To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/). This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/ for more information.
A briefe Discourse, concerning Mentall Equiuocation; proouing that M. PARSONS, by one Grant, hath ouer∣throwne his defence of Mentall Reseruation.
1. MAster Parsons, for the iustifying of Mental Equiuocation, hath borrowed, as he calleth it, a Reason from the example of the a 1.1 Faxe, which creature, when he is in danger of hunters, is taught by the instinct of nature
to winde and turne, to trip it backward, and forward, and all to deceiue the Hunters, and to secure himselfe: So (saith hee) may man vse the arte of Mentall Reseruation in some cases.
2. This being M. Parsons his owne example, he may not be offended with me, if I intitle the discussing of this point, The hunting of the Fox, especially knowing that their owne Priest hath made bold to write thus against him: b 1.2 If you can procure Charles Pagets booke (saith hee) against Father Parsons, you shall finde the Foxe so vncased, and left so naked of all honesty, wisedome, and iudgement in these points, &c. But first we will prepare our selues to the sport.
SEe what ostentation and vaunt hee vsed at his first entrance, as * 1.3 though he would do great matters indeed; for thus he beginneth: That P. R. hath flatly ouerthrowne his desence of Mentall Equiuocation; which is made so euident, as that no wit of man can possibly excuse him. This, you see, is confidently spoken of himselfe, and his wit: but his Reader will finde as great want of wit and discretion in this bragge, and in the Medium here chosen to ouerthrow my whole Treause, as euer perhaps he found in any man, professing wit and learning.
3. I haue seene your Reckoning Master Parsons, wherein with the sweate of your braines, you haue forced your wit to defend a desperate cause with no small confidence. In the which cause, there is more neede of Grace then of Wit, but I am willing to ioyne issue with you, and to stand vnto the try∣all of any indifferent Reader. Let vs begin at a beginning.
HE beginneth his Confutation thus: How now would my Reader * 1.4 heare this noble Equiuocator confuted? By Fathers? or by his owne Doctors? or by sensible Reasons? This will be no hard matter to per∣forme, as I hope (God willing) to auouch in due time.So he. And this, you see, is no otherwise then if a bare and broken Debtor, hauing beene long called vpon to pay his debts, should step forth at length in a vaunt before a multitude, saying to his Creditor, Come Sir, What sort of gold
will you be paid in? Will you haue it in Spanish Pistolets? Portugall Cruzadoes? French Crownes? Zechnies of Venice? Dallers of Ger∣manie? or English Angels? And his Creditor shall answere him, Sir, any kind of coyne would content mee, although it were but half-faced groats, or single-pence, so I might haue it. And that then the other shold replie, as M. Morton doth here, Well I hope, God willing, to pay you in time, & so leaue him, with lesse probability of paymēt then euer before. And were this now substantial dealing for satisfaction of his creditors? And doth not Mr. Morton the very like, that asking heere the Reader whether he would haue Fathers, Doctors, or Reasons for proofe against me, produceth neuer a one, but saith, that he hopeth to doe it in time?
4. Take heed, M. Parsons, your Reader will suspect that you will turne a Trapezita and Bancker, for you are so skil∣full in coyne, as though you had serued some apprentishippe in the trade: but I feare rather that you will turne a Coyner, yet not of money, but of phantasticall conceits, for which cause you haue beene noted by your owne fellowes for d 1.5 The ab∣stract quintessence of all coynes and coggeries, one point wher∣of you haue bewrayed euen in this your ridiculous figment:
For after my demand, e 1.6 How my Reader would haue the Equi∣uocator confuted? Whether by Doctors, or Fathers, or Rea∣sons? I added, that for the present I thought it a more glori∣ous Victorie to confute him, (that is, M. Parsons) by his own Assertion.Wherein I dealt with M. Parsons, not as with a * 1.7 Creditor (for alas what credite is there in an AEquiuocator?) but as a man would doe with a cousener, whom although I might haue conuinced by witnesses and sound Arguments, yet I thought it sufficient for the present (especially in a Pre∣amble) to confute him, as Christ did the * 1.8 Seruus nequam, by the wordes of his owne mouth.
5. Notwithstanding M. Parsons (a sober Reckoner for∣sooth) hath called this kind of dealing an f 1.9 Arte of Mounte∣bankes. But, I hope, he will haue cause to say I deale not vnho∣nestly with him, when I pay him with his owne coyne, that is, whilst I confute him with his owne Answeres, albeit they are sometimes (I confesse) more bare then halfe-faced groats.
6.
g 1.10 COncerning the answere of Saphyra in the * 1.11 Acts of the Apostles, who being demaunded by Saint Peter, whether she Sould the land for so much, answered, yea for so much, reseruing in her minde (as it was supposed) To giue in common, or, To tell it vnto you. M. Parsons vpon supposall of this her Reseruation, answered notwithstanding, that she lyed, and that No clause of Reseruation could free her speech from a lie.I was right glad to heare our AEqui∣uocator confesse thus much, and hereupon haue aduentured to call his doctrine of Mentall Equiuocation the Arte of lying: And so (I hope) I shall proue it to be, before that we haue en∣ded this peece of our Reckoning.
BBut first how doth he proue, that she had this meaning of Reser∣uation * 1.12 in her minde? it is but Mr. Mortons imagination to ascribe it vnto her, for it may more probably be thought, that she had ne∣uer any such cogitation, to make her speech lawfull by Reseruation, but absolutely to lie, which is most conforme to the text it selfe of holy Scripture, &c.
7. This first obiection M. Parsons himselfe knoweth to be an idle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for as much as we were both of vs conten∣ted to suppose, that this woman did vse a Mental Reseruation, and also to graunt, that (notwithstanding this her Reseruati∣on) her speech was a Lie.
8. The reason why I thought she vsed a Mentall Reserua∣tion * 1.13 in this clause [With purpose to tell it vnto you, or such like] is this: because euery one, in suppressing a truth, doth therby purpose not to tell it vnto him, whom he would deceiue, and
therefore cannot choose but retaine that clause of Reseruati∣on, [To tell it vnto you, &c.]
9. Howsoeuer, Mast. Parsons could not but vnderstand, that a true argument may be grounded vpon a bare supposi∣tion, as when the Apostle said, * 1.14 If an Angell from heauen shall preach otherwise, then that which we haue preached vnto you, let him be accursed: It would not haue become any to re∣pile vpon the Apostle, saying, How doe you imagine that an Angel from heauen can preach false doctrine? because the foun∣dation of his exhortation was not an Assertion, that an An∣gell from heauen could preach otherwise, but a supposition, that If, or, Although an Angel from heauen should so doe: Wherefore we agreeing in the supposall, to wit, that she vsed a Mentall Reseruation, let vs see whether our next Recko∣nings will agree.
BVT not to cut him off so short, and put him to a non-plus on the * 1.15 sudden, I am content to doe him this pleasure, as to suppose with him that the poore woman might haue some such reseruation in her minde, as M. Morton imagineth, to wit, that as the Priest saith tru∣ly, I am no Priest (with obligation to tell it vnto you:) so shee might meane, that I haue solde it for no more (to acquaint you withall) and then I say, albeit we should admit this supposall, it is denied by vs flatly, that these two examples were alike, as now I haue declared.
10. I thanke you that you are pleased, not to recall what you haue already graunted: I hope that you will be further∣more so good, as to declare more plainely, why, albeit the Priest and the Woman vsed the same kinde of Reseruation, yet the one may be thought to haue spoken a Truth, and the o∣ther a Lie?
THere was obligation in Saphyra to aunswere the truth, and in the * 1.16 Hearer lawfull authority to demand it, for that hee was lawfull
Iudge: but neither of these two things is in the Priest, that is vnlaw∣fully examined by the incompetent Iudge. For that as the said Iudge is no Iudge, and consequently hath no authoritie to demaund matters preiudiciall to the partie examined: so hath the other no obligation to answere directly to his intention or interrogatory. And what hath now Mr. Morton to replie to these so euident and important differences, that make the one aunswere lawfull, the other a lie.
11. Then belike I haue not vnderstood you all this while.
SVrely it is a pitifull thing to see how hee is puzeled in this matter. * 1.17 First he beginneth with the person of the woman, that is, the spea∣ker, that did vnlawfully Equiuocate vnto Saint Peter comparing her to the person of the Priest, that lawfully saith vnto an incompetent Iudge, I am no Priest, and findeth no greater difference betweene theme:
but first, that she is a woman, and he is a man; and then that it is as possible for a Priest to lie, as for a woman to tell truth.But he dissembleth the maine difference now mentioned that shee had obligation to tell the truth without Equiuocation, and he not, which is the substantiall difference indeed. Here then is no plaine dealing to faulter so mani∣festly in the most principall point that most imported.
12. Heere is no plaine dealing indeed, and that will my Reader presently vnderstand: for Mr. Parsons doth charge me with Dissembling of the maine difference, to wit, That she had obligation to tell the trueth without Equiuocation, and hee not, this being the very principall point. And yet within the com∣passe of a fewe leaues following, in this his Reckoning, hee contrarily confesseth, videlicet. h 1.18 He himselfe (to wit T. M.) doth often heere repeat, that I do hold the aunswere of the Priest to be true, and hers to bee false; for that his was made to an in∣competent Iudge, and hers to a competent, so as she was bound to aunswere directly vnto Saint Peters meaning. Heere Mr. Par∣sons confesseth that I repeated and acknowledged this 〈◊〉〈◊〉 difference concerning the Bond, wherewith the wo∣man
was tied, and the Priest was not: nay I did further tell him, that whether the iudge be competent, or not competent, it altereth not the propertie of a lie, because that truth, which (in his opinion) is supplied by Mentall Reseruation, is not sus∣pended vpon the vnderstanding of the hearer whatsoeuer he be (who may conceiue or misconceiue of the speech) but vpon the agreement which the outward speech hath with the minde of the speaker. What answere will he make vnto this?
WHat is this to the purpose? I grant that the truth of my an∣swere, * 1.19 made vnto a iudge, dependeth not vpon the vnder∣standing, conceit, or capacitie of the said iudge, but vpon the meaning of the speaker, which meaning notwithstanding is to be mea∣sured by the competencie or incompetencie of the Iudge. For if the Iudge be competent, then is the aunswerer bound to aunswere to his intention, and to haue that meaning in his aunswere, which the Iudge hath in his demaund: but if he be not competent, then all this obliga∣tion ceaseth, and the speaker is free to haue what meaning he list in his aunswere (so that in his owne sense it be true.) And this for the reason now touched.
13. I know you are not sparing in repetitions, be so cour∣teous as to tell vs one thing more, that we may know whe∣ther you vnderstand your selfe, or no, and then we shall pro∣ceede.
ALbeit the simple difference of persons themselues, to whom wee * 1.20 speake, altereth not the truth or faisitie of our speech: yet some respect or relation in those persons (but especially of being a law∣full, or vnlawfull iudge) may and doth alter the same wholy, making the one speech truth, and the other falsitie. And thus much for aunswe∣ring the force of Mr. Mortons second argument.
14. THat which you lay downe as the sole foundation, to condemne the Woman, & free the Priest from lying, is onely the obligation or bond of duetie, which she had to speake directly vnto her lawfull Iudge, whereas contrari∣wise he was not bound to deliuer a direct aunswere vnto a Iudge incompetent. So that the Thesis, which you giue vs, is this, viz: The same speech made vnto one, vnto whom I am not bound to speake directly, is true, by vertue of men∣tall reseruation; which speech being deliuered vnto an other, vnto whom I am bound to aunswere directly, is a lie, by rea∣son, forsooth, of the obligation, which I haue not to deceiue him: which doctrine I thinke to be a new and naughtie Pa∣radoxe void of all ground of truth, or light of antiquitie. Now therefore let vs follow our Game.
15. If such be the vertue of a Bond of duetie vnto a compe∣tent Iudge, that it can make that outward speech to be a Lie, which (by reason of Mentall Equiuocation) was a truth, as it was spoken vnto a Iudge incompetent, vnto whom I was not bound to make a direct answere: then must there be the like vertue of the same Bond in Verball Equiuocation, to alter the propertie of the same true speech into a lie, which is impos∣sible.
16. As for example. In this outward speech [I tooke a∣way the Popes Bull,] the word Bull is equiuocall, that is, of a double signification, equally betokening the Popes written
Bull, which is his publike instrument, vnder his seale of lead; or his natural Bull, which is an horned beast, feeding in his pa∣stures about Rauenna. It chaunceth that the Popes written Bull, which was publickely fastened vpon a pillar, for all the people of Rauenna to take notice of; was by some body rent and taken away: much questioning there is, who this partie might be; Sempronius is guiltie to himselfe of this trespasse: he is inquired after, concerning the Bull, by a seruant of his owne house, to whom he is not bound to make a direct aun∣swer, saying: Sir, did not you take away the Popes Bull? mea∣ning the written one. I took not (quoth he) the Popes Bul, mea∣ning, the fourefooted Bull. This later sense is true, and the speech (yea euen in Mr. Parsons his iudgement) is likewise true. Afterward the same Sempronius is demanded the same question by a competent Magistrate, vnto whom hee is bound to aunswere directly, and yet he maketh the same an∣swere, I tooke not away the Popes Bull; in the same sense, as before, vnderstanding the horned Bull. And shall not this same sense haue the same truth? Shall it now become a lie? Impossible.
17. For albeit, that the Obligation and Bond of duety, wherewith a man is tied to aunswere vnto the one directly, though not vnto the other, haue a force to alter the speech, which was lawfull, being spoken vnto the incompetent hea∣rer (such as was his seruant,) to be vnlawfull, sinnefull, and damnable, when it was spoken to a Magistrate, iustly exa∣mining him, because the examinate is bound in conscience, not to delude the Magistrate, who is the Minister and Offici∣all of God in that businesse: yet this difference of Competent * 1.21 and Incompetent, doth not chaunge a true speech into a lie. For there is a double kind of a true speech, the first is direct, the second indirect, as is plaine in the former Verball Equiuo∣cation of the Bull, which being vnderstood of the naturall Bul, is a truth, because that word Bull in that sense agreed with the vnderstanding of the Speaker, but yet an indirect truth, because it accordeth not vnto the intention of the hearer. So that, that which Mr. Parsons calleth the principall difference,
consisting in being Bound, or not Bound, is nothing else but the singular fallacie of Mr. Parsons, by confounding of two truths, and by not distinguishing an indirect trueth from a lie.
18. To make this yet more familiar vnto my Reader. A boy in the Schoole, who shot at a Hart, which was in the Parke of a neighbour Knight, is asked thereof by his schoole∣fellow, (vnto whom he is not tyed in any bond of duetie, to yeeld a direct aunswere) and he aunswereth, I shot not at the Knights heart, meaning, the heart which was in the Knights bodie: which sense although it be not direct, yet euen in the iudgement of Mr. Parsons, it is true: the same boy is asked the same question of his Schoolemaster, (who hath charge o∣uer him to instruct and correct him, and with whom he is bound to vse no collusion) and he aunswereth; I shot not at the Knights Hart, vsing the same indirect sense, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 before: Afterward the fact is discouered, the Boy is whipped, and that iustly; but why? Not because he spake lesse truely vnto his Schoolemaster then vnto his Schoolefellow, but because he spake not more directly, when he was challenged thereunto by the bond of duetie and obedience.
19.
MAster Parsons is content to repeat my next Rea∣son where I sayd, That * 1.22 In mentall Equiuoca∣tion P. R. saith, that the Clause of Reseruation mixed with the outward speech, maketh but one proposition, which is as true in the mind of the Speaker, as if it were wholly de∣liuered in the outward speech. As for example: I am no Priest, mixed with this clause conceiued in mind, To tell it you, is as true, in the iudgement of P. R. as if it had beene
without Reseruation fully expressed with the mouth, say∣ing, I am no Priest, to tell it you. Now then, Say P. R. (for I meane to fetter you in your owne shacles) the wo∣man whē she said to S. Peter, I haue sold it but for so much, if she had reserued in her mind this clause, To giue it vnto you, either had it beene, by vertue of Reseruation, a truth, or els (notwithstanding that Reseruation) it had been a lie. If the clause of Reseruation might haue made it a truth, then hath not P. R. said truth in concluding, That no clause of Reser∣uation could sauc it from a lie. If contrariwise the trick of Re∣seruation could not saue it frō a lie, then doth not the reser∣ued clause, To tell it you, being mixed with the outward speech, I am no Priest, make vp one true proposition, and consequently it must be concluded of the Priestly Equiuo∣cation, as is heere by P. R. confessed of the womans, viz. that no clause of Reseruation can saue her speech from a lie. For if she had said vnto Saint Peter in plaine words, I haue sold it but for so much, to giue it in common, or such like, this euery one knoweth had beene a true speech: yet the saying, I sold it for so much, with mentall Reseruation, re∣seruing in her mind. to giue it in common, Or, To tell it vnto you, was, notwithstanding this Reseruation. euen by the iudgement of P. R. a flat lie.Thus farre Mr. Parsons in re∣peating my argument, which if he haue aunswered sufficient∣ly, then shall I conceiue better of his euill cause.
THis is his 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and greatest argument, whereof, as presently you * 1.23 shall heare, he vaunteth exceedingly, conquering me first in his margent, writing there, An 〈◊〉〈◊〉 conuiction of P. R. and then againe, A plaine demonstration:To say nothing of the fetters and sha∣cles in the text it selfe. And I haue thought good to lay foorth his whole Discourse, as it lieth together in his booke, that hereby you may see with what manner of substance he filleth vp Paper, and what sort of shacles he hath to fetter men withall, which are as strong as the nets of cobwebs: for that in this place his whole Discourse and argument is founded vpon a manifest false ground and principle, to wit, vpon the meere mistaking, or fond supposition, that the two aunsweres of the
Priest and the Woman, viz. I am no Priest, with obligation to tell it vnto you, And, I sold it for no more, with obligation to giue vnto you, are of equall falsitie, which we still denie, and he cannot proue: and yet him∣selfe doth often heere repeat, that I do hold the aunswere of the Priest to be true, and hers to be false, for that his was made to an incompe∣tent Iudge, and hers to a competent: so as she was bound to haue an∣swered directly vnto Saint Peters meaning. Which being so, what nee∣ded all this long obscure speech of Mr. Morton, which might haue bene spoken in foure lines: for I grant that the aunsweres of the Priest and the Woman, do make each of them in themselues, being mixt with your Reseruation, a whole perfect proposition, as if they had bene vttered without Reseruation.
20. You are exceeding tedious, M. Parsons, when will you come to the aunswere of the former argument, which was grounded vpon your owne Grants? The first was this: that The clause of Reseruation, mixed with the outward words, doth make a whole perfect proposition or speech, which agreeing with the minde of the Speaker, is as true (said you) as if it were wholly vttered with the mouth. Now the womans supposed Mentall Equiuocation had beene a true speech, if it had beene wholly vttered with the mouth, thus: [Sir, I sold it but for so much, to deliuer in common, &c.] which, being concealed by a Men∣tall Reseruation, Mr. Parsons hath called a Lie. Whereupon I haue inferred (and that necessarily) that the Mixture of the Clause of Reseruation with an Outward speech, doth not of it selfe make the speech true, and consequently their doctrine of Equiuocation, and Mentall Reseruation is not onely a ly∣ing Doctrine, but also a Doctrine oflying. By this time we haue him in such straits, that he must either denie his answere of Obligation, or els condemne his former position of Reser∣uation: I doubt that Master Parsons will play vs some tricke or other of his foresaid Schoolemaster Raynard the Foxe.
IT is euident that the womans proposition, that shehad sold her land * 1.24 for no more, with Obligation to giue it vnto Saint Peter, or, to be
spent in common (this being the true effect and substance of her Aun∣swer) was a lie, whether it had beene vttered wholly together in plaine wordes, or part in speech, and part in Mentall Reseruation; and Master Morton doth childishly suppose and affirme, that euery one knoweth, that it had beene a true speech: for albeit the wordes of S. Peter in the text of the Acts of the Apostles be, Tel me woman, if you solde it for so much? * 1.25 and her answere was, yea for so much, yet is it euident by the drift and circumstance of the place, that S. Peters meaning was, whether they sold it for so much, and no more; and therefore if she did equiuocate, as M. Morton will haue her, her secret meaning must needes be, that she solde it for no more, so as she was bound to vtter it, Or, giue it vnto him, Or bring it to the common purse. All which was false and a lye, in respect both of her vow, to bring the whole to the common purse, and for that S. Peter was her lawfull and competent Iudge, and she obliged thereby to tell him the truth.
21. Marke now (good Reader) for we now come to vncouch this creature:) It was supposed that the woman said, I solde it but for so much, reseruing in her minde, To giue into the com∣mon purse, Or, To tell it vnto you, that is, but for so much, with any purpose to tell vnto you, or, to giue in common: which wordes if they had beene deliuered with the mouth, had (as e∣uery one seeth) beene most true. Now Mast. Parsons finding himselfe driuen to an extremity, putteth into her Reseruation * 1.26 the word, Bond, or, Obligation, as though she had aunswered thus: I sold it but for so much, with this Reseruation, So as bound to tell it vnto you, Or, With Obligation to giue in com∣mon, inserting the word Bound, in her Reseruation, which, be∣ing deliuered with the mouth, maketh a false speech: for shee could not say without a lie, that shee was not bound to tell S. Peter what she sould it for. And thus Mr. Parsons hath altred the whole subiect of the Question, falsly supposing a Reserua∣tion, which vttered with the mouth is false; and that witting∣ly, because he euen in this Reckoning, where he repeateth the State of this question, as it was first laid downe by me, confes∣seth
, that I spake of * 1.27 A mentall Reseruation, mixed with the outward speech, which in the iudgement of P. R. is as true in the minde of the speaker, as if it were wholly 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in the outward speech. But now, by instancing in that proposition, which is in the outward speech, a flat lie. Thus, as we see, M. Parsons hath changed the point in question, which is the most absurd and base kinde of Sophistry that can be vsed.
22. This may appeare by a like example. Two Disputants are met together, the question to bee decided is, Whether it may be lawfull to licence Titius to haue a Concubine (by Concubine vnderstanding a Woman, who is not his married * 1.28 wife.) After much debating of the question, the Answerer is so miserably plunged, as, for his last Refuge, to say, that he onely desended it to be lawfull to licence Titius to enioy a Concu∣bine, to whom he, i 1.29, is married. Would not the hearer abhorre or scorne such Sophistrie as this, whereby the Question about a woman vnmaried, is changed into the Question concerning a married wife?
23. Yet thus dealeth M. Parsons with mee in this present Example: For our question was of a speech, vsed in mentall Reseruation, which being vttered with the mouth, is a true speech, as when a man shall say to a competent Magistrate, I know no such thing, with any purpose to tell it vnto you: This, I say, is a k 1.30 true speech, when it is wholly and fully vttered with the mouth: and of this kinde of speech is our question pro∣pounded, as M. Parsons himselfe knew right well; yet now hath he turned it, as if he had said thus, I know no such thing, as bound to tell it unto you, which spoken vnto a lawfull Magi∣strate, is certainely a lying speech.
24. If M. Parsons vse to change the question in this man∣ner, he may dispute indeede, but like a vaine man, who onely beateth the ayre: And if I should follow him in this course, we might well be represented by that Embleme of one man milking an hee Goate, and another holding vnder a siue, resem∣bling * 1.31 two such Disputers, whereof the one obiecteth nothing to the purpose, and the other aunswereth hee knoweth not what.
25. Although he be now in our handes, yet will we bee content to giue him more play, and trie if hee in another course can shift for himselfe. To this end I will yeeld so farre vnto M. Parsons, as to suppose with him that the Reseruation which the woman made, was such as he hath now pretended, to wit, [I sold it but for so much] reseruing in her minde as bound to tell it vnto you and also that No clause of reseruation could saue this her speech from a lie: All which being graun∣ted, yet doe I now auerre as confidently as before, that this second Position is the ouerthrowe of his whole defence of Mentall Reseruation, as will now appeare.
26. After that M. Parsons had l 1.32 confessed such a Reseruation l 1.33 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,
I sold it but for so much, as bound to tell it vnto you (by reseruing further in minde) as you are a priuate man; make not the speech true, then is there not any case of Reseruation, which is not a * 1.34 lie, and so farewell all Mentall Reseruation: but if those clauses being added to her speech, doe make the first clause true, then hath Master Parsons deceiued vs, in saying that her speech was such, Which no clause of Reseruation could free from a lie. This being the maine and substantial point, indeede, I craue leaue to conuince M. Parsons by another Argument.
28.
We will leaue the womans supposed manner of Equi∣uocation, and argue from M. Parsons his description of Men∣tall Equiuocation. m 1.35 I say (saith M. Parsons) that in Mentall Reseruation the speech agreeth with the minde of the Speaker, for that I truely and really meane, that I am no Priest, in the sense which I speake it, which may be what pleaseth me, or that which I lust to frame to my selfe, so as I mean, I am no Priest, such as I should be, or such like.Here M. Parsons (speaking in the person of an Equiuocating Priest) doth tell vs, he may make a Mentall Reseruation of any thing that pleaseth him, or what he list to frame in his imagination: so that it doth agree with his minde, which is as liberal a graunt, as I could require.
Now then let M. Parsons thinke with himselfe that some Priest is called in question before the Pope, by whom hee is asked, Whether he kept a Concubine, or no? The Priest al∣though he kept a Concubine, yet answereth the Pope, saying [I haue kept no Concubine] reseruing in his minde [for the vse * 1.36 of your Holinesse.] I would be so much beholden vnto Master Parsons, as to tell me, whether the Priest lyed in his Answer, or no? And so we shall make a short Reckoning.
29. He hath told vs, that all indirect Reseruation in a law∣full question, and before a competent Iudge, is a lie: because of an Obligation and Bond, which the partie hath to answere directly: he hath said also that whensoeuer Mentall Equiuo∣cation
is true in the mind, it is as true, being vttered with the mouth. Wherefore if hee shall aunswere, that the Priests Mentall Equiuocation was no lie, then is he compellable to forsake his last refuge of Bond and Obligation to a competent Iudge, which he said doth make the speech a lie. But if hee aunswere that the Priests Reseruation in the minde was a lie, which (as is apparant) being fully declared with the mouth, is not a lie, then doth not the mentall Clause of Reser∣uation make a true mixt proposition, and consequently his maine ground of Mentall Equiuocation is quite ouer∣throwen.
30. Finally the summe of all this is thus much, that if the same speech, which being vttered fully with the mouth, is true; shall (as it is mixed with Reseruation of the mind) bee * 1.37 iudged a lie: then Mentall Reseruation and the Doctrine thereof is an Art of lying. But if that reseruation make the proposition true, then the Bond of speaking directly to a com∣petent iudge, cannot make the speech a lie: And so his last Euasion by an Obligation to tell a truth, is a false and lying As∣sertion. So that if he will but looke againe to his legges, he shall finde the Shacles of his owne Confessions to sticke so fast to his heeles, as although he be the most nimble heeled of all his Order, yet hee shall neuer bee able to shake them off. Thus much may serue for this present, concerning Mentall E∣quiuocation. We shall adde other conuictions in their due and proper places.
31. In the Interim I am to satisfie for my selfe, because Mr. n 1.38 Parsons obiecteth against me a contradiction forsooth, for that I called the woman, vnto whom Saint Peter sware, an Examiner incompetent; and yet else-where say that the same Mayd was competent enough, to heare a true Oath. Vpon these two strings of Contradiction (as they may seeme to be) he maketh himselfe Musicke, by a meere cauillation. For al∣though * 1.39 that I had expresly named that Mayd a Competent Iudge or Examiner (as I did not) yet Mr. Parsons knoweth that the same word may be taken properly, and improperly: properly for him, who by office, hath authoritie to exact an
Oath, and to censure the person: but improperly, for euery one that hath libertie onely to heare and to vnderstand the truth of an Oath: what can be more familiar? How often doth Mr. Parsons in this Reckoning require his Reader to Iudge indifferently betweene vs? And yet I suppose that hee holdeth not euery Reader of his Booke to be properly a Iudge. This distinction is sufficient to breake his Fiddle, and to hinder his friuolous descant vpon words.
Mittigation cap. 9. p. 403.
Quodlib. p. 288
Reckon. c. 2. §. 11. pag. 91.
Reckon. p. 92.
Quodli. p. 236.
Pream. p. 43.
M. Parsons was iustly dealt withall.
Luc. 19. 22.
Reckon p. 93.
Pream. p. 43.
Act. 5.
Recko. pag. 97.
Euery one that lyeth hath in his minde some crochi∣tiue 〈◊〉〈◊〉
Gal. 1. 8.
Reckon. p. 97. 98
Reck. pag. 98.
Reckon. quo sup. pag. 98. 99.
Reckon p 106. Mr. Parsons falshood.
Reckon. pa. 100.
Reckon. pag. 102. & pag. 35.
A necessary distinction of truth.
Recko. pa. 105. out of Preamb. pag. 47.
Reckon. pa. 106.
Reckon. pa. 107.
Act. 5.
M. Parsons piti∣full plunge.
Reckon. p. 105.
An example.
For thus doth Bellarm. vnder∣stand the word l. 2. dc Conc. c. 8. S. 11.
I am no Priest such as I should be, Or such as I de∣sire to be, Or the like.Mi∣tigat. c. 8. num. 55. p. 344.
A simile.
Reckon. p. 113.
Reckon. p. 113.
The miserable straights of Mr. Parsons de∣fence.
Mitig c. 8. n. 55. p. 344.
An example.
The desperate∣nesse of Mr. Parsons de∣fence.
Reckon. p. 103.
Mr. Parsons Cauill.