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

CHAP. X.

Short answers vnto the particular Instances, which M. PARSONS vsed out of 8. chap. of S. Iohn, for colour of their Romish AEquiuocation. And first by way of Introduction.

§. I.

M. PARSONS his Appendix.

IFinde the speeches of our Sauiour so frequent euery * 1.1 where in this maner of concealing of secrecies, or things not sit to be plainly vttered, by this doubtfull and ambiguous kinde of speech, as in one onely chap∣ter of S. Iohns Gospell, I finde Christ to haue vsed the same a∣boue * 1.2 7. or 8. times at least setting downe certaine propositions,

that of themselues, and as they lie, are in the common Hearers earo false, though true in the speakers meaning, by some Mentall Reseruàtion. Which Reseruation though he vttered not in words yet is necessarily vnderstood: and this is properly AEquiuo∣cation in our sense and Doctrine.

The Reuiew, shewing the distinction betweene Ver∣ball, and Mentall Equiuocation.

1 It is sit, before we seeke to satisfie others, that first we labour to vnderstand our selues, by setting downe the true differences which are betweene vs. To this end I distinguish of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 or Amphibology (as they are largely taken) into Verbal, and Mentall.

2 The Verball is (as hath beene said) when any speech hath 〈◊〉〈◊〉 diuerse ambiguous and doubtfull sences, according to the outward vse of the words in themselues, and not only by the in ward reseruation of the minde: which doubtful∣nesse of a speach consisteth sometime in one word, sometime in a whole sentence.

3 An example of the Verball AEquiuocation, or ambigu∣ity of speech in one word, may be these: one spying a man of little wit, and perceiuing that he had big and strong legges, said that he was a man of good vnderstanding; wittily chang∣ing the more vsuall sence of the word, Vnderstanding, as it sig∣nifieth wit and iudgement, into the lesse common accepta∣tion thereof, wherein it agreed vnto a mans legges. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 much different was the answer of a Market-man vnto one, who being desirous to know what prices good horses bare, asked him, Homgce Horses at the faire? Sir (quoth he) some amble, and some trot; merrily playing vpon the verball am∣biguity of the word, Go.

4 As there is a Verball Amphibology, and doubtfull sence in particular words, so is there also in the composition of whole sentences, and that in infinite varieties; as it hap∣peneth often by the diuerse disposall of the word of a speech. As when the man said that he met this morning a cart full of

stones empty: which words, taken according to the common reading, doe yeelde no sence, but that which is sencelesse; but being rightly distinguished, it is the same, as if he had said: I emply, (that is, fasting) this morning met a Gart. Or as an other 〈◊〉〈◊〉 saying, I saw Paules steeple on horsebacke; meaning, that being on horsebacke, he saw Paules steeple.

5 But of all Tropes, or figures in Rhetorique, there is none that commeth nearer vnto Mentall Reseruation than doe these two; Ironia, and Apiosiopesis: For first in Ironia, or iesting and derision, the meaning, which is conueyed by the words, sometimes is quite contrary vnto the naturall pro∣pertie of the words themselues: as may be decerned in that contention, which the Prophet Eliah had with Baals Priests, wherein he is a 1.3 said to haue mocked the Priests of Baal, say∣ing to them, Cry aloud, for he is a God, either he talketh, or pursueth his enemies, or is in his iourney, or else it may be he is a sleepe, and must be waked. But in this there was not Romish Mentall Reseruation, which lurketh wholy in the closet of the speakers brest; but a Uerball ambiguitie, whereof the hearer was capable; to vnderstand that the Prophet now conten∣ding against Baal, to proue him to be no God, did meane, by calling him God, and attributing vnto him properties, which cannot agree vnto God (as talking, iourneying, sleeping) but to scorne & deride him, and indeed to call him No God. Like hereunto was the Answer which the Prophet Michaih made vnto Ahab, when he answered him, saying, b 1.4 Goc vp to Ramath Gilead, and prosper: which Ironie the King him∣selfe perceiued right well; whereby the Prophet (saith * 1.5 Mad∣donate) did not 〈◊〉〈◊〉 him, but sheweth that he was deceiued.

6. The 2. figure, which can best claime any alliance with Mentall Reseruation, is 〈◊〉〈◊〉 or Reticentia, which M. Parsons bringeth in to patterne their Romish Reseruation. This is such a speech, as is abruprly broken off in the halfe. We haue an example in the 3. of Gen. where God now ca∣sting Adam out of Paradise, saith, c 1.6 But now left, man doe put foorth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eate and liue for euer; Reseruing the rest, but not as inconceiuable

vnto the Reader, which in the generalitie was this. I will take an other order with him. For here, by a knowne figure, called Anthropomorphia, God is brought in to speake like a man, when he is in anger and passion: Now the voice of mans extreame passion and perturbation is alwaies abrupt and broken, euen as he is described by the Poet to say; Quos * 1.7 ego. Which kinde of sentences doe, according to the fashion of mans speech, betoken the intendment of some kinde of reuenge, and cannot any whit countenance the Romish Men∣tall 〈◊〉〈◊〉 which is not all implied in the outward forme of the speech, as we shall presently demonstrate.

That the Scripture alloweth not the Romish Reseruation.

§. 2.

7. S. Augustine (as he is cited by the Iesuit d 1.8 Salmeron) saith that Scriptures, because they speake vnto men, doe vse no kinde of speech, which is not vsuall among men. Whereby I make bold to assume, that there is no speech in Scripture, whether it be proper or figuratiue, but it accordeth vnto the vse of the outward words and the meaning may possibly be apprehended by an intelligent Reader, who can iustly obserue the phrase of speech, and the due circumstances thereof. As for M. Parsons his Mentall Reseruation it is in∣apprehensible, because he saith that e 1.9 The clause of Reserua∣tion may be what it pleaseth a man; and what soeuer he list to frame to himselfe: so that it agree with his minde, in a cause wherein he is not bound to make any direct Answere. For example sake, let vs take this: If a Priest being asked by a Protestant Magistrate vnto whom hee thinketh he is not bound to answere directly whether he be an Anoynted Priest? and shall answere, saying; I am not anoynted Priest, secret∣ly referuing this clause in my minde, not Anoynted, on my elbowes, or not Anoynted with Tarre or Oyle de Baye: is not this reseruation meerely Mentall, and no-way implied in the

outward speech, but vnsearchable, and altogether degene∣rate from the proper or figuratiue vse of mans speech? Can he possibly find vs any colour for this Art of falshood, and coggery, out of the Gospell of truth.

The Examination of places of Scripture, ob∣iected by M. PARSONS out of Iohn 8. The first is out of the vcrs. 15.

§. III.

M. PARSONS his Appendix.

The place then which I meane is the 8. chapter of S. Iohns * 1.10 Gospell, where Christ our Sauiour entring into a large speech with the Iewes, vseth first thesewords, which I haue examined before in my said Treatise of Equiuocation: Ego non iudico quenquam, I doe not iudge any man: which seeming to be con∣trary to that other saying of himselfe within a very few lines, in the same Chapter, I haue many things to speake, and iudge of you: and further in the same Gospell three Chapters before; For neither doth my Father iudge any man, but hath giuen to me his Sonne all iudgement: it doth not appeare how the proposition can be true, but by some mentall reseruation in the minde of our Sauiour; which being examined by the ancient Fa∣thers what it might be, S. Chrysostom with Leontius Thco∣philus, and others doe thinke the said secret meaning or Reserua∣tion of our Sauiour to haue beene this: I doe not iudge any man in this my first comming, but doe reserue it for my next at the day of iudgement. Other Fathers gather another, as though he had secretly ment: I doe not iudge any man, as you the Scribes and Pharisees doe, according to the flesh, and outward shew, but in trueth: Yet neither of these Reseruations being vttered, they doe make the speech to be ambiguous and E, quiuocall, as cannot be denied.

The Reuiew.

8 There is no Mentall Reseruation in this speach of Christ, which the outward words themselues doe not imply; for if we vnderstand the sentence, [I doe iudgeno man] accor∣ding to the first exposition, which signifieth that he did not now iudge men, in this life, it is explicable enough by this and other Scriptures: For else where it is plaine that he came in∣to the world as a Iesus, to Saue the world, and not as a Iudge, to condemne it. And to this purpose the text saith (as f 1.11 Caie∣tane obserueth) Non iudico, not, Non iudicabo, that is, I iudge noman, it saith not, I will iudge no man, so that there is no sha∣dow of Repuganancie in this with the other speeches of Christ.

9 Againe if the second exposition be consulted with, concerning the manner of iudgement, it doth not exclude the former; and is also sufficiently apparent by the outward words: for in the words going before, he tould the Pha∣risees, saying, You iudge according to the flesh; but I iudge no man, namely (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 saith * 1.12 Maddonate) according to the flesh, whereby Christ distinguisheth his maner of iudge∣ment from the Pharisees; because they, as men, iudged Ac∣cording to the flesh, that is, (as g 1.13 Tolet expoundeth) according to external & outward sence: but Christ iudgeth immediatly, without helpe of sence, and is therefore God. We see then that the sense of Christ his speech was intelligible, by vertue of the words themselues: But the sense of the Priest is not so, for if he shall say, I am no Priest, meaning of the old law, is there any wit of man that can diue into the depth of this Reseruation?

The second place, vers. 32. M. PARSONS Appendix.

In the same place he saith to the Iewes: If you perseuere in * 1.14 my sayings, you shall truely be my Disciples, and know the

truth, and the truth shall free you: Which freedome, or deli∣ucrance the lawes vnderstood from temporall bondage: and therefore answered answered him. that they were the seede of Abra∣ham, and had neuer beene in bondage to any. Which error of the Iewes proceeded from the ambiguous speech of our Saui∣our, reseruing in his minde, and not expressing in his proposition what bondage he meant: for that his reserued meaning indeede was if the bondage of sinne,

The reuiew.

10 There was a Verbal ambiguitie, because there is a dou∣ble freedome, the one from corporal bondage, the other from Spirituall, as from sin and hell. The Iewes spake of the one, Christ diuerteth their thoughts to the consideration of the other, and explaineth his owne meaning in the 24. verse; He that sinneth is the seruant of sinne: As if he had said (saith Card. h 1.15 Caietane) Behold what the seruitude is, whereof I speake, &c. Which is a case familiar euen vnto the Pagans themselues (as their Bishop l 1.16 Iansenius wellnoteth;) insomuch that Diogines vsed to say that There is no difference betweene Seruants, and vicious Lords, but the vowels and Sillables of their names, except onely this, that seruants doe serue their Lords, and Lords are slaues to their owne vitious affections. This be∣ing so conceiuable a sence of these words, freedome, and ser∣uitude, euen by the common vse of the outward words them∣selues among men, how can it confirme a Mentall Reserua∣tion, which is such a Couchant in mens harts, as which by no vse of the outward speech can possibly be decerned; as when a man shall say, I am no Priest; conceiuing in minde this clause, With a Club-foote.

The third place is out of vers. 50. M. PARSONS Appendix.

The like may be obserned in those words; Ego non quaero * 1.17 gloriam meam, I doe not seeke my glory; and yet doth Christ

most iustly seeke his owne glory that is àue vnto him: and so in the verse immediatly going before he 〈◊〉〈◊〉 this vnto them, Vos inhorâstis me: you haue dishonoured me; and in another place to his Disciples he saith, Vos vocâstis me Mr. & Dom∣ne * 1.18 & benè dicitis, sum etenim. You haue called me Master and Lord, and doe well therein, for that I am your Master and Lord indeede. And in another place, Creditis in Deum, & in * 1.19 me credite, You doe beleeue in God, belecue also in me, which is the highest honour he could exact: And consequently there must needes be some Mentall Reseruation in this other speech, when he saith, he seeketh not his owne glory, which the Fathers doe indeuour to seeke out in their Commentaries.

The Reuiew.

11 This is a Verball Equiuocation in the word, Glory, ad∣mitting a double sence, one is the Glory of his Office, so in the other places obiected, but in this place it is taken for the glory of Reuenge, as the words which immediatly go before and which follow immediately after doe import: for before it is said, You haue dishonored me, but I seeke not mine owne glo∣ry, that is, Vindictae, to take vengeance vpon you As their owne k 1.20 Authors Tolet, Salmeron, Maldonate, and Iansenius doe ac∣knowledge. What then? shall they be therefore vnpuni∣shed? No, for it followeth in the same verse There is one (that is, the Father) that seeketh and iudgeth, that is, Reuengeth, saith their Moldonate. How can this Verball Equiuocation, which is exlicable enough by the force of the outward words of the same vers. countenance the vnsearchable depth of their Mentall Reseruation, such as is this; I haue no head, reseruing in my thought, horned like an Oxe.

The fourth place is out of the vers. 51. M. PARSONS his Appendix.

It followeth in the same place? Amen, Amen. I say vnto you * 1.21 if any obserue my words, he shall neuer see death: Which the Scribes and Pharisees, (though otherwise learned in their law) * 1.22

vnderstood of corporall death, and in that sence gaue an instance of Abraham, and the Prophets that were dead, notwithstanding they had obserued the words and commandements of God, and consequently in their sense Christs sentence could not to be true: but our Sauiour had another intention and meaning reserued in his minde, by which reseruation the truth of the sentence was iu∣stified, to wit, that they should not die in soule.

The Reuiew.

12 This is a Verball AEquiuocation in the word, Death, which in it selfe doth equally signifie a Temporall, and an Eternall death: but in this place is applied only to the Eter∣nal, as may appeare by the Text, He shal not see death inaeter∣num, that is, euerlastingly, For these words, in aeternum (saith l 1.23 Caietane) are added, to distinguish it from the temporal Death: and so also m 1.24 doe their Tolet, Maldonate, and Salmeron ex∣pound it. By vertue of the which word, Euerlastingly, the foresaid meaning of the speech is made intelligible; And is therefore iniuriously produced for the iustification of his Mentall Reseruatian, which is vncomprehensible, because it lurketh in the bottomlesse pit of mans secret thought, as for example to say; I haue not my Crowne shauen (reseruing in my minde as followeth:) With a paire of Pincers.

The fifth place, Vers. 54. M. PARSONS his Appendix.

It followeth yet further in the same place: If I do glorifie my * 1.25 selfe (saith Christ) my glory is nothing: Which yet I thinke no man will grant to be true according to the letter, as it lieth. For albeit Christ should set forth his owne glory, yet may it not be said, that this glory published by himselfe is nothing, or vaine. Wherefore some reserued sence must heere also be sought out, which according to the opinion of sundry expositours is that he meant this according to the opinion the Iewes, who esteemed that

nothing which came from Christ himselfe. As also a little be∣fore in the 5. chap. he vsed the like speech, saying, If I beare witnesse of my selfe, my witnesse is not true. Which sentence I thinke our Ministers themselues will not hold to be true in the sense, which here it beareth: for then should they condemne our Sauiour of falsity, as often as he affirmeth any thing of himselfe: and then must we of necessity run to some reserued sense in Christs meaning, which is the thing that we call Equiuocation, so revi∣led by our Ministers.

The Reuiew.

13 Their Iesuit * 1.26 Salmeron publisheth this for a Canon, for the direction of euery Reader of Scripture, viz. that som∣time. It was the fashion of Christ, in giuing Answers vnto men, to accomodate and apply his speech rather vnto their meanings, than to their words: and for example thereof he produceth the second place which now M. Parsons alleageth, taken out of the 5. chapter of S. Iohn, vers. 31. If I beare witnesse of my selfe, my witnesse is not true: That is (saith he) according to your vnderstanding, who take me to be a meere man. And of the first place, concerning the Glorifying of himselfe, M. Parsons con∣fesseth that Christ spake according to the opinion of the lewes; or, as saith o 1.27 Iansenius, this sentence is to be vnderstood as others be, as if he had said, If I as a man (according to the opinion which you haue of me) doe glorifie my selfe, my glory were but vaine. which sheweth that in the speech of Christ the Equiuocati∣on was only Uerball, in the word, Glorifie, which of it selfe might signifie a iust and diuine glorifving of himselfe, as he was the sonne of God, which was not intended in this place: or else an humaine and worldly 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of himselfe, after the fashion of men, which he called Vayne. According vnto this Sence he spake, and applied his meaning vnto the mea∣ning of the Iewes themselues, as hath beene confessed. Which fashion of Christs applying his speech vnto the vnderstan∣ding of the hearer, is so far from iustifying of their Mentall AEquiuocation, that it doth cleerely consute it, because in it

there is reserued such a meaning, as neither man, nor Angell doth vnderstand, by any circumstance of speech, as when the Romish Priest answered that he was No Priest, meaning of Apollo or Baall, and such like. Was it not then a strange aduenture of M. Parsons, from a speech spoken and applied to the hearers meaning, to seeke to infer a Mentall Reserua∣tion, wherein there is infoulded a meaning, which doth not, nor cannot accord at all vnto the vnderstanding of the I Iea∣rer?

The sixt place, Vers. 55. M. PARSONS his Appendix.

Furthermore in the very next verse, talking of almighty God, * 1.28 he said to the Iewes, Non cognouistis cum, you doe not know him: which seemeth vntrue in it selfe, for that the Iewes did pro∣fesse * 1.29 to know him, and serue him, aboue all the people in the world. And in the olde Testament it is often said of them, that they, of all other people, did best know God: and therefore some other re∣serued meaning must Christ our Sauiour needes haue had, then these externall wordes doe insinuate. Which Reseruation Saint Chrysost. S. Aug. S. Bede. and Theophilact vpon this place doe thinke to haue beene this in Christ his secret meaning, that they did not know God, as they ought to know him, by seruing him as he would and ought to be serued, according to the speech of Saint Paul to Titus Confitentur se nôsce Deum, factis * 1.30 autem negant, They confesse to know God in words, but doe de∣nie him in deedes. So as here also an Equiuocation of speech was vsed by our Sauiour.

The Reuiew.

14 There is a double sence of Not knowing of God, taught openly in Scripture, the one is in respect of the intellectuall part of man, when Gods will is not rightly beleeued, so the Gentiles are often said * 1.31 Not to haue knowne God, and to haue had No knowledge of his waies; and contrariwise of the Iewes

the Scripture saith, * 1.32 In Iurie is God well knowne. The se∣cond sense, of Not knowing God, is in respect of the practi∣call and actuall duetie, when he that beleeueth and profes∣seth the true and syncere worship of God, doth notwithstan∣ding wilfully and rebelliously transgresse his will, in which consideration Saint Iohn saith, He that saith he knoweth God, * 1.33 and yet keepeth not his Commaundement is a lyar. We see then that this phrase of Not knowing God, hath a double sence, but yet through Verball Equiuocation, and both of them agree with truth: for some of these with whom Christ spake, did not truely and intellectiuely know God, because they knew him not Sub ratione Patris aeterni, as Card. * 1.34 Caietane saith. And concerning the practicall acknowledgement there, Card. p 1.35 Tolet is direct, saying that Christ speaketh here of a knowledge which doth not onely signifie the act of vnderstanding, but which also comprehendeth the act of the will and affection, in imitation of God; in which regard 1. Reg. 2. the sonnes of Heli the Priest are called the children of Beliall, who know not God: And our Sauiour in the same verse of S. Iohn, saying by an Antithesis and opposition. But I know him, and keepe his Commaundement, doth expound himselfe, and reuealeth his meaning, signifying that They knew not God, because they kept not his Commaundement, as their Card. q 1.36 Tolet noteth; and their Bishop r 1.37 Iansenius saith that this is Apparant: which is vtterly contrary vnto M. Parsons his Mentall Equiuocati∣on. As for example, I haue no money (meaning secretly,) to lend it vnto you: this Reseruation, to lend it, is locked vp close, lest it should be reuealed, and cannot naturally be im∣plied in those outward words, I haue no money: and hath beene called by the Ies. Azorius a flat * 1.38 lye. Therefore there is as little affinitie betweene Christs sentences, and M. Parsons his Reseruation, as betweene light and darknesse: truth and a lye.

The seuenth place, verse 56. M. PARSONS Appendix.

Againe, in the ensuing verse, which is the 56. Christ said to * 1.39

the Iewes: Your Father Abraham did 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to see my day, and saw it, and tooke ioy thereby. Which words in the com∣mon sence doe seeme to import, that Abraham had liued with Christ, and had seene the day of his birth, and life, and taken great ioy thereby: and so did the Iewes vnderstand his meaning to be, not onely the common people, but the Scribes and Pharisies also, when they said vnto him, Thou hast not yet fifty yeares of age, and hast thou seene Abraham? Wherein notwithstand∣ing they were greatly deceiued, for that Christ had another re∣serued meaning in his minde, which the holy Fathers doe labour greatly to expound vnto vs, what it was, and in what true sence our Sauiour said that Abraham had seene his day: whose dif∣ferent opinions, reasons, and coniectures I will not stand to re∣late here; It is sufficient for me to haue shewed, that this was an Equiuocall speech of our Sauiour, whereby the hearers be∣ing deceiued, the truth of the speech may onely be defended by a reseruation in the minde of the speaker.

The Reuiew.

15 In this there is another Uerball Equiuocation, in the word See, for some saw the day of Christs being in the world only by Reuelation, as Abraham, and the Patriarks; as Esay, and the Prophets; as Iob, and all the beleeuers before Christ: And some saw the day of his being in the flesh sensibly, as Peter, and the other Apostles; as Mary our Lords Mother, holy Ioseph, Simeon, and other holy men, and women, yea and as Caiphas, and other vnbeleeuing Iewes. That Abra∣ham is meant to haue Seene the day of Christs birth spiritu∣ally, thorow Reuelation, their Card. f 1.40 Tolet will not deny: but the Iewes that scorned him mistooke this sence, and con∣ceited only a sensuall Seeing with bodily eies.

16 Who now seeth not M. Parsons his fraud, who calleth that a reserued sence, which was (that I may so say) a sence conserued in the outward words themselues, and sufficiently manifest, if the scornefull Iewes, who were now blinded with malice, had not peruerted them into a sensuall Construction.

For what phrase in the old Testament is more familiar and notorious, then to call that Seeing, which is perceiued onely spiritually? for the which cause the Prophets were called * 1.41 Seers. And shall the misconceit of incredulous hearers make the sence of Christ to be mentally reserued? As for M. Parsons his maner of Reseruation, when a man shall say, I keepe no Priest in mine house, meaning; with any intent to bake him in a Pie, or &c. It is so farre of from a Verball Equiuoca∣tion, which may be implyed by the outward words, as that no man without Reuelation from God can comprehend it. But I hasten.

The last place, Verse 58. M. PARSONS Appendix.

And finally in the next verse after this againe Christ vseth * 1.42 a greater Equiuocation than any before, saying vnto them, Amen, Amen, antequàm Abraham fieret, ego sum. Amen, Amen, I say vnto you, that before Abraham was made, I am: which being an earnest speech; and as it were an oath, as else∣where we haue noted, the Iewes vnderstood it as it lyeth, that Christ was borne in the flesh before Abraham: and so it seemeth that he should haue meant according to his former speech, when he said that Abraham desired to see his day, and saw it, and reioyced thereat: Which was vnderstood of his incarnation or day in flesh, which Abraham in saith and spirit did see, and re∣ioyce. But yet here when he saith that he is before Abraham was made, he must needes meane of his Diuinitie, and in that he was God: which S. Aug. vpon this place doth excellently note to be by the difference of the two words, Abraham fieret, & Ego sum, the one belonging to the creature, saith he, the other to the Crea∣tor. So as more then our Equiuocation is vsed by our Sauiour in this one sentence.

The Reuiew.

17 But doth any Author say, that in the word, Sum, as it is here vsed (that is) I am, there is any Equiuocation? for

seeing that Christ (as Saint Aug. and Almost all other Au∣thors * 1.43 haue noted) did distinguish the Creature, (man) by fie∣ret, was made, from the Creator, which was his God-head, by the word, Sum, I am, he did not inferre, but remoue the ambiguitie of that phrase: Nay I adde further; the word, Sum, in this speech of Christ seemed euen vnto these incre∣dulous Iewes to be so farre from doubtfulnesse, and so plain∣ly to signifie his Deity, that they accounting it to be blasphe∣mous, tooke vp Stones to cast at him; which their owne * 1.44 Doctors haue also obserued, as Card. Tolet: Because that Exod. 3. (saith he) God said, Sum qui sum, that is, I am, that I am, the Iewes knew that Christ did not onely preferre himselfe before Abraham in respect of time, but also publish himselfe to be God. Which is likewise the obseruation of x 1.45 Caietane, saying that because Christ did hereby manifest his Diuinitie, therefore it is added that They tooke vp stones to throw at him. This sence being so euident vnto the hea∣rers, sheweth that there was not so much as a Verball Equi∣uocation; much lesse M. Parsons his Mentall Reseruation, which the hearer doth not onely not know, but cannot pos∣sibly guesse what it is: As for example, if one should say, I am no Priest, reseruing in his minde, As fit to keepe Swine. We see by this time the manifold ridiculous absurdities, which M. Parsons hath inforced in this fond Appendix, whereof notwithstanding he doth not a little boast, as we shall see.

M. PARSONS his Appendix.

And if we lay all these Equiuocall speeches together which * 1.46 are 8. or 9. at least contained within a peece of one only Chapter of our Sauiours talke with the Iewes, Scribes, and Pharisees, we shall be able to make some guesse, how many might be found tho∣rowout the whole new Testament and Bible, if we would examine the same particularly, as we haue done this: and thereby see how tru M. Mortons bold assertion was in his booke of Full Satisfact. That no one iote in all Scripture, no one example in all Ca∣tholike * 1.47

Antiquity could be found for the same. His tearmes also of heathenish, hellish, heinous, and impious Equiuoca∣tion, with other infamations of his brother Minister King, may appeare what substantiall ground thay haue.

The Reuiew, shewing the absurdities of M PAR∣SONS his Collection.

18 If all the speeches, which M. Parsons inforceth for Instances to patterne and to iustifie his fashion of Equiuoca∣ting, may be called Mentall Reseruations, then may we grant that not onely eight, but euen all the sentences, yea and al∣most euery word of this, & all other Chapters may be pro∣ued to be Mentally Equiuocall. And for demostration sake (because I wil not profane the sacred Scripture with such idle crotchetting) I thinke good to descant a little but vpon any one sentence, which M. Parsons can vtter, and try, if that al∣most euery word may not imply a kinde of Reseruation. As for example, suppose M. Parsons should haue deliuered this speech saying, I will as long as I liue go vnto the Church to pray vnto God. Which in the vnderstanding of any man of sence is sensible enough, yet the first particle is I meaning a man, and no woman: the second word will, meaning, with a resolued and not a dissembling will: 3. As long, meaning the length of time, and not the length of body: 4. As I liue, meaning, a life animall in this flesh, and not Angelicall out of the body: 5. Go, meaning, by walking, and not by dance∣ing: 6. Vnto the Church, meaning of Catholikes, and not of Heretikes: 7. To pray, meaning, mediately by Saints and not immediately by my selfe, 8. vnto God, meaning, the God of Christians, & not any God of the Pagans. What can be more plainely spoken then the sentence aforesaid, and yet how many meanings suppressed, which may not therfore be cal∣led Mentall Reseruations, otherwise M. Parsons might as well infer that he neuer promised any lawful thing vnto any man neuer tooke an oath by any lawfull authority of man, with∣out some Mentall reseruation, the vse whereof he himselfe

hath iudged in all such cases to be detestable. I shall haue further occasion to vnfould the grosenesle of his Inference more at large by other examples, after that I haue satisfied some other obiections.

SECT. IIII.

An Answer vnto some other places of Scripture, wherein M. PARSONS hath insisted in his booke of Mitigation, for the defence of his Mentall Equiuocation.

19 I doubt how my Reader might censure me, if after the Confutation of M. Parsons his former Instances out of Scripture, I should inquire into his other booke of Miti∣gation, to seeke al other examples, to prosecure them, because this would breed tediousnesse: I therfore wil but choose out some of his choisest places, and so hasten to a Conclusion of this Treatise.

The first text, which M. PARSONS vrgeth in his booke of Mittigation, is taken out of Iohn I. verse 2:

M. PARSONS his Mittigation.

We shall begin with an example so cleere, as it shall be like to * 1.48 that of ours in all points, if we change only the names of persons, and conditions of men that spake and heard. As that example of S. Iohn Baptist, who being examincd and demanded by them, that were sent vnto him from the Iewes, whether he were a Pro∣phet, or no? he denied it: Propheta es tu? & spondit non: Are you a Prophet, and he answered No, and yet he meant not abso∣lutely to deny himselfe to be a Prophet, for that it had beene false both in respect of that his father Zacharias had prophecied of him in his Natiuity, calling him the Prophet of the highest, Luck. 1. as also in respect of Christs testimony, who Matth. 11.

called him more than a Prophet, &c. Heere then you see a Pro∣position vttered by the Ghost, that of it selfe is ambiguous, and of a doubtfull sense, and according to the ordinary sound and sense of the words vttered, seemethfalse, no lesse then our Prepo∣sition, I am no Priest. For as this may be refusted by them that know me to be a Pricst, and as Th. Morton still vrgeth (though fondly) is contrary to my knowledge and conscience, that know my selfe to be a Ptiest, &c.

The Reuiew.

20 a 1.49 Maldonate the Iesuite (and, as it seemeth M. Parsons out of him) collecteth out of Fathers three diuerse mea∣nings of the Iewes in their question: the first was, whether he were that singular Prophet, which they fancied should come together with Christ, and he answered, I am not, which was true according to that their sense. Secondly, some thought that the Iewes meant by their demand to know, whether he were any one of the ancient Prophets, who were long before Christ? And he answered, satisfying them truely according to that their sense, saying, I am not: Thirdly some taught that the Iewes by their Interrogatory thought to know, whether he were any Prophet at all by his proper Osfice? Now Iohn albeit he was a Prophet by Grace and power, because he was sent by God, and did exhert, reprooue, and conuert sinners, yet was he not a Prophet by ordinary Osfice: and applying his Answere to this sence, said, I am not, and that truely, because Iohn did not Prophecis: and thus the answer agreed to that their sence. Obserue, (good Reader against b 1.50 M. Parsons his Obserua∣tion) that the Answer of S. Iohn, who is the speaker, doth accord (by the iudgement of all Authors) vnto the suppo∣sed seuerall vnderstandings of the Iewes, and Questionists, who were the heares: Contrariwise Romish Priest be∣ing demanded by a Magistrate, whether he be a Priest, re∣turneth this Answere, [I am not a Priest,] onely with this reserued sence, With purpose to tell it vnto you; which deth flatly thwart the intention of the Magistrate, and Questio∣nist

M. Parsons is like to make a lucklesse end, who is so vn∣fortunate in this beginning.

The second place obiected out of Matth. 9. 20. M. PARSONS his Mitigation.

Our Sauiour Christ comming to rayse the Arch-Synagogue * 1.51 his daughter, found the people in tumult, weeping and lamen∣ting for the death, whom he repressed, saying, Recedite, non est enim mortua puella, sed dormit; Depart, for that the maid is not dead, but sleepeth; and yet is it certaine that naturally she was dead, by separation of her soule from her body. So as if this Proposition be taken strictly as it lyeth, without any Men∣tall Reseruation by our Sauiour, it cannot be true neither in it selfe, nor in the sense of the hearers, no more than in our propo∣sition, I am no priest. The ment all Reseruation in our Sauiour, according to S. Augustines explication and other expositions, was that albeit she was dead in their sight, and vnto hamane power: yet vnto him, and vnto his diuine power and will to raise her againe, she was not dead, but onely a sleepe.

The Reuiew.

21 Christ wrought many among them, wherein he did demonstrate his Diuine power, as among others, in curing the woman which had a Bloody issue, whom he hea∣led euen in the way as he came to the house of this Archi∣sinagogue. In respect of which his diuine power, euen they that are dead are said to be cut A sleepe, which is a most frequent and ordinary phrase of speech in Scripture. To this purpose their Card. c 1.52 Tolet commenting vpon this Scripture, alleadgeth those places out of the old Testament, where they who dyed are said to haue Sleept with their Fathers: And out of the new, 1. Cor. 11. Many fella a sleepe, from the which Metaphor and truth (saith he) the Apostle doth gather an argument of consolation vnto all Christians, teach them

not to mourne as men without hope, ignorant of the resurrection 1. Thess. 4. In regard of which his Omnipotent power, whereby this woman was now speedily to be raised, He doth comfort those who now wept, as he spake of Lazarus Iohn 11. saying, Lazarus sleepeth, and I must goe and awake him: But here they, who did deride Christ as though he had vtterly denied that the maid was dead (because they were destitute of the light of faith,) did measure Christs power by their owne. So he Now then the Metaphor of calling Death a Sleepe, being so fa∣miliar vnto all the Religious of those daies, the diuine power of Christ being by many miracles made so famous and ma∣nifest among them: we may iudge (seeing that the raising of a dead woman to life was no more difficultie then the awa∣king her out of a sleepe, which he intended presently to do) that both his denying her to be Dead, and his affirming that she was but a Sleepe were but Verbal amphibologies, which all they might haue vnderstood, who were not Scornefull and incredilous contements of his sayings. But the Priests Equi∣uocation, as this; I am no Priest, meaning, as ordained to kill a Calfe, or such like, is so farre beyond the horizen and sight of any mans capacitie, that he may sooner claspe hold of the man in the moone, then by any intimation of words, or circumstance of speech reach vnto such a reser∣ued conceit.

The third, fourth, and fifth, places out of Iohn 6.

M. PARSONS his Mittigation.

In the Gospell by S. Iohn, speaking of the eating of his flesh, * 1.53 If any shall eate of this bread, he shall liue for euer; and yet S. Paul saith to the contrary, 1. Cor. 11. He that eareth and dirnketh vnwoorthily, doth eate or drinke his owne iudge∣ment, or condemnation. By which words of S. Paul it is made manifest, that the former words of Christ cannot absoluted be true, without some Ment all Rescruation or restriction his vn∣derstanding,

for that not all that eat and drinke, but they onely that doe it worthily, haue life euer lasting. Secondly, there is dis∣couered what this reseruation was, to wit, Dignè; worthily. And * 1.54 Ioh. 16. If you aske my Father any thing in my name, he will giue it you, rescruing, if we aske not male, as S. lames ex∣poundeth it, Iam. 4. So Mar. 16. He that beleeueth and is bap∣tized shall be saued, Reseruing; if he beleeue according to Gods commandement, as Christ expoundeth it, Matth. 28. &c.

The Reuiew.

22 If we had no other scantling of M. Parsons his iudge∣ment, then this, we may guesse what was his indiligence in the Study of Diuinity, seeing he could be ignorant of that, which is a most generall Canon and Rule alwaies to be ob∣serued in Scripture, and so acknowledged by their Iesuit d 1.55 Salmeron, to wit; When as any Promisses are propounded, they are so to be vnderstood, that not so much the effect, as the ver∣tue and nature of the thing, whereunto the Promise is annexed, be signified thereby: and so are we to interpret that of S. Mark, * 1.56 He that beleeueth, and is baptized, shall be saued; (viz. so far as belongeth vnto the nature and faith of Baptisme.) And a∣gaine that of Ioh. 6. He that eateth my flesh hath life euerlasting, namely, so much as the nature of faith and the Sacrament doth teach, which hath a vertue of helping forward vnto eternall life, if there be not some thing to hinder the effect, or some condition awanting, which albei: it be not in that place, yet is it expressed else-where, as Ioel 2. where it is said, whosoeuer shall call vpon the name of the Lord shall be saued, wherein there is vnderstood, that the praier be made with a liuely faith, as it is 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ex∣planed. And Matth. 7. it is said, cueryone, that asketh, recei∣uet 〈◊〉〈◊〉 vnderstanding this condition, if he aske those things, which are right and profitable as S. Iames sheweth, Ia. 4. saying, you aske andrecciue not, because you aske amisse, to consume them vpon your Concupiscences. Thus far their Iesuit Salmeren. Was there euer any man so simple, as not to know that in all Acts which are prescribed of God this Dignè, that is, the ne∣cessary

maner of doing it according to Gods ordinance is vnderstood, although it be not literally expressed? For when the Master of the family giueth his seruants bread and meat, for their food, & saith, Eate this faire will cherish your hearts, will any say that this is not a speech direct enough, but had a reserued sence as namely this, If they did eat it mo∣derately, and not in greater bits, then which they could digest, or If they mixed it not with poison, which bread then might prooue their bane. If all such Clauses, which might be sup∣posed must be called Reseruations, then is there no speech, but it may containe a thousand Reseruations.

23 The truth is, that whensoeuer there is any good thing commanded, the speech is plaine, direct, and perfect enough although the word, Worthily, be not expressed; because the necessary condition of euery good Act doth ordinarily con∣ueigh vnto euery hearer this vnderstanding, that it must be done dignè worthily, or duely; for that bonanon sunt bona, nist benè agantur, that is, There is no good action, which is not well or worthily done: and therefore the word, worthily, or duely, being so naturally, commonly, and necessarily implied in such speeches, it euidently euinceth, that this maketh no∣thing for M. Parsons his maner of Reseruation, which is so intricate a fox-hole, as which neither man, nor diuell, who goeth inuisibly, can creepe into. For this speech, [To kisse the Popes foote, is a ceremony befitting the honour of his per∣son,] euery Romanist will thinke to be an Assertion true and plaine enough, without any word, Worthily; albeit to kisse the Popes foote currishly, as the dogge did, that bit him by the toe, were a dishonour vnto him. But M. Parsons his Mentall Reseruation is cleane contrary, and so intricately hanckled, that neither man, nor diuell can finde the right end of the threed, or guesse what can be meant thereby; as when a Priest being demāded, whether he be a Priest, should answere, No, reseruing in his minde, such an one as is chast, or such an one as can hope to be Pope, & any like clause of speech.

24 In like maner might I descant vpon his * 1.57 Asking and receiuing because in Matth. 7. Aske and you shall

haue, the condition whereof is expounded by S. lames, viz. so that we aske not Amisse. Which condition (and the same may be answered concerning others) is so necessarily vnder∣stood by euery hearer, that though it be not expressed in outward words, yet is it discernable in the common no∣tion and sence of the hearer at the first sound of euery such sentence. As when the Father shall say vnto all his children, Aske me blessing, and I will blesse you; and all shall fall downe vpon their knees, and aske his blessing, yetso, that one a∣mong the rest, whilest he is crauing his blessing, should turne his face another way, and play with a dogge; Another should put out his tongue, in scorne and contempt of his fa∣ther; a third should aske only to be blessed with some groats in his purse; would that Father vse the forme of blessing to∣wards these fondlings, and not first correct them for their rude and vntoward behauiours? or would M. Parsons ex∣cuse them, because the Father expressed not the maner of Asking, to wit, that they ought to haue done it dutifully, and decently, as it becommeth children? would he call these kinde of conditions Reseruations, because they were not li∣terally deliuered in words, which are as it were, ingrafted in the common sence of euery man, and so generally implied by the ordinary and accustomable acceptance of speech, ac∣cording to the vnderstanding of all hearers, except they be as ignorant as Infants, or Idiots? whereas the Reseruation we dispute against, is (as M. Parsons saith) what a man list to frame to himselfe; and consequently may surmount not onely the ordinary capacitie of mortall men, but euen the subtilty of the Angels in heauen: as to say, I am no Priest, meaning, Whose name is Tom Tyler, or Watt Miller, or so foorth in infinitum

The last Instance out of Esay 38. M. PARSONS his Mitigation.

I should vtterly weary my Reader, if I would follow all, or the * 1.58

greatest part of that which may be said in this behalse, for that alwaies commonly all Prophecies that are 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and doe threaten punishment, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 still some secret reseruation, if they repent not: as that of I say to Ezechias: Haec dicit Dominus, dispone domui tuae quia morieris tu, & non viues: This saith our Lord, dispose of thy houshold, for thou shalt dye, and shalt not liue, and yet he liued sifteene yeares after. If therefore the Pro∣phet had beene demanded, Shall not Ezechias liue any longer? and he had answered, No, vpon what had fallen the negatiue No? if onely vpon wordes vttered, it had beene false, for he liued longer, but if vpon that together with the Reseruation in the meaning of the holy Ghost it was true. And the like may be said of the prophecie of Ionas, Adhuc quadraginta dies, & Niuiue subuertetur; There remaine but fortie daies, before Niniue shall be destroyed, and so infinite other places. Wherefore in this Tho. Morton was greatly ouer seene, in making of a confident Challenge, as befoer you haue seene,

The Reuiew.

25 I rather thinke the Reader hath beene already wea∣ried with multiplicities of such idle and fond Instances, which proue nothing lesse then the point in question, as hath hitherto appeared; and may now, by discussing this last place, be further discouered. It is an ordinary Rule in Diuinitie, acknowledged by their Iesuit e 1.59 Ribera, that The threatnings, which God vseth, doe containe in them a secret con∣dition, Except they repent. Whereof Saint Chrysost. speaketh thus: If (saith he) men were not changed, such prophesies would take place; but because men are changed, therefore the prophe∣cie, although it be not fulfilled, yet doth it not faile, for that God doth preserue his common-law, which he hath made, to wit, If a Nation shall repent of her sinne, I will also repent of the euill, which I thought to bring vpon it. Still we see that the errour, which hath blind-foulded M. Parsons, is, that he doth not distinguish the Sensum consignatum, à sensu reseruato, that * 1.60 is; sence implyed in the very speech it selfe, by reason of the

common and ordinary vse thereof, from the reserued sence, which is such as neither the common acception of words doe conueigh, nor the most intelligent (God onely excep∣ted) can possibly conceiue, or apprehend.

26 This point may be thus explained. f 1.61 An Embassa∣dour being sent vnto the Pope from a Prince in Germany, after that he had taken his leaue, & was dismissed of the Pope in these words, [Dic dilecto filio nostro salutem] that is, [Commend me vnto my beloued sonne your Master] he fourthwith (doubting least the Pope had called his Master a bastard) answered all in a sume, My Master (quoth he) is no Priests sonne. The word, Sonne, in the Popes speech signified a spiritual, and not a na∣turall son-ship and filiation, as both the person of the spea∣ker, and the ordinary vse of that salutation did import, and therefore was a sense implied in the speech, and not reserued onely in the minde, as in their other Priestly Equiuocating is vsually practized, as to say, I am no Priest, (reseruing in minde) as willing to indanger my selfe, by confessing that I am a Priest.

27 This likewise must be obserued, that we are not to call a speech ambiguous, or els reserued, because it is not vn∣derstood by the giddy & vndiscreet hearer, as by the former example is manifest, and may be made more conspicuous and euident by this that followeth of a Mother, who chid & rated her daughter for her rude and rurell cariage towards her affienced louer, especially for not thanking him, after that he had drunke vnto her; and therefore her mother, for her better preparation and direction how to behaue herselfe more orderly at their next meeting, spake thus vnto her daughter; Canst thou not say vnto him, (quoth she) the next time he drinketh to thee, [I thanke you] thou great foole: the daughter, silly body, not discerning the true distinction of the points of that speech, did vpon the next occasion of his drinking vnto her, answer, I pledge you, thou great foole. Such like absurd & foolish examples I am, beyond my incli∣natiō, forced to produce, that thereby I might better display the folly and absurdity of M. Parsons his defence of Men∣tall

Reseruation, which he oftentimes foundeth vpon the rot∣ten post of the Iewes infatuation, and vpon their mis∣construction of the sayings of Christ.

28 Besides these foresaid obiections, M. Parsons in g 1.62 his 9. chap. calleth and challengeth me to make a better Answer concerning an other saying of Christ, wherein he doth tri∣umph intolerably.

§. V.

An Answer to an old obiection, which hath beene taken out of that saying of Christ to his Disci∣ples; I will not goe to the seast, my time is not yet come, Iohn 7. Vers. 8.

29 MVch adoe haue we had about this text, as well concerning the Reading, as touching the Sence thereof. We must begin with the first.

The summe of M. PARSONS obiection, con∣cerning the Reading.

But what doth he accuse vs of, in effect? forsooth that we * 1.63 haue left the Greeke text, which hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 nondùm, not yet, and doe follow your vulgar Latine, which hath onely 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that is, non not, the difference of which word maketh a maine diner∣sitie * 1.64 in the matter, if you marke it well, for if the true text be nondùm, I will not yet goe vp, then is there no doubt or diffi∣cultie at all of the sence, for that Christ said plainly that he would not goe vp then, and so his going vp afterward had beene no contradiction any way to his former speech of not going vp, as here our Maldonate cited by Morton doth confesse: but on the other side, if the matter were so plaine, by reading nondùm in the Greeke why doe the Fathers labour so much to finde out the secret meaning and reserued sence of our Sauiour in this sentence, and seeming contradiction of his? * 1.65 For if that word

had beene in all Greeke bookes, and so held for the true text, there had beene no question, or Controuersie, as Expositers confesse: yet to grant with Maldonate, alleadged by Th. Mor∣ton, that very many Greeke Copies had so informer times, and haue it at this day, neither doth our vulgar deny or dissemble it; for albeit it haue non, and not nondùm, yet doth it expresly, signifie in the margent, that diuerse Manuscripts haue nondùm, and so doth set it downe for Varia lectio, yea the Rhemes Eng∣lish Testament it selfe doth expresse that translation also in the margent, I will not goe vp yet.

The reuiew.

30 I can say no lesse, nor neede I say much more then that which is confessed by Romish Doctors vpon this place: First, their Jesuit Maldonate, Almost enumerable Greeke bookes (saith he) reade 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (not yet) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 but especially the Va∣ticane Bible, the most ancient and famous of all in the world, and Nonnus, Chrysostome, Euthemius very graue Authors doe both reade it so, and also expound it; and so am I perswa∣ded that it is red of Theophylact. And 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which is the rea∣ding of Chrysostome (saith their Card. Tolet) is most legiti∣mate. And there is that witnesseth (saith Iansenius) that some ancient Latine Copies hath it Nondùm, that is, not yet. Their Iesuit Sa. making no further question saith, that The Greeke 〈◊〉〈◊〉 it, I ascend not yet, and the Siriac, I ascend not now. And lastly Card. Caietane correcting the Latine by the Greeke, saith it hath not, instead of not yet. We haue now seene his egregious Cauill.

M. PARSONS his Mitigation.

And doe we contradict this? your very next immedicate * 1.66 words doe cleare vs from this your calumniation, for it follow∣eth in your speech: your Latine text (say you) doth suffici∣ently betoken the same sence of the Greeke (not yet) and so doe two of the principall Doctors of your Church, Tolet

and Iansenius paraphrase. And is it so? how then are we so blinded with the loue of our Thais, as rather to snatch at any meaning, then take that which is meant? How say you that our Helena, the Latine Translation, is imbraced by vs before the Greeke, if our Latine doe not onely betoken the same sence of the Greeke, as here you confesse, but setteth it downe so as Varia lectio in the margent, as before hath beene shewed; yea and that two of our principall Doctors doe follow the same in their para∣phrases? Is not this to accuse and defend, affirme and deny, and to speake contraries with one and the same breath?

The Reuiew.

31 No, their is no contrariety in my Assertions; but this obiection of Contradiction is so vaine, that it may be blowne away with one breath: for in the Greeke text there is a double Nondùm, the first is, I will [not yet] goe vppo, viz. to the feast; the second is the reason hereof, because mine hower is [not yet] fulfilled. The first [Not yet] which doth demonstratiuely expound the meaning of Christ, is wanting in the Latine; and the second [Not yet] which doth also proue, but lesse manifestly the same meaning, remaineth in the Latine text; and therefore may it be said to haue in these diuerse respects both fully, and not fully betokened the same sence. Hitherto of words.

The Summe of M. PARSONS his Obiection, concerning the Sence.

M. PARSONS his Mitigation.

If the matter were so plaine by the reading of nondùm in * 1.67 the Greeke, why doe the ancient Fathers labour so much to find out the secret meamng, and reserued sence of our Sauiour in this sentence, and seeming contradiction of his? For S. August. and S. Bede after much search, doe thinke his meaning to haue beene, that he would not ascend to that feast with an humaine

spirit, to procure any wordly honour, &c. Strabus, and other Expositors doe interpret that he would not goe vp to exhibit his Passion, Eucherius, that he would not ascend on the first day of the feast. * 1.68 Wherefore seeing these and other Fathers doe labour so much to finde out the meaning of Christ in this sentence, it is not like that the matter was so cleare as T. M. would make it, by the clause Nondùm. For if that word had beene in all Greeke bookes, and so held for true text, there had beene no question or Controuersie, as our Expositors confesse.

The Reuiew.

32 How many, how âncient, and how famous Copies, in stead of, I will not goe vp to the feact, haue, I will not yet goe vp to the feast, (whereby the whole doubt is throughly dis∣solued?) yea and how true that reading is we haue receiued from the Confessions of their owne Doctors. Why some Fa∣thers (and why not then much more Porphyrius, whom M. Parsons obiecteth?) wereignorant of such Coppies, what better reason neede be giuen than that it so chaunced that they had them not?

33 But we are in the second place to inquire, (suppo∣sing the Greeke word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (which in Latine is Nondùm, and in English not yet, were not in the sentence) whether the same sence may be easily gathered out of the Text, or not: For if the words of the Text it selfe doe sufficiently be∣token the meaning of Christ to haue beene, that he thought not to goe vp yet, vz. at that time, then is there no Seeming contradiction in that sentence, and consequently no colour or shadow of any Mentall Reseruation. To this purpose I i 1.69 produced the iudgement of Tolet, their late Cardinall, and sometime Iesuit, saying that [I will not goe vp] doth sig∣nifie, I will not goe vp yet;

which he proueth from the words that follow immediately in the Text, [for my time is not yet fulfilled:] That is, (saith Tolet) The time when I ought to goe vp. And accordingly their Bishop * 1.70 Iansenius The word Not, which is in the Latine, signifieth plainely Not yet, which sence

(saith he) is sufficiently shew'n by the words following, vz. [be∣cause my time] namely wherein I must goe to the feast, [is not yet fulfilled,] that is, not yet come:

And this he calleth the genuous and naturall sence of the place. Which being graun∣ted, the sence of Christ, euen according to M. Parsons his iudgement, is sufficiently expressed and not reserued, and consequently here is no footing for his Reseruation. In the third place we are to satisfie for the different opinion of some Fathers.

M. PARSONS his Obiection.

To shew one point of manhood in this his flight, he taketh vp∣on * 1.71 him to answer one of these six Arguments alleadged against him, which is the fourth, concerning the ancient Fathers that laboured to secke out Christs reserued meaning. You shall see him insinuate two points; first is that the ancient Fathers did suppose that whatsoeuer meaning was in these words, They (the said kinsmen of our Sauiour) did vnderstand them, as well then, to wit, before the Gospell was written, and before the ho∣ly Ghost was giuen, as the said Christian Fathers did after∣wards by the learning and light which they had by the spirit and tradition of the Church: which proposition if he were put to proue in the presence of learned men, I doubt not but that he would quickly be in a poore and pitifull plight.

The Reuiew.

34 That which I said was onely concerning the sence of this place of Scripture, whereof I affirmed that the Fa∣thers thought their expositions, whatsoeuer it was which they iudged to be true) to be as well knowne vnto these dis∣ciples of Christ, as to themselues: which M. Parsons ma∣keth to be a generall assertion, concerning any other sence of Scripture whatsoeuer. If it may be lawfull for him to deale thus iniuriously, viz. by peruerting a particular Case into a generall, and to cast me into a pit of his owne making, none

(I confesse) neede to doubt but my plight must be pittifull: but if my Reader shall consider that he hath cut of the Reason which I then produced, to proue that the Brethren there mentioned did know that it was the meaning of Christ not to deny absolutely but that he intended to goe vp to the feast, viz. Because otherwise they should haue beene scandalized and offended, as to thinke that he had contemned the feast, which, by Gods ordinance were yet aliue, and in force, (as their k 1.72 Ianse∣nius affirmed, whereunto their l 1.73 Tolit doth expresly accord) then may he easily discerne that M. Parsons was herein more spitefull then I was pittifull; But we proceede vnto the chiefe obseruation.

M. PARSONS his Mitigation.

The second thing which by this answer he would haue vs vn∣derstand, * 1.74 is, that if these brethren, or kinsmen of Christ, did any way conceiue our Sauiours meaning, then was there no re∣seruation at all, for that as he saith, our ioyned reseruation is alwaies supposed to be a clause concealed, and not vn∣derstoode. But this is a greater foolery then the first, for that there may be areseruation in the speakers minde, though vn∣derstoode to some of the hearers. As for example, in our pro∣position being demanded, whether I be a Priest, and say, no, re∣seruing to my selfe, as often before hath beene declared, that I am no such, or such Priest, as I ought to vtter the same to you, though some of the Examiners should guesse at my reseruation, or know the same certainely, for that otherwise they know I am a Priest, this doth not make that this proposition in it selfe, and in my meaning is not a reserued, or Equiuocall proposition, for that they vnderstand it.

The Reuiew.

35 This is the last and chiefest point of all this Contro∣uersie; which if he haue wisely and truly satisfied, then shall I ingeiously confesse, that my whole exception against M.

Parsons his Mentall Equiuocation is, indeede, no better then meere foolery. But the truth is, that my exception against his Art of Equiuocating is not because the Mentall Reser∣uation, which he teacheth, is not vnderstood of some hea∣rers, * 1.75 but because it is so couched, that it cannot be possibly vnderstood of any hearer: for The Clause of Reseruation (saith M. Parsons) may be what a man list to say to himselfe, Now their Priest, who listeth not be apprehended, will list to frame to himselfe such a crotchetiue conceit, which shall goe as inuisible as an Angell of darkenes, by whom it is hat∣ched: As for example, to say, I am no Priest, (meaning,) That euer worshipped the Idoll Bell: or, I am no Priest, (mea∣ning) whom you loue: or, I am no Priest, (meaning,) That is willing to be hanged: or, I am no Priest, (meaning,) that can tell fortunes: or, I am not a Priest, (meaning,) whose name is Cutbert: or, I am not a Priest, (meaning,) for ought that you shall know. Thus then seeing that the reserued Clause may be according to M. Parsons doctrine, whatsoeuer a man list to fancie, so that it agree with his minde, allthough it be not implyed in the outward words, it is as infinitely variable, and therefore as certainely vnsearchable, as are the fancies and thoughts of men, which onely God can see, iudge, and reuenge.

36 Knowing therefore that the Equiuocations, which haue beene obiected by M. Parsons out of Scriptures, are not properly Mentall, but Verball, because the meanings which he calleth Reseruations, were implied in the words of those sentences, and in the circumstances thereof; but the reseruation, which M. Parsons professeth and we con∣demne, is an onely mentall reseruation, which hath no more affinitie in sence with the outward words, than this; I am no Priest, (meaning,) like a Goose that goeth bare-foote; so that he that from the hearing of the first part, which was the outward speech, could haue but coniectured at that re∣ferued meaning of a Goose, might passe for a Magnus Apollo I shall referre this first point, concerning the palpabilitie of Romish reseruation vnto the wisedome & iudgement of our

Reader, to award the note of foolery vnto whether of vs it shall seeme, in his discretion, more iustly to appertaine The second thing, which I promised to shew, is the im∣pietie of the same doctrine.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Reck. pag. 682.
• * 1.2

  Ioao. 1.
• a 1.3

  1. Reg. 18.
• b 1.4

  Ibid. cap. 22.
• * 1.5

  In Luc. vlt. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 28.
• c 1.6

  Vers. 22.
• * 1.7

  Virg.
• d 1.8

  Salmeron Ies. Tom. 1. Pre∣legom. 12. Can. 15. ex Aug. Tom. 3. li 1. de Trin. cap. 12.
• e 1.9

  Mitig. cap. 8. pag. 344.
• * 1.10

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 Reck. pa. 683.
• f 1.11

  In humc 〈◊〉〈◊〉
• * 1.12

  In 〈◊〉〈◊〉 locum.
• g 1.13

  In 〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉
• * 1.14

  Reckon. pa. 〈◊〉〈◊〉
• h 1.15

  In cum locum.
• l 1.16

  Iansen. Con∣cord Euang. eund. locum.
• * 1.17

  Reckon pag. 684.
• * 1.18

  Iohn 13. v. 13.
• * 1.19

  Iohn 14. v. 1.
• k 1.20

  Vpon this place.
• * 1.21

  Reckon. pa. 684.
• * 1.22

  Vers. 51.
• l 1.23

  In hunc 〈◊〉〈◊〉
• m 1.24

  Ibid.
• * 1.25

  Reckon pa. 684. 685.
• * 1.26

  Salmeron. Ies. Tom. 1. Prolegom. 11. Can. 22.
• o 1.27

  Iansen. Con∣cord. in eund. locum. Ioh. 8. 54.
• * 1.28

  Reckon. pa. 685.
• * 1.29

  Vers. 55.
• * 1.30

  Tit. 1. 16.
• * 1.31

  Psal.
• * 1.32

  Psal. 75. 2.
• * 1.33

  1. Epist. 2.
• * 1.34

  In hunc locum
• p 1.35

  In eund.
• q 1.36

  Ibid.
• r 1.37

  Concord ibid.
• * 1.38

  See about.
• * 1.39

  Reck pag. 685. 686.
• f 1.40

  〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉 cum locum.
• * 1.41

  1. Reg. 9.
• * 1.42

  Reckon p. 686. 687.
• * 1.43

  This faith their les. Mal∣donate vpon this place.
• * 1.44

  Vpon the same place.
• x 1.45

  Ibid.
• * 1.46

  Reckon. p. 687.
• * 1.47

  Pag. 49.
• * 1.48

  Mitigat. e. 19. §. 2. p. 359.
• a 1.49

  Maldou. les. vpon the place 〈◊〉〈◊〉 these points to the ful.
• b 1.50

  Mitig. p. 361.
• * 1.51

  Mitig. p. 365.
• c 1.52

  Tolet. in hune locum.
• * 1.53

  Mitting. p. 366. 367.
• * 1.54

  Pag. 367.
• d 1.55

  Salmeron Ies. Tom. 1. Proleg. 15. reg. 31. Pa. 294
• * 1.56

  Marc. vlt.
• * 1.57

  Mitig. p. 367.
• * 1.58

  Mitig. p. 368.
• e 1.59

  Ribera Ies. in Ionam, cap. 3. Num. 27.
• * 1.60

  A necessarie distinction.
• f 1.61

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 Stephen Apal. pro He∣rodoto, li. 1. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 3.
• g 1.62

  Mitigat. cap. 9. pag. 387.
• * 1.63

  Mitig. p. 388.
• * 1.64

  Ioan. 7.
• * 1.65

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 pag. 389 390.
• * 1.66

  Mitig. p. 391.
• * 1.67

  Mitig. pag. 388.
• * 1.68

  Mitigat. 389.
• i 1.69

  Full. satis∣fact. part. 3. cap. 11. pag. 79. 80.
• * 1.70

  Full. satis∣fact. ibid.
• * 1.71

  Mitig. pa. 339.
• k 1.72

  In locum con.
• l 1.73

  trouersum.
• * 1.74

  Mitig. pag. 393. 394.
• * 1.75

  M. Parsons grosse igno∣rance disco∣uered in the very state of the question.