kill Princes he answereth thus It will be requisite without preiudice to the most learned and Religious iudgment of his Maiesty to satisfy for two places related from that conference c. And then he passeth on to discourse at large of the meaning of those places and vnder the colour of the foresaid honorable preface he taketh licence to dissent from his Maiesty signifying in effect that either the conference was not well related or his Maiesty mistooke their meaning in those notes and yet is the matter cleere by his owne confession that their said notes vpon the second booke of Cronicles and 15. Chapter vers 16. doe not only allow the depofing of the Queene Maacha by her sonne King Asa for Idolatry but further doe reprehēd him also sharply for that he had not put her to death by fier saying thus in their note That whether she were Mother or Grandmother yet herin the King shewed that he lacked zeale for she ought to haue byn burnt by the couenant as vers 13. appeareth by the law of God Deuteronomy 13. but he gaue place to foolish pitty and would also seeme after a sort to satisfy the law So they in their note 26. But who will looke vpon the two textes of Scripture by them heere cited shall finde no mention of burning but only of putting to death and in Deut. of stoning only But how doth he now defend this note of our English Ministers allowing the deposition and putting to death of Princes Yow shall heare his shift for he is much troubled with his Maiesties obseruation VVhat shall we say then saith he is the Soueraignty of Kinges disabled God forbid but it is rather established therby for the King is made the deposer yea euen of whosoeuer Doe yow see his poore flattering shift If the Queene Maacha might be deposed according to their note and that ex Augusto Imperio from her Imperiall gouernment as the text of Scripture hath yea and that she ought according to the law of God to haue byn put to death as now hath byn said for her Idolatry then is it a poore shift to say that Kinges cannot be deposed for that they must be the deposers seing that in Deut. where the Commission is giuen there is no mention of Kinges at all but Gods speach commission there is vnto the people Sitibi voluerit persuadere frater 〈◊〉 c. If thy brother or wife or friend will perswade thee to leaue God let thy hand be vpon him and after thee the hand of all the people which notwithstanding is to be vnderstood as before in the second Chapter we haue noted both out of the 13. 17. Chapters of Deut. and the glosse therevpon according to the order there set downe to wit after the cause examined sentenced by lawfull Iudges And at this time when this law was ordained there were no Kinges in Israel nor in many yeares after and consequently this commission could not be giuen to Kinges only 27. So then for so much as English Protestant-Ministers that made these notes doe authorize by this place of Deut. the deposing and killing of that Imperiall Queene his Maiesties censure was iudicious true that therby they allowed that lawfull Princes might be in certaines cases deposed and put to death And the first shift of T. M. in this place is ridiculous wherby he would seeme to make secure al Kinges from danger of deposition for that themselues by Godes word which yet he proueth not must be the deposers and then he presumeth they will not depose themselues but for Queenes he leaueth them to shift as they may Which doctrine I suppose he would not haue set forth in print in the late Queenes daies But their assertions are according to times and places and so this shall be sufficient for the second Question The third Question concerning practice of Rebellion §. 3. 28. ANd now hauing byn lōger in the former two Questions then in the beginning was purposed I shall endeauour to be shorter if it may be in this last though the multitude of examples partly set downe by vs before in the first Chapter of this Treatise and partly to be read in Histories and obserued by experience of Protestantes continuall tumultuation against Catholicke Princes would require a larger discussion then both the other two Questions put togeather albeit on the other side againe the matters are so cleere as they need no discussion at all but only narration For what can our Minister answere in reason or truth to all that multitude of instances of Protestantes Rebellions in the foresaid first Chapter set downe and for the most part obiected before as now I perceiue by his aduersary the moderate Answerer We shall briefly runne ouer some few examples 29. To the instances in England of continuall conspiracies and insurrections against Queene Mary he setteth downe first this bold and shameles prouocation After the proclamation of her title saith he shew vs what Protestant euer resisted what Minister of the Ghospell in all that fiery triall did kindle the least spark of sedition among her people In which wordes is to be obserued first that he saith after the Proclamation of her title to excuse therby the Dukes of Northumberland and Suffolke the Marques of Northampton and others that tooke armes against her before shee was proclaimed in Londen though in Norfolke she had proclaimed her self presently vpon the death of her brother King Edward as also to excuse Cranmer Ridley Sandes Latimer Rogers Iewell and other Ministers that had preached most bitterly against her title But what is the residue true that heere so boldly he auoucheth that neuer any Protestant resisted nor Minister kindled the least spark of sedition among her people after her title proclaimed Is this true I say Is this iustifiable for he calleth this Treatise a iustification of Protestantes Is this any way to be mainteined by any shew or shift whatsoeuer What then wil he say to the new conspiracy and iterated Rebellion of the Duke of Suffolke of his brother the Lord Iohn Grey not only after the said Queenes title proclaimed but after she was in possession and had pardoned them both of their former Rebellion What will he say to the Rebellion of Syr Peter Carew Syr Gawyn Carew Syr Thomas Denny other Protestant Gentlemen that tooke armes in Deuonshire within six daies saith Stow after the arraignemēt of the Duke of Northumberland What wil he say to the conspiracy of Syr Iames a Croftes others in VVales discouered saith the same Authour about the fiue and twentith day of Ianuary next ensuing What will he say to the Rebellion of Syr Thomas VVyat and his confederates in Kent ensuing about the same time Were they not Protestantes that were authors therof Or was not Queene Maries title yet proclaimed Will our Minister face out this What will he say to the cōspiracies ensuing after this againe
aud sinfull And that Catholickes only vse the first in 〈◊〉 cases and with circumstances and limitations But T. 〈◊〉 and his followes 〈◊〉 the first do vse 〈◊〉 the second which is false and lying 〈◊〉 Chap. XII pag. 483. The 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 in some Protestant 〈◊〉 Bishops § 1. pag. 490. Six argumentes of M. Iewell Superintendent of 〈◊〉 his 〈◊〉 in this case § 2. pag. 493. Six examples of M. 〈◊〉 particular Equiuocation § 3. pag. 504. The vse of Equiuocating in English Protestantes-Ministers § 4. pag. 517. The vse of Equiuocation in Laymen Knightes § 5. p. 529. The Conclusion of the whole 〈◊〉 with a briefe exhortation 〈◊〉 Catholickes not to vse the liberty of Equiuocation 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 cases but where some 〈◊〉 occasion induceth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Table of the particular matters 〈◊〉 in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 TO ALL TRVE-HARTED ENGLISH-MEN That loue the honour safety and best good of their Nation Prince and Countrey THE PREFACE OF THE PRESENT DIVISION AND DISAGREEMENT About matters of Religion in England and of many importune exasperations vsed by diuers sortes of men to encrease the same and namely by this Minister T. M. his iniurious Libell I DOE not see deare Countreymen why I may not iustly our tymes circumstances therof considered begin these my first lynes of Preface with those wordes of Complaint and Admiration of the Poet Lucan wherby in few verses he comprehended and laid forth the rufull state of the rented Common-welth and Romane Empire by ciuill warres saying Bella per Aemathios plusquam ciuilia campos Iusque datum sceleri canimus populumque potētem In sua victrici conuersum viscera dextra 2. For if heere we change but Thessalian fieldes into English land and the Poets singing into our weeping and wailing all the rest agreeth most aptly if our diuision be not more rufull and lamentable then that of the Romanes For first our wars may truly be said to be plus quam ciuilia more then ciuill in that they are not only internall but domesticall also in such sorte as no one Prouince no one towne no one village no one howse or family is lightly to be found where some parte or other of this warre and dissention vpon difference of Religion taketh not some holde The Father somewhere accusing or suspecting his children the children flying or fearing their Father the Mother entring into 〈◊〉 with her daughter the daughter not trusting or confiding in her Mother the brother impugning his brother and wife complaining of 〈◊〉 husband the friend breaking with his friend and the neerest of kyn with those whome lawe of nature bandof bloud did most straitly combine knit togeather 3. Neither is this warre ended only in wordes or in bare debate of mindes iudgements willes and affections but it breaketh forth also into workes and hostile actions to the sight and admiration of all the worlde no aduersary Camps or armies standing more watchfull and distrustfull one of an other or vsing more stratagems of discouery spiery preuention or impugnation the one against the other then we among our selues wherof our continuall searches priuy intelligences bloudy and desperate conspiracies apprehensions imprisonments tortures arraignementes condemnations and executions are most loath some and lamentable witnesses 4 And as for Ius datum sceleri neuer could it be spoken so properly in the Romans misery as in ours when in deed though in some different sense that which was ius before is now scelus to uvitt that which was law right and equity under Catholicke Religion is now offensiue and punishable by the lawes of Protestants that which was then piety is now iniquity that which by them was vsed for deuotion is now scorned for superstition that which they reuerenced for highest Religion is now held in contempt and greatest derision such as then should haue byn hated and punished for hereticks are now esteemed for Christian and best reformed Catholicks and they vvhich in those dayes vvere called Catholicks as vvell by their enemyes as themselues and sate in iudgement vpon the rest are now brought into iudgement vnder them vvhose iudges at that tyme they vvere in the self same cause right and lawe being changed vvith the tyme and equity vvith mens affections articles of olde faith become crymes of new treason and finally all so inuerted and turned vpside downe and the differences so pursued vvith such hostile emnity of exulcerated mindes as the Poets conclusion falleth vpon vs euidently in the eye of all Christendome that vve being a potent people and dreadfull otherwise to all our neighbours haue turned our victorious hands into our owne bowels by this disunion in Religion and therby haue iust cause to feare the euent and inference threatned by our Sauiour except his holy hand protect vs that Euery Kingdome deuided in it selfe shall come to desolation 5. And that vvhich most encreaseth the feeling of this misery is that no man endeauoreth to mollify matters but all to exasperate no man applieth lenitiues but all corrosiues no man powreth in vvyne or oyle into the wound but all salte and vinegar no man byndeth vp or fomenteth but euery one seeketh to crush bruze and breake more all cry and clap their hands to exulceration saying with the children of Edom in the day of Hierusalems affliction Exinanite exinanite vsque ad fundamentum in ea Pull her downc pull her downe euen vnto the foundation 6. And to this effect haue vve heard and seene many speeches and sermons made sundry Bookes and pamphlets cast abroad or set forth in print some before the late cruell and hatefull conspiracy which might perhaps be some incitation to the designemēt or hastening therof and some presently therupon not only to exaggerate that fact whose atrocity by it self is such as scarsely it leaueth any place to exaggeration but also to extend and draw out the hatred and participation therof to others of the same Religion most innocent therin yea vnto the whole multitude so far as in them lieth a matter of exorbitant iniustice and intemperate malice 7. Of the former sorte of bookes and pamphlets we haue seene one set forth the yeare past by Thomas Hamond intituled The late Commotion of certeine Papists in Hereford Shire about the buriall of one Alice VVellington Recusant after the Popish manner in the tovvne of Alens-moore tvvo miles frō Hereford c. VVhich thing though it were but the fact of a few poore countrey people Catholickly affected as most are knowne to be in those partes to bury the said Alice and that in a sorte they were forced therunto least the dead corps should rot aboue ground the Minister of the place most obstinatly refusing to bury the same and that some other false companion in like manner is thought to haue byn set a worke to induce them into that trap as since hath byn vnderstood yet was the matter so exaggerated euery where
Morton not content after the pretended confirmation of his first discouery and reasons therof to haue added a second Treatise conteyning as he saith A Iustification of Protestantes against imputations of disobedience and Rebellion against temporall Princes either in doctrine or practice both which you haue heard now how substātially he hath performed he thought good also to ad a third Treatise though nothing needfull to the argument in hand which he intituleth A confutation of the principles of Romish doctrine in two pointes first concerning the Pope supreame head of Rebellion and secondly the impious conceipt of Equiuocation And forasmuch as of the second point which is Equiuocation we are to treat more largly in the ensuing Chapters and that the first seemed to me impertinent to be treated againe seuerally in this place the substance therof hauing byn touched sufficiently forasmuch as belongeth to this affaire in the former Chapters especially the second I had purposed once to passe it ouer without any answere at all as indeed not deseruing any it being only a certaine disorderly hudling togeather of peeces and parcelles of other mens collections about that matter better handled by themselues But yet considering afterward the speciall manner of this mans treating the same matters both in regard of fraude and simplicity though contrary the one to the other I iudged it not amisse to giue the Reader some tast therof in this one Chapter wherby he may be able to frame a iudgment of the rest and of the exorbitant veine of this mans writing 2. First then he beginneth the very first lines of his first Chapter with these wordes This pretended predominance saith he of the Pope in temporall causes whether directly or indirectly considered in which diuision of gouerning the Romish schoole is at this day extreamly deuided if it be from God it will sure plead Scriptum est c. By which sole entrance yow may take a scantling of the mās discretion for it cannot be denied I thinke except we deny the Ghospell but that Scriptum est was pleaded also by the diuell and not only by God as in like manner it hath byn by all Hereticks the diuels cheif Chaplains since that time and consequently it was no good exordium to build all vpon this foundation 3. Secondly it is not true that the Romish schole is so extreamly deuided in this diuision of gouerning directly or indirectly as the Minister would make it for the question is not at all of gouerning but how the right to gouerne in temporall causes was deliuered by Christ to S. Peter and his Successours whether directly togeather with the spiritual gouernment ouer soules or els indirectly and by a certaine consequence when the said spirituall gouernment is letted and impugned as before hath byn declared In which difference of opinions there is no such extremity of diuision among Catholickes as this man would haue men thinke for that all doe agree in the substance of the thing it self that the Pope hath this authority from God Iure diuino in certaine cases whether directly or indirectly that little importeth to this our controuersy with the Protestantes who deny both the one and the other And so much for that 4. The next sentence or obiection after the former preface which is the very first of his discourse is framed by him but yet in our name vnder the title of the Romane pretence in these wordes The high Priestes in the old Testament saith he were supreame in ciuill causes ergo they ought to be so also in the new for which he citeth one Carerius a Lawier that wrote of late in Padua De potestate Romani Pontificis defending the former opinion of Canonistes for direct dominion citeth his wordes in Latin thus Dico Pontificem in veteri Testamento fuisse Rege maiorem And Englisheth the same as before yow haue heard that the high Priest was supreame in ciuill causes which wordes of ciuill causes he putteth in of his owne and if yow marke them doe marre the whole market for that Carerius hath them not either in wordes or sense but teacheth the plaine cōtrary in all his discourse to wit that he meaneth in matters appertaining to Religion and Preisthood and not of temporall principality which this Author granteth to haue byn greater in the old Testament in dealing with Ecclesiasticall men matters then in the new to that effect is he cited presently after by the Minister himself contrary to that which heere he feigneth him to say But let vs heare the wordes of Carerius Tertiò dico saith he etiam in Testamento veteri fuisse Pontificem Rege maiorem quod quidem probatur c. Thirdly I say that the high Priest was greater also in the old Testament then the King which is proued first out of the 27. Chapter of Numbers where it is appointed by God that Iosue and all the people should be directed by the word of the high Priest Eleazar saying whē any thing is to be done let Eleazar the high Priest consult with God and at his word aswell Iosue as all the children of Israell and whole multitude shall goe forth and come in c. And secondly the same is proued out of the fourth of Leuiticus where foure kind of Sacrifices being ordained according to the dignity of the persons the first two are of a calfe for the high Priest commonwealth the third and fourth of a hee and shee-goat for the Prince and priuate persons Wherby Carerius inferreth a most certaine dignity and preheminence of the Priestes state aboue the temporall Prince though he say not in ciuill causes as this Minister doth bely him 5. And wheras Carerius had said in two former Answeres first that in the old Testament Ecclesiasticall and secular iurisdiction were not so distinct but that both might be in some cases in the King and secondly that in the new law the spirituall power was more eminent then in the old he commeth thirdly to say that in the old law the High Priest in some respectes was greater also then the King which cannot be vnderstood of ciuill power except the Author will be contrary to himself And therfore that clause was very falsly and perfidiously thrust in by the Minister and this with so much the lesse shame for that in the end of the same Chapter he citeth the same Author to the plaine contrary sense saying In veteri lege Regnum erat substantiuum sacerdotium adiectiuum c. That in the old law the Kingdome was the substantiue that stood of it self and Preisthood was the adiectiue that leaned theron but contrary-wise in the new law Preisthood and spirituall iurisdiction is the substantiue or principall in gouernment and temporall principality is the adiectiue depending therof for direction and assistance the one both by nature and Godes law being subordinate to the other to wit the temporall to the
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
About which point first all the foresaid Schoole-Deuine lawyers and others do agree with one consent that euery such partie is bound vnder paine of mortall sinne to answere directly truly and plainly according to the mind and intention of the demaunder and not to his owne and to confesse the truth without art euasion Equiuocation or other shift or declination when soeuer the demaunder is his lawfull Iudge in that matter and proceedeth lawfully that is to say according to forme of lawe and equitie therin And if the said accused or defendant either by wilfull holding his peace or by denying the truth or by deluding the Iudge do refuge to do this he sinneth greuously therin Neither may his ghostly Father absolue him in confession from this or any other sinnes vntill he yeeld to performe his dutie in this behalfe though it should be to the euident perill and losse of his life by confessing the Cryme And this do the foresaid Authors S. Thomas and others proue cleerly first out of the Scriptures as where it is said Eccles. 4. Pro anima tua ne confundaris dicere verum be not ashamed to speake the truth though thy life lye theron which is to be vnderstood when a lawfull Iudge or Superiour doth lawfully demaund it and Iosue also Cap. 7. when by Gods direction he 〈◊〉 Achan the sonne of Charmi about the thinges he had 〈◊〉 vsed this phrase Dagloriam Deo confitere giue the glory to God confesse the truth wherby is inferred that he taketh Gods glory from him and sinneth grieuously that refuseth to consesse the truth to a lawfull Magistrate proceeding lawfully against him for that the Magistrate is in the place of Almighty God and he that resisteth him in his lawfull of fice resisteth Gods power and ordination incurreth damnation therby as S. Paul Rom. 〈◊〉 auoucheth And for so much as the inquiring out and punishing of malefactors is one of the chiefe and principall partes of the Magistrates office for conseruation of the Common wealth both temporall and spirituall to resiste deceaue delude or contemne the Iudge or Magistrates authority in this so principall a point therof must needs be a great and grieuous mortall sinne except as some Doctors do note the smalnes or lightnes of the matter obiected should be such as might mitigate the greiuousnes of the same And this is the seuerity of Catholicke Doctrine for answering directly obediently and truly to lawfull Iudges proceeding lawfully 11. But now when the Iudge is not lawfull or not cōpetent at least in that cause or proceedeth not lawfully then all these foresaid obligations do cease in the defendant As for example if in France Spayne or Italy a great man that is no Iudge nor hath authority from the Prince Prelate or common wealth should take vpon him to examine any party of crymes without commission or other power or being a lay Iudge should examine priests of Ecclesiasticall matters who both by diuine and humane law according to Catholicke Doctrine are exempted from lay mens iurisdiction as largely hath byn proued of late in an Answere against Sir Edward Cookes fifth Part of Reportes which I would wish the Reader to pervse or if his iurisdiction were sufficient in that matter yet if that he proceeded not iuridicè lawfully or according to forme of law in that cause indiciis vel infamiâ vel semi-plenâ saltem probatione non praecedentibus that is to say that neither signes or tokens or common fame or some one substantiall witnesse at least be extant against him which circumstances of lawfull proceeding are handled by lawyers in that case when this I say or any of this falleth out then hold the former Doctors that all the forsaid obligations of true answering vnto him do no more bynde for that he is no more a Iudge in that cause but rather an enemy for that he proceedeth contrarie to iustice and forme of law by which he should iudge and consequently that in this case the defendant may either deny to answere or appeale from him if it may auaile him or except against the forme of proceeding or deny all that is proposed in the forme as it is proposed or vse any other lawfull declination saith S. Thomas but yet so as he do not lye or vtter any falsitie Potest vel per appellationem saith he vel aliter licitè subterfugere mendacium tamen dicere non licet He may either by appellation or otherwise lawfully seeke some euasion but yet so as he vtter no lye 12. And hitherto now in this point all the former Authors do agree without discrepancy that the defendant being thus vninstly pressed may vse all lawfull meanes to auoyd the iniury offered him and Dominicus Sotus that is the most scrupulous in this matter saith Possunt debent sic contra ius requisiti quacunque vti amphibologia quam vsitatus sermo citra mendacium ferre possit they that are so required to answere against lawe may and ought to vse whatsoeuer amphibologie or equiuocation the vsuall speach of men doth or may beare without a lye 13. And thus farre also doth concurre Genesius Sepulueda whome Thomas Morton hath chosen out for some helpe in this matter who though in some particuler pointes he dissent from the rest as presently shall be shewed yet in this he agreeth For thus he writeth 〈◊〉 Theologi ac Iurisperiti consentiunt neque reum in sua nec testem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 causa de occulto crimine rogatum teneri vt veritatem confiteatur aut testificetur 〈◊〉 si dederit quidem 〈◊〉 andum se vera responsurum Both Deuines and lawyers do generally agree in this point that neither the defendant in his owne cause nor a witnes in another mans being examined of a secret cryme is bound to confesse or testifye the truth no though they haue taken an oath first to vtter the truth So he of the Generall eōsent of all Deuines and lawyers adding his owne opinion more particuler in the same Chapter and telling vs first when the Iudge demaundeth vniustly to wit when he demaundeth of secrets or matters not belonging to his iurisdiction as before hath byn said In which Case he writeth thus Itaque vrgente Iudice iniustè vt neget aut confiteatur sine culpa 〈◊〉 potest 〈◊〉 Iudicem appellare 〈◊〉 alia quacunque ratione modò sit honesta defugere nulla adhibita fraude nullo dolo qui vim obtineat mendacij When a Iudge doth vniustly vrge the defendant to deny or confesse he may without any fault either appeale to a Superiour Iudge if it be permitted or by any other honest meanes declyne the force and violence that is offred vnto him so it be done without any such fraud or guyle as may include the nature of alye so as in this all do agree first that for no cause a lye may be admitted or committed secondly that any manner of euasion either
large first out of Scriptures by the decree of the General Councell of Constance his wordes be these Neque verò eo iure quod ad Regnum habet nisi per publicum iudicium spoliari potest c. Neither can a Tyrant be depriued of that right which he hath to a Kingdome but only by publicke iudgment yea further also so long as that right of Kingdome remaineth his person must be held for sacred wherof ensueth that no right remaineth to any priuate man against his life albeit any priuate man should bring forth neuer so many priuate iniuries done by the said Tyrāt against him as that he had whipped him with yron rods oppressed him afflicted him yet in this case must he haue patience according to the admonition of S. Peter That we must be obedient not only vnto good and modest Lordes but also vnto those that be disorderly and that this is grace when a man for Godes cause doth sustaine and beare with patience iniuries vniustly done vnto him c. 48. And in this sense saith he is the decree of the Councell of Constance to be vnderstood when they say Errorem in fide esse c. It is errour in faith to hold as Iohn VVickcliffe did that euery Tyrant may be slaine meritoriously by any Vassall or subiect of his by free or secret treasons c. Thus writeth that author holding as yow see that no Tyrant whatsoeuer though he be neuer so great a Tyrant may be touched by any priuate man for any priuate iniuries though neuer so great nor yet for publicke though neuer so manifest except he be first publickly cōdemned by the common-wealth which is another manner of moderation and security for Princes then the Protestant doctrine before rehearsed and namely that of Knox vttered in the name of the whole Protestant Congregation both of Scotland and Geneua If Princes be Tyrantes against God and his truth his subiectes are freed from their oathes of obedience So he And who shall be Iudge of this The people for that the people saith he are bound by oath to God to reuenge the iniury done against his Maiesty Let Princes thinke well of this and let the Reader consider the malicious falshood of this Minister T. M. who in alleadging that little sentence before mentioned about killing of a Tyrant stroke out the wordes of most importance quem hostem Reipublicae iudicauerit whome the common-wealth hath iudged for a publicke enemy and adding that other clause which I say by common consent which is not there to be found And with such people we are forced to deale that haue no conscience at all in cosenage and yet they cry out of Equiuocation against vs where it is lawfull to be vsed making no scruple at all themselues to ly which in our doctrine is alwaies vnlawfull for any cause whatsoeuer 49. But will yow heare a case or two more out of the Canon law how dexterous Syr Thomas is in corrupting that which he loueth not nor seemeth well to vnderstand yow may read in the fourth page of this his pamphlet an ancient decree for so he calleth it alledged by him out of Gratian in the glosse determining that though a man haue sworne to pay money to one that is excommunicated yet is he not bound to pay the same and he alledgeth the Latin text thus Si iuraui me soluturum alicui pecuniam qui excommunicatur non teneor ei soluere If I haue sworne to pay money to any man that is excommunicated I am not bound to pay it adding this reason Quia 〈◊〉 possumus debemus vexare malos vt cessent a malo We ought to vex euill men by what meanes foeuer we may to the end they may cease from doing euill In the allegation of which little text a man would hardly belieue how many false trickes there be to make Catholicke doctrine to seeme odious and absurd For first these wordes not being found in any text of law or decision of any Pope or Councell but only in the glosse or commentary they make not any ancient or moderne decree as the Minister falsly auoucheth but rather shew the opinion of him who writeth the commentary if his wordes were as heere they are alledged 50. But the truth is that the wordes of the glosse conteine only a certain obiection vpon a clause of a Canon concerning promise to be obserued to one that is excommunicated after the promise was made the obiection or doubt is made in these wordes by the Authour of the glosse or Commentary Sed quid dices si iuraui c. But what will you say if I haue sworne to pay money to any person or haue promised the same vnder some forfeiture and in the meane space he to whome I made the promise is excommunicated am I bound to pay the same or not This is the question and then he argueth on both sides and first for the negatiue videtur quod non it seemeth I am not for that the Canon law saith Causa 23. q. 6. That we ought to afflicct wicked men by all meanes possible to the end they ceasse from their wickednes So he alledging diuers other argumentes for the same opinion but yet afterwardes comming to giue his owne resolution he saith thus Verius credo quòd licèt ille non habeat ius petendi tamen debet ei solui I doe belieue the truer opiniō to be that albeit he that is so excommunicated doe leese his right to demaund his money yet is the other bound to pay him And for this he citeth diuers lawes and reasons therin mentioned as namely Extrau de Iu. debitoris extr de sent excommunicationis Si verè 11. q. 3. Cum excommunicato 51. So as heere our Minister not of ignorance but of falshood taketh the obiection for the resolution as Plessy Mornay did in his booke against the masse where he would proue that Scotus Durand and other schoole-deuines did doubt of the reall presence and transubstantiation for that hauing proposed the question they began to argue for the negatiue part saying videtur quod non though afterwardes they resolued the contrary solued the argument And the very like doth our Minister heere calling this obiection of videtur quod non not only a resolution but an ancient Decree Secondly there is wilfull deceipt in leauing out the first wordes of the Author Sed quid dices si iuraui But what wil yow say if I haue sworne which doe plainly shew that it is but an obiection Thirdly that he alledgeth the reason of the obiection Quia qualitercumque possumus c. for the reason of the resolutiō which is false for that the resolution is made against that reason Fourthly the true resolution of the Commentor is vtterly concealed and a contrary determination by him impugned set downe and this not as a priuate opinion but as an ancient decree of
to Princes concerning the obedience or Rebellion of their subiectes whatsoeuer hath byn obiected by the accusation or calumniation of our Minister in his former discouery against Catholickes hath not byn any direct doctrine teaching or insinuating much lesse inciting subiectes to disobedience or Rebellion as before hath byn declared but only by a certaine consequence or inferēce that for so much as in certaine vrgent and exorbitant cases we ascribe to the Christian Common-wealth and supreme Pastour therof authority to restraine punish supreme Magistrates in such cases that therfore our doctrine is seditious and tending indirectly at least à longè to Rebellion though the visible experience of so many great Kingdomes round about vs lyuing for so many yeares and sometimes ages also in quiet security notwithstāding this doctrine doth conuince this to be a calumniation 14. But our Aduersaries doe not onely teach this That euery Christian Common-wealth vpon mature deliberation and with generall consent hath such anthority but further also that particular men and Common people haue the same and are not only taught but vrged in like manner exhorted to vse it when soeuer they suppose their Prince to offer them iniury or hard measure especially in matters of Religion wherof the moderate Answerer obiecteth many examples and proofes against T. M. taken out of their owne bookes wordes and wrytinges as also by the testimonies of other principall Protestant-writers wherevnto though T. M. would make a shew to answere somewhat now in this his Reply and therupon hath framed a second seuerall part of his booke for iustificatiō of Protestantes in that behalfe yet is it so far of from A full satisfaction the title of his whole worke as in effect he confesseth all that his Aduersary opposeth no lesse then yow haue heard in the former question though somewhat he will seeme sometimes to wrangle and to wype of the hatred of their assertion by Commentes of his owne deuise 15. And indeed what other answere can be framed to most plaine assertions out of their owne wordes and writinges as of Caluin Beza Hottoman and so many other French Caluinistes as I haue mentioned in the first Chapter of this Treatise Goodman also Gilby VVhittingham Knox Buchanan and others neerer home vnto vs All the forenamed Collections in like manner of him that is now Archbishop of Canterbury of Doctour Sutcliffe and others in the books intituled Dangerous positions Suruey of the pretended Disciplinary Doctrine and the like wherin their positions are most cleerly set downe concerning this matter And albeit this Minister T. M. in his Reply doth vse all the art possible to dissemble the same by telling a peece of his Aduersaries allegations in one place and another peece in another altering all order both of Chapters matter and method set downe by the Answerer so as neuer hare when she would sit did vse more turninges and windinges for couering her selfe which the Reader may obserue euen by the places themselues quoted by him out of his aduersaries booke yet are his answerers such where he doth answere for to sundry chiefe points he saith nothing at all as doe easely shew that in substance he confesseth all and cannot deny what is obiected And where he seeketh to deny any thing there he intangleth himself more then if flatly he confessed the same Some few examples I shall alledge wherby coniecture may be made of the rest 16. The Answerer alledgeth first the wordes of Goodman in his booke against Queen Mary wherin he writeth expressely that it is lawfull by Godes law and mans to kill both Kinges and Queenes when iust cause is offered and herself in particuler for that she was an enemy to God and that all Magistrates and Princes transgressing Gods lawes might by the people be punished condemned depriued put to death aswel as priuate transgressours and much other such doctrine to this effect cited out of the said Goodman All which the Bishop of Canterbury his second booke of Dangerous positions hath much more largely both of this Goodman and many other English Protestantes cheife Doctours of their Primitiue Church residing at that time in Geneua And what doth T. M. reply now to this Yow shall heare it in his owne wordes If I should iustify this Goodman saith he though your examples might excuse him yet my hart shall condemne my self But what doe yow professe to proue all Protestantes teach positions Rebellious Proue it Heere is one Goodman who in his publicke book doth maintaine him I haue no other meanes to auoid these straites which yow obiect by the example of one to conclude all Protestants in England Rebellious then by the example of all the rest to answere there is but one So he 17. And this is his full satisfaction and faithfull Reply as he calleth his booke but how poore satisfaction this giueth and how many pointes there be heere of no faith or credit at all is quickly seene by him that will examine them For first how doe the 〈◊〉 alledged agaist this Goodman by the Moderate Answerer excuse him as heere is said seeing the wordes he alledgeth against him out of his owne booke are intollerable and my Lord of Canterbury alledgeth farre worse As for example that it is most lawfull to kill wicked Kinges when they fall to Tyranny but namely Queenes and thervpon that Queene Mary ought to haue byn put to death as a Tyrant Monster and cruèll beast alledging for confirmation therof diuers examples out of Holy Scripture as that the Subiectes did lawfully kill the Queenes Highnes Athalia and that the worthy Captaine Iehu killed the Queenes Maiesty Iesabell and that Elias though no Magistrate killed the Queenes Highnes Chaplaines the Priestes of Baal and that these examples are left for our instruction c. And now tell me how may these examples excuse M. Goodman as our Minister Morton auoucheth 18. Secondly it is both false and fond to affirme that the moderate Answerer tooke vpon him to proue either that all Protestantes in these our dayes doe teach such Rebellious positions or that all Protestantes in England are Rebellious as heere is affirmed for that this were to deale as iniuriously with them as they and he doe with vs by imputing this last Rebellious fact of a few in England to the whole sort of Catholickes and to their doctrine It was sufficient for the Answerers purpose to shew that both Goodman and many others principall pillars of the English new Ghospell in those daies did hold belieue and practice those positions out of the true spirit of the said Ghospell And herevpon thirdly it followeth that it is a notorious impudency to auouch with such resolutiō as this man doth that there is but this one of that opinion and that one dram of drosse as he saith proueth not the whole masse to be no gold For who knoweth not first that VVhittingam afterward Deane of Durham
Christ to S. Peter and that it is a strange art to make a sword of a paire of keyes which seemeth to him a fine iest then commeth he out with this vanut Neither can any shew me one Doctour but of reasonable antiquity peto vel ex millibus vnum who by keyes vnderstand ciuill power But Syr what needeth antiquity of Doctors in this behalf will not your owne moderne Protestant Doctors graunt that when the keyes of any Citty Towne or Fort are giuē to a Prince ciuill power ouer that Fort is meant therby who will deny this 38. And secondly whereas he alleadgeth Franciscus à Victoria to say that the keyes giuen to S Peter imported spiritual authority of remitting and reteyning sinnes ergo no way temporall is a fond illation for that albeit Victoria saith that those keyes did principally importe spirituall authority yet they include also supreme temporall indirectly when the defence of the spirituall doth require it Whereupon he frameth this conclusion in the same place Our eight proposition is saith he that the Pope by authority of the foresaid keyes hath most ample temporall power ouer all Princes and Kinges and the Emperour himself in order to a spirituall end which he proueth there by many arguments And this of the first iest about swordes to be made of keyes 39. The second iest also is as wise and witty as this former that when we found the same temporall sword or authority of S. Peter and his successours vpon the words of Christ Feed my sheep he doth inferre that Princes also must be fed and dietted corporally at the Popes discretion and other such toyes he not vnderstanding as it seemeth or rather dissembling the force of Catholicke argumentes drawne from those and other like Scriptures both by later Doctors and ancient Fathers which this fellow turneth into scofs and contempt or wicked railing for that presently he falleth into these rages O arrogant Glossers O impudent Glosers and peruerters of the sacred Oracles of God! And why is all this heat of exclamations Forsooth for that in some Popes Bulles though corruptly fraudulently alledged some mention is made of the great authority that was giuen to Elias Elizeus Ieremy and other Prophetes and especially to Christ himself vpon earth to plant destroy pull vp or punish where need should be and that this authority by allusion vnto the same wordes of Scripture is applied to Christes Successour vpon earth affirmed to be left in the Christian Church to be vsed when need shall require and is this so great an impiety thinke yow 40. But he goeth on and saith That next to this he will examine the antiquity of pretended Papall power from the Apostles time downward and then produceth this assertion of ours The Priestes saith the Romish pretence of the new Testament in the Priesthood of Christ haue more authority then that of the old law ouer Kinges to depose them whervnto he adioyneth presently his owne spruse Ministeriall answere in these wordes This is not probable except yow can shew some footinges either of Christ or his blessed Apostles or their Holy Successours in the purer periods of times And is not this answered as from a man of his coat Marke the phrase Of footings in purer periods I will for footinges in this matter referre him to the large demonstrations which out of Scriptures Doctours Fathers Councelles and Ecclesiasticall Histories the Authors by him heere often alledged Carerius Bozius Bellarmine Sanders Salmeron and others doe aboundantly and substancially alledge when he shall haue ouerthrowne or supplanted those footinges of theirs which they 〈◊〉 fix throughout all periods of times from the beginning of Christian Religion vnto our dayes and generall practice therof then may the poore man get to haue some little footing for himself and his cause which hitherto he hath none at all as to any man whosoeuer with any indifferency of iudgment shall read ouer and examine his booke will euidently appear yea though he compare but only that which himself alledgeth heere both in the text and margent which seldome agree in true sense if you marke it well But if yow would examine the Latin authorities cited in the said margent with the originalles of the Authors themselues you shall scarce euer finde them sincerly to agree but that one fraud or other is vsed in their allegation by chopping changing infarcing leauing out and other such sleightes and deceiptes which though the breuity of this Treatise permit me not to examin and lay forth at large in this place yet some we haue touched before and some others shall we haue occasion to note afterwardes and the Reader himself may vpon this warning make some little triall 41. And as for the succession of times which this Author T. M. pretendeth to bring downe from the Apostles dayes not to ours but for a thousand yeares only after Christ wherin he saith that no Pope can be shewed euer to haue had any temporall iurisdiction ouer any Emperour King or temporall Prince though Catholickes doe hold the later six hundred yeares also to be of no lesse force for president of examples in the Church of God then the former thousand yet are the instances so many and euident which may be alledged against his former prescription of the said thousand yeares as doe manifestly cōuince him of folly in that assertion wherin I referre me to the collections and demonstrations therof by the foresaid Authors Carerius Bozius Bellarmine Sanders and others in the places heere quoted in the margent but especially to the three that are not Iesuites to the first for all to wit Carerius that in diuers thinges wrote against the Iesuits whoe in his second booke alleadgeth 10. or 12. examples out of antiquity for prouing his purpose I remit me also to the many learned writinges set forth of late about the cause of the Venetians by Penia Baronius Bouius Eugenius Nardus others shewing the most euident right which the Pope had and hath to commaund them as high Pastor of the Church to recall certaine ciuill lawes made by them in preiudice of the said Church and Ecclesiasticall State which Commandement we doubt not but God will moue that most excellent Cōmon-wealth finally to obey they being knowne to be so good and sound Catholickes as they are though for some time in regard of some temporall respectes they haue deferred to doe the same 42. Many more pointes might be examined in this descēt of his throughout periodes of times but it would be ouerlong and my intention is to giue a tast only or short view for to examine the places cited out of Fathers of diuers ages for proofe of his pretence were time wholy lost For that in effect they say nothing else but that we graunt which is that temporall Princes are to be respected and obeyed by Ecclesiasticall men also but in temporall affaires And as for his examples of
in his English translation which is that which most importeth his simple Reader that looketh not into the Latin and this is that he translateth the former sentence of the Canon thus as before yow haue heard Though he should carry many people with him to hell yet no mortall creature may presume to say why doe yow so But in the Latin neither heere nor in the Canon it selfe is there any such interrogation at all as why doe yow so And therfore I may aske T. M. why doe yow ly so Or why doe yow delude your Reader so Or why do yow corrupt your Author so Or why doe yow translate in English for the abusing of your Reader that which neither your selfe doe set downe in your Latin text nor the Canon it selfe by yow cited hath it at all Is not this wilfull and malicious fraude Wherin when yow shall answere me directly and sincerly it shall be a great discharge of your credit with those who in the meane space will iustly hold yow for a deceauer 59. His fourth answere to the former argument of Gods prouidence is the difference he saith of Kings and Popes in this point for that the Papall power saith he which will be thought spirituall if it be euill may be the bane of soules the power of Princes is but corporall therfore feare them not because they can goe no further then the body Thus he And did euer man heare so wise a reason And cannot euill Kinges and Princes be the cause of corrupting soules also if they should liue wickedly permit or induce others to doe the same And what if they should be of an euill Religion as yow will say Q. Mary and K. Henry were and all Kinges vpward for many hundred yeares togeather who by Statutes and lawes forced men to follow the Religiō of that time did all this touch nothing the soule who would say it but T. M But he goeth forward in his application for that bodily Tyranny saith he worketh in the Godly patience but the spirituall Tyranny doth captiuate the inward soule This now is as good as the former and is a difference without diuersity so farre as concerneth our affaire that a man may with patience if he will resist both the one and the other And euen now we haue seene that when any Pope shal decline from the common receaued faith of Christendome he cannot captiuate other men but is deposed himselfe Wherfore this mans conclusion is very simple saying Therfore heere is need according to Gods prouidence of power to depose so desperate a spirituall euill wherof it is written if the salte want his saltenesse it is good for nothing but to be cast vpon the donghill Marke then that concerning the spirituall that God hath ordeined eiiciatur foras let it be cast out but concerning the temporall resiste not the power 60. Lo heere and doe not these men find Scriptures for all purposes This fellow hath found a text that all spirituall power when it misliketh them must be cast to the donghill and no temporall must be resisted and yet he that shall read the first place by him alleadged out of S. Matthew shall find that the lacke of saltenesse is expresly meant of the want of good life and edification especially in Priestes and Preachers and yet is it no precept as this man would haue it to cast them al to the donghill but that salte leesing his taste is fit for nothing but to that vse S. Paul in like manner to the Romanes doth not more forbid resisting of temporall authority then of spirituall but commaundeth to obey both the one and the other which this man applieth only to temporall which he would haue exalted obeyed and respected and the other contemned and cast to the donghill Oh that he had byn worthy to haue byn the scholler of S. Chrysostome S. Gregory Nazianzen or S. Ambrose before cited who so highly preferred spirituall authority before temporall how would they haue rated him if he would not haue byn better instructed or more piously affected No doubt eiecissent foras they would haue cast him forth to the donghill in deed and there haue left him and so doe we in this matter not meaning to follow him any further except he reasoned more groundedly or dealt more sincerly 61. Yet in one word to answere his comparison we say that both temporall spirituall Magistrates may doe hurte both to body and soule for as the temporall may preiudice also the soule as now hath byn said so may the spirituall afflict in like manner the body as when the Pope or Bishoppes doe burne Heretikes so as in this respect this distinction of T. M. is to no purpose yet doe we also say that when spirituall authority is abused it is more pernicious preiudiciall then the other Quia corruptio optimi est pessima The best thinges become worst when they are peruerted and spirituall diseases especially belonging to faith be more pernicious then corporall for which cause God had so much care to prouide for the preuention therof in his Christian Church for the conseruation of true faith by the authority vnion visibility succession of the said Church and diligence of Doctores Teachers Synodes Councels and other meanes therin vsed and by his assistance of infallibility to the head therof which head though in respect of his eminent authority he haue no Superiours to Iudge or chastise him except in case of heresy as hath byn said yet hath he many and effectuall meanes wherby to be admonished informed stirred vp and moued so as he being but one in the world and furnished with these helpes bringeth farre lesse danger and inconuenience then if all temporall Princes who are many had the like priuiledge and immunity And this euery reasonable man out of reason it selfe will easily see consider 62. As also this other point of no small or meane importance to wit that English Protestantes pretending temporall Princes to be supreame and without Iudge or Superiour in matters of Religion as well as ciuill and secular they incurre a farre greater inconuenience therby then they would seeme to lay vpon vs. For that if any temporall Prince as Supreame in both causes would take vpon him the approbation or admission of any sect or heresy whatsoeuer they haue no remedy at all according to the principles of their doctrine wheras we say the Pope in this case may and must be deposed by force of his subiectes all Christian Princes ioined togeather against him so as in place of one generall Pope which in this case is vnder authority they make so many particuler Popes as are particuler Kings temporall Princes throughout all Christendome that are absolute and consequently without all remedy for offences temporall or spirituall in manners or faith 63. And now let vs imagine what variety of sectes and schismes would haue byn at this day in Christianity if for
is to bring matters to his purpose and yet will he needs stile him self The Minister of simple truth 12. It followeth in the 16. page thus Your deuise saith he of exemption of Priestes from the iurisdiction of temporall Princes in certaine cases is to crude to be disgested by any reasonable Deuine for as your Victoria saith Priestes besides that they are Ministers of the Church they are likewise members of the Common-wealth and a King is aswell a King of the Clergy as of the laity therfore the Clergy is subiect vnto the ciuill authority in temporall thinges for such matter is not ruled by any power spirituall A plaine demonstration So he And I say the same that indeed it is a plaine demonstration of his egregious falshood and abusing his Reader First in making him belieue that the learned man Franciscus de Victoria doth fauour him or his in this matter of the exemption of Priestes wheras in this very place heere cited by T. M. his first proposition of all in this matter is this Ecclesiastici iure sunt exempti c. I doe affirme that Ecclesiasticall men are by Law exempted and freed from ciuill power so as they may not be conuented before a secular Iudge either in criminall or ciuill causes the contrary doctrine to this is condemned for Hereticall among the articles of Iohn VVickliffe in the Councell of Constance So he And now see whether Victoria make for him or no or whether he disgested well this crude doctrine of Priestes exemption as this Ministers phrase is 13. Secondly if we consider either the English translation heere set downe out of the wordes of Victoria or his Latin text for ostentation sake put in the margent wee shall find so many and monstrous foule corruptions intercisions geldinges and mutilations as is a shame to behold and I beseech the learned Reader to haue patience to conferre but this one place only with the Author and he will rest instructed in the mās spirit for the rest but he must find them as I hà ue cited them heere in the margent and not as T. M. erroneously quoteth them if not of purpose to escape the examine For that Victoria hauing set downe his precedent generall proposition for the exemption of Clergy men that they were exempted Iure by Law he passeth on to examine in his second proposition Quo iure by what Law diuine or humane they are exempted and in his third he holdeth that Aliqua exemptio Clericorum est de iure Diuino That some kinde of exemptions of Clergy men from ciuill power is by diuine Law and not humane only and fourthly he commeth to this which heere is set downe by T. M. but not as he setteth it downe Our fourth proposition saith Victoria is that the persons of Clergy men are not absolutly and in all thinges exempted from ciuill power either by diuine or humane lawe which is euident by that Clergy men are bound to obey the temporall lawes of the Citty or Cōmon-wealth wherin they liue in those thinges that doe appertaine to the temporall gouernment and administration therof and doe not let or hinder Ecclesiasticall gouernment 14. These are the wordes of Victoria as they ly togeather in him and then after some argumentes interposed for his said conclusion he addeth also this proofe That for so much as Clergy mē besides this that they are Ministers of the Church are Citizens also of the Common-wealth they are bound to obey the temporall lawes of that Common-wealth or Prince in temporall affaires and then ensueth the last reason heere set downe in English by T. M. in these wordes Moreouer saith Victoria for that a King is King not only of laymen but of Clergy-men also therfore aliquo modo subiiciuntur ei in some sort they are subiect vnto him Which wordes aliquo modo in some sorte the Minister leaueth out and then it followeth immediatly in Victoria And for that Clergy-men are not gouerned in temporall matters by Ecclesiasticall power therfore they haue their temporall Prince vnto whome they are bound to yeeld obedience in temporall affaires 15. And this is all that Victoria hath in this matter in these very wordes And let any man consider the patching which T. M. vseth both in English and Latin in this place to make some shew for his fained demonstration out of Victoria and he will see how poore and miserable a man he is and how miserable a cause he defendeth And in particular let the very last proposition be noted which he citeth and Englisheth as out of Victoria to wit the Clergy is subiect vnto the ciuill authority in temporall thinges for such matter is not ruled by any power spirituall wherby he would haue his Reader to imagine that no spirituall power may haue authority to gouerne temporall matters wheras the wordes of Victoria are Clerici quantum ad temporalia non administrantur potestate Ecclesiastica that Clergy men for so much as appertaineth to temporall affaires are not gouerned by Ecclesiasticall power but by the temporall which there beareth rule So as this fellow by a subtile sleight changing the nominatiue case from Clerici non administrantur to temporalia non administrantur frameth his plaine demonstration out of plaine cosenage and forgery And is this naked innocency 16. From the page 18. vnto 27. he handleth togeather many sentences and authorities of ancient Fathers alledged by Catholicke Authors Cunerus Tolosanus and especially Barkleius to shew that the Apostles and their successours and those Fathers amongest the rest did not take armes against their Princes either Infidels or Christians but did rather suffer iniuries then seeke by force to reuenge the same which being our conclusion in like manner and held and defended by our Catholicke writers as yow see and that for the most part by name against Protestant writers practisers both in Scotland France Flanders other places yow may perceaue how corruptly this is brought in against vs as though our common beliefe and exercise were the contrary this may be called falsification and sophistication of our meaning 17. But yet if we would examine the particular authorities that be alledged about this matter though nothing making against vs as hath byn said consider how many false shiftes are vsed by T. M. therin yow would say he were a Doctor in deed in that science for that a seuerall Treatise will scarce conteine them I will touch only two for examples sake He citeth Doctor Barkley bringing in the authority of S. Ambrose that he resisted not by force his Arrian Emperour when he would take a Church from him for the Arrians but he setteth not downe what answere of his Doctor Barkley doth alledge in the very self same place which is Allegatur Imperatori licere omnia c. It is alledged that it is lawfull for the Emperour to doe all thinges for that all thinges are his and
mutatae sunt quia Pontifex qui est caput in spiritualibus non est subiectus in temporalibus Then in those dayes generall Councelles were made not without the charges of Emperours in that time the Pope did subiect himselfe vnto Emperours in temporall affaires and therfore they could doe nothing against the Emperours will for which cause the Pope did make supplication to the Emperour that he would commaund Synodes to be gathered but after those times all causes were changed for that the Pope who is head in spirituall matters is not subiect in temporall affaires So he 31. And heere let vs consider the variety of sleightes shifts of this our Minister not only in citing Bellarmins wordes falsly and against his meaning and drift in Latin wherof we shall speake presently but in peruerting this Latin that he hath so corruptly set downe in his former English translation For first hauing said according to the Latin that generall Councelles in those dayes were not gathered without the cost of Emperours he addeth presently of his owne and were made by their consentes which is not in the Latin and then he cutteth of the other wordes immediatly ensuing which conteine the cause to wit for that the Popes subiecting themselues in those dayes touching temporalities vnto the Emperours as hauing no temporall States or dominion yet of their owne could doe nothing without them and therfore did make supplication to the said Emperours that they would commaund Synodes to be gathered which T. M. translateth that they would gather Synodes as though Bellarmine did affirme that it lay in the Emperours by right to doe it but after those times omnes causae mutatae sunt all causes were changed but he should haue said are changed as Bellarmins true wordes are omnes istae causae al these causes are chāged to wit foure sortes of causes which he setteth downe why generall Councells could not be well gathered in those dayes without the Emperours help and authority which wordes are guilefully cut of by this deceauer as in like manner the last wordes put downe heere by himselfe Pontifex non est subiectus in temporalibus are falsly translated cannot be subiect in temporall and againe afterward Popes might not be subiect in temporall matters which is to make Bellarmine contrary to himselfe who saith a little before that the Popes did subiect themselues for many years wherby is proued that they could doe it but Bellarmins meaning is that in right by the preheminence of their spirituall dignity they were exempted not bound therunto 32. And thus much now for the corruptions vsed in the wordes heere set downe both in Latin English But if we would goe to Bellarmine himself and see his whole discourse and how brokenly and persidiously these lines are cut out of him and heere patched togeather as one entier context contrary to his drift and meaning we shall meruaile more at the insolency of Thomas Morton triumphing ouer his owne lye as before hath byn said for that Bellarmine hauing proued at larg and by many sortes of argumentes and demonstrations throughout diuers Chapters togeather that the right of gathering generall Councelles belongeth only to the Bishop of Rome and hauing answered all obiections that could be made against the same in the behalfe of Emperours or other temporall Princes grāting only that for certaine causes in those first ages the same could not be done in respect of temporall difficulties without the helpe assistance of the said Emperours that were Lords of the world he commeth to make this conclusion which heere is cited by T. M. but in far other wordes and meaning then heere he is cited Yow shall heare how he setteth it downe therupō consider of the truth of this Minister Habemus ergo saith he prima illa Concilia c. We haue then by all this disputation seene how those first Christian Councelles were commaunded by Emperours to be gathered but by the sentence and consent of Popes and why the Pope alone in those dayes did not call Councelles as afterward hath byn accustomed the reason was not for that Councelles gathered without the Emperours consent are not lawfull as our Aduersaries would haue it for against that is the expresse authority of S. Athanasius saying Quando vnquam iudicium Ecclesiae ab Imperatore authoritatem habuit When was it euer seene that the iudgment of the Church did take authority from the Emperour but for many other most iust causes was the Emperours consent required therin c. So Bellarmine 33. And heere now yow see that Bellarmins drift is wholy against M. Mortons assertion for that he denieth that euer the Emperours had any spirituall authority for calling of Councells but only that they could not well in those dayes be made without them and that for foure seuerall causes wherof the first was for that the old Imperiall lawes made by Gentils were yet in vse wherby all great meetinges of people were forbidden for feare of sedition except by the Emperours knowledge licence the second for that Emperours being temporall Lordes of the whole world the Councells could be made in no Citty of theirs without their leaue the third for that generall Councelles being made in those dayes by the publicke charges contributions of Citties and especially of Christian Emperours themselues as appeareth by Eusebius Theodoretus other writers it was necessary to haue their consent and approbation in so publicke an action as that was 34. The fourth and last cause was saith Bellarmine for that in those dayes albeit the Bishop of Rome where head in spirituall matters ouer the Emperours themselues yet in temporall affaires he did subiect himself vnto them as hauing no temporal State of his owne and therfore acknowledging them to be his temporall Lords he did make supplicatiō vnto them to commaund Synodes to be gathered by their authority and licence At post illa tempora istae omnes causae mutatae sunt but since those dayes all these foure causes are changed ipse in suis Prouinciis est Princeps Supremus temporalis sicut sunt Reges Principes alij and the Pope himself now in his temporall Prouinces is supreme temporall Lord also as other Kings Princes are which was brought to passe by Godes prouidence saith Bellarmine to the end that he might with more freedome liberty and reputation exercise his office of generall Pastorship 35. And this is all that Bellarmine hath of this matter And now may we cōsider the vanity of this Mortons triumph ouer him before and how falsly he dealeth with him alledging him against his owne drift and meaning leauing out also 〈◊〉 foure causes by me recited and then cutting of 〈◊〉 the particle istae these causes are now changed which includeth reference to these foure aid furthermore speaking indefinitely as though all causes and matters were now changed seeketh therby to deceaue his Reader and
by a certaine excellency doth only belōg vnto him as Caluin is accused to say which in all sensible construction must import that the Sonne is inferiour vnto him in substance of Godhead which is a cheif point of Arrianisine wheron the old Arrians did principally stand in all their disputes against Catholickes 102. And wheras T. M. for his last defense of Caluin saith that he was so farre of from Arrianisme that our owne Bellarmine doth acknowledge that Caluin did impugne the doctrine of the Arrians in this also as in all the rest he vseth great fraud For first Bellarmine hath not this affirmatiue proposition as heere is set downe Caluin did impugne the doctrine of the Arrians but only he confesseth that Caluin and other Sectaries who out of their wicked doctrine cōsenting with the old Arrians haue giuen occasion to the ofspring of new Arrians in our dayes doe notwithstanding write bookes against them as 〈◊〉 did which thing may arise vpon diuers occasions concerning either their persons or sect Bellarmins wordes are these Albeit Luther Melanchthon Caluin and their 〈◊〉 doe 〈◊〉 Arrius for an Heretick yet can they not deny but that themselues in their writinges did sow the seedes of this errour from whence afterwardes sprong vp these new Arrians which they themselues impugne So as Bellarmine doth not speake in this place particularly of Caluins impugning all the doctrine of Arrians as heere this man would seeme to impose vpon him citing falsly this sentence out of him Arrianos Caluinus impugnauit and no more but that he and other Sectaries of our dayes would seeme in some thinges to impugne thē wheras in other thinges they held with them For so presently in the very next wordes doth Bellarmine expresly declare himself where hauing reduced the Heresies of Arrius to two heades saith that the former sort are held publickly by the new Arrians of our dayes wherof the seedes were sowne by Caluin and others but the second sort are held expressely by Caluin and other moderne Sectaries Alterum 〈◊〉 Arrianorum docent omnes huius temporis Haeretici saith he So as in this also there is notable fraudulent dealing of T. M. as yow see yea nothing almost commeth from him without fraude 103. But as for this bragge of his his fellows that Caluin did write diuers books against the new Arrians and Trinitarians of our time as namely against Seruetus Gentilis Alciatus Blandrata and others Doctor Hunnius that hath read their workes his can best make answere decide the matter who saith Pridem hoc inclaruit in orbe Christiano quibus ex Scholis Ecclesiis ipsa illa 〈◊〉 portenta prodierint It is now well knowne in the Christian world out of what schooles and Churches those foule monsters the new Arrians Trinitarians haue proceeded that is to say from the Caluinistes c. And wheras saith he it is vaunted that Caluin did write against these Heretickes wee deny not but that therin he did well albeit in truth he gaue occasion to the diuell by his manner of dealing to raise vp no small number of enemies against the blessed Trinity and consequently he did no otherwise then if one hauing holpen some to set fire on a house should after the flame therof waxeth boysterous help other men also for extinguishing or restrayning the same So Hunnius who finally concludeth with this prayer Dominus Iesus Satanam sub pedes nostros conterat citò a lue Caluinistica clementer liberet Ecclesiam suam Amen Our Lord Iesus crush Satan quickly vnder our feet and of his clemency deliuer his Church from the infection of Caluinistes Thus he and with this praier he endeth his booke 104. And now if this man had byn a Papist great exceptions no doubt would be taken against him but being a brother of the same Ghospell one of those oath promise or other band of conscience As if an vniust Iudge or Magistrate should aske vs things that are without his iurisdiction to the preiudice of our selues or of others as by enquiring after secretes that doe not appertaine to him Or if a iealous husband should aske his wife whether she had euer comitted falshood against him proposing the present paine of death except she answered directly therunto and many other such like cases which I purposely pretermit And it seemeth that Thomas Morton hath not studied them but Catholicke writers both Deuines Scholasticall and Positiue as also Lawyers both Canon and ciuill among vs doe discusse how men may beare themselues therin without sin or offence to God when they fall out and this with more seuerity against lying then any Protestant Author is seene to doe as in the sequent Consideration will appeare 24. And heere I aske Thomas Morton further what he will say to all the stratagems in warre for so much as there may be aswell lying in factes as in wordes according as our S. Thomas and other Deuines doe hold how will T. M. excuse these stratagems that is to say pollicies deceiptes and dissimulations of enemies in warres from lies Will he condemne all such stratagems as sinfull as heathenish as hellish as impious Why then doe his Protestāt Captaines Leaders vse them why doe his Protestāt Ministers that liue with them allow therof Nay that which is much more why doth S. Augustine approue the same whose sentēce is Cùm iustum bellum quis susceperit vtrum aperta pugna vel insidiis vincat nihil ad iustitiam interest When a man taketh vpon him a iust war it importeth nothing to the iustice of the cause whether he ouercome by open war or sleights which sentence is so well liked by our Popes lawyers and Deuines as it is put into the corps of the Canon law And what will T. M. then say to all this yea to many expresse examples in Scripture it self 25. And namely what will he say to the fact of Iosue that going about to take the Citty of Hai gaue order to his Captaines Ponite insidias post Ciuitatem nos terga vertemus c. Lay an ambush behinde the Citty by night and we shall follow with an army in the norning and when those of Hai shal come forth to assaile vs we will seeme to flee simulantes metum feigning to be afraid What will he say to this stratageme will he deny it to be a dissimulation and consequently also an Equiuocation in fact The matter is euident to the contrary by the text it self will he call it a scarre of infirmity of the old Testament to vse his owne Ministeriall or rather Manichean phrase and thinke to escape therby But against this is the expresse order and commandment of God himself Pone insidias vrbi post eam lay an ambush behinde the Citty ergo stratagems in warre though they conteine deceiptes dissimulations and Equiuocations may be vsed in some cases and that lawfully without the sinne of
those to whome it belongeth principally to discusse examine and determine this matter as afterwardes shall be shewed And yet as though he had made no such exception but admitted all kind of writers throughout all times in this matter he maketh this new ridiculous vaunt Shew vs saith he for your mentall reseruation but one Father whether Greeke or Latin one Pope whether Catholicke or Antichristian one Author whether learned or vnlearned who did euer so fancy c. 4. Wherunto I may answere that if the maker of this vaunt had had but one dram of discretion he would neuer haue set downe so many ones to confound himself for that presently we shall shew so many Fathers Greeke and Latin to haue allowed of the foresaid speech as had occasions to handle such Scriptures as conteine like propositions and so many Popes to haue approued the same as haue allowed the said Fathers sentences or haue liued since the collecting of the Canon Lawes wherin the said Fathers sentences are aboundantly cited and set downe and that so many learned graue pious Authors haue byn of this fancy if it be a fancy as haue byn consulted in cases of most moment that comprehend this controuersy So as for this Minister to except against foure hundred yeares togeather which in effect conteineth a graunt of all the learned of that time and yet to challeng one Father one Pope one Author learned or vnlearned sheweth a broken phantasy of an ydle braine indeed 5. But now to lay before the Readers eyes some brief consideration what is reiected in the exclusiō of these last foure hundred yeares about our point in controuersy it is to be noted that the science of Deuinity called by the Greeks Theology for that it is properly immediatly about God matter belonging vnto God hath growne frō time to time according to the growth of mankind and to the most ordinate and excellent prouidence of almighty God as S. Paul diuinely 〈◊〉 in diuers partes of his Epistles which we shall heere indeauour to declare by this particuler deduction that from the beginning of the world vnto the deluge there passing aboue a thousand and six hundred yeares to wit more then from Christ to this time set downe in Scripture vnder the liues only of ten mē there was no other Theology in all that time but only by speech and tradition of Father to sonne freind to friend maister to scholler predecessour to successour and from this againe vnto the time of Abraham which was vpon the point of three hundred yeares the same was obserued and from him to Moyses which was aboue other foure hundred yeares no booke is extant that was written though in these last foure hundred yeares from Abraham to Moyses God had his seuerall people as is knowne which were gouerned without any written word at all 6. But Moyses hauing written the fiue first bookes of the Bible commonly called the Pentateuch so many ages after the beginning of the world and sundry other holy men diuers bookes and Treatises after him againe vntill the comming of Christ albeit the sciēce and study of Deuinity was much enlarged therby yet was it barren in a certaine sort in respect of that which ensued after vnder Christ in the writinges of the Apostles and Apostolicke men and large Commentaries and expositions written theron by succeeding Christian ages which in time growing to be so many and great volumes partly of the said expositions and explanations of Scriptures partly of Treatises bookes and dogmaticall discourses partly of Ecclesiasticall Histories partly of discussions and determinations of Councelles both Generall Nationall Prouinciall and partly finally of resolutions decrees of Bishops chiefe Pastors for directiō of their flocks especially of the highest that held the Chaire for gouerning and moderating of all the rest 7. These thinges I say growing at length to so great a bulke manifold multitude of bookes Treatises tomes and volumes as many men had not time to read them ouer and much lesse leasure and iudgement to digest or conceaue them with that distinction order and perspicuity which was necessary it pleased almighty God out of his continuall prouidence for his said Church to inspire certaine men 〈◊〉 foure hundred years past to reduce the said vast corpes of Deuinity to a cleare methode by drawing all to certaine common places and heades and by handling and discussing the same so punctually distinctly and perspicuously as any good wit in small time may come to comprehend the whole without reading ouer the other so many huge volumes as before was necessary And this method was called afterwardes Schoole-Deuinity for that it did principally consist in disputation and discussion of matters exactly by discending into particulers and dissoluing all doubtes wheras the other manner of 〈◊〉 of Scriptures Fathers Doctors Histories and Councells seuerally remained with the name of positiue Deuinity as contenting it self only with assertiue doctrine without disputation or further discussion 8. The first and principall Authors of this method or methodicall study is accounted to be Petrus Lombardus Bishop of Paris aboue foure hundred fifty yeares past who for that he gathered into the foresaid method of generall heades all that any way appertained to Deuinity out of the sayinges and sentences of Scriptures and Fathers deuiding the same into foure bookes and euery booke into seuerall distinctions he was called afterwardes the Maister of the sentences and many learned men in ensuing times wrote Commentaries theron enlarging with great variety of matter the said method which he had inuented Others also made seuerall Summes of Theology differēt in name but in effect to the same imitation wherof may be accounted one of the first our often named learned Countreyman Alexander of Hales in Suffolke and after him S. Thomas of Aquine vpon whome many other learned men since that time haue and doe vnto this day write large Commentaries Diuers also considering that this methodicall study hath two partes the one speculatiue which is handled principally by the exercise of our vnderstanding in dispute the other moral that apperteineth to manners and action of life sundry learned men doe betake themselues principally to this later as more necessary to practice of Christian life and cases therin to be resolued in Conscience 9. And about the very same time or little before it came to passe by the like prouidēce of almighty God that the same method was thought vpon for reducing the Decrees and Constitutions of Councels Fathers Bishops and Popes apperteyning to Ecclesiasticall gouernment which grew now to be many vnto like general heades bookes causes questions and Chapters 〈◊〉 more facility of comprehending and remembring the same the cheif Author therof being Gratian a learned Monke of S. Benedicts Order which laborious and methodicall compilation approued by Popes at that time and from time to time afterwards and expounded by the writinges and
testify in another mans cause as the defendant doth in his owne and consequently many thinges of those which before we haue touched concerning the said defendant do appertaine also to witnesses For first the common opinion and consent of Deuines is that when any man is called to beare witnesse against another before a lawful Iudge who proceedeth rightfully and according to forme of law doth demaund the truth of him he is bound to vtter the same sincerely and wholy vnder payne of mortall sinne for the same reasons which we haue alleadged before concerning the defendant to wit that the Iudge being in the place of almighty God of the Cōmon wealth demaunding him iustly he is bound by the law of Iustice subordination and obedience to reueale vnto him the sincere truth of all that he is demaunded and knoweth in that behalfe 25. Yea further then this he doth not only sinne mortally as hath byn said in denying or concealing the truth or any parte therof necessary to be vttered but is also bound in conscience to make restitution to the partie endamaged by his concealment of all those losses either in fame estimation goods or otherwise which he hath suffered and might haue auoyded if the other had confessed the truth So hold Syluester Nauar Sotus Salon Bannes Valentia and commonly all the rest And this is the seuerity of Catholicke Doctrine about obligation of witnesses for telling the truth when they are called and examined by a rightfull Iudge extant in all our Authors as hath bene said and I would gladly know of T. Morton what his Deuinity doth define and prescribe in this case and what his Authors haue written therof for the practice yea what the practice it self is there daily with him in all mens sight which point I thinke rather expedient to leaue to euery mans particuler knowledge and conscience to thinke consider then here to set downe what fruites their new Ghospell hath brought forth in this matter about vnconscionable witnesses 26. But on the other side our Doctors say that when the Iudge is not lawfull or that he enquireth of secretes which appertayne not to his iurisdiction nor that forme of law doth permit him so to enquire then the same Authors are of opinion that he may refuse to answere for that the Iudge hath no Authority to demaund him yea although first he hath sworne to answere directly for that that oath did presuppose that he should answere directly to that which the other should iustly demaund of him and therfore in this case he may vse the same kinds of refuge which before haue byn touched in the case of the defendant that is to say he may hold his peace or refuse to answere or appeale from him or deny all in forme as it lyeth or vse doubtfull or Equiuocall wordes and other such manner of ordinary euasions which if they preuaile not then say these Doctors that he may deny and say nihil scio nihil vidi nihil audiui I know nothing I haue seene nothing I haue heard nothing reseruing in his mynd the other parte that he knoweth nothing hath seene nothing nor heard nothing which in that iniust examination he is bound to vtter as being demaunded against law and iustice And this shall be sufficient for this case The fifth case about Equiuocation in swearing §. 6. 27. THE fifth case that we meane to handle at this tyme is about Equiuocation in swearing which act of swearing comprehending as before we haue said a calling of God to witnes in that we affirme as it is honourable to God when it is done with the foresaid due circumstances of Truth Iustice and Reuerence so is it a greiuous sinne when any of those points do want and especially when truth and iustice fayleth therin it is the heynous sinne cryme of periury so greatly detested in Catholicke Doctrine as before hath byn declared in the seauenth and eight Chapters Now only is to be considered whether Amphibologie or Equiuocation may be vsed in an oath or no and how farre without deceipt and whether he that sweareth be alwayes bound to sweare to the intention of him to whom the Oath is made or that sometimes and in some cases he may without falshood or periury sweare to his owne true intention keeping the same secret from him that exacteth the oath 28. About which point they do determine first that who soeuer offreth himself volūtarily to sweare that is to say of his owne free will and choise he is bound vnder payne of mortall sinne to sweare truly and directly according to the intention meaning of him to whome he sweareth the reason wherof is for that he swearing freely and without compulsion is bound to vtter the truth and to follow the common vse of swearing which is to sweare to the intention of him that exacteth the oath And the same they determine when any man is called and commanded to sweare by his lawfull Iudge and Superiour and in a lawfull cause and he that doth otherwise though it were to the sauing of his owne or another mans life doth commit periury 29. But if the Iudge that exacteth the oath be not a lawfull Iudge or proceedeth not lawfully in exacting the same then hath he that sweareth no obligation to sweare to his intention at all but may sweare to his owne so he make no lye but haue some true meaning and sense in his oath according to the circumstances of the place tymes matters and persons before mentioned Of which point I thinke good to alleadge heere the wordes of a great Schoole-Deuine that hath written in our age called by Morton the Great Moralist who proposing diuers rules concerning the subiect of taking an oath setteth downe his second rule thus Secunda regula faith he est si 〈◊〉 à Iudice contra vel praeter ius rogetur de crimine occultò patrato c. The second rule is that if the defendant should be demaunded an oath by the Iudge about a secret cryme committed by him and this contrary or besides the order of law he may with a secure conscience answere and sweare that he hath not committed that cryme nor knoweth any thing of it the reason of which rule is not that which some men do giue that it is lawfull for vs when we sweare to take wordes in our sense at our pleasure or as wee feigne them our selues otherwise then the hearers vnderstand them but this only is the true reason that when our wordes may haue an ambiguous signification we may take them in what sense we will when we are vrged against law though the hearers take them in another sense And wheras the ambiguity of our wordes may arise from diuers heades aswell of their significations of the circumstances of time place persons manner of proceeding and the like before mentioned wee may out of these verify our speach As for example when a priest
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
may sweare for exaÌ„ple to a theefe or murderer by God for sauing of his life as also to a coÌ„mon queane yea and to the dyuell himselfe and yet this maketh not the murderer the queane or the diuell to be his competent and lawfull Iudge or giueth lawfull iurisdiction so as he is bound to answere directly to whatsoeuer they demand or sweare to their intention if he should be compelled by them And the like in other such examples wherof euery man may frame infinte store vnto himself at his pleasure and the reason of this is that albeit in euery oath God be lawfull and supreame Iudge to discerne whether I haue a true meaning of mine Oath in my mynd yet this doth not make the other to whome I sweare my lawfuâ—l Iudge except otherwise he hath iurisdiction ouer me for that this absurdity among infinite others would follow that if a King should sweare to his Kitchin-boy by God he should therby make his said Kitchin-boy his lawfull and competent Iudge and to haue Iurisdiction ouer him both to examine and coÌ„maund him and bynd him in conscience vnder sinne to answere him directly which how great a folly and absurdity it is ech man that hath reason will easily of himselfe consider Wherfore hauing shewed this let vs now heare and comtemplate if yow please how Tho. Mor. himself will proue his said Maior proposition for it is like he will doe it substantially it being the foundation of all his whole drifte 54. The Maior saith he is true for that our Sauiour in auouching truth held Pilate a competent Iudge though he did not proceed 〈◊〉 but falsely S. Paul in his cause appealed to Cesars tribunall-seate who was a Pagan Iacob did couenant with Laban an Idolatour and the maid to whom S. Peter swore was competent inough to heare a true oath if he had bene as ready to sweare truly and yet neyther the mayd nor that Iudge did proceed iuridicè for she was no lawfull examiner and he was a partiall Iudge So he And this is his wise discourse wherin the man descryeth himselfe fully what is in him and that in truth he doth not vnderstand the very termes in the subiect wherof he treateth For we meane by a competent Iudge or hearer and so do all Deuynes and Lawyers that vnderstand what they speake a Iudge that hath lawfull iurisdiction ouer him that sweareth may compell him to sweare and to vtter the truth sincerely vnder mortall synne And when we say that he must proceed iuridicè it is vnderstood that he must proceed according to forme of law prescribed by Ecclesiasticall Canons or Ciuill Decrees Now then according to this explication to say that Pilate was lawfull Iudge vpon Christ so as he was bound in conscience to answere all his demaunds I maruaile how Thomas Morton will proue it and yet were it nothing to the purpose for that Christ is not read to haue sworne to Pilate And as for S. Paules appealing to Cesar which at that tyme was Nero Iacobs couenant with Laban an Idolatour what doth it make to our purpose for that heere is no swearing mentioned nor do we deny but that an Infidell or Pagan may be a lawfull Iudge ouer faithfull people in secular causes if otherwise they haue lawfull temporall iurisdiction 55. But of all other iestes is most pleasant his conceipt of the Maid to whom S. Peter swore or rather forswore his maister that she was his competent Iudge or hearer therin if he had byn ready to sweare truly though presently he contradicteth himselfe saying that she was no lawful examiner which is false if she were a competent hearer or Iudge which he seemeth to graunt though he say she proceeded not iuridicè that is according to forme of law with S. Peter in his examination wherof ensueth that she had lawfull iurisdiction ouer him though the execution therof were not iuridicall can any thing be more ridiculous then this 56. And yet all this notwithstanding hauing set downe so vaine and childish a discourse as this is he assumeth vnto himselfe the person of a very graue wise man against vs vsing these coÌ„temptuous words in the next paragraph ensuing These our Equiuocators saith he do by their new subtilityes foolefy the honest simplicity of their ancient Schoole the two eyes wherof Lombard and Aquinas saw 〈◊〉 in this kind of swearing an horrible prophanation of the sacred name of Almighty God Heere yow heare him talke of foolefying let vs see then his wisedome First I aske him wherin we foolefy the simplicity of our ancient Schoole He alleadgeth some sentences out of Peter Lombard as also out of some others to shew that fraud and deceipt is not to be vsed in an oath as also out of S. Isidore alleadged by Lombard and the like out of S. Hierome to shew that fraud deceipt or subtility is not to be vsed in swearing which is plainly to be vnderstood when the Iudge is competent and proceedeth competently for vnto a theefe murderer pyrate or tyrant yow haue heard before how 〈◊〉 hath determined that it is not fraus and in this very place of S. Thomas by Thomas Morton alleadged the said Doctors wordes are That if a Iudge though otherwise lawfull should require any thing which by order of law he cannot the party accused is not bound to answere at all and much lesse directly to his meaning meaning but may either by appeale or other meanes deliuer himselfe by euasioÌ„ though he may not speake a lye So S. Thomas And what wyse man doth not see but that this maketh quite against Thomas Morton First if it be lawfull vnto the defendant not to answere at all euen to a competent and lawfull Iudge when he proceedeth not according to forme of law then much lesse is he bound to answere or sweare directly to his intention in that case but may vse any lawful euasion by doubtfull speach or otherwise which is directly against our aduersaryes conclusion so little doth he discerne when he alleadgeth authorityes flatly against himselfe 57. And now by the full discussion of this first proofe of his coÌ„clusion we may imagin what might be said if with like diligence we would examine the other three that remayne to wit from the end of an oath à maiori à paribus for as for the end of an oath which is to put an end to contention it is not hindred by the vse of Equiuocation where law permitteth the same and I do not doubt but that T. Morton hath egregiously abused both in this and other places the Catholicke manuscript Treatise against which he writeth by setting downe certayne palpable absurdityes which is impossible to be there in the manner that he setteth them downe And for that I fynd him to belye all kind of Authors commonly which he cyteth I must presume the same of this vntill we fynd the contrary by viewing the Treatise it selfe
Catholicke people stand in good conceipt with all sortes of men for their truth in concionable and vpright dealing euen with those which endeauour most in this point to slaunder them yet would I wish the same to be confirmed more daylie by factes in respect of this new calumniation raysed against them of the liberty of Equiuocation And this of the first reason 3. My other reason is as before hath byn insinuated in regard of the tyme present which being a tyme of tryall persecution requireth at Catholickes hands a more perfect Confession of their faith and of all matters belonging thervnto then at other tymes And albeit in the former Treatise among the Cases reserued wherin Equiuocation may not be vsed confession of faith be expresly and in the first place excepted so as therin no doublenes or doubtfulnes may be vsed yet no man can deny but many factes and cases may fall out concerning matters of Religion not tending to confession 〈◊〉 in tyme of persecutiō wherin a man may or perhaps also must by obligation if otherwise he cannot auoyd the wrong violence that is offred to himself or others vse Equiuocal speaches for concealing of that which in conscience he cannot vtter But whersoeuer this obligation is not there my wish is as now I haue said that Catholicke people but especially Priestes whose example must instruct the rest should yeald also of their right for encrease of their merite and crowne in heauen and vse all playnesse and sincerity in speach and free discouering not only of their religion but also of their state where it is hurtfull to none but to themselues which yet I speake in that sense and with that limitation which the holy Apostle did when he said That he gaue counsell of himselfe but no precept of our Lord. And for that this whole Treatise of Equiuocation hath proceeded vpō that question so often before repeated VVhether a Priest being taken may deny himselfe to be a Priest or no I shall 〈◊〉 downe dyuers circumstances and considerations of the Case wherby also shal be made more playne what my meaning is in this behalfe 4. When a Priest commeth first into England with full intent and resolution to offer his life if there be need for the confession of Catholicke Religion and is taken afterward brought before the Magistrate either he is taken in some mans house of whose ouerthrow he must be the cause if he confesse that he is a priest or be being taken forth of any house yet hath he cause to suspect and perswade himselfe that it may be knowne afterward by cōfession of others that are also taken or may be taken that he belongeth to such or such a house in these two cases there is no doubt but that if he thinke that his denying of himselfe to be a priest may saue them from hurte he is bound to deny the same with some kynd of lawfull Equiuocation but without telling a lye as before at large hath byn declared But if this priest should be taken in the port as he entreth or soone after in the high way or otherwise and brought before a Magistrate so as his confessing himselfe to be a priest could not preiudice any other and presupposing that he is vnlawfully demaunded that question against law reason and religion heere is he at his owne liberty to deny or confesse himselfe to be a priest and no man can absolutly determine what were best for him to answere but the spirite of God that speaketh within him to whome Christ hath promised to imparte such wisedome as is necessarie for that tyme and action yet if he were not a man of such great extraordinary talēts as by his losse or restraint Gods cause were to leese much or that he were not sure by his denyall to procure his liberty or that he might iustly doubt that he should quickly come to be knowne in prison and therby some scandall to arise to the simple or yll affected by his denyal In al these Cases I would thinke it more meritorious and of greater perfection and edification to confesse himselfe a priest without further denyall or declination which I speake not to condemne them or their doinges that being taken haue done or shall do the contrary for that they vse but their owne right as hath byn declared but rather I speake it for information of others that may doubt of the Case Nor do we intend heere to preiudice the most holy doctrine of S. Athanasius and other ancient Fathers of the lawfulnes of flight and escape in persecution councelled by Christ our Sauiour and authorized by the example of the Apostles themselues and namely of S. Paul when he fled and escaped out of a window and at an other tyme deluded the enuious pursuite of his enemyes by an Equiuocall speach to the Pharisies and Saducies as before hath byn declared but rather to shew that cleare confession is somtymes also most commendable and that in such a tyme of tryall and of Crownes offred to Catholicks and especially to Priests for the said confession of the Catholicke faith as now is no lawfull occasion is to be left for acquiring the same 5. And this is so much as in this matter I had to aduertise Catholickes in the Conclusion of this my answere not meaning to discend into further perticulers of actions obligations that may fall out which heere are hard to be determined but only by the present circumstances of the tyme place and matter in hand with regard and respect vnto the two principall vertues that must gouerne vs in these afayres to witt Truth and Iustice. Truth that all manner of falsity and lying be vtterly auoyded and Iustice that no iniury be done by vs to Gods cause our selues or other men which is the lawe of a iust man and true seruant of God to be obserued whatsoeuer temporall hurtes or damages may ensue therof 6. And wheras my Aduersary Thomas Morton doth conclude the very last lynes of his booke with a fynall Charge againe renewed of our Antichristian doctrines of lying and treason and threatning vs for the same not fancyed fyre of Purgatory saith he as for wood and strawe but vnquenchable hell-fyre as for pitch and tarre sulphur and pouder we shall more charitably conclude with him wishing that his offences of malice 〈◊〉 and deceipt discouered by vs in this our Answere may be wood and straw and that the fyre prepared by Gods Iustice for punishing the same may be a purging fyre and not a consuming 〈◊〉 or rather a consuming fyre and not an vnconsuming fyre as that is of hell which he threatneth to vs but in deed purchaseth to himselfe by the course he hitherto holdeth 7. And to this wish and prayer for him I doubt not but to drawe not only all good and pious Catholicks that vse it 〈◊〉 for their enemyes and persecutors but the