26. After that M. Parsons had l 1.1 confessed such a Reseruation l 1.2 of the woman, which no clause of a second reseruation can saue from a lie, and thereupon was challenged to graunt, that the manner of a Romish Priests reseruation is likewise a lie, and so the tricke of Mentall Reseruation to bee but a lying de∣uise: He had no other refuge in the world, but to forge a manner of Reseruation of his owne, by putting in the worde Bound, as if the woman had answered, I sold it but for so much, conceiuing in her minde, As bound to tell it vnto you. Which speech he calleth a lie, and saith, that no clause of Reseruation can saue it from a lie.
27. Now therefore I am to pose M. Parsons, and if he aun∣swere this, I shall not call a Mentall AE quiuocatora lyar. My question is this: If vnto that proposition [I sold it but for so much, as bound to tell it vnto you, she had added such clauses as these, saying, I solde it but for so much, as bound to tell it vnto you (Saint Peter) meaning, As you are a priuate man: Or, As bound to tell it vnto you, meaning, with any intent to kill you: Or, as bound to tell it vnto you, meaning [with any desire to steale a mans cloake: and a thousand such like additions to the former clause of Reseruation: My question is, I say, whether euerie one of these additions doe make the supposed speech of the woman true or no? For if the womans speech standing thus,