasons they give in their annotations upon the fifth Chapter and 19. verse of the 4. booke of Kings doe shew, that they did intend but seeming reason, and not wholly convincing; for whereas for our opinion is, and alwaies hath beene usually brought the example of ySee the letter o. pag. 17.Naaman the Syrian, permitted (as I have said before) by the Prophet Elizeus, to goe 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 Christs Gospel (say they) we are more strictly commanded to professe our faith, then in Naamans time. Which reason I conceive under favour to be impertinent as well to Naamans case as to ours: for the doing of an act indifferent, may neither be a profession or a deniall of faith, but a meane betweene both, viz. a not discovery of the same. Neither was it more lawfull in Naamans time to deny God, then now.
2. The second Reason is, because of the place: For that the Noblemans religion was not practised in the Countrey where he went to the temple: and so there could no scandall arise thereby. This reason is in my judgement besides the purpose: for no more is Catholike religion practised in this Countrey where we goe to Church. Again, it proves not Naamans case hereby more lawfull, then the going to Church; for there may be scandall, where a thing of its owne nature may be lawfully done: as there might have beene scandall in our Saviours povertie, Matth. 17. if he had not prevented it. And there may be no scandall, and yet the act unlawfull. Therefore if it were lawfull abstracting from scandall, that being in our case easily avoyded, or taken away, the thing may still remaine lawfull. For if he that goeth to Church be a knowne Catholike, the weake are to be admonished of the indifferencie of the thing, and the urgent necessitie he hath, to doe it; and so scandall is avoyded. If he be not knowne; how can he give more scandall, then 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 goe, lest otherwise the King should have thought himselfe disdained. This reason seemes to me very strange: that a man may goe to Church to serve his King, and may not goe to Church to serve himselfe (when as charitie alwayes beginneth at home: and if a man be naught in or to himselfe, to whom can he be good?) or that feare of displeasure through apprehended disdaine, can excuse a man from doing that which were otherwise unlawfull; as though a man were not bound, rather to suffer the displeasure of his King, with losse of his life, then suffer wrack of his owne conscience: and if feare of displeasure did excuse Naaman, why should not the danger of death, losse of fortunes, ruine of posteritie, and the like, excuse Catholiques?
4. The fourth reason, and most especiall difference is (say they) that Naaman made a promise before the Prophet and his own train, that he would from thence forth serve onelyonly the true God: and to that purpose carried earth with him to make an Altar for sacrifice. Whereas those that goe to the Protestant Church, doe not renounce all heresies, nor professe to frequent Masse, &c. But (pray give me leave to say) they doe; and that herein, there is no difference at all. For Catholikes that goe to Church are knowne to their Confessaries, and their minde and intention is likewise to him knowne, as Naamans was to the Prophet. And if they be knowne Catholiques, their beliefe is likewise knowne, at leastwise to their traine, if not to others, by their communion with the See of Rome; so that herein there is no disparitie at all. And if they be not knowne; it is prudence to keepe themselves so, more then to their Confessaries; which is a sufficient protestation in these troublesome times. For I wonder by what law a m…n is bound to make any other Protestation of his beliefe for the doing of a thing indifferent?
So that (as I have said) for the said foure reasons, and likewise because there is Idolatrie committed at Protestant Churches, (which I never yet could finde, as often as I have frequented the same, and doe hope to prove the contrarie) the aforesaid Doctors make it unlawfull and scandalous to goe to Church; and our case different from Naamans. Hence they liken it to that of Eleazarus and the other Maccabees, 2 Mac. 6.7. who were commanded by eating Swines flesh to depart from the law of God, and their fathers. Which (say they) by no meanes was lawfull to doe, or to make shew of doing the same: And a man may sweare it true. For Swines flesh being forbidden by the law, they were bound under sinne, to abstaine from the same. And if they should have made their brethren beleeve in words, that they had eaten, they would have told an untruth, with dissimulation in a matter forbidden by the law, both which were zSee the letter R pag. 28.mortall sinnes: which is as farre different from our case, as light from darknesse. For we contend that to goe to a Protestant Church, is by no law forbidden, but a thing indifferent, and by a good intention may be made really good without any dissembling. And they bring us an example of a thing, which in doing, many sinnes are committed: so that for the reasons which I have given, I conceive that the authoritie of the said rewoned Doctors concludeth nothing against our assertion; unlesse the Protestants were an assembly of fallen heretiques, where there were danger of sinne by subversion or the like, which can never be proved.
It may be fourthly objected, that it is the common opinion of men, that to go to Church is scandalous, because it is a signe of hereticall falshood, and a man so doing is reputed as fallen, both of Catholiques and Protestants. I answer, that it is false; and experience teacheth us the contrary. For who made it such a signe? and Schismaticks that goe to Church with an ill conscience, only to save their goods, notwithstanding in this, they are accounted to hurt onelyonly themselves, yet of all Catholiques they are trusted and esteemed as honest men, and of Protestants they are esteemed no other. And they sinne not (as I have said) in going to Church, but in going with an ill conscience, and being barred of simple Priests from other meanes of salvation, and in doing so, give scandall. But you will say: they deny their faith in this act. I deny that. They deny onelyonly recusancie with an ill conscience, and not religion. Yet I grant that such Schismaticks professe no faith at all. And if there be any other opinion of men concerning them, it is malicious and pharisaical, generated by the craft and deceit of others, under the species of pretended piety, making people beleeve, that there is sinne and scandall in the act, when there is none; and if any Protestant thinketh otherwise of this; they have it from the erroneous customary opinion of some Catholiques revealing the same.
It may be objected fifthly. To communicate with heretiques is sinne, and scandall: but to goe to Church, is to communicate with heretiques. Ergo. It is sinne and scandall. To which I answer, first distinguishing the Major: to communicate with hereticks publikely, and particularly denounced to be such, or in their heresie. I grant the Major, but deny the Minor in the same sence; but to communicate with heretiques not denounced such, not in point of heresie, to be sinne: that is most false: for then we should neither eate, drinke, buy or sell, with Protestants which is most absurd. Which absurditie to take away, and all scruple rising from thence by communicating with heretiques as well in service as otherwaies, was the before mentioned constitution of Martin the fifth, prudently made.
Adde that if we may not communicate with Protestants in going to Church, we must communicate with Brownists in refraining the Church, and so be thought the same with them, or else every one must be bound to get himselfe convicted for a Popish Recusant, that so Protestants may know him to be a Catholique and no Brownist; and so to avoyd water he must runne into the fire. If you answer, that so he goeth not to Church it maketh no matter what Protestants thinke of him, for Catholiques know what he is. I reply then by the same reason, that if he goe to Church, it maketh no matter what Protestants thinke of him, for Catholiques may likewise know what he is.
I answer secondly, that the Major supposeth what is not granted. viz. That Protestants with whom I goe to Church are formall heretiques: which I desire to be first proved. For an heretique is he that obstinately denieth any article aThis definition of an heretique is both defective & redundant: defective, for every obstinate deniall of an article of faith makes not an heretique, unlesse his conscience be clearely convinced of his errour out of the word of God, it is redundant also, for a man may be an heretique by denying any article of faith, though that article be not proposed to him by the Catholike Church to be beleeved; though but his pastour, or any other, religious Christian out of Gods word clearely propound it to him and prove, it or it be read by himselfe in the Scripture: if he obstinately persist in the denyall thereof after his conscience is convinced, he becomes an heretique.of faith proposed by the Catholique Church to be beleeved. How can a Protestant be said obstinately (which includes a knowne infallibility rejected) to deny an article proposed by the Catholique Church (as I have said before) when he beleeves bThe Protestants of England know other Churches besides their own, and some have learnedly discoursed of all the Churches in the Christian world, as Purchas, Brierwood, Mocket, Mr. Paget, and others: … true it is, they acknowledge no infallibilitie in the Roman or any particular Church, nor receive any Church for true and Orthodoxe, which consenteth not with them in all points of faith either expresly set downe, or by cleare and necessarie consequence deduced from holy Scriptures.none other Church, but his owne? For although Protestants hold divers tenets contrary to the Catholike cThe Protestants hold nothing contrary to the Catholique Church, though they hold many things contrary to the present Romane Church, which is neither the Catholike Church, nor a sound member thereof, as is proved invincibly by Iohn Reynolds praefat. thesium, Sect. 12. & Thes. ss. 27. & Apol. 5.23. And Bilsons answer to Cardinall Allen, part. 4. And Abbot against Bishop, in a Treatise intituled The true ancient Romane Catholike, to which none answer hath yet beene given, nor sufficient can be.Church; which have been justly condemned in their Authours as heretiques. 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. parte pag. 240. col. 1a. A man speaking heresie, that is, a proposition condemned by the Church, without an hereticall consent, is no heretique: neither in curreth excommunication denounced against heretiques; so that although they be incredulous dWith what face can he say that the Protestants are incredulous and beleeve not the truth? Who entirely beleeve the whole doctrine of the Scriptures, together with the three Creeds; that which beares the name of the Apostles, the Nicene, and that of Athanasius, together with the foure first generall Councels; in which time the Church most flourished: as also the joynt Doctrine and unanimous consent of all the Fathers both of the Greeke and Latine Church for five hundred yeeres after Christ our Lord came into the flesh. Let this traducer of the reformed Churches answer punctually, whether he beleeveth that the learned Doctors, Confessours, and Martyrs who lived and died within the first 500. yeeres, held the entire Catholique faith necessary to salvation or no? If they held it not, how were they saved, upon what good ground or warrant are so many of them canonized for Saints even by the Roman Church? but on the other side, if they beleeved all things necessary to salvation, how can we be esteemed incredulous, or defective in our faith, who beleeveth all that can be proved to have beene joyntly beleeved, and unanimously professed by them., and beleeve not the truth; yet they are not properly, and in rigor formall heritiques.
Adde that there is no more sin, to goe to the Protestant Church, then to goe to them to dinner, or to goe with them to a play, or other sports. And I for my part had rather give twelue eIs this the holy Romane Religion, to make a May-game of Religion? and to goe to Sermons as to a play to make themselves merry, and dispell a Melancholly dumpe? Besides their owne third commandement enjoynes them to keepe Holy-dayes, and their owne Casuists allow the Lords day to be a day that is holy. And is this a piece of holynesse to goe on such dayes to a play? yet neither doe I beleeve that he can readily name the man, much lesse many men that spake fustian with gravity in our Pulpits, but I am sure he who patched up this Safeguard out of rags of Religion and falshood speaks Linsewoolsey through his whole Discourse, and contrary to the law ploweth with an Oxe and an Asse. The later of which here brayeth irrationally and unjustly against the generalitie of Protestant Preachers and Sermons. Forsooth, we are silly weake and ignorant men, but they are all profound Gamaliels, nay Angelicall and Seraphicall Doctors. Whereunto I answer, as Saint Paul did to the calumnies of the false Apostles, 2 Cor. 10.12. We dare not make our selves of the number to compare our selves with them that commend themselves, but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves amongst themselves understand not. The Catholiques he saith, are Hounds (…lood Hounds I grant) and our Ministers timorous Hares, they dare not encounter the weakest Romane Catholique, they neither understand the controversies of Religion, nor dare meddle with any in their Sermons. If this were true which all our hearers know to be most false: yet me thinks 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 woodden Chalices and golden Priests, …ut now we have golden Chalices and woodden Priests; what great Gamaliels were they of whom Bonaventure complaines; Quidam sacerdotum, …lavem habent (he speaketh of the Key of knowledge) quidam claviculam quidam nullam; what was he upon whom Sir Thomas Moore thus playes in his …pigr…m, 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 Masse, bidding the Feast of Epiphanie, he spake to the honest rusticks on this wise; My good neighbours, to morrow you are to keepe good cheere 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 finde it not in my books. What was he that Christened a childe with this forme of words: Ego baptizo te in nomine Patria, Filia, & Spiritua Sancta What was he, who reading in the Gospel of Saint Iohn, invenimus Messiam, lept out of his skin for joy, saying, Now to the confusion of all Hugonots, I have found the Masse 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 hereticks to death, most Clarke like prooved his conclusion, that hereticks ought to suffer death, because the Apostle saith; Hereticum post unam aut alteram admoni…ionem devita. 1 Titus 3.10 foreign, that is, shun or avoyd but this silly animal mistooke the ver…e devita, for a proposition and a nowne, as if the Apostle had said; de vitá, out of life with him. Neither doth Pope Siricius better argue against P…iests marriage. Men in holy Orders must not contract Matrimonie, because the Apostle saith, They that are in the flesh cannot please God; neither Innocentius against Lay-mens reading Scripture: The beast that touched the Mount, was to be thrust thorow with a dart. Ergo. The people must not meddle with the Scripture. As for their manner of preaching▪ who so much scorne and deride ours, let all travellers speake, whether it be not thus. A Parish Priest, or some Monk or Frier, gets up into a spacious Pulpit, and there runs himselfe out of breath, from one side to the other; before his houre glasse be halfe 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 betweene whose head and heaven, there is not a haire first appeares to the people, he crosses himselfe (as their manner is, when they are affraid of evill spirits) then reads the Gospel of the day in Latine, 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 …ospell, and like the Crow in the Poet Cloathes his Discourse with the choicest of their feathers, in the end sticks two or three gaudy feathers out of the Peacock… taile: I meane the golden Legend, telling them how St. Domin…ck spying the Devill sitting in the Church like a Sparrow, called him to him, pluckt off all his feathers, and put him to a great reproach: or how St. Dunstane tooke the Devill by the nose with a paire of tongs fire hot: Or how St. Bernard …lest good Ale, and giving the same to certaine 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, condemne the Author of your golden Legend, for a man of a brazen face, and leaden heart, and bring better stuffe; yet even these come farre 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 …pistle 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 flocke; of any part of the Canonicall Scripture to expound it. Againe, the Protestant Preachers in their translation follow the originals, the Greeke and Hebrew: the Papists as they are bound under paine of a curse, follow the corrupt vulgar Latine, which they may not upon any pretence reject. The Protestants deliver no Doctrine of faith, for which they bring not Gods word. The Papists ground many of their Doctrines upon unwritten Traditions or Decrees of Popes, or Councels. 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 ranke and file; a Geographical… description of foure Regions under the earth, Hell, Purgatory, Limbus Patrum, and Limbus Infantum; an imaginary treasury of super-abundant satisfactions to be dispenced by the Pope, hallowing of Water, Salt, Creame, &c. Christening Bels, Singing Dirges, and Trentals, Pilgrimages, Whippings, Masses, without Communicants, dry Communions, censing Pictures, Invocation of Saints, worshipping of Images, with Reliques, and such like trash.pence to heare a Sermon, then take five shillings to see a play. For there is no such sport as to heare a weake fellow speake fustian with gravitie, or tell a fable of the whore of Babylon, or fDe te fabula narratur, unlesse you can substantially refute Vigniers his Theater of Popes, or Plessis his Historia Papatus, or Abbot, & Down. and Powell, and infinite others accurate and elaborate Treatises, De Antichristo, you must aske blessing of the whore of Babylon as your mother.Babylonians (for so now they terme Catholiques) with erected eyes in earnest. Or why should it be more lawfull to see a play where most commonly intercedes scurrilitie and obscene gestures, and the end of which, is nothing, but vanitie: then to heare 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 moralitie, which is the end and intention of the same? I pray resolve me!