Commentaries, Commentary on Judges · Chapter 3 · Excursus 2

Commentaries · Commentary on Judges · Chapter 3 · Excursus 2

¶Of Guile.

p. 84NOw let vsus ſpeake of the firſt. That whiche the Latines call Dolus (that is guile) the Grecians call foreign, ſo that their worde and the Latines, is almoſt all one. But the Hebrues call it Mirmah or Rimiah. Then we muſt know this, that guile is there vſed, where any thing lyeth ſecret whiche is hidden,Plautus. leſt the guile ſhould appeare or eaſely be ſene. Wherfore Plautus ſayd, Guiles vnleſſe they be couered by craft, they are no guiles. Thus much as touching the name. Now let vsus come to the definition.

In the digeſtes de dolo malo lege. 1.The definition of guile. Seruius. Seruius an interpreter of the lawe hath thus defined euil guile, namely to be a ſubtile inuention or deuiſe for to deceaue another by, when as one thing is done and an other thing diſſembled. Whereſoeuer therfore is guile, there is deceate by ſome diſſimulation.Labeo. It is true in dede y^t Labeo an interpretor of the law reproued the definitiō which Seruius brought and that by two argumentes. Whereof the one is, that ſome may be beguiled without diſſimulation or euill guile. Wherefore the difinition is more ſtrayte and narrowe than that whiche is defined, whiche all men counte to be an error. The other argument is, bycauſe ſome ſometymes by diſſimulation do ſaue and defend their owne, or elles other mens thinges, and yet thereby they beguyle no man, neither do they hurte any man. Wherfore the definition is applyed vntounto other thinges beſides that whiche is defined:An other definition of guile. Vlpianu…. whiche thing alſo is reproued as a faulte. Wherfore he thus defineth it: Noughty guile, is all craft, diſceate and ſubtility inuented to beguile, delude, and deceaue an other. Vlpianus in the ſame place alloweth the opinion of Labeo. Sauyng the authoritie of ſuche a man I would ſay that Labeo did not well in remouing diſſimulation from the definitiō of deceate. And as touching the firſt argument whiche he hath, I deny, namely that men may be beguiled without diſſimulation, bycauſe vnleſſe they ſhould be together without ſenſe, they would not eaſely, be brought to receaue & to take that which they manifeſtly ſee wilbe hurtefull vntounto them. Wherfore it is neceſſary, that there be ſome ſhewe and colour added, whiche can by no meanes be done without diſſimulation. Then, where as he ſaith that there are very many, whiche by diſſimulation may defend either their owne thinges or elles thynges of other mens: I graunt that, but yet I affirme that the ſame is guile, although it be good guile, as afterward we ſhal more manifeſtly ſhew. Wherfore as touching the definition of guile, it ſemeth that fayning or diſſimulation is alwayes to be added. And for that cauſe the definitiō of Seruius pleaſeth me better, which definition for all that I my ſelfe would rather apply vntounto guile in generall, thā vntounto euill guile as he did. Beyng by this meanes peraduenture moued, bycauſe he vnderſtode by deceate that deceate whiche ſhould be hurtefull.

Cicero in his firſt booke of offices affirmeth that diſſimulation or fayning,Cicero. pertayne chiefly vntounto the nature of guile. For he writeth that Aquilius his familiar frende beyng demaunded what guile was, he anſwered, where one thyng is doone and an other thyng diſſembled. To this ſentence Auguſtine aſſenteth,Auguſtine. who (in his 7. treatiſe vponupon Iohn expoundyng theſe wordes whiche Chriſt pronounced of Nathaniel, Beholde a true Iſraelite in whō is no guile) ſayth: Thē it is guile, whē one thing is done and an other thing fayned, &c. And to ſpeake this by the waye, by this place is eaſely gathered,Auguſtine pre… ched vntounto the people in … ti…e. that Auguſtine preached his Sermons vntounto y^e people in Latine, bicauſe y^e Affricians vſed the Romane tongue, although it were not pure, but in ſome wordes corrupt. For there Auguſtine admoniſhed the people, that Dolus which is guile, ſignified not Dolor that is pain as many corruptly ſpake, ſaying Dolus illū torquet, that is as they meant. He is troubled with payne, when as in that place they ſhould hauehave ſaid Dolor and not Dolus: to take awaye therfore the ambiguitie of the worde, he ſayeth, that Dolus whiche is guile, ſignifieth fayning and diſſimulation. And in the ſame place, to expreſſe what fayning beguilyng ſignifieth, he addeth,Guile cōmeth of doubleneſſe of heart. that it commeth of doubleneſſe of the hearte. He allegeth th… 12. Pſalme, where when mention is made of guilefull men, Dauid ſayth that they ſpeake in hart and in harts, that is, as hee interpreteth, in one parte of their heart they do ſe the truth, & perceaue how the thing is: & in the other part they go about diſſimulation & diſceate. But in thoſe (ſaith he) is no guile, which whē they ſe thēſelues to be ſinners, do alſo coūt thē ſelues for ſuch, nether do they diſſēble or boaſt of righteouſneſſe, as did y^e Phariſey, whē he prayed by y^e publican, & as other hipocrites alſo do. Nathaniel had no guile in him, but not vniuerſally, bycauſe eueryevery mā is a lyer: & as Paul writeth, there dwelleth no good thing in our fleſh, for as much as it is altogether guilefull and diſceatfull. It could be onelyonly ſayd of Chriſt in vniuerſall, that he wanted guile. But yet they are bleſſed (as Dauid ſayth) to whom the Lord hath not imputed ſinne, and in whoſe ſpirite there is no guile. For in as much as they are regenerate eſpecially as touching the ſpirite that whiche they do they do it vprightly and ſimply: and ſuch a one Chriſt affirmeth Nathaniell to hauehave ben.

Auguſtine.The ſame Auguſtine in the 10 Tome and his booke of 50. Homelies the firſt Homely, expoundeth this, whiche is writtē in the 33. Pſalme of Dauid what mā is he, which would lyue, & loueth to ſe good dayes? Refrayne thy tōgue frō euil, and thy lippes that they ſpeake no guile, then (ſaith he) it is guile, when nothing is cloſe and ſecret in the heart, and an other thing is expreſſed, either in word or dede,Flatterers. as flatterers vſe to do, which cōmēd ſome contrary to y^e which they think, therby either to eat their meat & drinke their drinke, or els to get ſome other benefite at their hāds. And y^t which he ſpeaketh of flatterers, may alſo be vnderſtād of enemies & backbyters. But y^t it is conueniēt y^t men ſhould do y^t which they do vprightly & ſimply,…omere. y^e very Ethnikes ſaw. Wherfore Achilles in Homere ſaith, that he doth no leſſe thā death, hate thoſe mē, which ſpeake otherwiſe than they thinke. Wherfore we thinke y^t it is not ill to affirme a ſubtile inuention to deceaue a mā, when as one thing is done and an other thyng diſſembled is ſet for the generall worde in the definition of guile.

Good guile & euill guile.But after this definition we muſt adde a diſtinctiō. For ſome guile is good & other ſome is euill, we call y^e good, which is not hurtfull: & when as it hurteth none, but ſomtimes profiteth. But euil guile is hurtful, & euer hurteth ſomebody. Theſe mēbres may eaſely be made playne by exāples. Nurces do cōtinually vſe good guile toward their litle ones, therby to pleaſe & ſtill thē: for with them they diſſēble & fayne very many thinges. Phiſitiās alſo do after y^e ſame ſorte deceaue them y^t are ſicke, bycauſe they would heale them. Yea and Chriſoſtome in his firſt boke de Sacerdotio, writeth, y^t a certaine Phiſitiā ſo beguiled one y^t was ſicke of an agew, y^t in drinking water, he thought he dronke wine. And the ſame Chriſoſtome in the ſame place affirmeth,Chriſoſtome. y^t he himſelfe vſed a good guile, to beguile Baſilius to take vpō him a biſhopricke, whē y^t he in no caſe was minded that way. Dauid by this kind of guile, eſcaped the handes of the king of the Philiſtiās. For he fayned himſelf to be a foole, ſo y^t the king iudged him vnworthy to be puniſhed. But of euil guile there are very many exāples in y^e holy ſcriptures amō geſt which this act of Ehud which we now interpret, is one. And y^t is an other alſo which y^e Hebrues did, whē they wēt forth of Egipt, who deſired to borow both of their neighbours & alſo of their frendes precious garmētes, goldē & ſiluer veſſels, & yet they minded vtterly to robbe thē of thē. To this kind alſo belongeth, that whiche Chuſai the Arachite did in deceauing Abſolon. This acte alſo may be counted among them, which Simeō and Leui perpetrated againſt Emor & the Sichemites. I could bryng a great many mo exāples, if I would nedeleſſe ſtande longe about a thing that is manifeſt.

Of y^e firſt kind of guile, which is called good & vnhurtful, no mā wil cōtēd, but y^t it is lawfull to vſe it. But of y^e other kind there is a doubt. Wherof if I ſhuld be demāded,Euill guile is not prohibited to be vſed againſt enemies I wold thinke this anſwere ſhuld be made. That we may not vſe euil guile wyth our frendes, but agaynſt our enemies it is not prohibited, bycauſe it is as it were armor. Wherfore if it be lawfull to make warres againſt thē iuſtly with armor, guiles alſo are to be admitted according to the ſaying of the Poete: VVhether it be guile or power, who can require in an enemy?

p. 85Howbeit this is to be obſerued,Who bee the true enemyes. that we ſpeake only of thoſe enemyes which either God him ſelfe, or the publicque wealth, or a iuſt Magiſtrate declareth to be enemyes, and not thoſe whiche eueryevery priuate man hateth. Farther I doubt not, but that ſeyng it is lawfull to repell violence by violence, when there is no other waye to eſcape, it is alſo lawfull to vſe guiles agaynſt guiles. For he whiche repelleth violence by violence, as the lawes do permitte, the ſame man is not to be counted a priuate man, for as muche as he is armed by the Magiſtrate. Wherfore it is manifeſt that he doth not agaynſt the lawe, but with the lawe. So he that is ſodenly oppreſſed, may lawfully eſcape by euill guile if he can. Moreouer the Scriptures teache that this kinde of guile is iuſt.Ierome. For Ierome ſayth, and it is written in the decrees .22. queſtion 2. chap: Vtilem. That Iehu did very well diſſemble with the Prieſtes of Baal, bycauſe he could not hauehave kylled them all, if he had begon to put ſome of them to death. Wherfore to gather them all together, he fayned hymſelfe to be much more ſtudious to worſhip Baal than was Achab, and by that meane he ſlewe eueryevery one of them.

But this is to be taken heede of, that they whiche are ſo deſtroyed by guile,An acte of the king of Denmarke.. be very worthy of puniſhment, & as they are cōmonly called, notorious offenders, & ſuch as can not be puniſhed by an ordinary waye. For whiche cauſe the kyng of Dēmarke of ſome is cōmēded, which by guile deſtroyed moſt pernicious thieues, which he could not take. For he fayned a warre, and made a proclamation that as many as would come ſhould receaue wages of hym, and promiſed vntounto the thieues pardon for their wicked actes whiche they had hitherto committed. But I (as I ſhall afterward declare) do not ſo fully allowe ſuch examples.

Auguſtine (as it is found in the 14. queſtion the 5. chap: Dixit, Auguſtine.& it is a place in his queſtions vpō Exodus) ſheweth that the Iſraelites deceaued y^e Egyptians, when they borowed of thē golden & ſiluer veſſels, & yet it was not to be counted a faulte in thē, when as for al y^e no man doubted, but y^t they did it by euill guile. The ſame 23. queſtion .2. Dominus which is takē out of his queſtiōs vponupon y^e boke of Ioſua, rehearſeth y^e place, wherin it is ſayd y^e God cōmaūded the Hebrues, to fight againſt the citie of Hay by wiles, which without doubt belong to guile. Ierome vponupon the 17. chap: of Ezechiel, bringeth this ſentence as a worldly ſentēce:Ierome. namely, VVhether it be guile or power, who can require in an enemy?

Howbeit he aſſenteth vntounto it, althoughe he denieth y^t it can take place where an othe is made. But I will ſtrayt waye expounde that. Ambroſe in the 14.Ambroſe. queſtion the 4. permitteth guile, or gainefull fraud againſt enemies, & after this maner he interpreteth a place of Deut. where God gaue the Iewes liberty to put their money to vſury to ſtraungers, namely, y^t where the warre is iuſt, there alſo may vſury take place. For the goods of the enemies ar ours, & they may lawfully be taken away from them. And it ſkill not, whither it be done either by violence or by guile. There are which alledge that which is written in the latter Epiſtle to y^e Corinthians the xii. chap: When I was crafty, I tooke you by guile. But y^t maketh nothing to the purpoſe, when as it is moſt manifeſt y^t he ſpake it in mockage. For hee fayned, as though he had receaued money of the Corinthians by other mē, which by himſelf he refuſed to receaue, which thing he ſtrait way putteth away. But thoſe examples which we brought firſte, do manifeſtly proue that it is lawfull to vſe guile, yea & euill guile againſt enemyes, namely in keping cloſe our Counſels & doinges, & vſyng coulorable workes & wordes.The ciuile lawes permite guile againſt enemies. Nether do y^e ciuil lawes otherwiſe teach. In y^e Code de cōmerciis et mercatoribus Lege. Non ſolū. The emperor decreed not only y^e no gold ſhould be caried vntounto y^e barbarous nacions y^t were enemies of y^e pub. wealth, but alſo y^t by ſubtile guile or pollicy y^e gold which they had, ſhuld be taken frō thē. Alſo in y^e digeſtes de captiuis poſtliminio reuerſis. Lege. Nihil intereſt, it is decreed, y^e captiues howe ſoeuer they returned into their coūtrey againe, ſhould recouer agayne their owne goods, & old ſtate, whether they were ſent home againe, or whether they eſcaped by violēce, or by guile. Although afterward in Lege poſtliminio Paragrapho captiuis, y^t be reſtrained, if y^t they returne w^t a mind to tary at home. For if they ſhuld either promiſe or ſweare vntounto their enemies to returne, they ſhould not enioy y^e right of returnīg.Attilius Regulus. Wherfore Attiliꝰ Regulꝰ enioyed not y^e benefit, bicauſe he was ſēt to Rome to perſuade y^e ſenate for y^e chāgīg of captiues. Wherfore for as much as he promiſed & was minded to returne, he might not by y^e lawes vſe euill guile.

A diuiſiō of an other.By this alſo appeareth y^t to be true, whiche a litle before was ſaid, namely y^t we may not vſe euil guile againſt our enemy, if ther be an othe made. And y^t this may the playnlyer be vnderſtand, we muſt deuide an othe as y^e lawyers do, ſo y^t one kinde of othe is called an approuing or an affirming of a thing, & an other a promiſing of a thing, or as thei ſpeake, y^e one affectiue, & y^e other promiſſory. For whē we ſwere, either we do affirme or els deny ſome thing to be or to hauehave ben, which we ought neuer to do with euil guile, if we adde therunto an othe. Or els we promiſe to performe ſomthing, & for as much as faith is to be kept euē with our enemy, y^e ſame faith alſo is not to be broken with euill guile. Wherefore if thoſe things which we hauehave ſworne vntounto our enemy to kepe & obſerue, are temporal goods, as are money, honours, & life of the body, for theſe things the name of God is not to be prophaned. Wherfore Dauid in his .15. Pſal. ſayth: He y^t ſweareth to do euill, & changeth not. In Hebrew it is thus written Niſchoah Leharah Velo Iamid, Kimhi.which place I know Kimhi expoundeth of thoſe, which vowe vntounto God certaine hard & ſharpe things, which ſerue to y^e ſubduyng of the fleſhe, neyther do ther chaūge y^e which they hauehave promiſed. But y^e ſentence me thinketh ſemeth more ſimple, if it hauehave a larger ſenſe, namely of an othe hurtful vntounto vsus, which a good & godly man will not abrogate or chaunge.Ierome. Ierome alſo vponupon Ezechiell the 17. chap. is of this opinion. For there y^e Lord ſaith y^t he was very angry againſt Zedechias, bycauſe he had broken y^e othe which he had made vntounto Nebuchad-nezar king of Babilon. For although the Iewes counted him as an enemy, yet as Ierome teacheth, he was now as a frende, when he had by an othe promiſed his faith vntounto Zedechias. For y^e belōgeth vntounto friends one to be faithful vntounto the other.Ambroſe. Wherfore euil guile ought there to take no place. And Auguſtine in y^e 33. queſtiō y^e 1. chap: Noli exiſtimare, writing vntounto Bonifacius admoniſheth him to kepe faith w^t his enemy alſo.Auguſtine. Ambroſe alſo in y^e 28. queſtiō y^e 4. chap. Innocēs, admoniſheth the ſame, & hath y^e ſame ſentence in his boke de officiis, where he bringeth the example of Ioſua toward the Gabaonites, who althoughe he might hauehave made the othe voyde & of no force, yet by y^e conſent of God he cauſed it to be kept & ratified. Neither ſuffered be the Gabaonites to be ſlayne, whō for all y^t he puniſhed bicauſe of y^e guile which they vſed.An othe for an vniuſt thing is to be broken. But if y^e othe be geuē for an vniuſt or vngodly thing, it is vtterly to be made fruſtrate, bycauſe an othe ought not to be a bond of iniquitie. Neither is it of neceſſitie, y^t a mā to be abſolued of theſe kindes othes ſhould come before ſome iudge. Which I therfore ſpeake, bycauſe y^e Pope claimeth this right vntounto himſelf, namely to releaſe a bond in ſuch kind of othes, & as they commōly ſay, to diſpenſe with them, as it appeareth in the 15. queſtion the 6.The Pope diſſolued both lawfull & vnlawful wher Nicholaus abſolueth one Treuerenſis. And his pride & arrogācy hath ſo farre now at the length extended his ryght or power, that he abſolueth not onelyonly vnlawful othes, but he abrogateth alſo iuſt and lawful othes when it ſemeth good vntounto himſelfe. So Zacharias loſed the frenche men of an othe, wherein they were bound vntounto their kyng, and he put the kyng from his kyngdome, and ſubſtituted Peppine in his place. But that is not to be meruayled at, when as it is a common ſaying in the courte of Rome at this daye:A prouerbe of the courte of Rome. Non eſt regum & magnatū, ſed mercatorum ſtare iuramentis, that is: It is not mete for kynges and noble men, but for merchantes to keepe their othes.

Wherefore if there be an othe made, guile is not to be vſed vnles peraduenture the one partye to whom the othe is made, ſhall go from the condicions and couenauntes, for then the common ſaying muſte take place, he that breaketh faith,Ierome. let faith alſo be brokē vntounto him. Wherfore Ierome ad Nepotianū p. 86cōmendeth this ſaying of Domitius y^e Orator vntounto Phillip, when thou counteſt not me for a ſenator, I alſo wil not count thee for a Conſul. But hereof we hauehave teſtimonies alſo in the holy ſcriptures: for Paul in y^e firſt to the Corinth: the .7. chap: writeth, as touching faith geuē in matrimony, If y^e vnfaithfull depart let him depart. A brother or a ſiſter is not in ſubiection vntounto ſuch, but God hath called vsus in peace. And thoſe thinges which are alledged of an othe, I vnderſtād alſo to be of the ſame efficacy in promiſes & couenants. In which promiſes & couenants I affirme, y^e godly & iuſt men ought both to vſe playne & ſimple wordes, & alſo faithfully to fulfil them.Sophiſticall reaſons of the Thracians. Wherfore y^e Thraſians are iuſtly & worthily condemned who after y^e truce was made for 30. dayes, robbed & ſpoiled by night, excuſing their act, for y^t their truce was made for y^e day & not for y^e night. Neither did y^e legat of y^e Romaines vprightly, yea he Sophoſtically dealt with Antiochus, The guile of the Legate of the Romanes againſt Anthiochus.who when he had decreed y^t the one halfe of the ſhips ſhould be geuen vntounto the Romaines & the other halfe to y^e kyng, cōmaunded them al to be deuided & cut in ſonder in very dede. But he did it that the king ſhould be vtterly deſtitute of a warrelike Nauy. Wherfore what ſoeuer a godly man ſhall promiſe, he ought before deepely to weygh with hym ſelfe, whether he be able to ſtande by hys wordes and promiſes. Wherefore Ierome hath written vntounto Celautia: Ierome.thynges whiche thou ſhalt ſay, thinke thou ſweareſt them.

As touching the ende of the queſtion, y^t the thing may be the more manifeſt, ther remaine certain doubts to be examined. Firſt if a mā promiſe vntounto any mā armor and helpe & that for the ſpace of thre or foure yeares: & in the meane tyme y^e ſame man becōmeth a traitor to hys contrey, & maketh warre againſt it, whether in this caſe he ought to performe his fayth, or els by euill guile to breake it? I anſwere, y^t neither in this caſe, nor in the like, is faith to be kept: bycauſe,When an othe is made of a lawfull othe an vnlawfull othe is not to be kept. as it is manifeſt, a miſchieuous acte hapeneth in y^e meane time whiche with a ſafe cōſcience we may not helpe. Neither in very dede is either euill guile or els periury here cōmitted. For he which hath ſworne is not changed, but he to whom the othe was made. For othes can plucke awaye or diminiſhe nothing of thoſe bondes which went before.An othe diſſolueth not former bondes. Wherfore for as much as eueryevery man is bound vntounto the word of god & to y^e health of his cōtrey, before he ſwereth any thing, y^e which is afterward ſworne muſt be vnderſtād, ſo y^t the firſt bondes be kept vnbroken. The ſame alſo muſt take place in vowes which are vowed. For although a man vow ſole life, for ſomuch as he before was bound vntounto y^e word of God, wherein it is ſayd, y^t it is better to mary thā to burne, & they which cā not kepe thē ſelues chaſt let thē mary:No othe or vow taketh away the bonde vntounto the commaundements of God. he doth not by reaſon of the vow which followed take away the firſt bond. Wherfore if he can not kepe hym ſelfe chaſte, or if he burne, he ought by the commaundement of God to mary: neither can any othe or vowe that is made, take away the power & ſtrength of the commaundement of God.

There ariſeth alſo an other doubt, of thoſe princes, which hauehave geuē their publique faith or ſafeconduict vntounto heretikes for to come vntounto Coūſels or to communications, whether they ought to ſtande by their promiſe,Whether faith is to be kepte with heretikes or violating theyr othe to kepe ſtill the heretikes and to puniſh them. I aunſwere, that they ought to kepe whole and pure the promiſe made vntounto them.

But ſay they, we will eaſly graūt y^t it is then ſinne, when we geue promiſe of a naughty thing. But if after we hauehave promiſed, we kepe & ſtand to our promiſes, we fall into an other grieuous ſinne. For we execute not the office cōmitted vntounto vsus, neither do we obey God. For it is our part accordyng as God hath cō maunded, to puniſhe and to correcte Heretikes, that they waſt not the Church, and go forwarde to defende theyr peſtiferous doctrine amonge the godly. Neither doth any man doubt but that Magiſtrates ought to defende the Churches. Wherefore it ſemeth that Heretikes are not to be let goo, when we hauehave them once in our handes. I aunſwere, that this in dede is the office of kynges, to puniſh and to correct heretikes, but yet then when they hauehave them in their power. But if they geue them a ſaueconduct to come vntounto them,They whiche by a ſaueconduct come vntounto kinges & princes, are not in their power. Of Iehu. then can they not ſay that they hauehave them in their power. For they came vnderunder a promiſe & an othe to go & come harmeles, otherwiſe they would not hauehave come. Wherfore if there be a promiſe made, it is not lawful to breake it. And this is the cauſe, why I before ſaid, y^t I cā not eaſly allow y^e acte of the king of Denmarke. Neither alſo would I iudge Iehu to be without ſinne, when he promiſed y^t he would worſhip Baal, therby to get all Baalites together: except peraduenture he manifeſtly knew, that he was by God ſtirred vp to do it. But of thys thing we will intreat in an other place. Let them therfore, which defend the Counſayle of Conſtantia, ceaſe to lay for their pretence, that Iohn Huſſe with a ſafe conſcience could not be let go, bicauſe it is a heinous ſinne in all princes, if they ſuffre heretikes to wandre at liberty: for bycauſe that which they ſay is ſo farforth true, as they ſhalbe in their power. But when they come by a ſaueconducte geuen them, then are they at liberty, neither are they ſayd to be in the power of the princes, which call them.

Whether faith is to be kepte with thieues.Other are in doubt, whether it be lawfull to vſe euill guile againſt thieues, ſo that if a man fall into their handes, & by an othe be made vntounto them, is ſuffred to go home vponupon this condicion, there to gather money to redeme himſelfe, whether (I ſay) he ought to returne vntounto thē with the money, or w^tout it, if he cā not get it, as he hoped to hauehave done, eſpecially if in a manner he were aſſured, either to liue in perpetual ſeruitude, or els to be put to a moſt cruel death. I aunſwere, that in my iudgemēt he ought to returne vntounto them, for as much as in this caſe there is no daunger, but as touching goods of this world, of money (I ſay) liberty, & life of the body, whiche are not ſo muche to be eſtemed, that for their ſakes an othe, or the name of GOD ſhould be violated. And the verſe of Dauid before brought ſerueth aptly for this purpoſe. And this ſentence is ſo firme & true that euen an Ethnike,Attilius Regulus. Marcus Attilius Regulus I ſay, knew it. For he returned to Carthago, where he knew certaynly, that either he ſhould be in perpetual ſeruitude, or els loſe his life, and that moſt cruelly. Neither canſt thou aunſwere me, that he did fooliſhly therin: bycauſe the Romayne lawes (as we hauehave before ſaid) de captiuis, & poſtliminio reuerſis, in lege poſtliminiū Paragrapho Captiuus, do ordeyne and holyly decree that he ſhould not be counted to enioy the benefite of the law poſtliminius, which had promiſed to returne agayn. Farther the nature of man perſuadeth the ſelfe ſame thing, for it is ciuile & delighteth in ſociety.

Wherefore next to God and godlines towarde him, there is nothing whiche ought more to eſteme, then fayth, whiche wonderfully helpeth humane fellowſhip. For without it, it is not poſſible for men to liue together. Farther who will not ſay, that the money, liberty, and life of one man is rather to be loſt, then the money, libertyes, and liues of innumerable men? For if couenantes and promyſes be not kept with thoſe thieues, henceforth they will geue credet to no man that they ſhall take, they would ſende home none to their owne houſe to fetche their raunſome, but as many as they take, either they will kill them, or els kepe them with them in miſerable and perpetuall bondage.

Laſtly, this I thinke good to admoniſhe you of, that in othes let ſignes of vniuerſality trouble no man. As, if a man promiſe and ſwere vntounto hys frende that he wil be an helper vntounto him in all thinges, or if a man promiſe and ſweare vntounto a Scoole or vntounto the Churche, that he will do and obſerue all thynges whiche it ſhall decree.How it is lawfull to ſweare certain thyngs vniuerſally. For all ſuche kynde of ſpeaches (as it appeareth by that whiche we hauehave ſayde) are to be vnderſtande, ſo that the obedience of the worde of God be kepte. And vndoutedly, althoughe that clauſe be by the nature of another vnderſtād alwayes to be added, yet for al y^t it is the duty of godly mē to expreſſe it, when they are receaued into any vniuerſity, College, office, corporatiō, or felowſhip, & according to the cuſtome are cōpelled to ſweare for to obſerue ſtatutes, lawes & decrees. It is the ſure way (I ſay) by expreſſe wordes to teſtifie, y^t they wil obſerue all thoſe things, vnles they ſhal finde y^t any of y^e ſame ar againſt p. 87y^e word of god. And as touching this matter I think I hauehave ſpokē ſufficiēt now. Our Ehud vſed euill guile. I graunt: but yet agaynſt hys enemy. Neither doth the ſcripture make mencion of any othe that was made betwene him & Eglon y^e kyng. And though there had ben an othe, yet he had ben quitte of it, for as much as y^e ſtirring vp of god, wherby god opened vntounto him his will, had abrogated it.