Oathes are of two sortes, that is to say, priuate and publique.

Priuate oathes are made betweene priuate persons con­cerning their particular affaires. As for th'assurance of du­ties, couenauntes, agreementes or promises, or to procure faith and credite to be giuen to that which is ment to bee perswaded. Of which kinde of oathes wee haue many ex­amples in the sacred Histories, as in the booke of Genesis cap. 24. and cap. 31. 1. Sam. cap. 20. 1. Regum cap. 18. Hie­rem. cap. 38. and many other whiche for breuities sake I omitte.

Publique oathes are of diuers and sundrie sortes. As where Kings and Princes sweare for the establishment of their leagues and conclusions of peace.

Or where the Prince and people sweare eache to other: The Prince to rule and reigne justlie: The people in due al­leageaunce to obey faithfullie. This kinde of oathe was vsed 2. Sam. cap. 5. betweene Dauid the king & th'Elders of Israel. In the booke of Iudges we read also howe th'El­ders of Gilead sware subjection vnto Iephtah.

An other kinde of publique oathe we see 2. Cron. cap. 15 where king Asa made the people of Israel to take an oath for the true worship and scruice of Almightie God, and the obseruation of his Lawe. An oath not much different was that in Ezra cap. 10.

That is also a publique oath whiche the Magistrates, Iudges and Officers of Iustice take for the true and sincere [Page 5]administration of the Lawe. So is also the oath of Souldi­ours and men of warre, swearing obedience to their Gene­ralls, Captaines and Commaunders.

An other kinde of publique oath is that likewise which the Iudge or Magistrate ministreth vnto such as are called to depose and testifie the trueth in causes of suite and con­trouersie, depending in Courtes or places of Iustice.

And that also which either of the aduersaries take in the same suites, or the defendant for the finall ending and de­tetmination of the controuersie, which of some is termed a judiciall oath, and being offred by the defendant, it is of necessitie to the plaintife, for that hee cannot refuse to ac­cept of the same.

Of this last sorte, among the lawes Iudiciall it is written thus: Exod. ca. [...]2. If any man deliuer to his neigh bout to keepe Affe or Oxe or Sheepe, or any beast, and it dye or be hurt, or be ta­ken by force, & no man see it, An oath of the Lord shalbe the meane betwene them twaine, that he put not his hand vnto his neighbours good, And the owner of it shall ac­cept the oath, and the other shall not make it good.

Concerning him that is to take an oath, The de­ponent. he is taught by the holy Ghost first to sweare in trueth. That is to say true­lie without falshood, deceipt, or dissimulation, the heart & mouth agreeing in one: Hiere. ca. 4. for since God is the authour and louer of trueth, and the Diuell is a lyar, and the father of lies, there can not be a greater dishonour or indignitie of­fred to the sacred Maiestie of God, then to make his most fearfull and reuerende name, a witnesse of falshoode or de­ceipt, neither let any man thinke that by craftie or subtill swearing he can auoyde the detestable sinne of perjurie. For fraus distringit non dissoluit perjurium, fraude strayneth harder, it dissolueth not the perjurie as the learned Tullie verie well saide.

Secondlie, Hier. ca. 4. he that taketh an oath ought to sweare in judgement, that is to saye, with good discretion, soberlie, well aduised and assured of that he wil affirme or denie vp­pon his oath, Not ignorauntlie, rashlie, vainlie, or in causes [Page 6]of no moment or necessitie for such vaine and foolish swea­ring is expreslie forbidden by the commandement, where­in also God threatneth, That he will not holde him guilt les, that taketh his name in vaine, that is, wil surelie punish him that so abuseth his name. The same also in the newe Testament is by Christ him selfe condemned. Moreouer the holy Ghost by the Preacher well aduiseth euerie man not to be rashe with his mouth, nor to suffer his heart to be hastie to vtter any thing before God, for that (sayeth hee) God is in the Heauens, and thou art on the earth.

In justice or righteousnes also ought an oath to bee ta­ken, that is in things just and lawfull, not repugnaunt to the will or commaundement of God. For although it be true that is saide, Non est obligatorium contra bonos mores praestitum iuramentum, yet by swearing to doe the thinge that is vnjust or vnlawfull, the glorious name of God is di­shonored. And such a speach saieth Ecclesiasticus, is com­passed about with death. Brieflie, the respect of euery de­ponent should be, that God by his oath may be magnified, the trueth in question confirmed, justice maintained, and that Innocentes (by fraudulent practizes circumvented) may be freed and deliuered from perill and daunger.

Touching such as haue power and authoritie to require or commaunde an oath, The Ma­gistrate. they ought also to bee verie care­full and circumspect that they impose not the same but in causes of waight and necessitie, which is neuer to bee in­tended but when the honour and glory of God is to bee maintayned, or the good of the common wealth, or of our neighbour furthered. For if it be a Principle De minimit non curat lex, by good reason the Magistrates and mini­sters of lawe should spare to vse that whiche is most ho­lie and precious in causes of lesse price or moment, for dailie experience sheweth, that the frequent vse of thinges reuerent (such is the corruption of our nature) causeth them to be of none accompt. Furthermore, they ought to be well advised that they require it not of mē of suspected faith or credite; or of persons defamed in life and conuer­sation. For an oath offered to such (without greater neces­sitie) [Page 7]argueth a lightnes and want of good discretion in the Magistrate, who thereby wittinglie doeth minister an oc­casion of perjurie, whiche if it followe, howe great is the fault? Moreouer, that they charge no man by oath to doe the thing impossible or beyonde his power. For impossibi­lium nulla est obligatio, nor any thing that is vnlawfull, in­conuenient, or vngodlie. Neither force any man to sweare rashlie or vnaduisedlie. For if the vaine and inconsiderate swearer shall nor be vnpunished, howe shall the procurer escape Gods vengeance? That they abuse not the simpli­citie of the Deponent by intricate, captious, or subtill que­stions: 1. Thes. ca. 4 for let no man (sayeth the holy Apostle Saint Paul) beguile or craftelie circumuent his brother, for the Lorde is an auenger of all such things. Finallie in the ministring of an oath the Magistrates ought to respect all those things which the partie deposing ought to haue before his eyes, that is the glorie of God, the maintenance of trueth, & the good of our brethren.

These things graunted, which cannot be denied, it con­sequentlie followeth that the forcing of Oathes by Ordi­naries and Iudges Ecclesiasticall generallie to answere vn­to all such questions or interrogatories as they shall de­maunde or minister touching eyther the thoughts, wordes or deedes of him that is to depose, is contrarie to the ho­norable institution, lawfull vse, and true ende of an oathe. And that whosoeuer by coulour of authoritie, threatning speaches, duresse of imprisonment, or other paine cōstrai­neth any man to sweare in such maner, doeth highlie of­fende against th'inviolable rules before remembred.

For first as it hath bene saide, the ordeyning and institu­tion of an oath was to helpe and relieue the necessitie of men in the causes before rehearsed. But there is no neces­sitie or vigent cause why such a general oath should either be required or take, since the same is neither for assurance of duetie, couenaunt, contract or promise, neyther yet for confirmation of trueth in any cause or matter of contro­uersie. If it bee alleadged that the same is requisite for the enquiring and finding out of suspected faultes, whereof [Page 8]there is no proofe, and to search and trie the euill mindes and corrupt consciences of daungerous dissemblers, and so necessarie for the gouernement both of the Church and common wealth. By this allegation first all such are justly reproued, who hauing practised and put in ure this gene­rall oath, where otherwise there was sufficiencie of proofe. And yet thereby nothing is saide for the maintenance of their doings in that behalfe, since by the like reason there should be erected a Court of Inquisition more then Spa­nish to sifte & ransacke by oath the most secret thoughtes and consciences of all men in generall, enforcing them ei­ther to accuse them selues (not as in the Papisticall shrift; where secrecie was enjoyned) to their publique shame, re­proach and condemnation, or els for the auoyding of such mischiefe and inconuenience, to committe most wilfull and damnable perjurie. But as this I suppose in all good mens opinions, were intollerable, so of the other I assure my selfe there can be no sounde rule, sufficient president or example alleadged: Except peraduenture the proceding of the high Priest, the Scribes and Elders of the Iewes in their Consistorie against our Sauiour Christ, shall be vou­ched and mainteined for a sufficient president in that bee­halfe, who maliciouslie apposing and examining him con­cerning his doctrine (although not by oath) would glad­lie haue pickt out and drawne from him selfe some mat­ter of accusation, whereby to haue condemned him. But the aunswere and authoritie of Christ (I doubt not) wilbe allowed among Christians, both for sounde and sufficient to refell and condemne the practize of those malignaunt Priestes, who knowing their subtill purpose and intent, re­ferred them to his auditours, and beeing injustlie striken, replied: If I haue euill spoken, beare witnesse of the euill, but if I haue well spoken, why smitest thou mee, justifying hereby his former aunswere, and forcing therewithall his aduersaries to seeke for witnesses to testifie against him.

The true vse and ende of an oth is, as aforesaide, That due honor may be giuen vnto God, the trueth confirmed, Iustice maintained, innocencie protected, and an end had [Page 9]of strife and contention. But how is God glorified hereby, or not rather dishonored, when as his sacred institution is so greatlie peruerted, and an oath forced to an other course and purpose, then he in his diuine wisedome hath appoin­ted, as by that which hath and shalbe spoken, doth & shall manifestlie appeare. The trueth in controuersie is not ther­by confirmed, since there is no issue ioined in this case be­tweene parties affirming and denying, and how can iustice by such an oath be maintained, when as the cause for which the oath is vrged, standeth not in lawfull course of judgment? for as it is well said of a learned man: Bracton. Iudicium est in qualibet actione trinus actus trium personarum: Iudi­cis, actoris, & rei, secundum quod large accipi possunt huins­modi personae, quod duae sunt ad minus inter quos vertatur cō tentio, & tertia persona ad minus qui iudicet, alioquin nō erit iudicium, cum istae personae sunt partes principales in iudicio, fine quibus iudicium consistere non potest. Then whensoeuer any fault or matter of offence by meanes of this kinde of compulsary oath happeneth to be disclosed, either we must say that the Iudge, who imposeth the oath, is him selfe against all order of justice, the partie accuser, 8. H. 6. fol. 18. 5. Reg. Eli. and so both Iudge and Promoter, which all good lawes forbidde: Or els the Deponent must of necessitie susteine two princi­pall partes in judgement, that is to be both Actor & Reus, Accusor and accused, whereby the three principall parties, by the rule aforesaide, faylinge true judgement, by no meanes may consist. Furthermore, by this kinde of oath it can not be truely saide, that Innocentes circumuented by fraude or practise, are cleared, since there is no complaint or accusation judiciallie exhibited. Except we shall affirme that the Iudge or Magistrate by enforcing such an oathe, doeth him selfe play the patt of a subtil circumventor and accusor, which as it is a most wicked sinne in any man, so in the person of a publique Magistrate (whose actions should be sincere) the same is most detestable. And finally, howe can an ende of controuersie ensue by such an oathe, whereas no quarrell or complaint is any way dependinge. Nay rather the same is often tymes the cause of stirring vp [Page 10]of debate and contention in steade of former quietnes, be­ing principallie vsed not to make an end of controuersies, but to procure some accusation, and that by the secrete malice of some vndermining or malignant aduersarie or calumniatour.

Againe, since an oath is to be taken in judgement, that is with good aduisement and consideration of the matter, wherein the Deponent is to call the Name of God to wit­nesse, and that whosoeuer otherwise taketh an oath, doeth therein vainelie and indiscreetlie abuse the Name of God. Howe can this generall oath be eyther rightlie vrged or receyued without great offence to his diuine Maiestie, for­asmuch as the partie deposing is not before he swear, made acquainted nor vnderstandeth what questions or interro­gatories shal be demaūded, but by his oath hath fast bound and subjected him selfe to the discretion or indiscretion of another, that is the Iudge Ecclesiasticall, who hauinge straightlie tied and snared this seelie subiect, may nowe vse or abuse him at his will and pleasure, eyther against lawe enforcing him by the bande of his oath to accuse him selfe euen of his most secret and inward thoughtes, or con­trarie to christian charitie, yea humanitie it selfe, constray­ning him to enforme against his naturall parentes, dearest friends, and nearest neighbors, or to bewray with griefe of heart such matters of secrecie, as otherwise were inconue­nient & peraduenture not honest to be reuealed. In which hard proceeding besides the great hazard & peril of wilful perjurie without all necessitie of an oath, great trouble of minde and scruple of conscience must needes ensue, when as the Deponent on the one side, considering the waight & heauie burthen of his oath, feareth to conceale any thing: and on the other side finding him felfe thereby entrapped, shrinketh to make aunswere to the questions propounded. Whereof you may beholde a most miserable and lamenta­ble spectacle in the booke of Actes & monumentes, where in a large table is set forth the great iniquitie and rigorous dealing of Longland Bishop of Lincolne, in the time of the late Prince of famous memorie, King H. the eight. Which [Page 11]bloudie Bishop by forced and violent oathes and captious interrogatories, constrayned the children to accuse their parentes, the parentes their naturall children, the wife her husbande, the husbande his wife, one brother and sister an other, some of these seelie soules of sworne becomminge forsworne, whyle they made daintie to accuse such as they dearlie affected. Of which blinde ignorāce (or rather mur­derous mindes) and intollerable iniquitie of Romish Bish. and barbarous abuse of an oath, that godlie man of wor­thie memorie Maister Iohn Foxe justlie complaineth. For what might be added more to extreame crueltie, saue only this one point of detestable inhumanitie (whiche also was pursuaunt as a part of that tragical church-gouernement) to compell the children to set fire to their condemned pa­rentes. Which example of crueltie sayeth that good man, as it is contrarie both to God and nature, so hath it not bene seene or heard of in the memorie of the heathen.

That wicked king Herode (as it is recorded by the holy Euangelistes Mathewe and Marke) voluntarilie promised, and that with an oath, to giue the dauncing daughter of Herodias his harlot, whatsoeuer shee should demaunde. As this vnaduised oath proceeding of vaine pleasure and delight vppon the wicked demaunde of that Damosell wrought much griefe of minde in the king, so was it the cause of the sudden dispatche and murther of that iust man Iohn the Baptist. And although it may truelie be said that Herode was not bounde by his oath to haue accom­plished so foule and wicked a deede, yet can it not bee de­nied but that the same was a rashe and inconsiderate oath, and so an offence against the Maiestie of Almightie God. And what difference is there I pray you betweene the oath of Herode and that which nowe we haue in question, the one being to performe or graunt whatsoeuer should be re­quired: and the other, to aunswere to all questions that shalbe demaunded, since there may be as vnlawfull and as vnhonest questions ministred, as vngodlie requestes made or desired.

Againe, it would not be forgotten that in all the volume [Page 10] [...] [Page 11] [...] [Page 12]the sacred scriptures (to my remembrance) there is no one president or example to bee shewed of any such generall oath taken by any godlie man in priuate, or exacted by any Magistrate in publique, neither yet any rule, lawe, or com­maundement for the same.

But against this our last assertion may happilie bee al­leadged by some fauourer of this foule abuse, the manner of triall by adjuration of the suspected wife, that is the law of jelousie. The inquisition and expiation of man-slaugh­ter, where the authour is vnknowen, and the examination of Achan: all which neuerthelesse make nothing for these generall oathes, or those enjoyned ex officio, as by the con­sideration of the lawes and historie it selfe shall easilie ap­peare. For as concerning the lawe of jelousie, although the wife were to be tried by oath and adjuration in that man­ner and with those circumstances as is there prescribed, ei­ther to satisfie the restlesse head of her jelous husbande, if shee were guyltlesse, or to receyue by the wonderfull workinge of that accursed water, if shee were saultie condigne punishment for her heynous offence, both of perjurie and adulterie, yet is it verie manifest in this case that the wife is not sommoned or cited by the Priest or Magistrate ex officio, but brought vnto him by her accu­sing husband, who vpon offence conceyued offring vp his complaint, and thervpon the woman is called for, and put to her purgation, well knowing her accusor, and hauinge perfect notice before shee sweare of the crime objected. Moreouer, who is so simple that seeth not howe weake an argument or conclusion this were. God hath appointed an oath to be taken by the wife in this especiall and singu­lar case of jelousie for the satisfaction of the suspitious minde of the husband, Ergo euery Iudge Ecclesiasticall to satisfie his jelous suspition or imagination of any crime, may appose by oath and compell men to their purgation. For by as good reason the Ordinarie or Iudge Ecclesiasti­call may also vpon euerie such oath denounce a cursse of consumption and rotting to the partie deposing in such & the same maner as there is prescribed.

[Page 13] And as touchinge the inquisition for murther or man­slaughter before remembred, it is ordeyned, that the El­ders of that Citie, which vpon measure taken falleth out to be next vnto the slayne man, should washe their handes ouer a beheaded Heyfer, protesting and saying in the pre­sence of the Priestes: Our hands haue not shed this bloud, neyther haue our eyes seene the slear. O Lorde be merci­full vnto thy people Israel, whom thou hast redeemed, & lay no innocent bloud to the charge of this people, &c. Howe any thing here may proue the exacting of oathes to be lawfull, I see not. A man is slayne, th'offendour vn­knowen, th'Elders by this especiall lawe of expiation doe protest as aforesaide. But where is an oath in this case gi­uen to any particular person? If this protestation shall bee thought in some sorte to conteruaile an oath of purgati­on, yet where is there any protestation or oath required or taken to aunswere generallie to such Interrogatories as shalbe propounded vpon vnknowne, secret, or barelie su­spected matter? Nay we see euidentlie, the fact and felonie (to th'offence both of God and man) to bee publique and apparaunt, th'offendor only lyeth hidden and vnknowne. On the contrarie, those Inquisitors ex officio, haue the man before them whom they will examine, but the matter for the most part is secreat and concealed which they enquire after, and many tymes there is no matter at all but bare & naked suspition or fame of a cry me neuer committed.

Concerning Achan and the proceeding against him, we see by the sacred historie howe the offence in generall is by God him selfe made manifest vnto Joshua the Prince of the people (vz) That an excommunicate or cursed thing was taken and concealed, &c. th'offendour was onely to be founde out. Inquisition being had by lot or otherwise, (God assisting) Achan is deprehended as guiltie. What followed? He is by Iosua examined of the particular, vsing these wordes: My sonne, I beseeche thee giue glorie to the Lord God of Israell, and make confession vnto him, and shewe me nowe what thou hast done, hide it not from me. Herevpon the detected Achan confesseth the trueth in [Page 14]particular. But where doeth it appeare that hee was depo­sed, or by what conceyued wordes or forme of oath doeth he sweare? Except wee shall say, there is no difference be­tweene the intreatie or charge of the Magistrate, remem­bring the glorie of God, and an oath taken and pronoun­ced by th'offendour to confesse the trueth. Which graun­ted, it must consequentlie followe, that whosoeuer is in that manner charged and confesseth not the trueth, al­though he haue no will to sweare, is both a liar and a per­son perjured, which were a harde conclusion. Nay rather such kinde of charge as adiuro te, as a learned man sayeth. Non est alium ad iurandum inducere, Thomas Aquinassed per similitu dinem juramenti alium ad aliud agēdum inducere. And such spea­ches are also vsed for commaundementes in the name of the Diuine Maiestie, Act. cap. 19.1. Thes. ca. 5 as we reade done by the Exorcistes, & by Sain Paule, who chargeth the Thessal. in the Lord, that his Epistle be read vnto all the brethren the Saints. Other­wise if euerie such kinde of speache should straight way make an oath, then would it followe (wdich were absurde) that the Deuill made our Sauiour to sweare at such time as he saide, I charge thee by God, that thou torment mee not.

I knowe very well what that learned and excellent light of Gods Church Maister Caluin saith in his booke of In­stitution of christian Religion, That is, howe Josua min­ding to driue Achan to confesse the trueth, said: My sonne giue glorie to the Lord God of Israell, meaning thereby that the Lord is grieuouslie dishonored, if a man sweare falslie by him. And this maner of speach sayeth hee, was vsed amonge the Iewes, so oft as any was called to take an oath, as appeareth by the like protestation that the Pha­risees vse in the Gospell of Saint Iohn. In the booke also of Ezra we reade the same phrase (Giue prayse vnto the Lorde) as some in Englishe haue translated it, Cap. 9. but accor­ding to the Latine translation of the learned Tremelius & Iunius, the wordes are, aedite confessionem Jehouae Deo. So that although it bee graunted that where an oath was gi­uen for the confession of the trueth, there the Magistrate [Page 15]vsed those wordes (Giue glorie vnto God, putting the par­tie in minde thereby of the Maiestie of Almightie God) yet followeth it not that in euerie place where wee finde the same speach, there the partie to whom it was spoken, had taken an oath to confesse the matter whereof hee was de­maunded. But be it graunted that Achan made his con­fession by oath, yet nothing will ensue thereof to justifie the dealings of those Inquisitors ex officio. For if those rough and rigorous exactors of an oath followinge onely this legall course of inquisition set forth in this sacred hi­storie, That is after an offence committed so grieuous and daungerous to the publique estate, and the same made knowen and notorious, would then onelie seeke out the partie offending, and that by due and lawfull course of tri­all: and hauing founde him, then after so mylde and cur­teous a manner, and in the name of God intreat, or (if they thinke good) depose him to reueale the trueth in particu­lar: No man (I suppose) would finde him self grieued with their proceedings. But this their vnjust dealinge in this great abuse of an oath, can not by authoritie of the holie scriptures be any way defended or mainteyned. Wiselie therefore and with good discretion did that godlie man William Thorp in the time of King Henry the fourth, William Thorp. be­ing willed by that bloodie persecutor of the true Christi­ans Archb. Arundell, to lay his hande vpon the booke, and sweare faithfullie to submit him selfe to his correction, & to stande vnto and fulfill his ordinaunce, desired firste to knowe, wherefore he should be corrected, and vnto what ordinaunce he was to be obliged, which being declared to this effect, that he should forsake all the opinions of the sectes of Lollardes (in deede the true Christians) that hee should preache no more vnto the people, & that he should from thenceforth become an accusor of such as him selfe was. He vtterlie refused to take any such oath, least there­by he should haue fallen into many foule and heynous sinnes and offences against God, as the abjuringe of true Religion, the forsaking of his lawfull calling against his conscience, & to his publique reproach to become a bloo­die [Page 16]accusor, or (as he him selfe sayth) an appeallor of his brethren, euerie Bishops espie, and the somner of all Eng­lande, deepely detesting such a bad office, as vnméete for a Minister of the word: nay altogither vnbeseeming a faith­full Christian, If any man will say as this Archbish. that a subject ought not to suppose that his Prelat will cōmaund him any vnlawfull thing, but should repose him self in the good discretion & vpright dealing of his ordinarie, with­out further aunswere: Let the subtill practise of this one Prelate, and the cruell and the accursed dealinges of that barbarous Bi. Longlande stande at this present for a suffi­cient caueat to euerie man that shall depose, to take heede howe he giue ouer-much credite to such glosinge and de­ceyuable speaches, least too late he finde it true, that faire wordes make fooles faine. Neythet is this any sufficient al­legation to say, that the partie Deponent is no further bounde to aunswere then the lawe requireth, howe gene­rall soeuer his oath be, since it is false, for the conscience of such a Deponent to stande vpon termes and questions, howe farre by lawe, and by what lawe he is bounde to an­swere.

Will you heare also what that godlie and blessed Mar­tyr Maister Iohn Lambert sayth concerning the Exactinge of such kinde of oathes, Iohn Lam bert. after he had acknowledged it law­full at the commaundement of a Iudge to take an oathe, to say the trueth, wishing the Magistrates neuertheles to minister oathes with great discretion & good aduisement, and exhorting them to forbeare and spare them in trifling causes and matters of no necessitie, least by too much haunt, first contempt, than perjurie, doe creepe in. Hee proceedeth further to this effect. This haue I shewed saith he, because it pitieth me to heare and see the contrarie vsed in some of our Nation, and such also as name them­selues spirituall men, and should be head ministers of the Church, who incontinentlie as any man commeth before them, anon they call for a booke, and doe mooue him to sweare without any futher respite, yea and they will charg him by vertu of the contentes of the Euangely, to make [Page 17]true relation of all they shal demaunde him, he not know­ing what they will demaunde, neither whether it bee law­full to shewe them the trueth of their demaunde or no, for such things there be that are not lawfull to bee shewed. As if I were accused of fornication, and none could be founde in mee, or if they should require me to sweare to bewraye another that I haue knowen to offende in that vice, I sup­pose it were expedient to holde me still and not to followe their will, for it should be contrarie to charitie, if I should so assent to bewray them that I neede not, and to whom perhaps (though I haue knowne them to offende, yet tru­sting of their amendment) I haue promised afore to keepe their fault secrete. Yea moreouer such Iudges sometimes not knowing by any due proofe, that such as haue to doe before them are culpable, will enforce them by an oath to detect them selues in opening before them their heartes. In this so doing I cannot see that men need to condescend in their requestes: for as it is in the lawe, Nemo tenetur pro­dere scipsum. And in another place of the lawe it is writ­ten: Cogitationis poenam nemo patiatur. To this agreeth the common prouerbe, Cogitationes liberae sunt à vectigalibus, Thoughtes be free from toll. By which wise speach of this good man we may see condemned, and that for just cause and vpon sounde reasons th'indiscreete and vnlawfull en­forcing of this kinde of oathe, seruing to no good, nay ra­ther to bad endes & purposes. We read also howe Bonner that infamous bloudsucker, vnworthie the name of a Bi­shoppe, hunting (as the woolfe for his pray) after matter of accusation, among many other his mischieuous and de­testable factes, offered also this oath ex officio vnto the fel­lowe prisoners of that holy and worthie Martyr Maister Philpot, saying after the rashe and indiscrete maner before remembred, Holde them a booke, you shall sweare by the contentes of that booke, that you shall (all maner of affec­tion laide a part) say the trueth of all such articles as you shalbe demaunded cōcerning this man here present (mea­ning Maister Philpot.) But those wise and godlie priso­ners, well knowing and considering howe they ought to [Page 18]take an oath, aunswered to this vnjust request: That they would not sweare, except they first knewe where vnto, and being therevpon offred an oath, and that with threates of Excommunication to aunswere the articles propounded against themselues, refused it also, saying: That they would not accuse them selues. So that wee see plainely by these examples, as also by that auncient and godlie writing inti­tuled The prayer and complaint of the Ploughman, that this kinde of generall oath and examinations ex officio mero, were not first mishked by Iesuites and seminarie Priestes, and frō them deriued to others that mislike gouernement and would bring the Church to an Anarchie, as the world hath bene borne in hande. But by true Christians, holie, learned and Religious men, and that for good causes and considerations why they should so doe.

And I should much meruaile, were it not that the world hath euer bene set in wickednes, howe any that professe the holie name and title of Christianitie, durst at any time put in practize within this Realme or elswhere, so pro­phane and more then heathenishe manner of Inquisition, not onely repugnaunt to God and Christian Religion, but contrarie also to the rules and cannons of the Antichri­stian church of Rome. Which lawes (if I be not deceyued) are more just and lesse vnjust a great deale, then such as haue taken vpon them to judge by coulor of the same. So that in a sorte it may be verified of them which was some­times spoken of the people of Athens, that hauing just & good lawes, they neuerthelesse behaued them selues as bad and dishonest men. For it is saide by some of their Canonistes, Canonists Procedere ex officio mero, est quando Iudex à seipso & ex officio assumit informationes contra delinquen­tem, & contra eum procedit, & hoc est quod dicitur procede­re per viam inquisitionis. Et recte loquendo, inquirere contra aliquem, [...]ul. Cla. in proe. crim. [...] fin. 3. quaest. vers. quaero quibu [...].non est ei transferre Inquisitionem, sed recipere te­stes seu informationes contra eum. And moreouer, For­mare inquisitionem contra aliquem, est facere processum in­formatiuum assumendo informationes & iudicia contra eum super alique delicto. So that to proceede by inquisition, is [Page 19]not to make the partie by oath or examination to bee his owne accusor, but to accept and receyue information and witnesses against him.

And in what sorte and maner the proceeding ought to be, is also declared to this effect: Iudex nunquam debet procedere ex officio, & sic per viam inquisitionis, nisi aliquod precedat quod appareat viam inquisitioni scilicet, vel defa­matio, vel quaerela partis, vel denunciatio, vel huiufmodi, ae­liter processus erit, nullus ipso jure neque in hoc intenduntur notificationes factae extra judicialiter, neque illae quae fiunt in­certo autore, & suppresso nomine notificantis. By whiche wordes manifestlie appeareth, that no Iudge Ecclesiasticall ought to proceede by way of inquisition, except there pre­cede a defamation of the partie complaint, or informati­on against him, intelligence of faultes and offences out of course of judgement, or by vncertaine authour, or sup­pressed name, is wholie by the Lawe rejected, but by the executors thereof altogither admitted.

Another also therevnto agreeing, sayth: Io. pet. de ferr. in prae. sub rubr. form. inqui sitionis & fama publ. That the inqui­sition is not orderlie done, but where infamia praecedat, vel talia judicia sufficientia quae probentur per testes idoneos. And to prooue the fame or infamie, there is required testes multi, the reason, quia dicta paucorum non infamant. Secondlie, they must bee graues & honesti, non male­uoli, nec inimici partis. Thirdlie, they must bee such as are conuersant in the place where the partie hath liued, whereby they may bee acquainted with the or­der and manner of his life and conuersation, wherevppon chiefelie riseth the true judgement of his good or euill fame. Fourthlie, those witnesses ought to be receyued ju­diciallie. Fiftlie, they must be deposed. And sixtlie, they are to render a wife and sufficient cause of their knowledge of the infamie. The Iudge in no cause (if he would of his owne knowledge say, the partie is infamous) is to bee re­ceyued or beleeued, the reason is, for that the lawe will quod secundum acta & probata justitia ministretur. And the grounde and foundation of the inquisition must not be extorted or wrested from the partie, but, lawfullie pro­ued [Page 20]as aforesaide by sufficient witnesses. Notwithstanding all which lawes, what contrarie courses haue bene practi­zed by Ordinaries and Cleargie men, many haue felt, and euery man knoweth too well. So that concerninge their judiciall Courtes and Consistories, the saying of the Poet is verified, Ʋicta iacet pietas, & virgo caede madentes vlti­ma coelestium terras astraea reliquit.

But since that more then two quaternions of learned Canonistes haue of late taken the paines to set downe the vndoubted groundes of the lawe Ecclesiasticall (as they say) according to which the proceedings haue bene vsed time out of minde, in all the Courtes Ecclesiasticall of this Realme, and all other proceedings haue bene at all times reformable by appellations, Let vs heare also what they say concerning this matter.

These Doctors firste graunt it to bee good and sounde law, That no man may be vrged to bewray him self in hid­den and secrete crimes, or simplie therein to accuse him­selfe. They confesse further, that if any man besides the Ordinarie will prosequute in their Courtes, making him­selfe partie to proue a cryme whereof there is suspition: The partie conuented in that case, albeit he must answere on his oath to other articles not principallie touching the verie crime objected, is not bounde by lawe to aunswere vpon oath any articles of the verie crime it selfe. Neuer­thelesse say they, when by circumstaunces once knowne a broade, secrete crymes are become vehementlie to bee suspected, and offensiue to the well disposed, and daunge­rous to be suffred, then are they meete by enquirie and all good meanes to bee discouered, to the ende they may bee reformed, & the partie delinquent brought to penitencie, and others discouraged to commit the like.

The wayes and meanes how suspition & fame of crimes come to the Ordinaries eares, they saye are these, manie bruites of credible persons called in the lawe clamosa infi­nuatio, and presentmentes of Church-wardens and Syde­men: which presentmentes if they be not direct thorough ignoraunce of the presentours or insufficient in the lawe [Page 21]to proue a fame (yet some scandall therevppon growinge) howe litle by like is not respected, th'Ordinarie by lawe Ecclesiasticall and good discretion may examine other witnesses, being neighbours, warning the partie suspected to be present. The fame once prooued (say they) or the first presentement sufficient than th'ordinarie of duetie, & for the publique trust reposed in him is, to proceede a­gainst the infamed, although no other man will, which by lawe is termed proceeding by enquirie, especiall ex officie, they adde a reason for confirmation Ne maleficia remano­ant impunita, vtque Prouincia purgetur malis hominibus.

And in this sorte, if the Ordinarie proceed ex officio, and the partie denie the crime objected, then by lawe hee is enjoyned his purgation. At which time of purgation (say they) he must directlie aunswere in clearing or conuincing him selfe de veritate vel falsitate ipsius criminis objecti, and his compurgators are to sweare de credulitate (weying his feare of God and conuersation of former tymes) That they beleeue he hath taken a true oath, whiche if they all doe, then he is holden cleare or dismissed. But if he fayle in his purgation, then fictione juris hee is taken to bee guiltie and to be reformed.

They shewe likewise a reason of diuersitie betweene the proceeding in the case ex officio, And that which is by suite of the partie, That is, Licet nemo tenetur seipsum prodere, ta­men proditus per famam tenetur seipsum ostendere vtrum possit suam innocentiam ostendere, & seipsum purgare. And a reason of that reason is added, because penaunces enjoy­ned by the ordinarie, are not taken in lawe to be poenae but medicinae, or tending to the reformation of the delinquent. Th'example of others and satisfaction of the Church of­fended: And so they conclude vpon all their reasons, that the suspected are not to make scruple to discouer them­selues after fame.

This being the true and onely course of proceeding by Ordinaries and Ecclesiasticall Iudges in causes criminall, where is then become the exacting of those general oathes so often vsed to aunswere all Interrogatories that shalbee [Page 22]ministred, and that before notice or vnderstanding (for the most parte) of the cryme objected. And the extortinge by oath of the ground and foundation of the inquisitiō from the partie conuented, doeth it not appeare by the resoluti­on of these learned men, that the same haue no good or sufficient [...] by the lawe, howe long or much soe­uer by cou [...]t & pretence of lawe and justice they haue bin practized or imposed.

And as concerning their proceedings exofficio to forced p [...]gations approued (as they seeme to affirme) both by [...] Ecclesiasticall and tytle of prescription, if we looke [...] thereto, and take good view thereof, what other thing [...]all we finde then harde and vnjust dealing towards men, and great abuse of the Name and Maicstie of Almightie God, cloaked and shadowed neuerthelesse vnder the glo­rious and painted glosses of beautifullshewes and feyned pretences of purging of Prouinces, Reformation of delin­quentes necessarie examples, discharge of publique trust, and satisfaction of the offended church, honest and hono­rable termes in deede, but ill applied to this purpose.

For firste, as concerning the injustice offred vnto men, if it be a true and sounde principle or Maxime in lawe, not denied by themselues, That Nemo tenetur seipsum prode­re, where should the benefite thereof be had or taken but in their Courtes and Cōsistories. But if it should be graun­ted that this rule faileth where a man is proditus per fa­mam, doeth not that as a gloase confoundinge the text wholie and altogither destroy that rule or principle, except for some reliefe this narrowe shifte may be vsed. That the fame neuerthelesse standeth in force where any other then the Ordinarie assumeth to proue that cryme.

But in this case also they haue so weakned this maxime, that scarcelie will it stande for a minome, affirminge (if I mistake them not) that the infamed must aunswere on his oath to other articles not principallie touching the verie crymes objected. For what should be meant by other ar­ticles but such as concerne circumstaunces and induce­mentes to the cryme, And is not this to goe like the crabb [Page 23]oblique, and to proceede the same way, although not to treade the direct steppes? But why there should bee any distaunce betweene the suyte or instance of the partie and the proceeding ex officio, I knowe not the reason. Allead­ged therefore is this, Penaunces enjoyned by Ordinaries are not taken to bee panae but medicinae, what their lawe presumeth is not sufficient reason to prooue their lawe reasonable, but what they are in deed is to be weyed. And shall they be medicines onelie, where proceeding is ex of­ficio? Or tende they in that case alone to the reformation of the delinquent, Th'example of others, and satisfaction of the Church? May not all this aswell bee verefied where the cryme is complained of, and punished at th'instaunce of the partie? And shall not penaunce although it bee but the standing in a sheete, as well as the standing on the pil­lorie, respect of publique shame and reproache (grieuous and odious vnto all men) be accompted for a punishment? True it is, all corrections are or should bee medicines for the amendement of maners. But doeth it therefore follow that the same be no paines or punishments?

As concerning th'offence to God by the abuse of his Name and Maiestie, Haue we not learned before that to offer an oath vnto persons defamed in life and conuersa­tion, and speciallie concerning the matter of his owne cor­rupt life argueth a lightnes and wante of good discretion in the Magistrate, who thereby wittinglie doeth minister an occasion of perjurie? And are not all those on whome these purgations are imposed, men greatlie defamed, and vehementlie suspected of the crymes objected, for as these Doctours affirme the law when secrete crymes by circum­staunces knowne abroade, are become vehementlie suspe­cted, offensiue and daungerous, then are they firste enqui­red of. The proceeding also by inquisition beginning vp­pon fame, proued not slenderlie, but by presentment vpon oath, or by deposed witnesses, being many honest, voide of malice, neighbours to the partie, and rendring a wise & sufficient reason of their knowledge concerning the same, And howe then may a Iudge in such a case with any good [Page 24]cōscience to Godward, or to the satisfaction of his church, force an oath vpon such a one for the finall ende of the cause? Is not the perill and presumption of perjurie very great and pregnaunt? Knowe we not that all, or the moste part of men liking the counsell (dedecus magis quam peri­culum vites) will rather hazard their soules then put their bodies to shame and reproach: presume the lawe neuer so much that after fame they should not make scruple to discouer them selues. If the like course of purgatiō should be vsed at the common lawe vpon Indightmentes of fel­lonie, or other criminall causes, what doubt were to bee made, but that perjurie in short time would ouerflowe the whole lande: and shall we not thinke, that the same is not frequent in these kindes of purgations? But say they, the partie is not trusted alone, he bringeth with him his many compurgators, who depose also de credulitate, waying his feare of God and former conuersation. Be it so, the matter thereby is no whit amended, but rather made worse and impaired. For what doe those compurgators but by len­ding their oathes, justifie in effect him to be honest, whom fame and the former deponentes haue proued to be disho­nest, and verie neare (the circumstances considered) con­uinced of the crime objected. Why rather doe not these Ordinaries which challendge and assume to them selues the goodlie name and tytle of spiritual men, if they respect the honor of God, and regard the soules of men, free the people from these pernitious oathes and deadlie purgati­ons, and proceede to their sentence of condemnation, not by feyned offices and fictions of lawe; but by good proofe and lawfull witnesses? And againe, absolue the partie de­famed, where such sufficient proofe doeth faile them, why should they thinke much to offer to the laitie in their Ec­clesiasticall Courts, the like good measure, and vpright & sincere justice, that they themselues finde & obteine in the courts temporall of this Realme, Where neyther they nor any other are forced ex officio Iudicis, by strayning oathes and strong purgations, not healthfull but hurtfull to be­wray or accuse them selues. Perhaps this counsell would [Page 25]be receyued, if it were as profitable as good and honest, but according to the prouerbe auro loquente tacendum est. For it is no small gaine and lucre that dailie riseth and ac­creweth to the Cleargie and Courtes Ecclesiasticall, by slaunder, fame, rumour, and false report: in respect wher­of these faire names of Office and discharge of publique duetie, are so cunninglie pretexed, and these poysoninge purgations so daungerouslie giuen for preseruatiues. A matter being since well knowne vnto the worlde, Carolus 5 and by the Princes of Germanie in the Counsell of Norenberg, a­mong many other abuses and corruptions, moste mon­strous, complained of to this effecte: It happeneth often­times say they, that men and women through sinister and false reportes and slaunders, are brought before the Offi­ciall or Ecclesiasticall Iudge, as men guiltie, and shall not be declared innocent before they haue cleared themselues by an oath, which purgation so made, they are restored to their former estimation. And albeit the dammages and costes ought to bee repaide vnto such as be so falselie ac­cused, yet are the innocentes them selues forced to paye two Gilders and a quarter for their letters of absolution. And this is the cause why the Officialls and other Ecclesi­asticall Iudges, doe so greatlie followe the action of such vnlawfull, false, and slaunderous accusations, challenging the hearing thereof onelie to them selues. Which thing no doubt (saye they) redowneth to the great and most singu­lar hurt and detriment of all men. For often times it hap­neth that Women falling togither in contention through anger, hatred, or some other affection, doe speake euill of, or slaunder one another, and outrage so much, that the one often times accuseth the other eyther of Adulterie or Witcherie: which being brought before the Officiall, shee which through anger had so slaundered the other, is for­ced by an oath to excuse and purge herselfe, that what so­euer injurious or slaunderous worde she had spoken, came not of any deliberate purpose or intent, but through wrath and displeasure. In like manner th'other which is accused eyther of adulterie or sorcerie, is commaunded by an oath [Page 26]to declare her innocēcie: so that it is euident vnto all men, that in such cases whether they bee guiltie or not guiltie, they must sweare if they will keepe their good name and fame whereby not onely the vnlawfull lucre of gaine and money is fought, but also wilful perjurie forced, &c. Thus these honorable persons you see haue made it cleare what is chiefelie entended by these canonicall purgations, pre­tende the Cleargie what soeuer they will, and howe such forced oathes are not onelie offensiue vnto God, but inju­rious also vnto men. Therefore leauing these men to whō the fauour of gaine is so sweete, togither with their fa­mous lawe, the matter which wee endeuour to prooue is, that those generall oathes and oathes ex officio publiquelie heretofore much practized by Ordinaries and Ecclesiasti­call Iudges, are altogither vnlawfull (whether by the Ca­nonicall sanctions or lawe cannon, I care not) but by the lawes of God and of this Realme. And therefore since we haue sufficientlie spoken of the lawe of God, nowe least peraduerture it may be saide, that such Catholique oathes are warraunted by the common lawes or statutes of this Realme, or by the vse and practise of some Courtes of Iu­stice, therein let vs consider hereof also, and deliuer both our lawes and the Iustice of our land from so foule a slaun­der.

Concerning the common lawes of this Realme, we may finde an oath diuerslie allowed of and vsed in causes of suyte judiciallie depending. But such a generall oathe or such like ex officio at any time eyther offred by Magistrate or taken or made by subject of this lande, by authoritie of the common lawe, can neuer be proued, I am sure, eyther by good recorde or sounde reporte of the same. Long it were and tedious to remember the particular cases, when and where an oath is required by the lawes and statutes of this Realme. But this may be saide in generall, and that truelie, to the great honor and highe commendations of our gouuernement, that the same common lawes haue not imposed or appointed an oathe to bee vsed otherwise then according to the right institution thereof, & the god­lie [Page 27]rules before remembred: yea moreouer this may trulie be affirmed, that the common lawe of this Kingdome, yea the common wealth it selfe hath euer rejected and impug­ned as a thing vnlawfull and injurious, this maner of swea­ring, whereof we nowe intreat, as by that we shall hereafter say, may euidentlie appeare.

Touching the oathes imposed or admitted at the com­mon lawe by Iudges or Magistrates (for of them onelie we are to speake.) First it is vsed as by good reason in all Courtes of Iustice established for determination of causes in suite or controuersie, eyther betweene the Prince and subject, or the subjectes them selues, to require an oath of all such as are called or produced to testifie their know­ledge concerning the matter or point in yssue, whereby the trueth may appeare, and the cause receyue an ende.

The defendent also in diuers personall actions volunta­tilie offring an oathe for his cleare discharge, Wager of lawe. is admitted by course of the lawe therevnto, which maner of procee­ding is termed the doing of his lawe, and seemeth to haue bene grounded vpon the judicialles before rehearsed, gi­uen by God vnto his people the Isralites, as by the obser­uation of the cases hereafter mentioned, may be gathered. For in an action of debt brought for money due by reason of some simple cōtract, or in an action of detinue of goods and chattelles, the oath of the defendent in the one case, that he oweth not the money, and in the other, that hee deteineth not the things required, is allowed for a finall ende and barre vnto the pleadant. For in the former case the repayment of the money may be priuate and in secrete, & so in the other the deliuerie of the goods. And although the baylment and deliuerie of the pleadaunt goods to the defendent were by the handes of a third person, or testified by writing, yet these are no causes to put the defendent from his oath, or wager of his lawe, for asmuch as the an­swere is not to the baylment or deliuerie, but to the de­teiner or withholding, and in the action of debt, although the defendent eyther hanging the action or otherwise had confessed the contract, yet is he to be admitted to his lawe [Page 28]or oath, in so much as the point in suite is not the contract but the debt. 7. H. 4. fo. 7. 9. E. 4. fo. 24

But in an action of accompt supposinge the receipt by the hands of a stranger or thirde person, the lawe is other­wise: for here the thing deliuered is not preciselie in de­maunde, but an accompt onelie thereof required. And the receipt being the cause of action to which a thirde person is priuie as a witnes (the oath of the defendent as a thinge not of necessitie) is rejected. For that reason was the defen­dent put from his wager of lawe. Anno 31. Ed. 1. where the case was this: An action of detenewe was brought for a Challice, the defendent pleaded howe the pleadaunt deli­uered the same in gage for vj. markes, and that vppon the repayment thereof he was readie to deliuer the Challice, the pleadent replying that he had repayed the money by the handes of one such, the defendent offring his oath to the contrarie, was nor admitted therevnto, inasmuch as there was a witnes of the repayment, by whose testimonie the trueth might be knowen.

And as the common lawe is thus on the part of the de­fendent, so is it likewise for the pleadant, comminge as it were in place of a defendent. Therefore Anno 21. Ed. 3. fol. 49. the case was that the defendent vppon his accompt would haue discharged him selfe by certen tallyes, and so by his oath continued the charge against the defendent. But Anno 29. Ed. 3. the defendent in accompt alleadged before the Auditors, payment to the pleadant by the hands of another, and the pleadent offring his oath that hee had not teceyued the money, was in respect of the third person denied to wage his lawe. And the good discretion and con­sideration which the lawe vseth in the allowing and admit­ting of wager of lawe, is not to be forgotten. Whiche lawe (least men of light credite or doubtfull faith, should take an oath) suffereth no man to doe his lawe, but such onelie as is able to bring with him 11. other persons of ripe yeres and of good name, to depose with him, that they thinke he sweareth truelie.

Neither are th'one parties or th'other in any personal ac­tion [Page 29]by the courses of the common lawe suffered to cleare themselues by their oathes where they are charged, eyther by their lawfull writing or matter of recorde, for that these are testimonies and proofes sufficient wherevnto faith and credite ought to be giuen, much more might bee saide in such particulars, but these may suffice to shewe howe in suites for goods, chattels, debtes, or personall dueties, the common lawes of this Realme admit no ydle, vaine, suspi­tious or vnnecessarie oathes, neyther compell any man to sweare concerning them, but vppon cause allowe of the pl [...]and desertes volontarie and necessarie oath for an ende of the controuersie.

As touching the causes and controuersies for landes and inheritaunces depending in fuyte, eyther in admitting or requiring of oathes, some fewe cases there be: Neuerthe­lesse where an oath for them is vsed, As if a Praecipe quod reddat be brought of lande wherein the tenaunt was not lawfullie sommoned, he may vpon returne of the proces of graund cape, wage his lawe for none sommons, and thereby (as not well executed) abate the demaundentes writ, in which case an oath seemeth rightlie to bee admit­ted, since the cause is both of weight and necessitie to the tenaunt, this being the onely way to relieue him against the vntrue returne of the Sherife, whereby his lande for want of apparaunce was to bee recouered against him. For as the lawe seemeth to way a triall of this sommons by 12. men is not allowable. And although it may bee saide, that the tenaunt vpon his losse by default might haue a writ of deceipt, and recouer againe his lande, 33. H. 6. fo. yet that often times falleth out to be a faint remedie, the death of such as were returned sommoners depriuing him of that aduantage. In the case also of deceipt vpon a recouerie by default, the sommoners, viewers, and perueors, are judiciallie exami­ned by oath, whether they haue duelie accordinge to the lawes of the lande, executed and perfourmed that whiche appertayneth vnto them, who in this case are vsed but as witnesses to search and sifte out by them the good or euill dealing of the Sherife by whom the execution of the writ [Page 30]and processe was committed. 41. Ed. 3. fo. In like maner, if the plaint. in a scire facias. recouer by default, & the defendent bring this action of deceipt against the Sherife, the bailife and the partie that sued execution of the lande, processe shalbe awarded against the supposed garnishers, and vppon their apparaunce they shalbe examined (and that by oath) con­cerning the maner of the garnishment, and the same bee­ing founde insufficient, the plaintife shalbe restored to his lande with the prosites meane.

We may finde also in such reall actions an oath required in another maner, but yet to good purpose, that is, to take away vnnecessarie delayes of Iustice. For if the tenaunt in a praecipe of lande will cast an Essoyne of the Kings seruice, the Essoygner shall sweare, and that directlie, the same to be no feined excuse, otherwise the Essoyne shall not be al­lowed. Some fewe other particular cases of like nature may peraduenture be shewed where an othe is admitted or required in these reall actions, but none I am sure tending to anie such purpose as these oathes commaunded and en­forced ex officio.

In criminall causes and suytes, Criminall causes. whereby eyther the losse of life, libertie, member of the bodie, or good name, may ensue (which among worldlie things are most deare and pretious vnto men) the common lawes of this lande haue wholie forborne (and that for just respectes) to vrge or im­pose an oath vpon the accused. For in wisedome it was foreseene that the frailtie of man for the safetie of life, the preseruation of libertie, credite, and estimation would not spare to prophane euen that which is most holie, and by committing sinfull perjurie, cast both soule and bodie in­to eternall perdition.

This knewe the subtill serpent our aduersarie full well in generall, although he were deceyued in the particular, when as he saide vnto God concerning the holie man Iob: Skinne for skinne, Iob cap. 2.and whatsoeuer a man hath, will hee giue for him selfe and for his life, but stretch out thy hande (sayth Sathan) and touche his bones and his fleshe, and see if he will not then blaspheme thee to thy face.

[Page 31] Moreouer, euerie wise Magistrate may well conceyue vpon howe weake and feeble a foundation he shall ground his sentence, trusting to such an oath, when before hande the suspition and presumption of perjurie is so pregnant. Therefore in causes capitall or otherwise criminall, these our lawes neyther vrge by oathe nor force by torment any man to accuse or excuse him selfe, but rejecte the oath as vnbeseeming a well gouerned state or common wealth: And condemne the torture as a thing most cruel & barba­rous, wherof although they neede no other proofe thē the dailie practize and proceedinges against parties suspected of such offences, yet concerning the inquisitions by tor­ture, we may see the same affirmed by that learned Iudge Maister Fortescue in his commentaries of the Pollicie of this Kingdome, 49. Ed. 3. And for th'other there are sufficient au­thorities in the reportes of the lawes them selues: therfore in the booke of Assizes it appeareth, that diuers Iurours were challenged as lesse indifferent, some for matters that founded to their reproach and dishonestie, as that corrupt­lie they had taken money of one of the parties in the suite, whervpon it was ordered by the Iustices, that such as were challenged for causes not dishonest, should bee sworne to declare the trueth, the other for the reason aforesaide, not to be examined at all, but the challenge to be tried with­out their oath, The same lawe is againe reported vnto vs Anno 49. Ed. 3. fol. 1. Vpon the like reason is the refolutiō of the chiefe Iustices & of the Iudges Saunders and Whid­don, 12. R. Eliz. That if a bill of perjurie committed in the Chaunce­re against the forme of the statute made in the fifte yeare of her Maiesties reigne, were exhibited in the same Court, that the defendent should not be compelled to make aun­swere vpon his oath eyther to bill or intertogatories, but that the parties ought to descende to yssue, and the triall to be had by Iurie in the Kings Benche. I shall not neede to spende time in declaring after the parties in suite haue ioy­ned yssue triall by Iurie howe many wayes an oath is vsed about the triall of such matters of fact, as the oath of Iu­rors them selues. and of their triars vpon challenge, or to [Page 23]speake any thing of the oath to be ministred vnto suck as require the suertie of peace, neither to discourse of the do­ing of homage or fealtie by the tenaunt to the Lord, since these and such like are well known to euery one, although but of meane judgement, to bee necessarilie vsed for the better administration of Iustice, and assuraunce of dueties, making nothing at all for those phantasticall and offici­ous oathes and examinations, proceeding rather ab officio the verbe, then ex officio the nowne.

Neyther is it necessarie to set forth at large where and in what particular cases Oathes are appointed by Actes of Parliament of this Realme, as to remember the diuers Oathes of Bishops, Counsellours, Iudges, Magistrates, Of­ficers, and Ministers of Lawe and Iustice. The oath ordei­ned for the maintenaunce of the supremacie Royall, and abolishing of forreine jurisdiction. The power of exami­nation by oath by the statute of Anno 5. H. 4. and manie others, for that by perusall of the statutes, the same may vnto him that will searche, easilie appeare. Vpon conside­ration of all which actes of Parliament, beeing in force, it may truelie be affirmed that there is not so much as a bare shewe or shadowe of matter to giue credite or allowaunce to these infinite wrested and extorted oathes ex officio.

But it may be that some man in the defence of the cause and for allowance of those oathes will alleadge the twise damned and repealed statute made vpon the sinister sug­gestion of the Cleargie Anno 2. H 4. cap. 15. The statute against hae­resie 2. H. 5. Which bloo­die and broyling lawe gaue authoritie to Diocesans, to cause the persons defamed or euidentlie suspected of sup­posed heresie, to be arrested, and vnder safe custodie to be deteyned in their Prisons, till they of the articles laide to their charge, did cannonicallie purge them selues, or els abjure it according to the lawes of the Church. And did appoint the proceeding and determination of the cause a­gainst the arrested, to be according to the effect of the law and cannonicall decrees. For aunswere wherevnto I saye, that although the sword by that stature lawe was commit­ted into the handes of madde men, and the seelie lambes [Page 33]deliuered ouer to the greedie and deuouring woolues, yet doeth it not appeare by any apparaunt or expresse wordes of that law, that any authoritie was therby giuen or meant to be giuen to Ordinaries or Iudges Ecclesiasticall, to im­pose any such generall oathe, or otherwise to compell by oath the prisonner to become his owne accusor, for that (and especiallie in cases of life and death) had bene direct­lie against the lawes and justice of this lande. But if it bee alleadged, that the same was tacite and inclusiue allowed by those wordes of cannonicall sanctions or decrees, and that there be any such, yet the same decree beeing against the lawes and decrees of God, as before is proued, that sta­tute was therein no binding lawe, neyther gaue sufficient warraunt to put in execution any such corrupt course of proceeding, since all lawes and ordinances of man whatso­euer, being repugnaunt to the lawes of God, are meerelie voyde and of none effect, as the learned Saint Germaine in his booke of Doctor and Student hath wel obserued, where he saieth, That euerie mans lawe must bee consonant to the lawe of God. And therefore the lawes of Princes, the com­maundements of Prelates, the statutes of Communalties, ne yet the ordinances of the Church, is not righteous or obligatorie, Except it be consonant and agreeable to the lawe of God.

But as concerning that statute, will you heare what is declared by Parliament Anno 25. H. 8. The subjects of this Realme at that time lamentablie shewe vnto their Soue­raigne Lord and King, Ca. 14. howe that statute was impetrate & obteined (I vse the wordes of the lawe) by the suggestion of the Cleargie of this Realme, not declaring or defininge any certen cases of heresie, that those wordes (canonicall sanctions or decrees) were so generall, that vnneth the most expert and best learned men of the Realme (diligent­lie lying in wayte vpon him selfe) could eschewe and auoyd the penaltie and daunger of that act. And canonicall san­ctions if he should be examined vpon such captious Inter­rogatories (note I pray you) as is and hath bene accusto­med to bee ministred by the Ordinaries of the Realme in [Page 34]cases where they will suspect any person of heresie.

They moreouer affirme, that it standeth not with the right order of justice nor good equitie, that any person should be conuict & put to the losse of his life, good name, or goodes, vnlesse it were by due accusation and witnesse; or by presentment, verdict, confession, or processe of out­lawrie: Declaringe moreouer, that by the lawes of the Realme for treasons committed to the perill of the Kinges most Royall Maiestie, vpon whose suertie dependeth the wealth of the whole Realme, no person can ne may be put to death, but by presentment, verdict, or processe of out­lawrie: and therfore not reasonable that any Ordinarie by any suspition conceyued of his owne fantafie, without due accusation or presentment, should put any subject of this Realme, in the infamie or slaunder of heresie, to the perill of life, losse of name, and goods. They further shewe that there may be heresies and paines and punishmentes decla­red and ordeined in and by the canonicall sanctions, and by the lawes and ordinances made by the Popes and Bishops of Rome, and by their authorities, for holdinge, doing, preaching or speaking of things contrartie to the saide canonicall sanctions, lawes and ordinances, whiche be but humane, mere repugnant and contrarious to the Prerogatiue of the Kings Imperiall Crowne. Regall juris­diction, lawes, statutes, and ordinaunces of the Realme, by reason whereof the people of the same for obseruing, maintayning, defending, and due executing of the Kinges lawes, statutes, and prerogatiue Royall, by authoritie of that act, may be brought into slaunder of heresie, to their great infamie and daunger and perill of their liues. So wee see first howe the craftie and subtill Cleargiemen were the procurers of that statute lawe, to the ende that they might execute their crueltie, and howe vnder cloked and couert termes of canonical sanctions, they vnjustlie vsurped juris­diction ouer the people, ministring vnto them captious & snarling Interrogatories. And (as it should seeme by the histories) vpon oath contrarie to the true meaning of the lawe and law makers, and against the right order of justice [Page 35]and all good equitie: impugning thereby the Royall Pre­rogatiue, th'Imperiall Crown, the Princelie Scepter, lawes and Pollicie of this Kingdome. In consideration where­of, and to take from them all coulor of lawe positiue of this Realme, that statute was then repealed, and a newe forme of enquirie of heresie by indightment, presentment or due accusation by two lawfull witnesses at the least, was established.

And it is further to be noted, that although the Statute made Anno 31. H. 8. commonlie called the statute of sixe articles, was a verie streight, sore, extreeme & terrible act, 31. H. 8. c. 14 as the statute of the repeale thereof speaketh, yet finde wee not by that lawe, or any other, these generall oathes or ex­aminations by oath ex officio of persons suspected or accu­sed for heresie or other cryme Ecclesiasticall, 1. Ed. 6. c. 16 to be enacted or allowed of, but rather by the courses and fourmes of enquire and triall otherwise prescribed in this and other statutes, the same is rejected and disallowed whollie as vn­just and full of iniquitie. For by this statute of sixe articles, commissions are appointed to be directed to the Archb. or Bishop of the Diocesse, and to his Chauncellor or Com­missarie, and such other as the Kinge should appoint, gi­uinge them power to take information and accusation, (not by oath of the partie conuented) but by the oathes & depositions of two able and lawfull persons at the least, or to enquire by the oathes of xij. men. Giuing also to the Ordinaries power and authoritie to enquire in their visita­tions and Senis, and to take accusations and informations as in forme aforesaide, and not otherwise. The maner also of processe against the persons indighted, accused or pre­sented, is there prescribed. And the forme of proceedinge vpon apparaunce of the partie appointed to bee not accor­ding to those vnjust examinations by oath ex officio, but accordinge to the lawes of the Realme, and th'effect of that act.

And although at that tyme this statute lawe seemed just and equall, as concerning the maner of enquirie and trial, yet time (disclosing all thinges) made it appeare that the [Page 36]same was not false, in respect that diuers secret and vntrue accusations and presentementes might bee, and by all like­lihoode were maliciouslie conspired, and therefore it was enacted Anno 35. H. 8. cap. 5. That no person should bee arraigned or put to triall for or vpon any accusation, infor­mation or presentment, concerning any of the offences mentioned in the statute of 6. articles, but onely vppon such presentementes and indightements as shoulde bee sounde and made by the oathes of 12. men or moe, &c.

These things standing thus, howe may any man justifie or defende (much lesse practize) those generall oathes or examinations by oath ex officio by any statute lawe of this Realme, being by them not onelie rejected, but vtterlie condemned as not standing with the right order of Iustice nor good equitie, especiallie the statute made Anno 25. H. 8. beinge in force and limitinge vnto Archb. and Bish. none other jurisdiction then such as they may vse without offence to the Prerogatiue Royall and the lawes and cu­stomes of this Realme. Of which lawes and customes the common lawe is no part or portion. And as a well-willer I would aduise all Ordinaries and such as exercise Ecclesia­sticall jurisdiction, especiallie hauing taken the oathe or­deyned for the maintenaunce of the Supremacie Royall, (wherein they sweare to assist to their power, and defende all jurisdictions, Priuiledges, Preheminences and authori­ties graunted or belonging to the Queenes Highnes, her heyres and successours, or vnited and annexed to the Im­periall Crowne of this Realme) to take heede that they at­tempt not to put in practize or exercise any such Oathes or examinations ex officio, least happilie they bee not onely founde thereby to be impugnors of the Royall Preroga­tiues, but discredited farther by the breach of their oath.

If it be saide (for what will not be moued for a defence) that the King heretofore gaue in those cōmissions besides the lettre and meaning of the statute of 6. The Kings commission Articles, power and authoritie by expresse words vnto the Commissioners Ecclesiasticall to examine by oath the persons accused or presented. As that is not likelie, neither as I suppose can [Page 37]be proued, So (admitting it were true, and that such kind of oathes were consonant to the lawe of God) yet were the same no sufficient or lawfull justification, inasmuch as we haue prooued, and further shal prooue such examinations and inquiries vpon oath, to be injurious both to the Prince and people of this Realme, and to impugne our gouerne­ment and forme of Iustice. In which cases the Kings graūt or commission is of no force in lawe. For as Bracton well hath written, Potestas Principis juris est nō injuriae, & cùm ipso sit author juris, non debet inde injuriarum nasci occasio vnde jura nascuntur. That the King by his Commission or graunt, or otherwise thē by Parliament, may not change or alter the lawes of this Realme, nor the order, maner or fourme of administration of Iustice, is rightlie also noted vnto vs by that graue and learned Iudge Maister Fortescue, saying: Non potest Rex Angliae ad libitum suum leges mu­tare Regni sui Principatu, namque nedum Regali sed & po­litico ipse suo populo dominatur. And by the booke also of Anno 11. H. 4. where it is agreed that neither the King by his graunt, nor the Pope by his Bulles (for all his triple Crowne) can change or alter the lawes of the lande, wher­vnto concurre diuers other bookes of the report of the lawe. Worthie also of remembraunce is that saying of Iu­stice Scroope Anno 1. Ed. 3. fol. 26. If the King (sayeth hee) commaunde any thing impossible that which the lawe will in the case must be done? 49. Ed. 3. 36. H. 6.if he commaunde any thinge contrarie to lawe, his Iustices ought not to doe it. Anno 42. Ed. 3. There was a Commission awarded out of the Chauncerie to apprehende a certen subject of this Realme, and to seize his goods and chattells, no enditement, suite of partie, or other due processe of lawe precedent, and the same was by the Iustices holden to be altogither voyde, as a matter a­gainst the Pollicie of the Realme, and maner of execution of justice. Likewise it appeareth in the same yeare, that a writte proceeding from the Chauncerie, to enquire of Chaunperties, Conspiracies, &c. whereby one of the Kings subjectes stood indighted, was by Iustice Kneuet vp­pon the resolution of the rest of the Iudges, damned & ad­judged [Page 36] [...] [Page 37] [...] [Page 38]voyd in respect that such matters are not inquirea­ble by writ, but by Commission.

But it wilbe said of some (I verily suppose) that although neither the common lawes, nor statutes of this Realme, nor the Kings commission, doe or can warrant such maner of oath and examinations ex officio, yet the publique prac­tize and vse of the honorable Courtes of Starchamber & Chauncerie, the one in causes criminall, the other in suites ciuill of equitie and conscience concurring in one forme of taking aunsweres and examinations by oath, doe forti­fie and confirme the thing which wee impugne. Whiche speach as it may seeme at the first to giue some coulor and shewe of credit to their cause, so vppon consideration had and due comparing the one with the other, it will soone appeare to be but a vanishing smoake, and shadowe voyde of substance. For first, if it should bee graunted, that such kinde of oathes and examinations were vsed in the Courts of Starchamber and Chauncerie, yet would it not followe that the same might be practized in the Courtes and Con­sistories Ecclesiasticall, vnlesse the like allowance thereto and consent of the whole Realme might be prooued also. And who knoweth not howe weake a profe, examples, and presidentes are where an expresse lawe or certen policie is to the contrarie. Therefore it is well said in the ciuill lawe, Jus non ex regula sumatur, sed ex jure regula fiat. By better Logick might they conclude thus: All answeres are made vpon oath in the Kings Courtes of Starchamber & Chaū ­cerie, Ergo the same course may be vsed in the Courtes of the Kings Bench and common place, which neuerthelesse were an absurd conclusion. It is verie true in deede, that these honorable Courtes of Starchamber and Chauncerie proceede not to the tryall of causes by Iurie, after the manner of the common lawes of this Realme, but giue their judgementes and definitiue sentence vppon the aun­swere and examination of the defendent, affirmed by his corporall oathe, and vpon the depositions of witnesses. But who hath euer seene in these Courtes any subject of [Page 39]this lande, in a cause concerning him selfe, brought forth and compelled to depose or make aunswere vppon his oath, no bill of complainte or information formerlie ex­hibited against him. Nay on the contrarie, these Courtes obseruing the due forme of Iustice, enforce no man to an­swere, but where hee hath a knowne accusor, and perfect vnderstandinge of the cause or cryme objected, and there­withall is permitted to haue a coppie of the bill of com­plainte or information (beeing not ore tenus,) And al­lowed moreouer both tyme conuenient, and counsell lear­ned well to consider and aduise of his oathe and aun­swere. And if his aduersaries complaint bee either insuf­ficient in forme or matter, or such as the Court hath no jurisdiction to determine the defendent vppon demurrer, without oathe is dismissed, and that with costes. And ad­mitt the accusation, such as euery way is aunswerable, yet if the Interr. ministred, bee impertinent to the matter of complaint, the defendent without offence to the Court, may refuse to make aunswere to the same. What simili­tude or likenes then is there betweene the oathes and exa­minations vsed in these honorable Courtes, and those constreiners ex officio, since the former sorte bee orderlie taken in Courtes of Iustice, th'other without all course of judgement, th'one where pl. and complaint are manifest, the other where neyther accusor nor matter of accusa­tion doe appeare, the one oath made vppon certen know­ledge and good aduisement, the other soddenlie without all discretion vpon vncertaine demaundes, the one wise­lie restrained to certen limittes and boundes, the other foolishlie wandringe at the doubtfull will of a slie and sub­till apposer. Vpon the one the deponent aunswereth to the accusation of his aduersarie, by the other hee is com­pelled oftentimes to bee his owne accusor and condem­ner: the one enquireth an aunswere to matter in fact, done eyther to the injurie of some priuate person, or hurte of the publique state, the other constreyneth the reuealing of wordes, deedes, and thoughtes, though neuer offen­siue to any.

[Page 40] Than since it is apparaunt that these manner of oathes are altogither mere straungers to our pollicie, The practise of the cleargie. and not so much as once countenaunced by any lawe, custome, statut or Court of this Realme: Howe then & by whose meanes hath this alien heretofore intruded as a troublesome guest into the house of the common wealth? This partlie as be­fore, hath bene declared with some griefe of minde, by that godlie seruaunt of Christ Iohn Lambert, who noteth the papisticall Cleargie and religious men of his time most irreligiouslie to haue practized the same. And no doubt the Prelates of former ages, fayning and pretendinge such oathes to be necessarie for the gouernment of the church, and to purge the Prouince of euill men, as aforesaide. But in trueth, finding it a fitt instrument to maintaine the Ro­mishe Hierarchie, and to tyrannize ouer the consciences of good men, most impiouslie violating the lawes both of God and man, imposed this maner of corrupt oath vppon the people, and no mervaile, since there was no euil or mis­chiefe that could bee deuised, either against the Prince, people or pollicie of this lande, which these kinde of our Prelates haue not attempted and put in practize. For firste disguising themselues vnder the visor and maske of hipo­crisie and feined holines, and making marchandize of all thinges (euen of heauen and hell) purchased and acquired in short time (such was the blinde deuotion of the super­stitious laitie) great and large Seignories, Landes and pos­sessions (the verie mother and nource of pryde, presump­tion and vaine pompe of this worlde) And not so satisfied, but vnsaitablie and most ambitiouslie lusting after rule & dominion, spared not against their due alleadgance, to en­sest euen the Kings and Princes of the lande. Lett the con­tention and strife of Anselme, Archbishop of Canterburie with King Rufus, the manifolde practizes of Thomas, Bec­ket against King Henrie the seconde, the tragicall life, and pitifull ende of King John, occasioned chieflie by the mali­tious meanes of the Archbishop Stephen Langton, the treason of Archbishop Arundell against his soueraigne Lorde and King Richard the second, and the pryde and insolencie [Page 41]of Cardinall Woolsey against that renowmed Prince Kinge H. 8. among others, be sufficient testimonies in this behalf. And as these pontificall Prelates with others more, puffed vp in swelling pryde and ambition, strake at the head, so the crewe of that Antichristian Cleargie ceased not from time to time to wrastle and make warre euen with the si­newes and strength of the bodie politike of this Realme, the lawes I meane and customes of this kingdome, beinge the principall stay and stoppe to their insolent and ambiti­ous attemptes, endeuouring them selues to writhe out and exempt them selues from their due subjectiō to the same, sometimes againe encroching and vsurping the right and jurisdiction of the Kinges courtes, coueringe to drawe all causes into their costlie and lingring Consistories. And of­tentimes bringing in (to the prejudice both of the Prince and the people) forreine decrees and constitutions, with the corrupt Canons and ceremonies of the accursed sea of Rome. For proofe whereof, lette the particular examples hereafter mentioned, serue, as a fewe amongest manie.

The Pope (sayeth Polidore Ʋirgill) made a lawe in the Counsell of Lyons, that the Cleargie should not bee taxed without his leaue or commaundement: which lawe of im­munitie, although it were of no force to binde within this Realme, for that the same is not subject to any foreine made lawes or constitutions not suffred by the King, and voluntarilie accepted and vsed by his people, as is expreslie declared by the statute made Anno 25. H. 8. cap. 21. yet see the good disposition and obedience of the Cleargiemen of this Realme in the time of King Ed. 1. which Churchmen with great obstinacie refused to paye the subsidie graunted to the King. Robert, then Archbish. of Canterburie (head & primate of that faction) wickedlie abusing this text of ho­lie scripture to serue his rebellious intent, obedire oportet Deo magis quam hominibus, The Pope and his pursle bee­ing his best beloued Gods: Howe much better and more Bishoplike might he haue remembred, Date quae sunt Cae­saris Caesari, & quae sunt Dei Deo. That holy saint Hugh, [Page 42]sometimes Bishop of Lincolne, related amongest the Ro­mish Gods, puffed vp with the like arrogancie in the time of the seuerall Reignes of King H. 2. and Richarde the 1. and of King Iohn, denied the payment of tribute and sub­sidie, blustering and puffinge out: moreouer like Cacus in his denne his smokie blastes of cursse and excommunica­tion against the Kings collectours, A notable example of humilitie and obedience in a Popeholie Bishop. It is saide also by Maister Frowick Anno 10. H. 7. That the Cleargie had a Constitution, that no Priest should be impleaded by the common lawe of this Realme, for any cause whatsoe­uer: whether he saide truelie therein, lette the Canonistes judge. But certain I am, the whole rabble of that Romish Cleargie, did from time to time their best endeuour to make them selues lawlesse altogither, as by the grieuances exhibited by the Princes of Germanie at the Counsell of Norrenberg in the time of the Emperour Charles the fifte, may well appeare. And this our haughtie Hugh of Lin­colne, eyther emboldened by such a Cannon, or of his own free courage, as a lustie champion of that irregular confe­deracie, drewe out his woodden dagger of excommunica­tion against the Kings, Iudges, and Magistrates, secluding them as farre as his follie might, from the fellowship and companie of Christians, because they had by course of lawe imposed a fine vpon a Proselite of theirs, newlie crept into their vnholie orders, for his trespasse committed in the Kings Forrestes. 27. H. 8. So likewise the reuerende Iudge Mai­ster Fitzherbert, declared, that in the time of King Henrie the 6. a Bishop of Winchester, being outlawed for no lesse fault then wilfull murther, and his temporalities therfore seized into the Kings handes, refused the iudgement of lawe, and sued to the court of Roome, the Pope writinge to the King in his behalfe, aunswere was made; that the lawes of this Realme were such: wherevpon as vanquished and driuen from his shiftes, the Bishop submitted him­selfe to the grace of the King (and though vnworthie) ob­teined pardon. We heard also in the 2. yeare of King H. 4. [Page 43]howe the Popes publication or collector tooke vpon him by vsurpation of authoritie, to take both oath and obliga­tion of a certain Vicar, to holde him selfe contented with such endowment as the collector had appointed, the Par­sonage being appropriate to the Deanrie of Windsor, and howe the Deane drewe the Vicar into plea before this new founde Iudge the Collector, for the breache both of his oath and bonde. Vpon which wrong done to the Royall jurisdiction, the Vicar complayning, had a Prohibition. In which case are principallie to be noted, the vnlawfull im­posing of an oath by one that was no Magistrate, but quid domini facient audent cum talia fures, and th'injurious pro sequting and drawing into plea of the Kinges subject be­fore an incompetent Iudge by this Deane a Cleargie man of the Realme. In like sorte the Hospitallers and Tem­plers, assuming to them selues jurisdiction in prejudice of the King and of his Crowne, drewe the subjectes of this Realme into suite before the Conseruators of their Priui­ledges, for causes perteyning to the jurisdiction of the Kings Courtes, for reformation whereof the statute of Westm. the 2. cap. 43. was ordeyned. Howe rigorous, in­jurious, and intollerable the dealinges ex officio by those Prelates and Ordinaries were (whereof these examinati­ons by extorted oath were a principall parte) the grieuous complaint of the whole Communaltie of this Realme in the 23. yeare of the reigne of King H. 8. doeth sufficientlie declare. Whereby the King was enformed, how these mer­cilesse Ordinaries by their extraordinarie & lawlesse pow­er, cited and sommoned his subiectes, feyned and framed straunge accusations against them, no accusers appearing, examined them vpon articles captiouslie deuised for their purpose, and in the ende admitting no defence, and disal­lowing all purgation, forced them to abjure, or condem­ned them to the fire, a most fearfull and barbarous course of inquisition. Vnto which complaint those Pharisaicall Cleargie men (who will not enter Pilates common Hall, least they should be defiled, and yet crye out with loude [Page 44]voyce, Crucifige, crucifige, made (as to the King him selfe there it seemed) a verie weake and slender defence. And no maruayle, since wickednesse may more easilie be commit­ted, then well defended.

But will you see more fullie and clearelie, beholde as in a glasse the manifold vsurpations, incrochmentes, injuries and oppressions committed and done from time to time, by the Pope, Prince of that curssing & accursed Cleargie, and by his sworne & deuoted Baalamites and shauelinges, against the rightes and prerogatiues of this Imperiall Crowne, the lawes of this Monarchie, and the liberties of the subjectes thereof, then read and consider the grieuan­ces of the commons exhibited against the Cleargie Anno 21. H. 8. the seuerall statutes of Prouision and Premunire, the statutes of Mortmaine, with the diuers kindes of pro­hibitions to the Courtes and Consistories Ecclesiasticall. Among which you may finde an especiall prohibition with an attachement therevpon deuised against these injurious oathes and examinations, as against abuses greatlie offen­siue to the Crowne and dignitie Royall. Which the better shall appeare by the writtes them selues, which are in this forme set downe in the Register, Prohibitiō. Rex Ʋicecomiti salutem. Praecipimus tibi quod non permittas quod aliqui Laici ad citationem talis Episcopi, aliquo loco conueniant de caetero ad aliquas recognitiones faciendas, vel Sacramentum praestan­dum, nisi in casibus Matrimonialibus & Testamentarijs, te­ste, &c. And the Attachement is in this maner: Rex Ʋic. salutem. Pone per vados, &c. talem Episcopum quod sit corā Justiciarijs nostris, &c. ostensurus, quare fecit summoniri, & per Censuras Ecclesiasticas distringi laicos personas, vel. laicos homines & foeminas, ad comparendum coram eo, ad praestandum juramentum pro voluntate sua ipsis invitis, in graue praejudicium Coronae & dignit atis nostrae Regiae, nec­non contra consuetudinem Regni nostri, &c. By the conside­ration of which writtes, and especiallie of these wordes, re­cognitiones & sacramentum pro voluntate sua, and ipsis in­vitis, we may plainlie perceyue, howe all these inquiries, [Page 45]examinations, Hindes case and 18. R. Eliz. proo­ueth no lesse. and sifting out of matters by oath and by way of inquisition in the Courtes Ecclesiasticall, are by the Regall authoritie impugned, and that as prejudicial to the Crowne and dignitie Royall, and the lawes and customes of this Realme, these wordes pro voluntate sua, expreslie deuoting vnto vs the vsurped officious power, and licenti­ous pleasure, whereby contrarie to all due course of Iustice they constraine an aoth. And these wordes (ipsis invitis) manifestlie painting out the rigorous, injurious, and com­pulsarie exacting of the samo. Moreouer, we see it declared by the statute of Marlebridge, cap. 23. That no man may compell anie free-holder of this Realme, to sweare against his will, without the Kings precept or commaundement, that is, according to the lawe and Iustice of this Realme: for so are we taught to vnderstande the same by the booke of Anno 2. R. 3. whereby it is euident, that vnlesse these Ordinaries could prooue their forcing of oathes ex officio, to be warranted by authoritie of the lawes and justice of this lande (as in trueth they can not) all their dealinges in such cases, are by the same lawes vtterlie disallowed and condemned.

But here (me thinkes) some retchlesse or inconsiderate reader steppeth forth and sayeth, What is your meaning to circumscribe and include all authoritie of ministringe oathes in the Courtes Ecclesiasticall within the streight limites and boundes of causes Testamentarie and Matri­moniall, howe then shall all other matters subiect to their jurisdiction (being in number manie, and in nature diuers) receyue due examination. For aunswere therevnto, this shortlie may suffice, That the state of the question whiche at this present we haue in hande, is not in what cases those Courtes may giue or impose an oath, but the matter wher of we nowe intreate is, concerning forced and constrained oathes ex officio, and especiallie in that generall maner be­fore remembred. And as touching the triall of causes by examination of witnesses judiciallie depending betweene partie and partie in th'Ecclesiasticall Courtes, it standeth [Page 46]firme and for founde lawe, according to the saide Prohi [...] ­on, and the opinion of Maister Iustice Fitzherbert, in his booke of Iustice of Peace, is, That those Iudges Ecclesia­sticall haue no lawfull power or authoritie to force or con­straine by censures of the Church or otherwise, any sub­ject of this Realme, against his will to testifie vppon his oathe, other then in the foresaide causes of Mariage and Testamentes, although comming before them, as produ­ced by the parties in the suite, they may lawfullie (as vnto men voluntarilie accepting the same) minister an oath, o­therwise it is plaine extortion, and wrong vnto the partie. And admitte they would denie to depose, what prejudice were that to the Court Christen, but rather a faylinge in proofe in the partie suing. And in this state and sorte stan­deth the proofe of causes by witnesses at the common law. Neuerthelesse, since the statute made against wilfull per­jurie, the witnesse serued with processe, and hauinge his charges tendered, making default, incurreth a paine pecu­niarie. And why should the Cleargie and Iudges Ecclesia­sticall thinke it much, to be ruled and restrayned concer­ning their jurisdiction by the Kings Prerogatiue, and the common lawes of this Realme, since what jurisdiction or authoritie soeuer they haue or enjoye (matters of the Di­uine lawe excepted) yea euen in those especiall causes of Testamentes, Mariages, Diuorses, and Tythes, is no other­wise theirs, then by the goodnes of the Princes of this Realme, and by the lawes and customes of the same, as the statute of Anno 24. H. 8. cap, 12. well declareth, and may be taken from them and restored to the temporall Iudges, especiallie the abuses of the Cleargie well descruing it at the will and pleasure of the Prince and people. But to re­turne againe to our prohibition and attachment, it is e­uident thereby, that all the sommons and citations which those Ecclesiastical Iudges sende forth vnder these general termes, propter salutē animarum, or, ex officio mero: And all their arrestes, distresses, impeachmentes, excommunica­tions, and imprisonmentes therevpon ensuing, are altogi­ther [Page 47]injurious, both to the Prince and people. And of this opinion seemeth to be that learned Iudge Maister Fitzher­bert, who in his booke De natura breuium, sayeth vppon these writtes in this maner: By this appeareth, that these generall citations which Bb. make to cite men to appeare before them pro salute animae, without expressing any cause especiall, are against the lawe. And true it is, for by the statute of Magna Charta, Magna Charta. (conteyninge many excellent lawes of the liberties and free customes of this Kingdome) It is ordeyned, that no free man be apprehended, impriso­ned, distrained or impeached, but by the lawe of the lande: and by the statute made Anno 5. Ed. 3. ca. 9. It is enacted, That no man shall be attached vpon any accusation con­trarie to the forme of the great Charter, and the lawe of the Realme. Moreouer it is accorded by Parliament Anno 43. E. 3. ca. 9. for the good gouernement of the Commu­naltie, That no man be put to aunswere, without present­ment before Iustices, or matter of recorde, or by due pro­cesse, or by writt originall, after the auncient lawe of this Lande. And howe then shall that kinde of proceedinge ex officio by forced oathes, & the vrging of this general oath, and streight imprisoning of such as refuse to sweare, bee justifiable. If these things were not, yet a man would haue thought that at the least the sharpe and seuere statutes of Prouision and Premunire, so offensiue to popishe Polidore and such like, Premu­nire. should haue staied and stopt the violent course of those injurious inquisitions, examinations, and wrested oathes ex officio. For, no doubt, the Ordinaries & Cleargiemen practizing the same, are all offendors, & doe incur the forfaitures of those penal lawes. For profe wher­of, let vs consider the wordes of the statute of Premunire, made Ann̄ 16. Ri. 2. ca. 5. and the judgments & expositions thervpon had, that statute reciting first the grieuous com­plaint of the whole Realm against the Pope of Rome, who impeached many Patrons in the presentations to their Ec­clesiasticall benefices, excommunicated the Bb. of this realme, for executing the kings writts de Clerice admitten­do, [Page 48]sought to translate some of them against their and the Kings will, and diuers other inconueniences, in derogation of the Kings Crowne and Regalitie, prouideth remedie for those and such like mischiefes, in this maner: That if any purchase, or pursue, or doe to be purchased or pursued in the Court of Rome, or elswhere, any such translations, processe & sentences of excommunications, bulles, instru­mentes, or any other thinges whiche touche the Kinge, a­gainst him, his Crowne, and his Regalitie, or his Realme, or them receyue, or make thereof notification, or any o­ther execution within the same Realme or without, that they, their Notaries, Procurators, Mainteiners, Abbetters, Fautors, and Counsellors, shalbe put out of the Kings pro­tection, and their landes and tenementes, goods and chat­telles forfait to the King, &c. Since the making of whiche statute, it hath bene helde and adjudged for cleere lawe in the Kinges Courtes, That if any subject of the kinges sue or impleade an other in any Ecclesiasticall Court of this Realme, for any cause or matter appertayninge to the exa­mination and judgement of the Courtes of the common lawe, or any judge Ecclesiasticall presume to holde plea thereof, or deale in any causes not belonginge to his juris­diction, that they incurre the daunger and penaltie of pre­munire, as by the booke of 5. Ed. 4. fol. 6. & by th'opinion of the Court Anno 11. H. 7. remembred by Maister Fitz­herbert, plainelie doeth appeare. According also therevnto is the case of Maister Barloo, late Bishop of Bathe, repor­ted by Maister Iustice Brooke, Which Bish. in the time of Kinge Edwarde the 6. depriuing the Deane of Welles, whose Deanrie was a donatiue, passing therein beyonde the limites of his jurisdiction, fell into the daunger of pre­munire. And being called into question, and hauinge no just defence, was faine to appeale to the Kings mercie, and obteyned a pardon. And that booke of 5. E. 4. before re­membred, setteth downe the reason, noting these wordes of this statute (in curia Romana vel alibi) In which wordes (alibi) sayeth that booke, is intended the Courtes of Bb. [Page 49]So that if a man be excōmunicate in any of their Courts for a thing which apperteyneth to the Royal Maiest. that is to say (sayeth that booke) in a matter of the common lawe, the partie excommunicate shall haue a premunire facias, and so was it adjudged. In whiche wordes among other, is speciallie to be noted, that when so euer a wrong or injurie is offered to the common lawe of this lande, there the Kinge is saide to be touched, and his Royall Maiestie impeached. For accordinge to the Princelie speach of that most Noble King Ed. 3. in the statute of Prouision made in the 38. yeare of his raigne, the Kinges Regalitie chieflie consisteth in this, To susteine his people in peace and tranquillitie, and to gouerne them according to the lawes, vsages, and franchises of this Lande, wherevnto he is bounde by his sacred oath made at his Coronation. If then by vsurping cognizance of plea, in causes cōcerning the common lawe, and the jurisdiction of the Kinges Courtes, the Ecclesiasticall Iudges touch the King in Ca­pite, doe against him, his Crown, Regalitie & Realme, & so cōsequentlie incurre the forfeiture & penalties of Pre­munire: Howe much more doe they touch the King, nay rather lay violent handes on him, & impugne his Royall Throne and Scepter, who contrarie to the Pollicie, Iu­stice, Lawes, Customes, and Freedomes of this King­dome, yea the lawe of God it selfe, enforce & constraine by censure of excommunication & otherwise, the Kings people to appeare before them, and extort from them an oath to accuse them selues. And for more plaine demon­stration (if plainer may be) put the case that a Iudge, Iu­stice, or Commissioner, authorised by the Kinge to exe­cute justice according to the lawes of this Realme, should take vpon him by colour of his office and authoritie to conuent the Kings people before him, and vppon their apparaunce to offer vnto them this general oath to aun­swere vnto all such questions as him selfe should pro­pounde, playing in causes criminall the part both of ac­cusor and Iudge, or seekinge by oath and captious In­terrogatories, [Page 50]matter of accusation, wherevppon to pro­ceede to condemnation, and to commit the partie refu­sing such oath, to streight prison without bayse or main­prise, could any man justifie this his doing to stande with lawe or justice? Nay rather, might not euerie man justlie cry out against him, as against a subuerter of lawe and judgement, and a hatefull enimie to our pollicie & com­mon wealth, yea should not that bee verified of him, which is recorded in the judgement against Sir William Thorp, sometime chiefe Iustice of Englande, for his cor­rupt dealing, which is, that as muche as in him laye, he had broken the oath which the King is bounde to keepe towardes his people. If all this may truelie be affirmed of such a one, howe then shall the Ecclesiasticall Iudges, practizing in their Courtes and Tribunal Seates, the self­same vnjust and vnlawfull manner of proceeding against the Kings people, escape the seuere sentence of law, pro­nouncing them offensiue touchers, and violaters of the King, and injurious dealers against his Regalitie, Crown and Kingdome, & so consequentlie worthie to suffer the paines and penalties declared in this statute of Premu­nire. That this is no newe opinion or construction, wee finde the resolution of that learned man Saint Germaine, in his booke of Doctor and Student well agreeing, where he writeth in this maner: Jf any man bee excommunicate in the spirituall Court for debt, trespas, or such other thing, as belongeth to the Kings Crowne and to his Royall dignitie, there he ought to be assoyled without making any satisfacti­on, for they not onelie offended the partie, in calling him to aunswere before them of such things as belong to the law of the Realme, but also the King, who by reason of such suites, looseth a great aduantage, which he might haue of the writs, originalles, judicialls, fines, amerciamentes, and such other thangs, if the suites had bene in his Courtes accordinge to his lawes. Hee sheweth further, That if the Ecclesiasticall Iudges will not make the partie his letters of absolutiō where hee ought, the partie shall haue his action against him. Hee [Page 51]affirmeth also, The Lawe to bee according where a man is accursed (he meaneth excommunicate) for a thinge that the Judge had no power to accurse him in, notwithstandinge that he may haue his suite of premunire facias. Againe we reade howe the late Cardinall Woolsey, the Popes Legate here in Englande, erected a newe Court or Consistorie called The Court of the Legate, in which he tooke vppon him to proue Testamentes, and to heare and determine causes in prejudice of the jurisdiction Ecclesiasticall of this Realme. And howe by his vsurped power Legatiue, he gaue and bestowed benefices by preuention, to the dis­inheritance of the Kings subjectes, and vifiting the state Ecclesiasticall, vnder coulor of reformation, gained to him selfe exceeding great treasure. But this loftie height of vnlawfull authoritie, weake and feeble in foundation, could not long continue, For in the one and twentieth yeare of the reigne of King Henrie the eight, this proude prieste with all his glorious pompe and glittering shewe of all his Crosses, Siluer Pillers, guylt Axes, imbrodered Cloakbagges, and purple Hattes, was attainted by his owne confession, in a Premunire, and the next yeare fol­lowing, all the Lordes spirituall, hauinge deserued the same paines and punishmentes for their vnjust mainte­naunce and supportation, were called to aunswere in the Kinges Benche, and knowing them selues guiltie, before their day of appearaunce, exhibited to the Kinge their humble submission, joyninge therevnto an offer of a 100000. pounde, to purchase their peace, whiche after much suite, the King accepted, and by Parliament gaue them a pardon. If then this Romish Legate, for assuming to him selfe jurisdiction by authoritie Papall, in prejudice not of the Kinges Courtes, but of the Courtes Ecclesiasti­call (neuerthelesse to the hurt of the Royall Maiestie) and for disturbaunce of the rightes and inheritaunce of the Kinges subjectes, fell into the daunger and penaltie of Premunire, and all the Bishops and Ordinaries of this Realme likewise, through their maintayning onelie and [Page 52]supporting the same, may we not safelie conclude that the Bishops and Ordinaries in these dayes vsurping pow­er and jurisdiction in like sorte and maner (although not in the same particulars) by coulor of Antichristian de­crees, or practizing those popishe Cannons, the verie head of that hellishe Cerberus of Rome (as a learned man well termed them) and the sinewes of his tyrannicall au­thoritie, repugnant to the Royall Maiestie and Pollicie of this Realme, that is to say, forcing vnjustlie the people of this lande, to such vnlawfull oathes and examinations as are before remembred (injuriouslie touching thereby the Prince in her Regalitie, and her people in their lawfull libertie wherevnto they are inheritable, matters of more waight and moment, then the hinderaunce of the Bish. jurisdiction or losse of a presentment to a benefice) doe incurre the penalties and forfaitures limited by the fore­saide statute of Premunire.

If any man neuerthelesse vrge and contende, that these thinges are justifiable by force of the Popes testa­ment (the Cannon and Pontificall lawe I meane) of long time practized, Cannon lawe. & continuallie vsed within this Realme, giuing a newe probate and allowance thereto, after so publique and just condemnation, and fyring of them by that famous Clearke and Doctor of the Church Martin Luther, Sleidan. and by the great number of godlie and learned men his associates, as lawes and ordinaunces contumeli­ous against God, injurious to Magistrates, and especiallie established to mainteine Antichristian tyrannie, let him knowe, that this Kingdome is not bounde or subject to any forreyne made lawes or constitutions, not suffered by the King, and voluntarilie accepted, and of longe time vsed by his people, as it is well declared by the saide sta­tute of Anno 25. H. 8. whose wordes are these: For where this your graces Realme recognizinge no superiour vnder God but onelie your Grace, hath bene and is free from sub­iection to any mans lawes, but onelie to such as haue bene deuised, made and ordeyned within this Realme, for the [Page 53]wealth of the same, or to such other as by sufferaunce of your Grace, and your Progenitors, the people of this your Realme haue taken at their free libertie, by their owne consent, to bee vsed among them, and haue bounde them selues by long vse and custome, to the obseruaunce of the same, not as to the obseruaunce of the lawes of any forreine Prince, Potentate, or Prelate, but as to the accustomed and auncient lawes of this Realme, originallie established as lawes of the same, by the saide sufferaunce, consentes, and custome, and not other­wise, &c. So to proue any forreine made lawe allowable within this Realme, there must concurre Tolleration by the Kinge, voluntarie acceptaunce of his people, and a long and a large time of vsage. None of which can be auerred in these maner of oathes and examinations. For firste it may not be saide that the King suffereth that whi­the he expreslie forbiddeth by his writtes and processe, as offensiue to his Crowne and Regalitie. Neyther can his people bee saide to haue giuen voluntarie consent thereto, hauing alwayes repyned and often complayned and cryed out against it, as a thing intollerable and inju­rious to their lawfull libertie, the custome pretended, be­ing euer impugned (and that justlie) can create no lawe­full prescription, nor stande for an auncient lawe of this Realme, but being against both lawe and reason, it is no­thing els but an inveterate error or disorder.

If defence be sought by any Canon or Constitution, Canon. (these oathes being so apparauntlie against this our state, common wealth and gouernement) I see not howe anie Ordinarie, but to his reproache, may once open his mouth therein, Prouin­ciall. Cap. 9. considering that in the Parliament hol­den Anno 25. H. 8. The whole Cleargie of Englande not onelie for them then liuing, but for their successors also, submitting them selues to the Kings Maiestie, promised (in verbo Sacerdotij) if that bee ought worth, That they would neuer from thence foorth presume to attempt, al­leadge, claime, or put in ure, or enact, promulge, or exe­cute any newe Canons, Constitutions, Ordinaunces pro­uinciall [Page 54]or other, or by what soeuer name they should be called in their conuocation without the Kings most Roy­all assent or licence.

And considering also that in the same Parliament by their full consent, it is enacted and prouided, That no Canons, Constitutions, or Ordinaunces, should be made or put in execution within this Realme, by the authoritie of the conuocation of the Cleargie, which should be con­tratiant or repugnaunt to the Kinges Prerogatiue Royall or the customes, lawes, or statutes of this Realme, nor to the dammage or hurt of the Kinges Prerogatiue Royall, should still be vsed and executed vntill, &c.

But notwithstanding all those prouident and politique lawes and statutes thus for the good of the common wealth wiselie established in the great Assemblie of the Realme, and notwithstandinge also those solemne pro­mises and protestations made as aforesaide, & although in the 12. yeare of the reigne of King Henrie the thirde, there was a most seuere sentence of curse and anathema­tization denounced in the presence of the King, and the Nobles of this Kingdome by Boniface, then Archbishop of Canterburie, and manie other Bishoppes, apparelled in their Pontificalibus, against all such as thereafter should willinglie, and maliciouslie, by any craft or en­gine, violate, infringe, diminishe, or chaunge secretlie or publiquelie, by deede, worde, or counsell, any of the free customes of this Kingdome, and especiallie those conteyned in the saide great Charter, yet the vnbrideled Cleargie men in the Papisticall time, nothing regarding the good estate of this our pollicie, neyther yet terrified by their owne cursing censures, and execrations, nor by the seuere lawes of Premunire, most impudentlie (to sa­tisfie their owne licentious and lordlie lustes) haue from time to time ascited & sommoned by their lawlesse pro­cesse, and arrested and attached by their malapart appa­ritours, messengers, and purseuauntes, the free people of this Realme, by violence drawing them not onelie into their publique Courtes and Consistories, but priuatelie [Page 55]also into secrete corners and priuie chambers, forcinge them there with roughe and rigorous termes of disgrace and reproache, vpon euerie bare surmise, and vncertaine rumor, to take a corporall oath to bee examined vppon articles captious and deceitfull, seekinge thereby most vncharitablie for matters of accusation. Against whom if anie man durst (standing vppon termes of his lawfull libertie) but a little repine and refuse to sweare, streight­way he must bee committed to prison, without baile or mainprise, there to abide paine fort et dure, depriuinge men of that which is more pretious then life it selfe, and as it is saide in the ciuill lawe, a Iewell inestimable, liber­tie I meane, more to be fauoured, then any thing, as the same lawe speaketh, tyrannizing in such cruell manner ouer the poore and miserable people, in their vile and filthie Cole-houses, murthering Towers and Turrettes, and in their darke and deadlie Dungeons, as no tongue or penne is sufficient to expresse. And whereas the pri­sons of this Realme were ordeyned either for the punish­ment of such as are by due course of lawe condemned, or for restraint of persons suspected, not bayleable for a time conuenient of examination and judiciall procee­ding. Those mercilesse Magistrates voyde of all pitie and compassion, after their suddaine and raginge commit­ments for the most parte proceeded not to full examina­tion and sentence, but after long and miserable impri­sonment, in so much as it was thought a great fauour, if after one yeares grieuous and streight imprisonment, the poore distressed partie were called foroth to aun­swere. At the time of which sitting in their tribunall Seate (howe gloriouslie soeuer they paint out their sen­tences, to haue God and Iustice in their sight) these men, or rather monsters, coueting more the destruction of mankinde, then any amendement or reformation of maners, fedde with delight their fierce and cruel mindes, with the pitiefull sight of pyned, sicklie, and wretched creatures, they them selues in the meane time being fatt and well fedde. And although the heathen Emperours, [Page 56] Claudius Caligula, &c. who tooke delight to be present at the bloudie tortures & executions of their subjectes, & to heare their pitifull groanes and grieuous sighes (com­maunding th'executioners so to strike, as the condemned might feele himselfe to die) may worthilie bee termed fierce, cruell and barbarous, accordinge to that sayinge: Qui fruitur poena serus est, yet the extreeme crueltie of those men which termed them selues Catholiques, and would be accompted true Christians, was more horrible & detestable a great deale. In so much as they by lingring tormentes of long and painfull imprisonment, exceeded the leysure vsed by the other in the time of execution, ta­king from Death his due title of King of terrors, and ma­king him a welcome friende, that endes so manie mise­ries. Adde herevnto that the tyrannie of those heathen men, as fullie satisfied, ceased with the life of the tor­mented, but the crueltie and furie of those Catholiques, as neuer wearied, condemned and put to fire the dead bodies of those whom they before moste treacherouslie had sline and murdered. But as these good Pastors, or rather deuouring Wolues, were in this inexcusable man­ner most cruell against Christes deare seruauntes, so a­gaine in some other thinges they were as vaine and ridi­culous. For in this matter of an oath, they haue deuised (according to their toying fantasie) a certaine foolishe fi­guratiue ceremonie in the ministringe thereof. For the deponent forsooth, must laye his three middle fingers stretched out right vppon the booke, in signification of the holie trinitie and Catholique faith, and his thuinbe and little finger hee must put downe-wardes vnder the booke, in token of damnation, both of bodie and soule, if hoe say not the trueth: the thumbe belike, as the grea­ter, representing the heauie masse of the bodie, and the little finger, the light and incorporeall substaunce of the soule.

Howe superstitious also they were concerning this ce­remonie of the booke (little regardinge the true vse and [Page 57]ende of an oath) as appeareth by the Allegoricall exposi­tion curiouslie set forth by one of their parsonate and counterfeite Prelates, who sayth, That the circumstances in the acte of an Oath, are verie great and waightie, in­asmuch as hee that sweareth by a booke, doeth three things. First, as though hee should saye, Let that which is written in the booke, neuer doe me good, neyther the newe nor the olde Lawe if I lye in this mine oathe. Se­condlie, hee putteth his hande vppon the booke, as though hee should say: Nor the good worke whiche I haue done profite mee ought before the face of Christe, except I saye the trueth, which is founded in Christe. Thirdlie, he kisseth the booke, as though he should say, Let neuer the prayers and petitions which by my mouth I haue vttered, auayle me any thing to my soules health, if I saye not truelie in this mine oath. Yet you must take this I suppose, as meant onelie by this reuerend father, where lay men, or the baser sorte of the Cleargie, take an oath. For that blessed Bonner, not longe since hath taught, as this tricke of their lawe, as he termed it, that a Bishop may sweare (such is his priuiledge) inspectis Euangelijs & non tactis, bare sight of the booke without touche or kisse, will well ynough serue his Lordshippes turne. Againe, the imposing of oathes vpon the rotten bones, ragges and reliques of their canonized and coun­terfeit saints, and vpon the Image of the Crucifige, is both foolishe and idolatrous.

But to conclude, leauing these vnjust and lawlesse men with their bad practises & fonde inventions, I doubt not, by these fewe, yet effectuall proofes and authorities, it doeth manifestlie appeare vnto all men of vpright and sounde judgement, That aswell the imposinge as the ta­king of these generall oathes, is a prophane abusinge of the holy Name of God. That the exacting of Oathes ex officio, is a great indignitie to the Crowne and Scepter of this Kingdome, and a wrong and injurie to the freedome [Page 58]and libertie of the subjectes thereof. That the same is not necessarie or profitable to the Church and common Wealth, but hurtfull to them both, brought in onely by the practize of the Popishe cleargie, to the prejudice of the publique peace and tranquillitie of this Realme, and that the same neuer had any good allowaunce by anie lawe, custome, ordinaunce or stature of this Kingdome, neyther yet put in vre or vse by any ciuill Magistrate of this Lande, but as it corruptlie crept in among manie other abuses, by the sinister practize and pretences of the Romish Prelates and Celargie-men, so this their vn­lawfull dealing hath bene from time to time by law­full and just Authoritie impugned and restreined.