for feare of getting his displeasure if he should haue directly denied him that summe would now seeme not to admit of the like euasion in the Case of a Seruant commaunded to answer directly concerning the death of his masters Sonne where there is more then a doubt of shortning his masters life Who seeth not that M. Parsons if he had returned a direct answer doth now touch birdlime wherein the more he struggleth the more he is intangled answering nothing to the purpose For the question is not whether it be lawfull to Couer a truth but whether this maner of couering it by Mentall reseruation be tollerable or no which S. Augustines wit gaue him not so much as to dreame of whose sanctity doubtlesse would haue called it craft and impietie whose definition of a lye is this Mendacium est falsum dicere cùm volunt ate fallendi that is A lye is to speake a false thing with purpose to deceiue the hearer I pretermit another memorable example repeated by S. Aug. of the Bishop Firmius which hath beene alleadged by their Sotus for the confutation of the foresaid maner of Mentall Reseruation 9 In the last end of the booke of Full satisfact I added to the like purpose an example deliuered by S. Hierome which may be vnto vs a mirror of ancient simplicitie Of a wife accused by her husband and tortuted to draw out a confession of guilt but she lifting vp her eyes to heauen said thou Lord Iesu who searcheth the hart andreines art witnesse that I doe not deny truth for feare of death but therefore refuse to lye for feare of sinne The Iesuits who haue instructed the adulterous wife being asked of her husband to free herselfe by a Mentall Equiuocation would they not haue condemned this woman for want of wit and haue giuen her other ghostly counsell teaching her the vse of the same Art for the auoyding of death and escaping a lye May we not guesselby the constancie of this godly woman by S. Hieroms commendations of her that those times were not practized in this kinde of Alchymie which abstracteth such a Clause of Reseruation as surpasseth the vnderstanding of any but of him who onely is able to search immediately into the thoughts and vnderstandings of men as when a man saith I haue no money concealing this Clause in his minde Which I meane to turne into buttons The example of this woman may seeme to be more forcible because M. Parsons in his Treatise of Equiuocation in answering some other points buried this in his sober silence Thirdly by Heretikes 10 We reade in S. Augustine of the heresie of the Priscillianites who were herein as he saith worse then any other Heretikes because they thought it lawfull for them to dissemble themselues to be Orthodoxe and true professors and to conceale their owne Religion by lying and for proofe that it was lawfull to lye they vsed to alleadge the example of Patriarkes Prophets Apostles and the speeches of Christ himselfe Nec se alitèr arbitrantes saith S. Aug veracem suam ostendere falsitatem nisi veritatem dicant mendacem that is They thought that they could not defend their falsitie vnlesse they taught that truth it selfe was a lyer Let now our iudicious Reader but thinke with himselfe seeing that lying was condemned of all other professions as well Catholikes as Heretikes whether the Priscillianists would haue vsed lying for the Couert of their hereticall religion knowing that the Art of Equiuocating by a mixt proposition called Mentall Reseruation is as close and inuisible a conueiance for any thing that a man would hide as the most diabolicall lye that man can inuent As for example by protesting vnto the hearers saying We beleeue no such doctrine secretly conceining in their mindes to letyou know of it or we beleeue as you doe Reseruing this Clause in their minde But that we doe not beleeue you 11 We are to adde vnto this the practise of Consentius and some other erronious ones who albeit they were faithfull professors yet that they might discouer the Priscillianists who for feare did secretly professe the heresie of Priscillian and yet publikely renounced it holding it lawfull in that case to lye did Cretizare cùm Cretensibus and held it lawfull by lying to winde out these lyers to the which purpose they dislembled themselues to be Priscillianists These erroneous ones are vehemently cōdemned by S. Augustine as those who Did euill that good might come thereof The discouery of Heretikes he calleth good but to doe it by lying he tearmeth euill They saw no other meanes to vn-earth these Cubbes of that Heretike Priscillian but only by dissembling and lying Neuerthelesse S. Aug. pleadeth for syncerity thus Veritate occidenda mendacia teaching that lyes are not to be slaine but by the truth But ô the wit of our Equiuocators they would haue corrected S. Augustine and directed those erroneous and taught them if the Case would suffer it how to dissemble themselues to be Priscillianists without lying and yet with as faire a subtletie as the most profound lying that can be imagined and that is by Mentall Reseruation as thus To say that we are Priscillianists Reseruing in our minds for ought that you shall know or We are Priscilianists reseruiug in our mindes Onely in pretence that we may betray you or such like Doth not their want of this kind of Euasion tell vs that Consentius and those other erroneous although otherwise faithfull Christians who did by lying seeke to finde out lyars either were ignorant of this mysterie of Mentall Equiuocation or els held it to be no better then plaine lying 12 What shall we say vnto the Arch-heretike Arius he as I then deliuered out of Socrates being compelled by the holy Emperor Constantine to deliuer his Subscription to the Councell of Nice and to auouch His integritie by an oath he vsed this Art and sleight his owne hereticall opinion he closely kept vnder his left arme and then swore laying his hand vpon his lift side that he so beleeued as he had written Here we may obseruethat this execrable Heretike vsed onely a Verball Equiuocation which although it be not an absolute lye as hath beene shewen yet could not the vse thereof in dissembling the true faith be but most sacrilegious and abhominable Notwithstanding he making conscience as it seemeth of a lye rather answered by a Verball ambiguitie then tolde directly that he beleeued the Article of that Councel We are to marke that the whole obscuritie was in the double sence of the word Writing for that he had written one tenor of Confession which he propounded openly vnto the Councell and another had he writen which he kept closely vnder his arme-hole and by vertue of that Verball Equiuocation he made his euasion I would but therefore demande why this godlesse and perfidious Heretike should haue taken the paines in inuenting and writing a contrary forme of
countenance the vnsearchable depth of their Mentall Reseruation such as is this I haue no head reseruing in my thought horned like an Oxe The fourth place is out of the vers 51. M. PARSONS his Appendix It followeth in the same place Amen Amen I say vnto you if any obserue my words he shall neuer see death Which the Scribes and Pharisees though otherwise learned in their law vnderstood of corporall death and in that sence gaue an instance of Abraham and the Prophets that were dead notwithstanding they had obserued the words and commandements of God and consequently in their sense Christs sentence could not to be true but our Sauiour had another intention and meaning reserued in his minde by which reseruation the truth of the sentence was iustified to wit that they should not die in soule The Reuiew 12 This is a Verball AEquiuocation in the word Death which in it selfe doth equally signifie a Temporall and an Eternall death but in this place is applied only to the Eternal as may appeare by the Text He shal not see death inaeternum that is euerlastingly For these words in aeternum saith Caietane are added to distinguish it from the temporal Death and so also doe their Tolet Maldonate and Salmeron expound it By vertue of the which word Euerlastingly the foresaid meaning of the speech is made intelligible And is therefore iniuriously produced for the iustification of his Mentall Reseruatian which is vncomprehensible because it lurketh in the bottomlesse pit of mans secret thought as for example to say I haue not my Crowne shauen reseruing in my minde as followeth With a paire of Pincers The fifth place Vers. 54. M. PARSONS his Appendix It followeth yet further in the same place If I do glorifie my selfe saith Christ my glory is nothing Which yet I thinke no man will grant to be true according to the letter as it lieth For albeit Christ should set forth his owne glory yet may it not be said that this glory published by himselfe is nothing or vaine Wherefore some reserued sence must heere also be sought out which according to the opinion of sundry expositours is that he meant this according to the opinion the Iewes who esteemed that nothing which came from Christ himselfe As also a little before in the 5. chap. he vsed the like speech saying If I beare witnesse of my selfe my witnesse is not true Which sentence I thinke our Ministers themselues will not hold to be true in the sense which here it beareth for then should they condemne our Sauiour of falsity as often as he affirmeth any thing of himselfe and then must we of necessity run to some reserued sense in Christs meaning which is the thing that we call Equiuocation so reviled by our Ministers The Reuiew 13 Their Iesuit Salmeron publisheth this for a Canon for the direction of euery Reader of Scripture viz. that somtime It was the fashion of Christ in giuing Answers vnto men to accomodate and apply his speech rather vnto their meanings than to their words and for example thereof he produceth the second place which now M. Parsons alleageth taken out of the 5. chapter of S. Iohn vers 31. If I beare witnesse of my selfe my witnesse is not true That is saith he according to your vnderstanding who take me to be a meere man And of the first place concerning the Glorifying of himselfe M. Parsons confesseth that Christ spake according to the opinion of the lewes or as saith Iansenius this sentence is to be vnderstood as others be as if he had said If I as a man according to the opinion which you haue of me doe glorifie my selfe my glory were but vaine which sheweth that in the speech of Christ the Equiuocation was only Uerball in the word Glorifie which of it selfe might signifie a iust and diuine glorifving of himselfe as he was the sonne of God which was not intended in this place or else an humaine and worldly 〈◊〉 of himselfe after the fashion of men which he called Vayne According vnto this Sence he spake and applied his meaning vnto the meaning of the Iewes themselues as hath beene confessed Which fashion of Christs applying his speech vnto the vnderstanding of the hearer is so far from iustifying of their Mentall AEquiuocation that it doth cleerely consute it because in it there is reserued such a meaning as neither man nor Angell doth vnderstand by any circumstance of speech as when the Romish Priest answered that he was No Priest meaning of Apollo or Baall and such like Was it not then a strange aduenture of M. Parsons from a speech spoken and applied to the hearers meaning to seeke to infer a Mentall Reseruation wherein there is infoulded a meaning which doth not nor cannot accord at all vnto the vnderstanding of the I Iearer The sixt place Vers. 55. M. PARSONS his Appendix Furthermore in the very next verse talking of almighty God he said to the Iewes Non cognouistis cum you doe not know him which seemeth vntrue in it selfe for that the Iewes did professe to know him and serue him aboue all the people in the world And in the olde Testament it is often said of them that they of all other people did best know God and therefore some other reserued meaning must Christ our Sauiour needes haue had then these externall wordes doe insinuate Which Reseruation Saint Chrysost. S. Aug. S. Bede and Theophilact vpon this place doe thinke to haue beene this in Christ his secret meaning that they did not know God as they ought to know him by seruing him as he would and ought to be serued according to the speech of Saint Paul to Titus Confitentur se nôsce Deum factis autem negant They confesse to know God in words but doe denie him in deedes So as here also an Equiuocation of speech was vsed by our Sauiour The Reuiew 14 There is a double sence of Not knowing of God taught openly in Scripture the one is in respect of the intellectuall part of man when Gods will is not rightly beleeued so the Gentiles are often said Not to haue knowne God and to haue had No knowledge of his waies and contrariwise of the Iewes the Scripture saith In Iurie is God well knowne The second sense of Not knowing God is in respect of the practicall and actuall duetie when he that beleeueth and professeth the true and syncere worship of God doth notwithstanding wilfully and rebelliously transgresse his will in which consideration Saint Iohn saith He that saith he knoweth God and yet keepeth not his Commaundement is a lyar We see then that this phrase of Not knowing God hath a double sence but yet through Verball Equiuocation and both of them agree with truth for some of these with whom Christ spake did not truely and intellectiuely know God because they knew him not Sub ratione Patris aeterni as Card.
first partie accused is their Iesuit Fr SVAREZ 3. MAster Parsons will not esteeme any Writers to deserue better the name of Catholike Writers then the Iesuites who are as it were the naturall brethren of his own Order nor can he account any Iesuite a more worthie Writer then is their Iesuite Suarez publike Reader in the Vniuersitie of Salamanca whom their Iesuite Posseuine hath Registred among the most famous Authors of these times nor may he iudge any Writing of Suarez more obseruable then are those his workes which haue beene approoued by a whole Vniuersitie 4. This Iesuite Suarez commeth now to be conuinced for a Falsificator but not by Protestants because Mr. Parsons hath a Licence and Facultie to call their accusations Ltes and Falshoods although they be neuer so iust therfore must we seeke out of the Romish Schoole some one approoued witnesse who hath made a priuie search into the writings of the foresaid Iesuite and hath also discouered some of his wilfull transgressions in alleadging of Authors The Accuser is Fr Cumel 5. Our witnesse shall be Fr. Cumel Professor also of Diuinitie in the I niuersitie of Salamanca commended by Diego Nuncio and Antonius Soto-Mayor for one in whose Memorie The Church say they which is the Spouse of Christ may congratulate her owne good in that she had so singular and euery way so absolute a Teacher who in these his last workes hath excelled not onely other ancient and moderne writers but also himselfe vnto whose commendation Rob. Bertelot and A. Priqueu doe subscribe Him hath also Ant. Hereros Publike professor in the 〈◊〉 of Pintia greatly extolled in his commendatorie Epistle calling this Cumel the very heart of the Vniuersitie wherin he was Professor whose name was honored saith he by Pope Clement the eight And yet againe is this Doctor further magnified in the Epistle Dedicatory by Fr. IIdefonsus who reporteth Cumel to haue beene an admirable man both for learning and wisedome Insomuch that Kings did consult with him in their most weightie affaires and that Schollers when they desired to haue the most hard Questions assoyled resorted vnto him as vnto the Oracle of Apollo 6. Let vs now heare what this so honourable a witnesse and Oracle will say concerning the dealing of the former lesuite in a matter of high moment such as is the power of Gods effectuall Grace in acting mans will vnto good from the efficacie of which Grace of God the same Iesuite in the opinion of Cumel did somewhat detract for the vniust aduancement of the power of mans will It will be my part not to examine or discusse but onely to report the saying of Cumel which I will do as faithfully as if the whole cause depended here upon The Accusation it selfe 7. Saint Hieroms testimonie saith Cumel Dolosè ciatatur ab Aduersarys speaking of Molina Suarez and some other Romish writers that is Is fraudulently cited And Capreolus is cited craftily by them I am grieued to see how fraudulently they cite Driedo vrging that which he spake by way of argumentation or obiection for his owne iudgement whereas Driedo vseth many Arguments to disprooue that opinion But we shall be contented to dismisse Molina and those others let Cumel and Suarez meete vpon the Stage alone and so shall we be better able to discerne the disposition of the partie accused 8. Suarez saith Cumel doth not intirely and faithfully relate the sentence of Molina And expoundeth Molina but in a sense contrary to his meaning Suarez citeth the sentence of Soto leaping ouer a part of it and suppressing those words which made against him I doe obserue saith Cumel that Suarez alleadged Driedo whose sentence and wordes make plainely against him as I haue shewed so that I cannot tell with what spirit he is cited of Suarez and much lesse doe I perceiue to what end Stapleton is alleadged whose words doe more expresly make against them Suarez hath taken out of the testimonie of Saint Thomas the word Praeordination and put in stead of it Subordination and expoundeth S. Thomas sinisterly Suarez produduceth for his proofe the testimonie of Chrysostome Ad Heb. hom 12. super cap. 7. vbi ait Nostras non antecedit voluntatates nè liberum laedatur arbitrium cutting of that which went immediately before and that also which immediatly followed because he perceiued that the sense and opinion of Chrysostome did not fauour his opinion at all Suarez vrgeth Pope Clement in his third Epistle saying that he hath these words Si aliquid esset quod audientes fidem vel ad credendum vel ad non credendum determinatret extrà arbitrium eorum meritum libertatem tolli Which words he hath printed in new and distinct Characters and Letters as though they were the very words of Pope Clement when as indeed that most holy Pope neuer deliuered those words neither are they in that Epistle 9. And thus doth Cumel proceed against Suarez in censuring his falsifications in these and other allegations wherein Cumel seemeth to discerne nothing but wilfull frauds in that their Iesuite Suarez whom notwithstanding they magnifie for one Who by the iudgement of all the most learned men as they say seemeth to haue abundantly satisfied Heretickes so they call Protestants and Catholickes in the doctrine of the Sacraments in the new law 10. Seeing now good Reader that Fr. Suarez one of their chiefe order which is the order of Iesuits and the choicest writer which is now liuing in that Societie in a fewe Chapters of but one so primarily an authorized Booke concerning one onely Controuersie hath committed so many falsities which their owne so much approoued Doctor Cumel cannot free from wilsull fraudes and corruptions what multitudes of falshoodes shall we thinke may be found in all the huge and vast Volumes which he and other Iesuits haue published concerning all other questions of Controuersie if that any ingenuous Cumel might be permitted to ransack all their Allegations 11. Although this one so singular an Instance being deprehended by such an Accuser in so many and so notorious falsities doth sufficiently encounter Mr. PARSONS his demaund who offered to be contented but with one example of any one who hath committed but three such inexcusable defaults yet lest that Master PARSONS his modesty may giue him leaue his wit power to answere me according to the Greeke Prouerbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is to turne an vnitie into a Cypher and to make account that one onely example is as good as none at all therefore haue I thought it further more requisite to single out Duo magna lumina that is the two great lights of that Church Cardinall Bellarmine and Cardinall Baronius and to shew the wonderfull Eclipses and spots of falshood which their owne Doctors haue discerned in these two The partie accused is Cardinall BELLARMINE In behalfe of whomMaster PARSONS hath challenged me in this Reckoning
preiudice his integritie but rather to suspect them to be lies except that they may bee reasonably verified by the Reueiw of his Reckoning 30. Hitherto wec haue heard the censure of their owne Doctors branding Authors of their owne order with the blacke marke of often falsifying and also displaying the generall practise of their Church in corrupting of Authors sentences contrary to their meaning So that this Introduction may serue for a reduction of Mr. Parsons into a more Sober Reckoning who doth pronounce his brethren to be free from that Maladie of falsifying not so much in confidence as it may seeme of their fidelitie as for the better palliating of his owne guilt whilest he would be thought religiously and honestly to detest that vice which throughout the Reueiw of this Reckoning I shall orderly detect CHAP. II. Consisting of two Inquiries SECT I. The first 1. WHether Mr. Parsons hath not greatly obscured and abused a place of Scripture which serueth for an infallible conuiction of the Iewish infidelitie and for the proofe of Christ his resurrection by defending the probabilitie of that aunswere which the Souldiers gaue when they sayd Whilest we were asleepe his Disciples came and stole him away Which answere Iludged to be fond and senselesse and am therefore called by him vnto a new Reckoning This is a matter of some moment therefore I neither may nor will refuse a triall herein I obiected Saint Augustine c. The summe of his answere followeth Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning I Aunswere that S. Augustine argued well against the Souldiers by a Dilemnta that if they were asleepe they could not tell by any certaintie that Christ his Disciples stole him away and therefore they did fondly to testifie the same for certaine and true But Saint Augustine saith not as you say that the deuise was against common sense for then it would not haue beene beleeued so generally for so many yeeres after as euen in the time when S. Matthew writ his Gospell nor could the Priests Doctors and principall Iewes of the Synagogue which had not onely common sense but worldly wisedome also either haue deuised this shift or haue giuen money to haue it published or would they haue suffered the same to haue beene proposed to the Goueinour Pilate for contenting him who being a Romane and a wise worldly man would neuer haue harkened vnto it or admitted the same if the proposition had bene against common sense I grant that the Souldiers could not know it for certaine that the Disciples had stolne him away but by probabilitie onely which probabilitie notwithstanding was very great for that his enemies would not haue aduentured to haue done it with so great a danger Ergo it is likely that they were Friends Followers Schollers and Disciples I grant that the Priests and Souldiers lied therein but yet I hold that this lie was not senselesse nor against common sense The Reueiwe by a threefold Conuiction the first is from Authoritie 2. Saint Augustine by a Dilemma brought the Souldiers vnto one of these extremities viz. either to say that Christ is risen and consequently to confesse that they were not a sleepe or else if they would needs be thought to haue been a sleepe to graunt that they aunswered they knew not what which were we know very senselesse Saint Chrysostome sheweth that the infatuation of the Iewes heerein was great who concerning this aunswere of the Souldiers Hee was stolne Which Mr. Parsons calleth Greatly probable saith that it was falsum minime probabile that is false and no way probable The same Father calleth the Priests who were the diuisers of that aunswere Impudent and audacious fellowes whom Mr. Parsons would haue esteemed to haue been wise and politique Yea and I ansenius their owne Bishop saith that the speech of the Souldiers was Valdè absurdus c. that is Very absurd notwithstanding that it was beleeued of most of the Iewes the speech being divulged among them as Saint Matthew noteth of his time euen vnto this day His reason is because They by their owne malice were deliuered vp into a reprobate sense Shewing that the Euangelist Matthew did record the generall beliefe which the Iewes gaue vnto the Souldiers aunswere as a speciall Argument of their infatuation and senselesnesse which Mr. Parsons hath vrged to prooue that they aunswered not without wisedome and policie The second Conuincement 3. If wee first consider the persons who sayd that they were a sleepe Saint Matthew in the former Chapter doth tell vs that after the buriall of Christ the chiefe Priests and Pharises came vnto Pilate saying Wee remember that this Seducer whilest he was aliue sayd that after three dayes I will rise againe Therefore they desire Pilate to commaund that the Sepulcher should be kept vntill the third day lest perhaps say they his Disciples come and steale him away and tell the people that he is risen and so the last error shall bee worse then the first Pilate said you haue a Guard goe guard it as you know and they departing made the Sepulcher sure with the watch and sealed the stone Here we see that the Priests and Pharisees who accused Christ the Souldiers also who apprehended and crucified him doe all conspire together to haue a diligent watch kept at Christ his Sepulcher and that but for three dayes lest his Disciples should come and steale him out of the graue and consequently the people might be thereby as they thought more strongly and dangerously Seduced yet now after all their zeale care and prouidence lest his Disciples should come and steale him away they date report that His Disciples came and stole him away could this report seeme probable 4. Secondly if we could probably suppose that they were asleepe yet we know that the aunswere implied two things the first is a negatiue proposition viz. He is not risen the second is an affirmatiue viz. His Disciples came and stole him away If any in regard of the negatiue part had demaunded of them saying how know you that he is not risen and heard them answer saying We know that hee did not rise because We were asleepe could he iudge this Aunswere to bee sensible 5. Thirdly if we consider the affirmatiue part His Disciples him away any might haue easily replied saying What his Disciples They were the men who for feare ranne away from him when they should haue saued him from death would they hazard themselues for the stealing away his body after that he was dead Improbable And adde hereunto the reason taken from the wisedome of those worldlings it will make their Aunswere incredible because as their Iansenius hath noted from Scripture these beleeuers of the Souldiers were now deliuered vp into blindenesse so that whilst they would seeme wise they were found fooles As for example The Souldiers said they were asleep perswaded men that Christ is not risen the Disciples of Christa while after professed
so that in such cases we are compelled to stand most commonly vpon probabilities 3. Neither doe I take the exception vnto their diuerse Expositions to aunswere your friuolous obiection concerning the Fathers but vnto the manner of their Expositions whereunto some of them were drawen being as was confessed oppressed with the force of their aduersaries obiectiō one kinde saying that the Synode forbad onely an Image made to represent God which kind of Images saith another were not then in vse Secondly others aunswere that it was because they seemed to the Heathen to commit Idolatrie Which saith an other agreeth not with the exposition of the Canon Thirdly others affirme the cause to haue beene because they did commit Idolatrie Which say others is not agreeable Fourthly they Forbadde say some onely Images to be painted on Walles whereunto others oppose saying that This agreeth not with the Canon Fiftly Others as it were oppressed with the obiection thought it their best refuge to denie the authoritie of the Councell 4. Finally after that twelue seuerall testimonies had bene alleadged against which Mr. Parsons notwithstanding his eagernesse could catch no shadow of exception hee in the end fixeth his teeth vpon one which was the citation of Senensis as saying Elibertina Synodus omninò vetuit Imaginum cultum that is The Synode of Eliberis did absolutely forbid the worship of Images And this is called by him an Absolute lie for thus it pleaseth him to worke vpon it Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning charging his Aduersarie with falshood HE maketh the Latin Text of Senensis to speake in like manner Omninò vetuit Synodus Elibertina Imaginum cultum But in him you shall not finde the word Omninò absolutly wherein standeth all the force of the matter And the fraud cannot seeme but wilfull nor can it any way stand with the intention of Senensis who saith and affirmeth onely according to the interpretation which he best alloweth among many other that the meaning of the Councell was this to forbid the vse of Images for a time least the new conuerted Spaniards not being wellinstructed seeing Images vpon the walles should think there were no difference betweene them and the Heathen Idols For auoiding whereof it seemed good to the Councell for a while to remooue the vse of Images which of it selfe they held for lawfull and pious This is the opinion of Senensis The Reueiwe satisfying the former exception both concerning the words and sense 5. The word Omninò is not there no truely nor yet the other words in their order Whereby you might well know and now conceiue that it was onely an error of transcription which is incident vnto any that writeth when the same wordes which were set downe by me in the Romane Character as a general note of Senēsis his meaning are by the Transcriber altered into an Italian Character whereby they seemed to be the very words of the Author himself If you wil not credite me vpon my word yet be so charitable as see my booke which was published before I hard of your taxation where vpon the same occasion I haue cited this testimonie of Senensis in the very words as they lie in the Author himselfe Ratio cur prouinciale Concilium c. Vnto which citation there can be no exccption taken at all 6. We come to the sense Your Iesuite Vasquez a Spaniard speaking of the interpretation which I gaue concerning this Canon citeth this sentence Seeing that it is forbidden saith he by the law of nature to worship Images as God and the people at that time were prone to Idolatrie the Fathers of that Councell thoght it a present remedie if Images were taken from among them and saith that Martin of Ayala and Senensis do imbrace this interpretation The words of Senensis are that the Fathers of that Councell Thought that they could not otherwise heale the present disease namely of Idolatrie then by forbidding Images Which sheweth that not onely Images representing God as some answered as some Images painted upon walles for feare of contempt by Infidels as others conceiued nor the forbidding of them to be painted in tables as some els fancied but as Senensis saith There was no other remedie but to remoue them that is absolutely not to vse them 7. Albeit Images were forbid only for that time whilest the people of Spaine was prone to Idolatric yet when are not people naturally so addicted I would to God you could excuse your owne people who to omit auncient times how prone nay how much plungèd they haue beene in Idolatrie your owne Authors by their complaints haue acknowledged and what their disposition is at this day the Image at Loretto and other such like if they could speake would relate to your conuiction It sufficeth that Images are to be absolutely remooued whensoeuer there is great daunger of Idolatrie And vnderstand by the way you that obiect omninò so sinisterly your owne plaine and inexcusable bodge in putting in omnes vnto the sentence of Calnine flatly contrary to his meaning SECT II. Their next Contradictions about the Councell of Francford concerning the worship of Images 8. DIuers were obiected in the Preamble which required some reasonable Reckoning but Mr. Parsons turneth all into a seorne Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning WHat is this to the purpose then to proue that these Authors did erre wittingly against their conscience Doe you not see that still the poore man runneth quite from the purpose and hath nothing to say to the effect he should say The Reueiwe 9. You were loath to expresse the particulars least your Reader might perceiue what silly Reckonings you vse to make I am therefore constrained to call them to your remembrance There we heard your Surius charging Protestants of so Incredible impudencie and maruelling that they 〈◊〉 appeare in the presence of any honest man because they corrupted the Councell of Francford as though it had condemned the second Councell of Nice for decreeing the worshipping of Images when as by the iust iudgement of God their fraude was made manifest for they forgot to raze out Constantinople and to place in the stead thereof the Councell of Nice So farre Surius A man would thinke that so deepe an accusation as this should not want some colour and yet behold The sentence of Surius cannot stand saith their Ietuite Vasquez which he proueth as his owne words are from all Historians Yet this so impudent a slaunder against Protestants when it is obiected vnto Mr. Parsons he maketh a quiet Reckoning of it and passeth it ouer as nothing to the purpose 10. Others haue deuised other aunsweres such as were Alanus Copus Saunders Suarez who say that The Councell of Francford did not condemne the second Councell of Nice Notwithstanding the Cardinals Bellarmine Baronius doe acknowledge that that Councell of Nice was condemned in the Councell of Francford And yet Mr. Parsons will haue this also to be to no
times truth of matters set down by him And I doubt not but whosoeuer shall haue read the worke of Onuphrius and of Balbus here cyted in commendation of Platina will greatly preferre the iudgement of the first before the latter in matters of History The Reueiwe 14. Must then Onuphrius be suffered to crowde out Platina who is but a Commentator vpon Platina Or shal Onuphrius be the Historian whom you will acknowledge for authentical and whom you presume to be so Exact that he may not be reiected How is it then that your Baronius and Onuphrius can no better agree If Balbus his commendations of Platina beare no credite with you I will trie how Barklaius may preuaile he speaking of Platina saith Huic ego authori c. I will rather credite this Author Platina herein then any other Historians although they be more auncient because he writ his Historie at the commaund of Sixtus quartus and of other Popes Here Barcklauis preferreth Platina before others because of the Popes authority M. Parsons notwithstanding the Popes authority preferreth Onuphrius not that M. Parsons is lesse Papal but because he is more partial whensoeuer any witnesse doth contradict his conceit CHAP. X. Concerning Card. Bellarmine his false Allegations for proofe of Purgatory in discussing whereof the doctrine of Purgatory is discouered SECT I. The first charge concerning his cytation of Ambrose 1. WHereas hee professeth to bring in Apertissima loca that is Most euident places out of the Fathers for proofe of Purgatory-fire already described hee produceth such testimonies which by his owne consequence do not concerne the questioned Purgatorie as first alleaging Ambrose vppon the Psal. 118. Serm. 20. and yet Ambrose in that Psal. 118. saith All must passe thorow those flames whether Iohn or Peter onely Christ who is iustice it selfe shall auoyde them Of the which place of Ambrose Bellarmine saith Ambrose vnderstandeth not the fire of Purgatory but the fire of Gods iudgement Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning BEllarmine in the first place of Ambrose saying See Ambrose vpon ps 118. Serm. 20. signifieth that that Father hath something more for prouing Purgatory and in his second booke cyting the same Sermon of Ambrose vpon the place of Genesis God hath placed a sword of fire c. saith that it is rather to be vnderstood of the proouing fire of Gods iudgements What contradiction is this May there not be different sentences and senses in the same Sermon The Reuiewe 2. Yes there may but when as in examination of that Sermon of Saint Ambrose your selfe cannot finde any place which speaketh of any fire but that of Gods seuere iudgement which Bellarmine hath said is not the fire of Purgatoric you thereby confirme that which I haue said that Bellarmine cyted Ambrose in a sense different from his meaning SECT II. The second charge concerning his cytation of Hilarie 3. BEllarmine cyted Hilary in Psal 118. vppon these wordes Concupiuit anima c. We saith Hilary must vndergo that indefatigable fire in the which we must passe thorough the grieuous punishments of purging of soules This he Reckoned among his most plaine places for proofe of Purgatory-fire and notwithstanding else-where alleaging the same text saith of the Comment of Hilary that Hilary doth therein insinuate that the blessed Virgine ought to haue passed thorow the same fire adding a little after that He that is Hilary therein by Purgatory vnderstood not the fire of Purgatory Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning WHereunto is answered that both are conteyned in that Discourse of Hilary both the proouing fire of Gods iudgements after death and the purging fire of Gods iustice The Reuiew 4. You should haue answered for the same place of Hilary which was obiected otherwise if you shal labor to prooue that Bellarmine meant that both these fires were vnderstood in that one place where he himselfe confesseth that the fire of Purgatory is not vnderstood this would be as haplesse a worke as if you had sought by contradicting Bellarmine to free Bellarmine from contradiction SECT III. The charge of many false Allegations together 5. YEt againe among his manifest places for Purgatory he alleageth Origen Basil Lactantius Hierome Ambrose all which are acknowledged expresly by Sixtus Senensis from the euidence of the contexts to haue spoken onely of the fire of the day of iudgement and consequently as Bellarmine hath taught vs Not of the fire of Purgatory Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning I Would demaund of M. Morton why we should ascribe more vnto the iudgement of Senensis in censuring these places of the Fathers then vnto other learned that thinke the contrary They are all acknowledged saith M. Morton expresly by Sixtus Senensis from the euidence of their contexts to haue spoken onely of the fire of the day of iudgement and consequently not of Purgatory This is now properly to helpe a Die indeed for that Senensis doth not talke of any such euidence of the contexts but speaketh rather doubtfully and by coniecture saying of Origen that his opinion that both good and bad should be purged by fire is confuted by S. Augustine in his bookes de Ciust Dei but yet for excusing the same from errour he saith Tu vide an Origenis verba interpretari queant de igne vltime conflagrationis Doe thou Reader consider whether the words of Origen may be interpreted of the fire of the last conflagration or not so as he did not expresly acknowledge from the euidence of the contexts as M Mortons shifting and lying words are that these authorities must needes be vnderstood of the last combustion of the world but rather leaueth it as vncertaine to be considered by the Reader The Reuiew 6. I said indeed that Senensis by the euidence of contexts acknowledged the testimonies alleaged to haue spoken of the fire of the day of iudgment and consequently according vnto Bellarmines doctrine not of the fire of Purgatory This you call Shifting Lying and helpint the Die but the perfect Cogger will presently appeare For first I alleaged diuers testimonies which might haue licensed me in a generalitie to say by the euidence of contexts seeing that M. Parsons could take exception but onely to one 7. And the truth is that I cyted Senensis his Biblioth l. 5. Annot. 171. who writeth thus Ambrose seemeth to agree with Origen who saith that all Christ onely excepted must be tried and in a sort burnt in the fire of the conflagration of Gods iudgement Where Senensis expresly affirmeth what his iudgment is concerning the sentence of Origen To confure this M. Parsons setcheth a skip out of Senensis Annot. 171. backeward vnto his Annot. 170. where Senesis saith of Origen Vide an c. O confuter Origen spake of a fire thorow which Apostles Martyrs and euery one Except Christ must passe So that this could not bee the Romish Purgatory-fire for neither
vnto M. Parsons he was too inconsiderate to put this in his Reckoning for one of the falshoods which were obiected against him 5. Neuerthelesse lest that I might disturbe the Order of M. Parsons his Reckoning I thought good to fill vp this his first place with a perfect falshood indeede of his owne not yet mentioned which is such as may perswade any man of Conscience that M. Parsons his Conscience hath taken such a leake as is able to drowne his soule except hee repent which I will vnfold in the next Paragraphe A foure fold falshood committed by M. Parsons against M. Caluine in the end of his last third Chapter Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning FInally Iohn Caluine himselfe treating of this matter confesseth that the vse of Prayer for the dead which supposeth Purgatorie was practised in the Primitiue Church aboue one thousand three hundred yeeres agone Ante mille trecentos Annos saith hee vsu receptum fuit vt precationes fierent pro defunctis It was receiued in vse aboue a thousand three hundred yeeres past that Prayers should bee made for the soules of them that were departed And a little after where Iohn Caluine in the former place cited after his confession of the receiued vse of Prayer before one thousand three hundred yeeres saith Sed omnes fateor in errorem abrepti suerun But all of them I confesse were caried away with errour The Reueiwe 6. M. Parsons hath singled out of all the bookes of Mr. Caluine this one place which he presenteth to his Reader for a spectacle of contempt vsed by M. Caluine against auncient Fathers and hath laid this downe as it were for the vp-shot of his whole Reckoning of that his third Chapter But see I beseech thee good Reader what a knot of falsities hee hath tyed together in this one accusation First these wordes Ante mille annos c. are propounded onely as an Obiection of Romish Doctors thus Cùm ergo obijciunt Aduersary ante mille trecentos annos c. That is Wheras my Aduersaries saith Caluine doe obiect vnto me that prayers for the dead were wont to be vsed in the Church a thousand three hundred yeares since Secondly when he commeth to answere he saith Ipsiverò veteres c. But those auncients were carried away with errour Where M. Parsons to make M. Caluines aunswere more odious put in Omnes veteres that is All auncient Fathers erred therein as though Caluine had condemned them All in this point 7. Thirdly Caluine a little after in the same Section yeeldeth a fuller answere saying Verum nè glorientur Aduersaris nostri quasi veterem Ecclesiam erroris sui sociam habeant c. But least that our Aduersaries iaith Caluine may boast as though they had the auncient Church a companion in their errour I say that there is a great difference between them for those ancients vsed a memory of the dead least that they might seeme to haue altogether neglected them but yet did also confesse that they did not doubt of the State of the dead As for Purgatorie saith Caluin they held it to be an vncertaine thing Besides we might easily produce diuers testimonies of ancient Fathers wherby the vse of those prayers is manifestly confuted Thus farre Mr. Caluine signifying that he was not destitute of the iudgement of Antiquity for the oppugning of the doctrine which was obiected against him which part of the answere Mr. Parsons hath wholly concealed 8. Lastly Caluine saith M. Parsons confesseth that the vse of Prayer for the dead which supposeth Purgatory was practised c. Neuer taking notice that Caluine denieth that consequence holding that Prayer for the dead doeth not inferre Purgatorie 9. Is not here as great a manifestation of witting malice and falshood for ought that can appeare to any Reader as an Aduersarie could possibly vse First to alleadge Caluines obiection in that sense wherein it was obiected as if it had beene his Assertion Secondly by cogging a Die in deede in foysting in the word All Thirdly by concealing Caluines more absolute answere And lastly by implying a consequence which is by Caluine plainely confuted What will now become of M. Parsons his Confidence of his owne sinceritie who boasteth that there cannot be brought against him any one example of such a falsitie much lesse thrice three seeing that here are at least three grosse falshoods in this one we further enter vpon the falshoods wherewith he was charged in the Preamble SECT II. The second Charge of the Clause of Reseruation 10. HOw could M. Parsons without some Equiuocating fraude affirme that the Clause of Reseruation was not set downe by me in Latine except onely once seeing that it was expressed in Latine aboue twentie times The summe of M. PARSONS his Reckoning THe trueth is that my meaning was according to the meaning of M. Mortons assertion promising that he would alwayes so set down the clause of Reseruation in Latine that the simple Reader should not vnderstand it no more then simple men could vnderstand Aristotles Philosophy in which maner I found it put downe but once indeede thoughout the whole Booke to wit in the place before mentioned that is to say wholly in Latine for thus hee writeth comming to the said clause of Reseruation Loquar enim Latinè nè Jdiotae ansam sibi arripiant nequitèr 〈◊〉 vt quis 〈◊〉 illud detegere 〈◊〉 words hee Englisheth not and consequently might bee some veyle to the ignorant not to vnderstand him But in all other places though he put in oftentimes I know not this or that Vt tibi dicam vt tibi reuelem c. Yet doeth he so vtter in English all the rest of the cases professed as the simpliest man may vnderstand the same and consequently I hold them for vttered in English and not in Latine The Reuiew of the former Reckoning 11. The onely shadow of excuse which M. Parsons hath for couert of his former vntrueth when hee said that The clause of Reseruation was set downe in Latine but once notwithstanding it bee found in Latine aboue one and twentie times is to point at one place which hee saith is onely and wholly in Latine thus Loquar enim c. But here he craftily cutteth off the words which goe immediately before for thus it standeth in the Booke A Catholicke being asked whether a Priest be in such a place may notwithstanding his perfect knowledge to the contrarie answere Hee is not there vt loquar enim Latinè nè I diotae ansam sibi arripiant nequitèr mentiendi quis teneatur illud det egere Where it is as apparant that the mentall Equiuocation in this place for the Parenthesis is no part of the sentence being this Hee is not there Vt quis teneatur detegere cannot be said to be wholly in Latine more then I am no Priest Vt tibireuelem Or I am no Priest Vt tibi dicam Which
I said that An Acte of Parliament calld-in the bookes of Buchanan censuring all such contempts and Innouations Adding that you may not call that the doctrine of the Church of Scotland which the generall current of the Church and State did condemne in publique Parliament such is the seditious doctrine of resisting and deposing of Kings But yet thus it became M. Parsons to couer his former faithlesse dealing with a shamelesse deniall which lest it should not be manifest enough he maketh more visible by a palpable vntruth and yet againe Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning NAy as I noted before by saying that onely one Goodman had held positions seditious he thought to iustifie and cleare both these two and all other their companions from iust reprehension Whereby you see how idle an obiection against mee this is of wilfull falshood The Reueiwe 20. Be pleased good Reader to looke vpon the place it selfe and if M. Parsons haue dealt sincerely in this point of Reckoning then discharge him in all the rest I writ thus concerning Goodman Here is one Goodman who in his publique booke doth maintaine them I haue no other meanes to auoyde these straits which you obiect by the example of one to conclude All Protestants rebellious then by example of all the rest to answere there is but one Particularly intreating of the examples of English Protestants whom the Moderate Answerer had obiected and spending the whole third Chapter for the iustifying of the English Writers excepting Goodman whom I there held worthy of condemnation 21. After in the fourth Chapter intituled The obiections against the Church of Scotland I answered as is aforesaid for the condemning of Knoxe and Buchanan whereas there is not so much as any intimation of these two in the other place Was there euer man so distortedly squint-eyed who could looke North-ward and South-ward in one moment as M. Parsons hath done who could not distinguish the speech which particularly concerned England from that which was applied onely vnto Scotland Hee held it sufficient if I could shew but Three plaine falshoods for his conuiction here we finde in this one charge Three which are not of the least size SECT VI. The sixt charge against M. Parsons touching Mast. Campian 22. THe testimony of M. Campian was brought to accuse M. Caluine concerning his doctrine of calling Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and censuring it to be monstrous Vnto the which crimination vsed by M. Campian and by sixe other Romish Doctors against Caluine I opposed the iudgement of Card. Bellarmine who iustifieth the sense of Caluine as being Catholicke yet did Mr. Parsons so relate the matter by changing Campian into Bellarmine as though I had foolishly brought in Bellarmine to be contrary to himselfe This I tooke to be a witting falshood The summe of Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning BEcause vpon the word your Iesuite M. Morton placed the letter r for reference in the margent vnto Campian and vpon the next Authour put downe the letter t vpon the quotation of Bellarmine to the same effect rescuing the opinion of Caluine and Beza the letters being very small the one was taken for the other and the name of Bellarmine set downe in the text in stead of Campian the difference importing nothing at all yet doth M. Morton make a great matter of it as though it had beene done of malice when as for me to change voluntarily these two names Cuibono The Reuiew 23. Here M. Parsons confesseth his errour but saith that he did it not voluntarily or vpon an euill intent But alas the good mans meaning bewrayeth it selfe by the manner of his owne Accusation wherein hee spared not to note me for a Shifter by intending to deceiue the Reader Neuerthelesse perceiuing his owne vngratious shift discouered he will haue me to take it for a reasonable part of a Reckoning to answer Cui bono that is What good would it haue beene for me saith he to haue done this willingly When as he should rather haue asked Cui malo that is To whom hee might worke a mischiefe hereby especially seeing that he doth bewray almost in euery page that it is his cordiall good to traduce mee and make me odious as if I were God forgiue him the vilest shifter and falsificator that hath beene heard of And yet the poore man thinketh to be excused by the littlenesse of the superiour letters r. and t. who notwithstanding was himselfe so Eagle-eyed in discerning in verò and verè the two little vowels ò and è. Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning concerning CALVINES 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 BVt now for the thing it selfe albeit Bellarmine in the place here quoted doe shew that according to the Exposition of Josias Simlerus a Caluinist the words of John Caluine in a certaine sense may haue a true meaning yet simply and absolutly doth he condemne the same as Hereticall saying Caluinum existime quoad modum loquendi sine dubio errasse I doe thinke without doubt that Caluine did erre in his maner of speech A little after the relation of the sentence of the Booke Whereby it appeareth that Bellarmine neither is contrarie to himselfe neither to Fa. Campian and other Catholicke writers before mentioned for that all of them doe agree that the maner of Caluines speech is hereticall dangerous and to bee auoided though in some strained sense it may passe The Reuiewe 24. Heresie as Mr. Parson knoweth consisteth not in words but in sense for these words of Scripture My Father is greater then I are vsed both by Catholickes and Heretickes but by Catholickes in a true by Hereticks in a false sense Now where I produced Romish Authors condemning the foresaid sentence of Caluine concerning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 iudging the sense thereof Hereticall c. and opposed Bellarmine against them iustifying the sense of Caluine as Catholicke M. Parsons endeauoureth to reconcile his Romish Authors as though they all agreed to condemne Caluines maner of speech and to allow his sense I should maruell that Mr. Parsons durst seeke to delude his Reader with so open falsehoods but that his disposition is now habited by vse 25. For the accusations of the Romish writers against Caluine were thus specified by me First Campian calling the Doctrine of Caluine portentum Next their Rhemish Translatours calling it Blasphemie After Posseuinus calling it Atheisme Then Stapleton calling it a wicked Heresie which Feuardentius saith hee doth not ably refute And can these agree with the iudgement of Cardinall Bellarmine who iustifieth the sense of Caluine to be Catholicke And for M. Parsons his further conuiction I shall desire my Reader but onely to heare the words of Bellarmine himselfe in the place alleadged Genebrard saith hee and Lindanus and Canisius all Romane Authors did attribute vnto Caluine this Heresie Neuethelesse when I doe examine the matter saith Bellarmine and doe diligently ponder the
so fully their hands And that Cranmer and Ridley with others were not brought into publicke iudgement for tryall the same Master Saunders yeeldeth a reason for that Q Mary being a zealous Catholicke would haue them rather called in question for heresie which is treason against God then for conspiracy or commotion which was a treason against her person The Reueiwe 38. In the Full Satisfaction you haue bin answered concerning Mr. Cranmer Ridley and others that they could not be challenged of any crime of treason where of you might not aswell make the State parties which accorded vnto the testament of K. Edward 6. in the behalfe of Lady Iane as their owne Historian Thuanus doth report what better reason can there be for their discharge then is this confession to wit that they were not called in question of Treason in the dayes of Q. Mary As for the Answere made by Saunders it is nothing but his vnseasonable figment For where was it euer heard that any State put a man to death for heresie whom they might cut off for treason For although heresie be a more heynous crime yet the Hereticke recanting is receiued againe into fauor but a Traytor notwithstanding his repentance is to giue satisfaction of the law by suffering death The Church dealeth as a Mother the law as a Iudge Neyther can the former Answere consist with Christian policie for if a man be both a Traytor and an Hereticke it would be lesse preiudiciall vnto Religion to execute him for Treason then for his opinion because euen the ashes of but one burnt for an Hereticke doth breede some wormes of like nature Finally common wit and vnderstanding of a man will teach him that whosoeuer is both guilty of heresie and Treason he should be accused and conuicted of them both that by the heynousnesse of his Treason his Heresie might seeme more odious By this we see vnto what poore and miserable shift M. Parsons is brought which hee knew he must eyther haue vsed or else haue marred his whole Reckoning 39. He furthermore addeth that he hath since Tooke the paines to search Holinshed more diligently and hath found that he doth more expresly affirme that the Commons and many of the Nobility conspired to raise warre both for the marriage and for the cause of Religion He may the more easily excuse me if I did not so readily meete with that which cost him so diligent paines to finde out which I had lesse cause to inquire into seeing that in the large Oration of Q. Mary against Sir Thomas Wiat reported by Holinshed there is no such scruple concerning Religion to be found which is al that I vndertooke then to auouch For as for Wiats intention how good soeuer it might seeme to be I did not iustifie it because as I then said Lawfull things must be performed by lawfull meanes signifying that his taking vp of armes against the Queene could not be warranted by presumption of any good intent We proceede to our other accounts of the Three charges next following M. Parsons giueth vs a breefe note Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning IN signe that M. Mortons matter now groweth barren in obiecting of wilful falsities against me he beginneth to huddle vp diuers of them together but of so small moment and so fully answered and confuted before as it is euident he seeketh but some shewe of number to helpe himselfe for some ostentation The Reueiwe 40. It was not barrennesse but the briefnesse of a Preamble which occasioned me to remit other your falsities vnto a further discouery as before wee end our Reckoning will abundantly appear For this present we are now to recal those charges which you haue handled in your first Chapter which I promised for one more orderly paslage to reduce vnto their proper places and therefore I now begin with the Answere vnto the next charge SECT X. The tenth charge concerning the text of Esay 29. 41. I Set downe for the poësie of my Preamble the text of Esay 29. 9. Ye are blinde and make others blinde This M. Parsons so canuased as intimating as I said that I had forged a Text of Scripture and that the wordes were by mee falsly alleadged which I proued in him to bee a slaunderous and vnconscionable taxation He is to Reckon vnto me for this also The summe of Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning concerning a Text of Scripture I Doe not say that hee hath forged a Text but that the sentence of his Poësie against Catholickes pretended to be taken out of this place of Esay 29. 9. is falsly alleadged corrupted and mangled the same not being found there eyther in wordes or sense The Reuiew noting Mr. Parsons his apparant falshood 42. What call you forgerie M. Parsons Is not the corrupting of a Writ so that it be not the same eyther in word or sense plaine forgery or can there be any greater then is the corruption of holy writte Therefore the action which you laid is an action of forgerie But whom did you note to be the corrupter your owne wordes are these I cannot well pretermit for ending of this Chapter one little note more of rare singularity in this man namely T. M. aboue others which I scarce euer haue obserued in any one of his fellowes and this it is that the very first wordes of Scripture illeadged by him in the first page of his booke for the poesie of his Pamphlet are falsly alleadged corrupted and mangled though they containe but one only verse of Esay the Prophet and then may you imagine what liberty he will take to himselfe afterward throughout his whole Discourse Adding much more bitternesse of Calumniation But this is sufficient to shew that I haue been thus bedawbed with his vile and false imputations of rare singularity aboue all my fellowes and that for falsifying and corrupting a Text of Scripture And yet dooth not this honest man blush to tell vs that hee had not accused mee of forging a Text of Scripture nor is hee ashamed to note me of rare singularity aboue all my fellowes for alleadging this translation of the Text which standeth so in our English Bible common vnto me with all my fellowes This last point calleth for a better Reckoning Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning NEyther did I see or looke for the English translation The Reuiew 43. Dooth this dealing agree with that propertie of an honest man whom you would seeme to be Not to looke the common English translation which might haue freed mee from the slaunder of so rare singularity in corrupting a Text if yet there had beene in it any corruption As this doth but a litle lessen your fraud so doth it much aggrauate your malice which was bent to make me obnoxious aboue all my fellowes I haue not done with you yet for we must Reckon for a third falshood of yours where you affirm that the sense of the Text is so
notoriously corrupted Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning concerning the sense of the Text. I Said that the 9. verse of Esay 29. is falsly alleadged corrupted and mangled the same being not found there eyther in wordes or sense And now for your conuincement in this place I meane to stand vpon the originall Texts themselues and the verse by you alleadged to see whether your poesie against vs may be framed thereof First then the Hebrew hath it thus as both Pagninus Vatablus and others doe set it down Be astonished and wonder shut vp your eyes and let them be shut be ye drunke but not with wine doe you recle but not with Sisera Or otherwise They haue shouted and cried are drunke but not with wine And the Greeke Septuagint thus Doc you faint c. The Reueiwe 44. Belike M. Parsons being angric with himselfe for his former boldenesse with the Hebrew Text meant now to redouble his owne disgrace vpon himselfe by saying that Pagnine Vat ablus and others who follow the Hebrew haue not anything agreeable to our English Translation Ye are blinde and make men blinde eyther in word or sense For he could not but remember that I alleadged for defence of the English the wordes of Pagnine printed Anno 1528. reading the same verse thus Excaecati sunt alios excaecauerunt that is They are blinde and haue blinded others I cited also their owne Doctor Hector Pintus vpon the same verse who sheweth that in the Hebrew it is read thus Your Priests shall be blinde and make others blinde Besides Vatablus himselfe who readeth the Text thus Be ye astonished and wonder Oblinite vobismetipsis oculos that is Daube vp your eyes And in his Annotations vpon the same wordes he paraphraseth thus They haue blinded themselues and made others blinde So that for we are to deale only with the Hebrew text which differeth not in sense eyther from the Greeke or Latinc our English is hereby sufficiently confirmed 45. Therefore M. Parsons in the vp-shot of this Reckoning is become chargable for three falshoods the first is his former false accusation in challenging mee of corrupting a Text of Scripture the second is his now-denying that hee meant to note me for forging a Text the third by vrging the English Translation as being altogether different from the Hebrew in sense which by the iudgement of their own Hebritians is very consonant And thus our Conscionable Reckoner forsooth who would seeme not to bee guilty of Three falshoods thoroughout all his books is often displaid to be guilty of Three in one Section SECT XI The eleauenth Charge concerning Carerius 46. WHether M. Parsons did iustly charge me with altering of the Title of a Booke of Carerius de Potestate Rom. Pontificis and with changing of verè into vere The summe of M. PARSONS his Reckoning NOw M. Morton will cleare himselfe and produceth to this purpose an other Edition Printed at Colen that hath these points as he citeth them Which Edition though I haue not seene nor heard off before yet doe I thinke it meete to giue credit vnto his affirmation nor will I doe him that iniurie as to doubt thereof especially for so much as he saith that hee hath shewed the same to many friends of his naming also the yeere and forme in which it was Printed all which being granted and that in this latter Colen Impression the Addition of 〈◊〉 Haereticos c. may haue beene added which was not in mine yet doth this inferre nothing against me nor my charitie The Reuiewe 47. Except M. Parsons first prooue himselfe to be of better credit then either I haue reason to presume of or his owne fellow Priest will acknowledge who hath charged him with loose Equiuocating lying and cogging I shall not greatly desire his credence It may bee that he hath seene some Colen Edition clearing me of his former imputation of falshood and that afterwards he beleeued his owne eyes and became ashamed of his former rash presumption to say so omnisciently that There is but one Edition of Carerius and thereupon hath hee beene mooued to vse more sobrietie in censuring of Titles and tearmes But what will hee say further vnto the matter it selfe Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning for a Grammaticall quiddity BVt now for the second point obiected of verè for verò though M. Morton doe alleadge in like maner for his excuse the authoritie or rather the errour of his Colen Edition yet cannot hee so easily discharge himselfe thereof for that the very contexture of speech must needes argue to his conscience that it should be verò and not vere for that otherwise their should haue beene no apt sense nor any coniunctiue Particle to connect the testimonie of Celsus Mancinus to the former The great letter C. also in the beginning of Celsus if this bee not in like maner altered in M. Mortons Edition from the originall must needes haue shewed vnto him that it was no Nowne Adiectiue but a proper name of a man and consequently must bee ioyned with verè and not with verè The Reuiew 48. Good M. Parsons if I should say I were ashamed of your ignorance you would say that I spake it in choler Therefore I will but onely propound vnto you your errour and then will you I thinke bee ashamed of your selfe You haue said that Celsus being no Nowne Adiectiue but a proper name of a man could not bee ioyned with verè But I doe contrarily affirme that there is no proper name which doeth both betoken a mans person and also signifie some propertie and qualitie agreeable vnto that name but it may be vsed both Substantiuely and Adiectiuely with verè as Celsus was which was the proper name of Mancinus and Adiectiuely signifieth Loftie 49. For you know that Pius signifieth godly and it was the name of many of your Popes If I should say of your Pope Pius Secundus iam audiamus Pontificem verè Pium would you say that I had offended against my Grammer Nay is not euery such citation a singular elegancie of speech Lend your eare amongst infinite examples of this kind to your owne Doctor Barkley who speaking of S. Ambrose saith O Dominum Antistitem verè Ambrosium cuius ex dictis 〈◊〉 tanquam ex sacro quodam penario tam suauem capimus Ambrosiam That is O that Prelate truely Ambrose from whose writings and workes as out of an holy Store-house we may take the sweete Ambrosia of Euangelicall trueth so he M. Parsons I thinke will not compare with Barkley in Grammer learning and though he should it would bee but according to the prouerbe Sus Mineruam This word Iacob which signifieth a supplanter was the proper name of a Patriarke the yonger Sonne of Isaac vnto whom his brother Esau spake saying Was he not truely called Iacob for hee hath supplanted me twice I now demand if Esau had said vnto him behold one truely
vsed in anoath for by an oath an officious lye becommeth pernicious because of the neglect of the reuerence of God who is witnesse vnto a mans oath Thus farre Sepulueda 7. Whence we vnderstand the fraudulent dealing wherevnto Mr. Parsons accustometh himselfe who informed his Reader that I could find but onely Sepulueda contradicting their Equiuocation in all the time appointed and yet all these were within the compasse of foure hundred yeeres Aquinas liuing about the yeere 1210. Scotus Anno 1300. Biel Anno 1462. Henricus de Gandauo Anno 1293. Mr. Parsons hath yet one note more which he would haue obserued I would pray my Reader not to denie him his best attention M. PARSONS his Reckoning NOte by the way the lauish immodestie of M. Morton citing that learned Doctor Gabriel Biel out of Genesius 〈◊〉 by the contemptuous title of Lewde Sophister Whereas Sepulueda stileth him in the same place Theologum Doctissimum a most learned Diuine The Reuiew 8. Then belike I haue made Sepulueda call Gabriel a lewde Sophister will you be so good as but to looke once againe vnto the place which is in the Preamble pag. 83. and I doubt not but you will finde out your owne errour or rather recognize your notable falshood For I named not Gabriel a lewde Sophister in citing the testimonie of Sepulueda but some eight lines after I made bold to censure him so of my selfe which any one who is not wittingly captious will plainely discerne What then must we note you for M. Parsons for noting this by the way but a man that was by the way when you made that note 9. If you further aske me a reason of so censuring Gabriel I shall tell you he attributeth vnto the power of nature so much as doth detract from the power of the spirit of Gods grace If this reason be not sufficient take an other viz. Although Gabriel held that the Equiuocation aboue mentioned is a lye and consequently a sinne yet I thinke none before Gabriel Biel saith Sepulueda durst affirme that a lye in bearing false witnesse in an other mans behalfe is excusable Be he therefore as learned as you wil yet might he be said to play the part of a Sophister who excused a lye which none did euer before him SECT III. The second instance against Mentall Equiuocation is from the iudgment of the Iesuit Azorius in his Instit. Moral part 1. lib. 11. c. 4. § Meatamen And vpon occasion hereof the Doctrine of Equiuocation is more exactly examined First we propound the state of this Question as it is defined and defended by M. Parsons The Charge of T. M. against M. Parsons 10. THe second falsity of P. R. is his affirming that Mental Equiuocation for herevpon we only dispute hath beene vniuersaly receiued of all Vniuersities and people in Christendome and not contradicted by any The first witnesse conuincing this Mitigation of falshood is Azorius c. M. PARSONS his Reckoning and Charge against his Aduersarie THe opinion of Azorius is falsly obiected by M. Morton as making for him whereas it maketh wholly against him The Reuiewe 11. Here is a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a maine gulfe of difference betweene our two iudgments I affirme that Azorius doth condemne the AEquiuocation which M. Parsons hath defended M. Parsons saith that Azor hath beene falsly obiected and that he maketh wholly against me Vpon this point hath M. Parsons diuers times raised vp his most clamorous inuectiues against me in this his book of Reckoning wil it please thee gentle Reader now to audit our accompts First wee are to set downe the state of the Question M. PARSONS his Reckoning BVt now let vs see notwithstanding further what Azorius saith against Equiuocation in generall for to this effect he is brought in in this place as though he held that al Equiuocation were to be reiected as lying for proofe whereof he citeth two places out of the selfe same leafe and page of Azorius The Reuiewe 12. All AEquiuocation M. Parsons thus you say and therfore put this in the number of my new and fresh lyes as you cal them saying Here followeth a notable conuiction of falsehood against him for alleaging Pa. 84. of his Preamble the Iesuit Azorius as condemning all vse of AEquiuocation c. And yet you know that before the propounding of the testimonies of Azorius and other Iesuits in the very same page of the Preamble I restrained our whole dispute vnto Mental AEquiuocation only for hereupon only said I we dispute which word only was repeated in the Preamble more then seauen times And yet can you with a wide mouth say without exception that I would haue Azorius to speake against All Equiuocation Are you not like to make a good end of your Reckoning who haue thus falsifyed in the beginning 13. In all disputes it is necessary wee know the point in question we contend therfore about Mental AEquiuocation only It is in the second place as necessary to know What is the mentall Equiuocation which M. Parsons doth defend 14. True Equiuocation saith M. Parsons may be either verball or mentall Verball is that when word or speech hath either naturally or by peculiar custome of particular language two or more significations This is truely and plainly said of the Verball Equiuocation tell vs as distinctly what the Mentall is Mentall Equiuocation is when any speech hath or may haue a double sense not by any double signification or composition of the wordes themselues but only by some reseruation of minde in the speaker whereby his meaning is made different from that sense which the wordes that are vttered doe beare or yeld without that Reseruation Doe not now forget I pray you M. Parsons that you distinguish Mentall Equiuocation from Verball by this note to wit that the double sense which is in the Mentall Equiuocation is not in the words themselues but only by some reseruatiō in the mind of the speaker which meaning is different from that sense which the words vttered doe beare very well we shall afterwards try whether Azorius doe iustifie this manner of Equiuocation or no. 15. In the next place seing that the outward speech and the inward mentall Reseruation are so different we demaund whether you thinke the same kinde of Mental Equiuocation to be true or no These wordes of a Priest I am no Priest mixed with this reseruation To tell it vnto you or such like agreeing with the minde of the speaker is as true as if the whole proposition were vttered with the mouth without reseruation thus I am no Priest to tell it vnto you We must remember this also in discussing the iudgment of Azorius to know whether he did allow that euery such speech which being vttered wholy in the mouth and agreeing with the minde of the speaker be likewise true when it is halfe reserued in the minde of the speaker
in the same sense for if it be not equally true then your mixture cannot qualifie the outward speech to make it a perfect truth 16. Lastly what kinde of Reseruation will you allow and before whome So that the party to whome the answere is made be not a competent Iudge the speaker is free to haue what meaning he list so that it be true in his owne sense Although it agree not with the Hearers vnder standing as I am no Priest reseruing in my minde such as I should be or such like whatsoeuer it pleaseth me So he This last assertion I must naile vnto the hinder part of your head that you may remember it Therefore if it please you let this be the Reseruation in the minde with purpose to tell it vnto you and let vs trye whether Azorius will condemne this kinde of Reseruation for a lye or no euen when it is vsed before a Iudge incompetent Now commeth in the combat I will be first the party defendant and answere your charge The summe of Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning and charge against his Aduersary Mr. Morton skipping ouer foure rules Azorius vseth for they make expresly against him runneth only to the fift and last whereof he saith that it bitteth the naile on the head And is it so Sr. what say you then to the precedent foure why say you nothing to them what part of the naile doe they hit if the last only strike the head In the first he resouleth that a Priest may AEquiuocate and say he knoweth nothing when he is de maunded any point about Confession In the second he resolueth that whensoeuer any man is demaunded by an incompetent Iudge euen in an oath whether he hath committed this or that sinne he may by AEquiuocation deny the same euen in an oath As if a man be wrongfully compelled by a Iudge to sweare to pay a summe of mony to his Aduersary he may sweare though he haue no intention to performe it as being against law hauing this Reseruation in his mind that he will pay so much as by law he is bound And other three or foure such cases are there in the explanation of this Rule The Reueiwe 17. Azorius neuer vseth the name of AEquiuocation and in his explanation of his first and second rule doth fully abandon M. Parsons his doctrine of Reseruation thus Ratio vtriusque Regulae c. that is The reason of both these Rules saith Azorius is not that which some doe yeeld saying that it is lawfull when we sweare to take the wordes in our sense which we feine vnto our selues and not in the sense which the hearers doe vnderstand Yet is this the reason which M. Parsons hath laid do wne for the defence of his Mental Reseruation before a Iudge incompetent saying I may feigne what I list although not agreeing with the vnderstanding of the hearer But Azorius alleageth a reason against this infatuation Because saith he whensoeuer the wordes are of a doubtfull signification and we are asked any thing against the law then is it lawfull for vs to take them in that sense which we like albeit the hearers doe take them in an other sense Which doth againe confute M. Parsons his doctrine for he defendeth an Amphibologie of speech which may haue a double sense only by the reseruation in the minde of the speaker which sense is different from the wordes of the mouth But Azorius admitteth not any ambiguous or doubtfull sense which is not incident vnto the outward wordes themselues and whereof the hearer is not by some outward circumstance of speech capable and apprehensible 18. This may be made plaine by comparing examples together A Iudge is acquainted with a mans cause which he is to determine the party whose cause it is commeth to the Iudge for aduife Now it is knowne that a Iudge is not to giue counsaile in any case wherein he is to execute the office of a Iudge yet the party being instant and vrgent saying Sir doe you not know how I shall free my selfe in this cause the Iudge answereth Friend I know nothing of this matter meaning that howsoeuer as he is a Lawyer he know his cause yet now as a Iudge he is not to acknowledge it And this double sense is in the speech it selfe and by circumstance of the person may possibly be apprehended by any discreet hearer and is to be called a Verball AEquiuocation according vnto the former definition which M. Parsons himselfe hath deliuered and not a Mentall 19. Such like is the example which Azorius hath offered concerning a Priest who knoweth some secret reuealed vnto him in priuate Confession as he is a Priest and therefore as a Priest is bound in conscience and by his calling not to reueale any such secrecie except the concealement may be pernitiously damnifiable vnto persons and States as some of them doe hold In such a case Azorius saith that hee may answere I know not because he knoweth it not but as a Priest which is that he knoweth it not to reueale it but why by vertue of an Onely reseruation mentall so hath Mr. Parsons defined No but because as Azorius saith The wordes themselues according to their vfe haue this ambiguous signification in themselues so that it is not now to be called absolutely Mentall but a verball Ambiguity 20. Sepulueda hath made the case verycleare shewing that it is allowed by the common consent of Christians that a Priest who knoweth the crime of any as he is a Priest that is in confession may not disclose it then his answere in saying I know not doth issue from the common interpretation of the words themselues to signifie that he is not to take knowledge of any such matter to tell it vnto any which interpretation issueth from the outward circumstance of his calling because he is a Priest So that still the oddes betweene M. Parsons and Azorius is thus much M. Parsons speaketh of an Equiuocation or ambiguity of speech which consisteth not in the outward wordes but Azorius iudgeth contrarily as wee haue heard and M. Parsons shall better see to his no small rebuke before the end of our Reckoning After this Azorius addeth a third rule The summe of M. PARSONS his Reckoning BY the third rule he proueth the like in other cases as when iniury is offered to vse ambiguous wordes and to take them in our sense as farre as the wordes will beare as the wife being asked of her husband whether she be an Adultresse and of a man fallen into the handes of theeues c. and in the case of a man demanded whether he came from a place suspected to haue had the plague c. The Reueiwe 21. Azorius explaneth himselfe in this third Rule as in the former saying that We may vse wordes ambiguous taking them in our sense which the wordes themselues will yeelde and not as M. Parsons holdeth
in whatsoeuer sense we list whereunto our minde shall agree which meaning sometime is such as the diuell himselfe cannot by any circumstance of the speech possibly vnderstand Such as this is where a man demanded of his friend whether he hath any money to answere no referuing in his minde To lend it vnto you which although it be a true proposition being deliuered with the mouth yet spoken halfe in the mouth and halfe reserued in the minde doth not make a true proposition but is a very lie as Azorius hereafter will tell vs euen because the outward wordes cannot by any congruity of speech import that same Clause To lend it vnto you And if this shal appear in Azorius it wil be no hard thing for our Reader to discerne whether of vs dooth performe a true Reckoning 22. Notwithstanding I speake not this to iustifie all the examples which Azorius giueth but I insist in his generall rule which is that the Outward speech doe carry in it a double sense for we must measure the examples by the rule and not the rule by examples and so interprete Azorius his examples that he thereby doe not contradict himselfe 23. The fourth rule concludeth directly that in the case when no iniury is offered vnto vs we may not vse any speech but in a sense which is vnderstood of the Hearer This rule challengeth plaine dealing without any Equiuocating at all And now discend we vnto the last rule which I said did hit the naile on the head which M. Parsons laughed at but it will in earnest hit him on the head albeit hee doe vse all the wit in his head to auoyde it Acharge against M. Parsons 24. The first rule of Azorius said I is this If the wordes we vse are not according to their common signification among men ambiguous or doubt full and haue onely one sense We ought to vse them in that sense which they haue in themselues neyther is it lawfull for vs although we be examined against right and iustice to detort or turne our speech by our inward conceit of minde because it is not lawfull for vs to lie but he doth lie who vnderstandeth his speeches otherwise then they doe signifie in themselues The difference betweene our Mitigator and this Iesuite is no more then this first P. R. defendeth an Equiuocation which is when the speech hath no double sense in the outward wordes themselues but onely in some secret reseruation in the minde of the speaker But Azorius saith that we ought not to vse any sense of speech which is not in the wordes themselues but onely in the inward thought of him that speaketh Secondly P. R. maintaineth that his mentall Reseruation is a truth but Azorius concludeth that it is a lie And can there be a greater contradiction betweene M. Parsons and Azorius then this is I pray thee good Reader let vs heare M. Parsons his defence and so shall we easily discerne his spirit and coniure it Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning for his discharg You see that Azorius forbiddeth onely that words which haue but one onely naturall sense and signification and are not ambiguous or of diuers sense should be vsed by the speaker in any other signification then naturally or by common vse among men they doe yeeld As for example if one that had an Horse and not an Oxe should be demanded whether he had any Horse hee should say No meaning that he had no Oxe for that hee conceiued an Oxe for an Horse this were not lawfull saith Azor in the vse of wordes because the word Horse hath but one proper meaning amongst men and cannot signifie an Oxe and consequently cannot be so taken but by a lie But if the word Horse had a doubtfull or double signification fignifying as wel an Oxe as an Hors then might a man vse the amphibologie of the word to auoyd any iniury offered him by an incompetent Iudge as Azor himselfe determineth Who would thinke then that a man of common sense or of any mean modesty and care of his credite would haue alleadged Azor so confidently against his Aduersary as M. Morton doth and that which is most ridiculous so to insult against him as he doth against me here saying P. R. maintaineth that his mentall Reseruation is a truth but Azorius concludeth that it is a lie And can there be any greater contradiction then this c. The Reueiwe 25. Often haue I called the indifferent Reader to audit our Reckoning but in this so strange a knacke of Sophistrie I would make bolde to appeale vnto the Priests and Professors of Aequiuocation to iudge of Mr. Parsons his practise in this point The wordes of Azorius are these When the words are not of any doubtfull signification but haue but one onely sense we must vse them in that sense which they yeeld his reason because he doth lie who taketh them in another sense then they signifie Which M. Parsons expoundeth by an example of one that hath an Horse and not an Oxe and being demanded whether he haue an Horse he should say no meaning that he hath no Oxe 26. But Azorius doth not make any mention of an Horse or an Oxe or of any such examples which beeing vttered wholly with the mouth doe make no true sense For this outward speech vsed without mentall reseruation viz. I haue no Horse meaning I haue no Oxe is doubtles a lying mixture But Azorius vseth onely such examples which being deliuered outwardly with the mouth haue a true sense and yet being vsed with a mixture of reseruation are in his iudgement a lie I must craue patience of thee Christian Reader to suffer me to inlarge my selfe in discussing the iudgement of Azorius because M. Parsons his fraude will be more notoriously apparant and his defence of Mentall Equiuocation receiue as I may so say a deadly wound 27. Azorius beginneth his dispute thus Some sayth he speaking of the same Romish Doctors propound this generall rule and say that it is no lie although the wordes which a man vseth in his promise by an oath be not of an ambiguous and doubtfull signification but that the speech is made true in our secret vnderstanding This is the state of the question which Azorius intendeth to determine by his fiue rules aforesaid namely concerning a Speech which some Romish Doctors doe holde to be true in the secret vnderstanding But there was neuer man of any sober vnderstanding who could fancy that to be true in the secret vnderstanding of man which M. Parsons hath propounded viz. I haue no Horse meaning no Oxe which is M. Parsons his proper deuise 28. Secondly the example which immediately followeth in that place of Azorius and was vsed by the Patrons of Equiuocation for the manifesting of their meaning is this As for example say they if thou require any summe of money of me and I hauing
so much money shall answere I haue it not reseruing in my minde To lend it vnto thee although they say saith Azorius that this outward speech hath no ambiguous sense but that I therem doe absolutely signifie that I haue it not yet I conceiue in my minde I haue it not to lend Therefore say they I doe say the truth and doe not sinne by periury This is the immediate example which is set downe to patterne the former question concerning an Ambiguous speech by mentall Reseruation which Azorius is about to decide and to tell vs whether this kinde of Reseruation be a lie or no. Can there be any affinity betweene this example and M. Parsons his Horse and Oxe 29. Thirdly which amplifieth his conuiction mre fully sons Mr. Parsons doth iumpe both in doctrine and example with those Romish Patrons of mentall Reseruation whom Azorius in this place doth professedly confute Of Mr. Parsons his doctrine we haue often heard Now let vs vs behold his example set downe in his Mitigat cap. 9. pag. 403. num 80. where it pleased him iocantly to pose me thus I would aske Tho. Morton this case that if a man in England whose fauor he much desireth and esteemeth and yet hee would be loath to lend money for that he knew him to spend much and not to hold payment of his debts to be necessary to saluation If this great man demand of him whether he had fiue hundred pound to lend him and supposing that he had them but loath to lend or loose them what would he do or answere in this case if there were no other meanes but eyther to confesse that he hath them and thereby loose them by lending or denie that he hath them and thereby incurre a lie and damne his soule Hath the God of nature left no lawfull maner of euasion by reason and force of wit in such an incumbrance Hee that hath giuen vnto the Hare Foxe sharpenes of sense by leaps turnings windings by going backe the same trace they came to deceiue dogges I doubt not but that Tho. Morton would answere the Nobleman he had them not though they lay in his Chist vnderstanding by force of AEquiuocation That he had them not to lend Or not so as he could spare Or some other like reseruation which we say that without a lie he might vse 30. We see yet that M. Parsons doth conspire together with those other Aequiuocators of whom Azorius spake both in the position and example Now if Azorius call both their former conclusion and this very same example a lie then I thinke I may lawfully aske M. Parsons what kinde of creature he himselfe may be iudged to be who doubting of Azorius his sincere iudgement hath foisted in this aliant and fond example of an Horse and an Oxe 31. Azorius therefore after hee had repeated those Doctors reasons whereby they sought to confirme their owne position he saith Meo tamen iudicio c. But in my iudgement they extend that Rule further then is meete for there can be nothing so false which cannot be freed from all lying if we keepe any thing as we list concealed in our minde for by this meanes whatsoeuer a man shall demaund of vs we may answere by denying that we haue it yea though we haue it vnderstanding in our minde That we may giue it What soeuer we shall do What soeuer we shall see What soeuer we shall thinke or purpose we may by this meanes denie that we haue eyther done or seene or thought or purposed it namely in this sense That I may tell you Therefore I thinke otherwise which I will specifie in certaine Rules Thus farre Azorius 32. By this it is manifest that taking the same example of denying that I haue it with reseruation To lend or to giue it Azorius matcheth it with the vilest kind of lying saying that if this kind of speech be true there is nothing so false which may not be freed from a lie And in the end concerning the same obiection he answereth by the fift Rule saying as wee haue heard That if the wordes which wee vse be not ambiguous in their owne signification and common vse of men wee must vse them in that sense which they yeeld neither is it lawfull for vs although we be asked against right and equity to wrest any thing into a different sense by the inward conceit of our minde for it is not lawfull for vs to lie but he lyeth who taketh wordes otherwise then they signifie in themselues Such as he iudgeth M. Parsons his speech concerning not lending of money to be M. Parsons calleth the Speech qualified by only mentall Reseruation a truth Azorius contrarily calling this speech a flat lie So that this being the true reall direct and professed resolution determination and conclusion of their Iesuite Azorius M. Parsons must needes be thought to haue wilfully iniured this Author and also to haue abused his too credulous Reader whom by this his owne fiction of an Horse and an Oxe he purposed to make as wise as an Asse 33. And now I cease to maruel why M. Parsons propounded for his Schoolemaster the nature of the Foxe by vsing windings turnings skippings forward and backward seeing he hath shewed himselfe so excellent a proficient in that arte only this is to be wondered at that seeing the Foxe doth vse this guyle onely in flying from Dogges which are mortall enemies vnto him M. Parsons professeth the practise of his craft in the case of lending money to his friends and fauorites Wee proceede to the next witnesse against Mentall Reseruation SECT IIII. The next witnesse against Mentall Equiuocation is the Iesuite Emanuel Sa concerning whom it was my Charge against M. Parsons 34. MY Aduersary the Moderate Answerer said I to qualifie the hatefulnes of the Equiuocating Sect did tell vs that A Iesuite famous amongst the Casuists Emanuel SÃ in his Aphorismes writeth of this matter in these wordes Quidam dicunt c. Some there be who say that he who is not bound to answere vnto the intention of the examiner may answere by reseruation of some thing in his minde to wit That it is not so viz. that I must tell it vnto you although others doe not admit this manner of answering and peraduenture vpon better reason then the former Whereby it is manisest saith that Moderate Answerer that all Catholikes doe not allow of Equiuocation Thus farre that Answerer confessing hereby that diuers Catholike Authours haue contradicted this Equiuocating forgery which P. R. hath auouched no Catholike writer did euer contradict The summe of Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning charging his Aduersary with falshood First concerning a word LEt the Reader stand attent for that Mr. Morton may not escape vntill he haue satisfied somewhat Mr. Morton hath here committed many falshoods both against Emanuel Sa against the Moderate Answerer and against my self Against Eman.
Sa thus Sa addeth vnto his sentence forte potiori ratione non admittunt that is Perhaps this latter opinion is the better Which word perhaps Mr. Morton craftily lest out The Reuiew 35. I beseech thee good Reader stand attent and doe M. Parsons right and iustice and let not me escape vntill I haue satisfied Thou hast heard the first Accusation is of craft for omitting the word perhaps in translating the sentence of the Iesuit Sà viz. fortè potiore ratione which M. Parsons hath I must needes say truely rendred into English thus Perhaps with better reason I likewise confesse that in my translation of those wordes I vsed not the word perhaps for I rendred them thus Peraduenture with better reason which translation I expresly then set down both in my booke of Full Satisfact Part. 1 cap. 27. pag. 86. and in my last Preamb. pag. 86. about the 24. lin which M. Parsons also hath alleaged in his margent where it is Englished thus Although others doe not admit this manner of answering and peraduenture with better reason Which M. Parsons himselfe was not ignorant of for in the 275. page of this his Reckoning about the 30. line he acknowledgeth that I deliuered the wordes thus Others doe admit this reason and that peraduenture with better reason If it shall please any reader who can but spell English to examine these places he shall finde them so as I haue now alleaged How then can M. Parsons escape the accusation of a crafty and malicious accuser will he say that in translation perhaps and peraduenture are different and not sinonimically and significantly the same So may he deserue to be reckoned among the wise men of Gotham who could not see wood for trees or to shake the fellow by the hand who said that pepper is hot in operation but cold in working I should call this manner of dealing of M. Parsons monstrous but that it is ordinary as we haue proued and will now further manifest M. PARSONS his Reckoning and second Charge against his Aduersarie THat which Emanuel Sa spake of a particular case before a Iudge incompetent he taketh vniuersally against all AEquiuocation without exception Which Mr. Morton could not choose but know to be a fraude for that in the next lines Eman. Sa doth resolue two other cases wherein a man may AEquiuocate The Reuiew 36. Here he saith that I haue taken Sà as speaking vniuersally against all AEquiuocation and yet knew that our whole dispute is by vs both restrained only vnto mentall AEquiuocation which is euident by the very place Preamb. pag. 86 mentioning expresly Mentall AEquiuocation Therefore this accusation of excepting against all AEquiuocation is a witting except he had not haue me rather call it a witlesse falsity Secondly I deliuered that sentence of Sà out of the testimony of my Aduersary the Moderate Answerer as M. Parsons himselfe knoweth and confesseth if therefore there were an errour why doth M. Parsons let his owne companion escape and runne vpon me for his debt who neuer vndertooke to be surety for so loose a fellow as that man is to promise for him that he would not deale falsly His reason is because I could not saith he but know this to be a fraude If it were a fraude more shame for the Moderator but if it be no fraude what shame will it be for our sober Reckoner who euen in saying that I could not but haue read Sà bewrayeth his lauish presumption because probably I might haue rested vpon so plaine and sufficient a testimony of that my Aduersary 37. Notwithstanding I may not deny but that I did reade Sà in the place cited Tit. de mendacio where the case is thus put If a man demaund the whole debt whereas thou owest him only a part thou maist deny that thou owest him viz. so much as he demaundeth Weigh the sense of the wordes themselues and the ambiguity and we shall easily discerne that that which they call Equiuocation is not only in the secret reseruation of the minde but sufficiently implied in the outward speech it selfe so that the hearer may collect out of the wordes the secret sense and so it is a verball Equiuocation and not Mentall Nay when one asketh the whole debt and I denie that I owe it him who is there almost but will vnderstād that in that speech is signified that owe not that whole debt which is demaunded Neither doth the iudgment of Sà in other cases differ from the former opinion of Azorius by whom the Mentall Equiuocation as it is described by M. Parsons hath beene condemned for a lye Only Sà deliuereth his iudgement with a fortè or peraduenture I cry you mercy M. Parsons I should haue said perhaps and Azorius doth resoluedly shew that your doctrine of Equiuocation is concluded in a lying case But I demaund whether M. Parsons will stand to the iudgment of their Iesuit Sà or no Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning INdeede in the last edition of his booke at Rome An. 1607. his whole last sentence was left out as though he had changed his opinion The Reuiew 38. Or rather that your booke-gelders haue changed his writings according vnto your new professed occupation in corrupting of your owne Authours whensoeuer they chance to say any thing which soundeth preiudiciall to your cause which caused your owne Doctor to complaine and that not without some indignation that none can be suffered to write freely among you but forthwith as it happened saith he vnto Card. Bellarmine himselfe he is compelled to recant it or else such thinges are blotted out of their bookes c. Which bookish massacre being so generally practized God knoweth how fatall it may proue The like to that of Sà wil probably befall one day vnto your Iesuit Azorius who holdeth the same with Sà yet without all perhaps determinately and so the bookes being changed it must happen in processe of time that these allegations which we now vse out of him will be noted for lying slanders euen as I haue beene already dealt withall by M. Parsons about the testimony of Polydore when he charged me with falshood in citing him out of his old Editions which they themselues haue professedly and publikely altered and indeede corrupted Can such dealing stand with tearmes of common honesty But M. Parsons will lay some accusations against me for he hath vowed that I may not escape Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning HE citeth the foresaid authority of Eman. Sa alleaged out of his Moderate Answerer for a shadow dissembling that he had looked vpon the Authour but could not doe this hansomely enough for he doth egregiously abuse his foresaid aduersary by making him seeme to deduce out of that particular case an absolute deniall of all Equiuocation making him to conclude thus that all Catholikes doe not allow of Equiuocation But Mr. Morton let me pose you here Is it true that
your Aduersary said so farre and no further to the purpose in hand Or is it not rather true that you cut him off and would not suffer him to say any further for your Aduersary did fully cleare the matter if you would haue suffered him to tellon his tale for these are his wordes Whereby it is manifest that all Catholikes doe not allow of Equiuocation where he is not bound to answere the Iudge or Examiner proceeding vniustly and not according to law and equity Whereby is euident that he alleaged not Sà as denying all Equiuocation but in particular cases where he that is demaunded is not bound to make answere The Reueiwe 39. The Moderate Answerer saith that Sà allowed not Equiuocation c. and I reported no more for if my Reader can finde that I added All Equiuocation then wil I be contented with the adiunct of a detestable lyer What else I cut off forsooth the Answerers tale not telling that be meant of such cases wherein a man is bound to answere Graue crimen this his meaning was sufficiently expressed in the very que stion it selfe as I alleadged it standing thus Some there be that say that he who is not bound to answere c. Here the case was manifested to hold onely Where the partie is not bound to answer in which cases M. Parsons doth iustifie Mentall Reseruation but Eman. Sâ telleth vs that some Romish Doctors doe not admit this doctrine and perhaps saith he with better reason We shall neede no more for now I haue our Raynard in the straits what are the cases Mast. Parsons for I meane to pose you wherein you would haue your Eman. Sâ seeme to admit of a mentall Reseruation Eyther must they be when the partie is bound to answere vnto a competent and lawfull Iudge which kinde of mentall Reseruation you haue held to be vnlawfull and a lie Or else it must be vnderstood in case that the partie is not bound to answere vnto the Iudge because the Iudge is incompetent and in this case Eman. Sà as you know doth not allow of your Mentall Reseruation Therefore as I did not conceale the case you speake of so haue you no cause to haue it reuealed because it maketh fully against you who defend a Reseruation when a man is not bound to answere as before an incompetent Iudge Now therefore after you haue gained attention of your Reader consider what arrerages come vpon you by this Reckoning first your falshood in taxing the omission of the word perhaps Secondly in obiecting the word All thirdly imputing a concealement of the Case and lastly the losse of your cause by the iudgement of Sà and together with him by the iudgement of Some other Romish Writers SECT V. The next witnesse against M Parsons his described mentall Equiuocation is the Iesuite Maldonate The Charge against M. Parsons 39. MAldonate said I a principall Iesuite and Casuist resolueth thus Whosoeuer dooth endeauour by feyning to deceiue another although he intend to signifie something else yet doubtlesse he lyeth Mr. Parsons How will satisfie for this Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning against his Aduersary HE stileth Maldonate a Casuist who is neuer knowne to haue read or written of Cases in his life but Scholasticall Diuinity hee professed many yeares in Paris and left very learned Commentaries vpon all the foure Euangelists though the Roman Index 〈◊〉 Anno 1607. doe mention that certaine cases of conscience published by another and Printed at Lyons Anno 1604. were falsly ascribed to him The Reueiwe 40. Rather will M. Parsons play small play then sit out and now the Gamster thinketh that he hath taken a blot for Maldonate forsooth was no Casuist If this be an error then marke good Reader what guides haue mis-led me First a Casuist being one who discusseth cases of conscience the very Title of the booke Anno 1605. in the name of Maldonate is this A briefe Summe conteyning most difficult Questions of Cases of conscience necessarie for euery Priest when he heareth confessions Which booke was set forth Permissu Superiorum that is By permission of the Superiours Secondly in the Epistle Dedicatory the same Maldonate is by name commended by the Collector of these cases a Friar in these wordes When I sought for a man who had explicated the difficulty of some cases of conscience I could finde none among the most learned who had performed this better then Maldonate which argueth that he was to bee esteemed a most singular Casuist Lastly your owne Iesuite Ribadineira in his Catalogue of Iesuiticall-Authors An. 1608. expresly recounteth among the workes of Maldonate the foresaid Summa Casuum Conscientiae 41. Will Mr. Parsons charity giue him leaue to say that your Friar Martin and the other Superiours who suffred it to passe and your Iesuite Ribadinèira also were heerein Grosse deceiuers Then indeede must I confesse that I haue beene grossely deceiued But seeing that he knew that Maldonate was thus esteemed of by these Romanists his charity towards his owne friends might haue a little asswaged his malice against me whilst that he chargeth me by the Grossenesse of other mens deserts And we may furthermore obserue what little credite is to be giuen vnto their Romish bookes which come vnder the name of their Writers seeing that the books of Iesuites are falsly inscribed Let vs leaue titles and examine the truth of the matter it selfe M. PARSONS his Reckoning DOth Maldonate say any thing in this sentence that is not conforme to our common doctrine of Equiuocation No truely for we graunt that whosoeuer doth indeauor by feyning to deceiue another doth lie Insomuch that it agreeth well with the definition of a lie set downe in St. Aug. Mendacium est falsa vocis significatio cum intentione fallendi A lie is a false signification of speech with intention to deceiue which two clauses of the definition of a lie I doe proue and demonstrate for diuers leaues together in the 8. Chapter of my former Treatise that they cannot agree with the nature of Equiuocation and by consequence that Equiuocation is no lie Not the first clause a false signisication of speech which is when the speech doth differ from the meaning and sense The Reuiewe 42. Least that Maldonate might seeme to make against you you answere not directly to these wordes Although he intend not to signifie aliquid praetereà that is Something else which indefinitely signifieth something Else whatsoeuer it be Now apply your last example vnto this Rule If your friend demaund of you to lend him some money which you know that you haue in your Chest yet you are prouided to answere I haue it not meaning to lend it This your Azorius called a plaine lye and this is it which Maldonate doth intend who in this exception against any Reseruation which is onely mentall doth imply all saying Although he feine to himselfe
the keyes or supreme authority is neither in the Councel nor in the Cardinals but in the handes of Christ it is no better then a dreame wherein he saw the keyes as it were flying vp into heauen For when the See was often voide of a Pope as their Historians recorde the space of three or foure yeares and sometime also for Seauen or Eight yeares together as some haue thought dare any Romanists conceit that their Church was all that while destitute of the keies of spirituall Iurisdiction 32. Finally because M. Parsons plaieth the flesh-flye delighting himselfe with sucking of but seeming corruptions I must direct him vnto the examples of his owne friendes aboue mentioned to wit Suarez Bellarmine Baronius Boucher Gratian c. in whom their owne Doctors haue spied diuers vlcerous putrefactions of true and notorious falsifications by alleaging authours flat contrary to their meanings with which loathsome matters his corrupt appetite may satiate it selfe One example of this kinde offereth it selfe out of Bellarmine which I may not let passe whome P. Paulus hath confuted for abusing a sentence of Gerson by so inuerting the sense thereof as that which Gerson said in fauour of the authority of the Roman See the Authour meaning Bellarmine changing the wordes doth interpret as spoken in contempt Is this to dispute saith P. Paulus or to deceiue I know not what the Authour to wit Bellarmine can answere And when M. Parsons hath considered this let him tell vs in good earnest whether he will stand vnto his owne Rule of Penance against any one who shall be found guilty of so notorious a falshood that he neuer be trusted hereafter I forbeare to mention his owne falsifications because he exacteth an example of any one who hath the degree of Prelacy in their Church SECT V. The fift charge concerning the testimony out of Gratian for paying of debts 33. TO shew that by their doctrine they will pleade freedome from paying of debts vnto such persons whom they shall excommunicate the Glosse of a Canon was alleaged by R. S. and mistaken but yet only in part for their Iesuit Tolet expoundeth that Canon and an other of non-payment of debts which are made by promise And now M. Parsons beginneth to play his prizes and to haue about with two at once M. PARSONS his Reckoning WE may see how poore men in substance our Ministers are who double thus The Reueiwe 34. Hath R. S. mistaken this one place and hath neuer any Romish Priest beene found so culpable as to mistake an obiection for the resolution We haue heard the complaint which their owne Doctor Cumel made against certaine Romish writers such as were the Iesuit Suarez and others saying I am grieued to see how falsly they alleage Driedo vrging that which he spake by way of argumentation or obiection for his owne iudgement And M. Parsons himselfe who is the accuser must necessarily runne vpon his owne blade of reproch who called an Interrogation made for the more sensible introduction of the matter a crafty and hypocriticall silence and dissimulation Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning Mr. Stock alleageth the Canon it selfe making his Inference thus This is the decree which in generall carricth as much or more as is set downe 〈◊〉 that he saith that it carrieth as much in generall but generalities are not sufficient to auouch particulars This Canon doth prohibit obedience to be exhibited to excommunicate persons vntil they doe conforme themselues it speaketh nothing of debts how shall we trie it first by the wordes themselues wherein there is no mention at all of debts and for that cause it is probable that Mr. Stock was ashamed to English them as M. Morton before to recite them Secondly by the Commentary or Glosse whose wordes are plaine Licèt excommunicatio tollat obligationem quoad fidelitatem non tamen quoad alios contractus albeit excommunication doe take away obligation of fidelity or subiection towardes the person excommunicated yet not in other contracts so as if I doe owe to an excommunicate person money I am bound to pay him Thus doth the Glosse expound the Canon and the scaberd doth agree with the sword and both of them doe hurt Mr. Morton and M. Stock though neuer so good fencers in a badde cause The Reueiwe 35. Although we two should seeme too weake for this M. Parsons who maketh himselfe greater then an Hercules yet it may be we shall ouer-match him when we adioyne vnto our small force the help of their owne Card. Tolet who citing these two Canons to wit Nos Sanctorum and Canon Iuratos saith These Canons doe proceede concerning debts yet not debts which are reall meaning by Bill or Bond but debts contracteà by promise This exposition of their owne Cardinall and sometime Iesuit doth not only ward M. Parsons his blow but also driueth it to his owne pate by controwling the audaciousnesse of his answere wherein he denied that there is signified any non-payment of debts in this Canon M. PARSONS his Reckoning Mr. Stock goeth further to alleage an other beginning of a Canon Absolutos senouerint which was made by Gregory the ninth Wherein the very same thing is decreed as in the other wherin there is no mention of debts although by occasion of this decree a certaine Glosse whichi of Bernardus de Buttono Parmensis doth probably hould that to such a man there is not obligation of payment of debt at leastwise of such debts as are only contracted by promises but are not reall debts so long as he remaineth in that case And to this effect also speaketh Tolet in the place here cited by M. Morton and we haue heard before how the other Glosse of Bartbolomaeus Brixiensis held it for probable though the contrary for more true vpon the Canon Nos Sanctorum The Reuiewe 36. Well then their Card. Tolet and Romane Glossers haue held it lawfull for men to with-hold their debtes contracted onely by promise which may passe without witnesse from persons excommunicate But why onely these kinde of debts made onely by promise Is there in respect of God more iustice in a mans letters then in his wordes in his hand then in his tongue in his specialties by billes and bonds then in his obligation by promise no but it is rather as it may seeme because the Creditor hath not so good cuidence before men to clayme his debt by word as he hath by writing wherefore the Romish Canon sauoureth rather of humane craft then of good conscience and is farre vnworthy the title of Nos Sanctorum But let vs proceede SECT VI. The sixt charge taken by M. Parsons against R. S. about another Canon Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning WE must call him namely R. S. backe againe for cyting the Glosse apud Gratianum that is in the Decrees collected by Gratian which is not there but in the Decretals of Pope Greg 9. gathered
cap. 5. as I did shew him and he could not denie yet doth he wilfully runne vpon the same straine a note beyond true sobriety especially seeing that he also confesseth that in true sense the Glosse did extend vnto Apostata Princes 53. In the same place I furthermore iustified the relating of testimonies of Authours according to their sense without the precise repetition of their wordes by the example of their owne Pope in his alleaging of Scripture Deut. 13. but M. Parsons which is fraude indeede hath peremptorily condemned me without confutation yea or so much as mention of that answere 54. Finally I was so farre from iniurying the Glosse in hope of any aduantage that now considering the peruersnesse of my Aduersary I cannot but be offended with my selfe for loosing my best aduantage in not expressing the Glosse to the full because the wordes following will sufficiently manifest the Glosse to be which was the matter intended both sacrilegious and rebellious As Iesus by his natur all right saith the Glosse might enter into iudgement and pronounce the sentence of deposing an Emperour or any other person so also may his Vicar meaning the Pope Which assertion is so grosly false that their owne late and learned Doctors doe greatly abhorre it as hereafter will fully appeare SECT VIII The eight Inquiry 55. CAmpian Genebrard Canisius and diuers other Romish Doctors with maine force fell vpon Caluin and laide vnto his charge no lesse then impiety heresie and blasphemy because of his opinion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bellarmine howsoeuer he condemned the phrase did notwithstanding iustifie the meaning of Caluin and iudged it to be Catholike Which I produced to the iust reproofe of their malice who haue so vnconscionably traduced the doctrine of Caluin Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning I Handled this matter before albeit Bellarmine teach that in some sense it may be truely said that Christ is God of himselfe yet absolutely doth he condemne the speech of Caluin herein Seeing Bellarmine condemned Caluin quoad modum loquendi in his manner of speech which he proueth Hereticall by foure sorts of arguments Why had not M. Morton so much as mentioned this condemnation by Bellarmine seeing it imported the matter so mightily Which is sufficient to argue the faulty minde of the corrupter The Reuiewe 56. Surely M. Parsons is a mighty Questionist Caluin called Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bellarmine condemned the phrase of Calum but iustified his meaning against some Romish Doctors who had wickedly imputed Heresie and Blasphemy vnto to Caluins iudgment And M. Parsons asketh why I mentioned not Bellarmines condemnation of the phrase as well as his iustification of the meaning I answere I was to deale with the kernell and left the shell for him to exercise his teeth withall and knowing that Heresie consisteth not in the word but in the sense as I haue proued I omitted the contention about that word which notwithstanding might haue beene iustified against Bellarmine by the equiualent phrases of auncient Fathers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and such like which argue M. Caluins aduersaries to be but mighty wranglers as hath beene more amply proued heretofore where M. Parsons is found to be the corrupter not of Authours wordes but of their confessed meanings in this point who beeing vnable to oppose any materiall thing against me riotteth about the omission of Hoc errore This errour albeit the question were only of This errour and none other and then for saying Illos for Illum although I was licensed thereunto by Bellarmine himselfe who ioyned both Caluin and two other Protestants as namely Beza and Simlerus together whose iudgment in the same point he did likewise approue So that a man would imagine that M. Parsons was scarce either hic or ille when for want of matter of exception he reeled vpon illos and hoc SECT IX The ninth Charge THis is about the Text of the Prophet Esay Chap. 29. vers 9. They are blinde and make others blinde Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning I Noted him only for false alleaging corrupting and mangling this place the Reader will see my reason by looking vpon the Text And how little he hath beene able to say for himselfe in iustification of his fancy may be seene in the Chapters before mentioned and so we passe to an other as trifling as this The Reuiew 57. M. Parsons noted me as he saith for false alleaging corrupting and mangling that text of Scripture and hath shewne himselfe thereby a notorious malicious man as I haue fully euicted shewing first that I corrupted not the Text but alleaged it as it is found in our common English translation Secondly prouing that the same translation is iustifiable both in wordes and sense And whereas M. Parsons in his Mitigation did vehemently pursue me saying I cannot easily pretermit c. Now in this Reckoning he is willing partly to pretermit his owne errour calling the matter a trifling as he vseth to doe when he is deprehended in a voluntary deceit SECT X. The tenth Charge THis is touching two wordes of some affinity verò and verè whereof we haue discussed before Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning THis is also a Colewort twice already sodden whereof I spake but a word or two in my Treatise of Mitigation censuring it for a trifle and now M. Morton hath so stretched out the matter for that he may seeme to haue some little patronage for his errour by the later errour of an other print The Reuiew 58. Now since that M. Parsons hath seene by the last Preamble his owne rash vile and slanderous accusation detected he can be contented that his Reader may thinkje that he censured me for that pretended abuse only in a word or two that is not rigorously but remissely as a man of sobriety would doe any Trifling matter but I who tasted his gal cannot so easily forget the bitternesse of his inuectiue who made his exclamation against me thus And where is now the assurance of his vpright conscience protested in his Epistle Dedicatory Where is his simplicity in Christ Iesus where is his naked innocence can this be ignorance can this be done but of a guilty conscience what may we beleeue of all that he saith when he seeth himselfe intangled with such foolish trechery Thus farre M. Parsons And couldest thou conceiue otherwise good Reader by this hue and crye but that I had beene guilty at least of some periury or sacrilege or blasphemy notwithstanding now he confesseth that it is but a trifling matter and is willing to thinke that it was vrged against me vpon a false surmise Here we see that his trisling coleworts were first sodden in vinegre and gall euen in the bitternesse of his maliciousnesse but now he is content to mingle oyle with it being in part ashamed of his former cookery 59. Neuerthelesse whereas M. Parsons hath not prosecuted
meeting spoken off was beyond Trent I am almost weary with pursuing M. Parsons he is so extrauagant but yet I may not giue him ouer for then I know he would insult in his slanderous vaine as followeth Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning Mr. Morton corrupteth the Text of Lambert by putting in Quia for Qui and saying that the Bishops of Italy did excommunicate the Pope Quia because he had defiled the Apostolike See by Simony and other crimes as though that had beene a cause in stead of Qui that is who had defiled the Apostolike See The Reuiew 74. What a lustfull appetite hath M. Parsons to slander his aduersaries For if I should say that the Iudges of England doe condemne Romish Priests Qui that is Who are found guilty of treason hath it any other sense then this The Iudges of England doe condemne Romish Priests Quia that is Because they are guilty of treason And that it is so in Lambert I desire no other euidence then the very wordes of the Author himselfe where he saith that the Pope expostulating the matter said that the Emperour and his fauourites had accused him of attayning vnto the Sea Apostolike by Simonicall heresie and defiled his life with other crimes Now then whether Simony and other crimes were obiected for a Quia and cause of excommunicating him let any Reader iudge and consequently whether M. Parsons his charge of corruption proceeded not from his owne corrupt affection Howsoeuer this I dare say that the alteration of Quià was not voluntary but accidental euen as contrarily it happened vnto the Latin Romish translation in Matth. 6. v. 5. Qui amant for Quià amant as their owne Iesuit Maldonate doth confesse Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning Mr. Morton alleageth Abbas Urspergensis as writing that Gregory was an vsurper of the See and intruded by fraude c. but urspergensis related that such words were vttered against Pope Gregory by the enimies of the Pope by the commaundement of Henry in a forme of a Councel or Synode of thirty Bishops of Brixia but that urspergensis did affirme any thing of it or approue the same is not found but rather the quite contrary for in the very same place and page he sheweth how these thinges were contradicted by Anselmus Bishop of Luca then liuing a man saith he most excellent learned and fearing God c. So Urspergensis The Reueiwe 75. What estimate Urspergensis had of the Papall claime especially ouer Kinges M. Parsons his owne conscience can tell who hath called Vrspergensis a Schismaticall writer because of his opposition against the Popes vsurped iurisdiction at that time euen as now he likewise iudgeth these thirty Bishops to haue beene Schismaticall which condemned Pope Gregory the seauenth for his like vsurpation Whether therefore Vrspergensis meant to yeeld rather vnto the Decree of those thirty Bishops or vnto the single testimony of Anselmus I remit it vnto M. Parsons his second consideration to iudge off after that he hath obserued that which followeth a little after in the same Authour Vrspergensis where he writeth concerning Rodulph Duke of Burgundy whome Pope Gregory the seauenth as Sigebert writeth caused to proclaime himselfe Emperour and to take armes against the Emperour Henry the fourth that the same Rodulph in a battaile against the true Emperour hauing his right hand cut off and looking vpon it spake vnto the Bishops who were by him and with a sigh said Behold my hand wherewith I plighted my faith to Henry my Lord behold I leaue both the Kingdome and this present life see you vnto it who haue made me ascend vnto his throne whether you haue ledde me the right way who haue followed your admonitions Afterwardes he telleth vs of the Emperours going to Rome and of the Romans yeelding vnto him and abdicating Pope Gregory because he refused to appeare before the Emperour and in the end In a Synode at Mentz all the rebellious Bishops were iudged to be deposed How will M. Parsons like this M. PARSONS his Reckoning HE telleth vs that Seuerinus Binius confesseth that Bishops in a Councell at Wormes declared Gregory the seauenth to be deposed and an other at Papia to haue excommunicated him and an other at Brixia to haue deposed him How can M Morton cite Binius contrary to his owne iudgement who calleth these Councels Conciliabula that is factious and schismaticall conspiracies The Reueiwe 76. I cited Binius but not contrary to his meaning This is M. Parsons deceitfulnesse for in the margent I expressed his meaning to the full in these wordes Although Binius said I called these Councels Conciliabula that which was to be euicted from Binius was his acknowledgment that such and so many Assemblies of Bishops which carried the generall name of Councels had condemned Pope Gregory As for the censure of Binius a late Romish Doctor of this present age and a professed Proctor and Aduocate for that See it ought to carry no more waight in this cause then may the censure which Doctor Stapleton vseth against the Councell of Basill when he calleth it Conciliabulum Schismaticum according vnto our Aduersaries guise of reiecting all other Councels as oft as they conclude any thing against the pretended authority of the Pope As for the authority of the foure Councels against Pope Gregory we may be better directed by Sigebert and Benno and other Historiographers who liued in or about those times of Gregory and iustified those Councels THE SECOND BOOKE OF ENCOVNTER against M. Parsons Answering his Reckoning of olde Falshoods which were obiected in his Booke of Mitigation and are againe by him repeated in his sixt Chapter of his new Reckoning CHAP. I. Conteining an Answer vnto his first eight charges Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning THe sixt Chapter conteineth a Recapitulation of many manifest vntrueths wherewith M. Morton being charged did willingly pretermit to answer them in his last Replie and thereby left a suspition that he could not answer them The Reuiew SECT I. 1. SUspicious men are malicious if the Proverbe say true which M. Parsons I feare doth now verifie who knowing that I was in hand with an other booke which was of greater moment than are all his libellious Treatises if they were bundelled vp in one doth notwithstanding importune mee to turne as it were a porch into a palace and make a Preamble a full Encounter yet a word more of the Preamble M. PERSONS his Reckoning In his Preamble he hath chosen out both the fewest Accusations and the weakest of all the rest although hee professed to single out such as were most vehemently pressed and vrged I thought good therefore to set downe other vntruths laied against him in my Treatise of Mitigation which hee hath concealed Let vs run ouer them if you please The Review 2 With a good will Maister Parsons but first I would trie whether I did single out the Weakest accusations and
it is deliuered in his third Rule and his reason of the approbation of that case doth confute M. Parsons ground of Equiuocating for Azor restraineth a mans speech vnto the vse of words which are ambiguous in a sense which the words themselues will beare But M. Parsons alloweth such a speech of words which haue no ambiguitie in themselues but according to that sense whatsoeuer it be that the speaker shall conceiue in his minde so that by mixtion it may make a true proposition as for example I haue no money meaning to lend it vnto you which Azorius as I haue often said condemneth for a lie M. PARSONS his Reckoning The sentence which he allegeth truly in the margent si ab aliquo loco peste minimè infecto c. This he translateth falsly into English thus If he come from a place which is infected which altereth the whole case The Reuiew 7 I durst almost sweare that M. Parsons is not perswaded that I either would or did falsifie in this place for the English being this Azor answering concerning the place infected with the plague said c. which thus spoken by the way of parenthesis could not be false because as the case was propounded the place was called infected vz. according to the opinion of the Demander and it was also called not infected in the iudgement of the speaker and therefore by either of them might haue been indifferently vsed especially by the way of pareuthesis And that I would not so far transgtesse the Margent may beare me witnesse wherein Azorius owne expresse words are set downe 8 But such and so great good will M. Parsons doth beare me that he had rather produce me for a falsificator than acknowledge the trueth of the thing or if it had been an errour to iudge it an escape of the pen or of the print Therefore am I vrged to present him with a number of confessed escapes of Bellarmine which abound in his sentences euen by omissions of that kinde against which Maister Parsons now doth so lauishly inueigh As for example In whom there are two persons saith Bellarmine in stead of NON c. that is There are not two persons And To haue doubted in stead of NOT doubted To signifie Continencie in stead of NOT to signifie Continency And Twice for NOT Twice And The wall in stead of NOT the wall And It shall bee perpetuall in stead of It shall NOT be perpetuall And Let it be reiected in stead of Let it NOT bee reiected And They might haue obeied in stead of They might NOT haue obeied And If our heart shall condemne vs in stead of If it shall NOT condemne vs And not to labour vpon trifles many such like erroneous omissions of the Negatiue NON Which seene I doubt not but M. Parsons will now play Ployden and grant that such errors may accidentally happen without falsifying and iugling SECT V. The summe of M. PARSONS his fourth charge HE would proue out of Azorius that Equiuocating in an oth is periurie when as Azorius putteth downe many examples wherein the swearer may take an oth in his owne sense though false in the sense of him that exacteth the oth The Review 9 The diverse examples which you name haue beene already discussed but there is one example which proueth M. Parsons his description of Equiuocating a flar lie and consequently periurie in an oth One may in equiuocating said M. Parsons reserue in his minde what it pleaseth him so that the clause reserued do agree with his minde If this be true then may this Equiuocation goe for currant viz. I haue no money reseruing in my minde although I know that I haue money to giue it for it agreeth with the minde and is notwithstanding condemned by Azorius for a perfect lie Therefore wheresoeuer the outward words doe not carrie that ambiguity of sense wherein they are vsed for of this kinde onely we do dispute it is in Azorius his iudgement to be reckoned for a lie Yea and so must the examples of 〈◊〉 be also if they doe not accord with his owne Rule It might therefore haue become M. Parsons to haue spared his bitter Invectiue against me vntill hee haue first reconciled himselfe with Azorius SECT VI. M. PARSONS his fift charge The summe of his Reckoning HIs next falshood is in that he would prooue out of Tollet that affected ignorance doth not excuse one but doth rather argue him to be an heretike Now all that be learned know that affected ignorance is the most culpable but Tollet sasth that Ignorantia crassa c that is Grosse ignorance doth not exeuse aman from heresie which is different from affected ignorance for the grosly ignorant is when one careth not to be informed but affected ignorance is when one doth purposely flie to be informed So that besides his impertinencie here is discouered his impundencie This was then my conuiction against him and was not this worthy of some consideration in his Answer The Reuiew 10 Yes verily for it is worthy a double consideration the one is to note heerin M. Parsons his follie and the next his malice The first that he who hath so often bewrayed his owne grosse ignorance both in ordinarie Grammar learning and in Logike euen then when he made most ostentation of his skill should now note it for a point of impudencie to faile in distinguishing such subtleties of their schoole as are Not to care to informe a mans selfe and To flie to be informed 11 But that he should stampe vpon this also the title of falshood it argueth that he doth looke vpon his Aduersaries writings with an oculus nequam for if any will aske M. Parsons whether Affected or Grosse ignorance be worse he will answer as he hath done that the Affected ignorance is most culpable Now then in as much as I sayd not that the Romanists meant to draw Protestants into the sentence and condemnation of Heresie and consequently into their extreme Censures and vengeance against them for Grosse ignorance which is the lesse fault but for Affected ignorance which M. Parsons calleth The most culpable albeit the word Grosse as he sheweth did allow me to aggrauate their malice against vs with what minde could he call this difference a falshood whereof the matter it selfe freeth me so cleerely For as I haue been but too fauourable to our Aduersaries in lessening their malice so haue I not been vnfaithfull to the cause for M. Parsons will not denie this to be their doctrine that Affected ignorance in matters of faith doth argue a man to be an heretike Thus much for his Grosse wrangling From Card. Tollet he proceedeth vnto Card. Bellarmine and doth obiect Barclay by the way I will first take this rubbe out of the way SECT VII The sixt charge about the authoritie of calling Councels M. PARSONS Reckoning LEt
that some little place had not been allowed for somepiece of Answer to this also among the rest But belike M. Morton was not readie The Reuiew 2 I was as ready then as now to tell you that heerein you play a kinde of Scotus and subtle Sophister with mee wilfully abusing both your owne knowledge and your Readers ignorance by not acknowledging the principall point in question which was not against Verball but only against that Mentall Equiuocation which hath been described by your selfe to be lawfull whensoeuer the speaker shall reserue any thing in his minde which according to his vnderstanding doth agree with the outward words of his mouth be the clause of reseruation whatsoeuer it pleaseth him to imagine As to say I am no Priest meaning with purpose to tell it you All such kinde of mixt propositions you in your Treatise of Mitigation do absolutely defend Which I say againe againe is by Sotus reiected as meere lying which I shall easily prooue out of Sotus his positions and examples from the same booke wherein you haue insisted 3 If we would know what kinde of Equiuocation Sotus will allow let vs consult with him in his positions First He that is iniuriously examined may vse all kinde of Amphibologies or doubtfull speeches so as they may be vnderstood in some vsuall sense withont a lie He admitteth not Equiuocating in any sense which is not by the vse signified in the outward speech it selfe and of this kinde is in his iudgement the word Nescio in the cause before mentioned whereof Sotus saith Words doe carrie that signification which the people apprehend and Christian people when they heare a Priest who is asked whether he know such a mans sinne answer Se nihil scire do vnderstand his meaning to be that he knoweth it not extrà confessionem which maketh a verball Equiuocation or Amphibologie the knowing of a Priest being of two sorts In confessione and Extrà confessionem So that the man which is asked whether he knoweth that which he heard only by relation from another may in the opinion of Sotus answer NESCIO because a man properly knoweth that which hee comprehendeth by strong reason And this Amphibologie is verball for Nescio hath a double sense in it selfe according to the vnderstanding of men properly signifying that which I do certainly not know and vnproperly that which I know but vncertainly and by report And thus saith Sotus the Priest may answer NESCIO because he had it but by relation of the partie confitent who might peraduenture haue lied Except the matter be manifest and so he proceedeth to approue Nescio in such a case to signifie by the intendment of the law Non scire vt dicam or vt debeam dicere To conclude Sotus neuer alloweth any other Equiuocall sense which is wholly infolded in the clause of Reseruation but that only which the outward speech it selfe may in his opinion carrie in the common vse according to the apprehention of the discreet hearer which in the opinion of Sotus is a verball Equiuocation And this matter may be demonstrated by his examples 4 First If a Tyrant aske a Priest whether Peter killed Iohn which the Priest knew in confession whether he may answer He killed him not reseruing That I may tell you Sotus resolueth that this answer cannot free the Priest from a lie for saith Sotus It were a most foolish exposition to say Non occidit Vt dicam because facta ordinom immediatum non habent ad hoc quod est Dicere Let vs compare our new AEquiuocators with Sotus M. Parsons admitteth any Reseruation which being mixed with the outward speech maketh a true proposition as I am no Priest conceiuing in my minde To tell it which differeth not from that of Sotus He murdered him not reseruing That I may tell it you which Sotus cannot excuse from a lie A second example When a party is Vniustly demanded concerning a fact which he had committed Whether he may answer Non a concerning a fact which he had committed Whether he may answer Nonfeci I did it not Scotus saith Sotus inclineth to the negatiue part And I saith Sotus cannot be perswaded that it is lawful to answer Non feci neither can I perceiue how it can be excused from alie for if any way this might be then especially by vnderstanding in his minde Vt dicam That I may tell you But this sense were most violent for the fact hath not any such order to the speech Yet doth this mixt speech make a true proposition which vttered in part with the mouth in the iudgement of Sotus cannot be excused from a lie and consequently M. Parsons his art of AEquiuocating is an art of starke lying 5 An other example we haue often heard of the story of S. Francis his sleeues which for the time we will suppose to be true He when a malefactor was pursued by ossicers being asked whether he saw the malefactor passe by or no Answered Non transiuit hà c that is He passed not this way meaning as Sotus readeth it per sinum as others per manicas through his sleeue This example our AEquiuocators vse to vrge to the end that they may couer their lying deuice with S. Francis his sleeue but if we beleeue Sotus that sleeue is too short to hide so long a lie for This deuice saith he will not content me because although he that is vniustly asked a question be not bound to answer vnto the intention of the demandant yet is he bound to hide a secrecy in such words which are true in a sense which is receiued either among the people or else among wise and discreet men Heere Sotus iudgeth a Mentall Reseruation agreeing with the minde of the speaker to be no better than a lie euen because the outward speech will not carry the secret sense in the vnderstanding of discreet hearers Which is the whole and onely point which in my dispute against the Romish AEquiuocation I vndertooke to prooue And lest that any might thinke that their AEquiuocating deuice were any way sanctified by touch as it were of S. Frances his sleeue Sotus opposeth against that a contrary example out of S. Augustine as followeth 6 An other example S. Augustine reporteth another example There was a Bishop saith he whose name was Firme but himselfe was firmer in his resolution who hiding a man that was pursued by officers and being asked who it was answered onely thus I may neither lie nor yet betray the party and thereupon he himselfe was carried to be tortured who suffered torment yet through his patience he obteined fauor of the Emperor for the deliuerance of the man that had fled vnto him This being by Sotus opposed vnto the former example of S. Francis doth teach vs that he would not allow our AEquiuocatours pretense who would haue readily answered that question
the least note of Insincerity The Pamphleter My Proposition was onely this No Protestant or Heretike not excommunicate by name lieth subiect vnto any penalty pretended when as my sincerily dealing Aduersary as before citeth me to say that such are not subiect to any Penaltie at all which is his corruption and not my proposition The Censure 16 This will be soone tried for in the Full Satisf cap. 4. pag. 5. I deliuered his proposition thus No Protestant or Heretike not excommunicate by name lieth subiect to any penalty pretended What shadow then had this insincerely dealing Libeller thus to traduce me as though I had falsified in this Citation Who againe is so dull as not to vnderstand that seeing all kinde of outward penalties were implied in those which were pretended it must needs follow that he that is not subiect vnto the pretended penalties is not subiect to any at all The Pamphleter I said that no Protestant in England is excommunicate by name which word In England for which our Controuersie was he leaueth out The Censure 17 This is as easily tried as the former for Full Satisf cap. 4. pag. 5. I repeated the Pamphleters sentence expresly thus No Protestant or Heretike not excommunicate by name as none in England is lieth subiect c. I locked vp the word England within the 〈◊〉 of a Parenthesis lest it might not be seene and yet hee blusheth not to say that I haue left it out What shall we iudge of the temper of this fellow who being in England can not see England The Pamphleter He ingeminates this sentence Protestants are no Heretikes when as I neuer spake or thought any such absolute assertion The Censure 18 We shall need no more but to set downe the words The obiection in my Discouerie was this They who by your slanderous doctrine make all Protestants in your opinion Heretikes so odious as vnworthy of ciuill society c. the Pamphleter made this answer No learned Catholike so reputeth the Protestants or any one Protestant in this kingdome But he saith that this was not to grant absolutely that no Protestant was an Heretike Very good I then perceiue his meaning is that he granted it not absolutely but equiuocatingly Well let him enioy his arte for me I enuie him not although this be the best facultie that he hath The Pamphleter You said that our generall assumption was this that All Protestants are heretiks excommunicate but must needs grant that this citation is false because the word Generall you know comprehendeth all and excludeth none The Censure 19 Good Reader I pray thee do not laugh at the Pamphleter phleter nor send him backe to his English Rules where thou hast red that There be excepted from this generall Rule as followeth But this noble Disputant forsooth calleth the generall Assumption false which can admit any exception at all 20 I should proceed to censure his difference betweene these words Heretike and Excommunicate and Heretike or Excommunicate and to confute it by their Bulla coena and then to shew how inconsideratly he vpbraideth vs with the sentence of a kinsman of his owne as we may guesse by his name but more by his distemper euen M. Broughton because that passionate man did condemne their vulgar translation farre more and lastly his loose Argument to proue the Heresie of Arrianisme out of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seeing that Bellarmine hath iustified Caluins sense therein And I thinke that he himselfe hath need to reforme his Argument lest that he be thought thereby which is an heresie indeed to haue diuided the Essence and substance of God and lastly I should haue repelled his obiection of Trinus-vnus whereby after the naming of the Father Sonne Holy-ghost I complexiuely comprehended the Vnitie in Trinitie according both to the sense of our Christian Article and also to the forme vsed by Antiquitie together with the confutation of some other his dissolute exceptions But these few are sufficient to paterne out this Libeller Hitherto of his falshoods in his Pamphlet One word or two of his Moderate Answer The Pamphleter He did not obiect any falshood vnto me in his Preamble when he was charged to note some falsifications in Catholikes The Censure 21 I did not in that little Preamble infist in the Pamphleters vntrueths and falshoods Ergo by his Logike I could not proue him to be guiltie of falshood This is the consequence of this famous scholar who was chosen to be one of the Three if we beleeue himselfe who should Dispute against all Bishops and Doctours of the Protestant side But if I aske from what topicke place this Argument is fetched I thinke he will hardly shew any except it be ab absurdo because the reason is apparent why I did not meddle with his falsities for as then I was to deale only with their Achilles Bellarmine so that I might well neglect this Gleaner Besides that I could haue ranged this fellow among the guiltie persons is as euident by the sixt Chapter of this Encounter which is spent in repeating the manifolde errours and slanders which this man committed against Protestants and were so inexcusable that his Patron M. Parsons when hee should haue satisfied for them suffered them all to stand still vpon this libellers score whom wishing vnto him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I leaue fantastically disputing with his owne shadow And now returne vnto M. Parsons his Reckoning CHAP. VII Conteining an Answer vnto the seuenth Chapter of M. Parsons concerning the obiected Omissions in not defending them wom he calleth my Clients §. I. 1 AFter that M. Parsons had played the part of a Promoter in calling into question concealed falsities as he vntruly termed them he proceedeth to ransacke the foresaid Omissions in which his Accusation I finde nothing but preposterous and superfluous heaping vp of the ragges of his olde Wardrobe called the Mitigation and all to the end he might make vp a grosse-bellied bocke wherein he exacteth of me to satisfic for all incommodious speeches which haue passed from some Protestants which is a charge that neither I did assume nor could M. Parsons by his Commission impose it vpon me who is delighted with the irksome iarre of some hot spirits that rage against Caluin especially in the point of Arrianisme The summe of M. PARSONS Reckoning in this point concerning Caluine 1 produced at that time somewhat largely and particularly eighteen examples partly out of the olde and partly out of the new Testament maliciously peruerted by Caluine in fauour of Iewes and Arrians against the trueth and certainty of Christian Religion leauing out twenty more which Doctour Hunnius doth handle c The Reuiew 2 When we do but consider what is the maladie of adnerse criminations that may serue for a part of an Answer which Bellarmine vseth in like case Non multùm resert quid irati homines dixerint For as
Aduersaries their profession herein is so rancke and their practice so rife that one of their owne brotherhood had cryed out vpon theirlyes and coggeries Yet this deuellish Doctrine were lesse dangerous if it did not transforme it selfe into the resemblance of more than an Angell of light by pretending the example of our Blessed Sauiour Christ as followeth CHAP. X. Short answers vnto the particular Instances which M. PARSONS vsed out of 8. chap. of S. Iohn for colour of their Romish AEquiuocation And first by way of Introduction §. I. M. PARSONS his Appendix IFinde the speeches of our Sauiour so frequent euery where in this maner of concealing of secrecies or things not sit to be plainly vttered by this doubtfull and ambiguous kinde of speech as in one onely chapter of S. Iohns Gospell I finde Christ to haue vsed the same aboue 7. or 8. times at least setting downe certaine propositions that of themselues and as they lie are in the common Hearers earo false though true in the speakers meaning by some Mentall Reseruà tion Which Reseruation though he vttered not in words yet is necessarily vnderstood and this is properly AEquiuocation in our sense and Doctrine The Reuiew shewing the distinction betweene Verball and Mentall Equiuocation 1 It is sit before we seeke to satisfie others that first we labour to vnderstand our selues by setting downe the true differences which are betweene vs. To this end I distinguish of 〈◊〉 or Amphibology as they are largely taken into Verbal and Mentall 2 The Verball is as hath beene said when any speech hath 〈◊〉 diuerse ambiguous and doubtfull sences according to the outward vse of the words in themselues and not only by the in ward reseruation of the minde which doubtfulnesse of a speach consisteth sometime in one word sometime in a whole sentence 3 An example of the Verball AEquiuocation or ambiguity of speech in one word may be these one spying a man of little wit and perceiuing that he had big and strong legges said that he was a man of good vnderstanding wittily changing the more vsuall sence of the word Vnderstanding as it signifieth wit and iudgement into the lesse common acceptation thereof wherein it agreed vnto a mans legges 〈◊〉 much different was the answer of a Market-man vnto one who being desirous to know what prices good horses bare asked him Homgce Horses at the faire Sir quoth he some amble and some trot merrily playing vpon the verball ambiguity of the word Go. 4 As there is a Verball Amphibology and doubtfull sence in particular words so is there also in the composition of whole sentences and that in infinite varieties as it happeneth often by the diuerse disposall of the word of a speech As when the man said that he met this morning a cart full of stones empty which words taken according to the common reading doe yeelde no sence but that which is sencelesse but being rightly distinguished it is the same as if he had said I emply that is fasting this morning met a Gart. Or as an other 〈◊〉 saying I saw Paules steeple on horsebacke meaning that being on horsebacke he saw Paules steeple 5 But of all Tropes or figures in Rhetorique there is none that commeth nearer vnto Mentall Reseruation than doe these two Ironia and Apiosiopesis For first in Ironia or iesting and derision the meaning which is conueyed by the words sometimes is quite contrary vnto the naturall propertie of the words themselues as may be decerned in that contention which the Prophet Eliah had with Baals Priests wherein he is said to haue mocked the Priests of Baal saying to them Cry aloud for he is a God either he talketh or pursueth his enemies or is in his iourney or else it may be he is a sleepe and must be waked But in this there was not Romish Mentall Reseruation which lurketh wholy in the closet of the speakers brest but a Uerball ambiguitie whereof the hearer was capable to vnderstand that the Prophet now contending against Baal to proue him to be no God did meane by calling him God and attributing vnto him properties which cannot agree vnto God as talking iourneying sleeping but to scorne deride him and indeed to call him No God Like hereunto was the Answer which the Prophet Michaih made vnto Ahab when he answered him saying Goc vp to Ramath Gilead and prosper which Ironie the King himselfe perceiued right well whereby the Prophet saith Maddonate did not 〈◊〉 him but sheweth that he was deceiued 6. The 2. figure which can best claime any alliance with Mentall Reseruation is 〈◊〉 or Reticentia which M. Parsons bringeth in to patterne their Romish Reseruation This is such a speech as is abruprly broken off in the halfe We haue an example in the 3. of Gen. where God now casting Adam out of Paradise saith But now left man doe put foorth his hand and take also of the tree of life and eate and liue for euer Reseruing the rest but not as inconceiuable vnto the Reader which in the generalitie was this I will take an other order with him For here by a knowne figure called Anthropomorphia God is brought in to speake like a man when he is in anger and passion Now the voice of mans extreame passion and perturbation is alwaies abrupt and broken euen as he is described by the Poet to say Quos ego Which kinde of sentences doe according to the fashion of mans speech betoken the intendment of some kinde of reuenge and cannot any whit countenance the Romish Mentall 〈◊〉 which is not all implied in the outward forme of the speech as we shall presently demonstrate That the Scripture alloweth not the Romish Reseruation §. 2. 7. S. Augustine as he is cited by the Iesuit Salmeron saith that Scriptures because they speake vnto men doe vse no kinde of speech which is not vsuall among men Whereby I make bold to assume that there is no speech in Scripture whether it be proper or figuratiue but it accordeth vnto the vse of the outward words and the meaning may possibly be apprehended by an intelligent Reader who can iustly obserue the phrase of speech and the due circumstances thereof As for M. Parsons his Mentall Reseruation it is inapprehensible because he saith that The clause of Reseruation may be what it pleaseth a man and what soeuer he list to frame to himselfe so that it agree with his minde in a cause wherein he is not bound to make any direct Answere For example sake let vs take this If a Priest being asked by a Protestant Magistrate vnto whom hee thinketh he is not bound to answere directly whether he be an Anoynted Priest and shall answere saying I am not anoynted Priest secretly referuing this clause in my minde not Anoynted on my elbowes or not Anoynted with Tarre or Oyle de Baye is not this reseruation meerely Mentall and no-way implied in the outward speech but
vnsearchable and altogether degenerate from the proper or figuratiue vse of mans speech Can he possibly find vs any colour for this Art of falshood and coggery out of the Gospell of truth The Examination of places of Scripture obiected by M. PARSONS out of Iohn 8. The first is out of the vcrs 15. §. III. M. PARSONS his Appendix The place then which I meane is the 8. chapter of S. Iohns Gospell where Christ our Sauiour entring into a large speech with the Iewes vseth first thesewords which I haue examined before in my said Treatise of Equiuocation Ego non iudico quenquam I doe not iudge any man which seeming to be contrary to that other saying of himselfe within a very few lines in the same Chapter I haue many things to speake and iudge of you and further in the same Gospell three Chapters before For neither doth my Father iudge any man but hath giuen to me his Sonne all iudgement it doth not appeare how the proposition can be true but by some mentall reseruation in the minde of our Sauiour which being examined by the ancient Fathers what it might be S. Chrysostom with Leontius Thcophilus and others doe thinke the said secret meaning or Reseruation of our Sauiour to haue beene this I doe not iudge any man in this my first comming but doe reserue it for my next at the day of iudgement Other Fathers gather another as though he had secretly ment I doe not iudge any man as you the Scribes and Pharisees doe according to the flesh and outward shew but in trueth Yet neither of these Reseruations being vttered they doe make the speech to be ambiguous and E quiuocall as cannot be denied The Reuiew 8 There is no Mentall Reseruation in this speach of Christ which the outward words themselues doe not imply for if we vnderstand the sentence I doe iudgeno man according to the first exposition which signifieth that he did not now iudge men in this life it is explicable enough by this and other Scriptures For else where it is plaine that he came into the world as a Iesus to Saue the world and not as a Iudge to condemne it And to this purpose the text saith as Caietane obserueth Non iudico not Non iudicabo that is I iudge noman it saith not I will iudge no man so that there is no shadow of Repuganancie in this with the other speeches of Christ. 9 Againe if the second exposition be consulted with concerning the manner of iudgement it doth not exclude the former and is also sufficiently apparent by the outward words for in the words going before he tould the Pharisees saying You iudge according to the flesh but I iudge no man namely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Maddonate according to the flesh whereby Christ distinguisheth his maner of iudgement from the Pharisees because they as men iudged According to the flesh that is as Tolet expoundeth according to external outward sence but Christ iudgeth immediatly without helpe of sence and is therefore God We see then that the sense of Christ his speech was intelligible by vertue of the words themselues But the sense of the Priest is not so for if he shall say I am no Priest meaning of the old law is there any wit of man that can diue into the depth of this Reseruation The second place vers 32. M. PARSONS Appendix In the same place he saith to the Iewes If you perseuere in my sayings you shall truely be my Disciples and know the truth and the truth shall free you Which freedome or deliucrance the lawes vnderstood from temporall bondage and therefore answered answered him that they were the seede of Abraham and had neuer beene in bondage to any Which error of the Iewes proceeded from the ambiguous speech of our Sauiour reseruing in his minde and not expressing in his proposition what bondage he meant for that his reserued meaning indeede was if the bondage of sinne The reuiew 10 There was a Verbal ambiguitie because there is a double freedome the one from corporal bondage the other from Spirituall as from sin and hell The Iewes spake of the one Christ diuerteth their thoughts to the consideration of the other and explaineth his owne meaning in the 24. verse He that sinneth is the seruant of sinne As if he had said saith Card. Caietane Behold what the seruitude is whereof I speake c. Which is a case familiar euen vnto the Pagans themselues as their Bishop Iansenius wellnoteth insomuch that Diogines vsed to say that There is no difference betweene Seruants and vicious Lords but the vowels and Sillables of their names except onely this that seruants doe serue their Lords and Lords are slaues to their owne vitious affections This being so conceiuable a sence of these words freedome and seruitude euen by the common vse of the outward words themselues among men how can it confirme a Mentall Reseruation which is such a Couchant in mens harts as which by no vse of the outward speech can possibly be decerned as when a man shall say I am no Priest conceiuing in minde this clause With a Club-foote The third place is out of vers 50. M. PARSONS Appendix The like may be obserned in those words Ego non quaero gloriam meam I doe not seeke my glory and yet doth Christ most iustly seeke his owne glory that is à ue vnto him and so in the verse immediatly going before he 〈◊〉 this vnto them Vos inhorâstis me you haue dishonoured me and in another place to his Disciples he saith Vos vocâstis me Mr. Domne benè dicitis sum etenim You haue called me Master and Lord and doe well therein for that I am your Master and Lord indeede And in another place Creditis in Deum in me credite You doe beleeue in God belecue also in me which is the highest honour he could exact And consequently there must needes be some Mentall Reseruation in this other speech when he saith he seeketh not his owne glory which the Fathers doe indeuour to seeke out in their Commentaries The Reuiew 11 This is a Verball Equiuocation in the word Glory admitting a double sence one is the Glory of his Office so in the other places obiected but in this place it is taken for the glory of Reuenge as the words which immediatly go before and which follow immediately after doe import for before it is said You haue dishonored me but I seeke not mine owne glory that is Vindictae to take vengeance vpon you As their owne Authors Tolet Salmeron Maldonate and Iansenius doe acknowledge What then shall they be therefore vnpunished No for it followeth in the same verse There is one that is the Father that seeketh and iudgeth that is Reuengeth saith their Moldonate How can this Verball Equiuocation which is exlicable enough by the force of the outward words of the same vers
Caietane saith And concerning the practicall acknowledgement there Card. Tolet is direct saying that Christ speaketh here of a knowledge which doth not onely signifie the act of vnderstanding but which also comprehendeth the act of the will and affection in imitation of God in which regard 1. Reg. 2. the sonnes of Heli the Priest are called the children of Beliall who know not God And our Sauiour in the same verse of S. Iohn saying by an Antithesis and opposition But I know him and keepe his Commaundement doth expound himselfe and reuealeth his meaning signifying that They knew not God because they kept not his Commaundement as their Card. Tolet noteth and their Bishop Iansenius saith that this is Apparant which is vtterly contrary vnto M. Parsons his Mentall Equiuocation As for example I haue no money meaning secretly to lend it vnto you this Reseruation to lend it is locked vp close lest it should be reuealed and cannot naturally be implied in those outward words I haue no money and hath beene called by the Ies. Azorius a flat lye Therefore there is as little affinitie betweene Christs sentences and M. Parsons his Reseruation as betweene light and darknesse truth and a lye The seuenth place verse 56. M. PARSONS Appendix Againe in the ensuing verse which is the 56. Christ said to the Iewes Your Father Abraham did 〈◊〉 to see my day and saw it and tooke ioy thereby Which words in the common sence doe seeme to import that Abraham had liued with Christ and had seene the day of his birth and life and taken great ioy thereby and so did the Iewes vnderstand his meaning to be not onely the common people but the Scribes and Pharisies also when they said vnto him Thou hast not yet fifty yeares of age and hast thou seene Abraham Wherein notwithstanding they were greatly deceiued for that Christ had another reserued meaning in his minde which the holy Fathers doe labour greatly to expound vnto vs what it was and in what true sence our Sauiour said that Abraham had seene his day whose different opinions reasons and coniectures I will not stand to relate here It is sufficient for me to haue shewed that this was an Equiuocall speech of our Sauiour whereby the hearers being deceiued the truth of the speech may onely be defended by a reseruation in the minde of the speaker The Reuiew 15 In this there is another Uerball Equiuocation in the word See for some saw the day of Christs being in the world only by Reuelation as Abraham and the Patriarks as Esay and the Prophets as Iob and all the beleeuers before Christ And some saw the day of his being in the flesh sensibly as Peter and the other Apostles as Mary our Lords Mother holy Ioseph Simeon and other holy men and women yea and as Caiphas and other vnbeleeuing Iewes That Abraham is meant to haue Seene the day of Christs birth spiritually thorow Reuelation their Card. Tolet will not deny but the Iewes that scorned him mistooke this sence and conceited only a sensuall Seeing with bodily eies 16 Who now seeth not M. Parsons his fraud who calleth that a reserued sence which was that I may so say a sence conserued in the outward words themselues and sufficiently manifest if the scornefull Iewes who were now blinded with malice had not peruerted them into a sensuall Construction For what phrase in the old Testament is more familiar and notorious then to call that Seeing which is perceiued onely spiritually for the which cause the Prophets were called Seers And shall the misconceit of incredulous hearers make the sence of Christ to be mentally reserued As for M. Parsons his maner of Reseruation when a man shall say I keepe no Priest in mine house meaning with any intent to bake him in a Pie or c. It is so farre of from a Verball Equiuocation which may be implyed by the outward words as that no man without Reuelation from God can comprehend it But I hasten The last place Verse 58. M. PARSONS Appendix And finally in the next verse after this againe Christ vseth a greater Equiuocation than any before saying vnto them Amen Amen antequà m Abraham fieret ego sum Amen Amen I say vnto you that before Abraham was made I am which being an earnest speech and as it were an oath as elsewhere we haue noted the Iewes vnderstood it as it lyeth that Christ was borne in the flesh before Abraham and so it seemeth that he should haue meant according to his former speech when he said that Abraham desired to see his day and saw it and reioyced thereat Which was vnderstood of his incarnation or day in flesh which Abraham in saith and spirit did see and reioyce But yet here when he saith that he is before Abraham was made he must needes meane of his Diuinitie and in that he was God which S. Aug. vpon this place doth excellently note to be by the difference of the two words Abraham fieret Ego sum the one belonging to the creature saith he the other to the Creator So as more then our Equiuocation is vsed by our Sauiour in this one sentence The Reuiew 17 But doth any Author say that in the word Sum as it is here vsed that is I am there is any Equiuocation for seeing that Christ as Saint Aug. and Almost all other Authors haue noted did distinguish the Creature man by fieret was made from the Creator which was his God-head by the word Sum I am he did not inferre but remoue the ambiguitie of that phrase Nay I adde further the word Sum in this speech of Christ seemed euen vnto these incredulous Iewes to be so farre from doubtfulnesse and so plainly to signifie his Deity that they accounting it to be blasphemous tooke vp Stones to cast at him which their owne Doctors haue also obserued as Card. Tolet Because that Exod. 3. saith he God said Sum qui sum that is I am that I am the Iewes knew that Christ did not onely preferre himselfe before Abraham in respect of time but also publish himselfe to be God Which is likewise the obseruation of Caietane saying that because Christ did hereby manifest his Diuinitie therefore it is added that They tooke vp stones to throw at him This sence being so euident vnto the hearers sheweth that there was not so much as a Verball Equiuocation much lesse M. Parsons his Mentall Reseruation which the hearer doth not onely not know but cannot possibly guesse what it is As for example if one should say I am no Priest reseruing in his minde As fit to keepe Swine We see by this time the manifold ridiculous absurdities which M. Parsons hath inforced in this fond Appendix whereof notwithstanding he doth not a little boast as we shall see M. PARSONS his Appendix And if we lay all these Equiuocall speeches together which are 8. or 9. at
least contained within a peece of one only Chapter of our Sauiours talke with the Iewes Scribes and Pharisees we shall be able to make some guesse how many might be found thorowout the whole new Testament and Bible if we would examine the same particularly as we haue done this and thereby see how tru M. Mortons bold assertion was in his booke of Full Satisfact That no one iote in all Scripture no one example in all Catholike Antiquity could be found for the same His tearmes also of heathenish hellish heinous and impious Equiuocation with other infamations of his brother Minister King may appeare what substantiall ground thay haue The Reuiew shewing the absurdities of M PARSONS his Collection 18 If all the speeches which M. Parsons inforceth for Instances to patterne and to iustifie his fashion of Equiuocating may be called Mentall Reseruations then may we grant that not onely eight but euen all the sentences yea and almost euery word of this all other Chapters may be proued to be Mentally Equiuocall And for demostration sake because I wil not profane the sacred Scripture with such idle crotchetting I thinke good to descant a little but vpon any one sentence which M. Parsons can vtter and try if that almost euery word may not imply a kinde of Reseruation As for example suppose M. Parsons should haue deliuered this speech saying I will as long as I liue go vnto the Church to pray vnto God Which in the vnderstanding of any man of sence is sensible enough yet the first particle is I meaning a man and no woman the second word will meaning with a resolued and not a dissembling will 3. As long meaning the length of time and not the length of body 4. As I liue meaning a life animall in this flesh and not Angelicall out of the body 5. Go meaning by walking and not by danceing 6. Vnto the Church meaning of Catholikes and not of Heretikes 7. To pray meaning mediately by Saints and not immediately by my selfe 8. vnto God meaning the God of Christians not any God of the Pagans What can be more plainely spoken then the sentence aforesaid and yet how many meanings suppressed which may not therfore be called Mentall Reseruations otherwise M. Parsons might as well infer that he neuer promised any lawful thing vnto any man neuer tooke an oath by any lawfull authority of man without some Mentall reseruation the vse whereof he himselfe hath iudged in all such cases to be detestable I shall haue further occasion to vnfould the grosenesle of his Inference more at large by other examples after that I haue satisfied some other obiections SECT IIII. An Answer vnto some other places of Scripture wherein M. PARSONS hath insisted in his booke of Mitigation for the defence of his Mentall Equiuocation 19 I doubt how my Reader might censure me if after the Confutation of M. Parsons his former Instances out of Scripture I should inquire into his other booke of Mitigation to seeke al other examples to prosecure them because this would breed tediousnesse I therfore wil but choose out some of his choisest places and so hasten to a Conclusion of this Treatise The first text which M. PARSONS vrgeth in his booke of Mittigation is taken out of Iohn I. verse 2 M. PARSONS his Mittigation We shall begin with an example so cleere as it shall be like to that of ours in all points if we change only the names of persons and conditions of men that spake and heard As that example of S. Iohn Baptist who being examincd and demanded by them that were sent vnto him from the Iewes whether he were a Prophet or no he denied it Propheta es tu spondit non Are you a Prophet and he answered No and yet he meant not absolutely to deny himselfe to be a Prophet for that it had beene false both in respect of that his father Zacharias had prophecied of him in his Natiuity calling him the Prophet of the highest Luck 1. as also in respect of Christs testimony who Matth. 11. called him more than a Prophet c. Heere then you see a Proposition vttered by the Ghost that of it selfe is ambiguous and of a doubtfull sense and according to the ordinary sound and sense of the words vttered seemethfalse no lesse then our Preposition I am no Priest For as this may be refusted by them that know me to be a Pricst and as Th. Morton still vrgeth though fondly is contrary to my knowledge and conscience that know my selfe to be a Ptiest c. The Reuiew 20 Maldonate the Iesuite and as it seemeth M. Parsons out of him collecteth out of Fathers three diuerse meanings of the Iewes in their question the first was whether he were that singular Prophet which they fancied should come together with Christ and he answered I am not which was true according to that their sense Secondly some thought that the Iewes meant by their demand to know whether he were any one of the ancient Prophets who were long before Christ And he answered satisfying them truely according to that their sense saying I am not Thirdly some taught that the Iewes by their Interrogatory thought to know whether he were any Prophet at all by his proper Osfice Now Iohn albeit he was a Prophet by Grace and power because he was sent by God and did exhert reprooue and conuert sinners yet was he not a Prophet by ordinary Osfice and applying his Answere to this sence said I am not and that truely because Iohn did not Prophecis and thus the answer agreed to that their sence Obserue good Reader against M. Parsons his Obseruation that the Answer of S. Iohn who is the speaker doth accord by the iudgement of all Authors vnto the supposed seuerall vnderstandings of the Iewes and Questionists who were the heares Contrariwise Romish Priest being demanded by a Magistrate whether he be a Priest returneth this Answere I am not a Priest onely with this reserued sence With purpose to tell it vnto you which deth flatly thwart the intention of the Magistrate and Questionist M. Parsons is like to make a lucklesse end who is so vnfortunate in this beginning The second place obiected out of Matth. 9. 20. M. PARSONS his Mitigation Our Sauiour Christ comming to rayse the Arch-Synagogue his daughter found the people in tumult weeping and lamenting for the death whom he repressed saying Recedite non est enim mortua puella sed dormit Depart for that the maid is not dead but sleepeth and yet is it certaine that naturally she was dead by separation of her soule from her body So as if this Proposition be taken strictly as it lyeth without any Mentall Reseruation by our Sauiour it cannot be true neither in it selfe nor in the sense of the hearers no more than in our proposition I am no priest The ment all Reseruation in our Sauiour according to S. Augustines explication and other
right end of the threed or guesse what can be meant thereby as when a Priest being demāded whether he be a Priest should answere No reseruing in his minde such an one as is chast or such an one as can hope to be Pope any like clause of speech 24 In like maner might I descant vpon his Asking and receiuing because in Matth. 7. Aske and you shall haue the condition whereof is expounded by S. lames viz. so that we aske not Amisse Which condition and the same may be answered concerning others is so necessarily vnderstood by euery hearer that though it be not expressed in outward words yet is it discernable in the common notion and sence of the hearer at the first sound of euery such sentence As when the Father shall say vnto all his children Aske me blessing and I will blesse you and all shall fall downe vpon their knees and aske his blessing yetso that one among the rest whilest he is crauing his blessing should turne his face another way and play with a dogge Another should put out his tongue in scorne and contempt of his father a third should aske only to be blessed with some groats in his purse would that Father vse the forme of blessing towards these fondlings and not first correct them for their rude and vntoward behauiours or would M. Parsons excuse them because the Father expressed not the maner of Asking to wit that they ought to haue done it dutifully and decently as it becommeth children would he call these kinde of conditions Reseruations because they were not literally deliuered in words which are as it were ingrafted in the common sence of euery man and so generally implied by the ordinary and accustomable acceptance of speech according to the vnderstanding of all hearers except they be as ignorant as Infants or Idiots whereas the Reseruation we dispute against is as M. Parsons saith what a man list to frame to himselfe and consequently may surmount not onely the ordinary capacitie of mortall men but euen the subtilty of the Angels in heauen as to say I am no Priest meaning Whose name is Tom Tyler or Watt Miller or so foorth in infinitum The last Instance out of Esay 38. M. PARSONS his Mitigation I should vtterly weary my Reader if I would follow all or the greatest part of that which may be said in this behalse for that alwaies commonly all Prophecies that are 〈◊〉 and doe threaten punishment 〈◊〉 still some secret reseruation if they repent not as that of I say to Ezechias Haec dicit Dominus dispone domui tuae quia morieris tu non viues This saith our Lord dispose of thy houshold for thou shalt dye and shalt not liue and yet he liued sifteene yeares after If therefore the Prophet had beene demanded Shall not Ezechias liue any longer and he had answered No vpon what had fallen the negatiue No if onely vpon wordes vttered it had beene false for he liued longer but if vpon that together with the Reseruation in the meaning of the holy Ghost it was true And the like may be said of the prophecie of Ionas Adhuc quadraginta dies Niuiue subuertetur There remaine but fortie daies before Niniue shall be destroyed and so infinite other places Wherefore in this Tho. Morton was greatly ouer seene in making of a confident Challenge as befoer you haue seene The Reuiew 25 I rather thinke the Reader hath beene already wearied with multiplicities of such idle and fond Instances which proue nothing lesse then the point in question as hath hitherto appeared and may now by discussing this last place be further discouered It is an ordinary Rule in Diuinitie acknowledged by their Iesuit Ribera that The threatnings which God vseth doe containe in them a secret condition Except they repent Whereof Saint Chrysost. speaketh thus If saith he men were not changed such prophesies would take place but because men are changed therefore the prophecie although it be not fulfilled yet doth it not faile for that God doth preserue his common-law which he hath made to wit If a Nation shall repent of her sinne I will also repent of the euill which I thought to bring vpon it Still we see that the errour which hath blind-foulded M. Parsons is that he doth not distinguish the Sensum consignatum à sensu reseruato that is sence implyed in the very speech it selfe by reason of the common and ordinary vse thereof from the reserued sence which is such as neither the common acception of words doe conueigh nor the most intelligent God onely excepted can possibly conceiue or apprehend 26 This point may be thus explained An Embassadour being sent vnto the Pope from a Prince in Germany after that he had taken his leaue was dismissed of the Pope in these words Dic dilecto filio nostro salutem that is Commend me vnto my beloued sonne your Master he fourthwith doubting least the Pope had called his Master a bastard answered all in a sume My Master quoth he is no Priests sonne The word Sonne in the Popes speech signified a spiritual and not a naturall son-ship and filiation as both the person of the speaker and the ordinary vse of that salutation did import and therefore was a sense implied in the speech and not reserued onely in the minde as in their other Priestly Equiuocating is vsually practized as to say I am no Priest reseruing in minde as willing to indanger my selfe by confessing that I am a Priest 27 This likewise must be obserued that we are not to call a speech ambiguous or els reserued because it is not vnderstood by the giddy vndiscreet hearer as by the former example is manifest and may be made more conspicuous and euident by this that followeth of a Mother who chid rated her daughter for her rude and rurell cariage towards her affienced louer especially for not thanking him after that he had drunke vnto her and therefore her mother for her better preparation and direction how to behaue herselfe more orderly at their next meeting spake thus vnto her daughter Canst thou not say vnto him quoth she the next time he drinketh to thee I thanke you thou great foole the daughter silly body not discerning the true distinction of the points of that speech did vpon the next occasion of his drinking vnto her answer I pledge you thou great foole Such like absurd foolish examples I am beyond my inclinatiō forced to produce that thereby I might better display the folly and absurdity of M. Parsons his defence of Mentall Reseruation which he oftentimes foundeth vpon the rotten post of the Iewes infatuation and vpon their misconstruction of the sayings of Christ. 28 Besides these foresaid obiections M. Parsons in his 9. chap. calleth and challengeth me to make a better Answer concerning an other saying of Christ wherein he doth triumph intolerably §. V. An Answer to an old
obiection which hath beene taken out of that saying of Christ to his Disciples I will not goe to the seast my time is not yet come Iohn 7. Vers. 8. 29 MVch adoe haue we had about this text as well concerning the Reading as touching the Sence thereof We must begin with the first The summe of M. PARSONS obiection concerning the Reading But what doth he accuse vs of in effect forsooth that we haue left the Greeke text which hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nondùm not yet and doe follow your vulgar Latine which hath onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is non not the difference of which word maketh a maine dinersitie in the matter if you marke it well for if the true text be nondùm I will not yet goe vp then is there no doubt or difficultie at all of the sence for that Christ said plainly that he would not goe vp then and so his going vp afterward had beene no contradiction any way to his former speech of not going vp as here our Maldonate cited by Morton doth confesse but on the other side if the matter were so plaine by reading nondùm in the Greeke why doe the Fathers labour so much to finde out the secret meaning and reserued sence of our Sauiour in this sentence and seeming contradiction of his For if that word had beene in all Greeke bookes and so held for the true text there had beene no question or Controuersie as Expositers confesse yet to grant with Maldonate alleadged by Th. Morton that very many Greeke Copies had so informer times and haue it at this day neither doth our vulgar deny or dissemble it for albeit it haue non and not nondùm yet doth it expresly signifie in the margent that diuerse Manuscripts haue nondùm and so doth set it downe for Varia lectio yea the Rhemes English Testament it selfe doth expresse that translation also in the margent I will not goe vp yet The reuiew 30 I can say no lesse nor neede I say much more then that which is confessed by Romish Doctors vpon this place First their Jesuit Maldonate Almost enumerable Greeke bookes saith he reade 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but especially the Vaticane Bible the most ancient and famous of all in the world and Nonnus Chrysostome Euthemius very graue Authors doe both reade it so and also expound it and so am I perswaded that it is red of Theophylact. And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the reading of Chrysostome saith their Card. Tolet is most legitimate And there is that witnesseth saith Iansenius that some ancient Latine Copies hath it Nondùm that is not yet Their Iesuit Sa. making no further question saith that The Greeke 〈◊〉 it I ascend not yet and the Siriac I ascend not now And lastly Card. Caietane correcting the Latine by the Greeke saith it hath not instead of not yet We haue now seene his egregious Cauill M. PARSONS his Mitigation And doe we contradict this your very next immedicate words doe cleare vs from this your calumniation for it followeth in your speech your Latine text say you doth sufficiently betoken the same sence of the Greeke not yet and so doe two of the principall Doctors of your Church Tolet and Iansenius paraphrase And is it so how then are we so blinded with the loue of our Thais as rather to snatch at any meaning then take that which is meant How say you that our Helena the Latine Translation is imbraced by vs before the Greeke if our Latine doe not onely betoken the same sence of the Greeke as here you confesse but setteth it downe so as Varia lectio in the margent as before hath beene shewed yea and that two of our principall Doctors doe follow the same in their paraphrases Is not this to accuse and defend affirme and deny and to speake contraries with one and the same breath The Reuiew 31 No their is no contrariety in my Assertions but this obiection of Contradiction is so vaine that it may be blowne away with one breath for in the Greeke text there is a double Nondùm the first is I will not yet goe vppo viz. to the feast the second is the reason hereof because mine hower is not yet fulfilled The first Not yet which doth demonstratiuely expound the meaning of Christ is wanting in the Latine and the second Not yet which doth also proue but lesse manifestly the same meaning remaineth in the Latine text and therefore may it be said to haue in these diuerse respects both fully and not fully betokened the same sence Hitherto of words The Summe of M. PARSONS his Obiection concerning the Sence M. PARSONS his Mitigation If the matter were so plaine by the reading of nondùm in the Greeke why doe the ancient Fathers labour so much to find out the secret meamng and reserued sence of our Sauiour in this sentence and seeming contradiction of his For S. August and S. Bede after much search doe thinke his meaning to haue beene that he would not ascend to that feast with an humaine spirit to procure any wordly honour c. Strabus and other Expositors doe interpret that he would not goe vp to exhibit his Passion Eucherius that he would not ascend on the first day of the feast Wherefore seeing these and other Fathers doe labour so much to finde out the meaning of Christ in this sentence it is not like that the matter was so cleare as T. M. would make it by the clause Nondùm For if that word had beene in all Greeke bookes and so held for true text there had beene no question or Controuersie as our Expositors confesse The Reuiew 32 How many how âncient and how famous Copies in stead of I will not goe vp to the feact haue I will not yet goe vp to the feast whereby the whole doubt is throughly dissolued yea and how true that reading is we haue receiued from the Confessions of their owne Doctors Why some Fathers and why not then much more Porphyrius whom M. Parsons obiecteth wereignorant of such Coppies what better reason neede be giuen than that it so chaunced that they had them not 33 But we are in the second place to inquire supposing the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in Latine is Nondùm and in English not yet were not in the sentence whether the same sence may be easily gathered out of the Text or not For if the words of the Text it selfe doe sufficiently betoken the meaning of Christ to haue beene that he thought not to goe vp yet vz. at that time then is there no Seeming contradiction in that sentence and consequently no colour or shadow of any Mentall Reseruation To this purpose I produced the iudgement of Tolet their late Cardinall and sometime Iesuit saying that I will not goe vp doth signifie I will not goe vp yet which he proueth from the words that follow immediately
in the Text for my time is not yet fulfilled That is saith Tolet The time when I ought to goe vp And accordingly their Bishop Iansenius The word Not which is in the Latine signifieth plainely Not yet which sence saith he is sufficiently shew'n by the words following vz. because my time namely wherein I must goe to the feast is not yet fulfilled that is not yet come And this he calleth the genuous and naturall sence of the place Which being graunted the sence of Christ euen according to M. Parsons his iudgement is sufficiently expressed and not reserued and consequently here is no footing for his Reseruation In the third place we are to satisfie for the different opinion of some Fathers M. PARSONS his Obiection To shew one point of manhood in this his flight he taketh vpon him to answer one of these six Arguments alleadged against him which is the fourth concerning the ancient Fathers that laboured to secke out Christs reserued meaning You shall see him insinuate two points first is that the ancient Fathers did suppose that whatsoeuer meaning was in these words They the said kinsmen of our Sauiour did vnderstand them as well then to wit before the Gospell was written and before the holy Ghost was giuen as the said Christian Fathers did afterwards by the learning and light which they had by the spirit and tradition of the Church which proposition if he were put to proue in the presence of learned men I doubt not but that he would quickly be in a poore and pitifull plight The Reuiew 34 That which I said was onely concerning the sence of this place of Scripture whereof I affirmed that the Fathers thought their expositions whatsoeuer it was which they iudged to be true to be as well knowne vnto these disciples of Christ as to themselues which M. Parsons maketh to be a generall assertion concerning any other sence of Scripture whatsoeuer If it may be lawfull for him to deale thus iniuriously viz. by peruerting a particular Case into a generall and to cast me into a pit of his owne making none I confesse neede to doubt but my plight must be pittifull but if my Reader shall consider that he hath cut of the Reason which I then produced to proue that the Brethren there mentioned did know that it was the meaning of Christ not to deny absolutely but that he intended to goe vp to the feast viz. Because otherwise they should haue beene scandalized and offended as to thinke that he had contemned the feast which by Gods ordinance were yet aliue and in force as their Iansenius affirmed whereunto their Tolit doth expresly accord then may he easily discerne that M. Parsons was herein more spitefull then I was pittifull But we proceede vnto the chiefe obseruation M. PARSONS his Mitigation The second thing which by this answer he would haue vs vnderstand is that if these brethren or kinsmen of Christ did any way conceiue our Sauiours meaning then was there no reseruation at all for that as he saith our ioyned reseruation is alwaies supposed to be a clause concealed and not vnderstoode But this is a greater foolery then the first for that there may be areseruation in the speakers minde though vnderstoode to some of the hearers As for example in our proposition being demanded whether I be a Priest and say no reseruing to my selfe as often before hath beene declared that I am no such or such Priest as I ought to vtter the same to you though some of the Examiners should guesse at my reseruation or know the same certainely for that otherwise they know I am a Priest this doth not make that this proposition in it selfe and in my meaning is not a reserued or Equiuocall proposition for that they vnderstand it The Reuiew 35 This is the last and chiefest point of all this Controuersie which if he haue wisely and truly satisfied then shall I ingeiously confesse that my whole exception against M. Parsons his Mentall Equiuocation is indeede no better then meere foolery But the truth is that my exception against his Art of Equiuocating is not because the Mentall Reseruation which he teacheth is not vnderstood of some hearers but because it is so couched that it cannot be possibly vnderstood of any hearer for The Clause of Reseruation saith M. Parsons may be what a man list to say to himselfe Now their Priest who listeth not be apprehended will list to frame to himselfe such a crotchetiue conceit which shall goe as inuisible as an Angell of darkenes by whom it is hatched As for example to say I am no Priest meaning That euer worshipped the Idoll Bell or I am no Priest meaning whom you loue or I am no Priest meaning That is willing to be hanged or I am no Priest meaning that can tell fortunes or I am not a Priest meaning whose name is Cutbert or I am not a Priest meaning for ought that you shall know Thus then seeing that the reserued Clause may be according to M. Parsons doctrine whatsoeuer a man list to fancie so that it agree with his minde allthough it be not implyed in the outward words it is as infinitely variable and therefore as certainely vnsearchable as are the fancies and thoughts of men which onely God can see iudge and reuenge 36 Knowing therefore that the Equiuocations which haue beene obiected by M. Parsons out of Scriptures are not properly Mentall but Verball because the meanings which he calleth Reseruations were implied in the words of those sentences and in the circumstances thereof but the reseruation which M. Parsons professeth and we condemne is an onely mentall reseruation which hath no more affinitie in sence with the outward words than this I am no Priest meaning like a Goose that goeth bare-foote so that he that from the hearing of the first part which was the outward speech could haue but coniectured at that referued meaning of a Goose might passe for a Magnus Apollo I shall referre this first point concerning the palpabilitie of Romish reseruation vnto the wisedome iudgement of our Reader to award the note of foolery vnto whether of vs it shall seeme in his discretion more iustly to appertaine The second thing which I promised to shew is the impietie of the same doctrine CHAP. XI A discouery of the impietie of their pretences for Mentall Equiuocation First prouing it to be a lye §. I. IN the former Sections hath beene vnfolded the grosse absurdities of M. Parsons his proofes which he presumed to collect out of Scripture in so copious and perspicuous a maner as that I might feare the imputation of some folly for prosecuting of such fooleries with so great seriousnesse Therefore now my present indeuour must be to shew his defence to be no lesse gracelesse then it is sencelesse the impietie whereof becommeth so much the more notorious and execrable as it durst more boldly seeke refuge at Gods sanctuary
euen the holy Scripture and there to catch hold at the examples of Christ his speeches as it were at the hornes of the Altar But I haue done my best to pull it from that hould by the ioynt helpe of their owne Doctors and now am I to pursue and to demonstrate the impieties of the foresaid defence drawing all into these two generall heads The first is in respect of the cause it selfe to proue it an Art of lying and the second is in respect of the Cases which issue from thence to shew them to be dangerous and vniust M. PARSONS Mitigation He saith out of Saint Augustine that we may not leaue off truth to be lyars as the Priscillianists did which appertaineth nothing to our purpose for they indeauored to confirme the lawfulnesse of lying out of the words of Christ which we doe not but shew out of Christs speech when he said Iohn 15. All things whatsoeuer I haue had of my Father haue I made knowne vnto you he did not lye or falsifie at all but reserued somewhat in his minde not vttered which ioyned with the words make the proposition most true Meaning by Whatsoeuer whatsoeuer he thought conuenient The Reuiew prouing M. PARSONS his Reseruation a lye 1 Their Card. Tolet doth acknowledge the general Rule of interpreting such speeches to wit of Interpreting such generall propositions of Scripture by restraining them vnto the circumstances of things whereof they are spoken as of the persons the time and the scope and end of which they are spoken So here in reuealing all things to his Disciples it must be vnderstood all which might concerne them as they were now Disciples and which were necessary for their present State But the Priestly Reseruation is without all compasse of due circumstance being as M. Parsons saith whatsoeuer it pleaseth a man to fancie to himselfe so that it agreeth with his minde And so this mixt proposition must goe for currant viz. I am no Priest reseruing in minde for ought that you shall know where he answereth as though he would let a man know that he is no Priest and yet reserueth in his mind that he will not be knowne whether he be a Priest or no is there any circumstance of time or place or person that can sensibly or reasonably imply any such reserued sence Certainely nò more then if he had answered thus I am no Priest concealing in his minde for ought that you know or I am not a Priest meaning secretly that wanteth a nose If M. Parsons or all the subtilists Equiuocators themselues should hunt by all circumstances that are to find this reserseruation of a Nose I suppose that they could neuer smell it out Wherefore I now proceede to my purpose The proofes to shew the Mentall Reseruation to be a lye by the iudgement of all kind of Professors and first by their owne Doctors 3 We haue often heard what kinde of Mentall Equiuocation M. Parsons doth patronize viz. Any mixt proposition partly deliuered with mouth and partly conceiued in minde so that the reserued clause doe agree with my minde be it what soeuer I please to fancie to my selfe 4 First this kinde of Equiuocating hath beene condemned ned for a lye by their owne Sepulueda who produceth for confirmation of his assertion most ancient Diuines as he calleth them citing by name Aquinas Scotus Henricus and Gabriel 5 After him approcheth their Iesuit Azorius whereas M. Parsons professeth such a Mentall Equiuocation wherein the speech hath a double sence not by the signification or composition of the words themselues but onely by somereseruation in the minde He the foresaid Iesuit proclaimeth that euery vse of words in any sence which they haue not in themselues is a lye And after iumping vpon the same example of Reseruation which M. Parsons vsed and vrged for proofe of Mentall Equiuocation to wit When I am asked of one who is no good pay-master whether I haue so much money or no I may answere though I haue it No with this Reseruation to lend it vnto you this their said Iesuit doth contrarily call a flat lye 6 Emanuel Sa another Iesuit followed Azor but yet so haltingly as though he had had a thorne in his heele and was afraid to confesse a truth being but halfe of that opinion Therefore I omit him and seeke after Sotus who commeth on more resolutely to the point calling this speech I know not mixed with this restriction and Reseruation To tell it you an arrant lye And concerning Amphibologies vsed in words which the outward words themselues will not beare he concludeth them to be no-way excusable from lyes Can there be a greater impietie than to bring Christ his speeches for the authorizing and patronizing of such clauses of reseruation which their owne approued Doctors and professors haue condemned for starke lyes Secondly by Fathers 7 Among Christians I held S. Augustine most singular yet when I name him limply also S. Gregorie and Barnard who follow him in his booke Contra Mendacium He supposing some old man To be dangerously sicke who if he should but heare of the death of his Sonne were like to ieopard his owne life yet so it is that his seruant who knoweth that his sonne is dead is earnestly demanded to tell him the state wherein his sonne is whether he be deade or aliue what shall the seruant answer in this case he must answer saith S. Augustine either that he is a liue or dead or else say that he knoweth not but so say that he liuoth or knoweth not are both false and the onely true answere is that his sonne is dead From this determination of S. Augustine I made bold to collect that if euer S. Augustine had thought Ment all Equiuocation as namely to say this Your sonne is a liue Reseruing in minde for ought that you shall yet know he would surely haue allowed of it in this Case especially seeing that thereby he might both haue freed the old Father from dying and his owne tongue from lying It were good that we heard P. R. his Answer vnto this M. PARSONS his Answer To this I answer that this case is not like those for that here is no iust demand no force no compulsion no iniury offered and consequently no right of vsing such euasion for iust defence for so much as this is in common conuersation from which we haue exempted before the vse of Equiuocations albeit we haue heard also out of the same S. Aug. himselfe Aliud est mentiri aliud veritatem celare It is one thing to lye and another thing to couer a truth without lying S. August speaketh against the first and so doe we and consequently this example proueth nothing The Reuiew 8 O noble Answerer he that taught the vse of Mentall Reseruation in Case when a man Asketh whether his friend haue so much money where there is onely a demand without compulsion
Subscription and to keepe it about him which by a priuie search might haue been discouered if it had been knowne in those daies that a Mentall Reseruation would haue serued the turne to auoyde a lye especially seeingthat by vertue hereof he should not haue needed either to straine his wit for inuention of a Verball Equiuocation nor stir his hand forputting it in writing because he could not haue wanted secret and vnsearchable Reseruations as his fancies which may be called Mille Artifices would haue presented to his thoughts which are innumerable among others this to haue said to the Councell I beleeue that which I haue there writen vnderstanding in his mind That it is false Here is the mixt proposition which by M. Parsons learning must be as true now being partly vttered and partly reserued as if it had beene wholy expressed in the outward words which I haue proued to be an execrable lye both by Reason and by the Confession of their owne Doctors and now euince the same from the practizes euen of these Heretikes viz. the Priscillianists and this Arius they defending lying for want of other meanes to hide his heresie this other vsing onely the dangerous and discouerable Verball Equiuocation for feare of lying And therefore if I be not deceiued doe both beare witnesse that the Iesuicall Art of Mentall Reseruation was either not knowne in those daies or else knowne to be no better then meere lying Fourthly by Pagans 13 M. Parsons was earnestly intreated yea aad challenged to produce out of the Schooles of all Pagans and Heathens of what sect soeuer who were for number infinite and for naturall light and learning excelling the children of light that did expresly acknowledge any Truth in his mixt proposition by a Mentall Reseruation as for example thus If one shall promise to his Keeper that he will be true prisoner not to run away meaning on his head Seeing M. Parsons I say was extremely prouoked to alleadge but one testimonie out of the innumerable Authors that haue written either Ethicks Logick or Metaphysicks who euer iustified this mungrell kinde of proposition yet could he not instance in any one excepting onely in Cicero who notwithstanding speaketh onely of such a speech which he himselfe calleth false and is indeede as false as is this promise I will pay you money meaning secretly that I will not pay it which the Romanists themselues will graunt to be a foule lye 14 How then shall it not be held an impietie to make Christ a Patrone of that kinde of Reseruation which when it seemed to be most needefull yet was not acknowledged for a truth by so worthy and learned Christians by so great Heretikes by so innumerable Pagans and lastly by diuerse learned Romanists themselues Thus much concerning the Impiety of Mentall Reseruation naturally inherent in it selfe In the last place we are to point at some accidentall impieties which by reason of some Cases and Effects doe incidentally follow thereupon SECT 2. A further euidence of the Impietie of the doctrine of Mentall Reseruation by the Cases and some Effects which incidentally follow vpon it First of a few Cases M. PARSONS his Appendix EXcept they will condemne our Sauiour himselfe of all these obiected impieties they cannot condemne the maner of speech vsed by him especially in so graue and weighty matters and if they permit the same in him then can they not condemne the same in vs who haue so good a warrant and president for the same especially seeing we doe restraine our vse thereof with many limitations as in our Larger Treatise of that matter is set downe to wit that it may not be vsed in matters of Religion where confession of our faith is required Among Cases reserued Confession of faith is expresly and in the first place excepted The reuiew 15 Often haue I distinguished betweene M. Parsons his Verball and Mentall Equiuocation the first is when the words themselues cary in them a double sence according to the vse of speech as that saying of Christ obiected by M. Parsons wherein he said vnto the Iewes Dissolue you this Temple speaking of his body and I will raise it vp againe in three daies the ambiguity lieth in the double sence of these words Dissolue this Temple which might signifie either the ruinating of the materiall Temple out of which Christ cast the money-changers and so the Iewes vnderstood it or els Christs owne body metaphorically called a Temple because the Deity dwelt in it bodily and naturally which was said to be dissolued because death is a dissolution and so Christ meant it which albeit it was not vnderstood of the hearers yet was it vnderstandible and intelligible First because the phrase of calling a body a Temple and of death a Dissolution was familiar vnto the religious of those times which therefore we find to be so ordinarily vsed in Scripture insomuch that their Iusuit Maldonate saith that Christ in saying Dissolue this Temple vsedwords which agreed better vnto an humaine body than vnto the fabricke of the other temple becanse to dissolue and to raise againe are more agreeable to the body when the bond of the Soule of man is burst in sunder c. Yea Christ his body saith Iansenius was more properly a Temple because the temple was but a figure of his body And they might haue vnderstood him if they would saith their Cardinall Tolet because when he said This Temple and not the Temple of God it is certaine that by the gesture of his hand he did demonstrate his owne body words are better determinated by outward gestures and signes than by Scripture So he And there is reason for it for if they could not haue vnderstood it then had not their Accusation against Christ beene a slaunder when they laid this saying against him thus This man said I can destroy the Temple of God and buildit vp in three daies For the which these because of their peruerse sence are called false witnesses But the Mentall Equiuocation may haue such a sequestred and reserued a meaning as by no circumstance of speech can be made intelligible as this I am no Priest meaning Who can be vnknowne to God This is that kinde of Mentall Reseruation and euasion which M. Parsons alloweth concerning which he professeth that it may not be vsed in matters of faith yet pretendeth to euince it from Scripture which is the Rule of our Faith and from the speeches of Christ the Author of our Faith and sometimes in such sentences which concerne Articles of Faith as in that He that obserueth my word shall neuer see death and such like 16 And here I appeale vnto the indifferencie of any iudicious Reader to iudge whether M. Parsons be not guiltie of the folly and impiety which I had laid vnto his charge by the force of this distinction of a sence Implied in speeches a sence