Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
It is no sin to give Divine worship to any man, not only the Saints in Heaven, or holy persons on earth, but any men whatever in the world (the wickedest not excepted) may together with God, have divine worship, as the Image has with the Exemplar, (d)since every man is the living Image of God. This is not only the doctrine of Vasquez, but of Alensis, of Waldensis, and of Cardinal Cajetane. only in the practice of this there must be caution for Albertus Magnus ⟨p. 312⟩and Aquinas say, there is danger least a man, being of more excellency than an Image, divine worship should be given him, not for Gods sake, but his own dignity: (e)but where this danger is not, they would not deny but any man may be so worshipped; even with divine worship. So that if Paul and Barnabas, with the Lycaonians, Act. 14. had but proceeded with the caution of these Doctors; and taken care, that those people should so worship them only for Gods sake; they might lawfully have admitted the worship offered them, though they (not learned in this kind of Doctrine,) chose rather to be stoned than so honoured.
(d)De homine qui est viva Dei similitudo & imago, nec aliqua institutione in cultum Dei dedicata docent Alexander, Waldensis & Cajetan, cum posse esse adorationis materiam, sicut de imagine picta dixerunt: hoc est, in illo & per illum ita Deum adorari posse, ut ipse etiam homo, eodem motu, & signo submissionis colatur sicut imago cum exemplari: atque idem de Angelo dicere debent. ibid. disp. 1. c. 1. n. 4. & cap. 3. n. 17.
(e)Ubi periculum non esset, non negarent adorari posse sicut imaginem pictam. ibid.
but any thing else in the whole world, whether living or lifeless. Any beast or creeping thing may be worshipped as the Image of God, which they hold is to be honoured with divine worship. So that not only the Planets, Stars, the Queen and the Host of Heaven, may be thus adored (for which the Lord condemns Israel and Judah as Idolaters): but the vilest Creature that lives on Earth, a Fly, or a Frog, or a Serpent, or a Toad may be thus worshipped. Yea meaner Creatures than any that have life, any inanimate thing whatsoever, though it be but a wisp of Straw; that is our Authors own instance, whereas, says he,
the Wickliffites object, that Christians who worship Images, may as well worship a wisp of Straw (modulum straminis the same Leontius (upon whose Authority he grounds all) would as freely grant this, of a bit of Straw; as he does it of every thing else in the World, so far is it from being counted absurd; yea, they may worship not
and not only God, but Angels and Saints in them, quaevis alia res mundi, any thing what-ever in the World, whether lifeless, unreasonable, or rational; may rightly have divine worship with God. And this is not only the judgment of their famous Vasquez, but of Cardinal Cajetan, and in consequence, of them all; for those great wits, well discerned, that the adoration of other things, approved and practised by the Romanists, could never be defended without extending their principles to such a Latitude. Thus it is manifest, that whatsoever the Apostate Israelites adored, or the Egyptians worshipped, or the Laplanders do worship, or the grossest and the most ridiculous Idolaters in the World, ever made an Idol: all that, with much more and worse, may lawfully be worshipped by Popish principles; there never was any Idolatry so absurd or horrid in the World, but may have Patronage, or excuse by this doctrine.
It is lawful to worship not only rational Creatures, (f)but any thing else in the whole world, whether living or liveless. Any beast or creeping thing may be worshipped as the Image of God, which they hold is to be honoured with divine worship. So that not only the Planets, Stars, the Queen and the Host of Heaven, may be thus adored (for which the Lord condemns Israel and Judah as Idolaters): but the vilest Creature that lives on Earth, a Fly, or a Frogg, or a Serpent, or a Toad may be thus worshipped. Yea meaner Creatures than any that have life, any inanimate thing whatsoever, though it be but a wisp of Straw; that is our Authors own instance, whereas, sayes he, (g)the Wickliffites object, that Christians who worship Images, may as well worship a wisp of Straw (modulum straminis the same Leontius (upon whose Authority he grounds all) would as freely grant this, of a bit of Straw; as he does it of every thing else in the World, so far is it from being counted absurd; yea, they may worship not ⟨p. 313⟩only vile but sordid things, (h)and not only God, but Angels and Saints in them, quaevis alia res mundi, any thing what-ever in the World, whether liveless, unreasonable, or rational; may rightly have divine worship with God. And this is not only the judgment of their famous Vasquez, but of Cardinal Cajetan, and in consequence, of them all; for those great witts, well discerned, that the adoration of other things, approved and practised by the Romanists, could never be defended without extending their principles to such a Latitude. Thus it is manifest, that whatsoever the Apostate Israelites adored, or the Egyptians worshipped, or the Laplanders do worship, or the grossest and the most ridiculous Idolaters in the World, ever made an Idol: all that, with much more and worse, may lawfully be worshipped by Popish principles; there never was any Idolatry so absurd or horrid in the World, but may have Patronage, or excuse by this doctrine.
(f)Quaevis etiam alia res mundi sive inanima, & irrationalis, sive rationalis, ex natura rei & secluso periculo, rite cum Deo, sicut imago ipsius adorari potest. Hanc opinionem tradit. Cajetan. 2. 2. q. 103. art. 3. ad dub. 4. id docuit. Leontius. ibid. c. 2. n. 5.
(g)Frustra igitur Wiclesistae objiciebant Christianis imagines colentibus, ipsos quoque modulum straminis adorare posse—idem enim Leontius, de modulo straminis, quod de quacunque re mundi, libenter fateretur; tantum abest, ut absurdum judicari debeat. ibid. n. 10.
(h)In brutis animantibus & rebus sordidis, Deo exhibere notam submissionis primo aspectu indecens apparet: id tamen non obest, quo minus suapte natura in qualibet re mundi Deum ipsum adorare liceat: imo & sanctos homines seu Angelos, si eos cum rehus illis cogitation nostra possimus conjungere. ibid. n. 11.In brutis animantibus & rebus sordidis, Deo exhibere notam submissionis primo aspectu indecens apparet: id tamen non obest, quo minus suapte natura in qualibet re mundi Deum ipsum adorare liceat: imo & sanctos homines seu Angelos, si eos cum rehus illis cogitatione nostra possimus conjungere. ibid. n. 11.
And now Heaven and Earth being furnished with their Idols, one would think they need go no further, but be satisfied, without seeking Hell for any: yet there is an inquiry which reaches that too. 'Tis a question amongst them, if (i)the Devil should appear in a beam of light, or the form of a Crucifix, whether that apparition may be worshipped? Antisiodorensis, Alexander, Aquinas, Marsilius, Adrian and others, will not allow it should be worshipped, unless conditionally, and with a condition expressed: but Vasques is for adoration hereof absolutely, (k)no condition expressed, and he has those, who are otherwise minded, at a great advantage; because they conclude for ⟨p. 314⟩worship absolutely, in a parallel case: for they will have a consecrated Host to be worshipped, without condition, though the Devil were in it, or lurked under it; and if they think he would be worshipped in the former, without the interposal of a condition; he will be worshipped in the later, where they will have no condition to exclude it. I conclude this with what (l)Holcott determines, a man may merit by a mistaken belief, although it so fall out, that he worship the Devil.
And now Heaven and Earth being furnished with their Idols, one would think they need go no further, but be satisfied, without seeking Hell for any: yet there is an inquiry which reaches that too. 'Tis a question amongst them, if (i)the Devil should appear in a beam of light, or the form of a Crucifix, whether that apparition may be worshipped? Antisiodorensis, Alexander, Aquinas, Marsilius, Adrian and others, will not allow it should be worshipped, unless conditionally, and with a condition express'd: but Vasques is for adoration hereof absolutely, (k)no condition express'd, and he has those, who are otherwise minded, at a great advantage; because they conclude for ⟨p. 314⟩worship absolutely, in a parallel case: for they will have a consecrated Host to be worshipped, without condition, though the Devil were in it, or lurked under it; and if they think he would be worshipped in the former, without the interposal of a condition; he will be worshipped in the later, where they will have no condition to exclude it. I conclude this with what (l)Holcott determines, a man may merit by a mistaken belief, although it so fall out, that he worship the Devil.
(i)An sit peccatum adorare radium luminis, vel speciem Crucifixi, sub qua Daemon delitescit. ibid. disp. 1. c. 5. n. 30. vid Bonacin. Tom. 2. disp. 3. q. 1. punct. 4. n. 5.
(k)Quare nec conditionem expresse addere oportet, ut recte & legitime adoratio fiat; & multo minus ea exprimenda est, quando Eucharistiam adoramus; ut optime tradunt Alexand. S. Thom. Bonaventura: qui cum dicant, necessariam esse expressam conditionem, quando adoratur Christus in specie Crucifixi, ubi Daemon delitescit: affirmant tamen, eam non esse necessariam, ut adoretur in hostia consecrata. Idem senses Gabriel. Quinimo ut Cajetan. Hosselanus & Claudius Sajnctes, docent, male faceret qui adderet conditionem, ut securus adoraret. ibid. n. 34.Quare nec conditionem expresse addere oportet, ut recte & legitime adoratio fiat; & multo minus ea exprimenda est, quando Eucharistiam adoramus; ut optime tradunt Alexand. S. Thom. Bonaventura: qui cum dicant, necessariam esse expressam conditionem, quando adoratur Christus in specie Crucifixi, ubi Daemon delitescit: affirmant tamen, eam non esse necessariam, ut adoretur in hostia consecrata. Idem sensi• Gabriel. Quinimo ut Cajetan. Hosselanus & Claudius Sajnctes, docent, male faceret qui adderet conditionem, ut securus adoraret. ibid. n. 34.
(l)Hominem posse mereri per fidem erroneam, etsi contingat ut adoret Diabolum. Resett. Humphed de vita Juel. p. 120.
These decisions were necessary to justify their devout persons, who have met with such adventures. A great part of Popery is grounded upon Visions and Apparitions; these were much affected and admired by their reputed holy Men, and Women too, who were admired and adored for them. Satan in the darkness (wherein this mystery did best thrive) had the advantage to put store of Cheats upon them. Many Monks and Hermits (says a Lapide) were deceived by him. Particularly among the rest Valens the Monk was thus deluded, the Devil frequently appearing to him as an Angel. In fine, Satan in an apparition feigned himself to be Christ, and the Monk went, and for Christ worshipped the Devil (Idem in 2 Cor. 11. 15.) They are concerned to plead for that worship, which had the same original with much of their Religion.
These decisions were necessary to justifie their devout persons, who have met with such adventures. A great part of Popery is grounded upon Visions and Apparitions; these were much affected and admired by their reputed holy Men, and Women too, who were admired and adored for them. Satan in the darkness (wherein this mystery did best thrive) had the advantage to put store of Cheats upon them. Many Monks and Heremites (says a Lapide) were deceived by him. Particularly among the rest Valens the Monk was thus deluded, the Devil frequently appearing to him as an Angel. In fine, Satan in an apparition feigned himself to be Christ, and the Monk went, and for Christ worshipped the Devil (Idem in 2 Cor. 11. 15.) They are concern'd to plead for that worship, which had the same original with much of their Religion.
Sect. 4. For Oaths or Perjury, I will only instance in those which are Fraudulent. First, they determine, that he who (m)takes an Oath, and intends not to swear, the Oath binds not, it is no sin to go against it.
(m)Quid ergo si quis exterius juret proferendo verba, & tangendo evangelia, intus tamen non habeat jurandi animum? Respondetur in illo casu, non esse verum sed fictum juramentum. Sed nunquid in conscientia qui sic jurat, tenebitur adimplere? Respondetur minime quidem, &c. Soto de just. & jur. l. 8. q. 1. art. 7. p. 262. Graft. decis. aur. l. 2. c. 17. n. 5. Ut obligationem inducat necessarium est, ut ab intentione jurandi procedat, hoc c•rtum est apud omnes. D. Thom. Cajetan, Soto, Covarruvias, Panormatan, Glossa in Suar. l. 2. de Jurament. c. 7. n 2. Necessarium est ut intentio jurandi sit sufficienter libera. Communis est. Idem ibid. n. 3.Quid ergo si quis exterius juret proferendo verba, & tangendo evangelia, intus tamen non habeat jurandi animum? Respondetur in illo casu, non esse verum sed fictum juramentum. Sed nunquid in conscientia qui sic jurat, tenebitur adimplere? Respondetur minime quidem, &c. Soto de just. & jur. l. 8. q. 1. art. 7. p. 262. Graff. decis. aur. l. 2. c. 17. n. 5. Ut obligationem inducat necessarium est, ut ab intentione jurandi procedat, hoc c•rtum est apud omnes. D. Thom. Cajetan, Soto, Covarruvias, Panormatan, Glossa in Suar. l. 2. de Jurament. c. 7. n 2. Necessarium est ut intentio jurandi sit sufficienter libera. Communis est. Idem ibid. n. 3.
(n)Secondly, when a man intends to swear, but intends not to be obliged by swearing; there he is not obliged, but may lawfully break it, as the ancienter Casuists and School-Doctors generally determine.
(n)Secondly, when a man intends to swear, but intends not to be obliged by swearing; there he is not obliged, but may lawfully break it, as the antienter Casuists and School-Doctors generally determine.
(n)Tenet S. Bonaventura quod universaliter non obligat juramentum si jurans animum se obligandi non habuit. Sylvest. jurament. 4. n. 19. vid. plures ibid. u. 7. & n. 17. Nec qui sic jurat, peccat. Angelus v. juram. 5. n. 9. & Sylvest. v. juram. 4. n. 7. Qui jurat cum intentione non se obligandi, non obligatur ex vi juramenti. Ita—D. Thom. Bonaventur. Scotus. Gabriel. Richard. Sylvest. Angelus Medina. Gutierrez. Navarre. Gloss. Felinus. Abbas. Jo. Andr. in Suar. l. 2. de juram. c. 7. n. 9. Hos & alios vid. in Bonacina. Tom. 2. disp. 4. q. 1. punct. 7. n. 3.Tenet S. Bonaventura quod universaliter non obligat juramentum si jurans animum se obligandi non habuit. Sylvest. jurament. 4. n. 19. vid. plures ibid. u. 7. & n. 17. Nec qui sic jurat, peccat. Angelus v. juram. 5. n. 9. & Sylvest. v. juram. 4. n. 7. Qui jurat cum intentione non se obligandi, non obligatur ex vi juramenti. Ita—D. Thom. Bonaventur. Scotus. Gabriel. Richard. Sylvest. Angelus Medina. Gutierrez. Navar. Gloss. Felinus. Abbas. Jo. Andr. in Suar. l. 2. de juram. c. 7. n. 9. Hos & alios vid. in Bonacina. Tom. 2. disp. 4. q. 1. punct. 7. n. 3.
There is real evidence for the practice of this from the Conclave: for, as their excellent Historian tells us, (*)in the Vacancies of the Sea the Cardinals use to compose certain capitulations, to reform the Papal Government, which all swear to perform, if they be assumed to the Popedom; though it appear by all precedent examples, that every one sweareth with a mind not to keep them, in case he shall be Pope. For so soon as he is Elected, he saith, h••ould not bind himself, and that he is at liberty by gaining the Papacy. This was remarkably exemplified in Paul 4. who resolving to break one of the Capitulations he was sworn to a little before, and some of the Cardinals being ready to put him in mind of his Oath, he declared in Consistory, (†)that it is an Article of Faith that the Pope cannot be bound, and much less can bind himself, that to say otherwise was a manifest Heresy: and threatened the Inquisition to any that hold it. It seems it is damnable error, deserving something like a Hell upon Earth, to believe that his Holiness intends to be honest, whatever he swear. It's true, every one has not the privilege of a Pope, to have it counted Heresy for any to believe that he can be bound to keep any Oaths, or ever to intend it: but all have this liberty by their Doctrine, that they may take Oaths without any intention to keep them; and are not bound to keep them, if they do not intend it.
There is real evidence for the practice of this from the Conclave: for, as their excellent Historian tells us, (*)in the Vacancies of the Sea the Cardinals use to compose certain capitulations, to reform the Papal Government, which all swear to perform, if they be assumed to the Popedom; though it appear by all precedent examples, that every one sweareth with a mind not to keep them, in case he shall be Pope. For so soon as he is Elected, he saith, h••ould not bind himself, and that he is at liberty by gaining the Papacy. This was remarkably exemplified in Paul 4. who resolving to break one of the Capitulations he was sworn to a little before, and some of the Cardinals being ready to put him in mind of his Oath, he declared in Consistory, (†)that it is an Article of Faith that the Pope cannot be bound, and much less can bind himself, that to say otherwise was a manifest Heresie: and threatned the Inquisition to any that hold it. It seems it is damnable error, deserving something like a Hell upon Earth, to believe that his Holiness intends to be honest, whatever he swear. It's true, every one has not the priviledg of a Pope, to have it counted Haeresie for any to believe that he can be bound to keep any Oaths, or ever to intend it: but all have this liberty by their Doctrine, that they may take Oaths without any intention to keep them; and are not bound to keep them, if they do not intend it.
Thirdly, to elude an Oath, and deceive those who give it, or are concerned in it, by equivocation, or other artifice of words; yea, or ⟨p. 316⟩by mental Reservation, is no sin: and that in (o)many cases. As when a man has no mind to swear, and thinks he is not bound to do it; when he is drawn to it by force, or induced by fear, or brought to it by importunity; or when the Judge is incompetent (as they count all that are Heretics or Excommunicate: and that have not lawful jurisdiction); or if the Judges are competent, yet when (*)they proceed not juridically. In these and other cases; either (*)for avoiding harm, or inconvenience; or when it may be for their advantage in any respect, they think it lawful to use these methods of deceit in swearing. Indeed the reason they give to justify the practice •n these cases, will make it as lawful in any other: for they say what is so sworn is true, in their own sense, though not in the sense of the hearers; and so they will have it in strictness to be neither Lie nor Perjury, nor any mortal sin, even when there is no honest, nor reasonable occasion, for swearing or promising, in this fraudulent manner.
Thirdly, to elude an Oath, and deceive those who give it, or are concerned in it, by aequivocation, or other artifice of words; yea, or ⟨p. 316⟩by mental Reservation, is no sin: and that in (o)many cases. As when a man has no mind to swear, and thinks he is not bound to do it; when he is drawn to it by force, or induced by fear, or brought to it by importunity; or when the Judge is incompetent (as they count all that are Hereticks or Excommunicate: and that have not lawful jurisdiction); or if the Judges are competent, yet when (*)they proceed not juridically. In these and other cases; either (*)for avoiding harm, or inconvenience; or when it may be for their advantage in any respect, they think it lawful to use these methods of deceit in swearing. Indeed the reason they give to justifie the practice •n these cases, will make it as lawful in any other: for they say what is so sworn is true, in their own sense, though not in the sense of the hearers; and so they will have it in strictness to be neither Lie nor Perjury, nor any mortal sin, even when there is no honest, nor reasonable occasion, for swearing or promising, in this fraudulent manner.
(o)Si judex juramentum exigens talis (competens) non fuerit, vel esto quod sit competens, interrogat tamen contra juris ordinem, vel est alius homo privatus, qui per metum aut importunitatem juramentum extorquet, tunc jurare poterit quod secundum suam mentem est verum, falsum autem secundum mentem alterius, cui exhibit juramentum. Sicuti fecisse B. Franciscum ferunt, qui rogatus qua perrexisset quidam bomicida, respondit, non transisse illac, intelligens, per illas manicas—Cum Adriano qui sic inique interrogatur, potest optime respondere, quod nescit, intelligendo, non eo modo se scire, quo illud dicere teneatur. Navarre. cap. 12. n. 8.Si judex juramentum exigens talis (competens) non fuerit, vel esto quod sit competens, interrogat tamen contra juris ordinem, vel est alius homo privatus, qui per metum aut importunitatem juramentum extorquet, tunc jurare poterit quod secundum suam mentem est verum, falsum autem secundum mentem alterius, cui exhibit juramentum. Sicuti fecisse B. Franciscum ferunt, qui rogatus qua perrexisset quidam bomicida, respondit, non transisse illac, intelligens, per illas manicas—Cum Adriano qui sic inique interrogatur, potest optime respondere, quod nescit, intelligendo, non eo modo se scire, quo illud dicere teneatur. Navar. cap. 12. n. 8.
(*)Vid Navarre. c 18. n. 57.Vid Navar. c 18. n. 57.
(*)Qui alio sensu ju at quam alter intelligat, non peccat, modo justam habeat causam ita jurandi—justa autem causa utendi his verbis (amphibologicis) est necessitas aut utilitas corporis, aut honoris, aut rerum familiarium—Ex quo sequitur, non esse illicitum uti verbis amphibologicis, addendo restrictionem aliquam in meant retentam, quoties aliquid incommodi, vel injuriae nobis impendet loquendo ad mentem interrogantis, addest en•m justa causa ita loquendi. Bonacin. Tom. 2. disp. 4. quest. 1. punct. 12. n. 2. 3, 4. Ejusmodi autem aequivocationibus uti, addito etiam juramento absque causa, non est peccatum mortale, modo ne id fiat in fraudem tertij, aut in judicio, dumb judex juridice interrogat. Ibid. vid. Dian. v. aequivoc. Videtur esse communis sententia juramentum simulatum, id est, cum justa & prudenti amphibologia factum, non obligare. D. Tho. Cajetan. Soto. Abbas. Tabiena. Covarruv•as. Navarre. in Suar. l. 2. de juram. cap. 8. n. 2. Juramentum autem dolosum cum injustitia obligare—sed tantum secundum proprium sensum. Scotus, Bonavent. Richard. Gabriel. Sylvest. Angelus. Antoninus. ibid. n. 5.Qui alio sensu ju at quam alter intelligat, non peccat, modo justam habeat causam ita jurandi—justa autem causa utendi his verbis (amphibologicis) est necessitas aut utilitas corporis, aut honoris, aut rerum familiarium—Ex quo sequitur, non esse illicitum uti verbis amphibologicis, addendo restrictionem aliquam in mente retentam, quoties aliquid incommodi, vel injuriae nobis impendet loquendo ad mentem interrogantis, adest enm justa causa ita loquendi. Bonacin. Tom. 2. disp. 4. quest. 1. punct. 12. n. 2. 3, 4. Ejusmodi autem aequivocationibus uti, addito etiam juramento absque causa, non est peccatum mortale, modo ne id fiat in fraudem tertij, aut in judicio, dum judex juridice interrogat. Ibid. vid. Dian. v. aequivoc. Videtur esse communis sententia juramentum simulatum, id est, cum justa & prudenti amphibologia factum, non obligare. D. Tho. Cajetan. Soto. Abbas. Tabiena. Covarruvas. Navar. in Suar. l. 2. de juram. cap. 8. n. 2. Juramentum autem dolosum cum injustitia obligare—sed tantum secundum proprium sensum. Scotus, Bonavent. Richard. Gabriel. Sylvest. Angelus. Antoninus. ibid. n. 5.
And that you may perceive the Jesuits are not the prime Masters of these Arts; I shall instance in other Authors, who were either before them, or not addicted to the Society.
For equivocations, or other slight of words in swearing, they are justified by (*)multitudes of their Writers, viz. Sairus after Aquinas, and their Gloss, Paludanus, Gabriel, Johannes Major, Adrian, Hen. Gandavensis, Angelus, Sylvester, Soto, &c. The instances which Soto gives, may serve for a taste; as for example (p)when one instead of saying I swear, uses a word which signifies another thing: but so pronounces it as the difference is not discerned. Or if the (q)word GOD in the language wherein the Oath is taken, may signify some other thing; he that swears may mean something else by it, when he that gives the Oath, understands the God of Heaven. (r)Or if the Oath be formed in this order, I swear to you to pay so much Money, he that swears may mean not to pay him, but some other: when he to whom the Oath is made, understands it, intended for himself. Such an (s)Oath says Soto is true, just, prudent, because then simulation is profitable; having said before (t)that it is lawful, with such fraud to deceive one who forces him to swear, since he who puts him to swear, hath no right to do it; and these forementioned, are the very same instances which Sanchez (u)uses; by which we see, the Jesuit was not the inventor hereof, but learned them of a Dominican.
For aequivocations, or other slight of words in swearing, they are justified by (*)multitudes of their Writers, viz. Sairus after Aquinas, and their Glosse, Paludanus, Gabriel, Johannes Major, Adrian, Hen. Gandavensis, Angelus, Sylvester, Soto, &c. The instances which Soto gives, may serve for a tast; as for example (p)when one instead of saying I swear, uses a word which signifies another thing: but so pronounces it as the difference is not discerned. Or if the (q)word GOD in the language wherein the Oath is taken, may signifie some other thing; he that swears may mean something else by it, when he that gives the Oath, understands the God of Heaven. (r)Or if the Oath be formed in this order, I swear to you to pay so much Mony, he that swears may mean not to pay him, but some other: when he to whom the Oath is made, understands it, intended for himself. Such an (s)Oath sayes Soto is true, just, prudent, because then simulation is profitable; having said before (t)that it is lawful, with such fraud to deceive one who forces him to swear, since he who puts him to swear, hath no right to do it; and these forementioned, are the very same instances which Sanchez (u)uses; by which we see, the Jesuit was not the inventor hereof, but learn'd them of a Dominican.
(*)Licet jurare cum aequivocatione. D. Tho. Scotus, Paludanus, Richard. Major. Adrian. Navarre. Covarruvias. Sylvest. Gloss. Ibid. l. 3. cap. 9.Licet jurare cum aequivocatione. D. Tho. Scotus, Paludanus, Richard. Major. Adrian. Navar. Covarruvias. Sylvest. Gloss. Ibid. l. 3. cap. 9.
(p)Si injurius ille nequam sic rogaret, juras mihi tantam numerare pecuniam? & alter responderet, sic uro (absque j.) non esset peccatum mortale, sed simplex mendacium: quia forte tunc nihil ureret. Soto. ibid. p. 263.
(q)Item si Dei nomen lingua illa qua sit juratio, diversum quoque aliud habuisset significatum, liceret illud intelligendo, dicere testis mihi est Deus, quamvis alter Deum coeli intelligeret. ibid.
(r)Aut si altero interrogante, juras mihi numerare pecuniam? alter responderet, tibi juro numerare, non esset sensus, numerare tibi, hoc est solvere aut tradere, sed tibi juro apud me pecuniam recensere, quandoquidem numerare utrumque significat.
(s)Quare tale juramentum esset verum, justum & prudens quoniam tunc simulatio (quoniam absque falsitate fieret) utilis esset.
(t)Quando vero vi illata petitur, licitum est eafraude petentem deludere. Ibid. Similis est aequivocatio quam in verbo est ponit Glossa in cap. neque. 2. 2. q. 2. & quam in nomine sororis notavit Glossa in c. ult 2. 2. q. 2.
Of mental-reservations justified by their chief (*)Authors, who were no Jesuits, instances might be given in abundance; for example, if (a)a man will have his Wife swear, that she is not an Adulteress, though she be guilty, she may deny it with an Oath, and swear what is false in his sense, if it be true in her own, by the addition of some secret reserve. (b)If a man swear to give another a Hundred Crowns, with this inward reserve, If he owe it him: he sins not, though he swears false, in the sense of him, who is to have the money. (c)A Woman who because of some secret impediment will not live with her Husband, and is Excommunicated for it, she at the point of death, that she may be absolved; being put to swear, that if she recover, she will live with him, may swear it absolutely in show, with this conditional reserve, If she may do it without sin; yet if she do it not, she is not forsworn. So Sylvester and Navarre, according to the determination ⟨p. 319⟩of Aquinas, and Jo. Major. He (d)that in the time of Pestilence comes to a Town, where the Officers, before they admit him, will have him swear, that he came from no infected place; though it be not true, he may swear it, if he think himself have got no infection. If (e)you have not a mind, or are not bound to give or lend any thing in your possession, which another desires; you may lawfully swear that you have it not, with this inward reserve, That you have it not, to give or lend. (f)If a man threaten to kill a Confessor, if he will not tell him, whether his Wife hath confessed her Adultery to him; though she have confessed it to him, yet the Priest may absolutely say, and swear, that she has not; with this reserve, So that he should be bound to tell it. (g)He that is examined upon Oath, concerning crimes that he knows, and swears to declare all he knows; may concerning some that are not known to others, though they be to him; swear without Perjury, that he knows them not, with this secret reserve, He knows not to discover them.
Of mental-reservations justified by their chief (*)Authors, who were no Jesuits, instances might be given in abundance; for example, if (a)a man will have his Wife swear, that she is not an Adulteress, though she be guilty, she may deny it with an Oath, and swear what is false in his sense, if it be true in her own, by the addition of some secret reserve. (b)If a man swear to give another a Hundred Crowns, with this inward reserve, If he owe it him: he sins not, though he swears false, in the sense of him, who is to have the money. (c)A Woman who because of some secret impediment will not live with her Husband, and is Excommunicated for it, she at the point of death, that she may be absolved; being put to swear, that if she recover, she will live with him, may swear it absolutely in shew, with this conditional reserve, If she may do it without sin; yet if she do it not, she is not forsworn. So Sylvester and Navar, according to the determination ⟨p. 319⟩of Aquinas, and Jo. Major. He (d)that in the time of Pestilence comes to a Town, where the Officers, before they admit him, will have him swear, that he came from no infected place; though it be not true, he may swear it, if he think himself have got no infection. If (e)you have not a mind, or are not bound to give or lend any thing in your possession, which another desires; you may lawfully swear that you have it not, with this inward reserve, That you have it not, to give or lend. (f)If a man threaten to kill a Confessor, if he will not tell him, whether his Wife hath confessed her Adultery to him; though she have confessed it to him, yet the Priest may absolutely say, and swear, that she has not; with this reserve, So that he should be bound to tell it. (g)He that is examined upon Oath, concerning crimes that he knows, and swears to declare all he knows; may concerning some that are not known to others, though they be to him; swear without Perjury, that he knows them not, with this secret reserve, He knows not to discover them.
(*)Navarre, Sylvest, Angelus, Lud. Lopez. Tabien. Armilla, &c. And among those who seem to dislike it. Soto fatetur licitum esse alicui jurare, se nescire quod revelare non potest, aut non tenetur; subintelligendo, nescio ut tibi dicam—quando judex non potest legitime interrogare de occultis recte illi responderi, non feci, subintelligendo publice, &c. Et ita etiam concessit aperte Cajetan. & Adrian. in Suar. ibid. cap. 10. n. art. 3.Navar, Sylvest, Angelus, Lud. Lopez. Tabien. Armilla, &c. And among those who seem to dislike it. Soto fatetur licitum esse alicui jurare, se nescire quod revelare non potest, aut non tenetur; subintelligendo, nescio ut tibi dicam—quando judex non potest legitime interrogare de occultis recte illi responderi, non feci, subintelligendo publice, &c. Et ita etiam concessit aperte Cajetan. & Adrian. in Suar. ibid. cap. 10. n. art. 3.
(a)Sylvest. sum. v. jurament. 3. n. 2. Navarre. cap. 12. n. 18. quia id injuste agit, potest illa jurare, quod secundum suam intentionem verum est, falsum autem juxta mariti mentem & Angelus. v. juram. 4. n. 1. Nam cum talis inique a tali confessionem exigat, poterit jurare secundum suam intentionem, quod verum est: licet secundum intellectum audientis sic falsum, secundum Rodo. quem sequitur Astensis:Sylvest. sum. v. jurament. 3. n. 2. Navar. cap. 12. n. 18. quia id injuste agit, potest illa jurare, quod secundum suam intentionem verum est, falsum autem juxta mariti mentem & Angelus. v. juram. 4. n. 1. Nam cum talis inique a tali confessionem exigat, poterit jurare secundum suam intentionem, quod verum est: licet secundum intellectum audientis sic falsum, secundum Rodo. quem sequitur Astensis:
(b)Si maligno sensu intendebat facere, quod jurabat, licet non in sensu ejus, cui jurabat: ut quia juravit dare centum, subaudiendo in animo suo, si debuero: tunc non peccat: quia non tenetur jurare secundum intentionem ejus, cum non sit suus judex: sed utitur simulatione licita, quae licet: ut in c. utilem 2. 2. q. 2. Sylvest. ibid. 4. n. 7. Navarre. c. 12. n. 14. Neque peccaret jurando, neque etiam non implendo amplius quam ipse intellexit; quoniam non tenetur aliquis jurare secundum intentionem illius qui perperam ipsum ad jurandum cogit.Si maligno sensu intendebat facere, quod jurabat, licet non in sensu ejus, cui jurabat: ut quia juravit dare centum, subaudiendo in animo suo, si debuero: tunc non peccat: quia non tenetur jurare secundum intentionem ejus, cum non sit suus judex: sed utitur simulatione licita, quae licet: ut in c. utilem 2. 2. q. 2. Sylvest. ibid. 4. n. 7. Navar. c. 12. n. 14. Neque peccaret jurando, neque etiam non implendo amplius quam ipse intellexit; quoniam non tenetur aliquis jurare secundum intentionem illius qui perperam ipsum ad jurandum cogit.
If one promise to another, or contract with a Woman outwardly, without an intention of promising; and is demanded of a Judge upon Oath, whether he promised or contracted: he may plainly deny ⟨p. 320⟩it, because he may have this sense, I promised not with a promise obliging me, and he has just cause so to answer, because since he cannot otherwise prove his want of intention, he will be condemned to pay what he owes not, or to cohabit with her, whom he truly contracted not(*). A witness, either when he is not interrogated juridically, or when he has good occasion not to bear witness in judgment, as if he fear great damage to himself thereby; may answer, that he knows not, or saw it not, or the like, with a mental Reservation(*). He that out of necessity, or for any profit, offers himself to swear of his own accord, may therein use such fallacy(*). He that hath good occasion to hide his goods, lest they should be seized by his creditors, being for his livelihood, and to keep him from beggary; may swear that he has not hid any, understanding not any that he could not hide, or any that he is bound to discover. The same may the witnesses swear for him (viz. That he hid none) knowing that he hid them lawfully(*). Such fallacious Oaths may be used also in Contracts and Bargaining. Those who cannot otherwise get a just price of the buyer, may swear, in a sense that he perceives not, that the Commodity cost them so much(*).
If one promise to another, or contract with a Woman outwardly, without an intention of promising; and is demanded of a Judge upon Oath, whether he promised or contracted: he may plainly deny ⟨p. 320⟩it, because he may have this sense, I promised not with a promise obligeing me, and he has just cause so to answer, because since he cannot otherwise prove his want of intention, he will be condemned to pay what he owes not, or to cohabit with her, whom he truly contracted not(*). A witness, either when he is not interrogated juridically, or when he has good occasion not to bear witness in judgment, as if he fear great damage to himself thereby; may answer, that he knows not, or saw it not, or the like, with a mental Reservation(*). He that out of necessity, or for any profit, offers himself to swear of his own accord, may therein use such fallacy(*). He that hath good occasion to hide his goods, lest they should be seized by his creditors, being for his livelihood, and to keep him from beggery; may swear that he has not hid any, understanding not any that he could not hide, or any that he is bound to discover. The same may the witnesses swear for him (viz. That he hid none) knowing that he hid them lawfully(*). Such fallacious Oaths may be used also in Contracts and Bargaining. Those who cannot otherwise get a just price of the buyer, may swear, in a sense that he perceives not, that the Commodity cost them so much(*).
(*)So Navarre. in cap. humanae aures. 2. 2. q. 5. q. 1. & 2. alleging for this Doctrine. Aquinas. Scotus. Paludanus. Richard. Major. Adrian. and others, vid. Suar. l. 3. de Juram. cap. 9. n. 5.So Navar. in cap. humanae aures. 2. 2. q. 5. q. 1. & 2. alledging for this Doctrine. Aquinas. Scotus. Paludanus. Richard. Major. Adrian. and others, vid. Suar. l. 3. de Juram. cap. 9. n. 5.
Here are a few instances, but they have rules (some of them are premised) which Licence it in cases innumerable: so that it may be a common practice, and they may use it, upon any occasion which they think reasonable.
These things considered, with others Authorized among them. I cannot devise what course can be taken to bind those who follow their doctrine; or to get from them the least security by an Oath. They have declared, that if you put an Oath upon them, which they think, ought not to be imposed, they may lawfully deceive you if they can, and put a cheat upon you, even in a Solemn Oath. Contrive then what Oath you will for your security, they will take it, so far as you ⟨p. 321⟩can judge, as much as any man in the world takes an Oath; yet if they did not intend to Swear (which none can tell but themselves) by taking this Oath; they have not Sworn, they are not obliged. Or if they had a mind to swear, as well as to make you think so, yet if they did not intend to oblige themselves thereby, their Conscience by their principles is free, the Oath does not touch them; or if they have a mind to be obliged by that Oath, yet need they not bind themselves to that, it was designed for; but to quite another thing: for they may swear in a sense, vastly distant from what you intend or imagine; and thus they are taught to do: and it is practicable, either by the fly and undiscerned change of one letter in a word, as they may pronounce it, which will turn the sense as far from yours, as burning is from swearing, which is plain in a former instance. Or else by the ambiguousness of some word in the Oath, affording another sense than you are aware of; they may fix upon that, and leave yours to your self, and so bind themselves to nothing you are concerned for, when you think you have them fast bound to all. Or if such care be taken, that in the Oath there be no ambiguous terms, which may give them the advantage to delude you by a sense foreign to your intendment; yet, do what you can, they may put forth a sense upon it by a mental restriction; for thereby adding something reserved in their mind to what is expressed in the Oath; the sense is quite changed, and the thing they swear is nothing at all, of what you would have sworn.
These things considered, with others Authorized among them. I cannot devise what course can be taken to bind those who follow their doctrine; or to get from them the least security by an Oath. They have declared, that if you put an Oath upon them, which they think, ought not to be imposed, they may lawfully deceive you if they can, and put a cheat upon you, even in a Solemn Oath. Contrive then what Oath you will for your security, they will take it, so far as you ⟨p. 321⟩can judge, as much as any man in the world takes an Oath; yet if they did not intend to Swear (which none can tell but themselves) by taking this Oath; they have not Sworn, they are not obliged. Or if they had a mind to swear, as well as to make you think so, yet if they did not intend to oblige themselves thereby, their Conscience by their principles is free, the Oath does not touch them; or if they have a mind to be obliged by that Oath, yet need they not bind themselves to that, it was designed for; but to quite another thing: for they may swear in a sense, vastly distant from what you intend or imagine; and thus they are taught to do: and it is practicable, either by the flye and undiscerned change of one letter in a word, as they may pronounce it, which will turn the sense as far from yours, as burning is from swearing, which is plain in a former instance. Or else by the ambiguousness of some word in the Oath, affording another sense than you are aware of; they may fix upon that, and leave yours to your self, and so bind themselves to nothing you are concerned for, when you think you have them fast bound to all. Or if such care be taken, that in the Oath there be no ambiguous terms, which may give them the advantage to delude you by a sense forraign to your intendment; yet, do what you can, they may put forth a sense upon it by a mental restriction; for thereby adding something reserved in their mind to what is expressed in the Oath; the sense is quite changed, and the thing they swear is nothing at all, of what you would have sworn.
Yea, or if they swear, that they will observe the contents of your Oath, according to the plain and natural meaning of the words, without any equivocating or mental restriction; yet at the same time they may mean, without any mental restriction, that they will tell you of; and so delude you with a mental reservation, when they are swearing against it: nor is this an imaginary supposition of a thing that they never practised; for thus their Priests and others have taken the Oath of Allegiance, and by this art eluded it; (*)and so they are instructed, and ⟨p. 322⟩may do still, and defeat any Oath that can be devised. Yea, by their doctrine they may do it lawfully, and without sin; for in all this juggling, they teach, that they do not swear false, but by the artifice specified, it's true in their own sense, though not in theirs who give the Oath. Indeed this is a cheat (where God is called to witness) nor do they deny it: But they say such deceit is lawful, as in many other cases so, always when the Judge is incompetent: And that is our case in England, we have none from the Throne to the lowest Bench, that, in their account, have any jurisdiction(h); we have none that have power to put an Oath upon them; they may choose whether they will swear or no, or whether they will cheat them all in swearing. No Oath which can be given them, can oblige them, but in their own sense, how distant soever from the true sense of the Oath, or of the Imposer of it. This our Roman Catholics were assured of long since, by (i)instructions sent them from Rome in Queen Elizabeths time. So that they need make no Conscience (if they will follow the best Guides of their Consciences) to practise all their contrivance upon us in Oaths: (much more in promises, contracts, &c.) even such as the light of Nature has ever condemned in the world, as not only impious in point of Religion, but destructive to human society, and those which tend to subvert the main grounds and foundations of it. We can never oblige them by Oath at any time, but when they please, nor any further than they list: we can never tell when they swear, though they take Oaths, nor when they are obliged, though they swear: we cannot possibly know when we may be sure of them. When we think them fast, by all the rules that men of Conscience and common Honesty proceed by;
Yea, or if they swear, that they will observe the contents of your Oath, according to the plain and natural meaning of the words, without any equivocating or mental restriction; yet at the same time they may mean, without any mental restriction, that they will tell you of; and so delude you with a mental reservation, when they are swearing against it: nor is this an imaginary supposition of a thing that they never practis'd; for thus their Priests and others have taken the Oath of Allegiance, and by this art eluded it; (*)and so they are instructed, and ⟨p. 322⟩may do still, and defeat any Oath that can be devised. Yea, by their doctrine they may do it lawfully, and without sin; for in all this jugling, they teach, that they do not swear false, but by the artifice specified, it's true in their own sense, though not in theirs who give the Oath. Indeed this is a cheat (where God is called to witness) nor do they deny it: But they say such deceit is lawful, as in many other cases so, always when the Judge is incompetent: And that is our case in England, we have none from the Throne to the lowest Bench, that, in their account, have any jurisdiction(h); we have none that have power to put an Oath upon them; they may choose whether they will swear or no, or whether they will cheat them all in swearing. No Oath which can be given them, can oblige them, but in their own sense, how distant soever from the true sense of the Oath, or of the Imposer of it. This our Roman Catholicks were assured of long since, by (i)instructions sent them from Rome in Queen Elizabeths time. So that they need make no Conscience (if they will follow the best Guides of their Consciences) to practise all their contrivance upon us in Oaths: (much more in promises, contracts, &c.) even such as the light of Nature has ever condemned in the world, as not only impious in point of Religion, but destructive to human society, and those which tend to subvert the main grounds and foundations of it. We can never oblige them by Oath at any time, but when they please, nor any further than they list: we can never tell when they swear, though they take Oaths, nor when they are obliged, though they swear: we cannot possibly know when we may be sure of them. When we think them fast, by all the rules that men of Conscience and common Honesty procede by;
(*)Quando quis inique interrogat excludendo omnem aequivocationem, posse interrogatum uti equivocation, apponendo aliquam particulam in meant, &c. Idem dic de teste. Bonacina. Tom. 2. disp. 4. q. 1. punct. 12. & ibi plur•s. Quoties gravis causa occurrit, obquam licet uti verbis ambignis, vel mentali restrictione, ejusmode usum esse licitum, etsi interrogans urgeat, ut sine amphibologia, aut restriction loquaris. Pet. a S. Joseph. de 2 precept. art. 1.Quando quis inique interrogat excludendo omnem aequivocationem, posse interrogatum uti aequivocatione, apponendo aliquam particulam in mente, &c. Idem dic de teste. Bonacina. Tom. 2. disp. 4. q. 1. punct. 12. & ibi plur•s. Quoties gravis causa occurrit, obquam licet uti verbis ambignis, vel mentali restrictione, ejusmode usum esse licitum, etsi interrogans urgeat, ut sine amphibologia, aut restrictione loquaris. Pet. a S. Joseph. de 2 precept. art. 1.
(h)Judex haereticus aut schismaticus amittit omnem jurisdictionem. Vid. Conc. Lateran. sub Innocent. 3. in Crab. Supra.
(i)Juramentum exactum a judice non competente (quales nunc omnes sunt in Anglia) in jurisdictione Ecclesiastica, non obligat nisi secundum intentionem jurantis in Abb. de mendacio. p. 40.
yet they can juggle themselves loose by the Roman rules, at pleasure, and make sport with God and man, even in Oaths where God himself is a Witness, and the greatest of men concerned as Parties.
illegible words
〈non-Latin alphabet〉
Greek or Hebrew the transcribers did not key
▪
illegible punctuation
⟨p. 12⟩
a page break in the printed book
•
•
(c)Aquinas & Jo Major. in Navarre. c 12. n. 9. Sylvest. ibid. 3. n. 2. Angelus. Sum. v. juram 4. n. 1. Quum quis ex juramento exigit ab aliquo quod ipse non potest sine peccato implere: potest habere intentionem, cum jurat illud facere scil. Quantum poterit sine peccato. Sic & Sylvester. Sic secundum Rich. de St. Victore obstetrices non peccassent, licet non respondissent ad intentionem Pharaonis, quia non fuit ei data Authoritas ad aliquid agendum contra Deum. Secundum Innocent. in c. veniens de curia. in juramento determinato super aliquo singulari, sic interpretatur in foro animae, secundum intentionem jurantis. Angel. ibid.Aquinas & Jo Major. in Navar. c 12. n. 9. Sylvest. ibid. 3. n. 2. Angelus. Sum. v. juram 4. n. 1. Quum quis ex juramento exigit ab aliquo quod ipse non potest sine peccato implere: potest habere intentionem, cum jurat illud facere scil. Quantum poterit sine peccato. Sic & Sylvester. Sic secundum Rich. de St. Victore obstetrices non peccassent, licet non respondissent ad intentionem Pharaonis, quia non fuit ei data Authoritas ad aliquid agendum contra Deum. Secundum Innocent. in c. veniens de curia. in juramento determinato super aliquo singulari, sic interpretatur in foro animae, secundum intentionem jurantis. Angel. ibid.
(d)Sylvest. v. juram. 3. n. 2. Navarre. c. 12. n. 19. Bonacin. ubi supra.Sylvest. v. juram. 3. n. 2. Navar. c. 12. n. 19. Bonacin. ubi supra.
(e)An qui jurat se non habere rem aliquam ab alio petitam, ut ab ea danda vel accommodanda se excuset, peccet? responderi enim debet, piccare si mens ejus verbis consonat: sed non, si non tenetur ad dandam vel accommodandam, neque respondendum juxta mentem petentis, & ea mente juret, quod non habant illam, ad eam illi dandam aut accommodandam. Navarre. c. 12. n. 18. Bonacin. ibid. Idem. c. 8. n. 19. Lopez. cap. 37. p. 211.An qui jurat se non habere rem aliquam ab alio petitam, ut ab ea danda vel accommodanda se excuset, peccet? responderi enim debet, piccare si mens ejus verbis consonat: sed non, si non tenetur ad dandam vel accommodandam, neque respondendum juxta mentem petentis, & ea mente juret, quod non habant illam, ad eam illi dandam aut accommodandam. Navar. c. 12. n. 18. Bonacin. ibid. Idem. c. 8. n. 19. Lopez. cap. 37. p. 211.
(f)And this they maintain not only in this case, but as to all sins confessed. Quod si judex instat vel exigit juramentum a sacerdote, an per confessionem sciat aliquid de tali facto? Dico quod secundum S. Thom. & omnes doctores. Sacerdos si ab eo quaeratur de aliquo absente, an aliquid sciat, quod audivit in confessione: jurare potest se nescire illud: quia non scit illud in quantum homo, &c. Sylvest. v. confess. 3. n. 6. Sic Angelus. v. confess. 8. n. 4. secundum Scotum & Richardum, &c. Graft. l. r. c. 23. n. 2. For the Seal of Confession must not be violated; no, not to secure the soul of the penitent, or the life of a King, or a whole Commonwealth from temporal or spiritual destruction. Vid. ibid. n. 4. & 20. authors contra unum Altisiodorensem in Suarez. tom. 4. disp. 33. Sect. 1.And this they maintain not only in this case, but as to all sins confessed. Quod si judex instat vel exigit juramentum a sacerdote, an per confessionem sciat aliquid de tali facto? Dico quod secundum S. Thom. & omnes doctores. Sacerdos si ab eo quaeratur de aliquo absente, an aliquid sciat, quod audivit in confessione: jurare potest se nescire illud: quia non scit illud in quantum homo, &c. Sylvest. v. confess. 3. n. 6. Sic Angelus. v. confess. 8. n. 4. secundum Scotum & Richardum, &c. Graff. l. r. c. 23. n. 2. For the Seal of Confession must not be violated; no, not to secure the soul of the poenitent, or the life of a King, or a whole Commonwealth from temporal or spiritual destruction. Vid. ibid. n. 4. & 20. auctores contra unum Altisiodorensem in Suarez. tom. 4. disp. 33. Sect. 1.
(g)Quamvis juret se dicturum, quod scit, vere respondere potest se illa nescire absque perjurij metu, intelligendo intra se, illud se non ita scire ut detegere teneatur. Navarre. c. 18. n. 61. vid. cap. 17. n. 116.Quamvis juret se dicturum, quod scit, vere respondere potest se illa nescire absque perjurij metu, intelligendo intra se, illud se non ita scire ut detegere teneatur. Navar. c. 18. n. 61. vid. cap. 17. n. 116.
