Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	ghost_n	holy_a	sin_n	3,325	5	4.9847	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A09111	A treatise tending to mitigation tovvardes Catholike-subiectes in England VVherin is declared, that it is not impossible for subiects of different religion, (especially Catholikes and Protestantes) to liue togeather in dutifull obedience and subiection, vnder the gouernment of his Maiesty of Great Britany. Against the seditions wrytings of Thomas Morton minister, & some others to the contrary. Whose two false and slaunderous groundes, pretended to be dravvne from Catholike doctrine & practice, concerning rebellion and equiuocation, are ouerthrowne, and cast vpon himselfe. Dedicated to the learned schoole-deuines, cyuill and canon lavvyers of the tvvo vniuersities of England. By P.R.	Parsons, Robert, 1546-1610.	1607 (1607)	STC 19417; ESTC S114220	385,613	600

ly you may not aduise her according to S. Augustine before recited no not for the sauing of her owne life or of any other to destroy or disgrace herself by her owne cōfession when the cryme is secret nor any witnes or other proofes extant were hard to counsell her and against equity if then without making a ly she might escape and deliuer her self by vsing some equiuocation of words will you call it heathenish 〈◊〉 a monstrous hydra But I do hope by this time that yow are somwhat calmed in your former heates against this doctrine and therfore I will vrge no further your outragious tearmes against the same but nowe shall passe to set downe the particuler cases wherin our Doctors do hold that some equiuocation or amphibologie of words may be lawfully vsed without ly or other offence OF CERTAINE PARTICVLER CASES AND OCCASIONS VVherin it may be lawfull to vse the manner of Equiuocation or Amphybology before set downe either in speach or oath VVith the reasons therof CHAP. X. HYtherto haue we treated of Amphibologie and Equiuocation in generall to wit what their nature is how different from lying consequently that in some causes and occurrent occasions they may be lawfull and vsed by good men without sinne or offence and so haue byn by 〈◊〉 holy persons yea often by the holy Ghost himselfe as before largely hath byn declared Now then for more perspicuitie it remayneth that we lay forth breifely some particuler and principall cases wherin the said vse of Amphibologie or Equiuocation by learned Catholick Deuynes is admitted and allowed which we shall do with the greatest breuitie and perspicuity that we may considering the great variety of Authors matters and opinions that vpon such Cases doe arise the seueral explication wherof would require a great volume But it shall be sufficient for the iudicious Reader to vnderstand that as in all other humaine and morall matters there may be and is commonly difference of opinions how this or that ought to be done or practised though they agree in the Doctrine so heere also when and how and in what wordes and what forme os speach a man may iustlie vse Amphibologie or Equiuocation for couering of Secrets that are not conuenient to be vttered all doe not agree but haue their different iudgements though in the principall they doe all concurre that in some cases the said Amphibologie or equiuocation may be lawfully vsed without lying or other sinne of which Cases we shall heere recite some principall The first case about the secret of Confession §. 1. 2. THE first and most generall case wherein all Schole Doctors without exception do agree that such Equiuocation may be vsed is in matters appertayning to the seale of Sacramentall Confession to wit if a Cōfessour or Priest that hath heard an other mans confession should be demaunded whether such a one had confessed such a syn vnto him or not though no wayes nor vpon any consideration whatsoeuer he may tell a lie according to our former Doctrine yet may he not only say nescio I know nothing but answere directly that he hath not confessed any such thing vnto him albeit he had so done and that the said Confessour may not say but sweare also this answere of his vnderstanding reseruing in his mynd that the penitent hath not cōfessed the same vnto him so as he may vtter it The reason of which answer albeit diuers Authors do diuersly explicate as that this was confessed to him not as to man but vnto God or as to Gods substitute in the tribunall of Cōfession and the like wherin I remit the Reader to Dominicus Sotus a learned Deuine and to Doctor Nauar no lesse renowned lawyer who handle the matter at large in seueral Treatises yet both they and all other Deuines and lawyers as hath byn said do hold that in this case of Confession the obligation of secrecy is so great as for no respect whatsoeuer nor to what person soeuer though he be neuer so lawful a Iudge Prince Prelate or Superiour nor for sauing of a whole Kingdome or common wealth and much lesse the liues of any particuler men or women or of the confessour himselfe no nor of the whole world togeather if it were possible or to worke neuer so much good therby nor though the said Cōfessour were put in neuer so great torments imò si mille mortes 〈◊〉 essent if a thousand deathes saith Tolet were to be suffered by him yet might he not vtter the same And further if the Case should fall out that he could not confesse his owne sinnes without giuing some particuler and personall suspicion of the other vnto his confessour he were bound vnder sinne to pretermit his owne confession vntill he found another Confessour vnto whome without this perill he might be confessed 3. Which sacred and inuiolable seale of this Sacramentall secrecy being considered and that Amphibologicall and Equiuocall speach with a true reseruation of mynd is no lye at all as in the precedent Chapters hath byn largely proued it is inferred that a Confessour in this case is not only allowed to vse the same prudently when need is for couering of the said secrecy but is bound also in conscience thervnto vnder greiuous sinne when by no other meanes of silence diuersiō or euasion the said secrecy can be concealed 4. And in this al Schole-Deuines whatsoeuer do agree as hath byn said and namely all those whome before we haue mentioned in the precedent Chapter and first point therof and among other M. Mortons Genesius in like manner is with vs against him whom he hath picked out as singular and single among all Catholicke writers in this behalfe denying the lawfulnes of Equiuocation in sundry other Cases but in this granting and auouching the same with great asseueration in these wordes Deus Ecclesia ipsaque ratio naturalis arcanum sacrae confessionis quod multis scriptis legibus nominatim est sancitum tam sanctum esse voluerunt vt in nulla prudenti modò coacta sic cognitorum peccatorum inficiatione possit esse vel periurium vel mandacium propter Sacramenti huius maiestatem maximam publicamque Religionis Christianae perturbationem God and the 〈◊〉 and naturall reason it selfe would haue this secret of holy Confession to be so inuiolable which is established also by many written lawes of the Church as by no denyall of sinnes so knowne in confession so it be prudently done and vpon compulsion can there be either periury or lying both in regard of the Maiesty of this Sacrament of Confession and of the great and publicke perturbation of Christian Religion which would otherwise ensue if matters reuealed in confession might at any time vpon any occasion be vttered againe So he Holding as you see that no denyall of matters heard or knowne by confession in what sort soeuer can be a lye or periurie the

shalt say vnto them c. And the said Princes came to Hieremy and examined him and he spake vnto them according to all the wordes which the King had commanded him and so they left him 33. Thus far the Scripture and no man can probably imagine but that in this recapitulation made by Hieremy vnto the Princes of so long a conference had with the King in secret but that for couering of those thinges which the King would not haue to be vttered and the Noble men were greedy to know in such a dangerous and suspicious time of seige as that was Hieremy himself being held for more then half a traitour to his countrey for that he perswaded men to yeeld themselues to the common enemy no doubt I say but that in so strait an examinatiō as they would make about that matter in whose power his life and death as the Scripture signifieth did ly diuers Equiuocations of speeches must necessaryly be vsed by him though alwaies with a true sense in his meaning which is the difference betweene Equiuocation and lying as after more particulerly shall be shewed if first we set downe one other consideration for better declaring the difference in these two thinges and how farre those are from approbation of lying who in some cases doe admit Equiuocation in our doctrine The fifth Consideration §. 5. 34. IN the fifth place it may be considered about this matter how farre the teachers or allowers of Equiuocation are from teaching or allowing of lies which is the ordinary calumniation of this malicious Minister throughout his whole seditious booke which if it be proued to be a false charge then falleth all his accusation to the ground or rather vpon his owne head Wherfore we must stād somewhat more long vpon this point then vpon the former to the end it may appeare how 〈◊〉 a Minister of Sathan this is whose principall exercise hath euer byn to calumniate from the beginning and we shall talke especially of the Catholicke writers of these last foure hundred years by him mentioned and of the Popes of the same time that haue approued the same doctrine for that of this principall accusation that they made no difference betweene lying and Equiuocating but expresly rather patronized the one as much as the other 35. First then for battery of this wicked slaunder we will beginne our confutation from the receaued authority of the famous learned doctor S. Thomas of Aquin that liued and died aboue three hundred yeares gone He proposeth this question in his most excellent Summe of Deuinity VVhether all kind of lying be alwayes a sinne and consequently vnlawfull for any cause And he holdeth affirmatiuely that it is so alleadging many proofes and reasons for the same And the very same seuerity of doctrine in that point doe hold all other Schoolemen aswell after him as before him and our Minister himselfe citeth Vasquez the Iesuite late Reader of Deuinity in Spaine in certaine disputations of his vpon S. Thomas affirming Mendacium esse malum tam intrinsecè vt bonum reddi nulla ratione posset That a lye is so intrinsecally euill of his owne nature as that by no meanes it may be made good or lawfull And the like rigour of doctrine teacheth the said S. Thomas in the next question after against dissimulation and Hypocrisy which he saith to be a kind of lye in fact deceauing a man by exteriour signes or actes as the other sort of lies doth by wordes against both which kindes or sortes of lies or vntruthes he holdeth this conclusion That neither of them in any case is dispensable from sinne though in some cases one may be a lesse sinne then another and if this be so how then can Equiuocation be permitted by him if he held it to be a lye as our Minister would haue it For if as Vasquez said no sort of ly can be made lawfull by any circumstāce then must M. Morton grant that it followeth by the same reason that either Equiuocation is no ly or els that Vasquez the Iesuite and his fellowes doe not allow Equiuocation in any case whatsoeuer consequently that Iesuites are falsely accused by this fellow for admitting Equiuocation But let vs goe forward and shew his folly out of other Authors of no lesse antiquity 36. Before S. Thomas the Maister of the Sentences Peter Lombard in his third booke and 38. and 39. distinctiō holdeth the same seuerity against all sorts of lies and falsities deuiding them into three sortes to wit perniciosum officiosum iocosum the first pernicious or malicious that intendeth hurt without good the second that intendeth the good of some without hurte to any the third in iest all which notwithstanding are condemned for sinfull and no wayes to be practised or tolerated for any cause whatsoeuer though the secōd two sortes may be oftentimes veniall sinnes only but yet of such nature and so intrinsecally euill of themselues as neither for sauing our owne liues or the life of another man they ought wittingly to be committed as out of S. Augustine also by him and other Schoolemen alleadged is confirmed yea they alleadge eight seuerall kinds sortes or degrees of lies out of the same S. Augustine some farre lesse then others but yet none allowable and so they conclude with this sentence of the said Doctor Quisquis verò aliquod genus esse mendacij quod peccatum non sit putauerit decipit seipsum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 se deceptorem aliorum arbitretur Whosoeuer shall thinke that there is any kind of lye which is not sinne he 〈◊〉 deceaueth himselfe by thinking that he may be an honest deceauer of other men 37. This is the doctrine of the Maister of Sentences for foure hundred yeares past and of other Schoole Doctors ensuing after him vnto our time wherin yow see how rigorous they are in condemning lying wheron this Minister Thomas Morton either by chaūce or his good happe stumbling found store of matter to wrangle with vs in this controuersy and to make a shew of some reading of different Authors wherin otherwise he must haue byn very briefe and dry For whatsoeuer he hath of ostentation in this behalfe against Equiuocation is stolne 〈◊〉 of the said Maister of Sentences and Fathers by him alleadged spoken and meant by them against lying and not Equiuocation And is not this a goodly manhood trow yow deserueth he not a laurell for this conquest Our Authors detest lying and admit in some cases Equiuocation he applieth their detestation to Equiuocation or their admittance to lies and saith that he deuideth our tongues turneth our owne Authors against vs what a ridiculous toy and foolery is this But let vs see yet somewhat further 38. The same Schoole Doctors stay not heere but doe passe on to many other particularities for shewing their detestation against the foresaid kind of lying for fauouring wherof they are brought into question by this Minister

reason therof being not only that which heere Sepulueda doth touch but 〈◊〉 for that which before hath 〈◊〉 insynuated that thinges knowne in Almighty Gods Court and trybunall and as vttered vnto himself may truly be denyed to be knowne in a humaine tribunall and as the priest is a priuate man and not a publicke minister of God 5. One only Case there is wherin all the said Deuines agree that a Confessor may vtter any Cryme confessed vnto him Vnus est solus casus saith Tolet in quo Confessarius potest alteri manifestare peccatum Confessionis c. One only case there is in which the Confessor may manifest a syn heard in Confession vnto an other to wit by licence and Commission of the penitent himself which thing Doctor Nauarre doth proue at large by the common opinion of S. Thomas other Schoole Deuines with the concurrence and consent of the Canon law and lawyes cyted by him And then must he reueale it also but to him alone for whom he hath licence qui 〈◊〉 casu reuelat grauissimè peccat 〈◊〉 saith Tolet and whosoeuer in any other case doth reueale it he doth sinne a most grieuous mortall sinne and 〈◊〉 also the punishment assigned by the church in the Canon law for so heynous a cryme And if further saith he any wicked Iudge should compell him to reueale the same vnder an oath he may 〈◊〉 that he knoweth no such sinne though he know it indeed but yet knoweth it not so as he may reueale it And this is the common Doctryne of all disputed more at large by the Reuerend and learned man Dominicus Sotus the Emperour Charles his Confessor in a speciall Treatise called Relectio de tegendo 〈◊〉 A Relection about couering secrets wherin he sheweth how farre a man may disclose them and what obligation he hath of conscience to conceale them in euery sorte or kind And thus much breifly for this first case The second case about Secretes of the Common welth §. 2. 6. THE second Case that for obligation of secrecy commeth next to this first though in a different degree is when Magistrates and such as haue gouernement in the Common wealth as Senatours Councellours Gouernours Secretaries Notaries and 〈◊〉 like and con equently do know the secrets therof 〈◊〉 pressed to vtter them which they may not do in matters of moment and that may turne to the preiudice of the said 〈◊〉 wealth or of any particuler man if the businesse be of great weight and handled secretly by the Cōmon wealth for any cause or peril whatsoeuer yea though their liues should go therin for that they are more bound by reason of their offices to the reseruation of publicke secrets both by law of nature humane diuine then priuate men are though as Dominicus Sotus in his foresaid booke De tegendo Secreto doth shew that a priuate man also comming to know any secrets of the Common wealth is bound vnder mortall sinne to conceale them and rather to suffer death then to disclose the same especially to enemyes as the Ciuil law also declareth but much more those that are in publicke office wherof Sotus giueth this example among other If a Iudge which heareth a weighty cause should be assayled by one party vt merita causae prodat to vtter the merites or secrets of the cause debet potius gladio succumbere quam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He ought rather to suffer himselfe to be slayne by the sword then to breake his faith by vttering that secret but much greater more greiuous sinne it should be to vtter the same for money or bribery hatred malice or other like cause Et idem crediderim saith he de Scribis quorum fidei causae graues committuntur and the same I would thinke of Notaryes Scribes or Secretaries to whose faith weightie matters are committed 7. And finally the said Author hauing handled in the first part of his said learned booke the great obligation that man hath by law both of faith iustice equitie and charitie to conceale secrets he putteth these degrees therof In primo gradu saith he est secretum Confessionis in secundo secretum publicum c. In the first degree is the secret of Confession wherof we haue handled before in the second degree is the secret of the Common wealth out of Confession in the third degree is the secret of priuate persons and that in different sort all which we are bound to conceale ordinarily vnder the payne of mortall sinne except the smalnes of the cause do sometymes excuse the same and make it veniall So this learned man and it is the common opinion of other Schoole-Deuines in like manner 8. Wherfore seing the obligation not only of concealing secrets heard in Confession but of those also that be secular out of Confession is so great especially of those that be publicke and appertayne to the common wealth it followeth that when a man shall be vniustly pressed to vtter the same he may not only deny to vtter them which he must do vpon payne of damnation as yow haue heard but also dissemble to know them by any way of lawfull speach that may haue a true sense in his meaning though in his that presseth to know them it be otherwise wherof besides that which in the precedent Chapters hath byn said we shall haue occasion to treate more in the next case ensuing which is more generall For if it be lawfull for any priuate man that is called in question touching matters concerning himselfe and is wrongfully vrged to vtter his secrets to make euasion by any kind of lawfull amphibologie or Equiuocation as presently shall be proued then much more in defence of the publicke secret that concerneth the good of the Common wealth may the said Magistrate or publicke officers when they are iniustly demaunded or vrged contrary to the forme of law vse the benefit of like euasion so they speake no lye which alwayes is presupposed to be forbidden as vnlawfull for what cause soeuer and so much the more for that being publicke persons and as such knowing the said secrets of the common wealth they may as 〈◊〉 persons deny to know the same with this or like true reseruation of mynd so as they are bound or may vtter the same vnto him that vnlawfully demaundeth c. 9. And for that this case as hath byn said is for the most parte included handled againe in that which ensueth we shall heere treate the same no further nor cite more Authors about the determination therof for that those arguments and authorities that determine the one do decyde also the other The third case about any Party accused or called in Question §. 3. 10. THE third Case considerable in this place is de Reo of the partie accused or called in question in iudgement what or how he is bound to answere vnto crymes laid against him or to interrogatoryes proposed

denyeth to any Iudge that he knoweth of any Cryme in Confession which is a diuine iudgment and tribunall it is vnderstood by the circumstance of his office that no such crymes are to be enquired of in that humane court or iudgement And so when the defendant denyeth that he hath done this or that secret cryme though he seeme to deny it absolutly yet the circumstance of the place action and persons may easely declare if a man looke into them that his true meaning may be that he hath done no such thing as ought to be enquired in that manner or vttered publickly in that tribunall 30. So he in this and all other like cases about which this general foundation is held by the foresaid Deuines and related by our Countreyman Sayer in his Cases of conscience in these wordes Interrogatus à Iudice incompetente c. He that is examined by an incompetent Iudge or if he be competent and lawfull yet doth he not proceed lawfully according to forme of law as examining him of secret 〈◊〉 or matters or circumstances impertinēt to the cause then in that case is he not obliged to sweare according to the intention of the said Iudge that offereth the oath nor on the other syde may he lye or sweare against his owne intention or true meaning for that he should synne deepely and incurre periury but he may when he is thus pressed and cannot otherwise auoid the violence and iniuty offered vnto him so accommodate his wordes as they may be true according to his owne intention and in the sight of God though they be false according to the intention of him that doth iniustly exact the oath and in so answering he lyeth not nor incurreth periury though the said Iudge be deceaued For that S. Thomas well noteth the formall and essentiall reason of a lye consisteth not in the intention of the speaker to leaue the hearer deceaued for that otherwise he should lye whosoeuer should vse doubtfull and equiuocall wordes to hide a truth which both S. Thomas S. Augustine and other Deuines do deny but it consisteth in this that a thing is otherwise spoken then is in the mynd of the speaker vnde mentiri est contra montem ire to ly is to go against a mans owne mynd as before hath sufficiently byn declared Thus Sayer Diuers other Cases in particuler §. 7. 31. AND now in the last place shall we lay togeather some few seuerall cases which vpon these and like rules reasons and principles 〈◊〉 do resolue And the first shal be that case which our Minister Morton so often proposeth and odiously doth exagerate about Couentry saying That our English Equiuocators do teach that if a man come from Couentry which towne is held to be infected with the plague himselfe dwelling in a parte of that Cittie which is free from infection and being asked at London-gates whether he came from Couentry they intending to aske him concerning a place infected he may answere no for that herein he deceaueth not the mynd of the questioner but answereth directly to his intention So propoundeth he the case as he pretendeth out of the Catholike treatise of Equiuocatiō which hitherto I haue not seene and consequently cannot affirme how truly or falsely the same is related but he hauing so vttered the said case doth in opposition 〈◊〉 cyte the forsaid Iesuite Azor his sentece against this as though he said that if we admit this case Nihil tam falsum esse posse quod non que at ab omni mendacio liberari nothing is so false but that it may be freed from a lye which wordes are indeed in Azor but not applyed by him to this case but to another saying That if it were lawfull for vs to feigne what words we would in an oath without regard to the circumstances of tyme place and persons before mentioned then nothing were so false in deed that might not be freed from all lying but this case of ours goeth not conioyned with these wordes of Azor as Morton hath perfidiously heer tyed them togeather but Azor speaking twice of this our case in one page first in the name of others by way of obiection and againe in his owne name by way of resolution he saith Libenter concedimus de eo qui ad portas 〈◊〉 rogatur c. we do willingly grant the example of him who coming to the gates of a Citty and being asked whether he came from a certayne place which by errour is thought to be infected with the plague and is not tuto citra 〈◊〉 iurare potest se ex eo loco non venire he may securely sweare without lying that he cometh not from that place so as he vnderstand that he cometh not from any place infected with plague nor that himselfe is infected This is Azor his iudgement and resolution And before him this case was so resolued by Doctor Syluester Nauar Tolet Roderiquez Cosmus Philiarchus and diuers other learned men as after him also by our often-named Countreyman Gregorius Sayer and the reason of the lawfulnes of this answere is for that the answerer being sure that either the place is not infected from whence he came or that himselfe hath brought no infection about him for otherwise he should be periured it were great iniury vnto him to be stayed at the Gate without cause and therfore for declyning this iniury and 〈◊〉 it is lawfull for him to answere to the finall end and intention of the keeper and of the Cittie or Common-wealth whose intention only is to exclude infected people and not to their immediate words about the particuler place 32. And now all this being so consider 〈◊〉 pray yow the shamelesse forhead of this deceauing Minister in cyting Azor quite against himselfe and his owne sense and meaning and tying his wordes togeather that were spokē separatly to another end yet as though he had played no such iuggling tricke but had gotten some victorie ouer vs heare his insolent speach about this answere sett downe by so many learned men as you haue heard named An answere saith he so grossely false that a Iesuite of high esteeme in your Church to witt Azor writing against this spirituall iuggling of his subtilelying-brethren doth confesse that if this kind of answere concerning a place infected with the plague c. be not false then there is no speach so false but it may be freed from falshood by whom your Equiuocators saith he may learne that if the man yow fancied came not from a place infected with bodily pestilence yet this your Equiuocating proceedeth from myndes spiritually infected with the contagion of pestilent lying So he 33. And I do willingly remit my selfe to the indifferent Reader where this contagion of pestiling lying raigneth either in these graue learned men that haue decyded this question without lying against lying or in Morton that hath multiplied so many lyes togeather