Selected quad for the lemma: power_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
power_n bishop_n jurisdiction_n ordination_n 4,138 5 10.4414 5 false
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

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

There are 5 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

they are printed by Pinson the law-printer in the tyme of King Henry the eight before the Protestant religion came vp And the Lord Brooke in his Abridgement of the law in the tytle of Corone placito 129. doth accordingly sett downe the same case with mencyoning of the Bulles of Pope 〈◊〉 for the said immunities and priuiledges But all the Protestant editions in the tyme of the late Queene Elizabeth printed by Tottell and 〈◊〉 wert haue committed a notable tricke of falsificatiō in leauing out altogeathcr these markable wordes That Leo then Pope did graunt the said immunityes and priuiledges and also those wordes of King Edwyn which of his Catholike 〈◊〉 S. Leo King Kenulphus were granted c. And againe By force of the letters and Bulles aforesaid the said village of Culnam was a Sanctuary and place priuiledged 89. And hereby allois euident that the King did not by his Charter in Parliament for it appeareth to be made by the Counsell and consent of his Bishops and Senators not by Parlament as M. Attorney doth misreport it neyther was there any Parlament held at that tyme in the land or many hundred yeares after for as it appeareth by Holinsheds Cronicle pag. 34. the first vse of Parlament in England was in the tyme of King Henry the first it is cleare I say that the King did not discharge and exempt the said Abbot from Iurisdiction of the Bishop nor did graunt vnto the said Abbot Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction within the said Abbey neyther had that Abbot any Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction deriued from the Crowne But as it appeareth by the authenticke reporte of the Case the Pope and the King did both ioyne in making the said Sanctuary according vnto their seuerall powers authorityes So that the exemption from Episcopall Iurisdiction did proceed duely from the graunt of Pope Leo as likewise the exemption from all regall and temporall Iurisdiction proceed from the Charter of King Kenulphus Note also that King Edwins grant was only that the said Monastery should be free from all earthly seruitude and toucheth not any spirituall immunities or iurisdiction at all 90. Thus farre my friend out of England And by this now yow may see how well M. Attorney hath obserued his foresaid protestation that he had cyted the very wordes and textes of the lawes without any inference argumēt or amplification at all And this being my friends aduertisement from England with like obseruation of many other places cyted by M. Attorney with like fidelity I thought good to produce this one amongst many being the first in order for a taste in this place reseruing the rest to a fitter or at leastwise to a second Edition of the foresaid answere of the Catholicke Deuyne where euery thing may be referred to his due place And with this will I end both this Chapter and the whole Booke THE CONCLVSION OF THE VVHOLE VVORKE VVith a briefe exhortation vnto Catholickes not to use the liberty of Equiuocation euen in lawfull cases but where some urgent occasion induceth them therunto CHAP. XIII AND now gentle reader hauing brought this Treatise to an end and iustified as I hope our Catholicke doctrine in the eyes and Iudgments of all indifferent men from the two odious imputations of Rebellion and Equiuocation iniuriouslie cast vpon the same by the malice of Thomas Morton there remayneth nothing but that I conclude this our small labour with an exhortation to all Catholicke people not only to abstayne from the first which is vtterly vnlawfull I meane the attempting of any thing contrary to their loyall dutyes in subiection be their pressures neuer so great but also from the practice and frequent vse of the second though in some cases most lawfull as abundantly hath byn 〈◊〉 except some vrgent occasion or obligation either of defence of innocency secresy right iustice or the auoyding of open wrong do force them to the contrary For as the holy Apostle in two seuerall places affirmeth to the Corinthians in cases not much vnlike to this about matter of scandall Omnia mihi licent sed non omnia expediunt All thinges are lawfull vnto me touching meates and other such thinges but all are not expedient to be practised And againe Omnia 〈◊〉 licent sed non omnia edificant All things are lawfull vnto me but all things do not edifye So I say in this case that albeit a man may without breach of truth or offence of almighty God in certayne cases equiuocate or vse a doubtfull speach for a good and necessary end either in oath or out of oath though the hearer doe not alwayes vnderstand it or be deceyued therwith and that many holy men haue done the same yea Christ himselfe that is the example and paterne of all holinesse and truth in speach as by many examples before at large hath byn declared yet considering the tymes and condition therof wherin Catholicks at this day liue in England the offence and scandall which Protestants and some others that vnderstand not the lawfulnes therof or will not vnderstand the same do receyue or raise thervpon my wish and counsell to Catholickes should be to vse the benefit of this liberty most sparingly euen in lawfull thinges and neuer but vpon great and vrgent 〈◊〉 and occasions 2. And the reasons of this my wish and counsell are principally the two already touched The one the auoyding of scandall euen with the Aduersary himself and that as Catholicke Religion is the only true in doctrine so the practice also therof in conuersation should not only be in all truth and sincerity re ipsa in very deed but in opinion likewise and estimation of others in so much as the word of a Catholicke man ought to weigh more then the oath of an other and the oath or promise of a Catholicke more then any band or obligation of an other which for the most parte I doubt not but is so already taken in England For that albeit by this doctrine before declared about Equiuocation men do know that Catholickes in certayne cases may vse the same yet know they also that the said cases are straitly limited with many exceptions and that in common conuersation as in buying selling traffique and the like Equiuocation may not be vsed to the 〈◊〉 or preiudice of any man and that in Iudgments and tribunals where most vse therof doth fall out all lawyers Iudges and Magistrates do know in Catholicke Countryes wherin the 〈◊〉 may vse Equiuocation wherin not and consequently truth Iustice can suffer no wrōg therby And moreouer they know as before hath byn said that the obligation of a Catholicke man is so great to auoyde all kynd of lyes whether veniall or mortall as for the gayning of a world no one is wittingly and willingly to be committed which accōpt I doubt whether men of other sectes and Religion do make or noe So as though already I perswade my self that
preuented in like occasions to wit that multitudes are not to be put in despaire no nor particuler men into extreame exasperation without hope of remedy for that despaire is the mother of precipitation extreme exasperation is the next dore to fury No counsaile no reason no regard of Religion nor other respect humaine or deuine holdeth place when men grow desperate all stringes of hope are cut of We see by experience that the least and weakest wormes of the earth which cannot abide the looke of a man yet when they are extremely pressed and put in despaire of escape they turne and leape in mans face it selfe which otherwise they so 〈◊〉 feare and dread 4. Wherfore seing this dangerous stickler would put this extreme despaire into so many thousandes of his Maiesties subiectes yow 〈◊〉 imagine what good seruice he meaneth to do him therby and what pay he deserueth for his labour Surely if a great rich man whose wealth lay in his flocke of sheepe had neuer so faire and fawning a dog following neuer so diligently his trencher and playing neuer so many flattering trickes before him yet if togeather with this he had that other currish quality also as to woory his maisters sheepe disseuer his fold disperse his flock and driue them into flight and precipitation it is like that his Maister out of his wisedome though otherwise he were delighted with his officious fawning would rather hange such a dog then aduenture to suffer so great and important losses by him And no Iesse is to be expected of the great equity prudence of our great Monarch when he shall well consider of the cause and consequence therof 5. And thus much of the malice and pernicious sequele of this assertion let vs see somewhat now also of the folly falsity therof To which effect I would first enquire if it be so that subiectes of different Religions are not comportable togeather vnder a Prince that is of one of those Religions for so must the question be proposed if we will handle it in generall then how doe the Iewes Christians liue togeather vnder many Christian Princes in Germany and Italy vnder the state of Venice yea vnder the Pope himselfe how doe Christians and Turkes liue togeather vnder the Turkish Emperour of Constantinople as also vnder the Persian without persecution for their Religion how did Catholickes and Arrians liue so many yeares togeather vnder Arrian Kinges and Emperours in old times both in Spaine and els 〈◊〉 how doe Catholickes and Protestantes liue togeather at this day vnder the most Christian King of France vnder the great King of Polonia and vnder the German Emperour in diuers partes of his dominions all Catholicke Princes and in the free-cityes of the Empyre And in particuler is to be considered that the Hussites haue liued now some hundreds of yeares in Bohemia vnder the Cathòlicke Princes and Emperours Lordes of that Countrey with such freedome of conuersation with Catholicke subiectes and vnion of obedience to the said Princes as at this day in the great Citty of Praga where the Emperour commonly resideth and where Catholicks 〈◊〉 wholy gouerne there is not so much as one 〈◊〉 Church knowne to be in the handes of any Catholicke Pastor of that citty but all are Hussites that haue the ordinary charges of soules and Catholickes for seruice sermons and Sacraments doe repaire only to monasteries according to ancient agreementes and conuentions betweene them though in number the said Catholickes be many times more then the other and haue all the gouernment and Commaundry in their handes as hath byn said These are demonstratiue proofes ad hominem and cannot be denied and consequently doe conuince that this make-bate Ministers proposition is false in generall That subiects of different religion may not liue togeather in 〈◊〉 peace if their gouernours will permit them Now if he can alleadge any seuerall weighty causes why this generall assertion holdeth not or may not holde in the particuler case of English Catholiks and Protestants vnder our present King we shall discusse them also and see how much they weigh 6. He pretendeth ten seuerall reasons in his pamphlet for causes of this incompossibility and therof doth his whole inuectiue consist Eight of them appertaine to doctrine and practice of rebellion in vs as he auoucheth and the other two vnto doubtfull speech or Equiuocation Of which later point hauing touched somewhat in the precedent Preface being to haue occasion to doe the same againe more largely afterward wee shall now consider principally of the former concerning doctrine and practice of quiet or vnquiet peaceable or dangerous humours behauiours of subiects both Catholicke Protestant 7. And as for Catholickes the Minister in all his eight reasons bringeth out nothing of nouelty against vs but only such pointes of doctrine as himselfe doth consesse and expresly proue that they were held and recevued in our publique schooles aboue foure hundred yeares gone as namely in his first reason For that we hold Protestants for hereticks so farre forth as they decline and differ obstinately from the receyued doctrine and sense of the Roman Catholicke Church and consequently that being Hereticks they are not true Christians nor can haue true faith in any one article of Christian beliefe and that the punishment determined by the ancient Canon lawes which are many and grieuous both spirituall temporall do or may therby light vpon them And in his second third and fourth reasons that wee teach That the Bishop of Rome as spirituall head of the vniuersall Church hath power aboue temporall Princes and may procure to let the Election and succession of such as are opposite or enemies to Catholicke Religion and that in some cases he may dissolue oathes of obediēce and the like 8. And further yet in his fifth sixt seauenth and eight reasons that in certaine occasions and vpon certaine necessities for preuenting of greater euils imminent to any Countrey Kingdome or common wealth especially if they be spirituall and appertaine to the saluation of soules the same high Pastour may restraine resist or punish the enormous excesses of temporall Princes if any such fall out by Censures excommunication depriuation or deposition though this not but vpon true iust and vrgent causes when other means cannot preuaile for auoiding those euerlasting euils 9. All which doctrines for this is the summe of all he saith or alleadgeth do cōteine as yow see no new matter of malice against Protestant Princes inuented by vs for that the Minister himselfe as now we haue said confesseth that for these three or foure later hundred yeares these positions haue byn generally receiued by all the vniuersall Church and face of Christendome so as being established so many hundred yeares before Protestants were borne or named in the world they could not be made or inuented against them in particuler but only are drawne vnto them at this time by
say though he dissemble it wherof we may read both Cunerus Carerius Salmeron Barkleius Reginaldus and Boucherus here by him cited out of whome he hath taken the most part of that he writeth in this affaire 27. Wheras then we must confesse with the Philosopher and with reason it self that Quidlibet ex quolibet non est consequens euery thing followeth not of whatsoeuer it seemeth that two pointes only of any moment concerning the controuersy in hand may truly and sincerly be deduced out of this number of examples now alledged the first that as temporall authority of Princes is from God and he will haue it respected and obeyed as from himself so one way or other he faileth not to punish them grieuously and to bring them oftentimes to great affliction and desolation when they gouerne not well and this either by ordinary or extraordinary meanes as himself liketh best To which end is that seuere admonitiō in the second Psalme Et nūc Reges intelligite erudimini qui iudicatis terram seruite Domino in timore exultate ei cum tremore Apprehendite disciplinam nequando irascatur Dominus pereatis c. And now yow Kinges vnderstand and yow that gouerne the earth be instructed serue almighty God in feare and reioice vnto him with trembling Admit discipline lest he fal into wrath against yow yow perish c. And this is the best most pious meditatiō which a Christian man can draw or lay before Princes out of those disasterous euentes as fell to diuers by Godes owne apointment or permission vnder the old Testament and not the comparison of Myters and Crownes which this Minister ridiculously bringeth in 28. Secondly may be noted that in the execution of Godes iustice designement in this behalfe he vsed also oftentimes the help concurrence of both Priestes and Prophetes other holy men who notwithstanding may be presumed out of their said holy disposition to haue abhorred such effusion of bloud war and other calamities which by fulfilling Godes ordinance made vnto them either by secret inspiration or open commandment were to ensue and follow and consequently that all Priestes were not debarred from dealing in such affairs when God required their cooperation therin 29. All the question then is how and when and where and by whome and for what causes and in what cases with what circumstances this restraint of Princes may be vsed wherin I haue shewed aboundantly before that the moderation prescribed by Catholickes is far greater without comparison then is that of the Protestantes whether we respect either their doctrine or practice of which both kindes we haue before produced sufficient examples and in this place the Authors most alledged by T. M. about this controuersy against violence towardes Princes are Catholicke as namely Cunerus a learned Bishop of the low Countreys in his booke De Officio Principis Christiani and Barkleius a Reader of Law in Loraine in six bookes written by him De Regno Regali potestate aduersus Monarchomacos Of Kingdome and Kingly power against impugners of Princes the first writing against the Rebellions and violent attemptes of the subiectes of Holland and Zeland and other Prouinces therunto annexed and by that occasion treating in generall how vnlawfull a thing it is for subiectes to take that course vpon any discontentment whatsoeuer handleth the matter very learnedly though briefly 30. But the other Doctour Barkley taking vpon him to treat the same matter much more largely directeth his pen principally against the bookes of certaine Protestantes of our time as Hottoman Brute Buchanan and others before mentioned for so he saith in his preface Non contentus Satanas tis qui parens ille malorum mendaciorum Lutherus c. Satan being not contēted with those wicked doctrines which Luther the Father of all wickednes and lies and other slanderous Railers that came out of his kytchin had with infamous mouthes and intolerable audacity vomited out against Princes he sent forth also into the world to fly before mens eyes other most seditious bookes Hottomani FrancoGalliam Bruti vindicias Tyrannorum Bucchanani Dialogum de iure Regni the booke of Hottoman dwelling in Geneua intituled Free-France or the Freedome of France to wit of the Protestantes against their Kinges and Princes that other also of Brutus a man of the same place and crew intituled The reuenge that subiectes ought to take of their Princes if they become Tyrantes the third of Buchanan schoole-maister in times past to our Kinges Maiesty intituled A Dialogue of the right of Kingly power subiecting the same to the people yea and to euery priuate person therof when it shall seeme vnto him necessary for the common-wealth or expedient for Godes glory as before yow haue heard Against all which this Doctour Barkley a Catholicke man writeth his six bookes so as in this point for Princes security we are far more forward then Protestantes 31. And albeit this said Doctour doth include in like manner Doctour Boucher a French Catholicke writer reprehending diuers thinges vttered by the said Boucher in his booke De iusta abdicatione against the late King Henry the third of France yet in the principall point whether priuate men either for priuate or publicke causes may vse violence against their lawful Prince not lawfully denounced for a publique enemy by the whole state and common-wealth in this point I say the said Boucher is absolutly against the same so protesteth and proueth it by diuers argumentes shewing himself therin to be quite contrary and to abhorre not only the doctrine of VVickcliffe and Husse condemned in the Councell of Constance about that matter but also of the forsaid Protestant writers Hottoman Brute Bucchanan Knox Goodman Gilby VVhittingham and the like among whome also I may include Iohn Fox who in his history of Iohn Husse alloweth that proposition of his Prelates and Princes leese their authority when they fall into mortall sinne as the Author of the VVarn-word proueth more largely out of Fox himself 32. And thus much for the first point about examples drawne from the times of the old Testament out of which little cā be vrged to the proofe or disproofe of this question besides the two generall pointes by vs noted before For to bring into disputation whether Priesthood or Kingly principality had the vpper hand in that law is to small purpose the matter being cleere that as the Kinges and so likewise their Captaines Iudges and Gouernours before they had Kinges had the preheminence in all temporall affaires so in spirituall and such as concerned God imediatly the were referred principally to Priestes and the temporall Magistrate commaunded to heare them to take the law of them consequently also the interpretation therof to repaire vnto them in consultation of doubtes and to stand to their iudgment and definition that Priestes and Prophetes should consult immediatly
of the Church In this then we agree and haue no difference 24. There followeth in T. M. his assertion heere But not in the personall administration of them to wit of spirituall causes this now is a shift dissembling the difficulty and true State of the question which is in whome consisteth the supreame power to treate iudge and determine in spirituall causes which this man flying as not able to resolue telleth vs only that he cannot personally administer the same which yet I would aske him why For as a Bishop may personally performe all the actions that he hath giuen authority to inferiour Priestes to doe in their functions and a temporall Prince may execute in his owne person if he list any inferiour authority that he hath giuen to others in temporall affaires so if he haue supreame authority spirituall also why may he not in like manner execute the same by himself if he please But of this is sufficiently writtē of late in the foresaid booke of Answere to Syr Edward Cooke where also is shewed that a farre greater authority spirituall was giuen to King Henry the eight by Parlament then this that T. M. alloweth his Maiesty now for outward preseruation of the Church to wit To be head therof in as ample manner as euer the Pope was or could be held before him ouer England and to King Edward though then but of ten yeares old was granted also by Parlament That he had originally in himself by his Crowne and Scepter all Episcopall authority so as the Bishops and Archbishops had no other power or spirituall authority then was deriued from him to Queene Elizabeth by like graunt of Parlament was also giuen as great authority spirituall and Ecclesiasticall ouer the Church and Clergy of England as euer any person had or could exercise before which was and is another thing then this outward preseruation which T. M. now assigneth hauing pared the same in minced wordes to his purpose to make it seeme little or nothing but dareth not stand to it if he be called to the triall 25. Wherfore this matter being of so great importance and consequence as yow see I doe heere take hold of this his publicke assertion and require that it may be made good to wit that this is the substance meaning only of the English oath and that neither our Kinges of England doe chalenge more nor subiectes required to condescend to more then to grant to their authority for outward preseruation or ad Ecclesiae praesidium as S. Leo his wordes and meaning are and I dare assure him that al Catholickes in England will presently take the oath and so for this point there will be an attonement Me thinkes that such publicke doctrine should not be so publickly printed and set forth without publicke allowance and intention to performe and make it good Yf this be really meant we may easely be accorded if not then will the Reader see what credit may be giuen to any thing they publish notwithstanding this booke commeth forth with this speciall commendation of Published by authority c. 26. And for conclusion of all it may be noted that there hath byn not only lacke of truth and fidelity in citing Pope Leo for Ecclesiasticall Supremacy in Emperours aboue Popes but want of modesty discretion also for so much as no one ancient Father doth more often and earnestly inculcate the contrary for the preheminence of the Sea of Rome then doth S. Leo in so much that Iohn Caluin not being able otherwise to answere him saith that he was tooto desirous of glory dominion and so shifteth him of that way and therfore he was no fit instance for T. M. to bring heere in proofe of spirituall supremacy in temporall Princes 27. But yet in the very next page after he vseth a far greater immodesty or rather perfidy in my opiniō in calumniation of Cardinall Bellarmine whome he abuseth notably both in allegation exposition translation application and vaine insultation for thus he citeth in his text out of him Ancient generall Councelles saith the Romish pretence were not gathered without the cost of good and Christian Emperours and were made by their consentes for in those dayes the Popes did make supplication to the Emperour that by his authority he would gather Synods but after those times all causes were changed because the Pope who is head in spirituall matters cannot be subiect in temporall Bellarm. lib. 1. de Concil cap. 13. § Habemus ergo 28. And hauing alledged this resolutiō of Bellarmine the Minister insulteth ouer him in these words Who would thinke this man could be a Papist much lesse a Iesuit how much lesse a Cardinal who thus disableth the title of the Pope granting to vs in these wordes after these times that is after six hundred yeares the truth of purer antiquities challenging Popes to be subiect vnto Christian Emperours And yet who but a Papist would as it were in despite of antiquity defend the degenerate state saying after those times Popes might not be subiect in temporall matters As if he should haue said Then gratious fauour of ancient Christian Emperours then sound iudgment of ancient reuerend Fathers then deuout subiection of ancient holy Popes in summe then ancient purity and pure antiquity adieu But we may not so bastardly reiect the depositum and doctrine of humble subiection which we haue receaued from our Fathers of the first six hundred yeares and not so only but which as your Barkley witnesseth the vniuersall Christian world imbraced with common consent for a full thousand yeares So he 29. And doe yow see how this Minister triumpheth Who would thinke that men of conscience or credit could make such ostentation vpon meere lies deuised by themselues as now wee shall shew all this bragge to be And as for D. Barkley alledged in the last lines let any man read him in the booke and Chapter cited and he will wonder at the impudency of this vaunter for he speaketh no one word of gathering Councells or comparison of spirituall authority betweene the Pope and Emperour concerning their gathering of Councelles or Synodes but of a quite different subiect of taking armes by subiectes against their lawfull temporall Princes And what will our Minister then answere to this manifest calumniation so apparently conuinced out of Doctor Barkley But let vs passe to the view of that which toucheth Cardinall Bellarmine against whome all this tempest is raised 30. First then we shall set downe his wordes in Latin according as T. M. citeth him in his margent Tunc Concilia generalia fiebant saith he non sine Imperatorum sumptibus eo tempore Pontifex subiiciebat se Imperatoribus in temporalibus ideo non poterant inuito Imperatore aliquid agere id●irco Pontifex supplicabat Imperatori vt iuberet conuocari Synodum At post illa tempora omnes causae
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