THE business of your pleasant Letter I can no ways judge could be the motive of its jocular style: Is conviction for Recusancy so slight a matter, that it is only to be laught at, or is it that you have a mind to give his Majesty two of your three thousand a year? I fear not but it may be then you have been reading Mr. Cowley's Verses out of Hesiod lately.

But truly, Brother, believe me, if these Verses were Canonical Scripture, yet would they be too little to keep body and soul together, when the seisure is made by the Sheriff.

Yet is not 2000 a year worth inquiring after, at least to know some small reason for parting with it? Methinks it should be so; I'm sure, if it was mine, I should cry two words to a Bargain before I parted with a souse of it, except some body would secure me Terra firma in Heaven for Reprisals. And for your sake I am resolved to argue the point with our Holy Father the Pope, a little to know why we his poor despised Children in England are bound to do some things at his commands, he no ways expects from his [Page 4] more indulged ones in other Nations; and such things too that practised produce our utter ruines.

Now good honest Friend Mr. Jesuit, mind not me, but follow your more necessary Imployments of an­swering the Doctors Stilling fleet, Tilleson, and Floyd, with the rest of the Papist-Grinders: For I am no ways denying the Popes Infallibility, but will give him fair play, and allow him to be a more considerable person of Honour than consists with the posture of the times, or my present affairs.

Nay, if it will do him any service, I will grant him at present to be not only Supreme Bishop, chief Ruler, universal Head, or sole Head of the universal Church; but let him be as great, magnificent, and powerful as his most flattering Courtiers would have him, that is, as great indeed, as the Devil himself pretended, when he proffered the whole Earth, and consequently uni­versal Monarchy to our Saviour for a little worship. Let him be all this at present, if he pleases, say I, yet I hope to prove that an English Roman Catholick, and consequently you, Brother, may go to Church as the Law directs, nay ought to do it notwithstanding any commands or pretended commands from him or his holy Predecessors to the contrary.

For let us consider, that this Omnipotency of his power, be it more or less, must needs terminate in this, that he has no power where he will have no power, and cannot command where he will not com­mand: Nay, I may safely conclude, That a good Ca­tholick may believe he does not command where he plainly, openly, and solemnly says, he will not com­mand, till he unsays that saying.

[Page 5] This in plain terms is the Popes fate now in England; they have long since by an unrepeal'd publick Act of their Authority, Excommunicated in the highest man­ner this whole Nation; interdicting to the very ground that feeds us, and the air we breath, any spiritual Blessings or Benefits.

Now this solemn Excommunication not only casts out of the Fatherly protection and care of the Pope, those who fall under it; but deprives them of the use of Sacraments, Masses, Indulgences, Churches, Suc­cession of Bishops, Priests, and Holy Orders, and all other Christian Rights and Priviledges whatsoe­ver, as plainly appears from the very form used in do­ing it; as likewise in the practice of this Kingdom in King John's Time, as is proved by our Histories, when for six years this Kingdom remained under it; and lately in Venice, when the Jesuits left that State rather than obey the Senate, in performing Holy Offices con­trary to his Holinesses intention, which Act of theirs they to this day justifie.

I might instance many more Examples, to prove the sad Condition of Countries Excommunicated, if the Ex­alters of the Popes Authority were Infallible, Heavenly Oracles: But I having nothing to do in that point, shall only glance at those things necessary to my present pur­pose, which is, to save your Estate, Brother, and there­fore shall still allow the Pope his most extended Infal­libility, since that makes not at all against me in this Ar­gument. For 'tis not material to me that Father Paul, Author of the History of the Council of Trent, does in his defence of the State of Venice, against the pro­ceedings of Pope Paul the Seventh, prove, that Ex­communication [Page 6] is a spiritual punishment, which im­plies there ought to be an offence, and that except there be, the Censure cannot reach the Person against whom it was intended. I say, though this be reason­able, nay, may be unanswerable as to the thing then pleaded for; yet it will be no ways satisfactory to the point now in hand, which is, whether the Pope has any Authority left in England or no, for that is plain he has not; for though at first it may be all our Grand­fathers did not justly incur so rigorous a sentence, as to be wholly lopt off from the Catholick Church: yet that Pope that excommunicated them, and those ever since, have absolutely refused to have any Spiritual care of them, and consequently command over them; re­nouncing it then, and Annually renewing that Renun­ciation ever since; so that there has been no continu­ation of Bishops in this Kingdom, nor cannot be ac­cording to the Institutions of the Roman Catholick Church, till that solemn Excommunication be taken off.

In this Condition is England and Scotland put by the Pope, whilst Ireland our neighbour and fellow Sub­ject Kingdom still continuing in his Holinesses good Grace, enjoys all the Priviledges from him of the most Catholick Country.

So that I conclude, the Pope's Infallibility will cer­tainly reach this, at least; That he has Power to refuse to Govern, Command, or Protect all he pleases, and wheresoever he pleases: amongst which Places, I take England to be; since he, and all his Predecessors since Pius Quintus's Time, have solemnly declared it to be so.

Then, Good Father Clement, since you will have [Page 7] nothing to do, I desire you will still stand by, and let us shift for our selves as well as we can. As for the Gentlemen Missionaries you have sent to convert us, I hope we shall be able to deal with them well enough, for all we go to Church; which I am about to prove to you, Dear Brother, we may lawfully do.

First, The thing in it self is by all Casuists in the World allowed to be no Sin, but wholly Indifferent; as is plain from the Practice in France, and all other Nations. But this is such a Truth, that should I bring Arguments to prove it so, it would appear as imper­tinent in me, as a long Harangue would be to prove there are such things as Penal Laws against Recusancy in England: which, I suppose, to you, Brother, would be very needless.

Now this granted, That it is not Malum in se; how then can it be a Sin? Certainly it must be against some express Command to the contrary; and so it will fall under that Head of Malum Prohibitum. Now if I prove it not under this last, then it can be no Sin at all: And this will be no hard Task to perform.

For, Dear Brother, do but bestow a very little thinking (Half as much as a Meditation before a Mass, will serve) of that Authority which the Pope has left himself in England; and you will find, that all Bulls formerly sent, or hereafter to come from Rome, during the continuance of this Excommunication are to be lookt on here as fraudulent, false, and forged ones, no ways binding the most zealous of his Holines­ses Children, nay rather as things that in a most abu­sive manner give the lye to the solemnest Discipline and Rights of holy Church.

[Page 8] For in no Action can his Holiness so clearly express his intention and power as in those of solemn Excom­munications against Nations, they being the most visi­ble and publick demonstrations of his pretended Om­nipotency in governing the Earth. Now is it not more than Schismatical Insolence to affirm, that his Holi­nesses Empire and the Church is so divided in it self, as that one personal Act of his should positively con­tradict and give the lye to another, as it must plainly do, if he after the solemn Excommunication of a Na­tion, shall, during that censure, send any Bull of Dire­ction to guide the people thereof in their journey to Heaven, whither he openly declares they never shall arrive, having as much as in him lies, sealed up the Gates of Glory to them? For to this purpose or none tend all Excommunications, which are pursuant to the promise of Binding and Loosing. Therefore from this reason I gather that several things done and taught by the Jesuits and Missionary Priests here, not only fall under Protestant Laws of Treason and Catholick National Laws of Praemunire; but are also contrary to the Fundamental Rules and Practices of the Ro­man Catholick Church it self.

For an instance, Indulgences given by his Holiness to the Catholick Church in general, these are often published at Mass and in Sermons by Missionaries here, and the means to obtain the benefits of them zealously pursued and performed by Catholicks. Now allow­ing the utmost benefit to be really in them that ever Pardon-seller in Spain pretended, yet to English Ro­man Catholicks they can be nothing worth; for by that infallible power resides in the Church best ex­prest [Page 9] in lawful general Councils, of which sort we all say the Council of Trent was. I say by this infallible Power and in that Council is taught, That the inten­tion of the Agent is absolutely necessary to the perfor­mance or end of any Religious Action, or the benefits to arise thereby. Insomuch that the intention of the Priest, directed to the contrary, shall null or rather make absent the Sacrament of Baptism or any other Rite, notwithstanding all Ceremonies necessary were performed.

Now if this be truly so, as you and I, nay all Roman Catholicks are bound to believe, how much more will it operate in this trick of Indulgences, which flow on­ly from the Fountain of the Popes good pleasure, and can certainly operate no farther than he intends them, which cannot be to England, or any English man, they being put wholly out of his Fatherly care and prote­ction by his grand Interdiction, the best discovery of his intention that can be, except when he expresses himself in a general Council?

Pardon this short digression concerning Indulgen­ces, it being only to illustrate this infallible Truth, That these Indulgences or any other Bull in general or directed in particular to this Kingdom, cannot be supposed to flow from the Popes intention, since they so palpably are against his more solemn declared plea­sure, which he annually renews. Nor ought any Ro­man Catholick here look on them but as the tricks of private Missionaries for their own advantage, since they perfectly contradict, not only the Laws of the Na­tion, but the Fundamental Laws of the Romish Church it self.

[Page 10] We may indeed speak of Popes Bulls, Brother, as of Letters Patents obtained from Princes of course, which though, when according to Law, are binding, not only to Subjects, but against themselves and Successors; yet when they proceed contrary to the Fundamentals of their Government, then are they of no value, but in themselves void, Mankind always in such cases sup­posing the Prince to be deceived in his Grant: So stands the Case here. Till his Holiness takes off the Excommunication of this Nation, which is an effect of his plenitude of Power, and accords with the Funda­mentals of his Regiment; no Bull sent hither ought to be taken notice of, they being in themselves appa­rently void, as well as contrary to the Laws of the Nation, made in Catholick times, near two hundred years before the Pope cast off it, or it the Pope: Bring­ing in a Bull to this Kingdom without the Kings leave, being then made Praemunire, which Law was for all that time complied with by very many, and as we say, Good Popes.

To sum up all, it comes to this: Things in them­selves no sins, cannot become such, but by some lawful prohibition. Going to Church in it self is no sin, nor can it become so by the Popes Command to a Country in which he renounces all Power: England is such a Country; therefore till he or his Successors take off the Excommunication, no Catholick is obliged to take notice of that, or any other pretended Command sent from him hither, but perfectly (è contrà) Therefore going to Church is lawful in England for Roman Ca­tholicks.

But not to leave the point thus: I begin to doubt [Page 11] extremely, whether we are not obliged in Conscience to go to Church as the Law directs, or at least when we omit it, freely to pay the penalty. For it is grant­ed on all hands, that a thing not malum in se may be­come malum prohibitum, if commanded by lawful Au­thority, which I hope none of us will deny the Go­vernment in England to be: I'm sure he that should, would deserve the severest execution provided by the most sanguinary Law. Now the Government of Eng­land requires all the Subjects thereof to meet together at such a time and such a place, no matter where, suppose it Salisbury Plain; doth any man think he would deserve the protection thereof that should obstinately, without lawful excuse, refuse to come thither? no cer­tainly he would not, only incur deservedly the pe­nalty provided; but speaking like Christians, who are directed to obey for conscience sake, he would com­mit a grievous sin against God. Now what excuse can we make for our obstinacy, in refusing to go to the Churches at times commanded? The Popes pretended Commands will not do; for were they more binding than the Laws of a Nation, which certainly they are not, yet can we have none such from him, having no Bishops or Spiritual Superiours left, whom we might or ought to trust for the truth of them when they came, and we have his too too solemn promise, that he will have nothing to do with us. This being so, I am afraid the private discourses and false pretences of private mercenary Jesuits and Missionaries will not be a sufficient Basis to rely upon before the last Tribu­nal for such obstinate resistance against lawful Autho­rity in things in themselves wholly indifferent.

[Page 12] Now, Brother, I know Mr. Politick the Jesuit, if you shew him this, will presently bless himself with the sign of the Cross, desire all to joyn in a Pater noster and Ave Maria against the infection, and then dogmatical­ly affirm I am turned a rank, nay dangerous Heretick. Your Daughters must be desired to visit me no more, for fear of perversion; nay you will be perswaded to double my Annuity, on condition I never see your face again. Well, if these afflictions should happen, I cannot help it; but for the mind I am in, it must be stronger Arguments shall hinder me from avoiding conviction, as long as with a safe conscience I can. And I think there are none such; for I have considered all I ever hitherto have heard, and to me they appear weak and impertinent. But that I may not be thought only to affirm this, I will sum up all I know any thing to the purpose.

To begin first then with scandal, which is one Argu­ment mainly urged, I suppose it can never be intended, that if a weak Brother, id est, perhaps a Fool, shall be troubled in mind that I have six dishes of meat at my Table, and himself and many better Christians than I, have, it may be, scarce half a one; That I must there­fore, for fear of being an eye-sore to him, retrench my self to his fragments. And yet S. Paul, as to his own practice, seemed to resolve this, since he says, he would never eat meat whilst he lived, rather than of­fend the weak brethren: So I suppose, and reasonably, that his Doctrines of Scandals were calculated for the use of Christian Teachers, and those that sought to be Rulers in the Church. For had he intended them for all Christians, I am afraid they would have proved [Page 13] heavier burdens on Believers than ever were imposed on the Primitive observers of the Mosaical Law, and would have but ill accorded with the great Argument for Conversion, which was Christian liberty from duties which they and their forefathers were not able to un­dergo. Nor is it reasonable to think I am bound to part with two thirds of my Estate, because some fool my neighbour may think me an Heretick by my going to Church; no, let him think on, the sin is his, not mine, who do nothing but what in it self is lawful, and what becomes my duty by the Laws commanding it. But he judges amiss of my interiour Faith by my out­ward actions, though lawful, and therefore sins in want of Charity. Thus much I believe may serve for Scan­dal, though much more might be said.

The next Objection proceeds from this, that it is made the sign of Faith, and therefore he that complies in it, owns the Church of Englands Doctrine: but this must be by all rational men positively denied, if they will consider these following Circumstances.

First, when going to Church was commanded in England by a Penal Statute, it was designed rather for opportunity to instruct people, educated Roman Ca­tholicks, in the Principles of the Protestants, than as an Act of general Uniformity in Faith, which could not so suddenly be expected. Next, it would have been a vain way of trying the Faith of Papists by a thing they might lawfully, according to their own Re­ligion, do: nor can we believe the people of England assembled in Parliament could be so ignorant, had they been minded then to have known the hearts of per­sons, as to have fallen upon so impertinent a test. For [Page 14] to my sorrow we find, when they intended, that they knew a ready and infallible way to do it.

But suppose the worst, that the Law designed it as a tryal of Faith, and a discovery of persons Popishly in­clined (permitting still the thing in it self to be no sin) that can no ways oblige you to the refusal of it; for I would desire Mr. Jesuit to tell me, why you are more obliged openly to declare your self a Catholick, than he is to owne himself a Priest? fear of death I am sure should not deter him, since, if he dyes, his Faith calls it Martyrdom, which gains a Crown of Glory, a temptation sufficient, and much beyond what any of them will secure you for your Estate. But if he, like S. Paul, thinks it lawful to get down in a Basket, you may as advisedly come to Christ by night. For is it reasonable, that because the Law says, Every Popish Recusant shall be convicted, that therefore I should be bound presently to run and confess my self a Papist at the next Sessions? For 'tis as rational to affirm that, as to say I am bound, when the Law prescribes a thing to be done for tryal of my Faith, which I may in Con­science do, presently to cry out against it, and refuse it for that cause only. If that were so, then it would be no hard matter, by another trick, to banish us all the Realm, by declaring, whosoever should be within this Kingdom on the 25 of March next, should be esteem­ed to all intents and purposes no Roman Catholicks, but good Sons of the Church of England, whether they communicated in it or no.

Now I am afraid, Brother, if such a sign of Faith as this were by the Law made, yet Mr. Jesuit would find many excuses for staying after that time. But if he [Page 15] would not, I wish with all my heart the Parliament would make such a Statute, that we might be rid of them. But they know better their Principles, than to hope so fair a riddance by so easie a way; no, these are but weak Arguments to lead the too believing Laity by the noses, it must be stronger toyls that shall catch their Elephant understandings. Therefore, good Brother, let you and I be no longer held by them. For 'tis plain, neither scandal nor signum fide ought to be a hindrance to me from doing a thing in it self in­different, and which becomes my duty by the Law's commanding it.

The next material Objection I have from some of our Spiritual misleaders met with, is, That as Faith comes by hearing, so does Heresie; therefore we ought to avoid the place where it is taught, lest we should be misguided into it. If you answer this, by saying the Argument would hold all the World over, and so make it a sin as well in France as here, then they reply, That in Catholick Countries, though you hear Heresie in a Protestant Sermon, yet you have a Catholick Sermon presently clears the point, and makes it indubitable on the Churches side. Now this by the Prohibition of Religion is prevented in England, and therefore the case very different.

One would think this a very subtile Argument, so notably put together, that there would be no possibili­ty of answering it, if one did but very much stand in awe of the Magisterial Mountebank, that it may be with a world of Rhetorical flourishes, and grave Quotations out of Scotus, doth positively affirm this to be the opi­nion of all School-men, nay the Catholick Church it [Page 16] elf. But Heaven knows, examine it a little, and you will find it a meer rope of sand, as solidly compacted as their ridiculous, though politick Doctrine of Proba­bilities, and no better.

For will not they, or any observing man confess, that the Romanists of England, take them one with another, are ten for one more learned and confirmed in the Principles of their Religion, than those of France, or any Catholick Country indeed are? He that considers that most of the Natives of this Kingdom, who are of that Faith, be either Persons of Quality, who have had great advantages by Education, or Converts from the Protestants, will easily believe there must be a great disparity between such and the general herd of Vul­gars, bred in Countries under a Religion no ways fa­mous for making the common people too knowing.

But suppose it is not so, and that those who have so long strugled under difficulties in their Fortunes for Conscience sake, have done it more out of ignorance, the Mother, as some say, of Popish devotion, than of understanding; yet will the former Argument wash away in that part which says, those in Catholick Coun­tries have more opportunity of being untaught what they might prejudicially have suckt in. For none will deny, but more Doctrine is collected from rational discourses Pro and Con, than from such set Speeches as Sermons are. Therefore considering there are few Gentlemen in England of the Romish Religion, who have 500 l. per Ann. but keep a Priest in their Hous­hold; How is it likely, if good Arguments be to be found against every thing the Protestants teach con­trary to the Romish Faith, but that they should pre­sently, [Page 17] upon inquiry, have their new-raised scruples at Church by such sooner and stronger wip't off, than a person that it may be in a Catholick Country may go to Church both Sunday and other Holy-day a year before he hears any Sermon, casually to glance upon that point, whereon such doubt of his arose? And I dare affirm, so sweet is the profit the Jesuits and Missio­naries find in England, that there resides, and is like to do constantly so many here, that few Papists need to be a day from speaking with one of them, and that is an advantage equal to the most Catholick Nations.

But suppose all here said nothing to the purpose, but that 'tis likely many would be changed in time, and become Protestants; What is that to you or I, Bro­ther, or indeed to any rational Lay Catholick in Eng­land? for he whose case it should be, need not much repine that his conscience should lead him into a more advantageous Religion as to this World: and for the other, he would no doubt be as confident of a good place there, if he acted purely upon the score of Faith, as ever he was whilst he remained Papist.

But I confess many such accidents as those would shrewdly inconvenience the Priests, and in time lessen their number: But still what is that to you or I, Bro­ther? I find no Canon of any General Council com­manding you to give two thousand pound a year to increase the number of Priests, or to maintain those that be. Nor can I believe Christian Religion ever obliged its Professors to such remote considerations. No, all men were not bound, like S. Paul, to love to that extremity, as to wish damnation for their Country-mens sakes. They that can, let them; but still say I, Bro­ther, [Page 18] keep your money, you'l repent it else one day, take my word for it.

Another Argument I have heard started, which is, that if Catholicks should go to Church, yet the Parlia­ment would at last find out something like the late Test for Imployments, by which they would be found out, and so consequently be no ways the better, but suffer equally to what they should do by Recusancy.

To this I answer, that I ought as a Christian to obey the Government, as far as I can in Conscience, and that for Conscience sake, and to trust the Divine Pro­vidence, in whose hands are the hearts of Princes and Rulers, for any thing by them for the future to be com­manded; which if I cannot then comply with, I must either follow the direction of flying in persecution from city to city, or patiently suffer for my sins what God shall please by the Law to impose upon me. But this supposition, how well grounded soever it may seem, ought not to hinder me from complying, as far as I am able at the present; such test, when, if ever, it comes, will then with its penalties be time enough to submit to.

But I am of the opinion, and not without some co­lour of reason, that such a Test may never be, especially if Catholicks would leave off Recusancy. The grounds for my conceptions are these.

The People of England boast of this Priviledge be­yond most European Nations, if not all, that no person is bound by Torture or Oath to accuse himself of any thing, which by the Law is penal; but that proof ought to come of matter of Fact before he suffer. Now this so rational a Priviledge, which frees us from the sla­vish subjection of those governed by the Civil Law, all [Page 19] English Parliaments hitherto have been extremely tender of, as appears by those Laws provided for security of Religion since the Reformation. For eve­ry person knows, they who incur punishment by not complying in Forms of Worship, or matters of Faith, do it out of tenderness of Conscience, though it may be misguided. Now such persons one may well be­lieve would scruple above all things a false Oath: Therefore if our Law-makers had not been very care­ful of this English Free-mans Priviledge, they might have quickly left a latitude to Judges, and other infe­riour Magistrates by Interrogatories upon Oath to have found out all persons, that had through Consci­ence offended against any Ecclesiastical Law; as, Whe­ther have you heard Mass within a year or no? have you asserted or taught the Popes Supremacy, or brought in Crosses, Beads, or Images, &c. But we find no such Method allowed; which can spring from nothing but the care of this Sacred English Priviledge, always firmly rooted in the breasts of the Compilers of English Statutes. For I should think, if ever they would have strained the point, it would have been in detection of Jesuits and Roman Priests, a people they have long strove wholly to extirpate, as appears by the punishment provided for them, which is not only made capital, but of the highest nature any English Law has yet prescribed; yet they never went so far as to force them that were suspected upon Oath to purge themselves: which had they done, none could have been left alive in the Nation. For I have this opinion of them, not one would, upon such examination, deny himself, except he intended to desert his Faith: And [Page 20] this the Makers of those Statutes as well knew as the late Usurpers over all the Laws, Rights, and Privi­ledges of this Nation did, when they took that never-failing Method of examining them upon Oath; and detected, though not executed, all they tryed that way. But the lawful Princes and Parliaments of this King­dom have always avoided opening so dangerous a gap to perfect slavery; for it would be less unreasona­ble for men on corporal Oath to declare whether they were guilty of Treason, Murder, Theft, Forgery, Adultery, or any other notorious crime against the Law of Nature and the Nation, than that they should be forced to discover thoughts, which if not reduced into practice, could concern the good or ill of no per­son but themselves, and yet when known, should bring them under heavier penalties than some of the other crimes. For this reason, till I see it, I may just­ly believe there will never be such a way appointed in our Law for searching mens soles, whatsoever proba­bility there hath been of it lately.

As for the late Test, that can no ways be brought in objection against me, since Nations may prescribe what Gates they please, through which any person is to arrive at preferment in it. And it is not at all unnatural or unpracticable, that a proper Oath be provided for any one that takes an Imployment; nay, it hath always been the Law and Custom of this Nation, since Christia­nity, if not before, for every person to submit to some sort of Oath before he entred upon any trust in the Common wealth; insomuch that the Kings themselves are not wholly exempted from it. Now it is not at all more unreasonable, that one general Form over and [Page 21] above such particular ones, should be prescribed by the Law-makers at their directions, for all such as seek preferments to comply with, or not be capable of them; for what I receive, but of Grace cannot be called a pe­nalty, if I want: and under that head fall all imploy­ments in a Kingdom that are either of profit or ho­nour. For I suppose the being hindred from those of trouble will by no person be esteemed a grievance. So the imposition of the late Test cannot be called a pur­gation of men by their personal Oaths, to bring them under legal Penalties. Nor can indeed the Oaths of Al­legiance and Supremacy, it having been the Method of all Common-wealths to prescribe some Form to the Subject, whereby to own the Government; and that is in themselves discretion all. Nor ought we to suppose a Government can be malicious to its Members, or that it would lay snares for them, but rather that whatever they prescribe, proceeds from the desire of general security, they still framing their Oaths so, that they know all good Subjects may take them: if any cannot or will not, it lies upon such to quit the Protection of that State, and no ways obliges the State to comply with their obstinacy: And this last word for ought I know, doth too much belong to those that first brought up the custom amongst Catholicks, of refusing the two afore­said Oaths, of which more hereafter. In the mean time I only affirm, that we ought not to omit doing our duty to the Laws, as far as they now bind us, because there may come such as we may no ways be able to comply with. But it is an hundred to one too, that may never happen from the reason aforesaid; and it would be more unlikely, if there was a general compliance in the [Page 22] mean time to those things all rational men know Roman Catholicks might do, nay which many known, wise, and devout men of them have in former times, and do at this present practise, as I could instance beyond all controversie, if I pleased, in this thing at present treated of, which is going to Church. But, Brother, I know it would be needless to you, as well as prejudicial to them, and therefore I shall forbear names in a thing so notorious; only be you as wise, and do not be led by the nose to infallible ruine, by the bold, nay sawcy asserti­ons of Fellows, whose business is to secure themselves, command over your conscience no ways belonging to them, that they may thereby be Masters of such part of your remaining Estate, as shall be necessary to their plenty or prodigality; which if they, contrary to their duty and function, sought not, why should they study false Positions, and impose them on you meerly to in­snare your Estate? They ought surely to open the nar­row way to Heaven at least as wide as it might be, and not lay stumbling-blocks in our ways, never found out but in this miserable nook of the World, nor no where taught or thought on, but by our Missionaries from Rome, and our traiterous Fugitives, that on Religions first alteration fled thither. For such being guilty of hainous Treasons against our Princes, sought first to ju­stifie their villanies by pretences of Religion, having by their pernicious, false, and damnable Doctrines and Po­sitions, not only done vast hurt to the honest Professors of that, but have placed upon it scandals not to be wip't off but with the end of time it self. And these Wret­ches being grown desperate with the ill success of their damnable designs, daring not to return into that King­dom, [Page 23] against which they had so traiterously practised, sought to involve all the moderate Party, which stay­ed behind, into ruine, in revenge of their not unani­mous joyning with them in their black Attempts on the Persons of our lawful Princes and Governours. These were the persons that suggested to the Popes motives, for those idle Bulls so sent in contradiction of their more solemn declared intention, if any such did come, which we are now ways obliged to believe, did or could; but if they had or did, 'tis not at all material, they being no more significant in England, than a Let­ter Mandatory from the Grand Signior would be.

And indeed some of these pretended Bulls contain­ed such Commands to their beloved Catholick Chil­dren here (as they were pleased to call them in con­tradiction to their Excommunication) that they should unanimously have Petitioned the King, that both the Original and all the Copies of them might have been solemnly burnt by the common Hangman. Nay, any person that knew him, ought upon pain of damnable sin, to have discovered the bringer of them; in that if a Priest, he might have received the well-merited death of a Traitor; or if a Lay-man, all the Law has in that case too easily provided. I need not instance which Bulls I mean, they are so often brought against the Catholick Religion it self by Protestant Writers, and sufficiently to the shame, though not of the Popish Religion, yet of those Popes who granted them, and of those Papists that adhere to, or defend such Roman Court Doctrines.

But from such Catterpillers of the Christian Faith as those, did arise, amongst many more dangerous new Po­sitions, [Page 24] this of being not lawful for Roman Catholicks to go to Church, as the Law requires in England And for the sakes and on the wise Authority of such despe­rate Casuists, have many of our foolish Forefathers lost two thirds of their Estates, rendred themselves suspected to the people, and incapable of serving, as they ought to do, their lawful Prince in his extraor­dinary occasions; which when they have attempted to do, this their open unnecessary dissention has cast an Odium unjustly both on himself and his actions for imploying them.

Now if it be inquired by you or your Confessaries, what Arguments could move Pope Pius Quintus, or his immediate Successor, to send a Bull of Prohibition to the Catholicks in England for going to Church, the thing being in it self no fault, and as I affirm so po­sitively against the Rules and Practices of their Pre­decessors, nay against the Fundamentals of their Go­vernment: To this I must answer, There were divers Motives in Policy, as they observed things of this Island in Rome, though none in Religion.

First, they were perswaded by such Traitors as fled hence thither, that almost the whole Nation remained Catholicks, notwithstanding the Queen had altered the Government. And that they would find them such ig­norant ones too, as their Holy Predecessors had known them, when they made this Nation the Pack-horse to their pride, and a perpetual Fountain of Money to their Treasuries, which some of them with admiration boasted could never be exhausted. Upon these sup­positions they were made to believe, that such a Bull would cause this mighty Party to be visible, not only [Page 25] to their Enemies, but themselves, to the terrour of one, and incouragement to the uniting of the other Party. This was one, and it may be the grand motive of that Proceeding, so contrary to all President.

The next, and in all likelihood not the least mo­tive might be the perswasion of those Traitors, that there would be found in England many as desperate as themselves to bandy together, take Arms against, or assasinate the Queen, when they saw their Party so considerable as this would prove it, besides the blessing, must needs attends such pious endeavours, warranted by his Holinesses care and direction.

But all these Policies and Practices did by the wis­dom of that Queen and her Council, only tend to the discovering such desperates, as being of the like Prin­ciples, thereon took Arms, and were for it deservedly executed, or forced to increase the numbers of those Fugitives in voluntary Banishment. But notwithstand­ing this might, like a Message from Heaven, sufficient­ly have warned the Catholicks of England from hear­kening any more after News from Rome, at least till the Popes should have been so charitable to re-admit them into the Congregation of the Faithful, by taking off the Excommunication from them; yet have the private Missionaries (being all sent into the Nation un­der the title of Traitors by the Law) so adhered to the Tenets of the Court, as well as Church of Rome which sends them, that they have by degrees instil­led into the Laity here many Principles of Adherence to the Pope, that would be laught at in France, and some few other rational Catholick Kingdoms. Amongst which, this of thinking the Popes Commands can make [Page 26] that a sin, which in it self is none, ought to be account­ed one. Upon which ground alone they refuse to o­bey the Law in the thing now in debate; for which I think they are but justly punisht with the loss of their Estates.

But, Brother, be you wiser, study the Catholick Do­ctrine, as it is taught by Fathers and Councils, and not as it would fain be made by the novel Positions of Ig­natius's Followers, between whom and you there is a vast difference; both in the duty you owe to the King and his Laws, as likewise in those you stand obliged in to Rome.

For first, they and all other Missionaries, being the hour they set foot here, become Traitors, and so con­sequently in all the business they come about, not only out of the protection, but under the severest censure of the Law; no wonder they have not the same re­spect for it other Subjects ought to have, but dare pra­ctise lesser contradictions that offend in the greater. Nay it may be against their going to Church Scandal would prove a good Argument, since they pretend to be ready always to lay down their lives for the in­crease of their Faith; but this is no ways your or any other Lay Catholicks case, the Law, if you obey in some particulars prescribed, giving you equal pro­tection with others of the National Principles.

Another thing to be considered, is, That the hour they receive Holy Orders, they take an Oath of Sub­jection to the Pope, and so by the same Act become Renouncers of their Allegiance to the King, and Sub­ject to his Holiness. Now how far this may be con­sonant to Christian Religion, I will not examine here; [Page 27] but I am sure it puts them in a very different po­sture, as to the Popes designs, to what any other Catholicks are in: They being, according to their vow, upon the least summons to leave the Country, and to go where his Holinesses good pleasure appoints them; which I hope none of them will be so impudent to say you are obliged to do, Brother, except it be such as hold the mad Doctrine of Popes having power to de­pose Princes. For though the other doth not sound so ill, yet is it in effect the same; for to be able to com­mand a Princes Subjects out of his Dominions, doth imply a power of leaving him none there, which would produce an effectual deposing of him in the end.

Another considerable difference between Lay Ca­tholicks and Missionary Priests in this Kingdom, arises from the ones having Estates, and the other none. For no body can blame the last sort of Gentlemen to desire their power over the Consciences of the other should be as far extended as might be, if one consult, as most of mankind does, their private interest. Alas, what is it to Mr. Politick your Ghostly Father, that you shall lose by your Conviction 2000 l. a year? his Allowance will be never the less, he knows, but his power will be much more. For in the first place, that is a sure sign you are as firmly resolved to live and die a Catholick, as if he saw you at the stake to receive Martyrdom for it. Do you think after that he will not take upon him to direct you what Servants it is proper you keep, how many Horses, and when you may use them for re­creation, and when not? At what hour Mass shall be, and what is the critical minute for Dinner, Supper, and Bed-time in a well ordered House? If I had not seen [Page 28] the domineering Domine's extend their spiritual Do­minion in a devout Family, much beyond these small matters, I would have been silent; but Heaven knows, and so do you, Brother, that in such Popish Families, where the Hen crows, these are but the least of their insolencies: For such Women as are very ill-natur'd to their Husbands, and perhaps something ugly, have little to imploy their time in but Masses, Litanies. Ro­saries, Jesus Psalters, and Juniper-Lectures; and these are generally great Friends of the Priests, with whom they share the Dominion of the Hen-peckt Gentleman, till poor man he is glad to make the Confessaries an Advocate to his devout Bed fellow for a Play-day, that he may have leave to meet some few Neighbours to dust a stand of Ale, which he wishes may prove bot­tomless, that he might not be forc't to return again to keep company by stealth with his Fellow-servant the Steward in his own Cellar, where he bribes the Butler with a stollen Tester to keep counsel.

Now in this condition, dear Brother, on my next Vi­sit I expect to find you. By that time I suppose all things will be put in due discipline in your Houshold, where, no doubt, I shall be welcom'd with Friday-Fares, and new appointed Fasting-days for my Con­version, or at least driving me out of doors again; but be it as it will, I cannot for bear telling you, that the Priests, who have nothing to lose, will animate you by false pretences to incur the Sequestration that will sud­denly succeed your late Conviction, whereby they will confirm their yet doubtful Tyranny over your Consci­ence, and then see what will follow. Besides the loss of that goes into the Exchequer, you will find a [Page 29] strange growing charge for Indulgences, Masses for your Grandfathers, Fathers, Brothers, Sisters, and all your departed Relations Souls. Nay, if I should be so unkind to you as to die too, 'tis not twice my An­nuity would pay for all the conditional Masses they would say were absolutely necessary for my terribly to be doubted Soul. Alas, Brother, you cannot con­sider what a chargeable thing devotion in our Religi­on is, if it be accompanied with visible ignorance, and that the Priest once know the blind side, all goes, and there is no sign of it neither, the Jesuits having a bot­tomless Bag, into which they throw all they ever have or shall get from the foolish Penitents of their Order.

I could, nay would, and if provoked, will name se­veral particular Cheats acted by the Fathers of the So­ciety on devout Catholicks that were their Penitents, and had good Estates, but were almost undone by them in these late times. But I am as loth to scanda­lize them, as I am sure they will think me by this Pa­per willing to do it: and therefore I shall omit men­tioning any of them particularly, especially to you who I know are sensible of some of them your self. But leaving all these particulars, or any thing else that may too much reflect, I will return to the matter in hand, which is the lawfulness of going to Church, what­soever they or any of their Predecessors have, or can say to the contrary.

I think I have made it plain, that neither the Popes Commands, Scandal, sign of Faith, want of Opportu­nity to be satisfied in the scruples Sermons might raise, nor the fear of some future Test, can oblige any Lay Catholick to disobey the Law by Recusancy: But [Page 30] rather notwithstanding these Priestly Inventions, they are all obliged in Conscience to go to Church, as long as the Magistrates, who gives vigour to the Law, re­quires it. Now I will a little touch upon those things that the Law farther requires to be done by Lay per­sons, not seeking Imployments, and so leave you after­terwards, Brother, to your prayers and tears, that God would turn the hearts of the Rulers, if you shall still obstinately persist in your resolution of rather suf­fering in a crowd without reason, than save your self by it.

First then, let us consider the Oath of Allegiance, against the taking of which there want not numbers of Jesuits and Priests that do exclaim, nor many Catho­licks that thereupon fear to take it, though as King James well observed in the compiling it, there was par­ticular care taken as well by himself as others, that there might not be one word in it, which might raise a scruple in a person willing to obey the Civil Magi­strate.

Yet notwithstanding, this is so certainly true, that I never yet could meet with one rational Argument a­gainst any sentence, word, or syllable in it (except such as were grounded on that, not only Heretical, but Diabolical Doctrine of the Popes having power to de­pose Princes) notwithstanding this, I say, yet had and have the Missionaries such full dependence on the Court of Rome, that a great part of them, but especi­ally the Jesuits and their Devotes did always both then and lately strive to raise scruples in the Consci­ences of the more confiding sort of Lay Papists, to hinder them from taking it; by that means striving as [Page 31] much as in them lay, to keep some ready for the exe­cution of any desperate Attempt they might have op­portunity to design upon the State.

Now, Brother, I desire you would not take me to be too uncharitable in this assertion of mine. For to what purpose else should they strive to deter men from taking an Oath, the refusal whereof is of the direst consequence, both to Life and Estate, and yet wherein there is not the least thing contrary to Religion, ex­cept the renouncing all rebellious designs be such? I wish with all my heart I could frame some other less reflecting excuse, both for those Persons of Quality and lesser persons sake, that have formerly and very lately by their insinuations, not only scrupled, but too notoriously refused giving the Kingdom that small sa­tisfaction of their future Loyalty by taking it; but I fear it is impossible.

Now what in the name of wonder can the meaning be, that when the Law, Religion, Reason it self, and the Example of many noble, many wise, many devout, many, nay most zealous Catholicks of the Kingdom's readiness to take it, should concur to perswade all to do it, yet that there should be still a Party so led a­way by the dogmatical Authority of the Jesuits, that without shewing a reason, dare boldly affirm it not law­ful, it may be, as a strong Argument, adding a forc't sigh, with a Miserere for those that do take it? I say that there should be still such a Party amongst us, that on no better grounds have, and do refuse so justifiable and necessary an Oath, is not only a great wonder, but a terrible scandal to all those of a contrary Reli­gion.

[Page 32] They no doubt (and it may be not without Ju­stice) do believe there wants only opportunity for Ca­tholicks to renew all those bloody Stratagems against the State the Predecessors of the Refusers of that Oath did unsuccessfully attempt, though we in our private discourses do never so much pretend to abhor them.

For when they reflect, that few or none of us but hold the Pope can absolve us from any Oath we have or can take, and that many of us resolve not to stand in need of that, but to refuse all Oaths that should oblige us to the performance of our duty to the King; how can such, not having any violent propensity of love to us, but believe that there is some damnable design lockt up in the breasts of such Refusers, in which the others may close when it is ripe, there being no more hold of them than of a wet Eel by the tail, since an ab­solving Bull upon the Gates, or for a need on the ruines of Pauls, makes the Government and us as much stran­gers, as if we never had seen one the other?

Now I protest, when I have seriously reflected on ancient Popish Plots, on some sorts of Tenets, which we almost think Catholick, as this of the Popes Pow­er of Absolving from Oaths, which Protestants be­lieve, nay and some Catholicks too, means from Alle­giance, and on the obstinacy of us to refuse the Com­mands of the Law in things indifferent; I say, when I have reflected on these things without the prejudice given me by my Education, I have wondred the Laws against us have not been more severe than they are, nay that they almost suffered a people, of whom they could have no more certainty in State-affairs, and so ap­parently declared humble Servants to a Foreign Autho­rity, to live at all amongst them.

[Page 33] Now, Brother, I will not at all dispute the lawful­ness in Religion to take the Oath of Allegiance, since I know you have taken it, and are not yet so abso­lutely bigotted to the Obedience of the spiritual Com­mands of your Ghostly Tyrant, but that you be rea­dy on requiring to do it again; so that a discourse of that nature would be needless to you. But for all that, I will a little glance on that Proposition so gene­rally accepted of, the Popes having power to absolve at pleasure any person from an Oath he hath taken.

Now that he has undertook to do this, is beyond contradiction, and that several changes and revoluti­ons in Affairs of the World, both private and publick, have thereupon happened, is as plain. But by what Authority he at first assumed that Power, I believe is not, and may be worth a rational Catholicks inqui­ring after, that he may the better know how with a good Conscience (that will hold test before the Popes Superiour at the last Tryal) to demean himself in a Country, whose Magistrates are of another Reli­gion.

Now as a step towards this matter, I will beg leave of his Holiness to believe there were men in the World, and Governments too, before there were Popes; and that there were too amongst them cer­tain Moral Rules, by which they began, continued, and increased in the World. Now no doubt amongst many others there were solemn Compacts confirmed by overt Acts, which they accounted Sacred; and whosoever, after having entred into such Holy obli­gations, did violently break them, were by the rest of mankind either extirpated, if dangerous, or despi­sed, [Page 34] and never more trusted, if weakly so perjur'd.

Now it will as certainly follow, that new Accidents and Revolutions in Common-wealths or Families, might make it morally necessary, that the obligations lying upon one or many persons therein, by such sa­cred tyes, ought to be broke for the safety it is possi­ble of the whole. An observation of which Mankind soon found out Methods to distinguish persons so ne­cessarily acting against those sacred tyes which we call Oaths, from such as wilfully despised them; That the first sort, though breaking their Vows literally, might be kept from the scandal and punishment of Covenant-breakers, whilst the last should remain still under the lash of the Law, or contempt of their fellow Crea­tures.

Humane Nature falling necessarily under these cir­cumstances, it was requisite to appoint or agree upon some Judgment, which should be absolute in the point of determining when men were perjur'd by breaking their Vows, and when not, to which persons naturally would have recourse before they attempted the do­ing of it.

Now these Compacts, Oaths, or Vows were usu­ally either in Temples, with the assistance of the sa­cred Ministers made, or at least sworn by the Deity or Deities, to which such people were devoted; and therefore Consultations concerning the necessity of al­tering those Resolutions, were usually had with the chiefest of those Heavenly Officers: and for this rea­son amongst some, other Princes of large Kingdoms did in ancient time keep the chief Celestial Character united to the Regal.

[Page 35] For Experience shewed, that men naturally seeking liberty, began to pervert that obligation which Na­ture taught, of omitting the performance of Vows, ex­tremely prejudicial to society, into a belief, that there resided a power in these Spiritual Judges of the ne­cessity absolutely to absolve at their discretion any person they pleased: So quickly the one through am­bition of having such an Authority, and the other finding a convenience to satisfie their loose appetites, if they bribed the Possessors of this Divine good pleasure, did almost acquiesce in this unreasonable belief, that there was a Power delegated from Hea­ven to certain men, which made them Gods be­low: And that such persons had a power to make that at their good pleasure no sin, which in it self, if there be any good thing or bad, must naturally be so.

This indeed was the general practice of the ancient World before Christianity; insomuch that Moses the most Divine Law-giver amongst them, did take it to himself, though he is far from being commended for it by our Saviour, when he speaks of the Jewish Pri­viledge or general Dispensation from one natural Oath, which is Marriage, that Moses was pleased, by virtue of this Authority he assumed to himself, to leave to that whole Nation.

For our Saviour plainly says, this Power did not come from God, but was assumed by Moses for the hardness of their hearts, and that all that Dispensati­on notwithstanding to put away a Wife, except for the case of Adultery (which seems a natural dissolution of the compact) was a sin.

[Page 36] So that I conclude: Our Saviour who had almost as much Authority as the Pope, never did pretend to any like that of making things in their own natures sinful, to become none; but taught, that it was not in the power of Moses, nor any man else to do it.

Then let us descend to times succeeding that fulness of it which produced the Redemption of Mankind. S. Paul teaches sufficiently the necessity of keeping Vows; and I do not find his Holinesses Predecessor S Peter very frequent with his Dispensations. But lea­ving them, and hastening to those Ages, in which through the Piety of Christian Emperours, the Popes had arrived to a competency of temporal, as well as plentitude of Spiritual Authority in the World; We do not find for some Ages after, that though several Emperours turned Arrian, any Pope pretended to an Authority of dispensing their Subjects from the Oaths of Fidelity they had taken to them.

But it is possible some may, and not impertinently, answer, There was then scarce such a thing in the World as an Oath of Allegiance; therefore Dispensa­tions from what were not in being, could not be ex­pected.

To this I assent, and do well know Christian Reli­gion in its Primitive Innocency taught obedience from the Laws of Nature, which some called Conscience, and did not suppose any persons truly toucht with its divine Doctrines, could need any other obligation to perform their duties either to God or their Neigh­bour, than what their sacred Initiating Vow of Ba­ptism laid upon them. And so far I believe the Qua­kers, not without a true hint, that they needed one [Page 37] amongst another no other affirmations but Yea and Nay, and that they guided their Conversations by the true Rule Nature had taught them, which the Qua­kers call the Light within them.

But when Religion became National, and that ma­ny wicked people took the name of Christianity more for worldly than heavenly advantage, then were they forced to have recourse to new sort of solemn Oaths, taken either in Publick Churches, where Kings did likewise condescend to take new invented Coronation Oaths, and the People Oaths of Subjection in return. In the management of which Ceremony, the Bishops were the chief Officers, which by degrees hankt a great respect to them, and they not a little ambitious of more, taught the dependency of Subjects and Prin­ces one upon the other, not to be from the Laws of Nature, but from these Compacts, which their Autho­rity and nothing else could make Sacred.

These dangerous Tenets Princes not only at first connived at, but made use of. For the greatest part of the World being then shifting Subjection from the Roman Empire to native or more neighbouring Do­minions, was shatter'd into petty Regencies; so that the Bishops, who preserved a kind of Unity of their distinct Authorities in that of the Roman Sees, had a greater power over the common peoples minds, than those Kings of Counties had. So that indeed Domi­nion was often transferred from lawful Princes that durst stomach these spiritual Usurpations, to Usurpers that would truckle to the Clergy for their good word to prefer them.

Thus all things becoming again as in the first corru­ruption [Page 38] of humane Nature, where every body were forced to secure themselves from violence and oppres­sion by obligations, they believed most sacred Oaths invented or formed by Popes and other Bishops be­came the Method; which when there was a necessity of breaking, then they were consulted with as persons best able to judge of that necessity, and above all of them the Pope, as the most eminent, and then thought most disinterested Bishop, he being well provided for in Temporalties, and very much eased from such en­tire subjection to the Civil Magistrate, as other Bi­shops in particular still remained under; so from an unprejudiced assistant to Conscience, he by frequency of Addresses became at length an Umpire, then in a manner sole Judge of what Oaths or Compacts remain­ed sacred, and what by contingencies ceased to be ob­ligatory. So by degrees, as naturally all men aspire after Power, he took upon him to give, and the World ac­cepted from him of course Dispensations from any Vows were troublesom either to their affairs or ap­petites; and it may be, if he could have stopt here, the World and most Princes in it would have been contented still to have made use of this impossible Power he had assumed; but at last they flew to such Practices, as disturbed, nay destroyed their own So­veraign, the Emperours that opposed their insolen­cies, and attempted no less against most Christian Kingdoms: nay to such a height were they arrived, that few Kingdoms but must owne they did at one time or other receive a new Race of Kings from their appointment. And though several of them, as parti­cularly this Kingdom, have by Gods Providence re­ceived [Page 39] again their natural Princes, yet was it long first, and perhaps not truly in this Nation, till King James's assuming the Crown. But this excess, as well in their extention, as execution of their usurp't Autho­rity, alarm'd the World, and put that upon new Con­sultations for its safety against a Power which pretend­ed to the deposing of Princes, and alteration of Go­vernments, without so fair a warning as the beat of Drum. This produced our Statute of Praemunire a­gainst any person that should bring a Bull from Rome, and that as early as Richard the Second's days, where­in it is likewise provided, That if any Nuntio, Legate, &c. should presume to set foot in this Nation on a Message from the Pope, without having first procured the Kings Licence, he should be proceeded against as an Enemy to the State.

This and many other Laws of the like kind made both in this Nation and other Kingdoms about those times, sufficiently shew how weary and afraid the Ca­tholick World were grown of the Popes Pride and Usurpations.

But to return to the matter: If we will be so foolish to allow all things may lawfully be done, that have suc­cessfully been so, then the Popes have not only a Pow­er to absolve all persons from their Oaths and Com­pacts, but likewise to alter the Government of Nati­ons, and dispense to Subjects their natural obediences to their lawful Soveraigns, which are Tenets few Ro­man Catholicks in the World do hold to the full, and such as do, it is pity should be suffered to breathe any Air in safety but that of S. John's de Lateran, or the Vatican.

[Page 40] But not to leave the matter fully as I found it upon doubtful Suppositions, whether they have any Autho­rity or no to dispense with any sort of Vows whatso­ever, I will proceed to divide all sorts of Oaths in the World under these three several kinds.

First, Oaths to declare ones assent, or to strengthen ones duty in performance of such things as the Law imprinted in every rational Soul does require, should however be done.

Secondly, Oaths of Compact between Prince and Prince, State and State, or private person and private person, &c.

Thirdly, Voluntary Vows or Oaths to perform some Religious exercise or function, &c.

Under these three Heads I conceive all Oaths that have ever seemed to need or require Dispensation, do fall. As from Oaths in Evidence, those come not un­der our consideration.

Now in the first kind, neither the Pope, nor any Power that is, or ever was visible on Earth, could or can dispense; for that implies an Authority to give leave to commit things malas in se, and under this Head does clearly fall obedience of Subjects to their Princes, Children to their Parents, &c. things that, if there never had been Religion, would have no sooner lost their respect, but humane Nature would have lost its being by running into perfect confusion, which would quickly have produced its perfect extirpation. So that Oaths of this kind were not invented to create, but to keep in memory our duty: And where, upon great confusions in, and alterations of a Common­wealth, they have seemed to be otherways, in such [Page 41] cases they will fall under the next Head.

Which are Compacts ratified by Oath for mutual convenience. These no power on Earth, neither ever could or had Authority to dispense with, except by consent of all Parties to the Bargain or Agreement; for to affirm the contrary, would imply some one person still remaining in Mr. Hobbs State of Nature, presiding over all his Leviathans, who should not only have▪ a right to every thing in the World, but to break and dissolve all the Government of it at his pleasure, and indeed to annihilate humane Nature it self. But though no single person simply can have this Power of dispensing the performance of Compacts, yet have the Compactors themselves the undoubted Right of relea­sing one the other without consultation of any person unconcerned in the World.

Yet have Popes not only in the first, but likewise in the last, often put in their fingers, as particularly in the Hungarians fatal breach of solemn Faith, to the which punishment visibly showr'd from Heaven on the perjur'd Army, owned by many Catholick Divines almost as miraculous, has sufficiently evidenced to the World what little confirmation above is of such im­pious and destructive Dispensations. But when the Compactors themselves dispense one the other, no body bogles or starts at the breach of the Oath, as we see lately in Holland, where the States General dispensed the Prince of Orange, themselves and the Country of an Oath taken against State-Holders, which I have not yet heard of any man so say was not lawful for them by mutual consent to do. Though I know, had it been a Popish Country, there would have been some [Page 42] Fees expected at the Apostolick Chamber for his Ho­linesses unnecessary Dispensation.

Thus we see, that Oaths in themselves dispensable, are easily by the proper persons dispensed, without the Authority of a heavenly Delegate, who can never ar­rive to a greater Dominion rightfully in the matter, than as a person whose discretion is proper to advise with, and can only be that too to such as are pleased freely to think him so.

But as for the last branch of Religious Vows, the Author or Prescriber of the form and fashion of the thing to which they swear, may have power to ab­solve at discretion from the performance of it; and I will not say but in our Church this may be the Popes Province, which if he pleases to keep within, he may; but if he will be still medling, without being called, with other mens concerns, let him for me; but I fear it will be but to very little purpose; Kings and Gover­nours being now wiser than to be over aw'd too much by his Pragmatical censures.

Dear Brother, think not I have treated thus long upon Vows and Dispensations to inform you or any man else in this Age, who are wise enough without my help to know that all this boasted Power of the Popes to dispense men from Oaths or their Allegi­ance, has no foundation in Reason or Religion, and is only bolster'd up with Examples of the success of some former Bishops of Rome in their insolencies; which way of arguing is just of the same Authority, as if I should, to prove the piety of High-way robbing, tell you the story of the late famous Hind, who living many years on that profession, yet had the honour to dye for his [Page 43] Loyalty to his Prince, and not as a Thief.

But passing all these things over, I do conclude, it is not only lawful to take the Oath of Allegiance, but to keep it when we have done, nay that we are ob­liged to do the last under pain of eternal damnation, let the Pope say or dispense the contrary how he please. And further I do affirm, no rational man can prove the contrary sufficiently of the other Oath, notwithstand­ing its Bugbear name of Supremacy.

Nay now he's quite gone beyond recovery I am afraid you your self will say notwithstanding all bro­therly affection, and then you'll go on in crying there was some hopes of recovering me to the Catholick Religion, whilst I only pleaded for going to Church and the Oath of Allegiance, but to say it is lawful to take that horrible terrible Oath of Supremacy, shews me a confirmed Heretick, ready to take the Test on the first opportunity for an Imployment.

But, Brother, I desire you to suspend your censure of damnation against me, lest you prove as rash in it, as the Pope was that first Excommunicated this whole Nation in Queen Elizabeth's time. For no doubt he and several of his Successors since have in their minds secretly repented so inconsiderate an act, though they will not acknowledge it, by taking off that censure, till some previous Action of the Nation requires it, which I am not like to live to see. My reason for this Supposition is one of the motives of my asserting the lawfulness for us of taking the Oath of Supremacy. For what reason can there be for our refusing to do so, since he refuses all spiritual Superiority over us, and the King accepts it, and in these two points consists [Page 44] the whole scope of this Oath? It requires me to swear the Pope has no Authority over this Kingdom. And if▪ I will take his own honest word, he has not, nor will not have. What can be better than his own most solemn Excommunication to prove it?

The next Point I am to swear, is, That the King is Head of all Persons and Affairs as well Ecclesiastical as Civil in these his Dominions, which no person that hath his right wits I think can deny, as the case now stands. For if ever the Popes were Heads or Supreme in Ecclesiastical Affairs within this Nation, they have long since, by an Act of their own as well as of the Nations, ceased to be so. Therefore if any be, it must be the King, since the Law says so; though it be worth inquiring as to this point, how the Law means him Head of Ecclesiastical matters.

First, I suppose it means Head of that Church and the Ecclesiastical Affairs therein that is established by Law. For it cannot mean any other, since we see a power of Dispensation contrary to Law for the most minute dissenters, to meet in another Form of serving God, has been controverted. Not to say more of the point therefore: if there must be but one Religi­on established, and no other tolerated, then the Law only intends him Head of that, which the Pope him­self will not deny him to be. So I suppose I may law­fully swear him that, which no other person ever did or can pretend to besides. Now this matter having been excellently well treated of and handled in former times by some learned Casuists, when the Intention of the Law, in the point which commands the Oath, was not so plain as the Law-makers by late passages seem [Page 45] to make it; I say, since many good Catholick Casuist Priests have writ in defence of the taking it in former times, I will omit to press that further, which to me appears plain; resolving however, if you shall send me your doubts, of this or any other point discussed here­in, that I will readily answer them to the best of my skill, being satisfied in my Conscience, that I have said nothing herein scandalous to Catholick Religion it self, nor to any one but such that make that the sheeps raiment for wolvish designs.

So, Brother, once again I desire you to take into your serious consideration, what it is to lose a good Estate, not for conscience, but ignorance, to make your self uncapable of doing service to your Prince, when there may be occasion; but above all, what scandal you stamp on the▪ Religion you profess, if you obstinately and without reason shall persist in disobe­dience to every thing the Law appoints the Subjects of this Nation to do.

As for your expectation of assistance from the King, it is one of the most unreasonable things, examine it rightly, that can enter into the heads of men, whether you take it quadrate to his personal or rational In­terest.

For alas, to say the Catholicks of this Nation were all loyal, or rather truly not disloyal to his Father and him, is but to make a History of a very short Age. For all the World knows, that it is as possible for Ca­tholicks to be Rebels, if it consists with their Interests, as any other men; for he that should deny this, might as well affirm we had no such thing as Rebellions in England before Henry the Eighth's time, which I sup­pose, [Page 46] if he would consider how King Johns Charter of Priviledges was extorted from him, he would by no means assert. But alas, let us say what we will on this side the Water, our Brethren in Ireland, we know too well, led the dance to all the late mischiess, ex­cept now I reflect on it, they were out-posted by the Covenanters of Scotland. But indeed it is a folly to expect that any Religion, being once become an Art, will refuse to have recourse to the Sword against be­ing opprest, and I am afraid it is much for want of numbers proportionable, the best of them are quiet in such circumstances.

But however supposing the best, that all Catholicks were loyal, and that their Principles made them so, is that an Argument sufficient to make the King pro­voke all his other Subjects to be otherways by his Indulgence to them, who are not as one man to a hundred of the Nation? Which is most reasonable, that you, dear Brother, should strive as far as you can by the Rules of your Religion to comply with the Law for your own advantage, or that the King should be forced to stop the course of it to his own prejudice to comply with your nice obstinacy, meerly because he has your bare word, that you will be very service­able to him? If another Rebellion shall on that ac­count arise, I am confident the case thus stated, as certainly it does at present stand, all rational men, nay the Pope himself, would conclude, that the King in not medling, but letting the Law and you tug for it, is much in the right. Nor could he himself, were he a Subject of any Catholick Country, expect more friendship or favour. So for whose sake this happens [Page 47] to you is not material, so it is, and is like to be. There­fore let me once again advise you, go to Mass at seven, to Church at nine, and if Mr. Politick scruples giving you Absolution for your sins, except you confess that for one, send to me, I'le find you one shall venture his neck in the point to serve you for twenty pounds a year, which you may easily save out of the two thou­sand that is demitia except you follow my counsel, and deal with none but honest Catholick Priests, not Roman Courtiers, Men that aspire to be Provincials, nay perhaps General of their Orders for their sturdy tricks in opposition to our Laws. These things I have said are great truths, that you will thank me for one day, if you follow the advice; if not, you will repent your self, when you shall be ashamed not to persist contrary to reason in what you so unreasonably be­gan.

I could, Brother, have said much more to the Point, which it may be I will add as I find you relish this; till when I shall remain, saying Paters and Aves for the opening of your understanding to your own good: So farewel.