A brief treatise of Oaths exacted by Ordinaries and Ecclesiastical judges, to answer generally to all such Articles or Interrogatories, as pleaseth them to propound. And of their forced and constrained Oaths ex officio, wherein is proved that the same are unlawful.   

A brief treatise of Oaths, exacted by Ordinaries and Ecclesiastical judges, to answer generally to all such Articles or Interrogarories as pleaseth them to propound. And of their forced and constrained Oaths ex officio, wherein is proved that the same are unlawful.  
FOrasmuch as the matter whereof we mean to entreat is concerning Oaths. It will be very necessary for the better understanding thereof, first to consider what an oath is, and the nature thereof: By whom it was instituted, and to what use, end and purpose: How many kinds of lawful oaths there are, & how they ought to behave themselves that either require or receive an oath.  
An Oath therefore (as learned Divines have defined) is a calling or taking to record or witness of the sacred Name of God, or of God himself by the use of his holy Name, for the confirmation of the truth of such things which we speak, or for the true performance of our promise. Or more briefly: An oath is a confirmation of the will of man by the testimony of God.  
The same of his own nature, in as much as it proceedeth from a right faith is very good, for thereby we acknowledge all things to be thoroughly known unto God, and that he is a lover of truth, and a revenger of perjury. It serveth also to the honour of Almighty God, because thereby we extol and magnify his most holy Name, 
Hebrews cap. 6. Deuterono. cap. 6.13.  and confess the excellency of his great Majesty: for that men swear by him that is greater. It is a part of his divine service, and commanded by him. And the same is to be used only for the setting forth of the glory of God, and for the profit and benefit of men.  
〈…〉 thereof was from and by God himself, for the help and relief of our necessity, either for the Assurance of such duties, covenants, contracts & promises as we own or make: or to procure faith or credit (certainty of proof failing) to the truth which we affirm: That an end of controversies may be had. For (as it is written in the same chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews) An oath for confirmation is amongst men An end of all strife.  

Oaths are of two sorts, that is to say, private and public.  
Private oaths are made between private persons concerning their particular affairs. As for th'assurance of duties, covenants, agreements or promises, or to procure faith and credit to be given to that which is meant to be persuaded. Of which kind of oaths we have many examples in the sacred Histories, as in the book of Genesis cap. 24. and cap. 31. 1. Sam. cap. 20. 1. Regum cap. 18. Hierem. cap. 38. and many other which for brevities sake I omit.  
Public oaths are of divers and sundry sorts. As where Kings and Princes swear for the establishment of their leagues and conclusions of peace.  
Or where the Prince and people swear each to other: The Prince to rule and reign justly: The people in due allegiance to obey faithfully. This kind of oath was used 2. Sam. cap. 5. between David the king & th'elder of Israel. In the book of judges we read also how th'elder of Gilead swore subjection unto jephtah.  
another kind of public oath we see 2. Cron. cap. 15 where king Asa made the people of Israel to take an oath for the true worship and service of Almighty God, and the observation of his Law. An oath not much different was that in Ezra cap. 10.  
That is also a public oath which the Magistrates, judges and Officers of justice take for the true and sincere administration of the Law. So is also the oath of Soldiers and men of war, swearing obedience to their Generals, Captains and Commanders.  
another kind of public oath is that likewise which the judge or Magistrate ministereth unto such as are called to depose and testify the truth in causes of suit and controversy, depending in Courts or places of justice.  
And that also which either of the adversaries take in the same suits, or the defendant for the final ending and detetmination of the controversy, which of some is termed a judicial oath, and being offered by the defendant, it is of necessity to the plaintiff, for that he cannot refuse to accept of the same.  
Of this last sort, among the laws judicial it is written thus: 
Exod. ca ●2.  If any man deliver to his neigh bout to keep Affe or Ox or Sheep, or any beast, and it die or be hurt, or be taken by force, & no man see it, An oath of the Lord shallbe the mean between them twain, that he put not his hand unto 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 swear in truth. That is to say truly without falsehood, deceit, or dissimulation, the heart & mouth agreeing in one: 
Heir. ca 4.  for since God is the author and lover of truth, and the Devil is a liar, and the father of lies, there can not be a greater dishonour or indignity offered to the sacred Majesty of God, then to make his most fearful and reverend name, a witness of falsehood or deceit, neither let any man think that by crafty or subtle swearing he can avoid the detestable sin of perjury. For fraus distringit non dissoluit perjurium, fraud straineth harder, it dissolveth not the perjury as the learned Tully very well said.  
secondly, 
Hier. ca 4.  he that taketh an oath ought to swear in judgement, that is to say, with good discretion, soberly, well advised and assured of that he will affirm or deny upon his oath, Not ignorantly, rashly, vainly, or in causes of no moment or necessity for such vain and foolish swearing is expressly forbidden by the commandment, wherein also God threateneth, That he will not hold him guilt les, that taketh his name in vain, that is, will surely punish him that so abuseth his name. The same also in the new Testament is by Christ himself condemned. Moreover the holy Ghost by the Preacher well adviseth every man not to be rash with his mouth, nor to suffer his heart to be hasty to utter any thing before God, for that (sayeth he) God is in the Heavens, and thou art on the earth.  
In justice or righteousness also ought an oath to be taken, that is in things just and lawful, not repugnant to the will or commandment of God. For although it be true that is said, Non est obligatorium contra bonos mores praestitum juramentum, yet by swearing to do the thing that is unjust or unlawful, the glorious name of God is dishonoured. And such a speech saith Ecclesiasticus, is compassed about with death. Briefly, the respect of every deponent should be, that God by his oath may be magnified, the truth in question confirmed, justice maintained, and that Innocentes (by fraudulent practises circumvented) may be freed and delivered from peril and danger.  
Touching such as have power and authority to require or command an oath, 
The Magistrate.  they ought also to be very careful and circumspect that they impose not the same but in causes of weight and necessity, which is never to be intended but when the honour and glory of God is to be maintained, or the good of the common wealth, or of our neighbour furthered. For if it be a Principle De minimit non curate lex, by good reason the Magistrates and ministers of law should spare to use that which is most holy and precious in causes of less price or moment, for daily experience showeth, that the frequent use of things reverent (such is the corruption of our nature) causeth them to be of none account. Furthermore, they ought to be well advised that they require it not of men of suspected faith or credit; or of persons defamed in life and conversation. For an oath offered to such (without greater necessity) argueth a lightness and want of good discretion in the Magistrate, who thereby wittingly doth minister an occasion of perjury, which if it follow, how great is the fault? Moreover, that they charge no man by oath to do the thing impossible or beyond his power. For impossibilium nulla est obligatio, nor any thing that is unlawful, inconvenient, or ungodly. Neither force any man to swear rashly or unadvisedly. For if the vain and inconsiderate swearer shall nor be unpunished, how shall the procurer escape God's vengeance? That they abuse not the simplicity of the Deponent by intricate, captious, or subtle questions: 
1. Thes. ca 4  for let no man (sayeth the holy Apostle Saint Paul) beguile or craftily cirumvent his brother, for the Lord is an avenger of all such things. Finally in the ministering of an oath the Magistrates ought to respect all those things which the party deposing aught to have before his eyes, that is the glory of God, the maintenance of truth, & the good of our brethren.  
These things granted, which cannot be denied, it consequently followeth that the forcing of Oaths by Ordinaries and judges Ecclesiastical generally to answer unto all such questions or interrogatories as they shall demand or minister touching either the thoughts, words or deeds of him that is to depose, is contrary to the honourable institution, lawful use, and true end of an oath. And that whosoever by colour of authority, threatening speeches, duresse of imprisonment, or other pain constraineth any man to swear in such manner, doth highly offend against th'inviolable rules before remembered.  
For first as it hath been said, the ordaining and institution of an oath was to help and relieve the necessity of men in the causes before rehearsed. But there is no necessity or vigent cause why such a general oath should either be required or take, since the same is neither for assurance of duty, covenant, contract or promise, neither yet for confirmation of truth in any cause or matter of controversy. If it be alleged that the same is requisite for the inquiring and finding out of suspected faults, whereof there is no proof, and to search and try the evil minds and corrupt consciences of dangerous dissemblers, and so necessary for the government both of the Church and common wealth. By this allegation first all such are justly reproved, who having practised and put in ure this general oath, where otherwise there was sufficiency of proof. And yet thereby nothing is said for the maintenance of their doings in that behalf, since by the like reason there should be erected a Court of Inquisition more than Spanish to sift & ransack by oath the most secret thoughts and consciences of all men in general, enforcing them either to accuse themselves (not as in the Papistical shrift; where secrecy was enjoined) to their public shame, reproach and condemnation, or else for the avoiding of such mischief and inconvenience, to commit most wilful and damnable perjury. But as this I suppose in all good men's opinions, were intolerable, so of the other I assure myself there can be no sound rule, sufficient precedent or example alleged: Except peradventure the proceeding of the high Priest, the Scribes and Elders of the jews in their Consistory against our Saviour Christ, shall be vouched and maintained for a sufficient precedent in that behalf, who maliciously apposing and examining him concerning his doctrine (although not by oath) would gladly have picked out and drawn from himself some matter of accusation, whereby to have condemned him. But the answer and authority of Christ (I doubt not) willbe allowed among Christians, both for sound and sufficient to refel and condemn the practise of those malignant Priests, who knowing their subtle purpose and intent, referred them to his auditors, and being injustlie stricken, replied: If I have evil spoken, bear witness of the evil, but if I have well spoken, why smitest thou me, justifying hereby his former answer, and forcing therewithal his adversaries to seek for witnesses to testify against him.  
The true use and end of an oath is, as aforesaid, That due honour may be given unto God, the truth confirmed, justice maintained, innocency protected, and an end had of strife and contention. But how is God glorified hereby, or not rather dishonoured, when as his sacred institution is so greatly perverted, and an oath forced to an other course and purpose, than he in his divine wisdom hath appointed, as by that which hath and shallbe spoken, doth & shall manifestly appear. The truth in controversy is not thereby confirmed, since there is no issue joined in this case between parties affirming and denying, and how can justice by such an oath be maintained, when as the cause for which the oath is urged, standeth not in lawful course of judgement? for as it is well said of a learned man: 
Bracton.  judicium est in qualibet actione trinus actus trium personarum: judicis, actoris, & rei, secundum quod large accipi possunt huinsmodi personae, quod duae sunt ad minus inter quos vertatur contentio, & tertia persona ad minus qui judicet, alioquin non erit judicium, cum istae personae sunt partes principales in judicio, fine quibus judicium consistere non potest. Then whensoever any fault or matter of offence by means of this kind of compulsary oath happeneth to be disclosed, either we must say that the judge, who imposeth the oath, is himself against all order of justice, the party accuser, 
8. H. 6. fol. 18. 5. Reg. Eli.  and so both judge and Promoter, which all good laws forbid: Or else the Deponent must of necessity sustain two principal parts in judgement, that is to be both Actor & Reus, Accusor and accused, whereby the three principal parties, by the rule aforesaid, failing true judgement, by no means may consist. Furthermore, by this kind of oath it can not be truly said, that Innocentes circumvented by fraud or practice, are cleared, since there is no complaint or accusation judicially exhibited. Except we shall affirm that the judge or Magistrate by enforcing such an oath, doth himself play the part of a subtle circumventor and accusor, which as it is a most wicked sin in any man, so in the person of a public Magistrate (whose actions should be sincere) the same is most detestable. And finally, how can an end of controversy ensue by such an oath, whereas no quarrel or complaint is any way depending. Nay rather the same is often times the cause of stirring up of debate and contention in stead of former quietness, being principally used not to make an end of controversies, but to procure some accusation, and that by the secret malice of some undermining or malignant adversary or calumniatour.  
Again, since an oath is to be taken in judgement, that is with good advisement and consideration of the matter, wherein the Deponent is to call the Name of God to witness, and that whosoever otherwise taketh an oath, doth therein vainly and indiscreetly abuse the Name of God. How can this general oath be either rightly urged or received without great offence to his divine Majesty, forasmuch as the party deposing is not before he swear, made acquainted nor understandeth what questions or interrogatories shall be demanded, but by his oath hath fast bound and subjected himself to the discretion or indiscretion of another, that is the judge Ecclesiastical, who having straightly tied and snared this seely subject, may now use or abuse him at his will and pleasure, either against law enforcing him by the band of his oath to accuse himself even of his most secret and inward thoughts, or contrary to christian charity, yea humanity itself, constraining him to inform against his natural parents, dearest friends, and nearest neighbours, or to bewray with grief of heart such matters of secrecy, as otherwise were inconvenient & peradventure not honest to be revealed. In which hard proceeding besides the great hazard & peril of wilful perjury without all necessity of an oath, great trouble of mind and scruple of conscience must needs ensue, when as the Deponent on the one side, considering the weight & heavy burden of his oath, feareth to conceal any thing: and on the other side finding him self thereby entrapped, shrinketh to make answer to the questions propounded. Whereof you may behold a most miserable and lamentable spectacle in the book of Acts & monuments, where in a large table is set forth the great iniquity and rigorous dealing of Longland Bishop of Lincoln, in the time of the late Prince of famous memory, King H. the eight. Which bloody Bishop by forced and violent oaths and captious interrogatories, constrained the children to accuse their parents, the parents their natural children, the wife her husband, the husband his wife, one brother and sister an other, some of these seely souls of sworn becoming forsworn, while they made dainty to accuse such as they dearly affected. Of which blind ignorance (or rather murderous minds) and intolerable iniquity of Romish Bish. and barbarous abuse of an oath, that godly man of worthy memory Master john Fox justly complaineth. For what might be added more to extreme cruelty, save only this one point of detestable inhumanity (which also was pursuaunt as a part of that tragical church-government) to compel the children to set fire to their condemned parents. Which example of cruelty sayeth that good man, as it is contrary both to God and nature, so hath it not been seen or heard of in the memory of the heathen.  
That wicked king Herode (as it is recorded by the holy Evangelists Mathewe and Mark) voluntarily promised, and that with an oath, to give the dancing daughter of Herodias his harlot, whatsoever she should demand. As this unadvised oath proceeding of vain pleasure and delight upon the wicked demand of that damosel wrought much grief of mind in the king, so was it the cause of the sudden dispatch and murder of that just man john the Baptist. And although it may truly be said that Herode was not bound by his oath to have accomplished so foul and wicked a deed, yet can it not be denied but that the same was a rash and inconsiderate oath, and so an offence against the Majesty of Almighty God. And what difference is there I pray you between the oath of Herode and that which now we have in question, the one being to perform or grant whatsoever should be required: and the other, to answer to all questions that shallbe demanded, since there may be as unlawful and as unhonest questions ministered, as ungodly requests made or desired.  
Again, it would not be forgotten that in all the volume the sacred scriptures (to my remembrance) there is no one precedent or example to be showed of any such general oath taken by any godly man in private, or exacted by any Magistrate in public, neither yet any rule, law, or commandment for the same.  
But against this our last assertion may happily be alleged by some favourer of this foul abuse, the manner of trial by adjuration of the suspected wife, that is the law of jealousy. The inquisition and expiation of manslaughter, where the author is unknown, and the examination of Achan: all which nevertheless make nothing for these general oaths, or those enjoined ex officio, as by the consideration of the laws and history itself shall easily appear. For as concerning the law of jealousy, although the wife were to be tried by oath and adjuration in that manner and with those circumstances as is there prescribed, either to satisfy the restless head of her jealous husband, if she were guiltless, or to receive by the wonderful working of that accursed water, if she were saultie condign punishment for her heinous offence, both of perjury and adultery, yet is it very manifest in this case that the wife is not summoned or cited by the Priest or Magistrate ex officio, but brought unto him by her accusing husband, who upon offence conceived offering up his complaint, and thereupon the woman is called for, and put to her purgation, well knowing her accusor, and having perfect notice before she swear of the crime objected. Moreover, who is so simple that seethe not how weak an argument or conclusion this were. God hath appointed an oath to be taken by the wife in this especial and singular case of jealousy for the satisfaction of the suspicious mind of the husband, Ergo every judge Ecclesiastical to satisfy his jealous suspicion or imagination of any crime, may appose by oath and compel men to their purgation. For by as good reason the Ordinary or judge Ecclesiastical may also upon every such oath denounce a curse of consumption and rotting to the party deposing in such & the same manner as there is prescribed.  
And as touching the inquisition for murder or manslaughter before remembered, it is ordained, that the Elders of that City, which upon measure taken falleth out to be next unto the slain man, should wash their hands over a beheaded Heifer, protesting and saying in the presence of the Priests: Our hands have not shed this blood, neither have our eyes seen the slear. O Lord be merciful unto thy people Israel, whom thou hast redeemed, & lay no innocent blood to the charge of this people, etc. How any thing here may prove the exacting of oaths to be lawful, I see not. A man is slain, th'offender unknown, th'elder by this especial law of expiation do protest as aforesaid. But where is an oath in this case given to any particular person? If this protestation shall be thought in some sort to countervail an oath of purgation, yet where is there any protestation or oath required or taken to answer generally to such Interrogatories as shallbe propounded upon unknown, secret, or barely suspected matter? Nay we see evidently, the fact and felony (to th'offence both of God and man) to be public and apparent, th'offender only lieth hidden and unknown. On the contrary, those Inquisitors ex officio, have the man before them whom they will examine, but the matter for the most part is secret and concealed which they inquire after, and many times there is no matter at all but bare & naked suspicion or fame of a cry me never committed.  
Concerning Achan and the proceeding against him, we see by the sacred history how the offence in general is by God himself made manifest unto Joshua the Prince of the people (vz) That an excommunicate or cursed thing was taken and concealed, etc. th'offender was only to be found out. Inquisition being had by lot or otherwise, (God assisting) Achan is deprehended as guilty. What followed? He is by josua examined of the particular, using these words: My son, I beseech thee give glory to the Lord God of Israel, and make confession unto him, and show me now what thou hast done, hide it not from me. Hereupon the detected Achan confesseth the truth in particular. But where doth it appear that he was deposed, or by what conceived words or form of oath doth he swear? Except we shall say, there is no difference between the entreaty or charge of the Magistrate, remembering the glory of God, and an oath taken and pronounced by th'offender to confess the truth. Which granted, it must consequently follow, that whosoever is in that manner charged and confesseth not the truth, although he have no will to swear, is both a liar and a person perjured, which were a hard conclusion. Nay rather such kind of charge as adiuro te, as a learned man sayeth. Non est alium ad iurandum inducere, 
Thomas Aquinas  sed per similitu dinem juramenti alium ad aliud agendum inducere. And such speeches are also used for commandments in the name of the Divine Majesty, 
Act. cap. 19.1. Thes. ca 5  as we read done by the Exorcists, & by Sain Paul, who chargeth the Thessaly. in the Lord, that his Epistle be read unto all the brethren the Saints. Otherwise if every such kind of speech should strait way make an oath, then would it follow (wdich were absurd) that the Devil made our Saviour to swear at such time as he said, I charge thee by God, that thou torment me not.  
I know very well what that learned and excellent light of God's Church Master Caluin saith in his book of Institution of christian Religion, That is, how Josua minding to drive Achan to confess the truth, said: My son give glory to the Lord God of Israel, meaning thereby that the Lord is grievously dishonoured, if a man swear falsely by him. And this manner of speech sayeth he, was used among the jews, so oft as any was called to take an oath, as appeareth by the like protestation that the Pharisees use in the Gospel of Saint john. In the book also of Ezra we read the same phrase (Give praise unto the Lord) as some in English have translated it, 
Cap. 9  but according to the Latin translation of the learned Tremelius & junius, the words are, aedite confessionem Jehovae Deo. So that although it be granted that where an oath was given for the confession of the truth, there the Magistrate used those words (Give glory unto God, putting the party in mind thereby of the Majesty of Almighty God) yet followeth it not that in every place where we find the same speech, there the party to whom it was spoken, had taken an oath to confess the matter whereof he was demanded. But be it granted that Achan made his confession by oath, yet nothing will ensue thereof to justify the dealings of those Inquisitors ex officio. For if those rough and rigorous exactors of an oath following only this legal course of inquisition set forth in this sacred history, That is after an offence committed so grievous and dangerous to the public estate, and the same made known and notorious, would then only seek out the party offending, and that by due and lawful course of trial: and having found him, then after so mild and courteous a manner, and in the name of God entreat, or (if they think good) depose him to reveal the truth in particular: No man (I suppose) would find himself grieved with their proceed. But this their unjust dealing in this great abuse of an oath, can not by authority of the holy scriptures be any way defended or maintained. Wisely therefore and with good discretion did that godly man William Thorp in the time of King Henry the fourth, 
William Thorp.  being willed by that bloody persecutor of the true Christians Archb. Arundel, to lay his hand upon the book, and swear faithfully to submit himself to his correction, & to stand unto and fulfil his ordinance, desired first to know, wherefore he should be corrected, and unto what ordinance he was to be obliged, which being declared to this effect, that he should forsake all the opinions of the sects of lollard (in deed the true Christians) that he should preach no more unto the people, & that he should from thenceforth become an accusor of such as himself was. He utterly refused to take any such oath, lest thereby he should have fallen into many foul and heinous sins and offences against God, as the abjuring of true Religion, the forsaking of his lawful calling against his conscience, & to his public reproach to become a bloody accusor, or (as he himself saith) an appeallor of his brethren, every Bishops espy, and the sumner of all England, deeply detesting such a bad office, as unmeet for a Minister of the word: nay altogether unbeseeming a faithful Christian, If any man will say as this Archbish. that a subject ought not to suppose that his Prelate will command him any unlawful thing, but should repose himself in the good discretion & upright dealing of his ordinary, without further answer: Let the subtle practice of this one Prelate, and the cruel and the accursed dealings of that barbarous Bi. Longlande stand at this present for a sufficient caveat to every man that shall depose, to take heed how he give overmuch credit to such glozing and deceivable speeches, lest too late he find it true, that fair words make fools feign. Neythet is this any sufficient allegation to say, that the party Deponent is no further bound to answer then the law requireth, how general soever his oath be, since it is false, for the conscience of such a Deponent to stand upon terms and questions, how far by law, and by what law he is bound to answer.  
Will you hear also what that godly and blessed Martyr Master john Lambert saith concerning the exacting of such kind of oaths, 
john Lambert.  after he had acknowledged it lawful at the commandment of a judge to take an oath, to say the truth, wishing the Magistrates nevertheless to minister oaths with great discretion & good advisement, and exhorting them to forbear and spare them in trifling causes and matters of no necessity, lest by too much haunt, first contempt, than perjury, do creep in. He proceedeth further to this effect. This have I showed saith he, because it pitieth me to hear and see the contrary used in some of our Nation, and such also as name themselves spiritual men, and should be head ministers of the Church, who incontinently as any man cometh before them, anon they call for a book, and do move him to swear without any further respite, yea and they will charge him by virtue of the contents of the evangely, to make true relation of all they shall demand him, he not knowing what they will demand, neither whether it be lawful to show them the truth of their demand or no, for such things there be that are not lawful to be showed. As if I were accused of fornication, and none could be found in me, or if they should require me to swear to bewray another that I have known to offend in that vice, I suppose it were expedient to hold me still and not to follow their will, for it should be contrary to charity, if I should so assent to bewray them that I need not, and to whom perhaps (though I have known them to offend, yet trusting of their amendment) I have promised afore to keep their fault secret. Yea moreover such judges sometimes not knowing by any due proof, that such as have to do before them are culpable, will enforce them by an oath to detect themselves in opening before them their hearts. In this so doing I cannot see that men need to condescend in their requests: for as it is in the law, Nemo tenetur prodere scipsum. And in another place of the law it is written: Cogitationis poenam nemo patiatur. To this agreeth the common proverb, Cogitationes liberae sunt à vectigalibus, Thoughts be free from toll. By which wise speech of this good man we may see condemned, and that for just cause and upon sound reasons th'indiscreet and unlawful enforcing of this kind of oath, serving to no good, nay rather to bad ends & purposes. We read also how Bonner that infamous bloodsucker, unworthy the name of a Bishop, hunting (as the wolf for his prey) after matter of accusation, among many other his mischievous and detestable facts, offered also this oath ex officio unto the fellow prisoners of that holy and worthy Martyr Master Philpot, saying after the rash and indiscrete manner before remembered, Hold them a book, you shall swear by the contents of that book, that you shall (all manner of affection laid a part) say the truth of all such articles as you shallbe demanded concerning this man here present (meaning Master Philpot.) But those wise and godly prisoners, well knowing and considering how they ought to take an oath, answered to this unjust request: That they would not swear, except they first knew where unto, and being thereupon offered an oath, and that with threats of Excommunication to answer the articles propounded against themselves, refused it also, saying: That they would not accuse themselves. So that we see plainly by these examples, as also by that ancient and godly writing entitled The prayer and complaint of the Ploughman, that this kind of general oath and examinations ex officio mero, were not first mishked by jesuits and seminary Priests, and from them derived to others that mislike government and would bring the Church to an Anarchy, as the world hath been borne in hand. But by true Christians, holy, learned and Religious men, and that for good causes and considerations why they should so do.  
And I should much marvel, were it not that the world hath ever been set in wickedness, how any that profess the holy name and title of Christianity, durst at any time put in practise within this Realm or elsewhere, so profane and more than heathenish manner of Inquisition, not only repugnant to God and Christian Religion, but contrary also to the rules and cannons of the Antichristian church of Rome. Which laws (if I be not deceived) are more just and less unjust a great deal, than such as have taken upon them to judge by colour of the same. So that in a sort it may be verified of them which was sometimes spoken of the people of Athens, that having just & good laws, they nevertheless behaved themselves as bad and dishonest men. For it is said by some of their canonists, 
Canonists  Procedere ex officio mero, est quando judex 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 pro. crim. ● fin. 3. quaest. vers. quaero quibu●.  non est ei transferre Inquisitionem, sed recipere testes seu informationes contra eum. And moreover, Formare inquisitionem contra aliquem, est facere processum informatiwm assumendo informationes & judicia contra eum super alique delicto. So that to proceed by inquisition, is not to make the party by oath or examination to be his own accusor, but to accept and receive information and witnesses against him.  
And in what sort and manner the proceeding aught to be, is also declared to this effect: judex 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 which words manifestly appeareth, that no judge Ecclesiastical aught to proceed by way of inquisition, except there precede a defamation of the party complaint, or information against him, intelligence of faults and offences out of course of judgement, or by uncertain author, or suppressed name, is wholly by the Law rejected, but by the executors thereof altogether admitted.  
Another also thereunto agreeing, saith: 
Io. pet. de ferr. in prae. sub rubr. form. inqui sitionis & fama publ.  That the inquisition is not orderly done, but where infamia praecedat, vel talia judicia sufficientia quae probentur per testes idoneos. And to prove the fame or infamy, there is required testes multi, the reason, quia dicta paucorum non infamant. secondly, they must be graves & honesti, non malevoli, nec inimici partis. thirdly, they must be such as are conversant in the place where the party hath lived, whereby they may be acquainted with the order and manner of his life and conversation, whereupon chiefly riseth the true judgement of his good or evil fame. fourthly, those witnesses ought to be received judicially. fiftly, they must be deposed. And sixtly, they are to render a wife and sufficient cause of their knowledge of the infamy. The judge in no cause (if he would of his own knowledge say, the party is infamous) is to be received or believed, the reason is, for that the law will quod secundum acta & probata justitia ministretur. And the ground and foundation of the inquisition must not be extorted or wrested from the party, but, lawfully proved as aforesaid by sufficient witnesses. Notwithstanding all which laws, what contrary courses have been practised by Ordinaries and Clergy men, many have felt, and every man knoweth too well. So that concerning their judicial Courts and Consistories, the saying of the Poet is verified, Victa jacet pietas, & virgo caede madentes ultima coelestium terras astraea reliquit.  
But since that more than two quaternions of learned canonists have of late taken the pains to set down the undoubted grounds of the law Ecclesiastical (as they say) according to which the proceed have been used time out of mind, in all the Courts Ecclesiastical of this Realm, and all other proceed have been at all times reformable by appellations, Let us hear also what they say concerning this matter.  
These Doctors first grant it to be good and sound law, That no man may be urged to bewray himself in hidden and secret crimes, or simply therein to accuse himself. They confess further, that if any man besides the Ordinary will prosecute in their Courts, making himself party to prove a crime whereof there is suspicion: The party convented in that case, albeit he must answer on his oath to other articles not principally touching the very crime objected, is not bound by law to answer upon oath any articles of the very crime itself. Nevertheless say they, when by circumstances once known a broad, secret crimes are become vehemently to be suspected, and offensive to the well disposed, and dangerous to be suffered, then are they meet by inquiry and all good means to be discovered, to the end they may be reform, & the party delinquent brought to penitency, and others discouraged to commit the like.  
The ways and means how suspicion & fame of crimes come to the Ordinaries ears, they say are these, many bruits of credible persons called in the law clamosa infinuatio, and presentments of Churchwardens and Sidemen: which presentments if they be not direct through ignorance of the presentours or insufficient in the law to prove a fame (yet some scandal thereupon growing) how little by like is not respected, th'ordinary by law Ecclesiastical and good discretion may examine other witnesses, being neighbours, warning the party suspected to be present. The fame once proved (say they) or the first presentment sufficient then th'ordinary of duty, & for the public trust reposed in him is, to proceed against the infamed, although no other man will, which by law is termed proceeding by inquiry, especial ex officie, they add a reason for confirmation Ne maleficia remanoant impunita, utque Provincia purgetur malis hominibus.  
And in this sort, if the Ordinary proceed ex officio, and the party deny the crime objected, then by law he is enjoined his purgation. At which time of purgation (say they) he must directly answer in clearing or convincing himself de veritate vel falsitate ipsius criminis objecti, and his compurgators are to swear de credulitate (weighing his fear of God and conversation of former times) That they believe he hath taken a true oath, which if they all do, than he is holden clear or dismissed. But if he fail in his purgation, than fictione juris he is taken to be guilty and to be reform.  
They show likewise a reason of diversity between the proceeding in the case ex officio, And that which is by suit of the party, That is, Licet nemo tenetur seipsum prodere, tamen proditus per famam tenetur seipsum ostendere utrum possit suam innocentiam ostendere, & seipsum purgare. And a reason of that reason is added, because penances enjoined by the ordinary, are not taken in law 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 upon all their reasons, that the suspected are not to make scruple to discover themselves after fame.  
This being the true and only course of proceeding by Ordinaries and Ecclesiastical judges in causes criminal, where is then become the exacting of those general oaths so often used to answer all Interrogatories that shallbe ministered, and that before notice or understanding (for the most part) of the crime objected. And the extorting by oath of the ground and foundation of the inquisition from the party convented, doth it not appear by the resolution of these learned men, that the same have no good or sufficient 〈…〉 by the law, how long or much soever by cou●●t & pretence of law and justice they have been practised or imposed.  
And as concerning their proceed exofficio to forced p●●●gations approved (as they seem to affirm) both by 〈…〉 Ecclesiastical and title of prescription, if we look 〈◊〉 thereto, and take good view thereof, what other thing ●●all we find then hard and unjust dealing towards men, and great abuse of the Name and majesty of Almighty God, cloaked and shadowed nevertheless under the glorious and painted glosses of beautifullshewes and feigned pretences of purging of Provinces, Reformation of delinquentes necessary examples, discharge of public trust, and satisfaction of the offended church, honest and honourable terms in deed, but ill applied to this purpose.  
For first, as concerning the injustice offered unto men, if it be a true and sound principle or Maxim in law, not denied by themselves, That Nemo tenetur seipsum prodere, where should the benefit thereof be had or taken but in their Courts and Consistories. But if it should be granted that this rule faileth where a man is proditus per famam, doth not that as a gloase confounding the text wholly and altogether destroy that rule or principle, except for some relief this narrow shift may be used. That the fame nevertheless standeth in force where any other than the Ordinary assumeth to prove that crime.  
But in this case also they have so weakened this maxim, that scarcely will it stand for a minome, affirming (if I mistake them not) that the infamed must answer on his oath to other articles not principally touching the very crimes objected. For what should be meant by other articles but such as concern circumstances and inducementes to the crime, And is not this to go like the crabb obliqne, and to proceed the same way, although not to tread the direct steps? But why there should be any distance between the suit or instance of the party and the proceeding ex officio, I know not the reason. Alleged therefore is this, penances enjoined by Ordinaries are not taken to be panae but medicinae, what their law presumeth is not sufficient reason to prove their law reasonable, but what they are in deed is to be weighed. And shall they be medicines only, where proceeding is ex officio? Or tend 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 be verified where the crime is complained of, and punished at th'instance of the party? And shall not penance although it be but the standing in a sheet, as well as the standing on the pillory, respect of public shame and reproach (grievous and odious unto all men) be accounted for a punishment? True it is, all corrections are or should be medicines for the amendment of manners. But doth it therefore follow that the same be no pains or punishments?  
As concerning th'offence to God by the abuse of his Name and Majesty, Have we not learned before that to offer an oath unto persons defamed in life and conversation, and specially concerning the matter of his own corrupt life argueth a lightness and want of good discretion in the Magistrate, who thereby wittingly doth minister an occasion of perjury? And are not all those on whom these purgations are imposed, men greatly defamed, and vehemently suspected of the crimes objected, for as these Doctors affirm the law when secret crimes by circumstances known abroad, are become vehemently suspected, offensive and dangerous, then are they first inquired of. The proceeding also by inquisition beginning upon fame, proved not slenderly, but by presentment upon oath, or by deposed witnesses, being many honest, void of malice, neighbours to the party, and rendering a wise & sufficient reason of their knowledge concerning the same, And how then may a judge in such a case with any good conscience to Godward, or to the satisfaction of his church, force an oath upon such a one for the final end of the cause? Is not the peril and presumption of perjury very great and pregnant? Know we not that all, or the most part of men liking the counsel (dedecus magis quam periculum vites) will rather hazard their souls then put their bodies to shame and reproach: presume the law never so much that after fame they should not make scruple to discover themselves. If the like course of purgation should be used at the common law upon Indightmentes of felony, or other criminal causes, what doubt were to be made, but that perjury in short time would overflow the whole land: and shall we not think, that the same is not frequent in these kinds of purgations? But say they, the party is not trusted alone, he bringeth with him his many compurgators, who depose also de credulitate, weighing his fear of God and former conversation. Be it so, the matter thereby is no whit amended, but rather made worse and impaired. For what do those compurgators but by lending their oaths, justify in effect him to be honest, whom fame and the former deponentes have proved to be dishonest, and very near (the circumstances considered) convinced of the crime objected. Why rather do not these Ordinaries which challenged and assume to themselves the goodly name and title of spiritual men, if they respect the honour of God, and regard the souls of men, free the people from these pernicious oaths and deadly purgations, and proceed to their sentence of condemnation, not by feigned offices and fictions of law; but by good proof and lawful witnesses? And again, absolve the party defamed, where such sufficient proof doth fail them, why should they think much to offer to the laity in their Ecclesiastical Courts, the like good measure, and upright & sincere justice, that they themselves find & obtain in the courts temporal of this Realm, Where neither they nor any other are forced ex officio judicis, by straining oaths and strong purgations, not healthful but hurtful to bewray or accuse themselves. Perhaps this counsel would be received, if it were as profitable as good and honest, but according to the proverb auro loquente tacendum est. For it is no small gain and lucre that daily riseth and accrueth to the Clergy and Courts Ecclesiastical, by slander, fame, rumour, and false report: in respect whereof these fair names of Office and discharge of public duty, are so cunningly pretexed, and these poisoning purgations so dangerously given for preservatives. A matter being since well known unto the world, 
Carolus 5  and by the Princes of Germany in the Counsel of Norenberg, among many other abuses and corruptions, most monstrous, complained of to this effect: It happeneth oftentimes say they, that men and women through sinister and false reports and slanders, are brought before the Official or Ecclesiastical judge, as men guilty, and shall not be declared innocent before they have cleared themselves by an oath, which purgation so made, they are restored to their former estimation. And albeit the damages and costs ought to be repaid unto such as be so falsely accused, yet are the innocentes themselves forced to pay two Gilders and a quarter for their letters of absolution. And this is the cause why the officials and other Ecclesiastical judges, do so greatly follow the action of such unlawful, false, and slanderous accusations, challenging the hearing thereof only to themselves. Which thing no doubt (say they) redowneth to the great and most singular hurt and detriment of all men. For often times it happeneth that Women falling together in contention through anger, hatred, or some other affection, do speak evil of, or slander one another, and outrage so much, that the one often times accuseth the other either of Adultery or Witchery: which being brought before the Official, she which through anger had so slandered the other, is forced by an oath to excuse and purge herself, that what soever injurious or slanderous word she had spoken, came not of any deliberate purpose or intent, but through wrath and displeasure. In like manner th'other which is accused either of adultery or sorcery, is commanded by an oath to declare her innocency: so that it is evident unto all men, that in such cases whether they be guilty or not guilty, they must swear if they will keep their good name and fame whereby not only the unlawful lucre of gain and money is fought, but also wilful perjury forced, etc. Thus these honourable persons you see have made it clear what is chiefly intended by these canonical purgations, pretend the Clergy what soever they will, and how such forced oaths are not only offensive unto God, but injurious also unto men. Therefore leaving these men to whom the favour of gain is so sweet, together with their famous law, the matter which we endeavour to prove is, that those general oaths and oaths ex officio publicly heretofore much practised by Ordinaries and Ecclesiastical judges, are altogether unlawful (whether by the Canonical sanctions or law cannon, I care not) but by the laws of God and of this Realm. And therefore since we have sufficiently spoken of the law of God, now lest peraduerture it may be said, that such Catholic oaths are warranted by the common laws or statutes of this Realm, or by the use and practise of some Courts of justice, therein let us consider hereof also, and deliver both our laws and the justice of our land from so foul a slander.  
Concerning the common laws of this Realm, we may find an oath diversly allowed of and used in causes of suit judicially depending. But such a general oath or such like ex officio at any time either offered by Magistrate or taken or made by subject of this land, by authority of the common law, can never be proved, I am sure, either by good record or sound report of the same. Long it were and tedious to remember the particular cases, when and where an oath is required by the laws and statutes of this Realm. But this may be said in general, and that truly, to the great honour and high commendations of our governement, that the same common laws have not imposed or appointed an oath to be used otherwise then according to the right institution thereof, & the godly rules before remembered: yea moreover this may truly be affirmed, that the common law of this Kingdom, yea the common wealth itself hath ever rejected and impugned as a thing unlawful and injurious, this manner of swearing, whereof we now entreat, as by that we shall hereafter say, may evidently appear.  
Touching the oaths imposed or admitted at the common law by judges or Magistrates (for of them only we are to speak.) First it is used as by good reason in all Courts of justice established for determination of causes in suit or controversy, either between the Prince and subject, or the subjects themselves, to require an oath of all such as are called or produced to testify their knowledge concerning the matter or point in issue, whereby the truth may appear, and the cause receive an end.  
The defendant also in divers personal actions voluntarily offering an oath for his clear discharge, 
Wager of law.  is admitted by course of the law thereunto, which manner of proceeding is termed the doing of his law, and seemeth to have been grounded upon the judicialles before rehearsed, given by God unto his people the Isralites, as by the observation of the cases hereafter mentioned, may be gathered. For in an action of debt brought for money due by reason of some simple contract, or in an action of detinue of goods and chattelles, the oath of the defendant in the one case, that he oweth not the money, and in the other, that he detaineth not the things required, is allowed for a final end and bar unto the pleadant. For in the former case the repayment of the money may be private and in secret, & so in the other the delivery of the goods. And although the bailment and delivery of the pleadaunt goods to the defendant were by the hands of a third person, or testified by writing, yet these are no causes to put the defendant from his oath, or wager of his law, for as much as the answer is not to the bailment or delivery, but to the deteiner or withholding, and in the action of debt, although the defendant either hanging the action or otherwise had confessed the contract, yet is he to be admitted to his law or oath, in so much as the point in suit is not the contract but the debt. 
7. H. 4. fo. 7. 9 E. 4. fo. 24   
But in an action of account supposing the receipt by the hands of a stranger or third person, the law is otherwise: for here the thing delivered is not precisely in demand, but an account only thereof required. And the receipt being the cause of action to which a third person is privy as a witness (the oath of the defendant as a thing not of necessity) is rejected. For that reason was the defendant put from his wager of law. Anno 31. Ed. 1. where the case was this: An action of detenewe was brought for a Chalice, the defendant pleaded how the pleadaunt delivered the same in gage for vj. marks, and that upon the repayment thereof he was ready to deliver the Chalice, the pleadent replying that he had repaid the money by the hands of one such, the defendant offering his oath to the contrary, was nor admitted thereunto, inasmuch as there was a witness of the repayment, by whose testimony the truth might be known.  
And as the common law is thus on the part of the defendant, so is it likewise for the pleadant, coming as it were in place of a defendant. Therefore Anno 21. Ed. 3. fol. 49. the case was that the defendant upon his account would have discharged himself by certain tallies, and so by his oath continued the charge against the defendant. But Anno 29. Ed. 3. the defendant in account alleged before the Auditors, payment to the pleadant by the hands of another, and the pleadent offering his oath that he had not teceyved the money, was in respect of the third person denied to wage his law. And the good discretion and consideration which the law useth in the allowing and admitting of wager of law, is not to be forgotten. Which law (lest men of light credit or doubtful faith, should take an oath) suffereth no man to do his law, but such only as is able to bring with him 11. other persons of ripe years and of good name, to depose with him, that they think he sweareth truly.  
Neither are th'one parties or th'other in any personal action by the courses of the common law suffered to clear themselves by their oaths where they are charged, either by their lawful writing or matter of record, for that these are testimonies and proofs sufficient whereunto faith and credit ought to be given, much more might be said in such particulars, but these may suffice to show how in suits for goods, chattels, debts, or personal duties, the common laws of this Realm admit no idle, vain, suspicious or unnecessary oaths, neither compel any man to swear concerning them, but upon cause allow of the pl●and deserts volontarie and necessary oath for an end of the controversy.  
As touching the causes and controversies for lands and inheritances depending in suit, either in admitting or requiring of oaths, some few cases there be: Nevertheless where an oath for them is used, As if a Praecipe quod reddat be brought of land wherein the tenant was not lawfully summoned, he may upon return of the process of grand cape, wage his law for none summons, and thereby (as not well executed) abate the demaundentes writ, in which case an oath seemeth rightly to be admitted, since the cause is both of weight and necessity to the tenant, this being the only way to relieve him against the untrue return of the Sheriff, whereby his land for want of appearance was to be recovered against him. For as the law seemeth to way a trial of this summons by 12. men is not allowable. And although it may be said, that the tenant upon his loss by default might have a writ of deceit, and recover again his land, 
33. H. 6. fo.  yet that often times falleth out to be a faint remedy, the death of such as were returned sommoners depriving him of that advantage. In the case also of deceit upon a recovery by default, the sommoners, viewers, and perveors, are judicially examined by oath, whether they have duly according to the laws of the land, executed and performed that which appertaineth unto them, who in this case are used but as witnesses to search and sift out by them the good or evil dealing of the Sheriff by whom the execution of the writ and process was committed. 
41. Ed. 3. fo.  In like manner, if the plaint. in a scire facias. recover by default, & the defendant bring this action of deceit against the Sheriff, the bailiff and the party that sued execution of the land, process shallbe awarded against the supposed garnishers, and upon their appearance they shallbe examined (and that by oath) concerning the manner of the garnishment, and the same being found insufficient, the plaintiff shallbe restored to his land with the prosites mean.  
We may find also in such real actions an oath required in another manner, but yet to good purpose, that is, to take away unnecessary delays of justice. For if the tenant in a praecipe of land will cast an essoin of the King's service, the Essoygner shall swear, and that directly, the same to be no feigned excuse, otherwise the essoin shall not be allowed. Some few other particular cases of like nature may peradventure be showed where an oath is admitted or required in these real actions, but none I am sure tending to any such purpose as these oaths commanded and enforced ex officio.  
In criminal causes and suits, 
Criminal causes.  whereby either the loss of life, liberty, member of the body, or good name, may ensue (which among worldly things are most dear and precious unto men) the common laws of this land have wholly forborn (and that for just respects) to urge or impose an oath upon the accused. For in wisdom it was foreseen that the frailty of man for the safety of life, the preservation of liberty, credit, and estimation would not spare to profane even that which is most holy, and by committing sinful perjury, cast both soul and body into eternal perdition.  
This knew the subtle serpent our adversary full well in general, although he were deceived in the particular, when as he said unto God concerning the holy man job: Skin for skin, 
job cap. 2.  and whatsoever a man hath, will he give for himself and for his life, but stretch out thy hand (saith Satan) and touch his bones and his flesh, and see if he will not then blaspheme thee to thy face.  
Moreover, every wise Magistrate may well conceive upon how weak and feeble a foundation he shall ground his sentence, trusting to such an oath, when before hand the suspicion and presumption of perjury is so pregnant. Therefore in causes capital or otherwise criminal, these our laws neither urge by oath nor force by torment any man to accuse or excuse himself, but reject the oath as unbeseeming a well governed state or common wealth: And condemn the torture as a thing most cruel & barbarous, whereof although they need no other proof than the daily practise and proceedings against parties suspected of such offences, yet concerning the inquisitions by torture, we may see the same affirmed by that learned judge Master Fortescue in his commentaries of the Policy of this Kingdom, 
49. Ed. 3.  And for th'other there are sufficient authorities in the reports of the laws themselves: therefore in the book of Assizes it appeareth, that divers jurours were challenged as less indifferent, some for matters that founded to their reproach and dishonesty, as that corruptly they had taken money of one of the parties in the suit, whereupon it was ordered by the justices, that such as were challenged for causes not dishonest, should be sworn to declare the truth, the other for the reason aforesaid, not to be examined at all, but the challenge to be tried without their oath, The same law is again reported unto us Anno 49. Ed. 3. fol. 1. Upon the like reason is the refolution of the chief justices & of the judges Saunders and Whiddon, 
12. R. Eliz.  That if a bill of perjury committed in the Chauncere against the form of the statute made in the fift year of her majesties reign, were exhibited in the same Court, that the defendant should not be compelled to make answer upon his oath either to bill or intertogatories, but that the parties ought to descend to issue, and the trial to be had by jury in the King's Bench. I shall not need to spend time in declaring after the parties in suit have joined issue trial by jury how many ways an oath is used about the trial of such matters of fact, as the oath of jurors themselves. and of their triars upon challenge, or to speak any thing of the oath to be ministered unto suck as require the surety of peace, neither to discourse of the doing of homage or fealty by the tenant to the Lord, since these and such like are well known to every one, although but of mean judgement, to be necessarily used for the better administration of justice, and assurance of duties, making nothing at all for those fantastical and officious oaths and examinations, proceeding rather ab officio the verb, then ex officio the noun.  
Neither is it necessary to set forth at large where and in what particular cases Oaths are appointed by Acts of Parliament of this Realm, as to remember the divers Oaths of Bishops, counsellors, judges, Magistrates, Officers, and Ministers of Law and justice. The oath ordained for the maintenance of the supremacy Royal, and abolishing of foreign jurisdiction. The power of examination by oath by the statute of Anno 5. H. 4. and many others, for that by perusal of the statutes, the same may unto him that will search, easily appear. Upon consideration of all which acts of Parliament, being in force, it may truly be affirmed that there is not so much as a bare show or shadow of matter to give credit or allowance to these infinite wrested and extorted oaths ex officio.  
But it may be that some man in the defence of the cause and for allowance of those oaths will allege the twice damned and repealed statute made upon the sinister suggestion of the Clergy Anno 2. H 4. cap. 15. 
The statute against heresy 2. H. 5.  Which bloody and broiling law gave authority to Diocesans, to cause the persons defamed or evidently suspected of supposed heresy, to be arrested, and under safe custody to be detained in their Prisons, till they of the articles laid to their charge, did cannonicallie purge themselves, or else abjure it according to the laws 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 canonical decrees. For answer whereunto I say, that although the sword by that stature law was committed into the hands of mad men, and the seely lambs delivered over to the greedy and devouring wolves, yet doth it not appear by any apparent or express words of that law, that any authority was thereby given or meant to be given to Ordinaries or judges Ecclesiastical, to impose any such general oath, or otherwise to compel by oath the prisoner to become his own accusor, for that (and especially in cases of life and death) had been directly against the laws and justice of this land. But if it be alleged, that the same was  and inclusive allowed by those words of canonical sanctions or decrees, and that there be any such, yet the same decree being against the laws and decrees of God, as before is proved, that statute was therein no binding law, neither gave sufficient warrant to put in execution any such corrupt course of proceeding, since all laws and ordinances of man whatsoever, being repugnant to the laws of God, are merely void and of none effect, as the learned Saint German in his book of Doctor and Student hath well observed, where he saith, That every man's law must be consonant to the law of God. And therefore the laws of Princes, the commandments of Prelates, the statutes of Commonalties, ne yet the ordinances of the Church, is not righteous or obligatory, Except it be consonant and agreeable to the law of God.  
But as concerning that statute, will you hear what is declared by Parliament Anno 25. H. 8. The subjects of this Realm at that time lamentably show unto their Sovereign Lord and King, 
Ca 14.  how that statute was impetrate & obtained (I use the words of the law) by the suggestion of the Clergy of this Realm, not declaring or defining any certain cases of heresy, that those words (canonical sanctions or decrees) were so general, that uneath the most expert and best learned men of the Realm (diligently lying in wait upon himself) could eschew and avoid the penalty and danger of that act. And canonical sanctions if he should be examined upon such captious Interrogatories (note I pray you) as is and hath been accustomed to be ministered by the Ordinaries of the Realm in cases where they will suspect any person of heresy.  
They moreover affirm, that it standeth not with the right order of justice nor good equity, that any person should be convict & put to the loss of his life, good name, or goods, unless it were by due accusation and witness; or by presentment, verdict, confession, or process of outlawry: declaring moreover, that by the laws of the Realm for treasons committed to the peril of the Kings most Royal Majesty, upon whose surety dependeth the wealth of the whole Realm, no person can ne may be put to death, but by presentment, verdict, or process of outlawry: and therefore not reasonable that any Ordinary by any suspicion conceived of his own fantafie, without due accusation or presentment, should put any subject of this Realm, in the infamy or slander of heresy, to the peril of life, loss of name, and goods. They further show that there may be heresies and pains and punishments declared and ordained in and by the canonical sanctions, and by the laws and ordinances made by the Popes and Bishops of Rome, and by their authorities, for holding, doing, preaching or speaking of things contrartie to the said canonical sanctions, laws and ordinances, which be but human, mere repugnant and contrarious to the Prerogative of the King's Imperial Crown. Regal jurisdiction, laws, statutes, and ordinances of the Realm, by reason whereof the people of the same for observing, maintaining, defending, and due executing of the kings laws, statutes, and prerogative Royal, by authority of that act, may be brought into slander of heresy, to their great infamy and danger and peril of their lives. So we see first how the crafty and subtle Cleargiemen were the procurers of that statute law, to the end that they might execute their cruelty, and how under cloaked and covert terms of canonical sanctions, they unjustly usurped jurisdiction over the people, ministering unto them captious & snarling Interrogatories. And (as it should seem by the histories) upon oath contrary to the true meaning of the law and law makers, and against the right order of justice and all good equity: impugning thereby the Royal Prerogative, th'imperial Crown, the Princely Sceptre, laws and Policy of this Kingdom. In consideration whereof, and to take from them all colour of law positive of this Realm, that statute was then repealed, and a new form of inquiry of heresy by indightment, presentment or due accusation by two lawful witnesses at the least, was established.  
And it is further to be noted, that although the Statute made Anno 31. H. 8. commonly called the statute of six articles, was a very straight, sore, extreme & terrible act, 
31. H. 8. c. 14  as the statute of the repeal thereof speaketh, yet find we not by that law, or any other, these general oaths or examinations by oath ex officio of persons suspected or accused for heresy or other crime Ecclesiastical, 
1. Ed. 6. c. 16  to be enacted or allowed of, but rather by the courses and forms of inquire and trial otherwise prescribed in this and other statutes, the same is rejected and disallowed wholly as unjust and full of iniquity. For by this statute of six articles, commissions are appointed to be directed to the Archb. or Bishop of the Diocese, and to his Chancellor or Commissary, and such other as the King should appoint, giving them power to take information and accusation, (not by oath of the party convented) but by the oaths & depositions of two able and lawful persons at the least, or to inquire by the oaths of xii. men. Giving also to the Ordinaries power and authority to inquire in their visitations and Senis, and to take accusations and informations as in form aforesaid, and not otherwise. The manner also of process against the persons indited, accused or presented, is there prescribed. And the form of proceeding upon appearance of the party appointed to be not according to those unjust examinations by oath ex officio, but according to the laws of the Realm, and th'effect of that act.  
And although at that time this statute law seemed just and equal, as concerning the manner of inquiry and trial, yet time (disclosing all things) made it appear that the same was not false, in respect that divers secret and untrue accusations and presentments might be, and by all likelihood were maliciously conspired, and therefore it was enacted Anno 35. H. 8. cap. 5. That no person should be arraigned or put to trial for or upon any accusation, information or presentment, concerning any of the offences mentioned in the statute of 6. articles, but only upon such presentments and indightements as should be sound and made by the oaths of 12. men or more, etc.  
These things standing thus, how may any man justify or defend (much less practise) those general oaths or examinations by oath ex officio by any statute law of this Realm, being by them not only rejected, but utterly condemned as not standing with the right order of justice nor good equity, especially the statute made Anno 25. H. 8. being in force and limiting unto Archb. and Bish. none other jurisdiction than such as they may use without offence to the Prerogative Royal and the laws and customs of this Realm. Of which laws and customs the common law is no part or portion. And as a well-willer I would advise all Ordinaries and such as exercise Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, especially having taken the oath ordained for the maintenance of the Supremacy Royal, (wherein they swear to assist to their power, and defend all jurisdictions, Privileges, pre-eminences and authorities granted or belonging to the Queen's Highness, her heirs and successors, or united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm) to take heed that they attempt not to put in practise or exercise any such Oaths or examinations ex officio, least happily they be not only found thereby to be impugnors of the Royal Prerogatives, but discredited farther by the breach of their oath.  
If it be said (for what will not be moved for a defence) that the King heretofore gave in those commissions besides the letter and meaning of the statute of 6. 
The King's commission  Articles, power and authority by express words unto the Commissioners Ecclesiastical to examine by oath the persons accused or presented. As that is not likely, neither as I suppose can be proved, So (admitting it were true, and that such kind of oaths were consonant to the law of God) yet were the same no sufficient or lawful justification, inasmuch as we have proved, and further shall prove such examinations and inquiries upon oath, to be injurious both to the Prince and people of this Realm, and to impugn our government and form of justice. In which cases the Kings grant or commission is of no force in law. For as Bracton well hath written, Potestas Principis juris est non injuriae, & cùm ipso sit author juris, non debet inde injuriarum nasci occasio unde jura nascuntur. That the King by his Commission or grant, or otherwise than by Parliament, may not change or alter the laws of this Realm, nor the order, manner or form of administration of justice, is rightly also noted unto us by that grave and learned judge Master 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 book also of Anno 11. H. 4. where it is agreed that neither the King by his grant, nor the Pope by his Bulls (for all his triple Crown) can change or alter the laws of the land, whereunto concur divers other books of the report of the law. Worthy also of remembrance is that saying of justice Scroop Anno 1. Ed. 3. fol. 26. If the King (sayeth he) command any thing impossible that which the law will in the case must be done? 
49. Ed. 3. 36. H. 6.  if he command any thing contrary to law, his justices ought not to do it. Anno 42. Ed. 3. There was a Commission awarded out of the Chancery to apprehend a certain subject of this Realm, and to seize his goods and chattels, no inditement, suit of party, or other due process of law precedent, and the same was by the justices holden to be altogether void, as a matter against the Policy of the Realm, and manner of execution of justice. Likewise it appeareth in the same year, that a writ proceeding from the Chancery, to inquire of Chaunperties, Conspiracies, etc. whereby one of the King's subjects stood indited, was by justice Kneuet upon the resolution of the rest of the judges, damned & adjudged void in respect that such matters are not inquireable by writ, but by Commission.  
But it willbe said of some (I verily suppose) that although neither the common laws, nor statutes of this Realm, nor the King's commission, do or can warrant such manner of oath and examinations ex officio, yet the public practise and use of the honourable Courts of star-chamber & Chancery, the one in causes criminal, the other in suits civil of equity and conscience concurring in one form of taking answers and examinations by oath, do fortify and confirm the thing which we impugn. Which speech as it may seem at the first to give some colour and show of credit to their cause, so upon consideration had and due comparing the one with the other, it will soon appear to be but a vanishing smoke, and shadow void of substance. For first, if it should be granted, that such kind of oaths and examinations were used in the Courts of star-chamber and Chancery, yet would it not follow that the same might be practised in the Courts and Consistories Ecclesiastical, unless the like allowance thereto and consent of the whole Realm might be proved also. And who knoweth not how weak a proof, examples, and presidents are where an express law or certain policy is to the contrary. Therefore it is well said in the civil law, Jus non ex regula sumatur, sed ex jure regula fiat. By better Logic might they conclude thus: All answers are made upon oath in the King's Courts of star-chamber & Chancery, Ergo the same course may be used in the Courts of the King's Bench and common place, which nevertheless were an absurd conclusion. It is very true in deed, that these honourable Courts of star-chamber and Chancery proceed not to the trial of causes by jury, after the manner of the common laws of this Realm, but give their judgements and definitive sentence upon the answer and examination of the defendant, affirmed by his corporal oath, and upon the depositions of witnesses. But who hath ever seen in these Courts any subject of this land, in a cause concerning himself, brought forth and compelled to depose or make answer upon his oath, no bill of complaint or information formerly exhibited against him. Nay on the contrary, these Courts observing the due form of justice, enforce no man to answer, but where he hath a known accusor, and perfect understanding of the cause or crime objected, and therewithal is permitted to have a copy of the bill of complaint or information (being not o'er tenus,) And allowed moreover both time convenient, and counsel learned well to consider and advise of his oath and answer. And if his adversaries complaint be either insufficient in form or matter, or such as the Court hath no jurisdiction to determine the defendant upon demurrer, without oath is dismissed, and that with costs. And admit the accusation, such as every way is answerable, yet if the Interr. ministered, be impertinent to the matter of complaint, the defendant without offence to the Court, may refuse to make answer to the same. What similitude or likeness than is there between the oaths and examinations used in these honourable Courts, and those constreiners ex officio, since the former sort be orderly taken in Courts of justice, th'other without all course of judgement, th'one where pl. and complaint are manifest, the other where neither accusor nor matter of accusation do appear, the one oath made upon certain knowledge and good advisement, the other suddenly without all discretion upon uncertain demands, the one wisely restrained to certain limits and bounds, the other foolishly wandering at the doubtful will of a sly and subtle apposer. Upon the one the deponent answereth to the accusation of his adversary, by the other he is compelled oftentimes to be his own accusor and condemner: the one inquireth an answer to matter in fact, done either to the injury of some private person, or hurt of the public state, the other constraineth the revealing of words, deeds, and thoughts, though never offensive to any.  
Than since it is apparent that these manner of oaths are altogether mere strangers to our policy, 
The practice of the clergy.  and not so much as once countenanced by any law, custom, statut or Court of this Realm: How then & by whose means hath this alien heretofore intruded as a troublesome guest into the house of the common wealth? This partly as before, hath been declared with some grief of mind, by that godly servant of Christ john Lambert, who noteth the papistical Clergy and religious men of his time most irreligiously to have practised the same. And no doubt the Prelates of former ages, feigning and pretending such oaths to be necessary for the government of the church, and to purge the Province of evil men, as aforesaid. But in truth, finding it a fit instrument to maintain the romish Hierarchy, and to tyrannize over the consciences of good men, most impiously violating the laws both of God and man, imposed this manner of corrupt oath upon the people, and no marvel, since there was no evil or mischief that could be devised, either against the Prince, people or policy of this land, which these kind of our Prelates have not attempted and put in practise. For first disguising themselves under the visor and mask of hypocrisy and feigned holiness, and making merchandise of all things (even of heaven and hell) purchased and acquired in short time (such was the blind devotion of the superstitious laity) great and large Seignories, Lands and possessions (the very mother and nurse of pride, presumption and vain pomp of this world) And not so satisfied, but unsaitablie and most ambitiously lusting after rule & dominion, spared not against their due alleadgance, to ensest even the Kings and Princes of the land. Let the contention and strife of Anselme, Archbishop of Canterbury with King Rufus, the manifold practises of Thomas, Becket against King Henry the second, the tragical life, and pitiful end of King John, occasioned chiefly by the malicious means of the Archbishop Stephen Langton, the treason of Archbishop Arundel against his sovereign Lord and King Richard the second, and the pride and insolency of Cardinal Woolsey against that renowned Prince King H. 8. among others, be sufficient testimonies in this behalf. And as these pontifical Prelates with others more, puffed up in swelling pride and ambition, struck at the head, so the crew of that Antichristian Clergy ceased not from time to time to wrestle and make war even with the sinews and strength of the body politic of this Realm, the laws I mean and customs of this kingdom, being the principal stay and stop to their insolent and ambitious attempts, endeavouring themselves to writhe out and exempt themselves from their due subjection to the same, sometimes again encroaching and usurping the right and jurisdiction of the kings courts, covering to draw all causes into their costly and lingering Consistories. And oftentimes bringing in (to the prejudice both of the Prince and the people) foreign decrees and constitutions, with the corrupt Canons and ceremonies of the accursed sea of Rome. For proof whereof, let the particular examples hereafter mentioned, serve, as a few amongst many.  
The Pope (sayeth Polidore Virgil) made a law in the Counsel of Lions, that the Clergy should not be taxed without his leave or commandment: which law of immunity, although it were of no force to bind within this Realm, for that the same is not subject to any foreign made laws or constitutions not suffered by the King, and voluntarily accepted and used by his people, as is expressly declared by the statute made Anno 25. H. 8. cap. 21. yet see the good disposition and obedience of the Cleargiemen of this Realm in the time of King Ed. 1. which Churchmen with great obstinacy refused to pay the subsidy granted to the King. Robert, than Archbish. of Canterbury (head & primate of that faction) wickedly abusing this text of holy scripture to serve his rebellious intent, obedire oportet Deo magis quam hominibus, The Pope and his pursle being his best beloved Gods: How much better and more Bishoplike might he have remembered, Date quae sunt Caesaris Caesari, & quae sunt Dei Deo. That holy saint Hugh, sometimes Bishop of Lincoln, related amongst the Romish Gods, puffed up with the like arrogancy in the time of the several Reigns of King H. 2. and Richard the 1. and of King john, denied the payment of tribute and subsidy, blustering and puffing out: moreover like Cacus in his den his smoky blasts of curse and excommunication against the King's collectors, A notable example of humility and obedience in a Popeholie Bishop. It is said also by Master Frowick Anno 10. H. 7. That the Clergy had a Constitution, that no Priest should be impleaded by the common law of this Realm, for any cause whatsoever: whether he said truly therein, let the canonists judge. But certain I am, the whole rabble of that Romish Clergy, did from time to time their best endeavour to make themselves lawless altogether, as by the grievances exhibited by the Princes of Germany at the Counsel of Norrenberg in the time of the Emperor Charles the fift, may well appear. And this our haughty Hugh of Lincoln, either emboldened by such a Cannon, or of his own free courage, as a lusty champion of that irregular confederacy, drew out his wooden dagger of excommunication against the Kings, judges, and Magistrates, secluding them as far as his folly might, from the fellowship and company of Christians, because they had by course of law imposed a fine upon a Proselyte of theirs, newly crept into their unholy orders, for his trespass committed in the King's Forests. 
27. H. 8.  So likewise the reverend judge Master Fitzherbert, declared, that in the time of King Henry the 6. a Bishop of Winchester, being outlawed for no less fault then wilful murder, and his temporalities therefore seized into the King's hands, refused the judgement of law, and sued to the court of Room, the Pope writing to the King in his behalf, answer was made; that the laws of this Realm were such: whereupon as vanquished and driven from his shifts, the Bishop submitted himself to the grace of the King (and though unworthy) obtained pardon. We heard also in the 2. year of King H. 4. how the Pope's publication or collector took upon him by usurpation of authority, to take both oath and obligation of a certain Vicar, to hold himself contented with such endowment as the collector had appointed, the Parsonage being appropriate to the deanery of Windsor, and how the Deane drew the Vicar into plea before this new found judge the Collector, for the breach both of his oath and bond. Upon which wrong done to the Royal jurisdiction, the Vicar complaining, had a Prohibition. In which case are principally to be noted, the unlawful imposing of an oath by one that was no Magistrate, but quid domini facient audent cum talia fures, and th'injurious prosecuting and drawing into plea of the kings subject before an incompetent judge by this Dean a Clergy man of the Realm. In like sort the hospitalers and Templars, assuming to themselves jurisdiction in prejudice of the King and of his Crown, drew the subjects of this Realm into suit before the conservators of their Privileges, for causes pertaining to the jurisdiction of the King's Courts, for reformation whereof the statute of Westm. the 2. cap. 43. was ordained. How rigorous, injurious, and intolerable the dealings ex officio by those Prelates and Ordinaries were (whereof these examinations by extorted oath were a principal part) the grievous complaint of the whole Commonalty of this Realm in the 23. year of the reign of King H. 8. doth sufficiently declare. Whereby the King was informed, how these merciless Ordinaries by their extraordinary & lawless power, cited and summoned his subjects, feigned and framed strange accusations against them, no accusers appearing, examined them upon articles captiously devised for their purpose, and in the end admitting no defence, and disallowing all purgation, forced them to abjure, or condemned them to the fire, a most fearful and barbarous course of inquisition. Unto which complaint those Pharisaical Clergy men (who will not enter pilate's common Hall, lest they should be defiled, and yet cry out with loud voice, Crucifige, crucifige, made (as to the King himself there it seemed) a very weak and slender defence. And no marvel, since wickedness may more easily be committed, then well defended.  
But will you see more fully and clearly, behold as in a glass the manifold usurpations, incrochmentes, injuries and oppressions committed and done from time to time, by the Pope, Prince of that cursing & accursed Clergy, and by his sworn & devoted Baalamites and shavelings, against the rights and prerogatives of this Imperial Crown, the laws of this Monarchy, and the liberties of the subjects thereof, then read and consider the grievances of the commons exhibited against the Clergy Anno 21. H. 8. the several statutes of Provision and Praemunire, the statutes of Mortmain, with the divers kinds of prohibitions to the Courts and Consistories Ecclesiastical. Among which you may find an especial prohibition with an attachment thereupon devised against these injurious oaths and examinations, as against abuses greatly offensive to the Crown and dignity Royal. Which the better shall appear by the write themselves, which are in this form set down in the Register, 
Prohibition.  Rex Vicecomiti salutem. Praecipimus tibi quod non permittas quod aliqui Laici ad citationem talis Episcopi, aliquo loco conveniant de caetero ad aliquas recognitiones faciendas, vel Sacramentum praestandum, nisi in casibus Matrimonialibus & Testamentarijs, teste, etc. And the attachment is in this manner: Rex Vic. salutem. Pone per vadoes, etc. talem Episcopum quod sit coram Justiciarijs nostris, etc. 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 grave praejudicium Coronae & dignit atis nostrae Regiae, necnon contra consuetudinem Regni nostri, etc. By the consideration of which write, and especially of these words, recognitiones & sacramentum pro voluntate sua, and ipsis invitis, we may plainly perceive, how all these inquiries, examinations, 
hinds case and 18. R. Eliz. proveth no less.  and sifting out of matters by oath and by way of inquisition in the Courts Ecclesiastical, are by the Regal authority impugned, and that as prejudicial to the Crown and dignity Royal, and the laws and customs of this Realm, these words pro voluntate sua, expressly devoting unto us the usurped officious power, and licentious pleasure, whereby contrary to all due course of justice they constrain an aoth. And these words (ipsis invitis) manifestly painting out the rigorous, injurious, and compulsory exacting of the samo. Moreover, we see it declared by the statute of Marlebridge, cap. 23. That no man may compel any freeholder of this Realm, to swear against his will, without the King's precept or commandment, that is, according to the law and justice of this Realm: for so are we taught to understand the same by the book of Anno 2. R. 3. whereby it is evident, that unless these Ordinaries could prove their forcing of oaths ex officio, to be warranted by authority of the laws and justice of this land (as in truth they can not) all their dealings in such cases, are by the same laws utterly disallowed and condemned.  
But here (me thinks) some reckless or inconsiderate reader steppeth forth and sayeth, What is your meaning to circumscribe and include all authority of ministering oaths in the Courts Ecclesiastical within the straight limits and bounds of causes Testamentary and Matrimonial, how then shall all other matters subject to their jurisdiction (being in number many, and in nature divers) receive due examination. For answer thereunto, this shortly may suffice, That the state of the question which at this present we have in hand, is not in what cases those Courts may give or impose an oath, but the matter where of we now entreat is, concerning forced and constrained oaths ex officio, and especially in that general manner before remembered. And as touching the trial of causes by examination of witnesses judicially depending between party and party in th'ecclesiastical Courts, it standeth firm and for found law, according to the said Prohi●●on, and the opinion of Master justice Fitzherbert, in his book of justice of Peace, is, That those judges Ecclesiastical have no lawful power or authority to force or constrain by censures of the Church or otherwise, any subject of this Realm, against his will to testify upon his oath, other then in the foresaid causes of Marriage and Testaments, although coming before them, as produced by the parties in the suit, they may lawfully (as unto men voluntarily accepting the same) minister an oath, otherwise it is plain extortion, and wrong unto the party. And admit they would deny to depose, what prejudice were that to the Court Christian, but rather a failing in proof in the party suing. And in this state and sort standeth the proof of causes by witnesses at the common law. Nevertheless, since the statute made against wilful perjury, the witness served with process, and having his charges tendered, making default, incurreth a pain pecuniary. And why should the Clergy and judges Ecclesiastical think it much, to be ruled and restrained concerning their jurisdiction by the King's Prerogative, and the common laws of this Realm, since what jurisdiction or authority soever they have or enjoy (matters of the Divine law excepted) yea even in those especial causes of Testaments, Marriages, divorces, and Tithes, is no otherwise theirs, then by the goodness of the Princes of this Realm, and by the laws and customs 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 temporal judges, especially the abuses of the Clergy well deserving it at the will and pleasure of the Prince and people. But to return again to our prohibition and attachment, it is evident thereby, that all the summons and citations which those Ecclesiastical judges send forth under these general terms, propter salutem animarum, or, ex officio mero: And all their arrests, distresses, impeachmentes, excommunications, and imprisonments thereupon ensuing, are altogether injurious, both to the Prince and people. And of this opinion seemeth to be that learned judge Master Fitzherbert, who in his book De natura brevium, sayeth upon these writs in this manner: By this appeareth, that these general citations which Bb. make to cite men to appear before them pro salute animae, without expressing any cause especial, are against the law. And true it is, for by the statute of Magna Charta, 
Magna Charta.  (containing many excellent laws of the liberties and free customs of this Kingdom) It is ordained, that no free man be apprehended, imprisoned, distrained or impeached, but by the law of the land: and by the statute made Anno 5. Ed. 3. ca 9 It is enacted, That no man shall be attached upon any accusation contrary to the form of the great Charter, and the law of the Realm. Moreover it is accorded by Parliament Anno 43. E. 3. ca 9 for the good government of the Commonalty, That no man be put to answer, without presentment before justices, or matter of record, or by due process, or by writ original, after the ancient law of this Land. And how then shall that kind of proceeding ex officio by forced oaths, & the urging of this general oath, and straight imprisoning of such as refuse to swear, be justifiable. If these things were not, yet a man would have thought that at the least the sharp and severe statutes of Provision and Praemunire, so offensive to popish Polidore and such like, 
Praemunire.  should have stayed and stopped the violent course of those injurious inquisitions, examinations, and wrested oaths ex officio. For, no doubt, the Ordinaries & Cleargiemen practising the same, are all offenders, & do incur the forfeitures of those penal laws. For proof whereof, let us consider the words of the statute of Praemunire, made Ann̄ 16. Ri. 2. ca 5. and the judgements & expositions thereupon had, that statute reciting first the grievous complaint of the whole Realm against the Pope of Rome, who impeached many Patrons in the presentations to their Ecclesiastical benefices, excommunicated the Bb. of this realm, for executing the king's writs the Clerice admittendo, sought to translate some of them against their and the Kings will, and divers other inconveniences, in derogation of the King's Crown and Regality, provideth remedy for those and such like mischiefs, in this manner: That if any purchase, or pursue, or do to be purchased or pursued in the Court of Rome, or elsewhere, any such translations, process & sentences of excommunications, bulls, instruments, or any other things which touch the King, against him, his Crown, and his Regality, or his Realm, or them receive, or make thereof notification, or any other execution within the same Realm or without, that they, their Notaries, Procurators, Maintainers, abetters, Fautors, and Counsellors, shallbe put out of the King's protection, and their lands and tenements, goods and chattelles forfeit to the King, etc. Since the making of which statute, it hath been held and adjudged for clear law in the kings Courts, That if any subject of the kings sue or implead an other in any Ecclesiastical Court of this Realm, for any cause or matter appertaining to the examination and judgement of the Courts of the common law, or any judge Ecclesiastical presume to hold plea thereof, or deal in any causes not belonging to his jurisdiction, that they incur the danger and penalty of praemunire, as by the book of 5. Ed. 4. fol. 6. & by th'opinion of the Court Anno 11. H. 7. remembered by Master Fitzherbert, plainly doth appear. According also thereunto is the case of Master Barloo, late Bishop of , reported by Master justice Brooke, Which Bish. in the time of King Edward the 6. depriving the Dean of Welles, whose deanery was a donative, passing therein beyond the limits of his jurisdiction, fell into the danger of praemunire. And being called into question, and having no just defence, was feign to appeal to the King's mercy, and obtained a pardon. And that book of 5. E. 4. before remembered, setteth down the reason, noting these words of this statute (in curia Romana vel alibi) In which words (alibi) sayeth that book, is intended the Courts of Bb. So that if a man be excommunicate in any of their Courts for a thing which appertaineth to the Royal Mayest. that is to say (sayeth that book) in a matter of the common law, the party excommunicate shall have a praemunire facias, and so was it adjudged. In which words among other, is specially to be noted, that when so ever a wrong or injury is offered to the common law of this land, there the King is said to be touched, and his Royal Majesty impeached. For according to the Princely speech of that most Noble King Ed. 3. in the statute of Provision made in the 38. year of his reign, the kings Regality chiefly consisteth in this, To sustain his people in peace and tranquillity, and to govern them according to the laws, usages, and franchises of this Land, whereunto he is bound by his sacred oath made at his Coronation. If then by usurping cognizance of plea, in causes concerning the common law, and the jurisdiction of the kings Courts, the Ecclesiastical judges touch the King in Capite, do against him, his Crown, Regality & Realm, & so consequently incur the forfeiture & penalties of Praemunire: How much more do they touch the King, nay rather lay violent hands on him, & impugn his Royal Throne and Sceptre, who contrary to the Policy, justice, Laws, Customs, and Freedoms of this Kingdom, yea the law of God itself, enforce & constrain by censure of excommunication & otherwise, the King's people to appear before them, and extort from them an oath to accuse themselves. And for more plain demonstration (if plainer may be) put the case that a judge, justice, or Commissioner, authorized by the King to execute justice according to the laws of this Realm, should take upon him by colour of his office and authority to convent the King's people before him, and upon their appearance to offer unto them this general oath to answer unto all such questions as himself should propound, playing in causes criminal the part both of accusor and judge, or seeking by oath and captious Interrogatories, matter of accusation, whereupon to proceed to condemnation, and to commit the party refusing such oath, to straight prison without bays or mainprize, could any man justify this his doing to stand with law or justice? Nay rather, might not every man justly cry out against him, as against a subverter of law and judgement, and a hateful enemy to our policy & common wealth, yea should not that be verified of him, which is recorded in the judgement against Sir William Thorp, sometime chief justice of England, for his corrupt dealing, which is, that as much as in him lay, he had broken the oath which the King is bound to keep towards his people. If all this may truly be affirmed of such a one, how then shall the Ecclesiastical judges, practising in their Courts and Tribunal Seats, the self-same unjust and unlawful manner of proceeding against the King's people, escape the severe sentence of law, pronouncing them offensive touchers, and violaters of the King, and injurious dealers against his Regality, Crown and Kingdom, & so consequently worthy to suffer the pains and penalties declared in this statute of Praemunire. That this is no new opinion or construction, we find the resolution of that learned man Saint German, in his book of Doctor and Student well agreeing, where he writeth in this manner: If any man be excommunicate in the spiritual Court for debt, trespass, or such other thing, as belongeth to the King's Crown and to his Royal dignity, there he ought to be assoiled without making any satisfaction, for they not only offended the party, in calling him to answer before them of such things as belong to the law of the Realm, but also the King, who by reason of such suits, looseth a great advantage, which he might have of the writs, originals, judicials, fines, amerciaments, and such other thangs, if the suits had been in his Courts according to his laws. He showeth further, That if the Ecclesiastical judges will not make the party his letters of absolution where he ought, the party shall have his action against him. He affirmeth also, The Law to be according where a man is accursed (he meaneth excommunicate) for a thing that the Judge had no power to accurse him in, notwithstanding that he may have his suit of praemunire facias. Again we read how the late Cardinal Woolsey, the Pope's Legate here in England, erected a new Court or Consistory called The Court of the Legate, in which he took upon him to prove Testaments, and to hear and determine causes in prejudice of the jurisdiction Ecclesiastical of this Realm. And how by his usurped power Legative, he gave and bestowed benefices by prevention, to the disinheritance of the King's subjects, and vifiting the state Ecclesiastical, under colour of reformation, gained to himself exceeding great treasure. But this lofty height of unlawful authority, weak and feeble in foundation, could not long continue, For in the one and twentieth year of the reign of King Henry the eight, this proud priest with all his glorious pomp and glittering show of all his Crosses, Silver Pillars, guilt Axes, embroidered Cloakbagges, and purple Hats, was attainted by his own confession, in a Praemunire, and the next year following, all the Lords spiritual, having deserved the same pains and punishments for their unjust maintenance and supportation, were called to answer in the kings Bench, and knowing themselves guilty, before their day of appearance, exhibited to the King their humble submission, joyninge thereunto an offer of a 100000. pound, to purchase their peace, which after much suit, the King accepted, and by Parliament gave them a pardon. If then this Romish Legate, for assuming to himself jurisdiction by authority Papal, in prejudice not of the kings Courts, but of the Courts Ecclesiastical (nevertheless to the hurt of the Royal Majesty) and for disturbance of the rights and inheritance of the kings subjects, fell into the danger and penalty of Praemunire, and all the Bishops and Ordinaries of this Realm likewise, through their maintaining only and supporting the same, may we not safely conclude that the Bishops and Ordinaries in these days usurping power and jurisdiction in like sort and manner (although not in the same particulars) by colour of Antichristian decrees, or practising those popish Cannons, the very head of that hellish Cerberus of Rome (as a learned man well termed them) and the sinews of his tyrannical authority, repugnant to the Royal Majesty and Policy of this Realm, that is to say, forcing unjustly the people of this land, to such unlawful oaths and examinations as are before remembered (injuriously touching thereby the Prince in her Regality, and her people in their lawful liberty whereunto they are inheritable, matters of more weight and moment, than the hindrance of the Bish. jurisdiction or loss of a presentment to a benefice) do incur the penalties and forfeitures limited by the foresaid statute of Praemunire.  
If any man nevertheless urge and contend, that these things are justifiable by force of the Pope's testament (the Cannon and Pontifical law I mean) of long time practised, 
Cannon law.  & continually used within this Realm, giving a new probate and allowance thereto, after so public and just condemnation, and firing of them by that famous Clerk and Doctor of the Church Martin Luther, 
Sleidan.  and by the great number of godly and learned men his associates, as laws and ordinances contumelious against God, injurious to Magistrates, and especially established to maintain Antichristian tyranny, let him know, that this Kingdom is not bound or subject to any foreign made laws or constitutions, not suffered by the King, and voluntarily accepted, and of long time used by his people, as it is well declared by the said statute of Anno 25. H. 8. whose words are these: For where this your grace's Realm recognizinge no superior under God but only your Grace, hath been and is free from subjection to any man's laws, but only to such as have been devised, made and ordained within this Realm, for the wealth of the same, or to such other as by sufferance of your Grace, and your Progenitors, the people of this your Realm have taken at their free liberty, by their own consent, to be used among them, and have bound themselves by long use and custom, to the observance of the same, not as to the observance of the laws of any foreign Prince, Potentate, or Prelate, but as to the accustomed and ancient laws of this Realm, originally established as laws of the same, by the said sufferance, consents, and custom, and not otherwise, etc. So to prove any foreign made law allowable within this Realm, there must concur Toleration by the King, voluntary acceptance of his people, and a long and a large time of usage. None of which can be averred in these manner of oaths and examinations. For first it may not be said that the King suffereth that which he expressly forbiddeth by his writs and process, as offensive to his Crown and Regality. Neither can his people be said to have given voluntary consent thereto, having always repined and often complained and cried out against it, as a thing intolerable and injurious to their lawful liberty, the custom pretended, being ever impugned (and that justly) can create no lawful prescription, nor stand for an ancient law of this Realm, but being against both law and reason, it is nothing else but an inveterate error or disorder.  
If defence be sought by any Canon or Constitution, 
Canon.  (these oaths being so apparently against this our state, common wealth and government) I see not how any Ordinary, but to his reproach, may once open his mouth therein, 
Provincial. Cap. 9  considering that in the Parliament holden Anno 25. H. 8. The whole Clergy of England not only for them then living, but for their successors also, submitting themselves to the King's Majesty, promised (in verbo Sacerdotij) if that be aught worth, That they would never from thence forth presume to attempt, allege, claim, or put in ure, or enact, promulge, or execute any new Canons, Constitutions, Ordinances provincial or other, or by what soever name they should be called in their convocation without the Kings most Royal assent or licence.  
And considering also that in the same Parliament by their full consent, it is enacted and provided, That no Canons, Constitutions, or Ordinances, should be made or put in execution within this Realm, by the authority of the convocation of the Clergy, which should be contratiant or repugnant to the kings Prerogative Royal or the customs, laws, or statutes of this Realm, nor to the damage or hurt of the kings Prerogative Royal, should still be used and executed until, etc.  
But notwithstanding all those provident and politic laws and statutes thus for the good of the common wealth wisely established in the great Assembly of the Realm, and notwithstanding also those solemn promises and protestations made as aforesaid, & although in the 12. year of the reign of King Henry the third, there was a most severe sentence of curse and anathematization denounced in the presence of the King, and the Nobles of this Kingdom by Boniface, than Archbishop of Canterbury, and many other Bishops, appareled in their Pontificalibus, against all such as thereafter should willingly, and maliciously, by any craft or engine, violate, infringe, diminish, or change secretly or publicly, by deed, word, or counsel, any of the free customs of this Kingdom, and especially those contained in the said great Charter, yet the unbridled Clergy men in the Papistical time, nothing regarding the good estate of this our policy, neither yet terrified by their own cursing censures, and execrations, nor by the severe laws of Praemunire, most impudently (to satisfy their own licentious and lordly lusts) have from time to time ascited & summoned by their lawless process, and arrested and attached by their malapert apparitours, messengers, and pursevauntes, the free people of this Realm, by violence drawing them not only into their public Courts and Consistories, but privately also into secret corners and privy chambers, forcing them there with rough and rigorous terms of disgrace and reproach, upon every bare surmise, and uncertain rumour, to take a corporal oath to be examined upon articles captious and deceitful, seeking thereby most uncharitably for matters of accusation. Against whom if any man durst (standing upon terms of his lawful liberty) but a little repine and refuse to swear, straightway he must be committed to prison, without bail or mainprize, there to abide pain fort et dure, depriving men of that which is more precious than life itself, and as it is said in the civil law, a jewel inestimable, liberty I mean, more to be favoured, than any thing, as the same law speaketh, tyrannising in such cruel manner over the poor and miserable people, in their vile and filthy Colehouses, murdering Towers and Turrettes, and in their dark and deadly Dungeons, as no tongue or pen is sufficient to express. And whereas the prisons of this Realm were ordained either for the punishment of such as are by due course of law condemned, or for restraint of persons suspected, not bailable for a time convenient of examination and judicial proceeding. Those merciless Magistrates void of all pity and compassion, after their sudden and raging commitments for the most part proceeded not to full examination and sentence, but after long and miserable imprisonment, in so much as it was thought a great favour, if after one years grievous and straight imprisonment, the poor distressed party were called foroth to answer. At the time of which sitting in their tribunal Seat (how gloriously soever they paint out their sentences, to have God and justice in their sight) these men, or rather monsters, coveting more the destruction of mankind, than any amendment or reformation of manners, fed with delight their fierce and cruel minds, with the pitiful sight of pined, sickly, and wretched creatures, they themselves in the mean time being fat and well fed. And although the heathen Emperors, Claudius Caligula, etc. who took delight to be present at the bloody tortures & executions of their subjects, & to hear their pitiful groans and grievous sighs (commanding th'executioners so to strike, as the condemned might feel himself to die) may worthily be termed fierce, cruel and barbarous, according to that saying: Qui fruitur poena serus est, yet the extreme cruelty of those men which termed themselves Catholics, and would be accounted true Christians, was more horrible & detestable a great deal. In so much as they by lingering torments of long and painful imprisonment, exceeded the leisure used by the other in the time of execution, taking from Death his due title of King of terrors, and making him a welcome friend, that ends so many miseries. Add hereunto that the tyranny of those heathen men, as fully satisfied, ceased with the life of the tormented, but the cruelty and fury of those Catholics, as never wearied, condemned and put to fire the dead bodies of those whom they before most treacherously had sline and murdered. But as these good Pastors, or rather devouring Wolves, were in this inexcusable manner most cruel against Christ's dear servants, so again in some other things they were as vain and ridiculous. For in this matter of an oath, they have devised (according to their toying fantasy) a certain foolish figurative ceremony in the ministering thereof. For the deponent forsooth, must lay his three middle fingers stretched out right upon the book, in signification of the holy trinity and Catholic faith, and his thuinbe and little finger he must put downwards under the book, in token of damnation, both of body and soul, if ho say not the truth: the thumb belike, as the greater, representing the heavy mass of the body, and the little finger, the light and incorporeal substance of the soul.  
How superstitious also they were concerning this ceremony of the book (little regarding the true use and end of an oath) as appeareth by the Allegorical exposition curiously set forth by one of their parsonate and counterfeit Prelates, who saith, That the circumstances in the act of an Oath, are very great and weighty, inasmuch as he that sweareth by a book, doth three things. First, as though he should say, Let that which is written in the book, never do me good, neither the new nor the old Law if I lie in this mine oath. secondly, he putteth his hand upon the book, as though he should say: Nor the good work which I have done profit me aught before the face of Christ, except I say the truth, which is founded in Christ. thirdly, he kisseth the book, as though he should say, Let never the prayers and petitions which by my mouth I have uttered, avail me any thing to my soul's health, if I say not truly in this mine oath. Yet you must take this I suppose, as meant only by this reverend father, where lay men, or the base sort of the Clergy, take an oath. For that blessed Bonner, not long since hath taught, as this trick of their law, as he termed it, that a Bishop may swear (such is his privilege) inspectis Euangelijs & non tactis, bare sight of the book without touch or kiss, will well enough serve his Lordships turn. Again, the imposing of oaths upon the rotten bones, rags and relics of their canonised and counterfeit saints, and upon the Image of the Crucifige, is both foolish and idolatrous.  
But to conclude, leaving these unjust and lawless men with their bad practices & fond inventions, I doubt not, by these few, yet effectual proofs and authorities, it doth manifestly appear unto all men of upright and sound judgement, That aswell the imposing as the taking of these general oaths, is a profane abusing of the holy Name of God. That the exacting of Oaths ex officio, is a great indignity to the Crown and Sceptre of this Kingdom, and a wrong and injury to the freedom and liberty of the subjects thereof. That the same is not necessary or profitable to the Church and common Wealth, but hurtful to them both, brought in only by the practise of the Popish clergy, to the prejudice of the public peace and tranquillity of this Realm, and that the same never had any good allowance by any law, custom, ordinance or stature of this Kingdom, neither yet put in ure or use by any civil Magistrate of this Land, but as it corruptly crept in among many other abuses, by the sinister practise and pretences of the Romish Prelates and Celargie-men, so this their unlawful dealing hath been from time to time by lawful and just Authority impugned and restrained.  
FINIS.