A full satisfaction concerning a double Romish iniquitie; hainous rebellion, and more then heathenish æquiuocation Containing three parts: the two former belong to the reply vpon the Moderate Answerer; the first for confirmation of the discouerie in these two points, treason and æquiuocation: the second is a iustification of Protestants, touching the same points. The third part is a large discourse confuting the reasons and grounds of other priests, both in the case of rebellion, and æquiuocation. Published by authoritie.

The second Member of this Third part, Which is a Confutation of the wicked doctrine of Aequiuocation.

CHAP. I.

I Am now to encounter this new-bred Hy∣dra, and vglie Monster, which lurked a while in the inuisible practise of the Aequi∣••ocating sect; but, at length being dis∣couered, is now by the Arch-priest drawen into publicke by a solemne Approbation, as it were a golden chaine, that it might heereby appeare lesse monstrous.

The Priuilege of this Treatise of Aequiuocation by their Arch-priest.

a 2.1 THis Treatise is very learned, godly, and Catholike: wherein doubtlesse the Authour doth confirme the equity of Aequiuocation by euidence of Scriptures, Fathers, Doctors, School-Diuines, Canonists, and soundest reasons. A work•• wor∣thy to be published in print for the comfort of all afflicted Catho∣liks, and instruction of the godly.

Thus do I iudge,
George Blackwell Arch-Priest of England,
and the Apostolicall Protonotarie.

All this is very semblable, for who could be more fit to commend this Aequiuocation, a piece of blacke art, than Blackewell? Who can be more willing to autorize this Ae∣quiuocation, the Arch-piller of security for Romish Priests, then their Arch-priest? And from whence rather shall a man expect a priuiledge of lying, then from that place (falsly called Apostolicall) b 2.2 where (as their owne learned Bishop saith) there is nothing but lying? Of which kind (by the assi∣stance of the spirit of truth) I shall proue this Aequiuocation to be, and also the approbation thereof: shewing that not one iota in all Scripture, not one example in all Catholicke antiquity, not one shadow of reason in all the wit of naturall man can be brought for the iust proofe or colour of this Mysterie of iniquitie.

First we must vnderstand that our Aequiuocatours teach a double kind of Aequiuocation.

The first is a mentall reseruation in the mind, differing from that which I outwardly expresse, whether it be by voice or writing. Their example: c 2.3 If a Catholicke or any o∣ther person before a Magistrate shall be demanded vpon his oath, whether a Priest be in such a place, may (notwithstanding his perfect knowledge to the contrary) without periurie securely in conscience answer no, with a secret meaning reserued in his mind, namely that he is not there so, vt (loquar enim Latinè, ne hinc Idiotae ansam sibi arripiant nequitèr mentiendi) quis tenea∣tur illud detegere.

The second is a verball Aequiuocation, whether it be vo∣call, that is, vttered in the voice, or literall, that is, expressed in writing: when one word shall import two or moe diffe∣rent significations: as thus, To go to fast: the word fast, whe∣ther vocall or literall, doth equally signifie to abstaine from meat, and also, to make haste. By liberty of this Aequiuocati∣on one merily did play vpon his friend going at dinner time to a churles house, O sir (saith he) you go to fast. But to vse the example of our Aequiuocatours; d 2.4 If one shall aske whe∣ther

such a stranger (this is for security of a Priest) lieth (mea∣ning whether he lodge) in my house, I may answer he lieth not i•• my house: meaning, non mentitur, and heerein I say truth.

Concerning these two kinds of Aequiuocations I make two conclusions to be manifested in this dispute.

Our first conclusion is this; Euery Aequiuocation by a mentall Reseruation is not an hidden truth, but a grosse •…•…e.

The second conclusion is this; Euery Aequiuocation, (whether it be mentall or verball) if it be vsed in an oath, though it be no lie, yet is it an abhominable profanation of that sacred Institution of God; by whomsoeuer or to whom∣soeuer this oath be performed.

To prooue that Aequiuocating by a mentall Reseruation is a lying falshood, we must first distinguish of falshood, lest the doubtfulnes••e of this word falshood, dull the vnderstanding of my religious Reader, not to per∣ceiue the State of the Question.

There is a double kind of falshood in speech; The first hath respect to the thing spoken, the other to the mind of the speaker. The example of the former: If thinking it to be ten of the clocke (when it is but nine) I shall say it is ten, this is false, but not a lie: Because e 2.5 None must be iudged a liar (saith Saint Augustine) who speaketh false, thinking it to be true which he speaketh: because heerein his purpose is not to deceiue the hearer, but he is only deceiued in himselfe. The o∣ther, when thinking that to be false which I speake, I affirme it to be true, (and so on the contrary) as thinking it to be ten of the clocke, shall say it is nine: thus whether it be ten, or no, I do lie: and thus sometimes a man doth lie in spea∣king a truth. As the Client, who hauing in his pocket both counterfet and currant gold, intending to cozen his Coun∣sellour with the woorse mettall, by chance gaue him the bet∣ter, saying; Sir, I cannot be vnthankefull to any that shall

deserue well, heere is an Angell, and so he departed a falsly true, a deceiued deceiuer, and an vnthankefully thankefull man. The first kind of false speech is against truth, as it is defined Logically, A congruity or consent of the speech with the thing: the second falshood is defined morally, as it is op∣posite to truth, which is a consonancy of the speech with the vn∣derstanding of the speaker, and this falsity we call properly a lie. f 2.6 The former kind (saith S. Augustine) speaketh falslie for want of knowledge: the latter speaketh falsly against his knowledge and conscience, properly a liar. And only of this liar now we frame our dispute.

CHAP. II.

NOw we must come into the lists of this conflict, and enter vpon our Aequiuocator, to conuince him a grosse liar by manifest arguments, and to answer all his Obiections in their due order.

The first Argument from the definition of a lie.

Maior.) Whosoeuer vseth any signification of speech a∣gainst his conscience, is properly a liar: (Minor) But our Aequiuocator doth vse a signification of speech directly a∣gainst his conscience. Ergo, he is directly a liar. The Minor is not onely the confession, but also the profession of our Aequiuocator, as hath beene shewed. * 2.7 If a Catholicke (saith he) shall answere, [The Priest is not in my house] contrary to his perfect knowledge. &c. And can any man of conscience deny the conclusion? Yet because we haue to deale against con∣sciences * 2.8 Dawbed vp with mortar vntempered; we adde

A confirmation of the former Argument.

Let vs consult with the principall Doctour of your more ancient schoole, as the first of all, with him, who for his excellencie obteined the name of Master, as it were the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of his time.

a 2.9 This is properly lying (saith he) when a manspeaketh any thing contrary to that which he thinketh in his mind.

This Doctour is seconded heerein by Aquinas, who in your opinion was not second to any in, or since his time: b 2.10 This is proper to a lie (saith he) when a man will signifie in out∣ward words another thing then that which he thinketh in his mind. In which consideration S. Hierome about to free S. Paul from suspition of lying, who promised to the Corin∣thians, to come vnto them, but did not: c 2.11 S. Paul (saith he) did not lie, because he purposed with his hart to doe that which he had promised with his pen: but he only is a liar, who thinketh contrary to that which he speaketh. For, d 2.12 Euery lie (saith Saint Augustine) is that false witnesse (which is forbid in the com∣mandemnet) therefore it is that our Lord Christ doth admonish euery one; [Let there not be in your speech yea & nay, but let your yea be yea, and your nay nay.] This being his iudgement a∣gainst, as I may so say, Sarai, a free speech: what thinke you he determineth concerning Hagar the bond-woman, that is, such a speech as is obliged by an oath? e 2.13 This is a formall property of periurie (saith S. Augustine) to sweare that which I thinke is false: for nothing can make a guilty tongue, but only a guilty mind. To endeuour to prooue this point by testimo∣nies of all men, who maintaine it, were a labour infinit; and it may seeme also vnnecessary to confirme vnto men that which no man can deny. Now must we examine whether that we haue not by this proofe so intrapped the fox Aequi∣nocatour, that he cannot find any hole whereby to escape.

The Aequiuocatour.

f 2.14 Though the Catholicke thinke the Priest to be in his house,

yet may he answer, No, with a secret Reseruation in his mind, as this, Vt narremtibi. Or demanded whether I be a Priest, not∣withstanding, contrary to my knowledge, I may answer, No, with a secret reseruation, Vt me detegam.

The Replie.

Suffer me Socratically to debate this point with you, and answer me friendly to these demands: Q. When be∣ing asked, whether you are a Priest, you answer No, what signification hath this word No? R. It doth signifie di∣rectly, I am no Priest. Q. And yet you thinke you are a Priest. R. Yea I know it: Q. Wherewith doe you know it? R. By my inward mind and vnderstanding, my conscience testifying this vnto me. Q. Can conscience beare witnesse? then can it also speake. R. It speaketh as verily to my inward soule, as my tongue speaketh sensibly to your eares. Q. When therefore I aske you whether you be a Priest, your conscience saying to your selfe, I am; would it not say the same to me likewise if I could heare it? R. Certainly it would. Q. Yet it may be your mind may demurre or varie in that which it thinketh, as namely, thinking thus, [I am a Priest] yet to be able to perswade your soule, and say, [I am no Priest.] R. Vnpossible, for this is an infallible position, Mens non potest non intelligere quod intelligit: The mind cannot possibly but thinke that which it thin∣keth. Q. And it is as vnpossible but, [I am] the direct voice of your conscience, and [I am not] the expresse voice of your tongue, must be as contrary as yea and nay. R. True. Q. Then will this be as true, that when your conscience affirmeth that which your tongue denieth, that your tongue speaketh, against your Conscience. * 2.15 And this is that which we haue proued to be flat lying, a conclusion which no art of Aequiuocation can possibly auoid.

Our Aequiuocator conceiteth a double intention of the mind, the one directly respecting the signification of the words; and thus they grant that the Nay of their tongue was contrary to the yea of their vnderstanding: the second is an

indirect intention, which is a clause of Reseruation, [Vt di∣cam tibi.] Whereby they would reconcile their tongue to their mind. Whereas our Witnesses haue thus determined, that truth and falsity doth consist only in the conformity or contrariety of the signification of the words, and direct in∣tention of the mind, plainely calling it a lie, When one shall speake words (saith Aquinas) which doe not signifie that which he intendeth: When he speaketh otherwise then he thinketh, saith S. Hierome: When he speaketh that which hee thinketh is false, saith S. Augustine. But the indirect intention of the spea∣ker [Vtreuelem tibi] cannot alter the signification of his out∣ward words, [I am no Priest] which his direct intention of conscience doth contradict, saying, [But I am a Priest.] Er∣go our Aequiuocating Priest cannot possibly reconcile such a contradiction of his hart and his tongue. Wherefore we will desire S. Augustine to conclude against our Aequiuo∣catours; g 2.16 Whosoeuer shall sweare that which he knoweth is false, is but a detestable beast.

CHAP. III.

The second Argument from the Definition of Aequiuocation.

The Aequiuocator must speake.

a 2.17 WE will speake with Aristotle and the Logicians spea∣king of foure propositions: first mentall, only concei∣ued in the minde; secondly vocall, vttered with my mouth; third∣ly written (which I haue called literall;) and the fourth mixt, when we mingle some of these propositions together, when one part is expressed outwardly, as to say [I know him not:] the other part reserued in my mind, as to say, [Vt tibi significem] both ioined to∣gether make vp one true proposition.

The Replie.

Dare you appeale vnto Logicke? This is the Art of all Arts, and the high Tribunall of reason and truth it selfe,

which no man in any matter, whether it be case of humanity or diuinity can iustly refuse.

Consult therefore with the ancient Logicians, and proue (marke what scope I yeeld vnto you) that from the begin∣ning of the world in the whole currant of so many thou∣sand generations of mankinde, till within the compasse of these last foure hundred yeeres, and lesse, that euer any Logician, whether Infidell or Beleeuer, did allow your mixt proposition (which is partly mentall, and partly verball) or thinke it a Proposition: and I will be (which my soule vtterly detesteth) an Aequiuocator.

Yet I must not now expect impossibilities, to trie what you would proue, but shew herein what I can disproue.

The Argument.

Your proposition [I am no Priest,] mixed with your mentall reseruation, [Vt tibireuelem;] if it be true, it is so either in his simple signification, or by vertue of Aequiuocation: but it is not true in his simple signification; this you grant: nei∣ther can it be true by vertue of Aequiuocation; this I prooue.

b 2.18 Aequiuocation in word or speech (sayth the Oracle of all Logicians) is when one word or one speech doth equally signifie diuers things. As when one shall say, I am afrayd of a Dogge: this word Dogge hath a triple signification; for it signifieth aswell a fish in the sea, called a Dogge-fish, & a signe in the heauenly spheare, wherein when the Sun hath his course, we call the dayes Dogge-dayes; or as thirdly, it doth signifie mans faithfull seruant, a barking dogge. Therefore when he sayth, I feare a Dogge, whether he meaneth he is afrayd of the housholde dogge to be bit with his teeth, or to be drowned, and so deuoured of the Sea dogge, or to goe mad by the poisonfull influences of the Planeticall dogge: If, I say, he vnderstand any of these kinds, this his speech is true, [I am afrayd of a dogge.] But your mixt and patched proposition is not one word or speech signifying equally di∣uers

things; but contrarily (as you pretend) diuers parts of speech (one in the minde, and another in the mouth) signifying one thing: for, I am no Priest, and To tell it to the, what words can be more different? which whosoeuer shall call Aequiuocall, may be iustly suspected to be bit with the highest dogge; the position is so absurd and vnreasonable.

The Aequiuocator doth insist. His Obiection.

c 2.19 Voices and writings are ordemed for instruments and signes to expresse a Proposition which is in the minde; therefore may I expresse all in word or all in writing, and the proposition in the minde remaineth the same. So may I by another mixt proposition expresse some part, and reserue some part in my minde. For ex∣ample, If when I say [God is not] should lose presently my speech, before I could vtter the word following [vniust,] which hauing my pen in my hand, I exhibit by writing; who doubteth, but all that is but one proposition, the trueth whereof consisteth of the mixture of both parts together? So is it where one part is deli∣uered with the mouth, and the other reserued in the minde.

The Replie.

It were better that both you & I should become speech∣lesse and handlesse, than either in word or writing to mini∣ster such a bainfull Conclusion vnto the world. But to the matter: Voices and writings (say you) are outward signes of the inward propositions of the minde. This is true: What then? And the part wanting in voice is supplied by the other word in writing. This is also true: But why? Because words and writings be mutuall signes and interpretations of the minde. This is againe most true: What can you inferre from all this? So the signification of the part outwardly expressed [I am no Priest] may be supplied with the other part of the proposition reserued in my minde [Vt tibinarrem.] I tell you this compa∣rison

is vtterly false. For the foresaid Oracle in his booke intituled, The interpretation of speech, saith, that * 2.20 Euery pro∣position enunciatiue (that is, euery outward speech, whether by word or writing, whether affirming or denying) is ordei∣ned for signification: that is, (as you haue well said) to expresse some thing. But no mentall, or inward conceit of the minde is ordeined of God as a signe to expresse or signifie (as words and writings doe) but as a thing signified hath need to be expressed and expounded. Such is your mentall clause reserued [Vt narrem tibi.] Can you make this a signe or in∣strument to expresse & signifie your true meaning, which you haue purposely deuised for a den to lurke in, lest your false meaning might be signified and reuealed? Thus haue you by your comparison of voices and writings made a strong loope whereby to strangle your selfe.

This is confirmed by S. Augustine.

d 2.21 Euery speech (sayth he) whether it affirme or deny any thing, is to be referred vnto that which it doth affirme or deny. But your Negatiue, I am no Priest, can not be referred to your supposed true clause [Vt narrem tibi;] for it doth not signifie any such thing: but only to your Priesthood. In which simple signification it is (by your owne opinion) most false. A delusion notably confuted by your owne Se∣raphicall Doctor, who affirmeth, that e 2.22 A speech is so farre foorth true, as it is a signe of a true vnderstanding. But your voice (you know) is contrary to your vnderstanding. And as concerning Voice, which is the signe, he addeth from Aristotle, That it is against nature to signifie any thing by words which we haue not in our minde. If then this equiuocation be vnnaturall, we haue not without reason called it a Monster. And now we will shew your vnnaturall countenance in a like example.

An example of like Sophistrie.

A presumptuous Gorgias and Sophister in Cambridge vndertooke the defence of this Probleme, Virtus est vitium, vertue is a vice: but being plunged in his answer, he fled to a reserued clause, fugere. And was not this his fugere, plain∣ly your subterfugere? Therefore as any Philosopher onely hearing these words, Virtus est vitium, must necessarily call it after that name of one of the markes of Sophistrie f 2.23 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, A singular absurditie: so might any hearing a Priest say simply, I am no Priest, call this after the name of the second scope of Sophistrie, which is g 2.24 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a lie.

CHAP. IIII.

The third Argument from the description of lying.

MAior.) a 2.25 No man can doubt (saith S. Augustine, and your whole schoole) but he lieth, which speaketh any thing which is false, with an intent to deceiue another: (The Minor) But our Aequiuocatours professe by a false speech to b 2.26 delude (their owne words) Protestant-examiners, Ma∣gistrates, Pursuuants, and other Officers, and whosoeuer may be instruments to call their persons in question, Ergo, by their art of Aequiuocating haue they obtained a perfection of ly∣ing. What can you answer?

The Aequiuocatour.

c 2.27 This speech [I am no Priest] is not false, being mixed with that clause which is vnderstood [Vt tibi significem.]

The Answer.

I haue already prooued from the iudgement of S. Hie∣rome and S. Augustine, two of the most iudicious Fathers; out of Lombard and Aquinas, the two eies of your Romish

schoole, that wheresoeuer the speech is contrary to the know∣ledge (such you haue granted your Aequiuocating to be) there the speech is false and a slat lie. Which is now further proued from the end of lying, which is, To deceiue the hea∣rer: except you professe an intention to deceiue men by true speaking, and so make truth a Seducer.

The Aequiuocatour doth insist.

d 2.28 Our Aequiuocating doth not alwaies deceiue the hearer, for if a man of Couentry, a place generally infected with the plague, dwelling himselfe in a part of that city, which is free from infecti∣on, and comming to London, shall be asked if he came from Co∣uentry (they intending to aske him concerning a place infected) may answer, No: for heerein he deceiueth not the mind of the Questioner, but answereth directly to his intention.

The Replie.

If this one instance were true, yet could it not iustifie your other Aequiuocations, as that [I am no Priest:] where∣by your whole purpose is to delude the intention of the ex∣aminer. e 2.29 For this is an intention to deceiue, (saith your Ie∣suite) to seeke to beget a signification of your speech in the mind of your hearer, diuers to that which you conceiue your selfe.

Secondly, this your instance is false; for euery one that asketh a Question, doth intend to receiue a direct answer: and therefore his answer, [I came not from Couentry] who came from Couentrie, cannot satisfie the intention of the Examiner.

Thirdly, though it shall satisfie the remote intention of the Examiner, yet is it a lewd lie in the speaker, because he that speaketh truth hath alway a conformity betweene the intention of his mind and his speech: but to deny, He came not from that place from whence he knoweth he came, is no conformity, but infinite contrariety between his speech and his owne intention. An answer so grosly false, that a Iesuite of high esteeme in your church, writing against this spiritu∣all

iugling of his subtile lying brethren, doth confesse, f 2.30 That if this kind of answer (concerning a place infected with the plague &c.) be not false, then there is no speech so false, but it may be freed from falshood: because willingly to vse words in a contrary sense to that they signifie, is plaine lying. By whom you Aequiuocators may learne, that if the man you fancied came not from a place infected with bodily pestilence, yet this your aequiuocating proceedeth from minds spiritually infected with the contagion of pestilent lying. O but you are more subtile then your Aduersaries; and so was the * 2.31 Ser∣pent (the Diuels instrument) more subtile than all the beasts of the field. Yet behold one Doctor amongst you so subtile, that for that faculty he hath (by figure of excellency) beene called the subtile Doctour: who doth conclude all you Ae∣quiuocatours liars, saying, g 2.32 To say that [I did not] that which I know I haue done, although I speake it with this limitation (or reseruation of mind) [Vt tibi significem it is not aequiuocation, but a lie. And not he alone, but euen the subtilest of all your Iesuites must be called a liar, if this your aequiuocating subtilty be not rancke lying: h 2.33 Whosoeuer (saith he) doth in∣deuour by feining to deceiue another, although he intend to sig∣nifie something else, yet doubtlesse he lieth. Which kind of aequiuocating when your diuine of Cullen doth examine, he maketh his Theophilus, that is, the louer of God, to answer Philetus, that is, a louer of himselfe; to wonder at your i 2.34 Tri∣fling foolerie thus contrary to the iudgement of graue and wise men, to inuent such a lurking hole and refuge for periurie. Con∣cluding that It is certainly a lie, when any doth thinke one thing

in his mind, and signifie the contrary in words, with intent to de∣ceiue another. Therefore are you to be exhorted as his good Theophilus, for the loue of God, who is the truth, to re∣cant this your doctrine of aequiuocating, the metropolis of lies.

CHAP. V.

The fourth Argument a Specie, or from a parti∣cular kind of lying, which is Periury.

MAior.) a 2.35 Periurie (as both your now Iesuites, and also your ancient Schoole saith) is a lie made in an oth. b 2.36 For an oath void of truth must needs be a lie. c 2.37 Because in an oath to vse such a speech as thou thinkest is false, is formally per∣iurie. Anancient doctrine, for the Prophet requireth in e∣uery Iurist truth; * 2.38 Thou shalt sweare the Lord liueth in truth &c. But mentall aequiuocating is in an oath per••urie. Ergo simplie in it selfe without an oath it is a lie.

The Minor proued.

This is a certaine maxime in Diuinity, grounded vpon the eternall commandement of God, [* 2.39 Thou shalt not beare false witnesse;] and expounded by his Prophet, Thou shalt sweare in truth; and confessed by your Azorius, d 2.40 That is to sweare both for the confirmation of a truth, and so also in truth as to thinke probably that true wherunto thou art sworn. (Minor.) But our Acquiuocatours do neither sweare from truth, nor for confirmation of truth. Ergo their oath is plaine periury. A conclusion thought so iust, that your owne great Mo∣ralist doth condemne all Aequiuocators heerein as periured liars; e 2.41 or otherwise (saith he) there is nothing which may not

be affirmed and denied without a lie. Yet against your concei∣ued reseruation we will obiect a conceiued supposition for further confirmation of this point,

This last Minor confirmed.

Suppose that your Guido hath wrongfully impeached some man of honour, as to haue beene an Inginer and wor∣ker in the Powder-vault together with Piercie and Catesbie brethren in that euill: and thus is the noble person made guilty of high treason; but after by more exact triall of cir∣cumstances, it is found that the man of honour was neuer incorporate in that conspiracie, what can you answer for your G•…•…? What else, but as your Garnet answered for your Tresham, I thinke he did aequiuocate? saying [The ho∣nourable man was present in that vault] reseruing in his thought this clause [Quatenus vir longissimè absens, praesens esse potuit. But answer, (for we wil draw you out of that foxe hole) He swearing according to these words, [This man was one of vs Pioners,] did his words accord with his direct meaning? No: then was not his oath a veritate, from truth; But did his oath (the second propertie of a true oath) con∣firme a truth? No: for it did betray an innocent; then was it not pro veritate, for truth. Therefore call you such an oath, Aequiuocation, or, Reseruation, or secret limitation, or what you will: our great grandfathers (I am sure) would haue termed it peri••rie, and adiudged it to the pillorie, a shame too little for so shamelesse a collusion. For seeing that f 2.42 Per∣iurie (though not in the iniurie to man, yet in it owne iniquity) is a more grieuous sinne than murder; it may be wished that men∣tall aequiuocation might haue a corporall suspension; and where any of whatsoeuer profession he be, shall be found guilty of both murder and the aequiuocating clause of Re∣seruation; the sinne of Reseruation, may haue a reseruati∣on of punishment: that if, for the one, he hang by the neck, for the other, he may hang iointly by the tongue, as it is written, Iuxta peccatum ita erit & poenae modus.

CHAP. VI.

Our fift Argument from the principall subiects of Truth, God: and Lying, the Diuell.

1. God.

HEb. 6. 17. God willing to shew more abundantly vnto the heires of promise the stablenesse of his Counsell, bound himselfe by an oath, that by two immutable things, wherein it is impossible that God should lie, we might haue strong consolation &c. Heere we see the nature of a lie, g 2.43 To be so absolutely euill in it owne nature, as (which all Diuines hold) that no∣thing can make it good. Therefore so it is said, that to say it is vnpossible, that our good God, father of truth, should lie: is as much as to say, it is impossible for goodnesse to be euill, or for truth to be a ••ie; because this is as contradictorie, as God not to be God.

Hence we argue.

Maior.) That, which God can not doe by reason of ly∣ing iniquity, hath in it the iniquity of a lie. (Minor.) But your aequinocating conceit is that which for the lying ini∣quity thereof God can not possibly doe. Therefore it is a godlesse and lying wickednesse.

The Minor proued.

If God by an oth of promising saluation in Christ could vse your aequiuocation, then should the Elect of God not haue any strong consolation, when God by word or oath he promiseth life, and though h 2.44 his spirit witnesseth to the spirits of his Elect, that they are the sonnes of God, and that they shall no▪ perish: yet might they suspect (which blasphe∣mie

farre be it from the hearts of his Regenerate) that it is spoken with some secret reserued clause of delusion. i 2.45 But let God be true, and euery (especially aequiuocating) man a liar, as it is written: for he who is Trueth will be iustified, when this sect continuing in this sinne must necessarily be condemned.

The principall subiect of lying is the Diuell.

Because when the voice of the Almighty had denounced death to the Transgressours, saying, k 2.46 Eating of this fruit ye shall die: the Diuell in his instrument contradicting that trueth, sayd, l 2.47 You shall not die at all: he is therefore truely called m 2.48 A liar from the beginning. From whence we may argue thus.

Maior.) That can not be a doctrine of trueth, which stoppeth a mans mouth, that he can not giue the Diuell the lie. (Minor.) But admitting your aequiuocation, all man∣kinde is silenced, as not able to giue the Diuell his due title of a Liar. Ergo aequiuocating is no doctrine of trueth.

The Minor proued.

For Eue, who was catechized in this trueth, God sayd that if we eat we shall die, and hearing the Diuels contrary sug∣gestion, Though you eat you shall not die: might she not say to the serpent, Spirit thou liest? If she might not, then is that no lying spirit, which is father of all lies: if she might, then is your close aequiuocating a lie. Otherwise, the Diuell might haue freed himselfe as you do, saying, I sayd truely, for I did aequiuocate.

The Minor confirmed.

Though the Diuell haue plunged himselfe in Abyssum, the bottomlesse gulfe of wickednesse, as to do wickedly for loue of wickednesse: n 2.49 Yet is there not the most desperate sin∣ner

amongst men, but if he could, he had rather by honest than by wicked meanes atchieue whatsoeuer his wicked heart lusteth after. We will borrow of you an example: o 2.50 The late in∣tended conspiracie, which (as you confesse) was so hainous an impiety, that God and heauen condemne it, men and earth de∣test it: Now then, what wickednesse vnder heauen would not these Conspirators haue attempted, which haue beene found guilty of so damnable a mischiefe? Yet am I persua∣ded that for aduancement of their Religion they would ne∣uer haue practised by powder, if they could haue preuailed with paper. All which I produce to this end, to let you vn∣derstand, that if mentall aequiuocation were lawfull, and did qualifie a false speech to free it from a lie, no man instructed in that Art would or could lie; and so we should seeme to liue in an Outopia, where men shall be conuicted of most manifest aequiuocating falshood; only he shall be the liar, that giueth the conuicted the lie.

CHAP. VII.

The sixt Argument, from examples of dissimulati∣on condemned by

• 1. Scriptures,
• 2. Fathers,
• 3. Pagans.

1. Scripture.

ACts 5. 1. Ananias with Saphira his wife solde a possessi∣on, and kept backe part of the price, his wife being of coun∣sell with him; and the other part he brought and layd it downe at the Apostles feet. Then sayd Peter, Why hath Satan filled thine heart that thou should'st lie? thou hast not lied vnto men, but vnto God. When Ananias heard these words, he fell downe and gaue vp the ghost. After this came in his wife, ignorant of that which was done; and Peter sayd vnto her, Tell me, Sold you the land for so much? and she sayd, Yea, for so much: and Peter sayd, Why haue you agreed together to tempt the spirit of the Lord? and she fell downe, and yeelded vp the ghost.

These pretended to bring all their substance, and to ten∣der it to the Apostles for the common good of the Saints, an act proper to the infancy of the Church: but they reser∣ued one halfe for supply of their peculiar vses, if happily they might come to want. The woman is asked, Solde you the land but for so much? her answer is, Yea, but for so much: and yet this dissimulation is called a lie. When she answe∣red, For so much, meaning but one halfe, concealing the other halfe, it was not possible but in that dissimulation your reserued clause must haue come into her minde, to thinke, But for so much: vt in commune bonum conferamus: or, vt alijs largiamur: or your owne crotchet, [Vt vobis sig∣nificemus.] Let any but enter into the meditation of such a dissimulation, and he shall finde it vnpossible but some such conceit will be flittering like a butter-flie in his mind, and like one of the * 2.51 false spirits of Satan, delude his soule, as not to discerne of a lie: but S. Peter calleth it a Satanicall lie. This is the first example of lying we reade of in Christi∣anity, wherein the actours by the visible vengeance of God were strucke dead suddenly and perished in their sinne, and should therefore teach you, that though you may delude man, who only iudgeth the mouth, (therefore S. Peter sayd of it, Thou hast not lied vnto men▪) yet for feare of the all-see∣ing iust God, not any more thus, * 2.52 To tempt the spirit of the Lord.

CHAP. VIII.

Examples out of ancient Fathers.

SAint Augustine vseth many, especially two: The first; a 2.53 Suppose there is a man so dangerously sicke (sayth this ho∣lie

Father) that if he should but heare of the death of his deare and only sonne, his strength cannot beare the griefe of it, but he must presently die: thou knowing his child is dead, and being as∣ked of him whether he be dead or aliue; what wouldest thou an∣swer? Thou must either say he is dead, or he liueth, or I know not: but these two, [he liueth, and, I know not] are both false; the only true is, He is dead. But thou wilt say, then truth shall be a murtherer: why? if an impudent woman shall soliicite thy cha∣stity, and thou denie, she in the rage of her passion shall shortly die: wilt thou say that chastity is a murtherer? Me thinke I heare our Aequiuocators say, what, no true answer but only he is dead? simple S. Augustine! for both of the other might haue beene made good, as either to say, I know not, inwardly vn∣derstanding, [Vt narrem tibi, or, nescio calcibus, or, nescio cras] and such like: the second vi••it, he is aliue, might haue stood for currant, intending in the mind, [Viuit in Purgatorio, or, in coelo, or, vitam spiritualem, or, sibi, or, Deo,] and an hun∣dred such qualifications & reseruatiues, both to free the an∣swerer from lying, and the man from dying. Well S. Augu∣stine his simplicity made him a Saint; what your double∣harted subtilty may make you, I had rather you should duly consider, than I vtter.

His second example: b 2.54 There was a certaine Bishop, by name Firme, but firmer by the constancy of his will: who being asked where the man was, whom he had hid from the hands of the persecutor; answered the seruants and officers of the Emperour thus: I (quoth he) may neither •…•…e, nor yet betray my brother: and lest he should do either, he suffered many torments of these persecutors. What answer could haue beene giuen more resolute and honest than this? Thus resolueth S. Augustine euen vpon the case in question: only differing heerein, that the exam∣ple which the Father propoundeth, is of a Bishop for the safetie of a Christian; the answer which our Aequiuocator teacheth is especiallie directed to lay-men for preserua∣tion of Priests, viz. themselues. S. Augustine resolued that the Bishops answer was most honest: what wil our Aequiuo∣cators iudge? surely their subtilty teacheth that it was most

sottish, by ignorance of another meane of euasion, through this backdoore of Reseruation, [Vt tibi reuelem.] Therefore the Catholicke Bishop might seeme foole-hardie to expose himselfe to torments when by aequiuocation he might haue kept his knowledge as inuisible for that time, as Christ did his person by his almighty diuine power a∣mongst the persecuting Iewes. But S. Augustine could not finde that passage, because it was not heard of in those daies; therefore doth resolue thus, that the answer of the godlie Bishop was honest: c 2.55 Because it is written, he that lieth slaieth his owne soule: therefore it were peruersnesse to say, that one should choose to die spiritually, that another may be saued bodily: for man it is who may kill the body, but God can take body and soule and cast them both headlong into hell. d 2.56 But the example of Rahab (saith he) will be obiected, whether she had not done well if she had not shewed mercy vnto her guests the seruants of God, when inquisition was made by their enemies to know whe∣ther they were there; She might haue said, I know where they be, but I feare God, and therefore will not tell you to betray them: thus should she haue answered if she had beene then a true Israe∣lite in whom there is no guile. But you will say that then they would haue slaine her and haue sought out the strangers: doth it therefore follow that they should find them? But suppose she had lost her life, a life which must be lost, yet had her death beene right deare and pretious in the eies of God, and the benefit to her guests had not beene in vaine. You will furthermore obiect that they by this meanes might make more diligent search for her guests, and

haue found them out; and what I pray you, if they would not haue beleeued that leud woman? Howsoeuer, who are we that we should censure or limit the power of God? For he that preserued them after by this womans lie, might haue preserued them without her lie: except we can forget his power against the Sodomites; they sought the guests of Lot, but were strucke blind, and not able to find the doore. This S. Augustine his Scio our Aequiuoca∣tors turne into Nescio: they can spie out a bench-hole to hide the persecuted by her answer, [Vt tibi reuelem] which was neuer reuealed to S. Augustine, nor yet to the holy Popes of ancient time: for S. e 2.57 Gregory, and f 2.58 Innocentius in the same cause of preseruing the life of a brother was of the same mind. Neither is there one in all antiquity who euer knew the Nescio of your mixt proposition, no not for any cause of danger to be free from them there is no greater Tyrant than * 2.59 a lie, which slaieth the soule.

There remaineth the third example deriued from Paga∣nisme; and also other two arguments, the one deduced from comparisons, the otherfrom effects, which will fol∣low in their conuenient order. In a conflict we know it is required that the Souldier be prouided as well defensiuely, to ward; as offensiuely, to impugne his Enemy. Let vs a while trie the forces of our aduersaries in

CHAP. IX.

The Obiections, which our Aequi∣uocators vrge for their men∣tall Reseruation from

• Reasons,
• Scriptures,
• Fathers.

1. Reason.

a 2.60 WE will prooue our mentall Aequiuocation by natu∣rall reason. Thus, If I were alone and should talke with my selfe, and say one thing, vnderstanding a thing different from that, this is not a lie. Ergo mentall aequiuocation is iust and true.

The Answer.

Of these two most diuine properties, whereby man is di∣scerned from beasts, Ratio & oratio, Reason and speech: the vse of speech was not ordained for a looking glasse, whereby a man might see himselfe, but as the * 2.61 Interpreter of the mind, whereby he might be knowen of others: as the lear∣ned Philosopher looking earnestly vpon a Scholar profes∣sed in all arts, Loquere, inquit, vt t•• videam: Speake, (quoth he) my friend that I may see thee. Now because there is no man of sound braines, but he knoweth before he speake, what his tongue vttereth, there can be no neede that by speech hee should interpret his owne meaning to himselfe, no more then a man may be properly said to steale his owne goods, or commit adultery with his owne wife: because both these are actions ad extra, that is, without a man, and haue relation to others then to our selues. Which is yet more apparant heerein, seeing that he cannot be said pro∣perly to speake vnto himselfe, who cannot properly be said to lie to himselfe: but whosoeuer can lie to himselfe may also by speech properly deceaue himself; because a lie is descri∣bed to be a false speech, to this end, * 2.62 To deceiue. And can any by any wilfull lie deceiue his owneselfe, as thereby be made ignorant of his owne meaning? This were to distract a man from himselfe. Therefore this naturall reason taken from the speech of man with himselfe, might best befit a pure naturall, or some person distracted; namely, such a one as being beside himselfe can best talke with himselfe.

The second Obiection from Reason. The Aequiuocator.

b 2.63 When there is a mixt proposition the two different parts make one &c.

The Answer.

This is already answered, and proued that this patch of

mixture is no better than a new peece of cloth in an old gar∣ment, * 2.64 which maketh the rent greater.

CHAP. X.

The Obiections from examples of Scriptures in the Old and New Testament.

1. From the old. The Aequiuocator.

a 2.65 THe Scripture telleth vs how * 2.66 Iaacob told his Father Isaac that he was his eldest sonne Esau: which was not so in the sense of the Patriarch Isaac &c.

The Answer.

First, b 2.67 Esau (as your Cardinall Caietan saith: c 2.68 Which is also the opinion of many learned Doctors) being a proper name, which Isaac did purposely restraine to that particular person, say∣ing, [Art thou my eldest sonne Esau?] Iaacob heerein is inexcu∣sable from alie.

Secondly, your Aequiuocators doe prescribe the vse of this your art to be put in practise onely before a iudge, or hearer incompetent: and shall wethinke that Isaac the bles∣sed Patriarch and father of the promised seede could be an vnfit and incompetent hearer of his sonne now only crauing his blessing? This Disputer therefore (to speake mildly) is incompetent; although, I must confesse, this example is very semblable to your persons, in whom we heare Iaacobs dissembling voice, but feele the rough hands of Esau, who in∣tended the murder of his brother.

The second example. The Aequiuocator.

d 2.69 Such aequiuocation did the Prophet Ieremie vse (Ier. 38. 26.) when he tooke aduice of the King.

The Answer.

You discern̄e nothing in the outward speech of this Pro∣phet but a lie, falsely imagining an inward aequiuocation of thought, which no man can discerne. But your ancient ex∣positour telleth vs, that e 2.70 The very outward speech of Ieremy was true, as may appeare, (saith he) in that the King swore vnto him, that he would not kill him, nor deliuer him ouer into the hands of those Princes. Neither is it probable that the King did grant any thing to Ieremy which he did not require. Which is plaine by the 15. verse.

Againe, if we iudge the outward speech of Ieremy was false, yet is it not written for our imitation, but for directi∣on, that (as S. Augustine doth obserue in the like examples) Casus maiorum sit cautio minorum: the faults and slidings of the stronger might be warnings to the weaker. According to the wisedome of the holy Ghost in S. Paul, saying, * 2.71 Let him that standeth t••ke heed lest he fall. Howsoeuer, for your glosse of mentall resernation; shew vs but one Father whe∣ther Greeke or Latine; one Pope, whether Catholicke or Antichristian; one Author, whether learned or vnlearned, who did euer so fancie. But now you shall receiue

A generall Answer to all examples of the old Testament, wherein there may be any scarres of infirmities: from Saint Augustine.

f 2.72 We reade of such kind of examples in holy writ, not that, be∣cause we beleeue they were done, we should therefore beleeue they may lawfully be done; lest when we would imitate examples of men, we transgresse the precepts of God. This Answer doth S.

Augustine vse against the Heretickes of his time, called Pri∣s••••lli•…•…ists, who defended lying by the same examples where∣by you would defend Aequiuocating, yet not so modestly, (I confesse) as you doe: for they maintained openly lying in his proper name; you couertly vnder an adopted name of Aequiuocation, an euident argument that those Heretickes, whose best refuge was lying, either by ignorance knew not your aequiuocating crotchet, or according to the common language of Diuinity in those times, called it by his proper name, lying. And yet your booke for aequiuocating must be intituled, A Treatise forsooth against lying.

CHAP. XI.

Examples out of the new Testament obiected.

The principall be foure. The first Example. The Aequiuocator.

a 2.73 THe infallible Verity saith to his Disciples, (Ioh. 11.) [All things which I haue heard of my Father haue I manife∣sted vnto you:] Yet in the chapter following affirmeth, that he had many things to say vnto them, but they were not able to beare them away then. Therefore must the first proposition be vnder∣stood according to his meaning reserued. b 2.74 Aequiuocation there∣fore is euidently conuinced out of thi•• speech of our Sauiour, who is infallible truth.

The Answer.

I answer (with S. Augustine) that c 2.75 Now mans infirmity plaies her part: but know that no man learneth of christity to be adulterous, or of godlinesse to be impious, or of bounty to be iniu∣rious;

and shall we learne of truth to be liers, and periurious? God forbid! Touching the text, your owne Bishop Ianseni∣us answering this obiection, saith, that d 2.76 These kinds of spee∣ches, and all such are to be expounded according to the circumstan∣ces either of state, place, time, or condition of the persons speaking, or to whom they were spoken: as namely that, Whatsoeuer you aske my Father in my name he will giue you; what any thing ab∣solutely? nay, but vpon condition it be expedient for you. So heere, Christ saying, I haue manifested all things, it is expoun∣ded by the circumstance of the present state; signifying, All that appertaine vnto you to be knowen. So then heere is no concealed sense to deceiue the hearer, but it is euident by circumstance of speech. Whereby you may perceiue, that not that infallible Verity, but your owne infirmity and vanity hath deceiued you: in so peruerting the truth to patronize your lie.

The second place obiected. The Aequiuocator.

e 2.77 Our Sauiour said to his Disciples, that he himselfe knew not the day of iudgement, but his father only: which by consent of holy Fathers is to bee vnderstood, that hee knew it not [vt significaret eis.] Thus Ambrose, Chrysostome, Theophilus, and Basil expound it. And Garnet at his arraingment obiected S. Augustine, and wholly depended vpon his iudgement in the same exposition.

The Answer.

It will not be pertinent to oppose the other exposition of * 2.78 Fathers, Who were many (saith your Maldonate) expounding this text thus; that Christ, as he was man knew not the daie and houre &c. but the question is, whether the former expositi∣on of S. Augustine and others doth imply any mentall equi∣uocation. And because Garnet did select onely S. Augu∣stine

of all the Fathers, we will appeale to S. Augustine for answer to them all. By whose testimony it doth appeare, that when our Sauiour said, I know not the daie, signifying, [vt di∣cam vobis;] this clause whereby he meant to conceale the time, was not concealed from them; who though they were by the sense of the speech held in ignorance not to know the day, yet were they not ignorant of the sense of the speech, which was, I may not let you know it. For he maketh the sense of the word Nescio, I know it not, to be a figuratiue speech, and by the emphasis of pronunciation to signifie so much to his Disciples, as you shall not know. His examples. g 2.79 When it is written Deut. 13. The Lord your God trieth you, that he may know whether ye loue him. These words, [That he may know] do not signifie that God may receiue knowledge, who know∣eth all things before they be; but the sense is this, That he may make you to know how much you haue profited in his loue. So Christ speaking to his Disciples, saying, The Sonne of man know∣eth not the day of iudgement, had this meaning, to make his Di∣sciples that they should not know it. Now therefore as the peo∣ple of God vnderstood the figure of the phrase, Vt sciat De∣us, in his id est, vt scire vos faciat: so did his Disciples by cir∣cumstance, or emphasis of Christ; speech vnderstand his Nescio, in his id est, vt vobis dicam, which is yet more perspi∣cuous by that which S. Augustine doth adde; Such kind of speeches (saith this holy Father) are ordinary in the common speech of men, as when we say, It is a pleasant, or a drowsie day: signifying that the day maketh vs pleasant, or drowsie. I would desire the Reader to compare this Nescio of Christ with S. Augustines Nescio, in his * 2.80 former example, and hee shall easily interpret S. Augustine by S. August, to vnderstand that Nescio cannot admit a concealed sense. Now what man of common sense doth not know the sense of such speeches? plainly shewing that the Apostles did then know the sense of that Nescio, the day of iudgement, onely that they might not

know it. Can then your vnknowen Reseruation haue appro∣bation by S. Augustine? fie no: his Christian ha••t was ••o di∣uinely precise in this point, that the did not admit of dissi∣mulation for preseruation of the glory of woman-hood, wo∣mans chastity; no not for the preseruation of another mans life, no not of our owne life, no not for gaining a mans soule. And will you make him guilty of more than Hea∣thenish Aequiuocation?

Secondly, consider but the vse of your imagined Reser∣uation, which you prescribe to be then only requisite, when the hearer is incompetent and vnfit to vnderstand the clause reserued: but shall any imagine, that the Apostles were not fit to vnderstand (the only reason of your imagined Reseruation) that they were vnfit to know the day of iudge∣ment? senselesse, for our Sauiour elsewhere saith, * 2.81 It is not for you to know the times and seasons. And why was not that [vt vobis significem] at this time also seasonable for them to vnderstand? Yes doubtlesse, if that were the meaning of his wordes, they vnderstood it, and then it was no concealed reseruation; if it were not his meaning, there was no aequi∣uocation.

Thirdly, the purpose of the Aequiuocator is by his secret reseruation To delude his hearer. And will you say now there∣fore that Christ did aequiuocate, that is, delude and deceiue his Disciples? This were blasphemy.

Fourthly, this exposition [Vt vobis significem] is either de∣riued from the circumstances of Christ his speech, whether of time, or place, or persons &c. Or else it is idlely imagi∣ned, to say that the Fathers doted dreaming vpon a sense without light of some circumstance would be iniurious to reuerend Antiquity, and prooue the subuersion of your owne cause: but if the Fathers collected this by circum∣stances and consequents of Christs speech, then was it not the sense concealed, except you will say S. Augustine and S. Ambrose did vnderstand better the meaning of our Sauiour then his prime, chosen, and (concerning the tenor of Christs speeches) his familiar Disciples. Lastly we will conclude

this point by the testimony of your Genesius, who will tell you that this sense which you conceit, is not only contrary to the sentence of all Fathers, but also against all common sense: h 2.82 We may not suffer (saith he) those who relie vpon this interpretation to bring in (speaking of purpose against your Aequiuocation) any doctrine amongst men, which is not onely contrary to the common consent of ancient Fathers, but also common sense.

The Aequiuocator.

i 2.83 Our Sauior Christ in going to * 2.84 Emmaus, did faine as though he would go further. Ergo, it is lawfull to aequiuocate.

The Answer.

k 2.85 The Greek word (saith your Doctor) might haue been more securely and conueniently translated, as one doth it, [He made as though he would go forward:] But Aequiuocatours delight in faining: will you therfore behold your own visage? l 2.86 The Heretickes, called Priscillianists, as appeareth in S. Augustine (saith your Iesuite) from this text did labour to prooue a lie law∣full. And in reading S. Augustine you shall finde, that ne∣uer either Catholickes or Heretickes could discerne in your mixt proposition any thing but a lie. But to the text; the Fathers shall be our Iudges, and your Authours our wit∣nesses.

First, m 2.87 Saint Augustine (as your Bishop relateth) saith that

Christ did seeme to go further, but not with any purpose to de∣ceiue those Disciples. How then? your Aquinas will tell you. S. Augustine saith, that Christ made as though he would go fur∣ther; to signifie figuratiuely, that he was ready to go into heauen, but that for a while he was in a sort retained by earthly hospita∣lity. n 2.88 Pope Gregory likewise and Bede (saith your Iesuite) hold that Christ did it not to deceiue them, but rather to shew how they were deceiued. He cannot be said to he (saith Gregory) who vseth words, which are not intended to deceiue another, but to shew that he is deceiued, as the Prophet Michaiah dealt with Ahab. 1. Reg. 22. The story is plaine: when King Ahab was bent to go to fight against Ramoth Gilead, all the false Prophets promised him a prosperous warfare: the King calleth for Micheas, and asketh, [Shall we go vp against Ra∣moth Gilead, or no? the Prophet answered, Go vp and pros••er.] When notwithstanding he knew that the King should pe∣rish: but this was an irony, and in a sense knowen to the King himselfe, who therefore charged him to speake seri∣ously. Therefore the Prophet spoke these words now ac∣cording to the meaning of the false Prophers in scorne: as When a sicke man shall take water died with a red colour, which he is perswaded to be wine, we would say in iesting manner, well drinke your wine; thereby to tell him his errour, and not to cause him to erre: so here these disciples not perswaded that Christ was risen from death, but held him as a stranger and passenger feined himselfe a passenger to go forward. Come to the literall and historicall sense. [He made as though he would go furder: and they 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, did compell, or, constraine him, saying, Abide with vs, and he abode with them.] And now it appeareth, he meant as he seemed, to goe further, but after was ouercome by their curteous importunity to yeeld vnto them: as the * 2.89 Angell of God was by the vrgent request of

holy Loth: heereby teaching vs a double instruction: in re∣spect of man not to be peruerse, but when our occasions may suffer vs to yeeld to the sweet violence of curtuous hu∣manity; in respect of God [Who loueth an importunate beg∣gar] to be instant in praier, knowing that God, who in our remisnesse will, by withdrawing his graces, seeme to go from vs, yet condescendeth in mercy to our importunity, and will abide with vs. If therefore we consider the figuratiue sense, then in this fiction there could not be your aequiuo∣cation, for it was done to instruct them, and not to deceiue them: If we imbrace the literall, then it was no fiction, but a plaine and familiar humane practise, as any one who departeth from his friends is truely said to depart. What reason or re∣ligion then shall we call this, which thus from an action of sensible instruction, would prooue an aequiuocating dissi∣mulation, a reseruation insensible, that is to say, a deceitfull delusion: turning by this meanes the Oracle of the sonne of God Christ Iesus, authour of the truth, into the Oracle of Delphos, the professed diuellish schoole of Sophisticall ae∣quiuocations?

The fourth place. The Aequiuocatour.

o 2.90 Iesus said to his Disciples, * 2.91 I will not go vp to the feast at Hierusalem, and yet afterward went, meaning (as Bellarmine in his Dictates doth expound) not as the Messias, but in secret, or (as S. Cyrill doth interpret) not to solemnize it publickely; or (as S. Augustine will haue it) not to manifest my glory; or else not the first or second day, but in the middest of the weeke. Thus haue wee from Scriptures and Fathers sufficiently proued our mixt proposition.

The Answer.

You haue bestowed many leaues in Commenting vpon this text, to euince from hence your reserued conceit: let me borrow a little leaue to pleade aswell for truth, as you do

for a lie, and shew you, how expounding this place, you, blinded with the loue of your Thais, had rather snatch at a∣ny meaning, then take that which is meant: for those words [I will not go vp▪ in the Greeke are, [I will not go vp yet:] and then (as your Iesuite Maldonate well obserueth) p 2.92 He who saith he will not go vp yet, doth not denie that he will not go vp at all, and therefore going ap afterwards, that act doth not contra∣dict his former speech, and so all doubt and question is easily assoiled.

But your Helena, the Latin vulgar text must be imbra∣ced, for q 2.93 Albeit, (saith our Aequiuocator) in all the Greeke co••ies it be [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, nondum, not yet,] yet all Catholickes are bound to admit [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, non, not,] because it is so in the vulgar edi∣tion. How farre they erre from Catholickes heerein, I haue * 2.94 elsewhere shewed; how wee are to esteeme of the Greeke translation in this present text may appeare by the testimony of your forenamed Iesuit, saying: r 2.95 Almost innu∣merable Greeke copies haue [I will not yet ascend] and in that most ancient Vatican copie vniuersally commended throughout the world, it is sore••d, which reading many graue and learned Fathers do fellow.

Yet we will not so strictly challenge our right in this equi∣ty approoued by all antiquity, which is, that as in discerning pure water, rather to examine it by the fountaine, then the riuer: so we iudge of the truth of texts by the Originall, ra∣ther then by the translation. For your Latin text doth suf∣ficiently betoken the same sense of the Greeke, [Not yet]: so do two of the principall Doctors of your Church para∣phrase: the first is your some-time Iesuite, and late Cardi∣nall, Tollet: s 2.96 [I will not go up,] that is, (saith he) not yet, be∣cause [my time] when I must goe vp [is not yet fulfilled:] which being fulfilled, then I will goe vp; lest that his Disciples should

haue beene offended at his absence from the solemne feast at 〈…〉〈…〉 rusalem (because the obseruation of Iewish rites was not yet abo∣lished) Christ did not absolutely denie to goe, but did signifie that after a while he would go vp. For the word [Not] in the Latin is the same with [not yet] in the Greeke, as appeareth in the words following, [For my time is not yet fulfilled. Our next witnesse is your bishop Ia••senius, who from the sound light of the text concludeth that [t 2.97 Not] signifieth plainly, not yet▪ and that this is the proper expositiō of the place. Adding ou•• of Erasmus, That many ancient Latin translations follow the Greeke, hauing, [not yet.] Therefore this text admitteth no reseruation.

What shall we then say to the other expositions obiected? only this, that whatsoeuer exposition they vnderstand, did thinke that the same was aswell vnderstood of the Apostles, as of themselues. For if the Apostles ha•• not t•…•… that Christ would haue gone at all to the feast, they should haue beene scandalized: saith your Iansenius. But your coined Reser∣uation is alwaies supposed of you to be a clause concealed, and not vnderstood. Therefore in all these expositions al∣ledged, there appeareth not the least haire of your fox∣taile, you call Aequiuocation. Scriptures forsake you, or ra∣ther you them: now you will haue recourse vnto Fathers.

CHAP. XII.

Obiections from Fathers.

The Aequiuocator.

a 2.98 SAint Gregorie (* 2.99 lib. 26. moral. cap. 7.) teacheth that we ought not to respect w••rds, but the intent of the speaker. Ergo the intent maketh the Proposition true.

The Answer.

You roue from the marke, your learned Doctor will di∣rect you to vnderstand the meaning of S. Gregory, as thus: b 2.100 Gregory doth in that place (saith he) reproue a quarreller, who knowing the simple meaning of him, with whom he doth contend, yet maliciously doth wrest his words: And thus do the most lear∣ned expound S. Gregory. This kind of example we reade of in our Stories: An Inne-keeper in London at the signe of the Crowne, to incourage his sonne to learning, would v∣sually say, Learne fast, child, and I will make thee heire of the crowne. One peruersly taking aduantage of the ambiguity and double sense of the phrase, heire of the crowne, brought him in question of high Treason, & the poore Inne-keeper (as I take it) lost both his artificiall and naturall Inne. Here was place for S. Augustine his moderation not captiously to catch at mens doubtfull words, where we are not ignorant of their simple meaning. The like I haue heard of a Minister called in question of periurie, because he had sworne that N. was possessed of a lease, as it might be the 13. day of May. It appeared, indeed, that vpon the same day the said lease was deliuered to the forenamed N. according to this forme of law, To hold from the day of the date heereof. O sir, (saith a Lawyer) you are now conuicted for a notorious periurer; for these words From the day &c. are vnderstood exclusiue∣ly, signifying after that day, and that the lease was not in force till the next day. Seeing then (saith the Minister) both law and Lawyers faile, I must beseech your honours to giue me leaue to shew the simplicity of my meaning in a case of like tenor; leaue was granted him to plead his owne cause: thus then (quoth he) when any in this honourable assem∣bly was married after this forme, To haue and to hold from this day forward; whether were they man and wife before the next day, or no? If they had said no, they should haue stained their first-borne; and, affirming it, they were forced to acknowledge the simplicity of his meaning, and remit the rigour and extremity of the law. Haue you no Father

to father your aequiuocating lie vpon, but only Saint Gre∣gory? (For this is the onely direct testimony which you al∣ledge out of the Fathers, to this purpose.) You thought, be∣like, that if you must haue an authour for a lie, it was most likely he should be a Pope. But you must then make choise of some other, than S. Gregory, who I am sure) as Popedom is now defined) was nothing lesse than a Pope. We wil con∣clude concerning Fathers with your owne authours: c 2.101 That this maner of aequiuocating is against the autority of most ancient and chiefe diuines, & that none before Gabriel (not that Gabriel, Angel of light, but Gabriel Biel a Sophister) taught it. Who∣soeuer was the author, I dare boldly conclude, that though S. Gregory, or a thousand of Saints, yea though celestiall Ga∣briel, or any Angell from heauen should teach and authorise such a doctrine as this, we may from the word of God pro∣nounce him * 2.102 Anathema. Now that we haue wrested your weapons out of your hands, it will be easie to pierce you e∣uen with similitudes, the bluntest kind of Argument.

CHAP. XIII.

Our seuenth Argument from comparison of a

• 1. Signe,
• 2. Interpreter,
• 3. Coine,
• 4. Gygesring.

a 2.103 VOices and writings are as signes (say you) and instru∣ments ordained to expresse a proposition. Very good, now euery signe which a man shall vse contrary to the signi∣fication thereof, is a lying signe: thus to hang an ••uie bush at a Bakers dore would be a lying signe; thus idols in visible formes made to expresse the essentiall forme of the inuisible and incomprehensible God are called * 2.104 lying vanities: the mirabilia, that is, wonderfull workes which exceed not the principles of nature, and yet challenge vnto themselues the name of Miracula, as though they proceeding from an om∣nipotent power aboue nature are called * 2.105 lying wonders: the action of the stage-plaier, who lifted vp his hand to heauen

crying, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 earth, cast them downe againe to the earth, crying, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 god in heauen; was counted a solecisme and ly∣ing gesture. And shall not your voice, I am no Priest, which cannot possibly expresse (that which you are) a Priest, be a lying voice? Yes verily, and your pen also defending and approuing this doctrine of lying, is made of the same wing, whereof others were, whom God condemned by his Pro∣phets, saying, * 2.106 Stylus Scribarum est styl••s mendax; the pen of the Scribes is a lying pen. But whereunto shall I compare this generation? they are like vnto Cacus in the fable, who is said to haue stolen oxen, and lest hee should be traced by their right footings, he dragged them backward by the tailes into his denne: so the right answer of our Aequiuocator should haue been, I am a Priest, but he saith contrary, I am no Priest. Euen by this deuise wresting a meaning by a clause of reseruation (this is the taile) and so like Cacus lurketh safe in the closet of his hollow heart.

The second similitude is an Interpreter: for Aristotle de∣fineth euery proposition to be an interpretation of the mind, You must now imagine that your Pope should send his Nuncio to congratulate (together with Amba sladours, from other Princes) our Kings last miraculous deliuerance, with all complementall pretences of ioy; for his Interpreter he shall make cho••••e of you (Aequiuocator) who professe your selfe his Maiesties loyall subiect, whom hee shall ac∣quaint with his secret meanings and clauses reserued in his message: Notwithstanding our Aequiuocator shall report it thus. His holinesse doth greatly reioice (most renon med King) at your happy deliuerance▪ Reseruing that which was the mea∣ning of the Nuncio; Ab omni spe obtinendi Romanum imperi∣um:] and wisheth vnto your Maiesty with all his hart [reser∣uing another clause, which was intended by the Nuncio from his holinesse, Admodùm exiguam] contiauance of Gods protection. Will any iudge otherwise of such an Aequiuoca∣tor than of a notorious liar?

The third Similitude, vulgar and country speech by Plu∣tarch is resembled to the country coine: now your selues

cannot denie but that in all states b 2.107 Stamping of a false coine is high treason; and so is also clipping and impairing the Kings stamp: But Aequiuocators by their clause of reseruation clip off that part of speech, which is the image of God, the truth of the speech. Ergo guilty of higher than high treason.

The fourth similitude: Mentall Aequiuocation is not vnlike Gyges his ring, which Plato and others mention, be∣ing of that vertue, that * 2.108 Whilest the pale of the ring was kept on the backe-siae of his hand he was visible; but being turned into the palme of his hand he was inuisible, seeing any, & seene of none. By meanes whereof he shortly after practised adulterie with the Queene of Lydia, and murdered the King. So our Ae∣quiuocator, when happily he shall turne his aequiuocating clause outward to manifest it in speech, he lieth open and is easily knowen for a dislo••al subiect: but when he keepeth it close in his mind, hee is imboldened to practise against his King. But the Heathen Ora••our intreating of the proper∣ty of an honest man, he would haue him tried by the oppor∣tunity of Gyges ring: No good man (saith he) would abuse it, because honest men do not seeke meanes how they may be secretly euill, but alwaies resolue to be absolutely good. Surely this Pagan must rise vp in iudgement against this Aequiuocating gene∣ration to condemne it.

I might adde another Similitude taken from chastity; the Fathers calling alwaies veritatem 〈◊〉〈◊〉 virginitatem; and S. Augustine castitatem mentis: Verity is the ch•…•…y of the Soule. It may be they haue taken this from S. Iohn in the descripti∣on of his * 2.109 V••gines, in who••e mouth there is found no guile: as though a chast soule should abhorre as much the vse of a lie in the mouth, as a deuout Virgin would loath to staine her selfe with a knowen adulterer: such is the a••tinit betweene these deuises, that S. Paul doth range * 2.110 w•…•…gers and li∣ars in one sentence. From hence it is that the craft of Vint∣ners in the mixing and colouring of their wines is called A∣dulterare, adulterating of the wine. Compare this craft of mixture of wine with your Aequiuocation, which you call Amixt proposition, and what shall you perceiue else but

an artificiall adultery? Our last argument which is belong∣ing to this conclusion, taken from the effects of Aequiuoca∣ting, I reserue for the last in the next conclusion, because there it will be more effectuall for confirmation of both.

CHAP. XIIII.

Our second conclusion, that no maner of Aequiuoca∣tion, whether mentall or ver••all, can be vsed in an oath without sacrilegious profanation.

WE deny not but ambiguous words may sometime be vsed in common speech: for so we reade of A∣thanasius, who, flying by shippe the malice of the perse∣cutor, and at last ouertaken the pursuer asked, a 2.111 Did not A∣thanasius passe this way? Athanasius himselfe made answer, Yes, he is a little before you, if you make hast you shall soone ouer∣take him. The Persecutor imagining, A little before, must signifie some other shippe then that which was immediately before him, passed by Athanasius, and pursued a butter-fly.

The state of this Question from the opinion of the Aequiuocator.

b 2.112 This aequiuocation of ambiguous words, is to vse one word which hath diuers significations: as being asked whether a Priest be in my 〈…〉〈…〉, c 2.113 may answer non est: vnderstanding by est, the signification of edere, and not of esse. May this kind of aequi∣uocating be vsed man oath? No, not before a competent Iudge lawfully examining▪ this were a mortall sinne. We suspect you will proue an honest man: therefore tell vs, Whom do you hold competent Iudges? Do you esteeme any competent and fit, who are Aduersaries to your Romish profession? d 2.114 When a Magistrate shall sweare me to bring a (Papist) Recusant to the Assies, which is vnlawfull, yet seeing there is no other way for the Recusant to escape, then will I sweare by aequiuocation. Now

you returne to your former wallow, but we must take you as we finde you.

CHAP. XV.

Our first Argument from the forme of an oath.

WE are not now to prooue that wrought to take an oath of all them that exact it, but only that when∣soeuer, or to whomsoeuer we sweate, we are bound in con∣science to answer directly. To shew therefore what an oath is, we will be come••ed with your Iesu••ts definitions. One defineth it a 2.115 A religious inuocation (whether it be expresly, or implicatiuely) of God, as witnesse of our speech. Another, b 2.116 It is a dutifull act of religion, whereby we professe God to be the authour of all trueth; who can neither deceiue, nor be deceiued. Hence may we reason thus: The competencie of God, by whom we sweare, maketh euery one competent Iudges and hearers, to whom we sweare: but by swearing by God, whom we can not deceiue, we religiously protest that we in swearing intend not to deceiue. Ergo our deceitful aequiuo∣cating is a profanation of the religious worship of God.

The Maior is true, for that our Sauiour in auouching trueth, held Pilate a competent Iudge, although he did not Iuridicè, but falsly proceed. S. Paul in his cause appealed to Caesars tribunall seat, who was a Pagan. Iacob did couenant with Laban an Idolater: and the maid, to whom S. Peter swore, was competent enough to heare a true oath, if he had been as ready to sweare truly: and yet neither the maid, not that Iudge did proceed turidice; for she was no lawfull Examiner, and he was a partiall Iudge.

A Confirmation of the former argument from the authority of the Fathers.

To know in what sense of words we must take any oath, the doctrine of Isidore is insallible: c 2.117 Though man vse ne∣uer

so great art and cunning in swearing, yet God doth value the oath according to the sense of him, to whom the oath is made. Hereby your art of Aequiuocating is quite excluded, which teacheth to vse that signification and sense which is most contrary to his vnderstanding to whom wee swearè. To know what is the necessity of performance of a lawful oath, the rule of S. Hierome is most diuine; which is this: d 2.118 Faith must be kept in an oath, because we must not regard to whom; (man); but (God) by whom we haue sworne. And thus also your cousenage of falsifying your oath is likewise excluded. In both these testimonies we see the Iurer is taught alwayes in swearing to man to fix his eyes vpon God; and his omni∣potent iustice, by whom I sweare, maketh euery man, to whom I sweare, a competent hea••er; therefore chargeth me to sweare directly, euidently condemning our Aequiuo∣catours, who make a Protestant-magistrate competent to take their oath, but holde him incompetent to take their sincere and direct oath: as though man only, and not also God, did take our oath. Impious; for so sacred a thing is an oath, that e 2.119 Though a man should sweare by a thing, in his own opiniō vnholy, which is holy in the opinion of him to•• hom he sweareth; this man swearing falsley is periured. Still we see, that though an oath appeare outwardly, * 2.120 but as a flame in the hush, yet God is in this flame, therefore we must put off the shooes of our feet, that is our carnall affections; for Gods name, the foundation & ground of an oth, is holy ground.

A Confirmation of the former argument from their ancient Schoole.

These our Aequiuocators do by their new subtleties foo∣lifie the honest simplicity of their ancient Schoole: the two eyes whereof Lombard and Aquinas law clearely in this kind of swearing an homble prosanation of the sacred name of almighty God. f 2.121 Whosoeuer (sayth Lombard) doth vse craft o•• sub•…•… in an oath, doth defil•• his conscience with a dou∣ble guilt; he both deceiueth his neighbour, and also taketh the name of God in vaine. Therefore Aquinas doth expresly

conclude: g 2.122 If a Iudge (sayth he) shal require any thing, which he cannot (the point in question) by order of law, the party accused is not bound to answer, but either by appeale, or some other maner of m••anes may deliuer himselfe: but in no case may he tell a lie, or vse falshood, no nor any kinde of craft or deceit, for this is to answer, &c. I may from Thomas insult vpon our Aequiuo∣catours in the words of their owne Genesius; h 2.123 Could Tho∣mas more plainly denie their opinion, who teach the guiltie person to auoid a true accusation by words of guile and deceit?

CHAP. XVI.

The second Argument taken from the end of an oath, as it is affirmed in Scripture.

HEb. 4. An oath is for confirmation, to make an end of all contention. This Maior is Scripture. (Minor.) But in an aequiuocating oath there is neither beginning of con∣firmation, nor end of contention. Ergo it is a vaine and sacrile∣gious oath.

The Minor proued out of that mouth of the Aequiuocatour.

a 2.124 For further direction of the partie examined, let him ad∣mit the oth with a secret intētion of aequiuocation, & if he be more vrged to sweare without aequiuocating, let him sweare that also (namely that he doth not aequiuocate) but with the forsaid in∣tention of aequiuocation. What should the Disciple of Christ say to this Doctour, though he sate in Peters chaire? What, but as our Lord Christ taught by his example, who in the fa∣uourable temptation to do euill for security of his life, an∣swered,

* 2.125 Get thee behind me Satan: for this is the mouth of Satan, to sweare by an aequiuocation. We do not aequiuocate; and vrged againe to sweare this without aequiuocation, to sweare aequiuocatingly we doe not aequiuocate. &c. Heere is contention without end, by this aequiuocation which is as bottomlesse as the pit of hell.

A confirmation of this former Argument from the Iesuite Azorius.

b 2.126 Whosoeuer (saith your Azorius) is rightly catechized in this point of religion concerning an oath, calleth God to witnesse of the truth, and therefore it is an heathenish impiety not to beleeue Christians thus swearing. Say now, you Aequiuocators, who sweare Sophistically, turning * 2.127 esse into edere, thereby to de∣ceiue your hearer; Is he to whom you sweare bound to be∣leeue you? this were hard, for so a Christian shuld be bound to be deceiued: may he lawfully suspect you? then this your doctrine, which taketh away the consecrated vse of an oth, which is, for Confirmation of speech, is plainly Antichristian.

CHAP. XVII.

The third Argument, à minori, as the Logicians terme it, from the lesse to the more.

MAior.) That doctrine which is lesse honest then the doctrine of Pagans, is intolerable among Christi∣ans: (Minor) but Iesuiticall aequiuocating is lesse honest than the doctrine of Infidels and Pagans. Ergo, ought to be esteemed abhominable among Christians. The Maior is taught by our Sauiour: * 2.128 Except your righteousnesse exceed the righteousnesse of the Scribes and Pharisies, you shall not en∣ter, &c. shewing where there is more knowledge of Christ, there the profession must be more honest. And more ex∣presly S. Paul: * 2.129 There is such fornication among you, as is not a∣mong the Heathen. Concluding that it is blasphemy against

God for a Christian to be more vile in life than a Pagā. The Minor prooued: for your Iesuite Sà doth tell vs, that there be but a 2.130 Some of you, who thinke that a Prisoner vniustly detai∣ned vpon his oath is bound to returne, except he be absolued from his oath by a Bishop. This in an oath without aequiuocation: but our Aequiuocators thinke their Aequiuocation in ma∣king an oath better, and of more power than any Bishop to free them from periurie in an oath; esteeming it as good as no oath wherein they vse their Reseruation: when as yet the very Infidels in respect of their naturall knowledge of God, kept better fidelity among men.

An Example of the Pagans fidelity out of Tullie.

b 2.131 There was a man, who together with nine other prisoners be∣ing dismissed out of the prison of Carthage, vpon his oath, that he within a prefixed time should returne againe: assoone as he was out of prison, he returned as though he had forgot some thing, by and by departeth home to Rome, where he stayed beyond the time appointed, answering that he was freed from his oath. See now the opinion of his owne countreyman concerning this aequiuocation of Returne; c 2.132 Non rectè (sayth Tully) this was not well done: for craft in an oath doth not lessen but make the periury more heinous: wherfore the graue Senators of Rome sent this cousening mate bound, with cords, againe to the prison of Annibal their enemie, from whom he had escaped. d 2.133 But some obiect, That we are not bound to keepe faith with them that are * 2.134 faithlesse: ô let them take heed, this (such is our Aequiuoca∣tors obiection of a Iudge incompetent) is but to seeke a lurking hole for periurie: whereas we may excuse subtletie in any thing

rather than in an oath, wherein euen the least deceit is a great mischiefe. This was the honestie of the ancient Heathenish Rome, which must rise vp in iudgement against this pre∣sent Rome to condemne it, which hath changed that faith∣full Romanam in Punicam fidem.

CHAP. XVIII.

The fourth Argument, à paribus.

SOcrates reporteth this story of Arius, the arch-heretike, d 2.135 who being compelled by the holy Emperour Constantine to deliuer his subscription to the Councell of Nice, and to auouch his integritie by an oath, he vsed this art and sleight: his owne (hereticall) opinion he closely kept vnder his left arme, and then swore (laying his hand vpon his left side) that he so beleeued as he had written. What can be the difference betwixt the oath of our Aequiuocators, and of this blasphemous Arius? He kept secret his aequiuocation vnder the hollow of his arme, but these conceale theirs in the hollow of their hearts.

An Obiection remoued.

You peraduenture will insist and say, that Arius did aequi∣uocate in the cause of faith, which all Christians holde a thing most abominable: but first know, that although the matter of deceitfull swearing may make the deceit to be more wicked, yet it can not make the wickednesse to be more deceitfull; for euery thing is defined by his forme, and not by his matter, Vero nihil verius, and so on the con∣trary: for example, to say the mouse worried a cat, and to say adulterie is no sinne, this latter is not the greater lie; yet by reason of the matter is the greater sinne, because besides the wickednesse of lying, it doth iustifie (another wicked∣nesse) adulterie. Now to the matter.

You will aequiuocate in the question concerning your Priesthood, saying and swearing against your knowledge that you are no Priest, by some secret reseruation of minde; as ac∣cording to the example of one of your fellowes, I am no Priest; meaning, No Priest [Apollonis]: as though an aequi∣uocating Priest can consort with any better than with those Satanicall Priests of the Pagan god Apollo. For all their an∣swers (as euery scholar knoweth) from their Oracles was by Amphibologies and Aequiuocations. Of many, be you contented with this one. Pyrrhus his question to that Ora∣cle was; Whether he should giue an ouerthrow to the Ro∣mans, or no: the answer of the Oracle was this:

Aio te Aetacidi Romanos vincere posse;

That is to say,

I say that Pyrrhus the Romans may ouercome.

So whether the Romans (which after was true) should ouer∣come Pyrrhus, or Pyrrhus (which was false) should conquer the Romans, the aequiuocating Oracle might be found to haue sayd trueth. It is recorded by * 2.136 Eusebius, that at the birth of Christ all those diuellish aequiuocating Oracles were put to silence: when the last which spoke, being asked Why they now ceased to giue answers; returned this last answer; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Because the Hebrew babe (meaning Christ) is borne. So doubtlesse, in what heart soe∣uer there is the regenerating spirit of Christ, there the aequi∣uocating spirit of Delphos doth wax dumbe.

Now you holde, that your Priesthood is conferred vp∣on you by a Sacrament of Ordination; and that b 2.137 Ex opere operato it doth impresse in your soules Charactêrem indele∣bilem, that is, a marke neuer to be blotted out. c 2.138 By the power of that Sacrament of Order, which heerein (say you) excelleth all other Sacraments, that it aduanceth Priests a degree aboue all o∣ther Christians. The end thereof you beleeue is Tooffer sa∣crifice for the sinnes of the quicke and the dead. Yet do you ae∣quiuocatingly denie your Priesthood sealed vnto you by a Sacrament belonging to faith. And what matter can there be wherein such a Priest will not aequiuocate, who doth aequi∣uocate

concerning his Priesthood? But we haue not so learned Christ, but defend that it is essentiall to a Christi∣an, whensoeuer or to whomsoeuer he sweareth, to vse sim∣plicitie, and not to sophisticate: for there is a double faith in the Iurer to be tendred; the first is faith to the man, to whom he sweareth, which we call fideline: the other is our faith in God, by whom he sweareth, to beleeue that he is omnipotently wise, to discerne whether my words be true according to their signification, and omnipotently iust to take vengeance vpon me, if I do dissemble. The first faith is violated by aequiuocating; for it is therefore interpreted to be called d 2.139 Fides, quia fit quod dicitur, that is, The thing is, as it is sayd to be. And the dissemble•• in this kinde, Tullie (as the golden mouth of all reasonable men) calleth e 2.140 Infi∣delem, An Infidell. So, likewise, your faith in God is impea∣ched, for how shall I call God to acknowledge those words to be true in that sense which I ought to speake them in, wherein I know them to be false?

CHAP. XIX.

This doctrine concerning Aequiuocating must in the last place be discussed both pro, and contra in the effects.

The Aequiuocator obiecteth.

a 2.141 VVHen a Protestant Magistrate shall sweare me to bring in a Papist Recusant to the Assises, when there is no way for the Recusant to escape, I will sweare by aequiuccation.

The Answer.

Thinkest thou it vnlawfull to bring a Recusant to the As∣sises? then is it also vnlawfull to sweare that thou wilt bring him; for this is one essentiall property which God challen∣geth by his Prophet, that where there is Iusiurandum, Ius

should go before iurandum: and therfore the Prophet saith, b 2.142 Iurabis in iustitia; Thou shalt sweare in iustice: c 2.143 That is (to admit your owne Aquinas for expositour) not to sweare any thing that is vniust. But notwithstanding this direct com∣mand [Thou shalt sweare] wilt thou sweare? Then mayst thou not sweare by aequiuocation, for that doth wound the very soule of an oath, which is simple Truth: but verball aequiuo∣cation taketh away the necessary simplicity of an oath, be∣cause therein is dissimulation. If therefore the thing be vn∣lawfull thou must not sweare, no not truth, though thou be vrged; if thou wilt sweare, yet know thou art not vrged to sweare an vntruth.

The second Obiection is popular, (supposing Aequiuocation to be a lie) thus:

d 2.144 There are three kinds of lies (that one Iesuite may speake for all his fellowes) one is a pernicious and hurtfull lie, which turneth to the hurt of another; the second is an officious and cha∣ritable lie, which is for the good of another; the third is but a ie∣sting 〈◊〉〈◊〉, whereby no man is either helped or hurt. Of these we define thus, that euery one of these vsed in an oath is a mortall sin; considered without an oath, the pernicious is only a mortall sinne; the officious and ••esting are but veniall.

The Answer.

I am not ignorant that the vse of this distinction of mortall and veniall, in the comparison of sinnes, is frequent in the Fathers, but as different from you in sense, as they be conso∣nant in termes: for they neuer valued any sinne so veniall in his owne nature, as not to deserue of it selfe an infinite eter∣nall torment: for they alwaies taught that euery sinne being

a transgression of an eternall law of the infinitely iust God, doth challenge an infinit punishment, & so to be accounted mortall: and yet not therefore equall, except you will say that theft and murder and blasphemy against God be there∣fore equall, because they be equally mortall: which I thinke you will not. But when they consider man in the state of Grace, they taught that the sinnes of humane infirmity in a man regenerate are not rigorously exacted: and in this sense are called veniall. Notwithstanding I dare affirm, that of these kinds of sinnes which you call veniall, there is not one but being done vpon presumption, it is damnable & equall with your mortall: As thus; suppose your officious lie be vnto the examined veniall, because he was instantly surprised (as it were) with a sudden passion, and not able to know how to re∣solue, which I call infirmity: yet if he had ••••ed presumptu∣ously, that is, beene of this resolution, that whensoeuer such a case should happen, his purpose was to lie, this vnto that man had beene a sinne grieuously mortall: yet this manner of resolution in like case is your generall doctrine, and pra∣ctise. Therefore we must shew that

Euery Officious lie, for what good intent soeuer it be, resolutely done, whether in, or without an oath, is damnable in it selfe, and ought to be auoided of all Christians.

Your practise in the popular opinion is iustified in these respects; We doe it for a good end, as to secure our selues, or a Priest; and for the Catholike cause, lest holy Priesthood might be defamed, and our Catholike faith blasphemed. Haue you sayd? Then see, I pray you, how much Christian simplicitie doth abhorre this infatuation? For holy Fathers will not allow any lie (the adultery of the soule) no not for e 2.145 the de∣fence of Chastity; nay not for f 2.146 preseruation of a mans bodilie

life; nay not for the g 2.147 winning of a mans soule; nay, no euill may be done, (as your Acosta saith well) h 2.148 not for the gaining of many thousand Infidels to the faith. So pretious a thing is Truth, vnto truely Christian soules.

Now because by experience in reading your best authors I haue obserued that the Romish Church hath beene bold often to publish to the world lying Reuelations, lying Mira∣cles, lying Priuiledges, lying Legends, and Stories, Slanders, and other lying Reports: All which I am as able particularly to shew as to name, and would also if it were not imperti∣nent in this Treatise; and it may be some moderate answerer, will by someidle Reioinder heereafter extort them: Seeing also that your Superiors both secular and Iesuitical haue au∣torised this art of lying, and that all such conceits are estee∣med with them but as piae fraudes, godly deceits: as though the euill of them [Deceit] were veniall, and not so only, but because it is mixed with [Godly] that is, [with a good intent] it becommeth also meritorious:

I must entreat patience of the gentle Reader, to peruse a Christian reason, able to ouerthrow a thousand such Anti∣christian and heathenish profanations. For it is written Rom. 13. 7. If the verity of God haue more abounded through my lie vnto his glory, why do we not euill that good may come thereof? as some affirme we do say, whose damnation is iust. The argument of the Apostle is this: though it be most true in the verity of God, that mans vnrighteousnesse, (as for example a lie) doth redound to the glory of Gods grace in pardoning of the same vnrighteousnesse of man by Iesus Christ, according to that verity of the Gospell of remission of sin: yet God for∣bid that any man should therfore multiply vnrighteousnesse in sinning (as for example lying) that Gods glorie may be magnified in forgiuing! Shewing that it were blasphemie to teach that it is lawfull for any to lie, although it would establish and aduance the glorie of God in that wherein * 2.149 God is most glorified, euen the glory of his grace in par∣doning of sinne by Christ Iesus. And therefore the Romish godlesse deceits, must be bundled vp with those condemned

i 2.150 Wilworshippes, k 2.151 Gedeons Ephod, l 2.152 Sauls sacrifice, m 2.153 Vza his supporting of the arke, n 2.154 Ieroboams altars, o 2.155 Pauls persecuting of Gods Saints, yea the crucifying of p 2.156 Christ the sonne of God (all which notwithstanding their pretended good intents) are subiect to the same iust condemnation. And why? holy Iob hath debated this matter long ago, q 2.157 Will ye talke deceit∣fully (saith he) for Gods cause, or will you accept his person? Will you make a lie for him, as one lieth for a man? he will surely re∣proue you. Doubtlesse; because God is truth: but no man will defend any thing, no not a lie, but he wil defend it in the name of truth: for who will say I lie; therfore it is true? Can then any without blasphemy defend the cause of the God of all iustice and truth with a lie?

CHAP. XX.

The Protestants last Argument against A••quiuocation, from the effects.

The Confirmation of both our former Conclusions.

The effects be of foure kinds: It

• 1. Dissolueth the naturall policie of all kingdomes.
• 2. Challengeth all Romish Priests and their adherents in this kingdome to the racke.
• 3. Gaineth the infamie of deceit and lying vpon the professed Aequi∣uocators.
• 4. Begetteth scandall to soules, blasphe∣mies against Christ in the profes∣sion of the holy faith.

The first.

THe last anchor that man can cast for any security in this tumultuous and tempestuous world, in any Common-wealth,

is an oath: for mans name, goods, lands, and life, whensoeuer they be formally called in question, doe all in the end depend vpon the presumption of the testimony of witnesses in the trueth of their oath; and in one word, for the a 2.158 end of all contentions, the last linke of confirmation, is or∣deined an oath. For preseruation therefore of the integritie of an oath, all Nations haue prouided punishments for all such as wilfully transgresse therein; some countries adiudg∣ing the periured to be whipped; others to be hanged; o∣thers to be slit in the nose; others to be branded in the for∣head: and the iudiciall law of God doth command b 2.159 legem talionis; that euery false witnesse should suffer that euill or losse, which by his false swearing he would haue brought vpon another; eye for eye, hand for hand, life for life. And in all the king∣domes of the world, from all generations, the offence in an oath is called Periurie; * 2.160 which is a lie in an oath. But if the secret intention might excuse from lying, then could neuer any haue beene iustly condemned for periury or false wit∣nesse. Thus the false witnesses suborned against c 2.161 Naboth, the false witnesses against chaste d 2.162 Susanna, the witnesses a∣gainst e 2.163 Christ the iust one, euen the only iust, might each one haue iustified themselues, saying, We spoke trueth, for we did aequiuocate. And thus all humane lawes against periury must haue beene abolished.

The second effect which must moue the Aequiuocators to giue ouer this art, is extremity against their owne bodies.

Because they, who by their aequiuocating do professe to conceale most desperate treasons, till they come to be tor∣tured, do necessarily challenge the racke: but all Romish Priests and their disciples are instructed not to reueale any of their sect to be guilty of such practises, till they be infor∣ced by the torture: for thus your Cardinall in his instructi∣ons of Priests, hath determined, f 2.164 When any (sayth he) is

put vpon the racke, and doth truly reueale the crime of another, although he be not examined iuridicè, iustly, and according to the order of law; yet therein he doth not sinne, because none is bound, vpon so great bodily harme to himselfe, to preserue the good name of another, by concealing his offence. Therefore when you make all Protestant-magistrates incompetent, with whom you may vse aequiuocation till you come to be tortu∣red, what do you els but teach them, that your only compe∣tent Iudge and Examiner must be a Racke?

The third is infamie against the Aequiuocators good name and faith among men.

Your doctrine is, that g 2.165 answering your incompetent magi∣strate by aequiuocation; if he shall further aske whether you doe not aequiuocate, to answer, No; but with another aequiuocation: If againe, in his ielousie, he vrge whether this third time you doe not aequiuocate; then the third time also to say, No, but with an∣other secret aequiuocation; and so as often as he shall aske the like: likewise by aequiuocating to say you doe not aequiuocate. This is that monster which I called Hydra, which, as Poets faine, Hercules did impugne; in the which as often as one head was strucke off, immediatly there sprung vp another; signi∣fying an endlesse businesse. It will now be requisite that we heare what our Moderate Answerer would say in the behalfe of his dissolute Treatise: h 2.166 We haue (most mercifull Soue∣raigne) in the sincerity of our soules, without ali aequiuocation or doubtfull sense, purged our selues of those opinions or practises of rebellion obiected vnto vs. Say you so? without all aequiuocation? How shall his Maiesty be perswaded that these words with∣out all aequiuocation are not spoken in some doubtfull sense and aequiuocation? How can you free your selfe from this ielousie, seeing your doctrine is in protestation of not aequi∣uocating to aequiuocate? You may now ges••e what will be the effect of this your Art; euen that, which is the due re∣ward of a liar: namely, that seeing in his protestations and oathes, when he should say trueth, he will dis••emble, he may not be beleeued, when sometime he sayth trueth.

The last effect is scandall against mens soules, and blasphemy against God.

Seeing that all Christians be exhorted, i 2.167 To walke warily towards them that are without, (meaning Infidels) to the end k 2.168 That they which speake euill of you, 〈…〉〈…〉 of euill doers, may by their good workes which they shall see, glorisie God in the day (that is, when God shall haue mercy to call Infidels to the faith) of visitation. Shewing that a wicked life in the profes∣sor of faith doth hinder vnbeleeuers from the faith.

Secondly, euery Christian is admonished l 2.169 To abstaine from all [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] shew or apparance of euill: the reason is expres∣sed in the Apostles exhortation to Christian seruants, chal∣lenging of them subiection to their Heathen-masters, m 2.170 That the doctrine of God be not blasphemed, or euill spoken of: and to the same end he chargeth all Christian wiues to be chast and obedient to their Infidell husbands: n 2.171 That the word of God be not blasphemed: shewing that the wickednesse of a wicked professor (by mans blindnesse) edoundeth vn∣to the blasphemy of the godly profe•…•…on. But in your Ae∣quiuocating by a clause reserued and concealed in your thought, (which God onely, o 2.172 The only searcher of the heart seeth) no man can discerne in your speech any thing but apparance of damnable lying. Therefore not only Pagans by this scandall shall continue in infidelity, but the glorious name of Christ and his true religion, shall suffer blasphemie: and if this do follow vpon the examples of wicked seruants, wicked wiues, wicked children; how much more by the principal professors, wicked Priests?

Neither this onely, but by this doctrine the Gospell of Christ, in the opinion of all Pagans, will be more iustly con∣demned, when the Pagan shall not onely examine the most godly Christian religion by a wicked Professour, as it were a right rule by a crooked example, or Christ by Iudas (which is wicked) but as the rule in it selfe, that is, the Religion in his moral truth, & find that this your doctrine of aequiuocation

is non solum doctrina mendax, verum-etiam mendacij; not only a lying doctrine, but a doctrine of lying. What can this worke in the Turks & all Pagans at this day, but obstinacy in their infidelity, and blasphemy of that faith, which is the only life of soules? Especially seeing I may as iustly say concern∣ing the Aequiuocation of your contagious Romists, as the blessed Apostle writ of the incestuous among the Corinthi∣ans: p 2.173 I heare that there is such fornication among you, as is not once named among the Heathen.

This our Apostolicall Defence of Protestants I will conclude from Protestations of the Apostle.

The blessed Apostle of the Genules, and elect vessell of grace, S. Paul, when he would auouch his inward zeale for the saluation of soules, he protesteth thus; q 2.174 I say the truth and lie not, my conscience bearing me witnesse that I haue conti∣nuall sorrow of hart for you. And againe, r 2.175 God the father of our Lord Iesus Christ knoweth that I lie not. Secondly, to per∣swade to others the authority of his Apostleship, he prote∣steth thus; s 2.176 Whereunto I am ordained an Apostle; I speake the truth in Christ, and lie not, euen a Teacher of the Gentiles. And againe, t 2.177 This that I write vnto you, behold I witnesse before God and lie not. He would then confirme vnto the minds of the Romans, Corinthians, Galathians the sincerity both of his affection and function by the force of an oath; calling God to witnesse to his words, as directly proceeding from his conscience; otherwise these Conuerts might haue replied vpon the Apostle thus; We heare of a doctrine of Aequi∣uocating, which teacheth that you, by a secret clause in your mind, may alter the sense of words in your vnderstanding; differing from the sense which outwardly they signifie, and which only we can possibly vnderstand. How can you then perswade vs in this sense, that, you are an Apostle, seeing you professe a reseruation of a contrary sense, which may signifie

you are no Apostle? Would you perswade vs to beleeue that by that your protestation, which you teach we need not be∣leeue by your reseruation? therefore it will be to no end to perswade vs to beleeue you in that wherein we may be de∣ceiued. Otherwise, if by the outward sense you may con∣firme vs that you doe not lie, the contrary aequiuocating sense, doubtlesse, must be accounted a plaine lie. And yet our Aequiuocators haue made as strong protestations to deny their Priesthood, as euer S. Paul did to confirme his Apostleship; these being as certainly no true Priests, as he was truely an Apostle.

To seale this truth by a memorable example of antiqui∣ty, reported by S. Hierome as a mirror of Christian simpli∣citie, u 2.178 Of a wife accused of her husband, an•• tortured to draw out a confession of guilt: but she lifting vp her eyes to heauen, sayd, Thou Lord Iesu, who searchest the heart and reines, art witnesse that I do not denie truth for feare of death, but therefore refuse to lie for feare of sinne. Me thinke I see Tollet with o∣ther Iesuits standing by beholding this spectacle, and say∣ing (* 2.179 for he did instruct their Catholike adulterous wife to aequi••ocate) Alas good woman! it pitieth me to see you abide such torment only for want of wit; and then whispe∣ring her in the ••are, giueth her this ghostly counsell: Thou mayest vse a secret abstracted reseruation in thy minde, and so both escape torture and auoid a lie. These be Iesuits, the new Theologicall Alchymists of our time, able to abstract Aurum ex carbone, Truth out of a lie: who must be admired of the world as the Monopolists of all Arts, whereas no Art is singular in them but this Aequiuocation. In respect where∣of I may say of them, as Tully spoke of the Soothsayers of his time: Miror si non riserit Haruspex, cùm Haruspicem vi∣derit; I maruell how our Aequiuocatours doe not laugh, when they beholde one another. But heere is the difference of the spirit of wit, and the spirit of grace: this with that woman may looke vp to heauen and call Iesus to witnesse, when he that is in heauen, shall looke vpon them and haue them in de∣rision.

Thus haue I discussed of these Antichristian doctrines of lying and treason; the last triall of both which we referre to the iudgement of God, not as wood or straw, subiect to their fancied Purgatory fire of triall; but as pitch and tarre, sulphure, and powder reserued for the vn∣quenchable fire of hell; From whence our Lord Iesus preserue vs and them, to the glory of his sauing grace.

Gloria Deo.

Notes

• a 2.1

  Tractatus iste valdè do∣ctus, verè pi∣us, & Catho∣licus, certè sanctarū Scri∣pturarū, Pa∣trum, Docto∣rum, Scho∣lasticorum, & optimarū ra∣tionum prae∣sidijs plenissimè ••irmat aequitatem Aequiuocationis: ideóque dignissimus est, qui ty∣pis propagetur ad consolationem afflictorum, & piorum instructionem. Ita censeo, Georgius Blackwellus Archi-Presbyter Angliae, & Protonotarius Apostolicus.
• b 2.2

  Paulus 4. Pont. Max. cum de me in consacerdo∣tum suorum collegium cooptando se cogitare seriò dixerat (nihil hic sin∣go) Immor∣tali Deo gra∣tias immor∣tales egi, quòd mihi tantum mali non per∣mis••t Chri∣stus: Quid fa••erem Ro∣mae, mentiri nescio? Espen∣c••us Episc. epist. ante sex Tract. ad Cardinal. Castilion••um.
• c 2.3

  The Preface in the front of the booke of Ae∣quiuocation, and the Argu∣ment of the booke.
• d 2.4

  The same po∣pish Treatise, ••hap. 5.
• e 2.5

  Nemo mē∣tiens iudican∣dus est, qui dicit fal••um qu••d ••utat ••sse verum; quia, quan∣tum in ipso est, non fallit ipse, sed falli∣tu••: lingu••m enim ream non fac••, nisi mens ••ea, Aug••st. ••n∣••hirid. cap. 18.
• f 2.6

  Ille falsum loquitur con∣tra scientiam, iste contra conscienti∣am, & verè mentitur. August. contr. me••d. cap. 5.
• * 2.7

  Vide supra cap. 1.
• * 2.8

  Ezech. 13. 11
• a 2.9

  Mentiri est cōtra id quod animo sentit quis dicere, fiuè verū sit, siuè falsura. Lombardus l••b. 3. dist. 38.
• b 2.10

  Veritau op∣ponitur qu••d aliquis per verba ext•…•…∣ora aliud vult significate, quàm quod hab••t apud se, quod ad mendacium pertinet. A∣quinas 2. 2. q. III. Art. I. Mentitur quis cum verbis a∣liquid signi∣ficat quod non est, non autem quan∣dò tac••t quod est. Ibid. ad 4.
• c 2.11

  Cùm Pau∣lus (1. Cor. vlt.) promi∣••it se ventu∣rum ad Co∣rinthios, nec tamen veniebat, culpam mendacij non contraxit, qui•• sic animo sen∣tiebat, & quantum in ipso fuit, verum dixit: ita nemo mendax, nisi qui alite•• sentit quam dicit. Hieron. Comm. in cap. 4 in princ. Tom. 5. de 1 Cor. vlt.
• d 2.12

  Omne menda∣cium falsum testimorium est dicendum, vnde est quòd Dominus monet, [Sit in ore vestro, Est est, Non non.] August. lib. de Men••ac. cap. 5.
• e 2.13

  Formale in per•…•…io est, putare falsum esse quod i•••• as: interest igitur quemadmodàm verbum procedat ex a∣nimo, quia ream linguam non ••acit nisirea mens. August. serm. 28. de verl i•• Apost. Tom. 10. & recensetur hoc testimon. ab Aquinate 2▪ 2. q. 98. art. 1. ad 3.
• f 2.14

  Treatise in initio & a••ibi.
• * 2.15

  Prooued in the beginning of this chapter by common consent.
• g 2.16

  Da mihi ali∣quem qui iu∣rat verū esse, quòd scit esse falsum, vide∣tis ista quàm detestanda sit bellua. Aug. lib. de verbis Apost. Serm. 28. paulo post medium. Tom. 10.
• a 2.17

  The Treatise of Aequiuoca∣tion, chap. 2.
• b 2.18

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Arist. E••ench. lib. 1. cap. 4.
• c 2.19

  The Aequi∣uocator chap. 3.
• * 2.20

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. A∣rist. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• d 2.21

  Omnis E∣nunciatio ad id quod enun∣ciat est refe∣renda. August. lib. de Menda••. cap. 5. At omnis E∣nunciatio est vel affirmatio vel negatio a∣licuius de ali∣quo. Arist. 1. de Interpret.
• e 2.22

  Dicitur O∣ratio vera quatenus est signum intel∣lectus. Aqui∣nas part. 1. q. 16. art. 1. Cùm voces natural tèr signa sunt intellectuum, innaturale est & indici∣um vt aliquis significet id quod mente non habet. Vndè Philosophus dicit Ethic. 4. quod mendacium est per se fugiendum. Aquinas ibidem.
• f 2.23

  Arist. Elench. lib. 1. cap. 2.
• g 2.24

  Ibidem.
• a 2.25

  Nemo du∣bitat mentiri eum, qui falsū dicit causâ fal∣lendi. August. lib. de Menda••. cap. 4. & in ••ine ca. 5. Lombard. lib. 3. dist. 38. Canus loc, theol. Mendacium est verbū cùm intentione fallend••. Tract. de 7 peccatis. cap. 5. 4.
• b 2.26

  Creswell, Allen, Southwell, Tollet, and others. Vide supra.
• c 2.27

  Treatise of Aequiuoc. quo supra.
• d 2.28

  The Treatise of Aequiuocat.
• e 2.29

  Sic proferre sententiam vt diuersam opi∣nionem in al∣terius animo generes: haec est intentio fallendi aliū. Tol. Ies. Instr. Sacerd. lib. vlt. de Septemper∣catas cap. 54.
• f 2.30

  Quidam pu∣tant eum, qui venit ex loco aliquo peste minime infe∣cto, qui falsò habetur pro infecto, posse tuta consci∣entia & citra mendacuum dicere, se non venisse ex eo loco, dūmo∣dò intelligat se non venis∣se ex loco pe∣stilenti: quod si verum est, nihil tàm fal∣sum esse pos∣sit, quod non queat ab om∣ni mendacio libe••ar••; quia mentitur qui verba aliter accipit, quàm ipsa signifi∣cant. Azor. Ies. Inst. moral. lib. 1••. cap. 4. §. Primò qui∣dem.
• * 2.31

  Gen. 3. 1.
• g 2.32

  Dicere [non feci] quod tamen seci, licet cùm hac mentis limitatione, [vt tibi significem] non est aequiuocatio, sed mendacium. S••••us lib. 5. de Iust. q. 6. art. 2.
• h 2.33

  Quisquis fingendo alium fallere conatur, etiamsi aliquid praetereà significare velit, haud dubiè mentitur; alioqui nullum esset mendacium, quod non istà ratione possit defendi. Maldonat. Ies. Com. in Luc. vlt. vers. 28.
• i 2.34

  Quis te docuit tàm bellè nugari? quis tibi periurium tam latam latebram indicauit? quâ mendacij excusatione si vti vellera, quis me ferret grauium prudentiumque virorum? siquid veri habet vulgaris isthaec interpretation, [Mentiri quasi contra mentem i••e] men••••i est aliud animo sen∣tire, aliud fallendi gratia significare. Genesius Theol. Doct. in lib. qui in••eribitur Theophi∣lus de causis occultis. cap. 6. Vbi ex professo in hoc Aequiuocationis dogma vehementér inue••itur.
• a 2.35

  Periurium est mendaci∣um in iura∣mento factū. Tollet. Ies. Tract. de sep∣tem peccatis. cap. 54.
• b 2.36

  Iuramen∣tum, cui de∣est veritas, est Periurium. Malden. Ies. Sum. q. 1. Art. 11.
• c 2.37

  Iu••are quod falsum esse putas, est formale periurium. Aquinas 2. 2. q. 98. A••t. 1. ad 3.
• * 2.38

  Iere. 4.
• * 2.39

  Exod. 20.
• d 2.40

  Illud Ierem. 4. Iurabis in veritate: ad est, ad verita∣tem confir∣mandam, & ex veritate, vt is qui iutat non leui sed probabili ra∣tione, ita esse arbitretur. A∣zor. Ies. lib. 11. Moral. cap. 2. §. Quanti quaeritur.
• e 2.41

  Quidam putauit fas esse cuiquam, vt vitam suam conseruet, hosti iurare, tantummodò eo sensu, quem mente intùs concipit: posse∣mus enim hac ratione quiduis negare, & nihil non, absque mendacio, dicere. Azor. ibid. cap. 4. §. Primò quidem.
• f 2.42

  Periurium grauius est homicidio ex parte peccati, e••si secus sit ex parte dam∣ni. Sa. Ies. Aphoris. tit. Iuramentū. •…•…t. 26.
• g 2.43

  Mendaci∣um est malū tam intrin∣secè, vt bonū reddi nullā ratione pos∣sit. Vasques Ies. in Thom. disp. 53. num. 22.
• h 2.44

  Rom. 8. 16.
• i 2.45

  Rom. 3. 4.
• k 2.46

  Gen. 2.
• l 2.47

  Gen. 3.
• m 2.48

  Ioh. 8. 44.
• n 2.49

  Nemo tam i•…•…probus, qu•…•… malit honestis rationibus quàm nequitiâ peruenire ad ad quod cupit. Cuero in Offic.
• o 2.50

  The mode∣rate Answe∣rer in his Epi∣stle to his Ma∣iestie.
• * 2.51

  1. Reg. 22.
• * 2.52

  Act. 5. 9.
• a 2.53

  Ecce graui morbo peri∣clitatur aegro∣tus; cuius vi∣res ferre non possunt, si ei mors vnici & charissimi filij sui nunciaretur: quid respon∣debis? quicquid dixeris, nisi vnum de tribus responderis, proindè erit ac si filium mor∣tuum esse dixeris; aut enim respondebis mortuus est, a••t viu••t, a••t nescio; haec duo, [Viuit, &, nescio] falsa sunt, illud autem vnum verum, mortuum esse dicere. Ex quo dicetur, homicida veritas: nùm si stuprum petens impudica f•…•…mina, &, te non con∣sentiente, saeua amore perturbata moriatur, homicida erit ca••titas? August. lib. contr. Mendacium ad Consentium. cap. 18.
• b 2.54

  Erat quidā Episcopus, nomine Fir∣mus, ••irmior voluntate, qui cùm esset in∣terrogatus, vbi esset qui∣dam, quem ab ipsis perse∣cutoribus oc∣cultauerat, Apparatori∣bus Impera∣torijs respon∣dit, se neque mentiri posse, nec homine prodere: & nè alterum è duobus face∣ret, tormen∣ta multa per∣pessus est: quid hoc dici possit fortius aut honesti∣us? August. lib. de Men∣dac. cap 1••.
• c 2.55

  Scriptū est, os quod men∣titur, occidit animam. Ec∣cles. 1. Peruer∣sissimè igitur dicitur, vt al∣ter corporali∣tèr viuat, al∣terum spiritu∣alitèr mori, homo enim non potest ni••i corpus occidere, De∣us autem cor∣pus & animā in Gehennam detrudere possit. August. lib. de Men∣dac. cap. 6.
• d 2.56

  Dicit ali∣quis, ergonè Rahab melius fecisset, si nul∣lam miseri∣cordiam ho∣spitibus pre∣stitisset nolē∣do mentiri? Nonnè potu∣it dicere, scio vbi sint, sed Deum timeo, eos prodere? posset hoc quidem dicere, si ve∣ra esset Israëlita, in qua dolus non esset. Verùm illi hoc audito (inquies) illam peri∣merent, domum scrutarentur: Sed numquid consequens erat vt illos etiam, quos di∣ligentèr occultauerat, inuenirent? perspexerat enim cautissima foemina, & ibi eos posuerat, vbi inuen••ri minimè potuissent: Si tamen à suis ciuibus esset occisa, vitam istam finiendam pretiosa in conspectu Domini morte siniuisset, & erga illos eius be∣neficium inane non ••u••sset. Sed (inquies) quidsi eos occultatos perscrutando inue∣nissent? isto•…•…odo dici possit, quidsi turpissi•…•…ae mulieri mentienti credere noluissent? at vbi ponimus voluntatem & potestatem Dei? A quo enim post mulieris mendaci∣um custoditi sunt, ab eo potuerunt, etsi illa mentita non esset, vtique custodiri: nisi fortè obliti sumus quid Sodomitis contigit, qui Lothi hospites quaerentes, domum in quo erant inuenire non poterant. August. lib. contra Mendac. 17.
• e 2.57

  Hoc men∣dacij genus perfecti viri magnoperè fugiunt, vt nè vita quidem cuiussibet per ••orum falla∣ciam defen∣datur. Greg. lib. 18. Moral. in Iob. cap. 2.
• f 2.58

  Scriptura sacra prohi∣bet etiam pro alterius vita menti••i. In∣nocentius. tit. de Vsuri•• cap. 4.
• * 2.59

  Sap. 1.
• a 2.60

  The Treatise in the Preface. Ibid. cap. 3. §. Two others.
• * 2.61

  Vide supra.
• * 2.62

  Supra.
• b 2.63

  Vide supra.
• * 2.64

  Luc. 5. 36.
• a 2.65

  Aequiuoc. chap. 10.
• * 2.66

  Gen. 27.
• b 2.67

  Si dixisset Iaacob [Ego sum primoge∣nitus tuus] & non addidis∣set [Esau] ex∣cusari potuit: nunc autem non possit, quia Pater re∣petens, dixit, [Tues filius meus Esau?] de industria restringens interrogatio∣nem ad per∣sonam Esau; respōdit Iaa∣cob, [Sum,] inexcusabilis à mendacio. Caietan. Cardin. in Gen. 27.
• c 2.68

  Haec est opinio nec paucorum nec ignobilium Doctorum. Pererius Ies. Comm. in Gen. 27.
• d 2.69

  The mode∣rate Answe∣rer. cap. 10.
• e 2.70

  In hoc ve∣rū dixit Hie∣remias, alias non obedi∣uisset menti∣endo; & hoc patet, quia hoc quod su∣per dictū est, quòd Rex iu∣rauit ei, quod non interfice∣reteū, nec tra∣deret eum in manus Prin∣cipum, qui miserant eum in lacum; nec est verisimile quòd Rex iu∣rasset de ali∣quo, quod Hieremias nō petiuisset. Ly∣ra•…•… in Ier.
• * 2.71

  1. Cor. 10. 12.
• f 2.72

  Haec quidē in Scriptures sanctis legi∣mus, non i∣deò tamen, quia facta credimus, facienda credamus, ne violemus praecepta, dùm passim sectamur exempla. An verò quia iurauit Dauid se occisur um esse Nabal, & clementi consideratione non fecit, proptereà illum imitandum esse dicemus: vt temerè iuremus nos esse facturos, quod non faciendum esse posteà videamus? Imò sicut Lothum, cùm volu•…•… filias suas prostituere, ita Dauidem cum temerè turabat, ira turbabat. Aug lib. cont. Mendac. cap. 9.
• a 2.73

  The Treatise cap. 4.
• b 2.74

  Ibid. paulò post.
• c 2.75

  Agit suas partes infir∣mitas: sed vt esse sibi adul∣terandum nemo discat à castitate; cuiquam nocendum esse nemo discat à benignita∣te; & esse mentiendum discamus a veritate? August. cont. Mend. cap. 1••.
• d 2.76

  Obseruan∣dum est tales propositiones esse limitan∣das ad status, loci, tempo∣ris, conditio∣nis circum∣stantias; alio∣qui falsae es∣sent: vt illa, Quodcun{que} petieritis Pa∣trem in no∣mine meo, dabit vobis, id est, quae∣cun{que} pro cō∣ditione vestra expediūt, &c. Iansen. Concord. in Ioh. 15. & 16
• e 2.77

  Aequiuoc. Treatise. chap. 4.
• * 2.78

  •…•…Multi vete∣res Patres A∣thanas. Greg. Nazian. The∣od. Cyrillus, Autor operis imperfect. in Matth. docu∣erunt Christum quatenus hominem diem iudicij ignorâsse. Maldon••••. Ies. Comm.
• g 2.79

  Qemadmo∣dum dicitur de Deo Deut. 13. [Tentat vos Deus ve∣ster vt sciat si diligatis eū.] non vt ipse sc••••t, quem nihil latet, sed vt scire vos faciat quantū in eius dilecti∣one profece∣rimus, tentari nos permit∣tit. Secundam ipsam locuti∣onem dicit Dominus no∣ster nescire se diem & hor ā de sine seculi: quid enim potest esse, quod ipse ne∣sciat? sed quia hoc vti∣litèr occulta∣bat Discipu∣lis, nescientē se esse dixit, quia illos ne∣scientes oc∣cultando fa∣ciebat. Secū∣dum hanc fi∣guram etiam Patrem solū dixit scire di∣em ipsum, quia eundem filium scire facer••t. Talibus locutionibus etiam abundat nostra consuetudo, cùm dicinuis laetum diem, quia nos laetos facit; & pigrum frigus, qui pigros nos facit, &c. August. de Genes. 1. contra Manich. lib. 1. cap. 22.
• * 2.80

  Supra chap. 8. lit. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 2.81

  Act. 1. 7.
• h 2.82

  Non susti∣neamus hâc interpretati∣one nitentes. quidquam nō modò contra veterum & grauissimo∣rum Doctorū consensum, verum-euam contra communem sensum, quasilegem in vitam communem induce∣re. Genesius in lib. qui inscribitur Theophilus, Tract. de cansis occultis.
• i 2.83

  The mode∣rate Answerer chap. 10.
• * 2.84

  Luc. 24. 28.
• k 2.85

  Graecè est, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; quòd hone∣stius conuerti possit, & con∣uenientius [prae se fere∣bat:] vt qui∣dam exponit. Iansenius Con∣cord, in hunc locum.
• l 2.86

  Priscilliani∣stae haeretici ex hoc loco, (vt docet August. lib. ad Consentium cap. 13.) probare contendunt licere nobis ali∣quandò mentiri. Maldon. Ies. in hunc locum.
• m 2.87

  Mendacium non est, inquit Augusti∣nus, verba ambigua proferre occultandi veritatem causà, modò non fiat animo fal∣lendi alium: ita fictio illa in factis vitiosa non suit, sed salutaris, qualis fuit illa Pauli cum circum cidebat Timotheum, vbi non circumcisionem tanti fecit, sed vt Iudaeus Iudaeis factus Iudaeum lucrifaceret. haec Augustinus. Nec hic Christi gestus ad fall••n∣dos eos, sed vt hac ratione excitaret discipulorum animos ad hospitalitatis vi cut•…•…. Iansen. Concord. in hunc locum. Christus figuratè sinxit se longris ••re: qui•• cum lo•…•…s esset recessurus ascendendo in coelum, per hospitalitatem quodammodo reti••ebatur in terra, inquit Augustinus. Aquinas 2. 2. q. 111. art. 1.
• n 2.88

  Christus, vt Greg. & Beda exponūt, no∣luit discipulos istos fallere, sed postùs do∣cere cos falli, ••ocue cos er∣rore liberare, qu•…•… utabant illum non re∣surrexisse, nec Christum esse posse: ergo fingebat se tanquam, eo∣rum opinio∣ne, peregrinū longiùs •…•…e. Quemadmo∣dum Prophe∣ta Michaiah 1. Reg. 22. 15. respondet re∣gi quaerenti an esset praeli∣andum in Ra∣moth [Ascen∣de, inquit, & vade properè, quia tradet cos Deus in man Regis] cùm tamen ••atis intellige∣ret. Regi ibi esse moriendum, haec loquens non sua, sed Regis & falsorum propheta∣•…•… opinione, à quibus rex erat deceptus: non vt homine falleret, sed vt •…•…si∣•…•… doceret. Solemus enim aegro dicere, qui aquam rubio color•• tinct••m, quam ••••s, vinum este putat: Accipe vinum; vbi 〈…〉〈…〉 on sall••mus, sed aegrum 〈◊〉〈◊〉 signis•…•…s. Maldonat. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. s. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. in 〈…〉〈…〉
• * 2.89

  Gen. 19.
• o 2.90

  Treatise of Aequiuocat. chap. 4.
• * 2.91

  Ioh. 7.
• p 2.92

  Qui dicit se, nondum, a∣scendere, non dicit se non a scensurum, nec aliquid contrarium dictis postea fecerat, atque it omnis que∣stio tollere∣tur. Maldon. Ies. Comm. in Ioh. 7.
• q 2.93

  Treatise quo supra.
• * 2.94

  Apoleg. Ca∣thol. part. 2.
• r 2.95

  Innumeri penè codices Graeci sunt, in quibus legi∣tur [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, non∣dū ascendo] maximè verò antiquissimus Vaticanus, toto terrarū orbe celeber∣rimus, deindè Autores gra∣ues, Nonnus, Chrysosto∣mus, Euthy∣mius. Maldon. Ies. quo supra.
• s 2.96

  [Non ascē∣dam] id est, Nondum; quia [Tempus meum] quandò me i••e oportet, [nondum est impletum:] quo tamen impleto ascendam, nè scandalizentur, quod ipse nollet ire ad festum, nondàm enim legis obseruantia cessârat. Non absolutè nega•…•…, significans se posteà venturum; nam vox [Non] est dictio limitata, quae est in Graecis 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, quae vox eadem in sequen∣tibus, [Nondum tempus meum impletum est.] Tollet. I••s. & Cardin.
• t 2.97

  Verba quae sequuntur, [Tempus au∣••em vestrum paratum est] significant Christū non opera sua fa∣cere aliorum hominūmo∣re, prout oc∣currit, sed certis tempo∣ribus praescri∣bere sibi, & prout nouit ••a maximè fa∣cere ad Dei gloriam, id∣circò tempus sibi nondum opportunum ascendendi, vobis autem, ou•• ex prae∣scripto Dei viuitis, tēpus paratum est adeundi festum. [Non ascendam] id est, non adhuc ascendam: qui sensus satis indicatur, cùm sequitur, [Quia tempus meum,] quo scz. mihi ascendendum est, nondum est impletum. Et Erasmus testatur antiqua quaedam Latinorum exemplaria habere [Nondum:] & hae est Germana expositio. Iansenius Concord. in hunc locum.
• a 2.98

  Treatise for Aequiuocat. chap. 8.
• * 2.99

  Humanae au∣res talia verba nostra iudicant, qualia foris sonant: diuina verò iudicia talia ••a audi∣unt, qualia ex intimis proferuntur; certè noue•…•…t ille, qu•• intentionem alterius varijs explicat verbis: quia non debet alioqui verba considerare sed voluntatem & inten∣tionem, quia non debet intentio verbis deseruire, sed verba intentioni.
• b 2.100

  Gregorius eorū calum∣niam taxat, qui contra lo∣quentis indu∣bitatam men∣tē verba ma∣litiôsè inter∣pretantur. Sic enim hunc locū viri do∣ctissimi inter∣pretantur, qui docent cùm calliditas ad∣hibetur ab al∣terutro dic ē∣te, vel accipi∣ente, tùm de∣mùm oratio∣nem accipere ad mentem e∣ius, qui sim∣plicitèr intel∣ligi••▪ Genesius in suo Theophi∣lo. cap. 6.
• c 2.101

  Hanc sen∣tentiam ali∣qui tueri mo∣•…•…tur cōtra 〈…〉〈…〉 & sum∣morum The∣ologorum au∣to▪ itatē. ••ul∣lu••autem an∣te G••brielem hanc aequatio∣cationem cō∣mentus est. Genesius quo supra.
• * 2.102

  Galat. 1. 8.
• a 2.103

  Aequiuocat. supra.
• * 2.104

  Is. & Ier.
• * 2.105

  2. Thess. 2.
• * 2.106

  Ier. 8. 8.
• b 2.107

  Falsare mo∣netam est cri∣men laesae ma∣iestaus. Sà Ies Aphoris. lit. Falsarius.
• * 2.108

  Cic. Offic. l. 3.
• * 2.109

  Apoc. 14. 4.
• * 2.110

  1. Tim. 1. 10.
• a 2.111

  Socrates, So∣zem. & alij.
• b 2.112

  Treatise chap. 4.
• c 2.113

  Treatise chap 7.
• d 2.114

  Treatise quo supra. And this is the opinion of thē all, to iudge Protestant-ma∣gistrates not fit Iudges. Vide supra.
• a 2.115

  Iuramentú est religiosa inuocatio di∣•…•… testimo∣n••, in dict••a∣•…•…us confir∣matione •…•…∣iet, Ies Instruct. Sacerd. lib 4. cap. 20. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 addit, siuè ex∣plicitè siuè imp•…•…è.
• b 2.116

  Est religio∣nis officium & opus quo credimus De∣um totius ve∣•…•…atis autorē esle, quinee decipivnquā possit, nec a∣lios 〈◊〉〈◊〉 e••e: sicut ad Heb. 4. Hac agitur religio•…•…n. •…•…homines, Deum ve••••a∣tis tes••e••ad habent. & ••j•• •…•…an•…•… fi∣de habe∣re impium & nefarium sit.
• c 2.117

  Quacun{que} arte verbo∣ru quis iuret, Deus tamen, qui conscientiae testis est, ita accipit sicut is, cui iuratur, intelligit. Isidor. lib. 2. de su•…•…. 13.
• d 2.118

  In iuramēto sides seruah∣da est, nec cō∣side••a••dū est cui, sed per quem iu••••••e∣ris. Hieror. ••n Ezeth 17.
• e 2.119

  Mu••i fal∣luntur (inquit Augussinus) vt putēt, quia nihil est per quod iurant, ideo se non •…•…ine per∣iurij ener••: pro••••us per∣•••• us es, quit per id, quod sinc um non putas, fal••um iuras as, si tu••••∣hum sanctum non putas, sanctum ta∣men illū pu∣tat cui iurat. Genesius in suo Theoph. cap. 6.
• * 2.120

  Exod. 3.
• f 2.121

  Qui callidi∣tate vtitur in iuramento, duplicitèr est reus, ••u••a & nomē Dei in vanum sumit, & proximum dolo capit. Lombard. lib. 3. dist. 39. lit. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• g 2.122

  Si Iudex hoc exquirat, quod non po∣test secūdùm ordinem i••∣ris, non tene∣tur accusatus respondere, sed potest vel per appellati∣onem, vel ali∣ter licet sub∣terfugere; mendacium autem dicere non licet. Et paulò post. Falsitatem autem pro∣ponere nullo casu alicui licet, neque etiam aliquem dolum vel fraudem adhibere, quia fraus & dolus vim mendacij habet, & hoc est se calumniosè defendere. Aquinas 2. 2. q. 69. art. 1. & arg. 2.
• h 2.123

  Potuitnè Thomas apertius damnare istorum sententi∣am, qui docent fas esse Reo crimen verum sibi intentum arte verborum inficiari? Genesius in Theoph. cap. 18.
• a 2.124

  Treatise of Aequiuocas. chap. 10.
• * 2.125

  Math. 16. 23
• b 2.126

  Azorius Ie∣suita qu•• su∣pra.
• * 2.127

  Supra.
• * 2.128

  Matth. 5. 20.
• * 2.129

  1. Cor. 5. 1.
• a 2.130

  Iurans redi∣re in carcerē tenetur (nisi esset ini••; de∣tentus) etiam cùm periculo vitae; quidam etiam ad iniu∣stum carcerē redeundum ••iunt, nisi iu∣ramentum re∣laxetur per Episcopum. Eman. Sa. Ies. Aphor. T••t. Iuramentum.
• b 2.131

  Vnus ex de∣cem illis cap∣tiuis, &c. Ci∣cero Offic. lib. 3. §. Regulus.
• c 2.132

  Non re & è, fraus enim distringit, nō dissoluit per∣iurium: Ita{que} decreuit Se∣natus vt ille veteranus & callidus vin∣ctus ad Anni balem duce∣retur. Cicero quo supra.
• d 2.133

  Qui verò d∣cunt nullam esse sidem, quae Infideli data sit, videant ne quaeratur latebra periurio; quiduis enim potiùs argutè excusari possit quam iusiurandu: quantum enim mali ex∣cidit ex ipsa fraude? Cic. ibid.
• * 2.134

  These Poeni, or Carthaginians, whom Tully calleth Infidels, were of all men in the world most perfidious, so that they came into a prouerbe, [Punica fides] The Carthaginians faith, which was as if one should haue said Falshood: and if any, then this people was incompetent to challenge trueth in an oath.
• d 2.135

  Imperator Arium ad iu••∣iurandum ad∣egit, ille id quoque simu∣latè & fallaci∣tèr praest••tit: ••ucata verò ratio, quâ ad fraudem in subscribendo vsus est, sicut audiui, huius∣modi fuit; Arius suam ipsius opinionem in charta habebat, eamque sub ala gestat, iurat se verè & ex animo sentire, quemadmodum scripserat. Socrates lib. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. hist. cap. 38.
• * 2.136

  Euseb. Pra∣par. Euang.
• b 2.137

  Bellar. lib. 2. de effect. Sa∣cram. in ge∣nere.
• c 2.138

  Ordo prae∣stat caeteris omnib' quo∣ad hoc, quia constituit ho∣mines in gra∣du sublimio∣ri, quàm sunt caeteri Chri∣stiani. Bellar. quo supra cap. 28. §. Ordo.
• d 2.139

  Cic. in Offic. lib. 1. & S. August. lib. de Mendacio. cap. 20.
• e 2.140

  Speaking of the Poeni, who vsed to falsifie their faith with men.
• a 2.141

  Treatise supra.
• b 2.142

  Iurabis vi∣uit Dominus in veritate, in iudicio, & iu∣stitia. ler. 4.
• c 2.143

  Iudicio ca∣ret •…•…ramen∣tum incautū, veritate men∣dax, iustitia iniquum & illicitum. A∣quinas.
• d 2.144

  Est menda∣cium triplex; perniciosum, officiosum, iocosum•• per∣•…•…ciosum est in damnum alicuius; offi∣ciosum quod est in al•…•… vulitatem; iocosum quod nec in dettimentum nec vtilitatem al••cu••us est. Dicimus omne men∣dacium esse quidem peccatum, & cùm sit in turamento, omne mendacium esse pec∣catum mortale; sine iuramento, officiôsum autem & iocosum esse veniale peccatum. Tollet. les. Instruct. Sacerd lib. de septem peccat. cap. 54.
• e 2.145

  Non ad tu∣endam pudi∣citiam, mult•• enim mag••s custodienda est a•…•… ca∣stitas, quae m••o menda∣cio, quam ea, quae aliena libidine violatur. August. de M•…•…ac. cap 20.
• f 2.146

  Non ad seruandam alte∣rius vitam corporalem. August. ibid cap. 17. & 18. & Greg. Pent. supra.
• g 2.147

  Non ad lu∣crandam sa∣lutem homi∣nis aeternam. August. quo supra, cap. 20.
• h 2.148

  Non ad ma∣lum facien∣dum, vt om∣nes Barbari Christi fidem amplectan∣tur. Acost. Ies. desalut. Ind. lib. 2. cap. 2.
• * 2.149

  God so lo∣ued y^e world that he gaue his only be∣gotten sonne. Ioh. 3. 16.
• i 2.150

  Coloss. 2. 23.
• k 2.151

  Iud. 8. 27.
• l 2.152

  1. Sam. 15. 21.
• m 2.153

  2. Sam. 6. 6.
• n 2.154

  1. Reg. 12. 32.
• o 2.155

  1. Tim. 1. 13. & 2. Tim. 1. 3.
• p 2.156

  Act. 3. 17.
• q 2.157

  Iob. 13. vers. 7. 8. 9. 10.
• a 2.158

  Heb. 4.
• b 2.159

  Deut. 19.
• * 2.160

  Iesuits supra.
• c 2.161

  1. King. 21.
• d 2.162

  Hist. of Su∣sanna.
• e 2.163

  Matt. 26. 60.
• f 2.164

  Quandò ali∣quis in tortu∣ra positus re∣uelat alterius peccatum ve∣rè, quandò non interro∣gatur iuridi∣cè, non pec∣cat: ratio, quia nullus tenetur cum tanto suo detrimento conseruare famam alterius, occultando crimen commissum illius. Tol••et. les. & Cardin. lib. 5. Instruct. Sac. cap. 66.
• g 2.165

  The Treatise. Vide supra.
• h 2.166

  The Mode∣rate Answerer in the conclusi∣on of his booke. §. And if &c.
• i 2.167

  Coloss. 4. 5.
• k 2.168

  1. Pet. 2. 12.
• l 2.169

  1. Thess. 5. 22.
• m 2.170

  Tit. 2. 5.
• n 2.171

  1. Tim. 1. 6.
• o 2.172

  Psal. 7. 10.
• p 2.173

  1. Cor. 5. 1.
• q 2.174

  Rom. 9. 1.
• r 2.175

  2. Cor. 11. 31.
• s 2.176

  1. Tim. 2. 7.
• t 2.177

  Galat. 1. 20.
• u 2.178

  De muliere septies ••cta, Ad Innocen∣tium: E••mu∣lieri maritus crimen adul∣terij impege∣rat, & cum eculeus cor∣pus extende∣rat, oculis in coelū erectis, Tu Domine Iesu testis es, qui serutator es renū, non ideo me ne∣gare velle nè peream, sed ideò men•…•… nolle nè pec∣cem. Hieron. Tom. 1.
• * 2.179

  Tollet. Ies. Instruct. Sa∣cerd. lib. 4 cap. 21. & 22.