Now I know that thou feareâ—â— God and to the Israelites The Lord your God proueth you that hee may know whether yee loue the Lord c. the meaning is that hee may make you to know And from this vse of the word scio to know frequent as they say in Scriptures they thinke they may be the like reason keeping the same proportion of speech interpret the word Nescit knoweth not the day that is hee doth not make you to know it Concerning which meaning of the Fathers exposition if the learned Reader desire any further proofe he may haue enough to satisfie his minde in that reuerend and learned Bishop who wrote against Eudaemon-Ioannes Now this interpretation of the word being drawne from the vsuall acception of it in Scripture is nothing at all to the Iesuites purpose who fancieth a secret clause kept in the minde but no way included in the vse of the word Secondly This interpretation The Sonne knoweth noâ— that is hee doth not reueale or make it knowne to you as it maketh nothing for the Iesuites Equiuocation so it is not greatly to our Sauiours meaning My reasons are two First If that were the meaning then it would follow that the Father did so know the day of iudgement as that hee did reueale it vnto them For that which this sentence doth deny of the Sonne it doth by vertue of the exceptiue particle adioyned affirme of the Father No man no nor the Sonne doth know it but the Father Where if wee fill vp the construction and make the sentence perfect the whole speech must be this No man nor Angell neither the Sonne doth know it but the Father hee doth know it Now in this speech take the word know in the sense of those Fathers hee knoweth that is hee maketh to know and then the sentence thus expounded in plaine words will be this No man nor the Angels neither the Sonne doth make you to know the day of iudgement but the Father hee doth make you to know it But this is not true of the Father and therefore that is not the true interpretation or meaning of the word My second reason is Our Sauiour in these words No man knoweth meant to shew how secret and vnknowne the day and houre of Gods iudgement was but take the word in this sence hee knoweth not that is hee reuealeth not or doth not make you to know and then this sentence doth not imply or inferre or signifie any secrecie of that day For if thousands knew it yet it might be said of them all They know it not that is they doe not reueale it or make you to know it And consequently this interpretation doth crosse our Sauiours meaning and ouerthrow that for which hee intended it Now lay these together and then there is lesse then nothing in our Sauiours speech for the Iesuites purpose both because the word cannot beare that sense in this place which onely might seeme to fauour them and because that sense as it was vnderstood by the Fathers was not meant to include any such reseruation And so I haue done with this second place which is the one of the places that Doctor Norrice did defend his Equiuocation by Onely lest some Popish Cauiller according to their vsuall manner should raise clamours after mee that I doe deny and gain-say the exposition of the Fathers let the Reader remember that the other interpretation which I follow is confessed by Father Persons to be giuen by other Fathers in great number And againe if any shall quarrell with mee for leauing an exposition of some Fathers where I haue so good reason for it let him know that I can produce diuers of their owne Writers who doe reiect as great a number and perhaps vpon lesser reason Thirdly The third testimony is from the words of our Sauiour Iohn 7. 8. which Father Persons and other Equiuocators recite thus Ego non ascendam ad diem festuÌ„ istum I will not goe vp to Ierusalem to this Feast and yet say they he meant to goâ— vp and so he went And therefore here he had a secret reseruation Asw. They corrupt the Text two waies 1 by altering the words 2 by peruerting the sense 1. By altering the words For the Originall Greeke is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is I doe not yet goe vp And their authentick Latin Ego non ascendo I doe not goe vp And whereas some Copies had corruptly read it non ascendam I will not goe Lucas Bragensis lest any man might afterward mistake hath giuen admonition that according to the Roman Correction of their Bible set forth by the Popes authority they may not change ascendo into ascendam Yea and their Rhemists reade it in their English Translation I goe not vp to this Festiuall day Which was true in the very Letter meant by our Sauiour according to the expresse words For he did not meane then to goe vp but afterward when time serued And yet our Equiuocators to gaine some shew from our Sauiours words doe corrupt not onely the Originall and truely authenticâ— Greeke but their owne Latine Text too But it is no maruell for such a false Arte could neuer be vpheld by true dealing 2. By peruerting the sence For say the words had beene I will not goe vp as Persons and Doctor Norice and others would fame haue it yet the circumstances of the Text doe shew that that could not be meant of the whole time during the feast or that hee would not go vp at all because it followeth in the next words by way of reason because my time is not yet accoÌ„plished as the Rhemists traÌ„slate it or because my time is not yet fully come as it is more plainly in our Translation Which words doe plainely shew his meaning to be this that he would not then goe when they would haue him but would goe when he saw his owne time And this he might both doe and meane according to the plaine sense of the words spoken By which it may appeare that it is want of proofe and weakenes of their cause that made them to drawe in this Text which is so cleere against them And so it is the very same reason also that forceth them for necessity hath no law to produce the many other speeches of our Sauiour which haue as much affinitie with Popish Equiuocation as there is agreement betweene Christ and Belial or betweene Christ and Antichrist as I could easily shew if it were conuenieÌ„t to stand vpon all their friuolous idle allegations But I thinke it not worth the while either to tire the Reader or to trouble my selfe with such fond Cauils Only for a generall answere to them all let this be remembred that there is neuer a Text produced by them for this purpose but that learned expositers both ancient and moderne as well of their Church as of ours do interpret and expound it in some determinate sense which
noyse and vndistinct sound this is a signifying deede and doth import that that man is dumbe In either of these kindes deedes and gestures are equiualent to words and may containe truth or falshood in them as well as words doe But else deedes and gestures if in some such manner ex instituto by appointment and agreement among men they be not referred and intended for signification of our minde though they may carry shew and men may gather some meaning from them yet they are not equiualent to words neither is there any lye contained in it though the shew be not answerable to the thing And such a deede as this was that of our Sauiour when hee shewed by his gesture a purpose of going further and therefore this needeth no reseruation to make it true seeing without any reseruation it hath no false or lying signification such as words haue And thus Lucas Brugensis a learned Diuine of the Roman Church doth vnderstand and interpret this place His words that the Reader may iudge of his meaning the better are these I see â—o more shew of a lye in this fact of Christ then when before he seemed to be a stranger or a way-faring man And he giueth his reason why hee thinketh there is no vntruth in this deed and gesture for there is a great difference betweene words and deedes For words by their first institution haue the power or vse of signifying but so haue not deedes And hence he inferreth that deedes actions and gestures though oftentimes they be yet they are not alwaies signes either of some ensuing action to follow or of our present purpose and meaning nor haue they the nature of a lye in them etiamsi ad decipiendum aliquando siunt though they be sometimes done to deceiue the vnderstanding of the beholder and to make him beleeue that which is not true So that if our Lord did make shew of going further and intended it not as Father Persons saith yet in this learned mans iudgement there was no lye in it and consequently there needeth no mentall reseruation to saue it from being a lye Secondly and more agreeably to our Sauiours mind wee may answere and say that our Lord made as if he would goe further yea and meant it too if their intreaties and importunitie had not stayed him Therefore the Text saith They constrained him that is they importuned him to stay and he ouercome by their intreatie stayed with them The clearer meaning of which words we may the better conceiue and vnderstand by a like speech Luke 9. 53. For there it is said The Samaritans receiued him not because his face was as though hee would goe to Ierusalem that is by his behauiour it seemed that hee meant to goe thither and so hee did meane it indeed And so in this place when it is said that hee made as though hee would goe furâ—â—â—r the meaning is that hee tooke his leaue and bad them farewell or vsed some other such like behauiour which made it seeme that hee meant to goe further Yea and so hee meant indeede sauing that at their request hee was contented to abide with them And thus Barradius and Ribera two famous Iesuites doe interpret this place Wee may answere saith the one of them DominuÌ„ voluisse vlteriùs progredi si non retineretur à Discipulis c. That our Lord indeed would haue gone further had hee not beene detained by his Disciples and that there was no vntruth in this shew And the other Nihil veritas fingii Christ who is the Truth doth not feine any thing But the common sort might thinke that hee did feine but it was no fiction or counterfeiting For if they had not detayned him he out of doubt had passed by and had gone on further Thus not onely the euidence of truth but the authoritie of Romish Doctors and Iesuites doe vindicate this place from that false glosse that Persons putteth vpon it and doe free our Lord Iesus from that slanderous imputation which the Iesuite doth lay vpon him when he saith that Christ in this place did equiuocate and when hee calleth this dealing of his The dissimulation and fiction of our Sauiour The second place mentioned and produced for Equiuocation is that speech of our Sauiour Mar. 13. Of that day and that houre c. This prâ—position saith Persons had some reseruation of mind for that otherwise it had beene false Ans. Not so Nay this inference of the Iesuite is false and foolish too for our Sauiour according to his wonted manner elsewhere speaketh of himselfe as he was reputed and knowne to be that is as he was man And in that sense the words haue an vsuall and cleare construction and signification which is that as he was man he knew not of that day This interpretation as Persons doth acknowledge is giuen by ancient Fathers in great number Nor is this a mentall reseruation as Persons would haue his ignorant Reader to beleeue but an interpretation vsually meant and vnderstood by Christians in these and such like speeches as these And therefore our Sauiour in this seÌ„tence did not keepe one secret sence to himselfe in his inward minde and signifie another to his Disciples in the words vttered But if it be an Equiuocation such as they fancy what then shall the reseruation be Persons knowing that no man before the late inuention of this new Art did euer thinke of secret reseruations or mentall imaginations in our Sauiours words calleth euery Exposition that any good Author giueth by the name of reseruation and reckoneth that Author for a fauourer of his like the mad man in Athenaeus who when any ship came to the HaueÌ„ put it in his Tables as one of his owne But that which carrieth most shew of a reseruation is this The Sonne doth not know the day of iudgement meaning that hee knew it not so as hee would discouer it vnto them For this explicatioÌ„ is giuen by Saint Augustine and other Fathers saith Persons and hee addeth as triumphing in so plaine a proofe that this exposition expresseth the very same reseruation in Christs words which they talke of in their mixt and equiuocall propositions Ans. To this I answere two things First That the Exposition giuen by those Fathers doth not imply any equiuocall reseruation Secondly That it doth not giue the true sence or meaning of the place First It containeth not any Iesuiticall reseruation For those Fathers which giue that interpretation The Sonne knoweth not that is not to make you know it or rather the Sonne knoweth it not that is hee doth not make you to know it doe fetch and gather this exposition not from any secret conceit reserued in our Sauiours minde but from the vse and acception and signification of the word as it is vsed in Scripture For so say they this word scio or noui is often vsed As when God said to Abraham
they gather or obserue either from the signification of the words or the vse application of them in the Scriptures or from some circumstances or considerations in the Text it selfe And therfore such Texts in the iudgement of all such Interpreters are not to be expounded or vnderstood of any Popish reseruations kept secret in the Speakers minde For such reseruation as I shewed before may be any that themselues will fancie Insomuch that the Priests do frame seuen seuerall and distinct reseruations all alike fit for Father Listers Equiuocation when he deceiued his Keeper and doe intimate that they might haue framed many moe and all to as good purpose And no doubt as they imagined those seuen they might haue inuented seuentie moe that would haue serued the turne In all which it is not possible for the Hearer or Reader of such a speech to imagine what the Speakers reseruation is it beeing not such as the signification of the words or any circumstances of the businesse doe yeeld but as the minde of the Equiuocator will fancie within his deceitfull heart Nor do they in their Equiuocations meane that the Hearer should knowâ— their reseruations For their intent is to reserue one sense in their owne breast and to imprint another in the Hearers minde This only short note being obserued it will be easie for euery Christian that will open his eyes to see that no place produced by them out of the Bible doth include their secret and hidden reseruations Or if any Equiuocator will cauill or can say that there is any testimony of theirs which may not receiue satisfaction by this generall Rule and is in his opinion worth the standing vpon let him produce it and I will promise him either a solution of his reason or a recantation of mine opinion And thus much shal serue to be said concerning the Grounds and Reasons which Equiuocators doe build vpon Now I proceede to set downe some few reasons against this new-found Arte and fond deuice of Equiuocation And those for this time shall be these fiue 1. Because this late doctrine of Equiuocation destroyeth the true nature of Equiuocation whose name it beareth 2. Because it maintaineth a practice of lying vnder a colour of Truth 3. Because it disturbeth humane society and hindereth mutuall commerce 4. Because it impeacheth God of folly in making his Lawes against Lying 5. Because it freeth the Deuill from all iust imputation of being a Lyer Arg. 1. The Iesuiticall doctrine of Equiuocation doth destroy the true nature of Equiuocation which hitherto hath beene receiued of all men and now for ought I know is not reiected of any This I prooue thus Equiuocation in the true nature thereof is when a word or speech hath moe senses than one This the word doth import For Aequiuocum by the very notation of the name is vox aequi plura significans a word indifferently betokening moe things And in some such manner as this doe Writers of all sorts explaine and describe Equiuocation But in this new-deuised Equiuocation there is no word nor no sentence or saying that hath moe significatious or senses than one For in their mentall equiuocall Proposition which they fancie neither the words taken by themselues nor the whole saying and sentence intended by the speaker haue any Ambiguity or doubtfulnes of signification or any moe senses then one as I haue shewed before out of the Equiuocators own Rules And hence I may inferre that either their reserued Proposition is not an Equiuocall and double-sensed Proposition as they call it without reason and consequently that they doe not by Equiuocation speake truth in one sense and mis-leade the Hearer with another sence or else if notwithstanding this that Proposition bee Equiuocall and double-sensed still then we must say that there may bee an Equiuocation where there is but one single sense and meaning And that destroyeth the true nature of Equiuocation To this reason first their confession is that verball Equiuocation which is when a word or speech signifieth diuers things equally indeed is onely true and proper Equiuocation and agreeth onely to the Defiuition of Equiuocation deliuered not onely by Philosophers but Orators also and that it is properly called Equiuocation when a speech or word signifieth diuers things equally if we consider the proper nature of Equiuocation and that mentall Equiuocation in rigor is none 2. Their answere is notwithstanding that their mixt Proposition may be called Eqâ—â—uocation in a more large and ample signification as Equiuocall may signifie an amphibologicall doubtfull or double-sensed Proposition in respect of the Speaker and Hearer whereof the one vnderstandeth the same in one sense and the other in another And the cause why it is so called is rather by a certaine similitude then propriety of speech to wit that euen as Equiuocation properly by communitie of name in things of different natures by variety of significations in the selfe-same words or speech by custome of phrase and composition of sundry sorts doth make different and doubtfull senses and meaning to the Hearer so in this case by mentall reseruation of some part of the foresaid mixt Proposition the like effect of doubtfulnes is bred in the Hearers vnderstanding For more ready vnderstanding of which perplexed speech I note that there are three things said by this doubling Equiuocator 1. That it is onely true and proper Equiuocation such as is comprised in the Definitions giuen both by Philosophers Orators when there are diuers senses and significations in the words 2. That Equiuocation as they meane it in this question hath no such propertie in it nor is comprised in the Definition that Philosophers and Orators haue described Equiuocation by 3. That notwithstanding all this yet it may rightly be called Equiuocation because as true Equiuocation breedeth diuers senses to the Hearer by the Ambiguity that is in the words so this new-deuised EquiuocatioÌ„ may breed diuers senses one in the Hearer and another in the Speaker by reason of the secret reseruatioÌ„ that the Speaker imagineth in his own mind And this may seeme not so vnreasonable because words doe signifie ad placitum and may be changed euery day And therefore it is no such fault to frame a new meaning and another signification in this word then euer any body did thinke of heretofore Rep. This answere doth not weaken mine Argument it confirmeth and strengtheneth it rather For first I doe not except so much against their new signification of the word as against the new explication and description of it For they say that they call it Equiuocall because it is a double-sensed Proposition and a double-sensed Proposition there fore they call it because by it they signifie one sense to the Hearer and imagine another to themselues But this doth vtterly destroy the very essence entity of true Equiuocation For true Equiuocation cannot be conceiued to be without a diuersitie of meanings in the
a proper and ancient vse of it frequent among all sorts of writers but handled and spoken of especially in Logicke The second is an improper and abusiue acception of it which was of late yeeres deuised by some writers and Doctors of the Romane Church Father Parsons calleth the forme verball and the later mentall Equiuocation And of these hee saith that the verball is proper Equiuocation the mentall is so called rather by a certaine similitude then propriety of speach and that the verball is onely true and proper Equiuocation for that mentall in rigor is none And againe that Equiuocation hath of later yeeres onely been accustomed to bee vsed in this sense that is for mentall Equiuocation And Heissius another Iesuite Patron of this Art saith that their mixt speach which they call mentall Equiuocation is not properly Equiuocation By which speaches of these Iesuites especially seeing the one of them is a man so well seene in this Arte and so much exercised in this argument of Equiuocation I presume I haue sufficient warrant to say as I did without the controll of any of our punie Iesuites that the one vse and acception is proper and ancient the other vnproper and of a later growth that is since the mystery of iniquity did open it selfe more fully to the world and men did more apparantly speake lies in hypocrisie But yet for the distinguishing of these two kindes I will rather call the first Logicall Equiuocation as being that which Logicke doth onely acknowledge and the later I will call Iesuiticall Equiuocation as hauing if not its first deuising yet at least its polishing from men of that Order The Question in this place is onely concerning the later which I call Iesuiticall Equiuocation Notwithstanding for the better clearing of the point in controuersie somewhat is first to bee said concerning the former which I call Logicall First then for the Logicall Equiuocation it is an ambiguous or doubtfull saying when one word or speach hath moâ— senses then one and it hapeneth three wayes 1. When a word by it selfe hath diuers significations and meanings as this word to know hath For sometimes it signifieth to apprehend and vnderstand the certainety of some truth as when S. Iohn saith GOD is greater then our hearts and knoweth all things 2. To know is as much as to approue and allow of as when Dauid saith The Lord knoweth the way of the righteous And when Christ saith to the foolish Virgins Verily I say vnto you I know you not The meaning is I doe not acknowledge you for any of mine In this and such like words as this there is an Equiuocation because the word hath diuers acceptions and vses 2. When words which haue but one signification of themselues yet are so ioyned together in some sentence as that they may by reason of the composition make and yeeld diuers meanings or when by reason of their contexture they may haue moe meanings than one as when S. Luke saith When they heard this they were baptized in the Name of the Lord Iesus these words are diuersly construed by the Learned For some thinke them to bee the words of S. Paul and to haue reference to the speech of Iohn Baptist immediately going before and then the meaning must bee this that when those brethren there spoken of heard Iohn so teaching concerning Christ they were baptized of Iohn in the Name of the Lord Iesus But others thinke them to be the words of S. Luke and to haue reference to the former speech of S. Paul and then the meaning must be that when those brethren had heard Paul discoursing in this manner of Iohn and his Baptisme then They were baptized of Paul in the Name of Christ. In this Clause then there are two senses giuen by the Learned and that sheweth that there is an ambiguity but that ambiguitie riseth not from the diuersitie of significations in any of the words but from the different consideration of the contexture or composition of the sentence 3. When the circumstances of time place persons c. are such as that in reason and in the iudgement of sober men being well and duely considered they may limit or restraine the speech to some speciall matter or subiect or otherwise alter the meaning of it from that which it should haue if it were in some other place and vpon some other occasion As for example when S. Paul saith I haue not shunned to declare vnto you all the Counsell of God These words considered by themselues doe comprize all the Secrets of God and all the mysteries of His Wisedome but if we consider the circumstances of the persons time place and occasion as that the speaker was Paul an Apostle whose office and imployment was to teach the mysteries of Religion that the hearers were the Church of Ephesus who expected information in matters of saluation and that the occasion of their meeting at this time and in this place was onely for teaching and learning the Word of God and the Gospell of Iesus Christ these circumstances in reason may teach vs that in this place those words all the Counsell of God are not to bee extended to all the secrets and depth of Gods Wisedome a great part whereof is neither reuealed nor necessarie to bee knowne of any man and some part whereof though it be reuealed yet was not pertinent to this occasion but rather that those words are to bee limited and restrained according to the present occasion to signifie and note all necessary things for them to know for their soules health and saluation Or to giue a more familiar example and such as a Iesuite hath giuen instance inâ— wee may suppose that two men going together in a iourney the one of them his money sayling him desireth to borrow ten pound of his fellow who maketh answere that he hath not so much heere his meaning must be supposed to be that he hath not so much in his purse or so much in a readinesse about him though he had foure times the like value in his Chest at home But if the same thing should be desired of him when he were at home in his owne house then the meaning would be that he had not such a summe at home And the same answere which was true beeing giuen to his fellow Traueller by the way would be a lye if it were vttered to him in his house Thus there may arise an ambiguity in a speech by reason of the circumstances of person place time and occasion where otherwise there is no ambiguity either in the signification of any word or in the composition of the sentence considered in and by themselues And in what kind soeuer of these now specified there happeneth an ambiguity that I call a Logicall Equiuocation concerning which our present question is not For as the Doctors of the Romane Church so the learned of our side doe acknowledge that there
may bee a lawfull vse of equiuocall speeches in euery of these kinds if they be not extended too farre or mis-applyed to a wrong cause For to speake more particularly it is granted 1. That we may lawfully vse words which may indifferently be taken in diuers acceptions and meanings as they are then vsed And this is plaine partly because the Scriptures are full of such speeches and partly because our common conuersation and life cannot bee without them 2. It is not vnlawfull when some case of further good doth require it to vse these ambiguous speeches in the lesse knowne and common signification and in aÌ„other meaning then it is likely the hearers wil vnderstand them for the present For so when our Lord said Lazarus our friend sleepeth He meant that he was dead which was the lesse common and knowne signification and therefore the Disciples according to the more vsuall meaning vnderstood him of naturall sleepe And he did this for good purpose and for the profit of the hearers that they might heereby learne either that death in generall is to Gods children but as a sleepe by which they are refreshed and made the more liuely or that this death of Lazarus was rather to bee called asleepe then a death because hee was so speedily raised from it againe 3 It is not vnlawfull if there be iust cause for concealing of a trueth to vse an ambiguous speach in any of these kindes that thereby we may hide some thing from the hearers which they should not know This assertion hath not so direct proofe from Scripture as the others haue yet it is not without all proofe from the Scriptures neither For there wee finde that a man may lawfully vtter one trueth thereby to hide another trueth from the hearer As for example God appointed Samuel to goe to Bethleem and anoint one of Iesses sonnes to bee King and when Samuel obiected How can I goe If Saul heare it hee will kill mee The Lord said Take an heifer with thee and say I am come to sacrifice to the Lord. And so Samuel did as it followeth in the same Chapter and by this he coÌ„cealed his purpose of anointing a new King which was the speciall intent of his going to that place And if it be lawfull and warranted by Gods own appointment to vtter one trueth for the concealing of another then in reason I thinke it cannot iustly be condemned for vnlawfull if a man vpon iust occasion doe vse an ambiguous speech in a true sense thereby to hide from the hearer something which hee should not knowe For if in so doing any thing bee faulty it must be as I take it the one of the two either because an ambiguous speach is vsed in another meaning then it is likely the hearer will take it and that to be lawfull is prooued in the former assertion or because this true sense in the ambiguous speach is vttered to conceale another thing from the hearer and that to be lawfull is cleare by this example of Samuel And therfore I thinke the conclusion may hence be inferred that it is not vnlawfull if there be iust cause for concealing of a trueth to vse an ambiguous speach that thereby we may conceale some other thing which is not fit to be vttered And hereto agree our learned diuines also For one speaking of EquiuocatioÌ„ as it coÌ„sisteth in the ambiguitie of words vttered addeth That this kind of Equiuocation especially in ordinary speach no man doubteth but that it may lawfully be vsed And this Equiuocation may haue his due place for concealing of Counfeâ—s and hiding of secrets And againe speaking to his aduersary Knowe saith he that those concealements whether of Confessions or Counsels whereof you speake where they doe consist of ambiguities in the words wee dislike not onely if they be couered with a lie that wee doe wholly condemne And another learned writer in our Church speaking of one that magnified the vse of Equiuocation adioineth If by the name of Equiuocation he vnderstand a plaine and sober concealing and couering of secret counsels which in this miserable life is oft times necessary I am of his opinion too This is the opinion and iudgement of our learned men concerning the vse of Logicall Equiuocation and herein we agree with them of the Church of Rome or if there bee any difference among the learned of both sides in these cases already mentioned as perhaps about some circumstances in the vse of those ambiguous speaches there may be it is nothing to the present Question in hand which is not concerning any of the kindes of these Logicall Equiuocations which consist in the ambiguous acception and meaning of the words vttered And therefore when the Equiuocaters of our time doe labor to confirme their Arte by the authorized vse of such speaches as are ambiguous by reason of the diuers meanings which the words may receiue they misse the marke beate the ayre and spend their labour to no purpose And this being briefly noted concerning the true and Logicall Equiuocation I come now to the improper and Iesuiticall And that what it is I will set downe in their owne words who professe to bee Patrons of it Father Persons then a man very laborious in the polishing of this Arte defineth it thus Equiuocation or Amphibologie in this our Controuersie is nothing else but when a speach is partly vttered in words and partly reserued in mind by which reseruation the sense of the proposition may be diuers And again mentall Equiuocation saith he is when any speach hath or may haue a double sense not by any double signification or composition of the words themselues but onely by some reseruation of minde in the speaker whereby his meaning is made different from the sense which the words that are vttered doe beare or yeeld without that reseruation And Sanchez giuing a Rule concerning the words vsed in this their Equiuocation saith A man may without telling of a lye vse those words although they be not ambiguous by their signification and doe not make a true sense either by themselues or by reason of the circumstanoâ—s then occurring but doe onely make a true sense by some addition kept in the speakers minde whatsoeuer that addition bee Thus they By which descriptions it appeareth that Iesuiticall Equiuocation is a mixt proposition as Persons also diuers times calleth it part whereof is vttered in words and so taken it hath one sense and another part of it is reserued and vnderstood in the speakers minde which being added to the words spoken maketh another sense as for example A Seminarie or a Iesuite-Priest being asked by a Magistrate Are you a Priest He answereth I am no Priest vnderstanding and reseruing in his minde this clause So as I am bound to tell you or any other which himselfe pleaseth to like purpose here say they is but one mixt propositâ—â— part whereof is vttered
in words namely I am no Priest and that taken alone as it is vttered breedeth a false sâ—tise and in this sense they would haue the Magistrate to conceiue it another part of that proposition is reserued and kept secret and close in the Priests mind that is this So as I am bound to tell you And this secret mentall reseruation being added to the words maketh this one entire Proposition I am no Priest so as I am bound to tell you and that being taken all together maketh a true sence and so the Priest vnderstandeth it And therefore if he doe but keepe or reserue or vnderstand that or any such clause in his minde though the words which he speaketh bee neuer so false yet this man telleth no lye nor speaketh no vntruth Such is the vertue of this new found Arte and thus they describe it But that it may yet appeare more fully and more distinctly it will not be amisse to set downe the mysterie of this Art in certaine distinct Propositions all gathered from their owne writings and approued dealings l. That this mixt Proposition of theirs or this Equiuocation as they call it whether we consider that part of it which is vttered in words or the whole Proposition as it hath the reseruatioÌ„ added to it which is kept in the speakers mind hath in neither respect or consideration as F. P. saith any doubtful sense of speech or words by their doubtfull or double signification but only that it vttereth not all the whole sense of the speaker therfore cannot be properly called equiuocall according to Aristotles meaning Definition And againe These mixt Propositions saith he be not properly equiuocall in the sense that Aristotle did define c. for that they doe not of themselues nor their own natures signifie equally diuers things but being vnderstood wholly haue a simple and single signification in the mind and vnderstanding of the speaker yet for that the hearer concerning but 〈…〉 thereof apprehendeth a different sense from the speaker they may ab effectu be called ambiguous for that they leaue a different sense in the hearer speaker albeit of themselues they be plaine cleâ—re and true c. Out of which words considered ioyned with that which was formerly cited out of Sanchez and Parsons we may note three things 1. That there is no ambiguity or doubtfull sense either in the words vttered if they be taken alone nor in the whole Proposition as they compound it of the words vttered â—he reseruation vnderstood taken together 2. That therefore they call it Equiuocation or an Equiuocall Proposition or speech because they signifie or expresse one meaning to the hearer which is false and retaine or vnderstand another sense within themselues which is true 3. That the taking of this word Equiuocation in this meaning is not proper and such as Aristotle did vnderstand and conceiue by it Hee might haue said that it is not proper nor such as either Aristotle or any man either learned or vnlearned hauing but common sense in his head and common honesty in his heart did euer acknowledge before this last Age. And the truth is they therfore call it an EquiuocatioÌ„ though the word was neuer known to haue any such meaning or signification because they are ashamed to call it by its right name which is A Lye But as the couetous man though he practiseth the thing yet abhorres the name and therefore will be called a good husband or a thrifty man And as a thiefe is ashamed of his right name and when he meeteth with a Traueller to whom he would signifie his eâ—rand he saith that he is a Good-fellow which wanteth money So the Romanists teach an Arte of lying and because they are ashamed of the infamous name of Lyers they call themselues Equiuocators and that which other men call Lying they call Equiuocating 2. That if a man will vse this benefit of Equiuocating he must be warie and carefull that he reserue some secret clause in his mind which being added to the words vttered doe make a true speech or else all is marred and he for want of that clause become a plaine Lyer To this purpose Father Persons saith that the Equiuocator speaketh a trueth in his owne meaning and in the sight ef God which alwaies he must doe when hee vseth this Euasion for that otherwise he should lye and commit sinne if he had not some true sense reserued in his mind c. To declare this yet further Say that two Priests were questioned by a Magistrate whether they were Priests or no and the one should say I am no Priest and should withall reserue in his mind this clause So as I am bound to tell you and the other should answere in the very same words I am no Priest but should forget or neglect to frame or imagine in his mind that reseruation or some such like the former who imagined that reseruation in his mind should be an Equiuocator and speake the truth but the latter who had omitted it should be a Lyer and vtter a falshood and vntruth though hee speake none but the very same words and they haue none but one signification and meaning This they say to shew vs how an Equiuocator doth differ very much from a Lyer The truth is this Equiuocator and this Lyer doe differ as much as two false knaues the one of which is called a Thiefe and the other a Good-fellow that taketh a Purse 3. That whatsoeuer a man doe say or sweare be it otherwise neuer so false and absurd yet if a man doe imagine a clause in his mind which being added to the words spoken would make a true meaning then the former speech or saying how false soeuer otherwise becommeth true and without all compasse of lying because saith Father Persons it is freed from the nature of a Lye by the due iust reseruation in the speakers mind By the due and iust reseruation saith hee But suppose the reseruation be not iust and due but that a man vse this arte when he ought not to equiuocate Why yet euen then he is by this reseruation freed from telling of a Lye though not freed from all sinne For though is should not be properly the sinne of Lying nor against the negatiue Precept of Truth yet should it be another sinne against the publike good of ciuill society and consequently against the affirmatiue Precept of Truth c. Thus speaketh Father Persons And to the like purpose Valentia But Sanchez more plainely and roundly If a man saith he either alone or before company either being asked or of his owne accord either for recreation sake or for any other end doe sweare that he did not doe something which indeed he did do vnderstanding within himselfe some other thing then that he did doc or some other day then that in which he did doe it or any other addition
that is true this man in very deed doth neither lye nor forsweare Thus they speake and so must all they that will maintaine this Arte. For whereas Father Persons speaking of the Wife of Ananias saith that shee beeing lawfully demanded by S. Peter in a lawfull cause touching her owne vow and promise no clause of reseruation could saue her speech from lying he doth herein not only contradict himselfe as Lyers vsually doe but doth also thereby ouerthrow the very grounds of this fond Arte. For if a reseruation in the mind doe free the Equiuocator from lying because that beeing added to his words both together do make a true Proposition why should not a reseruation in this womans mind saue her speech from lying if it were such as being added to her words both together might yeeld a true meaning which according to the rules of this Arte it had beene easie for this woman to frame 4 That in any case in which Equiuocation may bee vsed a man may frame any reseruation whatsoeuer himselfe pleaseth so it be such as being added to the words doth make the whole compound to bee true Persons somtimes seemeth to require that the reseruatiō be conformable to the matter time and place not fained at randome as some fondly do imagine But he doth but mocke his Reader making shew of following the former Schoole-Doctors whose words these are when he hath no such meaning as they had in them For when he speaketh plainely and so as you may vnderstand his distinct meaning them his words are I doe truely and really meane that I am no Priest in the sense that I speake it which may be any that pleaseth me or that I list to frame to my selfe so as I may meane that I am no Priest such as I should be such as I desire to be such as is worthy of so great an office and sacred a function such as he ought to be that occupieth the place of God in gouerning of soules I am no Priest subiect to the demander or obliged to answere his demands or the like Thus and such like whatsoeuer he pleaseth he professeth may be his reseruations when he denyeth himselfe to be a Priest and what conformity these haue at least the most of them with the Circumstances I leaue to bee declared by the Patrons and Masters of this Arte. Sure I am if such large scope may be granted and yet the reseruation bee conformable to the matter c. and not fained at randome then it will be an easie matter to keepe within cōpasse and to obserue the wise rule of this graue Father But let Persons goe with his doubling and let vs heare what others say Sanchez alloweth any words if they yeeld a true sense By any addition reserued in the mind◠of the speaker whatsoeuer that addition bee And Iacob 〈◊〉 Graffijs proposing a Case of one who being taken by theeues doth for feare promise them somwhat with an oath If saith he he doe imagine some other thing in his minde for example I promise to giue this or do that if the Iudgo shal compelme to it or if the skie shall fall or the like then he shal be cleare from sinne And Sanchez that a man may lawfully answere that he killed not Peter meaning another man of the same name or that he killed him not antequam nasceretur before hee was borne And Strange the Iesuite to show what strange and vnlimited liberty they doe take in the framing of this fancie affirme that he was in the company reseruing and intending secretly as added this word Not when hee was questioned before the Lord Chiefe Iustice of England and the Kings Attourney These reseruations and others not much better doe they allow and practise in the Arte of Equiuocating whereof there is frequent mention in their Bookes and Treatises of this argument By all which it appeareth that they approoue of any reseruatirn which a man can fancie if the case be such as they allow of and the clause such as may signifie a trueth 5. That this Equiuocation of theirs is lawfull not onely in ordinary speach but in oathes also This is plainely auouched by Father Persons and vpon this reason Because it is a most certaine principle as well in reason as in Diuinitie that what a man may truely say hee may truely also sweare And againe As all Diuines held saith hee that which may lawfully be said may also lawfully be sworne And to this doe agree others of this Crue who commonly handle this question of Equiuocation in their Treatises of Oathes and allow it as a thing very lawfull and of good vse 6. That this Arte was deuised and so by them is vsed that by it they may deceiue the vnderstanding of the hearer and make him beleeue an vntrueth when it may serue for their turne To this purpose those words of Father Persons sound Equiuocation must sometime be practised when no other euasion can be found for defence of innocencie iustice secrecy and other like vrgent occasions And speaking of some cases of inconuenience which hee would haue to bee auoided by Equiuocation he demandeth Hath God and Nature and Law of Iustice left no lawfull euasion in such cases And againe Wee delight not saith hee in this Arte or maner of euasion by Equiuocation By this it appeareth that Equiuocation to vse the Iesuites owne words is an Art of euasion which cannot bee vnderstood without a meaning and purpose to deceiue the hearers vnderstanding and to make him beleeue an vntrueth The same Doctor of this Arte goeth on and teacheth vs that this their Equiuocation is when any speach hath or may haue a double sense not by any double signification or composition of the words themselues but onely by some reseruation of minde in the speaker whereby his meaning is made different from that sense which the words that are vttered de beare or yeeld without that reseruation And by this is implyed that the purpose of this is to imprint one sense in the speaker which they acknowledge to bee false and to keepe within themselues another which they imagine to bee true Becanus also another Iesuite hauing first proposed the question An liceat vti Aequiuocatione Whether it may be lawful to vse Equiuocation he explaineth the point thus Whether it bee lawfull to deceiue and beguile others by Equiuocations In the prosecution of which question though he wrangle would gladly shift off from themselues the imputation of this equiuocating fraud yea and flatly denieth it yet by explaining the questiō in such sort he acknowledgeth that their meaning who defend it is to beguile and deceiue men And in like sort Tolet saith It is sometimes lawfull to vse Equiuocation and to deceiue the hearer And therefore when Father Persons saith that his intention is not to deceiue in this mentall proposition but to defend himselfe
other mens sayings by such consequences as himselfe fancieth or pleaseth to frame For where holy or learned men haue vsed speeches that may admit diuers interpretations either by reason of the words vsed or some circumstance occurring according to which only former Ages were wont to expound them he presently runneth away with an out-cry of mentall reseruation or mixt Proposition as euery man that considereth the Allegations may easily perceiue In a word Persons claimeth very boldly and to speake truth impudently Vniuersality Antiquity and Consent for this nouell new-deuised and vpstart fancie of their owne Where I wish the Reader to consider how farre he may credit such men when they lay the like claime to all Antiquity and Consent of Nations either for the prouing of their Church or for maintaining of any other subordinate point of Controuersie For mine owne part till they shew me one who approued a mentall Equiuocation or reseruation I will thinke and say there is none And this is my first assertion whereof see further proofe in the next assertion 2 My second is that the latter sort of Schoole-men and Casuists gaue occasion and laied grounds for this ensuing Arte which at that time themselues it seemeth did not so much as thinke or dreame of For whereas some Cases were then debated how farre a Priest might deny the things which hee had heard in Confession and in what sort any man that was questioned by an vnlawfull Iudge or proceeded against in an vnlalwfull maner c. might deny the things which he knew to be true they considering the circumstances of the persons place and businesse did allow some hard Equiuocations which the words would hardly beare in any true sense yet such as they thought might be allowed and gathered out of those circumstances and might well be vnderstood in those words as there and then they were vttered As for exaÌ„ple If a Priest were questioned whether he knew or had heard any thing of such or such a matter he might say No if he did not know or heare it any other way but onely by Confession And the reason of this answere is because Words saith Dominicus a Soto doe so signifie as they are vnderstood or taken by the people Now Christian people when they heare a Priest sweare that he knoweth nothing of such or such a matter they vnderstand him not to speake or meane any thing that he heard in Confession And therefore those words of the Priest doe onely signifie or import that hee knoweth nothing out of Confession And the like defence of this answer is giuen by Sepulueda de Rat. dicendi test cap. 3. Againe it is a further Case If the Priest be asked concerning the same thing whether he know or haue heard it in Confession whether may he then say No I heard it not And the common opinion of the Doctors was that in this case hâ— may sweare he did not heare it But Soto vpon better aduice disliketh this answere because in this Sentence Nihil audiui in Confessione I heard nothing of it in Confession the Restriction allowed in the former case cannot fitly bee vnderstood to say I heard nothing in Confession to wit out of Confession And therefore he concludeth that that answere in this case cannot be excused from being a lye because the words cannot haue that construction Another case is proposed Suppose a Tyran should aske of a Priest whether Peter for example did kill Iohn which the Priest knew in Confession only may the Priest say and sweare that Peter did not kill Iohn Adrian who afterward was Pope and was called Adrian the sixth he resolued the question that he might answere negatiuely that â—e killed him not but Soto againe replyeth that this which Adrian said had no shew of reason because the words admit no interpretation that may excuse them from a Lye For saith he It were a most fond interpretation to say He killed him not that I may tell you or as our Equiuocators vse now a dayes to speake He killed him not so as I may tell you And he giueth a further reasoÌ„ hereof because deeds haue no immediate relation to this word that I may tel it 〈◊〉 the woâ—d I know and other such words of sense haue And in his Booke de Iustit Iure disputing the like question whether a man beeing questioned concerning his owne Act may by Ambiguity elude the question hee resolueth It can no way be defended that he may lawfully say that he did not doe it and hereof he giueth this reason Because this speech I did not doe it cannot receiue this sense I did not doe it to tell it or that I may tell it c. His meaning in more plaine words is this that the Priest might truely say in the case proposed I know not that Peter did kill Iohn because hee might reasonably vnderstand it thus or with this restriction I know it not out of Confession And of such a knowledg the Iudge is supposed to aske and men do vsually vnderstand the Priest to speake But the Priest might not say without telling a lye Peter did not kill Iohn because this restriction cannot without absurdity bee applyed to those words And consequently these words could not bee so vnderstood by the hearers A fourth case may bee added and with that I will end Suppose a guilty person be against order of Law examined by a Iudge whether he haue committed such a crime which indeede he hath done but is not in this case bound to answere him suppose I say he be inforced to answere may he truely say I did not doe it And Adrian's resolution of the doubt was that in such a case he may truely answere according to the opinion of all Schoole-Doctors that he knoweth nothing of that faâ—t or at least that hee did not 〈◊〉 it And his reason is because in this answere he is supposed to speake of such a knowledge of the fact as he may lawfully discouer But Soto replyeth againe I know not who all those Doctors are that Adrian speaketh of I confesse I haue read none of that opinion And he addeth That meaning in which Adrian interpreteth these words is a most forced and violent sense Thus Soto declareth his owne opinion and the opinion of other Schoole-Doctors and Casuists of that time in these and other cases of like nature And the like doth Io. Genesius Sepulueda another learned man of the same nation and about the same time For hauing heard some defend some such like Equiuocations and ambiguities he vndertaketh to proue and that by the testimony of ancient Diuines that in witnesse-bearing for thereof hee doth in particular intreat a Witnesse may not arte vorborum by cunning words deceiue the Iudge but that he is bound to speak plainely and according to the meaning of the Iudge who asketh the question And of the contrary opinion hee saith
None ancient and renowned Diuine that I knowe did affirme it to bee lawfull And in the Preface to that Booke hee saith that while hee was in Rome hee met with one who maintained this opinion which he calleth agreeable to the Determinations of some yong or late Diuines and when he came backe againe into Spaine that praeter spem contrary to his expectation he found some of their learnedest Diuines maintaining and instilling into their Students hearts and eares that opinion which was condemned by the ancient and chiefe Diuines And Chap. 15. hee sheweth who they bee whom he calleth ancient Diuines and that is in his owne words those which liued before our and our Fathers dayes such for example sake as Thomas Aquinas is Out of which testimonies and sayings of these two learned men the one of which was Confessor to Charles the fifth and the other his Historiographer and the one flourished about the yeere 1560. as Possouin saith and the other died in the yeere 1572. saith the same Posseuin out of these their sayings I gather and obserue these things 1 That in the dayes of these two learned men which was about some 60 yeeres agoe there was little or no speach of any Equiuocation by mentall reseruation or of any such mixt propositions as the Romanists now fancie This I gather first because Soto in oppugning these ambiguous Answeres and speaches allowed by some Schoole-Doctors of that time doth no where to my knowledge charge them with any such opinion or euer labour to refute it Which considering the argument that hee had in hand and the diligence that he vsed in handling of it and cleering of all doubts that belonged vnto it no man may with reason imagine that hee would haue for borne to doe if those times had giuen occasion of disputing such a question Secondly the same learned man in oppugning that liberty which others did grant doth still ouerthrowe or confute their opinion because the interpretation and the meaning which they doe allow those answeres to be taken in by the speaker are such as doe not agree to the vse and signification of the words spoken nor cannot bee applied to them without incongruity and absurditie By which reason of his hee implieth that these Diuines meant no other ambiguity or interpretation or meaning in those answeres then such as they thought the words in that case in which they were vttered might beare Or els his reason had beene insufficient and foolish which yet he supposeth to be such as that his aduersaries could not dislike as impertinent if the thing which he vrged were true Thirdly the same Author doth still so set down his opinion that in the cases proposed and others of the like nature he alloweth any ambiguity or Amphibologie which the vse of the speach can beare without a lye as in expresse words hee explaineth himselfe but refuseth and condemneth all such as is not noted and implied in the words Fourthly Sepulueda he also disputeth against those who think themselues not bound in the cases propounded to answere according to the common meaning and acception of the words and confuteth them who hold it lawfull simply to denie the crime truely layed to their charge although they purposely speake some other thing in their minde Which the Iudge taking their words in the common meaning vnderstandeth not Cap. 17. throughout the whole Booke But yet I haue not obserued in all that Booke any speach in which hee mentioneth a mixt proposition a mentall Equiuocation or an ambiguitie made by a reseruation Against which opinion if there had then appeared any such to the world hee might haue disputed with more probabilitie and shewe of substantiall reason But he no where as farre as I can obserue either refelleth or mentioneth any such opinion among these late and punie Diuines For wheras in the place last cited he hath these words though purposely he speaketh some other thing in his minde that maketh nothing as I thinke for the mentall reseruation which our Equiuocators haue deuised For he meaneth nothing else as I take it but that the speaker doth frame in his minde another sense and meaning of his words then they in the common vnderstanding of men doe make or then the Iudge according to the common vnderstauding doth take them in And therefore those very Schoole-Diuines whom hee and Soto doe refute for going too farre and allowing too much liberty yet goe not so farre as our now Iesuites doe who build all vpon a fancied reseruation of their owne framing no way included in the words spoken Fiftly say that those Diuines whom these learned men doe refute did maintaine such a mixt proposition mentall reseruation as our Romanists doe striue for yet Soto saith that he had read no Schoole-Doctor who allowed such a fancie as Adrain imagined which yet by a reseruation of a Iesuite might easily bee solued And Sepulueda when hee came out of Italy into Spaine thought it strange that hee found Diuines who contrary to the meaning of all the Ancients did allow that opinion which he there refuteth And therefore if we shall say that the Diuines against whom these men wrote did hold this Equiuocall reseruation yet it was then a nouell opinion lately sprung vp such as Soto had read in no Schoole-Doctor of former time and such as Sepulueda did maruell to finde set on foote in his owne Countrey where he liued But as I said these learned men did not know of any such opinion risen vp at that time And therefore in those dayes either this Arte was not yet found or if it were it was rather whispered in corners or taught obscurely then published in Schooles Secondly I gather out of these learned mens writings alleadged before that Schoole-Doctors about that time allowed and gaue liberty for such ambiguities as in opinion of these men and in trueth the words could not beare and therefore their interpretations were forced violent and such as could not free their speaches from being lyes This without further deduction is euident by the words before cited Thirdly I obserue that these hard and harsh Equiuocations by some Diuines then allowed and the violent constructions that they made of the words were then newly taken vp and were vnknowne to the elder and more iudicious Schoole-men And out of all this I leaue it to the iudgement of the learned Reader whether I may not vpon good reason inferre that therefore in all probabilitie the later sort of Schoole-Doctors by the hard Equiuocations which they allowed did giue occasion layd grounds for this Iesuiticall Art of Equiuocation though at that time themselues did not thinke of it For may it not hence be reasonably conceiued that the progresse and proceeding to the framing of this Art was on this manner that first of all and in elder times there was nothing but simplicitie in their Oathes and answers or if any ambiguitie was allowed
to be vsed it was but in some such sense as the circūstances of the persons time place and occasion did put vpon them and that according to the intention of publique Lawes and the reasonable construction that the Hearers might make of them and that afterward they allowed violent constructions and such as the words together with the circumstances could not beare in any reasonable mans vnderstanding but such as the speaker in his minde did fancie to be agreeable to that businesse and occasion And lastly that this ouer-bold liberty in them in framing such a sense as the words in reason cōgruitie could not beare made way to fine wits following after to adde something to the former inuention and to frame a sense of words spoken which they acknowledge not to be signified by them but made vp by a Reseruation in their owne breast such as themselues would please to fancie what euer it were either pertinent to the businesse or as farre different from it as the falling of the skie is different from the paying of money But this will appeare yet more plainely if it be considered that Nauarre who liued at the same time with Soto Sepulueda but wrote after them and when they were dead doth from the opinion of those Diuines and in speciall from the opinion of Soto also and from his sayings labour to inferre and proue the lawfulnesse of the Iesuiticall Equiuocation because as hee saith there is the like reason of them both How truely he inferreth his Conclusion from the sayings of Soto and the rest I dispute not I onely note in his course of disputation that hee taketh their assertions for a ground to proue his owne by And that sheweth that those former Writers gaue occasion c. And thus I haue declared my second Assertion concerning the originall of this new Art 3. The third is that whosesoeuer wit deuised it yet it seemeth to mee most probable that it receiued the first life and credit from the See of Rome and the Romane state My reason is from these grounds 1. Doctor Nauarre who as Persons saith Mitig. cap. 7. nu 41. pag. 301. is held to be one of the most liberall and largest in admitting Equiuocations both in words and oathes was thought a fit man to be the Popes Reader of Cases in Rome And if I mistake not hee was the first that broached this new arte For hee read at Rome not long after the time of Soto and Sepulueda who as before was noted had not yet heard any thing of this arte And there he read framed that Commentary in which he teacheth this mysterie for the instruction of the Iesuits Colledge and dedicated the same vnto Gregorie 13. the present Pope which may breede suspition that the Pope was well pleased with this new deuice of Nauarre of whom he made choise to be his publique Reader of Cases and who while he was imployed in this seruice did perfect that arte and from whose Readings the very Iesuits themselues may seeme to haue borrowed the grounds of that Doctrine which afterward they polished with great dexteritie and care Secondly In Queene Elizabeths time there was a Treatise found out which before was in the secret keeping of Iesuits or Priests in which beside the Resolutions of Nauarre were contayned sundry instructions and directions giuen by Sixtus Quintus for the practising of this mysterie of Equiuocation Which if the Reader be desirous to know more fully hee may reade a Relation thereof set downe by a most reuerend and learned Prelate Thirdly I finde that Emm. Sà in his Aphorismes V. Mendac had giuen his opinion concerning this Equiuocall reseruation in this manner that in a case Where a man is not bound to reueale the truth according to the intention of the Demander some say that a man may answere by vnderstanding or reseruing something in his minde as that is not so to wit so as that hee is bound to tell him or that hee hath not such a thing meaning that hee hath it not to giue it vnto him But others admit not of this kinde of answere and perhaps vpon better ground and reason Thus hee gaue his iudgement of this poynt and so the Booke passed in the Low Countries and with approbation and commendation of Silu. Pardo the Inquisitor and Censor there and was printed at Antwerpe 1599. But when it came to be perused and reuewed at Rome the Censor there Io. Maria Master of the sacred Palace he purged the Booke and put out the last words which were And perhaps vpon better reason In which words Sà had signified that hee inclined to their opinion who disliked this Equiuocating by reseruation And hence it appeareth how acceptable and welcome this Doctrine of Equiuocation is in the Popes Palace For whereas F. Persons saith that in the last Edition of Sà es Booke at Rome 1607. this whole last sentence was left out as though hee had changed his opinion And that it seemeth that Emm. Sà did afterwards change his opinion it is but a tricke of iugling such as this Father often vseth to delude his Reader with For Sà died as Ribadeneira reporteth in the yeare 1596. eleuen yeares before this edition of Rome and three yeares before the impression of Antwerpe being then aboue threescore and ten yeares olde And if Sà after so many yeares deliberation had changed his opinion how came it about that that change was not seene in the Antwerpe Copy which was printed 3. yeares after he was dea◠Besides the Edition of Rome re-printed also at 〈◊〉 An. 1612. doth professe that that Book was purged by Ioan. Maria the Master of the Palace and not that it was corrected or amended by Sà the first Author of it Further Persons giueth no one piece of a reason by which the Reader may imagine that Sà did euer change that point And therefore this is but one of Persons vsuall trickes of fittening with which his Brethren of the secular Clergy doe so often charge him Now these considerations layed together make mee thinke it very probable that this Arte receiued its life from the State and See of Rome But if any man can shew mee whence it might rather haue its first ground I will willingly yeeld to him and be thankefull to him that can and will discouer the Spring or Well-head whence first flushed forth this muddy Nylus so fertile of Crocodiles I meane of this sophistique Crocodilites whereby vnware men are ouer-reached and caught 4. My fourth Assertion is It is obserued by learned men that whosoeuer was the Author yet the Iesuites especially those of our English Nation haue beene the chiefe Abettors Defenders and Polishers of this Arte. For proofe of this I will set downe the words of some learned men The learned Gentleman who wrote the Relation of Religion speaking of false newes frequent at Rome for aduantage of their Sect addeth that he found
by obseruation and iudgement of some wise men that the Iesuites were the Masters of that Mint and that all those coynes were of their stamp and that the Iesuites were noted by some of their owne friends to be too hardie Equiuocators and their Equiuocations too hard And Hospinian hauing cited many testimonies of Iesuites for this Arte concludeth that therby it is euident that many Iesuits with great care haue explained and defended it that not without cause they are commonly thought to be the Authors and Inuentors of it Adde hereto that which the learned Casaubon obserued who was well acquainted not onely with the writings of all sorts of Iesuits but with the proceedings and dealings of our English Iesuits also Hee telleth Front◠〈◊〉 a learned Iesuit It is a cleare case that many Diuines of your Order haue explained and maintained that Arte but they which haue especially polished it I finde to be English men Yea and their owne Brethren the Secular Priests lay the ouer-bold vse of Equiuocation in their dish For so famous say they and so notorious are their Equiuocations and so scandalous that the very Protestants take notice thereof c. and such iugglings and shiftings of late haue beene vsed by them that not onely Protestants but also Catholickes yea Priests can scarse tell when they speake sincerely when otherwise And a little after Howsoeuer this kinde of dealing may seeme excusable vnto them vnder the name of honest Equiuocation sure I am that few honest men will excuse it from dishonest lying And Master Watson calleth it the Iesuits rule of swearing and forswearing in a contrary sense and meaning and a shift which they call a lawfull Equiuocation And againe hee calleth these Equiuocations their absurd paradoxes of Equiuocation And the like speeches may be found in diuers other places of the Priests bookes By all which it may appeare that learned men on both sides not onely among the Protestants but also among Popish Priests haue noted this deuice especially in the Iesuits which may be reason enough beside that which is to be found in their owne writings to make any sober man resolue that the Iesuites haue had their fingers chiefly in this new deuised Arte. And reason may perswade the same to be most likely because the Iesuites are an Order consecrated and deuoted from their very first birth to the Popes will to doe what may serue his turne For so the Iesuites themselues who published Sanchez Morall worke doe professe in the Epistle Dedicatorie to Pope Gregorie 15. that their first founder did make himselfe and his Order or Societie vassals to the Popes commaund in a new and vnheard of manner And therefore if the See and State of Rome did as before I shewed giue life and credit and authoritie to this Arte then in reason it must be conceiued that the Iesuites who by their first institution are created the Popes vassals to serue at his pleasure and to doe his will would be the most forward in the ranke to vphold and maintaine with all their wit this deare Childe of the Popes owne breeding And yet when I conclude that the Iesuits are the most forward and the men that haue polished this Arte my meaning is not either to include all of that Order within this compasse or to exclude all others not of that Order from it For first among the Iesuites Becanus doth disclaime it as being not taught by the Iesuites and vnlawfull to be practised by any Wherein hee saith well that it is vnlawfull but ill that it is not taught by the Iesuites For their Doctrine this way is so cleare and so open to the view of all men that Becanus in denying it must needes either vse the Arte of Equiuocation which himselfe condemneth or else tell a flat and downe-right lye which is not much better And the like may be noted in the writings of some other Iesuites who deny and renounce this deuice But they had best keepe themselues from Rome for if they come in the Censors hands it is to be feared hee will deale with them as he hath done with their felow S◠already that is circūcise their lips and teach their pens to speake the Roman Language more purely Secondly among those that be no Iesuites wee haue experience and examples good store of them who haue learned this Arte and maintained it as stiffely as the best Iesuite can In which number I may place Doctor Norrice who beeing apprehended in Oxford denyed himselfe to bee a Priest and afterward in prison did defend it by this sleight of Equiuocation and that he maintained to be lawfull by the example of our blessed Sauiour Mar. 13. 32. But of that day houre knoweth no man neither the Son c. and Ioh. 7. 8. Ego non ascendam c. For so he then alledged the place as Father Persons also doth against both the Greeke and their owne approued Latine In expounding and applying of which Texts to his purpose how weakely he behaued himselfe he may now bee pleased to call to his remembrance that as he braggeth of his victories ouer other men so for his humiliation hee may sometimes call to mind his owne infirmities And that perhaps may stand his soule in as good stead as the meritorious forbearing of Equiuocation when he might lawfully vse it which as Father Persons saith may increase his Crowne and merit in heauen But in earnest he shall doe well if in the next edition of his Antidote he place this question of Equiuocation among the rest of his Controuersies and tell vs in good sadnes what after so many yeeres more he thinketh of this Point But in the meane while the Reader may vnderstand that Dr. Norrice is not the only man that ioyneth with the Iesuites in the practice and maintenance of this Arte. For in this small Treatise may be seene diuers testimonies for it out of other Writers And the secular Priests though they charge vpbraid the Iesuites with a nimium too often and too bold a practice of it yet themselues doe allow it euen when they shew greatest opposition against the Iesuites So Master Watson speaking of Equiuocation as a shift which the Iesuites vse saith that though there bee no question to bee made of it but that in some sense it may bee lawfull c. In which place the sum of that wherein he sheweth his dissent dislike of the Iesuites for his owne words are too many to be set down in this place is in these two things First That the Iesuites doe allow Equiuocation in a case wherein he thinketh a man is bound to speake the plaine truth And secondly that they doe hold that they may not onely to their Aduersaries to Protestants but euen also to any Catholike Magistrate yea to the Pope himselfe answere one way and meane another And to like purpose the Author of the Replie to
lyes which may not be supposed of those holy men Answ. 1. If they be not vnderstood and made true by mentall reseruation they are apparent Lyes say they If this doe not follow then our Equiuocators doe great wrong to those ancient Worthies And plaine it is for diuers of them that they doe so For when Abraham said of Sarah She is my Sister and when Moses said to Pharaoh We must goe three dayes c. and when Samuel said to the Elders of Bethleem I am come to sacrifice vnto the Lord and when Ieremie said I presented my supplication c. these speeches were all of them true in the words as they lye and according to the common acception and meaning of them And therefore there is in them no Iesuiticall Equiuocation in which the words are false till a secret thought doth make them true And in this sence and to this purpose Abraham doth interpret his owne meaning and explaine his words For when Abimelech challenged him for concealing his wife and asked What sawest thou that thou hast done this thing he answered for himselfe Because I thought Surely the feare of God is not its this place c. and yet indeed she is my Sister she is the daughter of my Father but not the daughter of my Mother In which answere we may note three things 1. He sheweth the reason which moued him to conceale her to be his wife Because I thought the feare of God c. 2 He defendeth his speech to be true as the words doe sound and yet indeed she is my Sister q. d. That which I said is very true And hereby it appeareth that Abraham did not equiuocate because Abrahams words in their vsuall signification and as they were vttered by him were true but the words of an Equiuocator as they are vttered are false till an inward reseruation do patch them vp and make a truth of them And it further hereby appeareth also that F. Persons did not only belye Abraham but Almighty God himselfe when he saith that both Abraham and Sarah said that shee was not his Wife but his Sister and that this was one among diuers sayings and speeches in Scripture allowed by the Holy Ghost Thirdly Abraham explaineth his words or rather sheweth how they were true and vnfaigned and that is because she was his neere kinswoman on the Fathers side and such women in the vsuall language of those Countries were called their Sisters Abraham then sheweth that his speech was true because the thing was so as his words did sound and not because he had some secret reseruation in his minde by additiō wherof they became true And this sheweth againe that in these words of Abraham there was no Equiuocation such as our new Doctros doe imagine And Abrahams example in interpreting his owne words may serue vs for a patterne to interpret the rest by And so as he said Indeed she is my Sister as I said so we may say of them Indeed and intruth the things were so as they said Only in these examples though all that was said was true yet something that was true was concealed which we grant to bee lawfull nor doth it any way helpe the Iesuites or fauour their imaginary fiction Answ. 2. When they say If the speeches be not vnderstood with mentall reseruation then those men told a Lye I answere that that may be granted of some of them without any absurdity or wrong of those worthy men For if we be forced to confesse that Dauid did commit murder why should we bee afrayd to confesse that he told a Lye if he vttered any such words as had not a true meaning as our Equiuocators say that he did And if we grant it in Dauid what harme is there to acknowledge it in others of Gods best seruants if by the Text and their owne speeches any such thing doe appeare If then any of these holy men did speake words which were vntrue wee may without inconuenience grant that as they did sinne in other things so they might in this and therefore herein we must not take example by them to doe as they haue done before vs. This answere S. Augustin maketh to the Priscillianists when they alledged the example of ancient men and women to prooue that Lying was lawfull For when we reade of these things in the Scriptures saith he we must not therefore thinke that wee may doe them because we know that they did doe them lest we violate Commandements while without choice wee follow examples Say then that the words of some of those holy men cannot haue a good meaning or true construction in themselues considered it will be no inconuenience to grant that such good men did therein doe amisse and made a Lye And to speake more particularly to the point so I thinke Iacob did when hee said I am thy first-borne Esa◠and Dauid when hee said that hee had made a rode against the South of Iudah c. 1. Sam. 27. 10. And so wee may say of Rahab and the Mid-wiues of Aegypt and some others Obiect But S. Augustin doth excuse those words of Iacob from being a lye Answ. 1. Be it so Yet S. Augustin doth not interpret them to be vnderstood and made true by any reseruation in the mind And this doth no way helpe our Equiuocators at all 2. Say that S. Augustin doe giue vnto those words a more fauourable construction yet Cornelius à Lapide disliketh that and preferreth the other opinion which granteth that Iacob did lye before this of S. Augustin And for that interpretation he citeth S. Chrysostome Lyra Caietan Lippoman Pererius and others 3. Dominicus Soto a learned Frier doth defend or excuse both Saint Augustine Iacob in this manner It may be quod puto sentit Augustinus Which I thinke was Augustines meaning that those words of Iacob were vsed in that Countrey in that signification and meaning that they might be vttered by him without telling a lye But howsoeuer it be Iacob was so plaine a man saith à Lapide that it is not to be supposed that hee did vse equiuocation in his speech nor doth any of former time so vnderstand his words 2. The second head of Arguments containeth the example of Almightie God the God of Truth But what hath this iust God this God of Truth done or said for which hee should be thought to equiuocate that is to keepe one meaning to himselfe and to deliuer another to his people and by a double-sensed proposition to deceiue them whom he professeth to teach Yes say these men he said to Niniueh Yet forty daies and Niniueh shall be ouerthrowne Ion. 3. 4. And he said to Ezekias Set thine house in order for thou shalt die and not liue I◠38. 1. And yet neither of these came to passe according to these words spoken And therefore they are not true vnlesse they be helped by some inward reseruation seeing in the sence that
speech nor was it euer heard of that a Proposition could be double-sensed which had none but one single meaning nor is it imaginable that that saying should be ambiguous which the Hearet can take or construe but one way Secondly Their change and alteration of the word to another different meaning as it is by them here vsed doth conuince them of false and naughty dealing such as we may obserue Thieues to vse when they haue purloyned other mens goods For Thieues saith Tullie when they haue taken away other mens goods doe change the markes of them that it may not be knowne whose they are or to whom they belong And right so doe our Equiuocators deale in this case For they change the names which are true markes of things that hereby they may conceile and hide the nature and propertie of the things themselues I grant then that names may change with times nor is it any fault to alter the vse of a word so there bee no wrong done to the thing by the misse-applying of the word as likewise it is no fault neither to change the markes of goods when there is no fraud intended by it But if the markes of goods be changed that the propertie of them may be conceiled that is a plaine tricke of thieuerie And so if names be changed that the nature of the things may be peruerted or obscured that is a trick of iugling not inferior to that cousonage of the Thiefe And so it appeareth to be in this case For this mungrill Proposition of theirs if it should be censured by Philosophers Orators or other learned men no man but would iudge it at the first sight to be a lye and so hither to all men haue euer called such speeches But now our new Artificers haue found another name for their new Arte they call it Equiuocation And this they doe for a colourable shew that it may be thought that there is no vntruth but onely an Ambiguity in the speech and that they in deceiuing men by mentall reseruations doe nothing but what honest men are wont to doe when they vtter sentences that may haue diuers meanings Thus while they change the names they doe also confound the things and destroy their true nature which wise men and Aristotle among the rest haue euer acknowledged to agree vnto them Obiect Nay saith Father Persoons but if Aristotle did not comprize this our reserued Proposition vnder 〈◊〉 of the three sorts of Logicall Equiuocation mentioned by him in his Elenchs then he erred grossely in making an insufficient Diuision which comprehendeth not all the parts of the thing deuided For if the said mixt Proposition saith he be an Equiuocation as Iesuites say it is in spite of all reason and against the doctrine of all ages then must it haue place among some of these three kindes or else the Diuision should be insufficient Rep. A ridiculous conce it whereto I know no example that may be paralell but I will imagine one as neere as I can Suppose then a Father deuideth his Lands among his owne Children and a Conie catcher there by steppeth in and layeth claime to a share among them and when the matter commeth to be debated in the Court the Iudge parteth the Lands among the Brethren to whom onely they belonged and shutteth out the Conie-catcher for a wrangler that layeth claime where he hath no right What if in this case the Conie-catcher should complaine of the Iudge for partiall dealing and reason against him as Persons doth against Aristotle that if this Conie-catcher haue a right and a share in those Lands as himselfe saith he hath then the Iudge erred grossely that had excluded him Would not euery Boy kicke such a wrangling foole or knaue shall I call him out of the Court And such a ridiculous wrangler is Father Persons who accuseth Aristotle of a grosse errour for not rancking among his kinds of Equiuocation this of the Iesuites neuer heard of in the world before and which the wrangler himselfe doth else-where acknowledge not to be true Equiuocation Arg. 2. This doctrine of Equiuocation doth maintaine a practice of lying because hee whom they call an Equiuocator is in truth a Lyer and that which they call an Equiuocall Proposition is a lying assertion I proue it thus He that speaketh to another that which himselfe knoweth to be false is a Lyer and a lye it is whensoeuer there is falsa significatio cum voluntate fallendi a false signification with a mind to deceiue the Hearer Or to speake in a Iesuites words A Lye is verbum falsum cum intentione fallendi a false speech with an intention to deceiue Which description of a Lye so far as concerneth this purpose he explaineth thus A false speech is heere ment when a man speaketh otherwise then himselfe thinketh and it is said to be with intention to deceiue because Hee that speaketh otherwise then himselfe thinketh doth deceiue another and intendeth to deceiue him For he would not so speake but that thereby he may engender a contrarie opinion in another mans mind and this is to deceiue Thus the Iesuite describeth a Lye and that agreeably to the receiued Doctrine of the Schooles But this which is said to containe the nature of a Lye is all of it found in the new-deuised Equiuocall Proposition For first that which the Equiuocator vttereth is false and so he knoweth it to be for it may seeme saith Persons to haue salsitie in it and sometimes also hath indeed in respeâ—t of the words onely or vnderstanding of the Hearer And the case is cleere that the words vttered by the Equinocator containe an vntruth and a falshood for else they could not serue him for euasion But the words vttered are all that the Equiuocator speaketh and therefore that which hee speaketh is verbum falsum a false word or speech And secondly that he vttereth this falshood with minde and purpose to deceiue the Hearer in the sence that Tolet here explaineth it I haue shewed and proued out of their owne writings nor can it stand with common sence to conceiue it otherwise And hence it followeth that the Equiuocator is a plaine lyer Ans. Their answere is that though the words considered by themselues and as they are vnderstood by the Hearer be false yet as they are meant by the Equiuocator and as they are ioyned with the reseruation kept in his minde they are true The summe is they are false of themselues but they are made true by the imagined reseruation Re. This is a weak answer an impertinent shift because their mentall reseruation hath nothing to doe either with Truth or Lying as may appeare by this reason Truth as it is heere meant and Lying which is the contrary to it are morall acts contained in the second Table of the Decalogue or Tenne Commandements and therefore doe include a respect to our Neighbours nor can they be vnderstood without
the words yeeld they were not fulfilled Answ. These and other such speeches of God are words of Commination and threatning Now words of Commination in Scripture are meant by Almightie God that spoke them and are vnderstood by men that heare them with exception of repentance and amendment or some such conditions in the persons against whom they are vttered as may moue GOD to reuoke the sentence For God himselfe hath declared his owne meaning to be so in such like sentences and speeches At what instant saith he I shall speake concerning a Nation and concerning a Kingdome to pluck vp and to pull downe and to destroy it if that Nation against whom I haue pronounced turne from their euill I will repent of the euill that I thought to doe vnto them And when I shall say to the Righteous c. And when I say to the Wicked Thou shalt surely die if he turne from his sinne c. none of his sinnes that he hath committed shall be mentioned vnto him c. And according to this plaine Rule giuen by God himselfe concerning his own words we are to vnderstand Gods threatnings with some such exception As for example yet fortie daies and 〈◊〉 c. that is vnlesse Nineuâ—h repent and obtaine Gods fauour for their preseruation And Thou shalt die c. that is vnlesse thou by prayer and humiliation obtaine Gods fauour to lengthen thy life beyond the ordinary course or such like And these exceptions are not secret reseruations kept in Gods owne brest and concealed from the hearers as the Iesuites reseruations are but they are conceiued and euer haue beene vnderstood by men acquainted with Gods language to be meant by the very words And therefore when God had threatned the Iewes yet the Prophet exhorteth them to repentance that so they might moue God to stay his iudgements Who knoweth saith hee if hee will returne and repent and leaue a blessing behinde him And Daniel when he had told Nebuchaduezzar of Gods Decree against him yet hee giueth him counsell to breake off his sinnes by righteousnesse and his iniquitie by shewing mercy to the poore that this might be a meanes to lengthen his tranquillitie Yea and in the very examples alledged to the contrarie when Ionas pronounced yet fortie dayes c. the men of Nineuâ—h as either hauing had some aduertisement thereof by Scriptures or by some of Gods people or conceiuing so much by the common light of reason they did vnderstand these words of the Prophet as a threatning that implyed an exception of repentance And therefore the King with his Nobles proclaimeth a Decree Let Man and Beast be couered with sackcloth and cry mightily vnto God c. For who can tell if God will turne and repent and turne away from his fierce anger that wee perish not And when God had threatned Ezekiah Set thine house c. yet Ezekiah turned his face to the wall and prayed to the Lord c. Where his prayer for freedome sheweth that hee vnderstood not Gods threatning to be meant without exception And thus the people of God haue euer beene wont to vnderstand such like speeches till our late Doctors of Rome haue made God to be an Equiuocator that they might alledge him for a patrone of their sinne The third head of Arguments containeth the example of our blessed Sauiour who though hee were the Truth it selfe and that there was neuer any guile found in his mouth yet these men will needes draw him in to be a fauourer and ring-leader of their falshoods and vntruthes And so did their Predecessors the Priscillianists doe before them For they as Saint Augustine saith of them for defence of their Doctrine of lying brought testimonies out of Scriptures and encouraged their Schollers by the examples of Patriarchs and Prophets and Apostles and Angels non dubitantes addere etiam ipsum Dominum Christum making no scruple to adioyne also our Lord Iesus Christ as a patterne of their lyes And right so for all the world doe our Equiuocators deale now-a-dayes They bring examples of Patriarchs and Prophets and Apostles and blessed Angels not fearing to draw in God himselfe and Iesus Christ his blessed Sonne to be Abettors of their frauds But of God wee haue heard what they say already let vs now heare what they say of Iesus Christ and how and when and wherein hee vsed this Arte of Equiuocation Yes say they he did equiuocate when being with two of his Disciples hee made as though hee would goe further and when speaking of the day of Iudgement he said But of that day and that houre knoweth no man nor the Son but the Father onely and when hee said to his Brethren Ego non ascendam c. I will not goe vp to Ierusalem to this Feast and yet hee meant to goe vp and so went and diuers other times Ans. Neither in these nor in any other place was our Lord the spotlesse Lambe of God euer found to equiuocate according to the rules of this new Arte. Not in the first place Luke 24. 28. For first there our Lord is said to doe something hee made as though hee would goe further but he is not said there to haue said any thing in which this supposed reseruation might be vnderstood Ob. Yes but deedes also may signifie as well as words Ans. Deedes sometimes are equiualent to words and doe signifie as well as words doe and that is when as words so they doe declare our meaning ex instituto or by some kinde of compact and agreement among men And that may be done two wayes First expressely when some words ioyned with the deedes doe declare that to be the meaning and purpose of him that vseth them As when Iudas kissed his Master this signified that hee was Iesus whom they came to apprehend because before hee had giuen them this signe Whomsoeuer I shall kisse that same is hee And when Iesus gaue a sop to Iudas that signified that hee was the Traitor because hee had told them before Hee it is to whom I shall giue a sop when I haue dipped it And so when an oath is ministred or tendred vnto vs if wee lay the hand vpon the Booke and kisse it this signifieth that wee consent to the taking of the Oath because that is appointed and required for this purpose Secondly deedes may bee equiualent to words when by some outward circumstances wee doe declare that we intend them as signes of our meaning and doe referre and vse them to that purpose In this kinde wee may see a man who is borne deafe and dumbe to talke and conferre with his neighbours And in this kinde a shrugge of the shoulder if as Persons saith it be so meant and taken in Italie may be a signe and haue the signification of a Negation or deniall And when a man openeth his mouth and sheweth a defect in his tongue and maketh a gabbling