The encounter against M. Parsons, by a revievv of his last sober reckoning, and his exceptions vrged in the treatise of his mitigation. Wherein moreouer is inserted: 1. A confession of some Romanists, both concerning the particular falsifications of principall Romanists, as namely, Bellarmine, Suarez, and others: as also concerning the generall fraude of that curch, in corrupting of authors. 2. A confutation of slaunders, which Bellarmine vrged against Protestants. 3. A performance of the challenge, which Mr. Parsons made, for the examining of sixtie Fathers, cited by Coccius for proofe of Purgatorie ... 4. A censure of a late pamphlet, intituled, The patterne of a Protestant, by one once termed the moderate answerer. 5. An handling of his question of mentall equiuocation (after his boldnesse with the L. Cooke) vpon occasion of the most memorable, and feyned Yorkeshire case of equiuocating; and of his raging against D. Kings sermon. Published by authoritie

The Reueiwe.

17. Azorius neuer vseth the name of AEquiuocation: and in his explanation of his first and second rule, doth fully aban∣don M. Parsons his doctrine of Reseruation, thus: i 1.1 Ratio v∣triusque Regulae, &c. that is: The reason of both these Rules

(saith Azorius) is not that which some doe yeeld, saying that it is lawfull, when we sweare, to take the wordes in our sense, which we feine vnto our selues, and not in the sense, which the hearers doe vnderstand. Yet is this the reason which M. Parsons hath * 1.2 laid do wne, for the defence of his Mental Reseruation before a Iudge incompetent, saying. I may feigne what I list, al∣though not agreeing with the vnderstanding of the hearer. But Azorius alleageth a reason against this infatuation. Because (saith he) whensoeuer the wordes are of a doubtfull signification, and we are asked any thing against the law, then is it lawfull for vs to take them in that sense which we like, albeit the hearers doe take them in an other sense. Which doth againe confute M. Parsons his doctrine: for he defendeth an Amphibologie of speech, which may haue a double sense only by the reser∣uation in the minde of the speaker, which sense is different from the wordes of the mouth. But Azorius admitteth not any am∣biguous or doubtfull sense, which is not incident vnto the outward wordes themselues, and whereof the hearer is not by some outward circumstance of speech, capable and appre∣hensible.

18. This may be made plaine by comparing examples to∣gether. A Iudge is acquainted with a mans cause, which he * 1.3 is to determine; the party, whose cause it is, commeth to the Iudge for aduife: Now it is knowne that a Iudge is not to giue counsaile in any case, wherein he is to execute the office of a Iudge: yet the party being instant and vrgent, saying, Sir, doe you not know how I shall free my selfe in this cause; the Iudge answereth, Friend, I know nothing of this matter: mea∣ning, that howsoeuer, as he is a Lawyer, he know his cause, yet now, as a Iudge, he is not to acknowledge it: And this double sense is in the speech it selfe, and, by circumstance of the person, may possibly be apprehended by any discreet hea∣rer: and is to be called a Verball AEquiuocation, according vnto the former definition, which M. Parsons himselfe hath deliuered; and not a Mentall.

19. Such like is the example, which Azorius hath offe∣red concerning a Priest, who knoweth some secret reuealed

vnto him in priuate Confession, as he is a Priest, and therefore as a Priest is bound in conscience and by his calling, not to reueale any such secrecie (except the concealement may be pernitiously damnifiable vnto persons, and States, as some of them doe hold): In such a case Azorius saith, that hee may answere, I know not, because he knoweth it not but as a Priest, which is, that he knoweth it not, to reueale it: but why? by ver∣tue of an Onely reseruation mentall? (so hath Mr. Parsons defi∣ned): No, but because, as Azorius saith, The wordes them∣selues, according to their vfe, haue this ambiguous significati∣on in themselues: so that it is not now to be called absolute∣ly Mentall, but a verball Ambiguity.

20. Sepulueda hath made the case verycleare, shewing that it is allowed by the k 1.4 common consent of Christians, that a Priest, who knoweth the crime of any, as he is a Priest, that is in confession, may not disclose it: then his answere, in saying I know not, doth issue from the common interpretation of the words themselues, to signifie, that he is not to take knowledge of any such matter, to tell it vnto any: which interpretation issueth from the outward circumstance of his calling, because he is a Priest. So that still the oddes betweene M. Parsons and Azorius is thus much: M. Parsons speaketh of an Equiuoca∣tion, or ambiguity of speech, which consisteth not in the out∣ward wordes: but Azorius iudgeth contrarily, as wee haue heard, and M. Parsons shall better see, to his no small rebuke, before the end of our Reckoning. After this Azorius addeth a third rule.

Notes

• i 1.1

  Azor Inst. Mor. Tom. 1. l. 11. c. 4. §. Secunda Regula.
• * 1.2

  Azorius his meaning.
• * 1.3

  An Example.
• k 1.4

  Sepulucdo de rat. dicendi te∣stimon. cap. 3.