CHAP. 1.
Of the name, and what is meant by the word Equiuo­cation in this Question.

THat wee may the better vnderstand what is meant by this word, wee must note that there are two famous accep­tions and vses of the word Equiuocati­on among men. The first is a proper and ancient vse of it, frequent among all sorts of writers, but handled and spoken of, especially in Lo­gicke. The second is an improper and abusiue acception of it, which was of late yeeres deuised by some wri­ters and Doctors of the Romane Church. Father Par­sons calleth the forme, verball, and the later, mentall E­quiuocation. And of these hee saith, Mitigat. cap. 8 nu. 10. pa. 314. that the verball is proper Equiuocation; the mentall is so called, rather by a [Page 4] certaine similitude, then propriety of speach, and that Ibid. nu. 15. the verball is onely true and proper Equiuocation, for that mentall in rigor is none. And againe, that Ibid. nu. 10. Equiuocation hath of later yeeres onely been accustomed to bee vsed in this sense, that is, for mentall Equiuocation. And Heissius ano­ther Iesuite, & Patron of this Art, saith, Refut. Apho [...]r. cap. 4. Ap [...]ons. 3. nu. 129. that their mixt speach (which they call mentall Equiuocation) is not pro­perly Equiuocation. By which speaches of these Iesu­ites (especially seeing the one of them is a man so well seene in this Arte, and so much exercised in this argu­ment of Equiuocation) I presume I haue sufficient war­rant to say as I did, without the controll of any of our punie Iesuites, that the one vse and acception is proper and ancient, the other vnproper, and of a later growth, that is, since the mystery of iniquity did open it selfe more fully to the world, and men did more apparantly speake lies in hypocrisie. But yet for the distinguishing of these two kindes, I will rather call the first Logicall E­quiuocation, as being that which Logicke doth onely acknowledge: and the later I will call Iesuiticall Equi­uocation, as hauing, if not its first deuising, yet at least, its polishing from men of that Order. The Question in this place is onely concerning the later, which I call Iesuiticall Equiuocation. Notwithstanding for the better clearing of the point in controuersie, somewhat is first to bee said concerning the former, which I call Lo­gicall.

First then for the Logicall Equiuocation; it is an am­biguous or doubtfull saying, when one word or speach hath mo [...] senses then one, and it hapeneth three wayes.

1. When a word by it selfe hath diuers significations and meanings; as this word [to know] hath. For some­times it signifieth to apprehend and vnderstand the certainety of some truth: [...]. Ioh. 3. 20. as when S. Iohn saith; GOD is greater then our hearts, and knoweth all things. 2. [To know] is as much as to approue and allow of: as when [Page 5] Dauid saith; Psal. 1. 6. The Lord knoweth the way of the righteous. And when Christ saith to the foolish Virgins; Math. 25. 12. Verily I say vnto you, I know you not. The meaning is; I doe not acknowledge you for any of mine. In this, and such like words as this, there is an Equiuocation; because the word hath diuers acceptions and vses.

2. When words, which haue but one signification of themselues, yet are so ioyned together in some sen­tence, as that they may, by reason of the composition, make and yeeld diuers meanings: or when by reason of their contexture, they may haue moe meanings than one: Acts 19. 5. as when S. Luke saith; When they heard this, they were baptized in the Name of the Lord Iesus: these words are diuersly construed by the Learned. For some thinke them to bee the words of S. Paul, and to haue reference to the speech of Iohn Baptist, imme­diately going before: and then the meaning must bee this; that when those brethren, there spoken of, heard Iohn so teaching concerning Christ, they were baptized of Iohn, in the Name of the Lord Iesus. But others thinke them to be the words of S. Luke, and to haue reference to the former speech of S. Paul: and then the meaning must be; that when those brethren had heard Paul dis­coursing in this manner of Iohn and his Baptisme, then They were baptized of Paul, in the Name of Christ. In this Clause then, there are two senses giuen by the Lear­ned; and that sheweth that there is an ambiguity; but that ambiguitie riseth not from the diuersitie of signifi­cations in any of the words, but from the different con­sideration of the contexture or composition of the sen­tence.

3. When the circumstances of time, place, persons, &c. are such, as that in reason, and in the iudgement of sober men, being well and duely considered, they may limit or restraine the speech to some speciall matter or subiect; or otherwise alter the meaning of it from that [Page 6] which it should haue, if it were in some other place, and vpon some other occasion. As for example: when S. Paul saith; I haue not shunned to declare vnto you all the Counsell of God. Acts 20. 27. These words considered by themselues, doe comprize all the Secrets of God, and all the myste­ries of His Wisedome: but if we consider the circum­stances of the persons, time, place, and occasion; as that the speaker was Paul, an Apostle, whose office and im­ployment was to teach the mysteries of Religion; that the hearers were the Church of Ephesus, who expected information in matters of saluation; and that the occa­sion of their meeting at this time, and in this place, was onely for teaching and learning the Word of God, and the Gospell of Iesus Christ: these circumstances, in reason, may teach vs, that in this place, those words [all the Counsell of God] are not to bee extended to all the secrets and depth of Gods Wisedome; a great part whereof, is neither reuealed, nor necessarie to bee knowne of any man; and some part whereof, though it be reuealed, yet was not pertinent to this occasion; but rather, that those words are to bee limited and restrai­ned, according to the present occasion, to signifie and note, all necessary things for them to know for their soules health and saluation. Or, to giue a more famili­ar example, and such as a Iesuite hath giuen instance in [...] wee may suppose, that two men going together in a iourney; the one of them (his money sayling him) desi­reth to borrow ten pound of his fellow; who maketh answere, that he hath not so much: heere his meaning must be supposed to be, that he hath not so much in his purse, or so much in a readinesse about him, though he had foure times the like value in his Chest at home. But if the same thing should be desired of him, when he were at home in his owne house, then the meaning would be, that he had not such a summe at home. And the same answere, which was true, beeing giuen to his [Page 7] fellow. Traueller by the way; would be a lye, if it were vttered to him in his house. Thus there may arise an ambiguity in a speech, by reason of the circumstances of person, place, time, and occasion; where otherwise there is no ambiguity either in the signification of any word, or in the composition of the sentence, conside­red in and by themselues.

And in what kind soeuer, of these now specified, there happeneth an ambiguity; that I call a Logicall Equiuo­cation; concerning which our present question is not. For as the Doctors of the Romane Church, so the lear­ned of our side doe acknowledge, that there may bee a lawfull vse of equiuocall speeches in euery of these kinds, if they be not extended too farre, or mis-applyed to a wrong cause. For, to speake more particularly, it is granted.

1. That we may lawfully vse words, which may in­differently be taken in diuers acceptions and meanings, as they are then vsed. And this is plaine, partly because the Scriptures are full of such speeches; and partly, be­cause our common conuersation and life cannot bee without them.

2. It is not vnlawfull, when some case of further good doth require it, to vse these ambiguous speeches in the lesse knowne and common signification, and in āother meaning then it is likely the hearers wil vnder­stand them for the present. For so, when our Lord said, Lazarus our friend sleepeth: Ioh. 11. 11. He meant that he was dead, which was the lesse common and knowne signification; and therefore the Disciples, according to the more v­suall meaning, vnderstood him of naturall sleepe. And he did this for good purpose, and for the profit of the hearers; that they might heereby learne, either that death in generall is to Gods children but as a sleepe, by which they are refreshed, and made the more liuely: or that this death of Lazarus, was rather to bee called [Page 8] asleepe, then a death, because hee was so speedily rai­sed from it againe.

3 It is not vnlawfull, if there be iust cause for con­cealing of a trueth, to vse an ambiguous speach in any of these kindes, that thereby we may hide some thing from the hearers, which they should not know. This assertion hath not so direct proofe from Scripture, as the others haue; & yet it is not without all proofe from the Scriptures neither. For there wee finde, that a man may lawfully vtter one trueth, thereby to hide another trueth from the hearer. As for example, 1. Sam. 16. 1, 2. God appoin­ted Samuel to goe to Bethleem and anoint one of Iesses sonnes to bee King; and when Samuel obiected, How can I goe? If Saul heare it, hee will kill mee. The Lord said, Take an heifer with thee, and say, I am come to sacri­fice to the Lord. And so Samuel did, as it followeth in the same Chapter; and by this he cōcealed his purpose of anointing a new King; which was the speciall intent of his going to that place. And if it be lawfull and war­ranted by Gods own appointment to vtter one trueth, for the concealing of another: then in reason I thinke it cannot iustly be condemned for vnlawfull, if a man, vp­on iust occasion, doe vse an ambiguous speech in a true sense, thereby to hide from the hearer, something which hee should not knowe. For if in so doing any thing bee faulty, it must be, as I take it, the one of the two; either because an ambiguous speach is vsed in another mea­ning then it is likely the hearer will take it; and that to be lawfull, is prooued in the former assertion: or be­cause this true sense in the ambiguous speach, is vtte­red to conceale another thing from the hearer; and that to be lawfull, is cleare by this example of Samuel. And therfore I thinke the conclusion may hence be inferred, that it is not vnlawfull, if there be iust cause for concea­ling of a trueth, to vse an ambiguous speach, that there­by we may conceale some other thing, which is not fit [Page 9] to be vttered. And hereto agree our learned diuines al­so For one, speaking of Equiuocatiō, as it cōsisteth in the ambiguitie of words vttered, addeth, [...] maximè in liber [...] s [...]rmone, hoc qui­dem sensu vti li­cere nemo dubi­tat. Abbot An­tilog. aduer­sus Eudaemo­no loan. cap. 2 fol. 18. That this kind of Equiuocation, especially in ordinary speach, no man doubteth but that it may lawfully be vsed. And, Sit per illam ce [...]ndus consiligs, tegend is (que) arca­ [...] suuo locus. Ibidem. this Equiuocation may haue his due place for concealing of Counfe [...]s, and hi­ding of secrets. And againe, speaking to his aduersary, Tuscias taci­turnitates illas, quas narra [...], Con­fessionum & consi [...]orum, vbi amphibologijs, & ambiguitatibus consistunt, noble non improbari: damn [...]ri prors [...]s à nohis, vt men­dacio tegantur: Knowe (saith he) that those concealements, whether of Confessions or Counsels, whereof you speake, where they doe consist of ambiguities in the words, wee dislike not: onely if they be couered with a lie, that wee doe wholly condemne. And another learned writer in our Church, speaking of one, that magnified the vse of Equiuocation, adioineth, Si appellatione Acquiuocationis, simplicem quan­dam & modest [...] reticent [...]am sig­nisicet, aut dissi­mulationem con­siliorium in hac miscra vita saepe necessariam; planè cum ipso sentio. Casaubon. epi. ad Fronton. Duc. pag. 110. If by the name of Equiuocation he vnderstand a plaine and sober concealing and couering of secret counsels, which in this miserable life is oft times necessary, I am of his opinion too. This is the opinion and iudgement of our learned men, concerning the vse of Logicall Equiuocation; and herein we agree with them of the Church of Rome: or if there bee any difference among the learned of both sides in these cases already mentioned, as perhaps about some circumstances in the vse of those ambiguous speaches there may be, it is nothing to the present Question in hand, which is not concerning any of the kindes of these Logicall Equiuocations, which consist in the am­biguous acception and meaning of the words vttered. And therefore when the Equiuocaters of our time doe labor to confirme their Arte, by the authorized vse of such speaches, as are ambiguous by reason of the diuers meanings which the words may receiue, they misse the marke, beate the ayre, and spend their labour to no purpose.

And this being briefly noted, concerning the true and Logicall Equiuocation, I come now to the improper and Iesuiticall. And that what it is, I will set downe in their owne words, who professe to bee Patrons of it. [Page 10] Father Persons Mitigat. cap. 9. nu. 53. pa. 382 then, a man very laborious in the poli­shing of this Arte, defineth it thus; Equiuocation or Am­phibologie in this our Controuersie, is nothing else, but when a speach is partly vttered in words, and partly reserued in mind, by which reseruation the sense of the proposition may be diuers. And again, Mitigat. ca. 12. nu. 3 p. 484. mentall Equiuocation (saith he) is, when any speach hath or may haue a double sense, not by any double signification or composition of the words them­selues, but onely by some reseruation of minde in the speaker, whereby his meaning is made different from the sense which the words that are vttered, doe beare or yeeld without that reseruation. And Sanchez giuing a Rule concerning the words vsed in this their Equiuocation, saith, Posium abs (que) mendico [...] ver­ba vsurpari, eti­ams [...] exs [...] sig­nificatione non suit ambigua, nec eum seasum ve­rum admittant exse, nec ex cir­cumstantijs oc­currentibus, sed tantum verum serisum reddant ex aliqo addito mente proferentis retento, q [...]eli (que) illud sit. Sanch. oper. moral. l. 3 c. 6. nu. 15. A man may without telling of a lye, vse those words, although they be not ambiguous by their signification, and doe not make a true sense, either by themselues, or by reason of the circum­stano [...]s then occurring, but doe onely make a true sense by some addition, kept in the speakers minde, whatsoeuer that addition bee. Thus they. By which descriptions it ap­peareth, that Iesuiticall Equiuocation, is a mixt proposi­tion, (as Persons also diuers times calleth it) part where­of is vttered in words, and so taken it hath one sense; and another part of it is reserued and vnderstood in the speakers minde, which being added to the words spo­ken, maketh another sense; as for example, A Seminarie, or a Iesuite-Priest being asked by a Magistrate, Are you a Priest? He answereth, I am no Priest, vnderstand­ing and reseruing in his minde this clause, So as I am bound to tell you, or any other which himselfe pleaseth to like purpose: here (say they) is but one mixt pro­posit [...] part whereof is vttered in words, namely, I am no Priest; and that taken alone as it is vttered, breed­eth a false s [...]tise, and in this sense they would haue the Magistrate to conceiue it: & another part of that propo­sition is reserued and kept secret and close in the Priests mind, & that is this, So as I am bound to tell you. And this [Page 11] secret & mentall reseruation, being added to the words, maketh this one entire Proposition; I am no Priest, so as I am bound to tell you: and that being taken all toge­ther, maketh a true sence, and so the Priest vnderstan­deth it. And therefore, if he doe but keepe, or reserue, or vnderstand that or any such clause in his minde, though the words which he speaketh bee neuer so false, yet this man telleth no lye, nor speaketh no vntruth. Such is the vertue of this new found Arte; and thus they describe it.

But that it may yet appeare more fully and more di­stinctly, it will not be amisse to set downe the mysterie of this Art in certaine distinct Propositions, all gathe­red from their owne writings, and approued dealings.

l. That this mixt Proposition of theirs, or this Equi­uocation, as they call it, whether we consider that part of it which is vttered in words; or the whole Propositi­on, as it hath the reseruatiō added to it, which is kept in the speakers mind; hath in neither respect or considera­tion, Mitigat. cap. 8. nu. 10. pag. 313. as F. P. saith, any doubtful sense of speech or words, by their doubtfull or double signification; but only that it vt­tereth not all the whole sense of the speaker; & therfore can­not be properly called equiuocall, according to Aristotles meaning & Definition. And againe, These mixt Propositi­ons ( Mitig. cap. 11. nu. 14. pag. 447. saith he) be not properly equiuocall in the sense that Aristotle did define, &c. for that they doe not of themselues nor their own natures, signifie equally diuers things; but be­ing vnderstood wholly, haue a simple and single signification in the mind and vnderstanding of the speaker: yet, for that the hearer concerning but [...] thereof, apprehendeth a different sense from the speaker; they may ab effectu, be called ambiguous; for that they leaue a different sense in the hearer & speaker, albeit of themselues they be plaine, cle [...]re, and true, &c. Out of which words, considered & ioy­ned with that which was formerly cited out of Sanchez and Parsons, we may note three things. 1. That there [Page 12] is no ambiguity or doubtfull sense, either in the words vttered, if they be taken alone; nor in the whole Pro­position, as they compound it of the words vttered, & [...]he reseruation vnderstood, taken together. 2. That therefore they call it Equiuocation, or an Equiuocall Pro­position or speech; because they signifie or expresse one meaning to the hearer, which is false; and retaine or vnderstand another sense within themselues, which is true. 3. That the taking of this word Equiuocation in this meaning, is not proper, and such as Aristotle did vnderstand and conceiue by it. Hee might haue said, that it is not proper, nor such as either Aristotle, or any man either learned or vnlearned, hauing but com­mon sense in his head, and common honesty in his heart, did euer acknowledge before this last Age. And the truth is, they therfore call it an Equiuocatiō, though the word was neuer known to haue any such meaning or signification▪ because they are ashamed to call it by its right name, which is, A Lye. But as the coue­tous man, though he practiseth the thing, yet abhorres the name; and therefore will be called a good husband, or a thrifty man: And as a thiefe is ashamed of his right name, and when he meeteth with a Traueller to whom he would signifie his e [...]rand; he saith, that he is a Good­fellow which wanteth money: So the Romanists teach an Arte of lying; and because they are ashamed of the in­famous name of Lyers, they call themselues Equiuo­cators: and that which other men call Lying, they call Equiuocating.

2. That if a man will vse this benefit of Equiuocating, he must be warie and carefull, that he reserue some se­cret clause in his mind, which being added to the words vttered, doe make a true speech; or else all is marred, and he, for want of that clause, become a plaine Lyer.

To this purpose, Father Persons Mitig. cap. 10. nu. 22. pag. 424 saith, that the E­quiuocator speaketh a trueth in his owne meaning, and in [Page 13] the sight ef God; which alwaies he must doe, when hee v­seth this Euasion; for that otherwise he should lye, and com­mit sinne, if he had not some true sense reserued in his mind, &c.

To declare this yet further: Say that two Priests were questioned by a Magistrate, whether they were Priests or no; and the one should say, I am no Priest: and should withall reserue in his mind this clause, So as I am bound to tell you: and the other should answere in the very same words, I am no Priest: but should for­get or neglect to frame or imagine in his mind that re­seruation, or some such like: the former, who imagi­ned that reseruation in his mind, should be an Equiuo­cator, Risum teneatis, amici? and speake the truth; but the latter, who had o­mitted it, should be a Lyer, and vtter a falshood and vntruth, though hee speake none but the very same words; and they haue none but one signification and meaning.

This they say, to shew vs, how an Equiuocator doth differ very much from a Lyer. The truth is; this Equi­uocator and this Lyer doe differ as much as two false knaues, the one of which is called a Thiefe, and the o­ther, a Good-fellow that taketh a Purse.

3. That whatsoeuer a man doe say or sweare, be it otherwise neuer so false and absurd; yet if a man doe i­magine a clause in his mind, which being added to the words spoken, would make a true meaning; then the former speech or saying, how false soeuer otherwise be­commeth true, and without all compasse of lying: be­cause (saith Father Mitigat. cap. 10. nu. 14. pag. 418. Persons) it is freed from the nature of a Lye, by the due & iust reseruation in the speakers mind. By the due and iust reseruation, saith hee. But suppose the reseruation be not iust and due, but that a man vse this arte, when he ought not to equiuocate? Why, yet euen then, he is by this reseruation freed from telling of a Lye, though not freed from all sinne. For though is [Page 14] should not be properly the sinne of Lying, nor against the ne­gatiue Precept of Truth: yet should it be another sinne, a­gainst the publike good of ciuill society, and consequently a­gainst the affirmatiue Precept of Truth, &c. Thus spea­keth Father Mitigat. cap. 10. num. 23. pag. 424 Persons. And to the like purpose Valen­tia Tom. 3. disp. 5. q. 13. punct. 2. pag. 1136.. But Sanchez more plainely and roundly: If a man ( [...] sine propria sponte; sine recre­ationes gratiâ si­tie quocum [...] alio sine iurets [...] non secisse aliqurd quod reuera fecit, intelligendo [...]tra se aliquid al [...]d, quod nonfecit, velal am diem ab eain qua fecit, vel quodius aliud add [...]um verum, reuera non men­titur, &c. San­chez op. mo­ral. l. 3. cap. 6. num. 15. p. 25. saith he) either alone or before company, either being asked or of his owne accord, either for recreation sake, or for any other end, doe sweare that he did not doe something, which indeed he did do; vnderstanding within himselfe some other thing then that he did doc; or some other day then that in which he did doe it, or any other addition that is true; this man, in very deed, doth neither lye nor forsweare.

Thus they speake, and so must all they that will maintaine this Arte. For whereas Father Persons, spea­king of the Wife of Ananias, saith; Mitigat. cap. 11. nu. 29. pag. 459. that shee beeing lawfully demanded by S. Peter in a lawfull cause, touching her owne vow and promise, no clause of reseruation could saue her speech from lying: he doth herein not only con­tradict himselfe, as Lyers vsually doe, but doth also thereby ouerthrow the very grounds of this fond Arte. For if a reseruation in the mind doe free the Equiuocator from lying; because that beeing added to his words, both together do make a true Proposition; why should not a reseruation in this womans mind, saue her speech from lying, if it were such, as being added to her words, both together might yeeld a true meaning; which, ac­cording to the rules of this Arte, it had beene easie for this woman to frame▪

4 That in any case, in which Equiuocation may bee vsed, a man may frame any reseruation, whatsoeuer himselfe pleaseth, so it be such, as being added to the words, doth make the whole compound to bee true. Mitig c. 10. nu. 22. p. 424. Persons somtimes seemeth to require, that the reserua­tiō be conformable to the matter, time, and place; & not fai­ned at randome, as some fondly do imagine. But he doth but [Page 15] mocke his Reader; making shew of following the for­mer Schoole-Doctors, whose words these are; when he hath no such meaning as they had in them. For, when he speaketh plainely, and so as you may vnder­stand his distinct meaning. them his Mitig. cap. 8. nu. 55. p. 344. words are; I doe truely and really meane, that I am no Priest, in the sense that I speake it, which may be any that pleaseth me, or that I list to frame to my selfe: so as I may meane, that I am no Priest, such as I should be, such as I desire to be, such as is worthy of so great an office, and sacred a function; such as he ought to be, that occupieth the place of God in gouerning of soules; I am no Priest subiect to the demander, or obliged to answere his demands; or the like. Thus, and such like, whatsoeuer he pleaseth, he professeth may be his reser­uations, when he denyeth himselfe to be a Priest: and what conformity these haue, at least the most of them, with the Circumstances, I leaue to bee declared by the Patrons and Masters of this Arte. Sure I am, if such large scope may be granted, and yet the reseruation bee conformable to the matter, &c. and not fained at ran­dome, then it will be an easie matter to keepe within cō ­passe, and to obserue the wise rule of this graue Father. But, let Persons goe with his doubling, and let vs heare what others say. Sanchez alloweth any words, if they yeeld a true sense, [...] dito, mente pro­ferentis retento quodcunque illud sit. Sanch. op. moral. l. 3 c. 6. nu. 15. pa. 25. By any addition, reserued in the mind [...] of the speaker, whatsoeuer that addition bee. And Iacob [...] Graffijs, proposing a Case of one, who being taken by theeues, doth for feare promise them somwhat with an oath; Siiste aliud mente cogitaue­rit, verbi gratia, promitto dare aut sacere, si à Iudiac [...]oactus fuero, vel si coelum ruat, aut quid simile, tune à peccato erit immunis. Decis. Aur. par. 1. l. 2. ca. 17. nu. 12. If (saith he) he doe imagine some other thing in his minde, for example, I promise to giue this, or do that, if the Iudgo shal compelme to it, or if the skie shall fall, or the like, then he shal be cleare from sinne. And Sanchez, Oper. mor. l. 3. c. 6. nu. 26. pag. 28. that a man may lawfully answere, that he killed not Peter, meaning an­other man of the same name, or that he killed him not, an­tequam nasceretur, before hee was borne. And Strange the Iesuite, to show what strange and vnlimited liberty [Page 16] they doe take in the framing of this fancie, affirme that he was in the company, reseruing and intending secretly as added, this word, Not; when hee was questioned be­fore the Lord Chiefe Iustice of England, Proceeding a­gainst Trai­tors. litt. l. 1. and the Kings Attourney. These reseruations, and others not much better, doe they allow and practise in the Arte of Equi­uocating, whereof there is frequent mention in their Bookes and Treatises of this argument. By all which it appeareth, that they approoue of any reseruatirn, which a man can fancie, if the case be such as they allow of, and the clause such, as may signifie a trueth.

5. That this Equiuocation of theirs, is lawfull, not onely in ordinary speach, but in oathes also. This is plainely auouched by Father Persons, and vpon this reason, Mitigat. ca. 11. nu. 17. pag. 449. Because it is a most certaine principle, as well in reason, as in Diuinitie, that what a man may truely say, hee may truely also sweare. And againe, Mitig. c. 11. nu. 43. pa. 468. As all Diuines held (saith hee) that which may lawfully be said, may also lawfully be sworne. And to this doe agree others of this Crue, who commonly handle this question of Equiuo­cation in their Treatises of Oathes, and allow it as a thing very lawfull, and of good vse.

6. That this Arte was deuised, and so by them is vsed, that by it they may deceiue the vnderstanding of the hearer, and make him beleeue an vntrueth, when it may serue for their turne. To this purpose those words of Father Persons sound, Mitig. c. 7. nu. 14. pag. 284 Equiuocation must sometime be practised, when no other euasion can be found for defence of innocencie, iustice, secrecy, and other like vrgent occasi­ons. And speaking of some cases of inconuenience, which hee would haue to bee auoided by Equiuocation, he demandeth, Cap. 7. nu. 22. pa. 289. Hath God and Nature, and Law of Iu­stice left no lawfull euasion in such cases? And againe, Cap. 7. nu. 2. pag. 274. Wee delight not (saith hee) in this Arte or maner of eua­sion by Equiuocation. By this it appeareth, that Equi­uocation (to vse the Iesuites owne words) is an Art of [Page 17] euasion, which cannot bee vnderstood without a mea­ning and purpose to deceiue the hearers vnderstanding, and to make him beleeue an vntrueth. The same Do­ctor of this Arte goeth on, and teacheth vs, that this their Equiuocation is, Mitig c. 12. nu 3. pag. 484. when any speach hath, or may haue a double sense, not by any double signification or composition of the words themselues; but onely by some reseruation of minde in the speaker, whereby his meaning is made different from that sense which the words that are vttered, de beare, or yeeld without that reseruation. And by this is implyed, that the purpose of this is, to imprint one sense in the speaker, which they acknowledge to bee false, and to keepe within themselues another, which they imagine to bee true. Becanus also, another Iesuite, hauing first proposed the question, An liceat vti Aequiuo­catione: Whether it may be lawful to vse Equiuocation: he explaineth the point thus; Sensus est, an licea [...] alios falle­re, decipere aut cludere per Ae­quiuocationes. Manual Con­trou. l. 5. c. 21. pag. 530. Whether it bee lawfull to deceiue and beguile others by Equiuocations. In the prose­cution of which question, though he wrangle, & would gladly shift off from themselues the imputation of this equiuocating fraud; yea, and flatly denieth it: yet by explaining the questiō in such sort, he acknowledgeth, that their meaning who defend it, is to beguile and de­ceiue men. And in like sort Tolet saith. Aliquando licet vti aquiuo­catione, & fallere audientem. Tolet. Instruct. Sacerd. l. 4. c. 21. nu. 9. It is some­times lawfull to vse Equiuocation, and to deceiue the hea­rer. And therefore when Father Persons Mitig. cap. 8 nu. 58. pag. 346 & 347. See also, Sober Reckon. c. 4. nu. 89. pag. 285 saith, that his intention is not to deceiue in this mentall proposition, but to defend himselfe, &c. and that the Priest (who denieth himselfe to bee a Priest) that his principall intent is not intentio fallendi, an intention of deceiuing; but rather, e­uadendi desiderium, a desire to escape and defend himselfe: he doth either too boldly presume vpon his Readers simplicitie, or too grossely bewray his owne. For first, when hee saith, that his principall intent is not to de­ceiue, but rather to escape, hee implieth, that an intenti­on he hath to deceiue, though that be not his principall [Page 18] intention; and that is enough to prooue (which hee de­nieth) that his Equiuocation doth herein agree with the nature of a lye, that as a lye is said to bee, cum intentio­ne fallendi, so his Equiuocation cannot be denied to haue the same purpose and intention in it. And secondly, where he saith plainely that his intention is not to de­ceiue, but to defend, hee speaketh as wisely, and to as good purpose, as if a thiefe by the high way side should say, that hee intended not to take away the true mans purse, but to supplie himselfe with money for his owne spending. For as the thiefe intendeth to robbe, that thereby he may supply himselfe; so the Iesuite intendeth to deceiue, that thereby he may defend himselfe.

7 That to forbeare the vse of this Equiuocation (vn­lesse where by duety a man is bound to vse it) is better and more Meritorious then to vse it. To this purpose speaketh the great Master of this Arte; Mitig. c. 7. nu. 2 pag. 274. Wee delight not (saith hee) in this Arte or maner of euasion by Equiuo­cation, though it be no lye at all; but rather do allow and like far better of simple, plaine, and resolute speach in all Catho­likes, concerning aswel matters of ordinary conuersation, as of their conscience, &c. And presently he addeth; Yet for that perfection is one thing, and obligation is another, wee may not binde men to more then Gods precept bindeth. By which speach hee plainely teacheth, that though it bee not vnlawfull to vse Equiuocation, because it is not for­bidden by any precept; yet it is a worke of perfection, (such as they vse to cal a worke of supererogation) not to vse a mans lawfull libertie in this case. And yet f [...]rther, It is euident, that albeit good men desirous of per­fection, Cap. 7. nu. 5. pag. 276. and prepared to suffer iniuries, may liue without go­ing to Law, without swearing, without diuorcing their wiues, without Equiuocation, &c. yet for all that, men are not bound to this exactnesse, &c. And yet againe, My wish is (saith hee) that Catholike people, Cap. 13. nu. 3. pag. 548. but especially Priests, whose example must instruct the rest, should yeeld also of [Page 19] their right, for increase of their merit and Crowne in hea­uen, and vse all plainnesse and synceritie in speach, and free discouering, not onely of their religion, but also of their state, where it is hurtfull to none but themselues. See Persons also in his Sober Reck. ca. 7. nu. 22, & 23. pag. 484, 485. And in a word, plainnesse and syncerity of speach, he compareth with vir­ginity, (which in their esteeme, is a glorious worke of perfection or supererogation:) and the practice of E­quiuocating to Wedlocke, which is lawful, but not of such merit.

Now hence I inferre two Conclusions.

1 That the practice of Protestants in vsing plain­nesse and syncerity in speach, according to their doctrine, is by the confession of the Iesuite, better and more ho­ly, then the practice of Papists in vsing Euasions and Equiuocations, according to the doctrine of the Equi­uocators.

2 That according to the doctrine of Popish Equi­uocators, Iesus our Sauiour was not so perfect, nor vsed not so much exactnesse in his speach, nor merited not so much, as the Iesuites doe, many of them at least. For Father Persons saith, that albeit good men desirous of per­fection, may liue without Equiuocating, yet &c. hee mea­neth that though it may bee seene in such men, yet o­thers are not bound to that exactnesse: and he implieth, that men desirous of perfection, doe vse to doe so. And such, I trow, the holy Order of Iesuites is, who for de­sire of this perfection, haue by solemne vow abandoned the world, and all the glory, and profit belonging to it. Besides, Father Persons graue aduice is, that not onely Priests, but other Catholikes too, should yeeld of their right, by forbearing to equiuocate, for the increase of their merit and Crowne in heauen: and, I trowe, the followers of IESVS will not bee slacke to performe, what one of their owne Fathers doth aduise to bee so behoofe­full, not onely for seculars of the Clergie, but for lay [...] [Page 20] Catholikes also. But now IESVS our Lord, see how farre off the Iesuite maketh him to bee from this degree of perfection. For hee was so frequent in equiuocating, that Father Persons Sober Reck. Append. nu. 16 pag. 682. findeth him to haue vsed the same in one onely Chapter of S. Iohns Gospel, aboue seuen or eight times at the least. Nay, and that Sober Reck. in append. nu. 24. pag. 687. more then one Equiuo­cation was vsed by our Sauiour in one sentence: and that eight or nine Equiuocall speaches at the least, are contained within a piece of one onely Chapter of our Sauiours talke with the Iewes, Scribes and Pharisees. And indeede hee hath recited and alleadged nine seuerall examples out of our Sauiours words, recorded in the latter part of the eighth Chapter of S. Iohn. And sure, hee that did equiuocate so often in so little compasse, cannot be ima­gined to haue forborne his right in this practice, for the increase of his merit and Crowne in heauen. Or if they will say, that notwithstanding this frequent vse of E­quiuocation in so short space, that yet hee did forbeare his right still, and so increased his merit thereby; then they will giue vs occasion to thinke, that Iesuites and Priests, and other Roman Catholikes may attaine this height of perfection, vnto which Father Persons adui­seth them, and coozen and deceiue vs silly fellowes with their Equiuocations seuen, or eight, or nine times in one houre.

I leaue it then to bee considered by the wise Reader, whether Father Persons doe cog with vs all this while, and make no small vse of this deceitfull Arte, while hee laboureth to defend it: or, whether in good earnest hee thinketh that our Lord and Sauiour did not follow so exact a rule of perfection, as hee aduiseth all his Catho­likes vnto.

These bee the most speciall properties belonging to Iesuiticall Equiuocation, as neere as I could gather and obserue them out of their bookes, which bee the abet­tors of this Arte, among whom the principall, Father [Page 21] Persons, must needes bee acknowledged to bee. For hee hath laboured herein more then they all. Out of all which obseruations layd together, I leaue it to the consideration of any vnderstanding man, to iudge, whe­ther these two things doe not follow.

1 That the Roman Doctors haue such rare wits, as that they can by their deuised sleights, transforme the nature both of words and things, euen as well as Al­chymists can turne lead into gold. For as in matter of State, they Clerici Rebellio in Regem non est [...] S [...]. Aphor. v. [Clericus] printed at Antwerp, 1599. and allowed and commended by Silu. Pardo, the Inquisitor. haue found out a mystery; that a Clergie­man of their Church may moue Rebellion against his Prince, and yet be no Traytor: so in Conferences with men, they haue found a like mysterie; that any man of the Romane Church, may speake, and say, and sweare whatsoeuer himselfe pleaseth, though it bee neuer so false, and yet be no Lyer. The one they fetch from their doctrine of Exemption; and the other from their do­ctrine of Equiuocation: both dangerous practices to all humane society. The one whereof should teach Kings to be aware of their Swords, and the other should teach all men to beware of their words.

2 That by their doctrine, a man is at liberty to lye, without anie grudge in his conscience; and that the Abettors of this Arte, by a secret iuggling deuice, doe s [...]t open a schoole for deceit and periurie; Cuius [...]cne ficio, qui ad normam men [...]iatur aut peicret, baud ille periurio aut mend [...]cioreus c [...]nsendus sit. in which they teach an Arte of Lying; by the helpe whereof, he that can lye & forsweare by the Rule, shall be free either from lying or peri [...]rie: as Abbot. Ant [...] ­log. adu. Eudeae­mon-Ioann. c. a. in prine. fol. 11. fac. 1. a reuerend and learned Diuine hath noted. But hereof there will be fitter occasion giuen to say more hereafter. In the meane while, thus much shall serue to be said of the first Point.

CHAP. II.
Of the Originall of Equiuocation; and who they bee that vphold it, and giue life vnto it.

COncerning the Originall of this Arte, Hospinian. Histor. Iesuit. l. 4. c. 2. p. 228. some learned men referre [...] to the Priscillianists, or Arius the Arch-here­tike, who are read to haue vsed frau­dulent and deceitful speech. And such Heretikes had not beene vnmeete Fa­thers for such a deformed child. But this Brat was not then borne, nor for many Ages after those dayes. For mine owne part, vnlesse I shall hereafter meete vvith some thing more cleere then yet I haue seene, I must say with a iudicious and learned Writer, Quos Autores habuerit, non [...] Casaub. epist. ad [...]ont. Du­ [...]um. pag. 108. I cannot readily say who were the first founders of this Arte. Nor is it maruell, that a thing of this nature, though found out but yesterday, should appeare to the world without the name or notice of his Author. For, as the head or spring of Nilus hath beene long enquired after, and for ought I know, is yet scarce heard of; and the reason may bee, because it is supposed that that Riuer doth rise somewhere in montibus L [...]nae, in some place of those great Mountaines, whose greatnes doth hide the place of the Well-head or Spring: So deuices of State, which neuer prosper after they are discouered, are commonly smoothered for a time, and doe vsually appeare with­out name; themselues being vnwilling to owne them, and others being vnable to d [...]scrie them. And such is this Arte of Equiuocation, hatched by some rare wit, who yet had rather lose the glory of the inuention, [Page 23] then to lay open the mysterie of it: and smoothered by the Romane State as long as was possible, till misfortune brought it to light against their wils And yet now, that the Riuer appear [...]th with a full st [...]eame, notwith­standing, the Spring will hardly bee found. And if any Rom [...]nist shall hence inferre, that this Doctrine is ther­fore an Apostolicall I [...]radition, and came from Christ himselfe; because I cannot tell who was the first Au­thor, and at what time since it was first hatched; as they vse to dispute in other cases against vs: I will send him to find me the head of Nilus, and when he hath found that, I will goe about to enquire for the Originall of this Arte. And yet in the meane while, though I can­not precisely say who was the first Father of this blacke Arte, yet some things may bee said, not impertinent to this purpose. And those (as I conceiue them for the present) I will, lay downe in certaine Propositions or Assertions. And they be these.

1 It is certaine that it is a late deuice, and found out the other day. Persons claimeth Vniuersality, Antiquity▪ and Consent, for the proofe of this Arte, Mitigat. c. 7. nu. 12. & 13. p. 281. & 282. His words are, that euery man may heare him speak in his own dialect; Let vs consider (saith he) how this absurd and impious opi­nion (if such it be) could come to bee receiued so generally, both in approbation & practice, doctrine & action, through­out the Christian world, that is to say; The Doctrine in all Schooles, Pulpits, Chaires, Vniuersities, where teaching hath beene vsed, extant also in the Bookes and Workes of all learned men of what sort soeuer, before Iesuites were borne or heard of: but especially those haue most treated thereof, who haue written most tenderly of matters belonging vnto conscience, whom we call Casuists. Lawiers in like maner, both Canon and Ciuill; Diuines, both Scholasticall and po­si [...]ue, haue approued the same. And as for practice, it hath in due cases beene receiued in all Courts, in all Coun­tries, in all Tribunals, and S [...]ates of iudgement, both ecclesi­asticall [Page 24] and temporall; and neuer refused, condemned, or controled by any, so it were vsed with the due circumstan­ces, &c. And alittle after; Was there no man to stand for truth and reason in any Countrey, in any Prouince or State? in any place or time for this 400. yeeres, &c? Where it must be noted, that when he mentioneth 400 yeeres, his meaning is not to limit the approbation of this Arte to the compasse of those yeeres; but because he supposeth, but falsely, that his Aduersarie had gran­ted so much; and so here he disputeth ex Concessis vpon the Confession of his Aduersarie: but he intendeth and meaneth the consent of former times also; as himselfe signifieth in the same Chap. Nu. 16. p. 285. whereof he there promi­seth to speak afterward; & so he doth. cap 9. nu. 17, &c. and repea­teth it again [...] in his Sober Reckon. cap. 7. nu. 26, &c. For he bringeth the testimonies & practice of the Patriarchs, Prophets, and Apostles, and Iesus Christ himselfe, and that fre­quently declared. Where it may bee noted, that this Father is as bold to alledge Vniuersality, Antiquity, and Consent for the proofe of this Arte, as the rest are for the proofe of their Church. And sure the proofe is as good and sound in the one, as the other. Onely, Father Per­sons affirmeth more boldly, and confirmeth what hee saith, more weakely. But the reason is alike good in both cases. But heere I haue onely to deale with Per­sons, about his Equiuocation. And against these great cryes, Da mihi vnum exemni homiuii antiquitate, Eth­nica, luda [...]a, Christiana; davci vnum, cut Reser­uatien [...]s istae tuae probat [...] su [...]t, misi siq [...]i forte in in­famni [...] not al [...], &c. I oppose the confident and iust challenge of a Reuerend man; Name me one man (saith he) out of all antiquity, Heathenish, Iewish, Christian: name but one man, who euer approued these your Reseruations, vnlesse perhaps some who were noted with infamy for their paines. I may adde; Nay, name me one, who defended this Equiuo­cation, which Iesuites call a mixt or mentall Proposition, or by a secret reseruation, in all the time from Adam to the Trent Councell. I will not say none such can bee na­med; Abbot Anti. cap. 2. fol. 25. for who can say or presume, that hee knoweth the sayings and opinions of all former Ages? but this I [Page 25] will say, that wheras the Abettors of Equiuocation haue bin challenged by two learned Doctors in our Church, to shewe any who in former times haue allowed this diuelish Arte; hitherto I haue seene no one man pro­duced, who doth giue any plaine or direct allowance heereof. For as for the many autorities, which Persons doth alledge, they be Conclusions of his own, spun out of other mens sayings, by such consequences as himselfe fancieth or pleaseth to frame. For where holy or lear­ned men haue vsed speeches, that may admit diuers in­terpretations, either by reason of the words vsed, or some circumstance occurring, according to which only former Ages were wont to expound them; he present­ly runneth away with an out-cry of mentall reseruation, or mixt Proposition: as euery man that considereth the Allegations, may easily perceiue. In a word, Persons claimeth very boldly, and to speake truth, impudently, Vniuersality, Antiquity, and Consent, for this nouell, new-deuised, and vpstart fancie of their owne. Where I wish the Reader to consider, how farre he may credit such men, when they lay the like claime to all Antiqui­ty and Consent of Nations, either for the prouing of their Church, or for maintaining of any other subordi­nate point of Controuersie. For mine owne part, till they shew me one who approued a mentall Equiuocation or reseruation, I will thinke and say there is none. And this is my first assertion; whereof see further proofe in the next assertion.

2 My second is, that the latter sort of Schoole-men and Casuists gaue occasion, and laied grounds for this ensuing Arte; which at that time themselues, it see­meth, did not so much as thinke or dreame of. For, whereas some Cases were then debated, how farre a Priest might deny the things which hee had heard in Confession; and in what sort any man that was que­stioned by an vnlawfull Iudge, or proceeded against in [Page 26] an vnlalwfull maner, &c. might deny the things which he knew to be true: they, considering the circumstances of the persons, place, and businesse, did allow some hard Equiuocations, which the words would hardly beare in any true sense, yet such as they thought might be allow­ed and gathered out of those circumstances, and might well be vnderstood in those words, as there and then they were vttered. As for exāple; If a Priest were questi­oned, whether he knew or had heard any thing of such or such a matter; he might say, No: if he did not know or heare it any other way, but onely by Confession. And the reason of this answere is, because, Voces co modo significant, quo [...] à po­pulo: populus au­tem Christianus, [...]um audit Sacer­dotem iurantem se nii [...]l scire, nihil intelligit de [...] quae noiut in Con­fessione: Qua [...]e verba illa solum significant nihils [...] sciire extra con­fessionem. Words (saith Dominicus a Soto) doe so signifie, as they are vnder­stood or taken by the people. Now Christian people, when they heare a Priest sweare, that he knoweth nothing of such or such a matter, they vnderstand him not to speake or meane any thing that he heard in Confession. And therefore those words (of the Priest) doe onely signifie or import, that▪ hee knoweth nothing out of Confession. And the like defence of this answer is giuen by Sepulueda, de Rat. dicendi test. cap. 3. Againe, it is a further Case, If the Priest be asked concerning the same thing, whether he know or haue heard it in Confession; whether may he then say, No, I heard it not? And the common opinion of the Doctors was, Soto Relect. de Secreto, mem. 3. q. 3. Concl. 2. § Hi [...]reto. that in this case, h [...] may sweare he did not heare it. Relect. de secreto memb. 3. q 3. Cond. 4. § Hactenus opinionem. pa. 312. But Soto, vpon better aduice, disliketh this answere, because in this Sentence, Nihil audiui in Confessione; I heard nothing of it in Confession; the Restriction allowed in the former case, cannot fitly bee vnderstood, to say, I heard nothing in Confession, to wit, out of Confession. And therefore he concludeth, that that answere in this case cannot be excused from being a lye; because the words can­not haue that construction. Another case is proposed; Suppose a Tyran should aske of a Priest, whether Peter (for example) did kill Iohn (which the Priest knew in Confession only) may the Priest say and sweare, that Peter [Page 27] did not kill Iohn? Adrian, who afterward was Pope, and was called Adrian the sixth, he resolued the questi­on, that he might answere negatiuely, that [...]e killed him not: but Soto againe replyeth, that this which Adrian said, had no shew of reason; because the words admit no in­terpretation, that may excuse them from a Lye. For, saith he; Ineptisima in­terpretatio [...], non occidit, ut dicam. It were a most fond interpretation to say, He killed him not that I may tell you, or (as our Equiuocators vse now a dayes to speake) He killed him not, so as I may tell you. And he giueth a further reasō hereof, Quia facta non habent or dinem immediatum ad hoc quod est, di­cere; sicut scire & alia verba sensa­tionum. Soto ibid. pag. 314. because deeds haue no immediate relation to this word, [that I may tel it] [...] the wo [...]d [I know] and other such words of sense haue. And in his Booke de Iustit. & Iure, disputing the like question, whether a man beeing questioned concerning his owne Act, may by Ambiguity elude the question; hee resol­ueth, It Quod liceat ei diceu se nō fecis­se, nullatenus est sustentabile. Soto de Ius [...]it. & Iu­re, l. 5. q. 6. art. 2. prope finem. can no way be defended, that he may lawfully say, that he did not doe it: and hereof he giueth this rea­son; Quoniam, Non feci, nullo modo amplecti potest sensum, Non seci, ut di­ca. [facere] enim non habet [...] cum eo, quod est, ut dicam, quaem habet [scire.] Because this speech [I did not doe it] cannot receiue this sense; I did not doe it, to tell it, or that I may tell it, &c. His meaning in more plaine words, is this; that the Priest might truely say in the case proposed, I know not that Peter did kill Iohn; because hee might reasona­bly vnderstand it thus, or with this restriction, I know it not out of Confession. And of such a knowledg the Iudge is supposed to aske, and men do vsually vnderstand the Priest to speake. But the Priest might not say without telling a lye. Peter did not kill Iohn; because, this restri­ction cannot without absurdity, bee applyed to those words,. And consequently, these words could not bee so vnderstood by the hearers. A fourth case may bee added, and with that I will end. Suppose a guilty per­son be against order of Law examined by a Iudge, whe­ther he haue committed such a crime, which indeede he hath done, but is not in this case bound to answere him: suppose (I say) he be inforced to answere, may he truely say, I did not doe it? And Adrian's resolution [Page 28] of the doubt, was; that in such a case, Potest secundi [...] omnes Doctores respondere quòd nihil de sacto ille [...], velcertè, quod non [...]. Adrian. in 4. de Sacr. Cons. [...]esp. ad 2. prin. pag. 143. col. 4. he may truely answere, according to the opinion of all Schoole-Doctors, that, he knoweth nothing of that fa [...]t, or at least, that hee did not [...] it. And his reason is, because in this an­swere, he is supposed to speake Descientia, en quatil [...] eat reuo­lare. of such a knowledge of the fact, as he may lawfully discouer. But Soto replyeth againe, Nescio qui s [...]nt ill [...] omnes De [...]to­res: fateor me nullum legisse. De Secre­to, mem. 3 [...] q. 3. Concl. 4. p. 316 v. etiam de lu­stit et Iute, l. 5. q. 6. art. 2. I know not who all those Doctors are, that Adrian speaketh of: I confesse, I haue read none of that opinion. And he addeth; Se [...]sus ille vio­lent [...]ssimu [...] est &c. That meaning, in which Adrian in­terpreteth these words, is a most forced and violent sense.

Thus Soto declareth his owne opinion, and the opi­nion of other Schoole-Doctors and Casuists of that time, in these and other cases of like nature. And the like doth Io. Genesius Sepulueda, another lear­ned man of the same nation, and about the same time. For hauing heard some defend some such like Equiuo­cations and ambiguities, he vndertaketh to proue, and that by the testimony of ancient Diuines, that in wit­nesse-bearing (for thereof hee doth in particular intreat) a Witnesse may not, arte vorborum, by cunning words, deceiue the Iudge; but that he is bound to speak plaine­ly, and according to the meaning of the Iudge, who as­keth the question. And of the contrary opinion, hee saith, Nemo veterum & nobilium The­ologorum, quod e­quidem sciam, affirmauit. Sepulu. de rat. dicend. testi [...]. cap. 17. None ancient and renowned Diuine that I knowe, did affirme it to bee lawfull. And in the Preface to that Booke, hee saith, that while hee was in Rome, hee met with one, who maintained this opinion, which he cal­leth Quorundam iuniorum Theolo­gorum decretis consentan [...]am. agreeable to the Determinations of some yong or late Diuines: and when he came backe againe into Spaine, that praeter spem, contrary to his expectation, he found some of their learnedest Diuines, maintaining, and in­stilling into their Students hearts and eares, [...]llam veterum [...] summorum Theologorum consensu damna­tam opinionem. that opi­nion which was condemned by the ancient and chiefe Diuines. And, Chap. 15. hee sheweth who they bee, whom he calleth ancient Diuines; and that is in his owne words, Nastrâ & pa­trii memori [...] su­periores, qual [...] est Aqui. Thomas. those which liued before our and our Fa­thers [Page 29] dayes, such for example sake, as Thomas Aquinas is.

Out of which testimonies and sayings of these two learned men (the one of which was Confessor to Charles the fifth, and the other his Historiographer; and the one flourished about the yeere 1560. as Possouin saith, and the other died in the yeere 1572. saith the same Posse­uin, out of these their sayings) I gather and obserue these things.

1 That in the dayes of these two learned men, which was about some 60 yeeres agoe, there was little or no speach of any Equiuocation by mentall reseruation, or of any such mixt propositions, as the Romanists now fancie. This I gather, first, because Soto, in oppugning these ambiguous Answeres and speaches allowed by some Schoole-Doctors of that time, doth no where (to my knowledge) charge them with any such opinion, or euer labour to refute it. Which (considering the ar­gument that hee had in hand, and the diligence that he vsed in handling of it, and cleering of all doubts that belonged vnto it) no man may with reason imagine that hee would haue for borne to doe, if those times had giuen occasion of disputing such a question. Secondly, the same learned man, in oppugning that liberty, which others did grant, doth still ouerthrowe or confute their opinion, because the interpretation and the meaning which they doe allow those answeres to be taken in by the speaker, are such as doe not agree to the vse and signification of the words spoken, nor cannot bee ap­plied to them, without incongruity and absurditie. By which reason of his, hee implieth, that these Diuines meant no other ambiguity, or interpretation, or mea­ning, in those answeres, then such as they thought, the words in that case in which they were vttered might beare. Or els his reason had beene insufficient and foolish; which yet he supposeth to be such, as that his aduersaries could not dislike as impertinent, if the [Page 30] thing which he vrged were true. Thirdly, the same Au­thor doth still so set down his opinion, that in the cases proposed, and others of the like nature; he alloweth any ambiguity or Amphibologie, Quam vsita [...]us sermo citra men­d [...]cium ferre possit. Soto de lustit, & lure l. 5. q. 6. art. 2. which the vse of the speach can beare without a lye, as in expresse words hee ex­plaineth himselfe, but refuseth and condemneth all such, as is not noted and implied in the words. Fourth­ly, Sepulueda, he also disputeth against those, who think themselues not bound in the cases propounded to an­swere according to the common meaning, and accep­tion of the words: and confuteth them, who hold it lawfull simply to denie the crime truely layed to their charge, although they purposely speake some other thing in their minde, Which the Iudge, taking their words in the common meaning, vnderstandeth not: Cap. 17. & through­out the whole Booke. But yet I haue not obserued in all that Booke any speach, in which hee mentioneth a mixt proposition, a mentall Equiuocation, or an ambigui­tie made by a reseruation Against which opinion, (if there had then appeared any such to the world) hee might haue disputed with more probabilitie and shewe of substantiall reason. But he no where (as farre as I can obserue) either refelleth or mentioneth any such opinion among these late and punie Diuines. For wheras in the place last cited, he hath these words, though purposely he speaketh some other thing in his minde, [...] ex in­dustria aliud praeter ea mente liquatur. that maketh nothing, as I thinke, for the mentall reser­uation, which our Equiuocators haue deuised. For he meaneth nothing else, as I take it, but that the speaker doth frame in his minde, another sense and meaning of his words, then they in the common vnderstanding of men doe make, or then the Iudge according to the common vnderstauding doth take them in. And there­fore those very Schoole-Diuines, whom hee and Soto doe refute for going too farre, and allowing too much liberty, yet goe not so farre as our now Iesuites doe, [Page 31] who build all vpon a fancied reseruation of their owne framing, no way included in the words spoken. Fiftly, say that those Diuines, whom these learned men doe re­fute, did maintaine such a mixt proposition, & mentall re­seruation as our Romanists doe striue for: yet Soto saith, that he had read no Schoole-Doctor, who allowed such a fancie as Adrain imagined, which yet by a reserua­tion of a Iesuite, might easily bee solued. And Sepulueda, when hee came out of Italy into Spaine, thought it strange, that hee found Diuines, who contrary to the meaning of all the Ancients, did allow that opinion, which he there refuteth. And therefore if we shall say, that the Diuines against whom these men wrote, did hold this Equiuocall reseruation, yet it was then a nouell opinion, lately sprung vp, such as Soto had read in no Schoole-Doctor of former time, and such as Sepulueda did maruell to finde set on foote in his owne Countrey, where he liued. But, as I said, these learned men did not know of any such opinion risen vp at that time. And therefore in those dayes either this Arte was not yet found, or if it were, it was rather whispered in cor­ners, or taught obscurely, then published in Schooles.

Secondly, I gather out of these learned mens wri­tings alleadged before, that Schoole-Doctors about that time, allowed and gaue liberty for such ambiguities, as in opinion of these men, and in trueth the words could not beare: and therefore their interpretations were forced & violent, and such as could not free their spea­ches from being lyes. This without further deduction, is euident by the words before cited.

Thirdly, I obserue, that these hard and harsh Equi­uocations, by some Diuines then allowed, and the vio­lent constructions that they made of the words, were then newly taken vp, and were vnknowne to the elder and more iudicious Schoole-men.

And out of all this, I leaue it to the iudgement of [Page 32] the learned Reader, whether I may not vpon good rea­son inferre; that therefore in all probabilitie, the later sort of Schoole-Doctors, by the hard Equiuocations, which they allowed, did giue occasion & layd grounds for this Iesuiticall Art of Equiuocation, though at that time themselues did not thinke of it. For, may it not hence be reasonably conceiued, that the progresse and proceeding to the framing of this Art, was on this manner? that first of all, and in elder times, there was nothing, but simplicitie in their Oathes and answers, or if any ambiguitie was allowed to be vsed, it was but in some such sense, as the circūstances of the persons, time, place, and occasion, did put vpon them, and that accor­ding to the intention of publique Lawes, and the rea­sonable construction that the Hearers might make of them: and that afterward they allowed violent con­structions, and such as the words, together with the circumstances, could not beare, in any reasonable mans vnderstanding, but such as the speaker, in his minde did fancie to be agreeable to that businesse and occasi­on. And lastly, that this ouer-bold liberty in them, in framing such a sense, as the words in reason & cōgru­itie could not beare, made way to fine wits following after, to adde something to the former inuention, and to frame a sense of words spoken, which they acknow­ledge not to be signified by them, but made vp by a Reseruation in their owne breast, such as themselues would please to fancie, what euer it were, either per­tinent to the businesse, or as farre different from it, as the falling of the skie is different from the paying of mo­ney. But this will appeare yet more plainely, if it be considered, that Nauarre, Nauar. Com. in c. Humanae aures, q. 1. nu. 4. & nu. 8. & 9. who liued at the same time with Soto, & Sepulueda, but wrote after them, and when they were dead, doth from the opinion of those Diuines, and in speciall from the opinion of Soto also, and from his sayings, labour to inferre and proue the [Page 33] lawfulnesse of the Iesuiticall Equiuocation; because (as hee saith) there is the like reason of them both. How truely he inferreth his Conclusion, from the sayings of Soto and the rest, I dispute not; I onely note in his course of disputation, that hee taketh their assertions for a ground to proue his owne by. And that sheweth that those former Writers gaue occasion, &c. And thus I haue declared my second Assertion concerning the o­riginall of this new Art.

3. The third is, that whosesoeuer wit deuised it, yet it seemeth to mee most probable, that it receiued the first life and credit from the See of Rome, and the Romane state. My reason is from these grounds.

1. Doctor Nauarre, who (as Persons saith, Mitig. cap. 7. nu. 41. pag. 301.) is held to be one of the most libe­rall and largest in admitting Equiuocations both in words and oathes, was thought a fit man to be the Popes Rea­der of Cases in Rome. And if I mistake not, hee was the first that broached this new arte. For hee read at Rome not long after the time of Soto and Sepulueda, who (as before was noted) had not yet heard any thing of this arte. And there he read & framed that Praefat. ante initium Com­mentar. in c. Human. aures▪ Com­mentary, in which he teacheth this mysterie, for the instruction of the Iesuits Colledge and dedicated the same vnto Gregorie 13. the present Pope: which may breede suspition, that the Pope was well pleased with this new deuice of Nauarre, of whom he made choise to be his publique Reader of Cases; and who, while he was imployed in this seruice, did perfect that arte, and from whose Readings, the very Iesuits themselues may seeme to haue borrowed the grounds of that Doctrine, which afterward they polished with great dexteritie and care.

Secondly, In Queene Elizabeths time, there was a Treatise found out, which before was in the secret kee­ping of Iesuits or Priests: in which, beside the Resolu­tions [Page 34] of Nauarre, were contayned sundry instructions and directions, giuen by Sixtus Quintus, for the pra­ctising of this mysterie of Equiuocation. Which, if the Reader be desirous to know more fully, hee may reade a Relation thereof set downe by G. Abbot in the Preface to his Sixe questions. cap. 1. pag. 7. 8. &c. a most reuerend and learned Prelate.

Thirdly, I finde that Emm. Sà in his Aphorismes V. Mendac. had giuen his opinion concerning this E­quiuocall reseruation, in this manner: that in a case, Quidam di­cunt,—posse re­spondere aliquid subintelligendo, vt non esse, s [...]z [...]ta vt e [...] dieere teneatur; ve [...]se non habere, sci­licet vt ei d [...]t. At alij id non admill [...]nt, & sortè potiori ratione. Where a man is not bound to reueale the truth according to the intention of the Demander, some say, that a man may answere by vnderstanding or reseruing something in his minde, as that is not so, to wit so, as that hee is bound to tell him: or that hee hath not such a thing, meaning, that hee hath it not to giue it vnto him. But others admit not of this kinde of answere; and perhaps, vpon better ground and reason. Thus hee gaue his iudgement of this poynt; and so the Booke passed in the Low Countries, and with approbation and commendation of Silu. Pardo, the Inquisitor and Censor there, and was printed at Antwerpe 1599. But when it came to be perused, and reuewed at Rome, the Censor there, Io. Maria, Master of the sacred Palace, he purged the Booke, and put out the last words, which were, Et sortè po­tiori ratione. And perhaps vp­on better reason. In which words Sà had signified, that hee inclined to their opinion, who disliked this Equi­uocating by reseruation. And hence it appeareth, how acceptable and welcome this Doctrine of Equiuocati­on is in the Popes Palace. For whereas F. Sober Rec­kon. cap. 4. nu 76. pa. 276. Persons saith, that in the last Edition of Sàes Booke at Rome 1607. this whole last sentence was left out, as though hee had changed his opinion. And Ibid. nu 80. pag. 279. that it seemeth that Emm. Sà did afterwards change his opinion; it is but a tricke of iugling, such as this Father often vseth to delude his Reader with. For Sà died, as Ribaden. Catalogo Scriptotum Soc. Iesu. in [...]man. Sa. Ribadeneira reporteth, in the yeare 1596. eleuen yeares before this edition [Page 35] of Rome, and three yeares before the impression of Antwerpe, being then aboue threescore and ten yeares olde. And if Sà, after so many yeares deliberation, had changed his opinion, how came it about that that change was not seene in the Antwerpe Copy, which was printed 3. yeares after he was dea [...] ▪ Besides, the Edition of Rome, re-printed also at [...], An. 1612. doth professe, that that Book was purged by Ioan. Ma­ria, the Master of the Palace, and not that it was cor­rected or amended by Sà, the first Author of it. Fur­ther, Persons giueth no one piece of a reason, by which the Reader may imagine, that Sà did euer change that point. And therefore, this is but one of Persons vsu­all trickes of fittening, with which his Brethren of the secular Clergy doe so often charge him.

Now these considerations layed together, make mee thinke it very probable, that this Arte receiued its life from the State and See of Rome. But if any man can shew mee, whence it might rather haue its first ground, I will willingly yeeld to him; and be thanke­full to him, that can and will discouer the Spring, or Well-head, whence first flushed forth this muddy Ny­lus, so fertile of Crocodiles, I meane of this sophistique Crocodilites, whereby vnware men are ouer-reached and caught.

4. My fourth Assertion is; It is obserued by lear­ned men, that whosoeuer was the Author, yet the Iesuites, especially those of our English Nation, haue beene the chiefe Abettors, Defenders and Polishers of this Arte. For proofe of this, I will set downe the words of some learned men. The Relation. nu. 33. fol. 36. learned Gentle­man, who wrote the Relation of Religion, speaking of false newes, frequent at Rome, for aduantage of their Sect, addeth, that he found by obseruation, and iudgement of some wise men, that the Iesuites were the Masters of that Mint, and that all those coynes were of their stamp; [Page 36] and, that the Iesuites were noted by some of their owne friends, to be too hardie Equiuocators, and their Equiuoca­tions too hard. And Hospinian Histor. Ie­suit. l. 4. cap. 2. pag. 228. hauing cited many te­stimonies of Iesuites for this Arte, concludeth that therby it is euident, that many Iesuits with great care haue explained and defended it, [...] non imme­ritò Autores & inuentores eius esse vulgò dican­tur. that not without cause they are commonly thought to be the Authors and Inuentors of it. Adde hereto that which the learned Casaubon ob­serued, who was well acquainted not onely with the writings of all sorts of Iesuits, but with the procee­dings and dealings of our English Iesuits also. Hee tel­leth Front [...] [...], a learned Iesuit, Constat mul­tos vestri [...] Theologos— [...]am [...] magna cura, & expli [...]u­isse & asseruisse. Sed qui p [...]aecipnè Acqui [...]oc catione [...] ex [...]o [...]uerint, [...]os video fuisse Anglos. Ca­s [...]ub. Epist. ad Front. Ducaeum, pag. 108. It is a cleare case, that many Diuines of your Order haue explained and maintained that Arte: but they which haue especially polished it, I finde to be English men. Yea and their owne Brethren, the Secular Priests, lay the ouer-bold vse of Equiuocation in their dish. Reply to Father Per­sons Libell, fol. 22. &c 23. For so famous (say they) and so notorious are their Equiuocations, and so scanda­lous, that the very Protestants take notice thereof, &c. and, such iugglings, and shiftings of late haue beene vsed by them, that not onely Protestants, but also Catholickes, yea Priests can scarse tell when they speake sincerely, when otherwise. And a little after, Howsoeuer this kinde of dealing may seeme excusable vnto them, vnder the name of honest Equiuocation; sure I am that few honest men will excuse it from dishonest lying. And Master Watson Quodl. 2. art 6. pag. 39. cal­leth it the Iesuits rule of swearing and forswearing in a contrary sense and meaning; and Quodl. 3. art. 4. pag. 66. a shift, which they call a lawfull Equiuocation. And againe, hee Quodl. 2. art. 4. pag. 31. calleth these Equiuocations, their absurd paradoxes of Equiuo­cation. And the like speeches may be found in diuers other places of the Priests bookes. By all which it may appeare, that learned men on both sides, not onely a­mong the Protestants, but also among Popish Priests, haue noted this deuice especially in the Iesuits: which may be reason enough, (beside that which is to be found [Page 37] in their owne writings) to make any sober man resolue, that the Iesuites haue had their fingers chiefly in this new deuised Arte. And reason may perswade the same to be most likely; because the Iesuites are an Or­der consecrated and deuoted from their very first birth to the Popes will, to doe what may serue his turne. For so the Iesuites themselues, who published Sanchez. Mo­rall worke, doe professe in the Epistle Dedicatorie to Pope Gregorie 15. Prefixed be­fore the se­cond tome. that their first founder Se suamque Societatem Pon­tisieijs imperijs more pro [...]sus no­uo mancipauit. did make himselfe and his Order or Societie vassals to the Popes com­maund, in a new and vnheard of manner. And therefore if the See and State of Rome, did (as before I shewed) giue life, and credit and authoritie to this Arte; then, in reason it must be conceiued that the Iesuites, who by their first institution are created the Popes vassals, to serue at his pleasure, and to doe his will, would be the most forward in the ranke, to vphold and main­taine with all their wit, this deare Childe of the Popes owne breeding. And yet when I conclude that the Ie­suits are the most forward, and the men that haue po­lished this Arte, my meaning is not, either to include all of that Order within this compasse, or to exclude all others not of that Order from it. For first among the Iesuites, Becanus doth disclaime it, as Manual. Controu. l. 5. cap. 21. & O­pusc. Theolog. tom. 1. Opusc. 17. in Respons. ad Aphoris. 13, 14, 15, 16. & tom. 2. O­pusc. 1. in Ap­pend de fide Haer. seruandâ in exam. 4. pro­positionis. being not taught by the Iesuites, and vnlawfull to be practised by a­ny. Wherein hee saith well, that it is vnlawfull; but ill, that it is not taught by the Iesuites. For their Do­ctrine this way is so cleare, and so open to the view of all men, that Becanus in denying it, must needes either vse the Arte of Equiuocation, which himselfe condem­neth, or else tell a flat and downe-right lye, which is not much better. And the like may be noted in the writings of some other Iesuites, who deny and re­nounce this deuice. But they had best keepe them­selues from Rome; for if they come in the Censors hands, it is to be feared hee will deale with them, as [Page 38] he hath done with their felow S [...] already; that is, circū ­cise their lips, and teach their pens to speake the Roman Language more purely. Secondly, among those that be no Iesuites, wee haue experience and examples good store, of them who haue learned this Arte, and main­tained it as stiffely, as the best Iesuite can. In which number, I may place Doctor Norrice, who beeing ap­prehended in Oxford, denyed himselfe to bee a Priest, and afterward in prison did defend it by this sleight of Equiuocation, and that he maintained to be lawfull, by the example of our blessed Sauiour; Mar. 13. 32. But of that day & houre knoweth no man, neither the Son, &c. and Ioh. 7. 8. Ego non ascendam, &c. For so he then alledged the place, as Father Persons also doth, against both the Greeke, and their owne approued Latine. In expoun­ding, and applying of which Texts to his purpose, how weakely he behaued himselfe, he may now bee pleased to call to his remembrance: that as he braggeth of his victories ouer other men, so for his humiliation, hee may sometimes call to mind his owne infirmities. And that perhaps may stand his soule in as good stead, as the meritorious forbearing of Equiuocation, when he might lawfully vse it: which (as Father Persons saith) may in­crease his Crowne and merit in heauen.

But in earnest, he shall doe well, if in the next editi­on of his Antidote, he place this question of Equiuoca­tion among the rest of his Controuersies, and tell vs in good sadnes, what, after so many yeeres more, he thin­keth of this Point. But in the meane while, the Reader may vnderstand, that D ^r. Norrice is not the only man that ioyneth with the Iesuites in the practice and main­tenance of this Arte. For in this small Treatise may be seene diuers testimonies for it, out of other Writers. And the secular Priests, though they charge & vpbraid the Iesuites with a nimium, too often and too bold a practice of it, yet themselues doe allow it, euen when [Page 39] they shew greatest opposition against the Iesuites. So Master Watson Quod lib. 3. art. 4. p. 66, 67. speaking of Equiuocation, as a shift which the Iesuites vse; saith, that though there bee no question to bee made of it, but that in some sense it may bee lawfull, &c. In which place, the sum of that, wherein he sheweth his dissent & dislike of the Iesuites, (for his owne words are too many to be set down in this place) is in these two things▪ First, That the Iesuites doe al­low Equiuocation in a case, wherein he thinketh a man is bound to speake the plaine truth. And secondly, that they doe hold, that they may not onely to their Aduersaries (to Protestants) but euen also to any Catholike Magistrate, yea to the Pope himselfe, answere one way, and meane ano­ther. And to like purpose, the Author of the Replie to Persons Apologie, beeing to answere for D. Bagshaw, whom Persons had reprooued, as denying the doctrine of Equiuocation; saith, that the Doctor, Cap. 17. in the very end pag. 331. no doubt, know­eth in what cases doubtfull answeres and Equiuocations are to be made to curious questions: neither is it to bee thought (saith he) that he dissallowed thereof, but onely of the liber­ty, which is in the Iesuites and their Adherenes, in all their dealings with other men. By which it may appeare, that the difference betweene the Secular Priests and the Ie­suites in this point, is not about the equitie & lawful­nes of this Arte, but about the liberty and large scope that the Iesuites take, to practise it among their owne Brethren, and before their owne Magistrates and Su­periours, and in all their dealings. And surely, for our owne experience, I cannot learne any thing to the con­trarie, but that our Tribunals and places of Iudicature, our Bishops, Iustices, and other Officers, who haue to deale in their Examinations, yea and that our common sort of Christians who conuerse with them, doe find in their experience, that Secular Priests, and [...]ale Papists of all sorts, doe iumpe with the Iesuites in the practice of this Arte. Notwithstanding, if any among them, [Page 40] which call themselues Catholikes, doe renounce and disclaime it, as well in deedes as in words; I am so far from fastening any imputation of disgrace vpon them for this iniquitie of their brethren, as that I wish and pray they may goe on, to forsake and abandon all other the abominations and errors of the Roman Church. But (to draw toward an end in this Point) all things considered, my Conclusion commeth to this head; That this mystery of iniqu [...]ty spreadeth farre and neere in the Papall Kingdome, hauing receiued authority and countenance from the very Roman See, and finding en­tertainement and acceptance among all inferiour sorts: but yet the Iesuites are they that haue chiefely polished it, and most boldly practised it; and among the Iesuites, our English-men (be it spoken to the credite of our Na­tion) doe beare the bell away. And from hence the Rea­der may see why our Diuines doe vsually ascribe this Doctrine to the Iesuites: and consequently what wee haue to answere to Becanus his question. For Quaro eur h [...]nc fallendi ar­tem appelles Ae­quiuocationem Iesuiticam. to [...]. 2. Opusc. 1. in Append. in ex­aminatione [...]. propos. I desire to know (saith he) why you call this Arte of deceiuing, Iesuiticall Equiuocation: and our answere is ready; We call it Iesuiticall, because men of that order, haue beene the chiefe Abettors and polishers of that Arte.

CHAP. III.
Of the matter or obiect of Equiuocation, or in what cases it is allowed by the Patrons of it.

FOr the matter or obiect, about which this Arte may be exercised, F. Persons Mitigat. cap. 7. nu. 7. pa. 277. & cap. 10. nu. 23. pa. 424. & cap. 11. nu. 31. p. 460. & cap. 13. nu. 2. p. 547. seemeth to except two cases, in which they hold it vnlawfull to equi­uocate First, In matters of faith: and secondly, in buying and selling, in com­mon conuersation and humane traffique, to the hurt or preiudice of any. But this is but another tricke of his iuggling, by which hee would bleare the eyes of his Reader; and make the world beleeue that they vse no fraud, either in matters of Religion, or in businesses with their neighboures, so that any body should be hurt or beguiled by them. For first, where he saith, that they may not vse Equiuocation in matters of faith, perhaps in this saying he doth equiuocate with vs; and meaneth, that we may not so vse Equiuocation, as to de­ny any point of faith. But that in handling & dealing a­bout matters of faith, it may bee lawfull with them to vse this Arte; there are good proofes from their own Writings, beside all the experience of their practice. For F. Persons saith, that Mitig. c [...]. 11. nu. 23. p. 454. in matters of Religion, it be­longeth to the faith of the hearer-to seeke out the speakers reseruation for his better assurance. Which is but a sclen­der comfort to a poore Christian, who had as good seeke a Needle in a bottle of hay, as a reseruation locked vp in an Equiuocators mind: but hence it followeth, that he alloweth Equiuocation in matters of Religion. A-Againe, [Page 42] the same Father Persons telleth vs, that Mitig. cap. 13. nu. 3. p. 548. no man can deny, but many facts and cases may fall out con­cerning matters of Religion, not tending to Confession (e­specially in time of persecution) wherein a man may, or perhaps also must by obligation vse equiuocall speeches. Here he granteth, that by their principles, it is an vn­doubted conclusion, that in cases concerning Religi­on, a man may equiuocate, so the case be not such, as tendeth to Confession; 1. as I vnderstand it, if by equi­uocating he doe not seeme to deny the Roman faith, which at such times, they hold it necessarie for their Children, without any tergiuersation to confesse. But elsewhere hee vnfoldeth himselfe a little more plaine­ly, when he saith of Equiuocation, Sober Rec­kon. in Ap­pend. nu. 25. pag. 687. that it may not be vsed in matters of Religion, where Confession of our Faith is required. For this implyeth, that where Confession of faith is not required, there it may be lawfull enough to equiuocate. But euident and cleare it is, that the Mitigat. cap. 9. num. 25. & seqq. Iesuite maketh our blessed Sauiour to equiuocate in sundry matters of Religion, and thence would perswade vs, that by his example, they may doe the like. As for example, hee did equiuocate, when he said of the day of Iudgement, Mar. 13. 32. Of that day and houre knoweth no man, nor the Sonne, &c. And when hee said of himselfe, Ioh. 8. 15. I iudge no man: the Iesuite saith, that this speech with­out a mentall reseruation is false, and cannot stand, for that it should be contrary to many other places of Scripture: and should imply a deniall of Christs office to be our Iudge. He proceedeth to other examples, and telleth vs, that Christ did equiuocate about the Sacrament of Baptisme, when he said, Mar. 16. 16. Hee that shall beleeue, and be baptized, shall be saued: and about eating of the flesh of Christ, Ioh. 6. 51. If any man shall eate of this bread, hee shall liue for euer: and about Prayer, when hee said, Ioh. 16. 23. If ye shall aske any thing of my Father in my name, he will giue it you. Now the points here spoken of, and others of like na­ture, [Page 43] in which the Iesuite findeth Equiuocation to haue beene vsed in Scriptures, are, I trow, matters of faith and Religion. And hence it followeth, that Equi­uocators must either confesse that they abuse the world in alledging these and such like Texts, to proue and vphold Iesuiticall Equiuocation, which is not there meant; or that they hold their Equiuocations to be lawfull, and sufficiently warranted, euen in principall matters of Religion, such as are Christs office of iudging, the doctrine of the Sacraments, and prayer in Christs name. In the first place then, when Persons excepteth matters of faith from the practice of Equiuocation, hee mocketh his Reader with generall speeches, when hee meaneth no such thing; but onely that men may not equiuocate, by denying in words their beliefe of the Ro­man faith, or some such like. Secondly, where Per­sons saith that they allow not equiuocation in common conuersation, in buying, &c. it may be obserued that Nauarre, Comm. in c. Human. au­res. q. 3. nu. 1 [...]. the famous Reader in Rome, doth highly commend this Equiuocation as a Per hanc do­ctrinam singula­rem possunius euitare innumera pe [...]cata, &c. singular point of Doctrine, by which wee may auoid innumerable sinnes which wee commit by denying and affirming without this mentall reseruation, with which if the words spoken were ioyned, they would become true. This he explaineth and confirmeth thus: Passim enim interrogamur, Quò vadimus, quid comedimu [...], &c. We are asked & demanded euery foot, whither we goe, what we haue eaten, how much money we haue, or haue borrowed, or haue giuen, what letters and newes we haue receiued, what wee haue written and rela­ted; what such or such a man said to vs, what wee know of such or such a one: and many hundred like. To all which (saith hee) wee might answere without sinne, Subintelli­gendo aliqua, quibus fient vera quae annuimu [...], vel falsa quae negamus. by vnderstanding somewhat in our mindes, which may make that true, which we affirme, and that false, which wee deny: As for example, when a man asketh of vs, mo­ney, or a Booke, or newes, &c. if wee answere him, I haue them not, or I know them not; vnderstanding, Ita vt tenear vel conueniat illi praestare, tradere, dicere, &c. so as I am [Page 44] bound, or, as it is conuenient to doe it, or giue it, or to speake and make is knowne. The like is affirmed by Summa v. mendac nu. 4. pag. 385. Emm. Rodriquez, who alledging this determination of Na­uarre, and transcribing also some of his words, addeth in the end, to shew how hee esteemed this deuice, Quae doctrina deb [...]t notari. which Doctrine ought to be marked and obserued. And Fernandes De praecept. 2. §. 1. nu. 8. p. 49. in his Examen saith, that if a man being re­quested to lend a thing to his neighbour, Causam habeat non illam dandi. haue a cause or reason, why hee will not grant or giue it, &c. hee may sweare by Equiuocation, that he hath not such a thing. And Sanchez, In comm [...]n loquutione inter­rogato de re, quam secretò seruare exp. dit, licitum est dicere, se nescire, intel­ligendo, ita vt expediat dicere. Sanchez O. per moral l. 3. c. 6. num. 25. In common talke (saith hee) if a man be asked of a thing which it behooueth him to keepe secret, it is law­full for him to say, that hee knoweth not, vnderstanding so as that it is expedient to tell it. And Father Persons Mitigat. c. 9. nu. 81. & 83. pag. 403, 404. also thinketh it most iust and necessary, if a man come to borrow mony, whom we may not deny with­out inconuenience, that we may then answere equiuo­cally that wee haue it not; vnderstanding, with any minde to lend it: or that wee haue it not in our purse, &c. Which instances and examples, if they be not matters of common life and conuersation, I know not where to finde any. But it may be said, that Persons, when he excepteth matters of common conuersation in buying, &c. hee addeth, to the hurt or preiudice of any; as if hee meant by that restriction, to leaue a libertie of equiuocating, euen in buying and selling, and humane traf­fique; so it be without the hurt of any man: but then vtterly to forbid it. And I graunt, hee addeth those words: but I cannot tell, whether he meant the vul­gar Reader to conceiue that meaning in them. How­soeuer, there is a mysterie in those words, which In c. Human. [...]ures. q. 2. nu. 12. Na­uarre, (who vseth to deale aboue-boord, and to speake more plainely) hath vnfolded, when he calleth it, Verum & in­iustum damnum. a reall and vniust hurt or preiudice; by which hee vnder­standeth such an hurt, as wee may not doe to another, without sinne and iniustice. And then, the meaning of [Page 45] this goodly Exception of Persons, will be this; that in buying, and selling, and humane traffique, and common conuersation, wee may not equiuocate, if thereby wee doe hurt any man vniustly and vnlawfully: but else, if a­ny of their Catholiques should thinke that the hurt which redoundeth to one of vs, is lawfull and iust, that then they may freely delude vs with their amphibolo­gies and reseruations, in what matter soeuer, and for what end they please, though it were for massacring of an assembly, or for murdering of a Prince, or for blow­ing vp of a Parliament, or for the inuasion of the King­dome by hostile and forraine forces. And so by this exception we are well freed from the feare of these de­luding and equiuocating spirits. Let vs then dismisse Persons, with his shifting Exceptions and enquire more particularly and directly what the cases be, wherein they doe in sober sadnesse allow their Schollers to vse the benefit of this Art. And for this purpose I finde two things said by them. First, that whensoeuer a man may lawfully keepe silence, and say nothing, or whensoeuer hee is not bound to reueale and lay open the truth, then hee may lawfully equiuocate, and vse this sleight of amphibologie: be it a matter of faith, or a businesse of commerce and traffique, or a poynt of State, or what else you will, it mattereth not to this purpose. For proofe of this, first take the resolution of Father Garnet. He being prisoner in the Tower, and required to declare his opinion concerning this point, set downe his minde in writing, which is yet kept vpon Record: and it was this, De Aequino­catione ita cen­sio. In rebus mo­ralib. & cōmuni vsa vitae, quando veritas inter a­micos requiritur, vti aequ [...]ocati­one haut licet: id enim Societati hominum magno mala cedere [...]. Quare hoc reme­dio in istis null [...] loc [...]. Quoties verò de necessari [...] defensione agitur, dequs, iniu­ria aliqua eui­tanda, aut damno, aut de consequando ali­quo non parui. momenti hon [...], sine vll [...] cuius­qua [...]r periculo, tum luita est. Aequinocati [...]. Casaub. Ep. ad Fronton, Du [...]. pag. 1. 1. Concerning Equiuocation this is mine [...] ­pinion. In morall matters and common vse of [...]; to haue a­mong friends it is required of a man to speake truth, then hee may not vse Equiuocation, &c. But as oft as there is occasion for necessary defence, or for auoyding of some iniury or damage, or for obtaining some good of weight or moment, withall the perill of any [...] Equiuocation [...]. [Page 46] In which speech, Master Casaubon doth truely note by the way, that those words, without the perill of any man, are onely added for a colour, and to blind the sim­ple with: as I noted the like before, in a like sentence of Father Pers [...]ns. But the thing that I now note for this purpose, is, that he saith; In cōmon vse of life, when it is required of a man to speake truth, then it is not lawfull to equiuocate. By which words he implyeth, that where a man is not of duety bound to speake or reueile the truth, there he may obscure & hide it by this Arte. The same Father Garnet, while hee stood at the Barre, in fewer words, and plainer manner explaineth his meaning thus; Proceeding against Tray­tors, lit. u. 4. No man may equiuocate when he ought to speake the truth, otherwise he may.

To like purpose Fernandes Ea etiam vti licet, quum iustè quis interrogatur, si datur rationa­bilis causa non re­sponderdi ad me­tem Interrogan­tu. Fernand. Exam. de praec. 2. cap. 5. § 1. nu. 8. p. 49. A man may lawfully vse it also, when he is iustly or lawfully demanded, if hee haue a reasonable cause not to answere according to the meaning of the Demander. And Heissius the Iesuite, Non solum Qu [...] iniuriosa est in­terrogatio, sed e­tiam absque cul­pa interroganti, saepe non tenemur ad mentem eius respondere, quan­docunque scilicet Interrogans non habet ius impe­ [...]a [...] responsio­nem, & Interro­gato id [...]nea mini­ineq, leuis illius dene gandae causa suppe [...]t. Nam cui tacere licet, [...] praeter quaesita, aliud quid cum Deo Coelitibus, aut sec [...]n loqui po [...]si, seu [...]ocall, seu [...] se [...] mixta, [...]i. partim vocali, partim mentali. Heiss. Refut. Aph. c. 4. Aph. 2. nu. 117. p. 191. Not onely (saith hee) when the question is vniust, but also when it is without fault; we are many times not bound to answere him that asketh the question, according to his inten­tion and meaning: and that is, whensoeuer the Demander hath not right to command an answere; and the Demanded hath a sufficient and not idle reason to deny it. For he that, may lawfully hold his pe [...]ce, [...]ay, passing by the things that are asked him, speake some other thing with God, the hea­uenly Spirits, or with himselfe, either by vocall or mentall speech, or by a mixt, speech, which is partly vocall and part­ly mentall. In these two last testimonies, the instance is in a particular case, when a man is examined or que­stioned: but the ground on which they build their de­termination, is a generall Rule, that whensoeuer a man may lawfully say nothing, then he may lawfully equiuo­cate, and speake by a mixt Proposition; as appeareth plainely in the reason of Heissius, now set downe in his owne words. And in a word, Equiuocators say, that [Page 47] if Persons mit. c. 10. nu. 23. pa. 424. Greg. de Valent. tom. 3. Disp. 5. q. 13. punct. 2. §. Ad. 2 Arg. Sanchez moral [...]. 3. c. 6. nu. 16. p. 26. a man vse Equiuocation with mentall reseruation, he doth not offend against the negatiue Precept, which for, b [...]ddeth a man to lye; because, whatsoeuer he speaketh in that maner, is a truth: onely hee may offend against the affirmatiue Precept, if he doe then equiuocate, when he is bound to vtter and reueile the truth. And hence I inferre, that whensoeuer a man may lawfully say no­thing, as not being bound to reueile the truth; then in these mens opinion, he may lawfully speake by Equiuo­cation. And this is the first thing that they say for this purpose.

The second thing is, that Causa iusta v­tendi his amphi­bologiis est, quoti­es id necessarium aut vtile est ad sa­lutem corporis, ho­nore, res samil [...]a­res tuenda, vel ad quemlibet alium virtutis actum: ita vt veritatis occultatio censea­tur, tunc expedi­ens ac studiosa. Sanchez op. moral. l. 3. c. 6. num. 19. there is iust cause for vsing of Equiuocation, whensoeuer it is necessary or expedient for preseruing of bodily safety, honor, houshold goods, or for any other act of vertue; so that the hiding of the truth may then be thought to bee expedient and honest. So speaketh Sanchez, meaning this rule of such an Equiuocation as is ioyned with an oath. For else, Dum Sotus ait non esse culpam Amphibologus uti joco, & in ridicu­lis, intelligo quan­do absque iura­mento id fieret. Tunc enim ho­nestus ille ludus, recreationis iusta causa exereitus, honc stum redde­ret amphibologiae vsum. At si iura­mentum adesset, est manifesta cul­pa, propter vanamet indiscretā Diuini Nominis vsurpationem. Sanchez moral. l. 3. c. 6. nu. 22. if there be no oath v­sed, then honest sport vsed for lawfull recreation, may make the vse of Equiuocation lawfull. But if there were an oath added, then it is an euident fault, because of the vaine and indiscreet vsing of Gods Name. So speaketh the same Author not long after. From which words of the Ie­suite we may gather two things. 1. That an easie cause may suffice for iustifying of Equiuocall speeches, in a simple assertion without an oath. If there bee no other cause but onely for merriment and recreation, yet that is reason inough to make the vse of Equiuocation lawfull and honest. 2. That when other Equiuocators doe re­quire some kind of necessity or vtility which may draw men to vse it; they are to be vnderstood of Equiuocati­on ioyned with an oath, and not when it is vsed in a bare and simple affirmation or negation: vnlesse wee may conceiue, that sport and merriment goeth with them for a matter of necessite or great moment. And [Page 48] indeed, this difference giuen by Father Sanchez, be­tweene Equiuocation with an oath, and without it, hath reason in it, if we consider their grounds and principles. For in affirmations and negations, there are two things required. 1. That no lye be told: for this is required by the negatiue precept of truth, as they vse to speake. And this fault, as they thinke, they auoide by their arte of Reseruation. And secondly, that men conceale not a truth, when they are bound to disclose it: for this is required by the affirmatiue precept of truth. But in an Oath, besides truth in the speech, there is a third thing required, and that is, that it be vndertaken with iudgement, that is to say, aduisedly and with due discretion. Else, by swearing a truth vnaduisedly, Gods Name may be prophaned. There is reason then for this difference which Sanchez maketh. And now by all this, the Reader may see, that an easie cause is thought sufficient for the vsing of this Arte. If it be for ease of the body, safety of a mans goods, preseruing of his cre­dite, &c. then by their doctrine, a man may equiuocate with an Oath: but if it be for sport and merriment only, yet then it may bee lawfull in affirmations and negati­ons without an Oath: prouided that it be such a case, in which a man may lawfully hold his peace, and bee not bound then to disclose the truth.

By this it appeareth in generall, in what cases they allow the vse of this Arte. But for fuller satisfaction of the Reader, and for more distinct conceiuing of their meaning in this point; it will not bee amisse to point out some speciall and particular Cases, in which they giue expresse leaue for the practising of this sleight. And they be these, and such like.

1 If a Priest, that hath heard another mans Confession, should be demanded, whether such a one had confessed such a sinne vnto him, or not;—he may answere directly, that hee hath not confessed any such thing vnto him, albeit hee had [Page 49] done so: yea, he may sweare also this answere of his, vn­derstanding and reseruing in his minde, that the Penitent hath not confessed the same vnto him, so as he may vtter it. These be Father Persons Mitig. cap. 10. nu. 2. pag. 407, 408. words. And hee saith, they be agreeable to the mind of all Schoole-Doctors.

2 Vltimò, Dedu­citur Poenitentem temerè rogatum, an hoc vel illud peccatū fassus sit, posse iurare se non confessum, intelli­gendo ita vt tene­atur illi explicare. Sanchez mor. l. 3. c. 6. nu. 44. If a Penitent be asked without a iust cause, whether he haue confessed such or such a sinne (which he had con­fessed to the Priest) he may sweare he confessed it not, vn­derstanding, so as that he is bound to tell him. So speaketh Sanchez, and citeth others of the same opinion.

3 Si contra iusti­tiam petit, et iu­ridice eum non interrogas, potest vti aequiuocatio­ne, et iurare secundum propri­am mentem. To­let. de Instruct. Sa. l. 4. c. 21. num. 10. If a Iudge do against iustice question a Defendant, and doe not question according to order of Law; the De­fendant may vse Equiuocation, and sweare according to his owne meaning: that is, by a secret reseruation kept in his mind. So saith Tolet. And Sanchez saith the like, Iisdem amphi­bologijs potest vti Reus, quando Iu­dex interrogans non est legitimus Interrogati Iu­dex, aut in hoc casu peculiari, Sanchez l. 3. c. 6. nu. 27. When the Iudge that questioneth, is not the lawfull Iudge of him that is questioned, or is not his Iudge in that peculiar case; the Defendant may vse Equiuocation. And the like he saith, if the Iudge bee an Excommunicate person. And the like Father Persons doth largely con­firme, Mitig. cap. 10. nu. 11. and in the rest follo­wing. When the Iudge is not lawfull, or not competent at least in that cause, or proceedeth not lawfully. In these ca­ses, they thinke that a man questioned before a Magi­strate, may vpon his oath, by an equiuocall reseruation, deny that which he knoweth to be true.

4 Si quis hominē ignorāter, putans esse feram, occidat, aut in propriam defensionem-potest de eo facto rogatus in iu­dicio, id negare. Sanchez moral. l. 3. c. 6. nu. 29. If one doe ignorantly kill a man, thinking him to be a wild Beast, (a Deere for example) or if he kill a man in his owne defence; he may being questioned of the fact, denie it vpon his oath.

5 Quando taxa alicutus rei est iniusta, si pluris vendens, aut defraudans in pondere & mensura, ita vt sibi satisfaciat propretij injustitia, & reddat correspondentes merces pretio date; potest hic interrogatus à Iudice, an pluris vendiderit vel desecent in pōdere aut mensu­ra id negare, as­sacre (que) se pretio taxato vendidis­se & integre pondus & mensu­ra [...] tradi [...]isse, in­telligendo haec, ita ut pluris ven­dens aut defici­ens in pondere aut mensura deli­querit. Sanehez moral. l. 3. c. 6. nu. 29. When an vniust taxe is set vpon a commoditie, if a man sell it for more, or maketh light waight, and scant mea­sure, so that he make himselfe satisfaction for the wrong of the Taxe, and yet sell his commodities worth the moeny; he being examined by a Iudge, whether he sold the commodi­ty [Page 50] for more, or came short in his waight or measure, hee may deny it, and say, that he sold it for the price that was set him, and that he gaue full waight and measure; meaning so, as that selling for more, or comming short in his waight or measure, he did commit an offence.

6 Si reperto cada­nere, quis interro­gatur, an gladius ibi repertus fit su­us, vel tali ho [...] illaec transierit, quae vera sunt, & petuntur ab eo, tanquam illi­u [...] homi [...]idiji indi [...]ia quod verè no commisa potest negare. Sanch l. c. nu 30. If a man be found slaine, with a Sword lying by him; and a guiltlesse person should be asked, whether that sword were his, or whether hee passed that way at such an houre, (which things are true, and are inquired after as signes of that murder, which he committed not) he may denie it.

7 Ratione optima docent cum, qui nummos mutuò acceptos soluit, posse a Iudice ro­gatum de mutuo, iucarese illud non accepisse, intelligendo ita ut teneatur id soluere.—Atque idem credo si tunc non teneretur soluere, eò quod terminus, ad quem matuum datum fuit non est impletus; vel prae pauper­tate excusatur debit or a tunc soluendo. Sanch l. c. nu. 31. If a man haue borrowed money, and paied it againe, and be examined of the Iudge, concerning the money that he borrowed; he may sweare that he borrowed not that money; vnderstanding so as that he is now bound to pay it. And so a man may sweare, that he had not such money, which hee did receiue; if through pouerty he be excused from making payment, or if he should be vrged to pay it, before the day that it is due.

8 Nonò, deducitur Creditorem virtute Instrumenti publici exigeteur eoram Iudice debitum,—et si pars illius sunun [...] debita s [...]luta sibi sit. &c. Si Debitor reconcentat eoram Iudice Creditorem, vt iuret an pars illius debiti soluta sit sibi, potest iuarare solutam non esse, intelligendo vt modò non sit tantundem sibi debitum. Sanch. l. c. num 36. If a Creditor haue money owing him vpon Bond, part whereof is p [...]yed vnto him, but as much is due vnto him some other way, for which hee hath no Instrument to shew: if he be required before a Iudge, to sweare whether part of that debt were payd him; he may sweare that it was not paied, vnderstanding, so but that as much is now due to him, some other way.

9. Vndecimo deducitur, co [...]ctam aliquam actipere in sponsam, quam ducere non te­netur, posse iurare se accepturum, intelligendo in [...]a se, Si teneor vel si postea placuent mihi. San­chez ibid. num. 39. Tolet. de Instruct Sacerd. l. 4. 21. nu. 11. If a man be forced to promise marriage to a wo­man, whom otherwise he is not bound to marrie [the mea­ning is, if he be vrged and pressed by a Iudge against reason, to make that promise] he may sweare, that hee will marry her, though hee meane it not, vnderstanding [Page 51] within himselfe, If I be bound to doe so, or, if afterward I shall like of it.

10 Si vir ab vxore petat an sit [...]dulte­ra, ista potest di­cere, Non sum, squam [...]is verum fuerit eam adul­terium cōmississe) intelligendo, vt tibi reuelem To­let. Instruct. l. 4. c. 21. nu. 11. Sanch. moral. l. 3. [...]6. nu. 41. Persons, mitig. c. 10. nu. 37. pa. 436. If a Woman, that hath played the whore, bee asked by her husband, whether she haue committed adultery, shee may sweare that she hath not done it, vnderstanding with­in her selfe, so as I may or meane to tell you of it.

11 Contraxit quit matrimonium per verba de praesenti, qua de re postula­tus corum Episco­po, potest ad [...]ibi­to iuramento re­spondere, non se contraxisse per verba de praesenti; seruata sibi clau­sula, ita ut ma­trimonium fuerit. Treatiso of Equiuocation, allowed by Blackwell and Garnet, cited by D. Abbot Antilog. cap. 2. fol. 13. and Casaub. Epist. ad Front. pag. 115. If a man haue contracted himselfe to a woman, and afterward make another contract with another, by words de praesenti: and being called before the Bishop, and there asked, whether he made such a contract de praesenti with this later woman, he may sweare hee did not, vnderstan­ding, so as that it is a marriage.

12 Decimo quintò deducitur, eum ti quo mutuò pecunia petitur, quam reuera habet, posse iureiurando affir­mare se eam non habere, intelligendo intra se, ut det. Sanchez moral. l. 3. c. 6. num. 43. & Nauart. Com [...]n c. Human. aures, q. 3. num 13. Persons mitigall. cap. 9. num. 81. pa. 401, 403. If a man bee requested to lend money, when hee is not bound to lend it, though he haue the money by him, yet he may sweare that he hath it not, vnderstanding with­in himselfe, so as that he will lend it him.

13 Iondino quis, sauten [...]e ibi peste, proficiscitur Countriam, qu [...]m magistratus de ve­bis suae imolumitate soilicu [...], diuersai ìibi non pert [...]untur, misi prius iuret se Londiat nuper non fu­isse, non ende venisse, turare poterit non se venisse Londino, cum hac reseruatien [...] mentis, ita ut insectus po [...]le venerim. Treatise of Equiuocation, apud D. Abbot Antilog. c. 2. fol. 13. The like is said by Sanchez moral. l. 3. c. 6. nu. 35. by Tolet. de Instruct. l. 4. c. 21. num. 12. by Nauarre Enchirid. cap. 12. nu. 19. If a man come from London in a time of Infection, to Couentrie, were he cannot be admitted to ledge, vnlesse he will sweare, that he came not lately from London; hee may sweare that he came not from London, reseruing in his mind, so as that I am infected with the plague, if vpon good reason he thinke that he is not infected.

14 In communi loqtuitione interrogato de re quam se­cre [...]ò seruare expedit [...]citum est dicere se nescire, intelligenda, ita vt expediat dicere.—potest est­am—uti quauis alia amphibologia &c. Sanchez moral. l. 3. c. 6. num. 25. If a man in common talke bee asked of any matter which it behooueth him to keepe secret, he may lawfully say, that he knoweth not, vnderstanding, so as it is behoouefull [Page 52] to tell it: or with any other reseruation that he will imagine.

Lastly, Obseruandum quoties [...]icitum est ad se tuendum vti aliqua aequi­uocatione, id quo­que erit licitum, etsi interrogans vrgeat excludens illam aequiuocati­onem. and, Qua­tum cun (que) redu­plicet iniquus In­terrogator, vt in­ret se nulla aequi­uocatione vti, & absque omni prorsus aequiuoca­ione id intellige­re: adhuc id iu­tare potest intelli­gendo its vt pla­nè debe at loqui et explicare vel ali­quid aliud mente concipiendo, quo verum id redda­tur. Sanchez moral. l. 3. c. [...] num. 45. and the same is said in the Treatise of Equiuocation apud D. Abbot Antilog. fol. 13. fac. 2. If he that asketh the question, doe exclude the vse of Equiuocation, and require a man vpon his oath not to vse any Equiuocation, and that he meaneth what he spea­keth without any Equiuocation at all (as it is in the Oath of Allegiance) yet he may sweare it still, vnderstanding, so as he ought to speake plainely; or framing some other re­seruation in his mind, by which it may be made true.

These and such like be the cases, in which they allow their Equiuocating fraudes. I could adde more, but I feare I haue wearied the Reader by too many already.

Surely, by this that hath beene said, we may learne two things, which it is requisite all plaine-meaning Christians should take notice of.

1 That Equiuocators, and such as are instructed in this Arte, doe take vnto themselues a large liberty of vsing this fraudulent deuice. For out of the premises it may appeare, that whatsoeuer busines or occasiō be offered, be the matter sacred or ciuill, publike or priuate, in o­pen Courts of Iustice, or in common practice of life; yet if they can perswade themselues that they haue any se­rious cause to conceale the truth, whether it be for some good to their soules, or for safety of their bodies, or kee­ping of their goods, &c. they may freely sweare the contrary to that truth, by an Equiuocall or mentall re­seruation. And if they haue any light cause or reason, if it be but for sport or merriment to recreate themselues, then they may deceiue vs by an Equiuocation, in a sim­ple affirmation or negation, hauing no Oath in it.

And this being so, I desire euery Christian, that would not be deceiued, to consider with himselfe, whether he can thinke of any busines that passeth between man and man, in which hee may promise to himselfe plaine dea­ling, or may presume that he shall not bee deceiued by some mortall deuice or other, if hee haue to doe with them, who doe professe this Equouicating Arte.

Secondly, we may learne, that there is no limitation, or exception, or explication, be it neuer so wise or wa­ry, nor any thing which mans wit can deuise, that may restraine or keepe backe these Equiuocators, from de­luding vs by their equiuocall speeches; but that say or doe what a man will or can, they will take libertie to equiuocate still: so that no Oathes, how warily and carefully soeuer they be framed, can hold these men, further then themselues will. Vide intanta astutia quanta sit simplicitat, Quii omnem sec [...]rita­tem in eo i [...]a­mento sibi statu­isset, talam se m [...]dum iura­menti, tot cir­cumstantijs con­ne [...]isse existi­m [...]bat, qui, saluâ conscientiâ, nulla ratione à quoquā dissolui posset. Sed videre non potuit, si Ponti­fex iuramentum dissoluerit, omnes illius nexus, siue de sidelitate Re­gi praestanda, siue de dispensatione non admittenda, peritor dissolutos fore. Immo a­liud dicam ad­mirabilius. Nosti, credo, iuramentū iniustum, si tale esse euidenter s [...]tatur, vel aper­te declaretur, neminem obliga­re; Reg [...] iura mentum iniustū esse, ab ipso Ec­clesie Pastore sufficienter de­claretam est Barthol. Pace­nius, [...]. Epistol. Monit. Iacob. Regis lit. [...]. 2. & 3. Pacenius discoursing of the Oath of Allegiance, laugheth at the simplicitie (as hee calleth it) of our King and State, who thought by that Oath to prouide for their safetie: as hauing hedged it about with so many circumstances, as that, to their thin­king, no man could winde himselfe out of it with a safe conscience. But they consider not (saith hee) that if the Pope shall dissolue this Oath, al the bands of it, either for performance of fidelitie to the King, or for not admitting a dispensation from Rome, are shattered in pieces. Nay, I will say one other thing (saith hee) that is more admira­ble. An vniust Oath, when it is declared to be such, bin­deth no man: but that this Oath is vniust, hath beene suf­ficiently declared by the Pastor of the Church. Hee mea­neth the Pope. And hereupon hee inferreth in an in­sulting manner; Vades igitur tam in sumum ab [...]sse Illius obs [...] ­gatione; vt vnculii quod à tot sapientibus ferreum putabat [...], manus fit quam stramilie [...]. Thou seest now (saith hee) that the band of that Oath is v [...]nished into smoak, so that the [...] which so many wise men thought to be as strong as Iron, proueth weaker then straw. Thus this man boasteth, that by the Popes dispensation, or declaration of the vnlaw­fulnesse of it, no Oath in the world is any thing worth. A great priuiledge sure for them, that can so easily winde themselues out of bands, euen the strongest that can be thought of, among men. And yet me thinketh, aliud admirabilius, the Equiuocators haue found a more admirable deuice then this of Pacenius is. For he sen­deth [Page 54] a man to Rome, to fetch a dispensation thence, or to get the Popes declaration of the vnlawfulnesse of the Oath, and then they may breake all. But our Equiuo­cators haue that at home, and within their own brests, that may free them from all. For if themselues doe but thinke that the thing is vnlawfull, or that they haue some reasonable cause, to dissemble, they may take this or any other Oath whatsoeuer, and by an equiuocall re­seruation, breake the band of that Oath, before they take it. And if such be the priuiledges of these men, how great is their danger, that liue and conuerse with them? God preserue all well-meaning men from such deceitfull tongues.

CHAP. IIII.
Of the vse, or rather abuse of Equiuocation, and for what turnes it may serue.

EQuiuocation, such as hath beene descri­bed before, may be beneficiall to them that vse it many wayes, and for diuers purposes. For in the generall it may serue them for all turnes, in which by mis-leading the Hearer, they may make any aduantage to themselues: and more particularly it may serue them for these speciall ends and purposes.

First, in State-businesses, and matters of poli­cie, it may serue great men, to hide their plots, and to worke their ends by: and yet to make faire wea­ther towards all men, and beate them in hand that they meane nothing but friendship and loue. In this kinde In c. Human. aur. q. 3. nu. 14. pag. 353. Nauarre telleth vs of a great Monarch, Monarcha [...]um prim [...] maximu [...]. who hee [Page 55] thought had vsed, and did then vse this good art (as he calleth it) by the benefit whereof, euery man was con­tented and pleased, that came to him, or had to deale with him about great affaires. Creditur enim ita excipere & audire ad se vementes, & sic ijsdem respon­dendo, significare tam gestu, quàm verbis & factis, vt placeaut eis, cum quibus rem gerit, intellecta secundum inten­tionem illorum, licet sint in se falsa, &c. For (saith he) hee is thought so to entertaine and to heare those that come vnto him, and in answering, so to expresse and declare himselfe vnto them with whom hee hath to deale, as well by gesture, as by words and deedes, that the things being vnderstood according to their meaning, doe please and content them [...], though in themselues they be false, but are true according to the reseruations vnderstood by the Answerer. The same Nauarre addeth further, Ibid. nu. 15. that he thinketh an­other great Monarch meant to teach his sonne Hanc doctri­nam & artem bonam. this doctrine and good arte of Equiuocating, when for some secret defect, hee drew him backe from the studie of learning, saying, I would not haue my sonne to haue any more Latine, then onely that one Apophe he giue, He that know­eth not to dissem­ble, knoweth not to raigne. Qui deseit dissimulare, nescit regnare. Doe they thus in­struct their Catholique Princes, to dissemble and equi­uocate? and call they it a good Arte, by which they may possesse men with a good opinion of them, when they meane quite otherwise; that so they may worke their ends, and bring about their proiects and plots? Why, then I neede not feare to say, that one turne, for which the Doctrine of Equiuocation doth serue them, is in State businesses to hide their plots, and to worke their ends by it. Which as it is aduanta­gious to themselues, so it is dangerous for those that haue to deale with them.

Secondly, It may serue them, for a meanes to hide their mischieuous plots against the State and Religi­on, and yet to escape the hand of iustice after all. For when they haue plotted and acted Treasons, or are a­bout any vnlawfull businesse, forbidden by the whole­some Lawes of the Kingdome; Equiuocation serueth to hide both themselues and their Associats, from the en­quiry [Page 56] of the Magistrate, be hee neuer so vigilant and carefull. For if one of them be examined or asked, whether hee haue reconciled such a man to the Pope, or absolued such a subiect from his bond of Allegiance, or haue conspired against the life of the King, or haue beene acquainted with a plot of blowing vp the Par­liament; though all these things be most true, yet hee may without scruple deny them all vpon his Oath. Or in case one be detected otherwise, and examined, who were his Associats, whether such a Priest, or such a Ie­suite, or such a Gentleman were priuy to the thing; though these men were all of them as deepe in the vil­lany, as himselfe; yet he may sweare that none of them all did know the least iote of the matter. And by these trickes they can worke all mischiefe to Kings, and No­bles, and People, and Parliaments; and yet wind them­selues and their complices out of the hands of iustice; vnlesse God doe disclose them, as many times he doth beyond the prouidence or expectation of man. For ra­ther then Treasons should goe vnespied, God maketh Eccles. 10. 20. the Bird of the ayre to carry the voyce, and that which hath wings to tell the matter; saith Salomon. This vse southwell the Iesuite made of this Arte. For, fearing to be detected, G. Abbot praelect. de mendacio. pa. 50. nu. 13. & R. Abbot An­tilog. cap. 2. fol 13. fac. 2. hee instructed a Woman-Disciple of his, that if shee should be examined, whether himselfe were or had beene in that house, shee should vpon her oath vtterly deny it; and so shee might safely doe, vsing but the helpe of this Arte, though shee had often seene him there, and knew him to be in the house. And to like purpose Proceeding against Trai­tors. C [...]. 2. Tresham, one of the Gun-powder Trai­tors, vpon examination did confesse that Father Gar­net was priuy to the Treason, and had talked with him about it: but afterward, hauing been better instructed or confirmed in this rare mystery, when he lay sicke on his death-bed, and not aboue three or foure houres be­fore his death, hee protested, and tooke it vpon his Sal­uation, [Page 57] and set it downe vnder his hand, that his for­mer Confession was false, and that hee had not seene Garnet of sixteene yeeres space before, at the least. And thus hee died. Which protestation of his, vpon his oath, was proued not long after, to be most vntrue. Yea, and Garnet himselfe confessed, that within that space hee had seene him many times. Whereupon this graue Father, and grand Equiuocator being demanded what he then thought of Treshams Testamentall prote­station, hee answered, Proceeding against Trai­tors. Y. 3. It may be hee meant to equiuo­cate. And this reuerend Father himselfe, who was Prouinciall of the Iesuits, when after secret conference betweene him and Hall, another Iesuite in the Tower, hee was asked before all the Lords Commissioners, whether Hall and hee had any conference together, and was desired not to equiuocate; hee stiffely denied it vpon his Soule, reiterating it with so many detestable execrati­ons, as wounded their hearts to heare him. And after­ward, when he knew that the thing was knowne, and that Hall his fellow-Iesuite had confessed it; hee cryed the Lords mercie, and said hee had offended, if Equiuoca­tion did not helpe him. And though the Priests accuse the Iesuites for it, yet when they are examined be­fore a Magistrate, or Officer, they also say and sweare and protest all maner of falshoods and vntruths, that so they may winde either their fellowes or themselues out of the danger of the Law. And indeede this is the chiefe and principall turne, for which Equiuocation is intended to serue them.

Thirdly, In matters of Religion this good Art may serue them to auoide arguments and euident reasons brought against them, which their owne consciences doe acknowledge to be true. For hereby they can glosse the Fathers sayings against their meaning, and deny all sorts of authorities that are alledged against them. For so themselues professe to their friends in [Page 58] secret, Quum in Ca­tholicis veteribus alij [...], plurim [...]s feramus c [...]r [...]res, & extenuemus, excusemus, ex­cogitato commen­to persaepe nege­mus, & commo­dum ijs sen­sum offinga­mus, dum oppo­nuntur in dispu­tationibus aut in constictionibus cū Aduersarijs: non videmus cur non eandem aequit i­tem & diligentem recognitione me­reatur Be [...]tra­mus. Index Belgic. lit. B. in Bertramo. pag. 12. in 8 ^•. Seeing (say the Belgicke Censurers) in other an­cient Catholiques, wee beare with very many errours, and doe lessen and excuse them, and very often by some deuised shift doe deny them, and feine vnto them some commodi­ous meaning, when they be obiected against vs in disputa­tions and conflicts with the aduersaries: wee see no reason why Bertram may not deserue the like equitie or fauou­rable dealing, and diligent reuising. This they professe among their friends (for their meaning was not that euer it should come to our sight:) and being that they hold all lying to be so sinfull, that they may not tell a lye for the sauing of a soule, it were too hard a cen­sure to thinke, that against the light of their owne con­sciences, they would so wilfully thrust themselues on that danger, and so boldly professe it in the eares of their friends. But by this fine Arte they can quiet the murmuring of their consciences, because by it, they can say any thing, neuer so false, and yet by a reseruati­on, make it as true as the Gospell.

This consideration maketh mee not to maruell, when in men, that professe such religious strictnesse, (as Father Persons Mitigat. ca. 7. num. 34. & seqq. saith they doe,) I finde such broad and vnreasonable expositions and glosses of Fathers and other Writers, as that no man of vnderstanding who readeth the places, but will see, that the glosse doth corrupt the Text, and the expositions doe clearely de­praue the Authors meaning. For I know that an Equi­uocator hath an Arte, by which hee can make all spee­ches to become true, if once they doe but come forth of his mouth.

Fourthly, It may serue them for deuising and coun­terfeiting of strange apparitions, and heauenly visi­ons, and diuine miracles. This, how frequent it hath beene heretofore, the wisest and most learned among their owne Writers doe confesse and bewaile. And of late yeeres their owne The Author and the Publi­shers of the Iesuites Cate­chisme. Brethren doe say, that the mi­racles [Page 59] and visions reported of L. 1. c. 18. fol. 64. Ignatius, and L. 1. c. 17. fol. 62. Iustinian and Ibid. Xauier, and others of the Iesuiticall straine and order, are not much better. And what should let vs to thinke, but they which presume so much in other things, in ordine ad Deum, and pro bono societatis, in re­ference to God, and for the good of their Order; would not sticke to fitte [...] and faine and tell of glorious facts, and admirable wonders which were neuer done, and make faire shewes without substance, if these may helpe to aduance the papall dignitie, or the Iesuiticall order, e­specially seeing they know how to say and write and sweare any thing for so great a good, without the least grudge of conscience?

Fiftly, It may serue them for forging and diuulging of false, especially slanderous reports against their ad­uersaries and enemies of their profession. A thing so generally and so boldly practised by the men of this fa­ction, especially by the Fathers of Ignatius his Order, that Relation of Religion, num. 33. Beza Re­d [...]. Epist. ad Gul. Stuck. wise men haue much wondred, when in such po­litique persons as Iesuites are, they haue seene and ob­serued such a strange liberty in coyning of forged tales, as that the vntruthes which they haue broached, might well be called splendida mendacia, transparent lyes, such as by their owne light bewray themselues, or such as within a few dayes might and haue appeared to the world to be loude and lewd lyes, that might shame their Master. And wee might well wonder, if we knew not the Iesuites new Arte, that men of any either con­science or honest minde, could let passe out of their mouthes, or from their pens, such shamefull and yet shamelesse fictions. For example (to giue the Reader a taste of their forgeries and lying slanders) Luther was a great mawle, that battered their Babel; and of him they reported, and printed it too, that hee was dead and buried, which was no great wonder: but (that which was worth the straining of their wits) when hee [Page 60] lay a dying, hee tooke order, that his bodie should be layed on the Altar, and adored as a God. And when hee was dead, and buried, that there was such a terrible noyse and tumult about his graue, as if heauen and earth had gone to­gether. And the night after his buriall, that there was a much greater and more hideous noyse and shricking then before. And when, vpon the occasion of this fearefull noyse, which frighted all the Citizens out of their sleepe, his graue was opened the next day, there was neither bodie, nor bones, nor graue-clothes to be seene; but so hellish a stinke came out of his graue, as with the poyson of it, it had almost killed the standers by. And all this while Luther was aliue, and did helpe to demolish their Babel still; and not long after the same time, publi­shed a book in print, & gaue it this title, Contra Papatū à diabolo institutum, Against the Papacie sounded by the Deuill.

This story if any man be desirous to see, he may read Melch. Adamus, in the booke which he wrote of the liues of German Diuines. In vita Lu­ther [...] pag. 152. Where he may also reade the words of the lying Relation, printed by them in Italian, and afterward translated into Latine. After this practice against Luther, they fell vpon Caluin, the wounds of whose pen were deepe in their sides; and of him they scattered this newes in the Courts of the German Princes, and in a generall Assembly in Germa­ny, that Caluin now was weary of his Religion, had re­uolted, and was turned Papist. And at this very time, was hee printing his booke of Institutions: and in a Directed to the Reader. Preface prefixed before this booke, doth make an­swere to this slander, and telleth these lying Spirits, Fallitur cum tota sua caterna diebolus, &c. The Deuill and all his rowt of lying spirits are deceiued, if they thinke by lading me with base lyes, to discourage or hinder mee in my course. In like manner, but with more shamelesse impudency, they afterward traduced Beza. Of whom there were not onely false reports scattered [Page 61] through Italie, See the Iesuits Cate chisme, l. 1. cap. 17. f. 62. Germany, & other Countries, but let­ters also were written & diuulged to this purpose; That Beza Vise morti vicinum sensit, [...]oram pleno Se­na [...]u Geneuensi palinodiam [...]. Beza Re­d [...]. Epist. Coloniâ misaâ, pag. 9. a little before his death had recanted his Religion in a ful Assembly of the Senators of Geneua, beseeching them that if euer they would be saued, they should renounce Cal­uins errours, and betake themselues to the profession of the Romish faith; that for more full testification of his vnfai­ned Conuersion, after his death hee desired them to send for and to be aduised and directed by the Iesuites; that hereupon the Pope had appointed the Bishop of Geneua to absolue Beza, and other learned men, such as could be had neere at hand, to goe to Geneua, and consider of the bu­sinesse, and deale with the Inhabitants, if any were more backeward, about points and Articles of Religion in que­stion. After which Relation, the Reporter addeth, that this newes is most certaine and true; as may appeare by the numberlesse company of letters written to this pur­pose, and will (as hee saith) appeare at the next Franck­ford Mart, by the store of Bookes which would then flye abroad in the World, for the witnessing of this thing. Hee yet goeth on further, and for more abundant proofe, telleth vs, that Puteanus, the Generall of the Ie­suites, who liued within twelue miles of Geneua, had by writing related this newes, adding moreouer, that him­selfe was one of those Fathers, whom the Pope had appoin­ted to goe and instruct the Citizens of Geneua. Yea, and moreouer, saith the Relator, the Landgraue of Hes­sen, being scared with this newes, sent messengers to Ge­neua, who after their returne confirmed all this to be true. This they reported of Beza; without either fear of God or reuerence of men. For all this while Beza was aliue; and continued preaching and writing against the super­stitions and idolatries of the Romane Church, for di­uers yeeres after. And for the clearer detection of this shamelesse lye, he wrote a Booke, the title whereof is Beza rediuiuus, Beza returned to life againe: Wherein [Page 62] he hath laid open the Iesuites forgeries, to the shame of their Order. I could bring more instances of their abominable forgeries of this kinde, but I am afraide to cloy the Reader with such vnsauoury fictions. Yet two examples there are, (both within mine owne know­ledge and experience) which I cannot omit, without some short rehearsall. The one is, of the famous Di­uine, Doctor Rainolds, President of Corpus Christi Col­ledge in Oxford: and the other, of the worthy Prelate Doctor King, Bishop of London, my euer-honoured Lord. Of the former, some well-willers to the Ro­mane-Church, were discouered to haue diuulged re­ports, in the time of his long sicknesse, (for hee died of a lingring consumption) that hee voyded his owne Ordure vpward by the mouth: (of which lye what construction ill mindes would frame, any man may ea­sily conceiue.) This report was brought to him while he was yet aliue, which made him to send for the par­tie, who was said to be the author, or at least a reporter of this forgerie, and shewed him what the matter was, that hee vsed to spit out of his mouth, euen the very same that other such sicke men vse to doe. But these lyers might haue proceeded perhaps to fowler ficti­ons, had they not beene preuented by the timely pro­uidence of some learned, and his louing and religious friends. For they remembring and considering the shamelesse practices of Papists, in scattering false newes to disgrace the Worthies of our Church, came to him the day before his death, put him in minde of their false dealing, and desired him, that for the preuenting of such slanders after his death, hee would now make an open confession of his faith, and constant beliefe. Which he being not able to doe with his owne mouth, his speech hauing fayled him some dayes before, left the composing of a forme of Confession to them, to which hee would subscribe. And they considering his [Page 63] weakenesse, framed it in generall and few words, in this manner▪

These are to witnesse vnto all the world, that now in this my weakenesse, wherein I looke for my dissolution, and hope shortly to be with my Christ, I die in a constant beliefe, perswasion, and profession of that holy truth of God, in defence whereof I haue stood both by writing and speaking, against the Church of Rome, and what so­euer other Enemies of Gods truth. And for mine owne resolution touching mine owne state of Saluation after this life, I assure my selfe thereof, by the merits of Christ Iesus onely, into whose hands I commend my spirit, as vnto my faithfull Redeemer.

To this he readily subscribed with his owne hand;

Iohn Rainolds.

And his friends then present, who had beene eye­witnesses and eare-witnesses of the whole passage of this businesse, did by their hands witnesse the truth of the act to the world, in these words:

That hee made this Subscription with his owne hand, with such willingnesse and chearefulnesse, as ministred great comfort vnto vs, who were then present; wee testifie by this subscription of our names also hereunto. May 20. 1607.

• Henrie Airay Vice-Chancelor.
• Henrie Wilkinson.
• Edward Rilston.
• Richard Taylor.
• Henrie Hindle.
• Daniel Faireclough.
• Henrie Mason.
• Alexander How.
• Iohn Dewhurst.

The Originall hereof signed with Doctor Rainolds owne hand, and subscribed by the afore-named par­ties, I haue in my custodie: out of which this is a true and faithfull Transcript here published. Now blessed be his counsell, and blessed be hee of the Lord, that gaue this aduise for the stopping of these slandrous mouthes. [Page 64] For had not this preuention beene vsed afore-hand, we may feare that such as belied him in his sicknesse, would not haue spared him after his death. And for want of some such prouidence and preuention it is, that that Reuerend and learned Prelate, (whose memory is pre­cious with all good men that knew him) our late Bi­shop of Lo [...]don I meane, mine euer-honoured Lord and Patrone: for want, I say, of some such prouidence afore-hand, this glorious Soule hath beene traduced by worthlesse pennes, and foule-mouthed fiends (the in­dignitie of the thing maketh mee, against my nature and custome, to giue them that name whereof they are most worthy) as if hee had made defection to the Roman Church; to whose errours notwithstanding he shewed himselfe an Enemy to his dying-day: as those that knew him inwardly, doe know very well, how in the very time of his sicknesse, hee spared not vpon occasion to expresse his zeale that way. But of all foule-mouthes, that haue slandered that blessed Soule, hee that wrote the Bishop of Londons Legacie, is the most shamelesse and impudent lier. The Author of the Protestants plea is but a milke-sop to this noble Cham­pion: and Father Persons himselfe must now be forced to resigne vp to him the Whetstone, which his secular Brethren bestowed vpon him for his excellency in the fittening Trade. For they and other of their fellowes, haue played their prizes well: [...]. but this L [...]yer excelleth them all. He hath made two publications of one indi­uiduall Booke, qualifying, or rather destroying in the latter, some transparent lyes, which with an Whores forehead, and without regard of the Worlds censure, hee had auerred in the former. For, in the yeere 1622. when hee first diuulged this Libell, he made the worthy Bishop to speake those silly Motiues, which his worthlesse selfe [...]ad deuised. And so hee went masked vnder the Bishops name: but with such difformitie [Page 65] and disproportion euery way, as made mee remember the Asse in the Fable; which presuming to weare the Lyons skinne, did by his long eares bewray himselfe to be an Asse notwithstanding. He saith, that the Bi­shop himselfe did penne those Motiues, and deliuered them to this Publisher, this publique Lyer, to be com­mitted to the Presse. I would the world were worthy to vnderstand what rare man this is, that had such in­ward acquaintance with that learned and wise Bishop, as to heare from him the secrets of his heart, and to re­ceiue from him the studied Reasons of his Conuersion, which were neuer made knowne to any bodie else. And sure, it were a great honour to see that face, that could come and goe, and conuerse with the Bishop a­bout these weightie affaires, and in this serious man­ner, without being once seene of any other man; as if by the vertue of some Gyges his Ring, he had bin trans­formed into an inuisible Spirit. But he goeth on, and saith that the man is knowne that reconciled the Bi­shop to the Romane Church. But it is to be feared, he will neuer make knowne the mans name to the world, lest if the Reconciler should proue more shamefaste, then this Publisher is, hee might returne the lye vpon the Author that deuised it, and spit his shame in his owne face. And yet say, hee both can and will name the man, what great mastery is in this? or what great cre­dit might such a circumstance, comming from an E­quiuocator, gaine to his cause? For did not Puteanus the Prouinciall of the Iaesuites, name the man that re­conciled Beza to their Church? Yes▪ He said expresse­ly (not with Ifs and Ands, as this Publisher doth) that the man was the Bishop of Geneua. And did hee not name beside, both the man that was sent to cate­chize the Citizens of Geneua in the Romane Faith; and the man that sent messengers to enquire of this news in Geneua, & found it to be true? Yes. For, for the [Page 66] one▪ he nameth himselfe, who among others, was go­ing to Geneua to instruct them. And for the other, hee nameth the Lantgraue of Hessen, who was a Prince not farre off, and knew the vndoubted truth of this newes. Iesuites and Equiuocators are ashamed of no­thing. And yet, I would we might be so much behol­ding to this Publisher, as to publish the Reconcilers name, that performed so great a worke for this great man. To this purpose this publike Lyer spake in the first publication of his Booke; which not long after was suppressed and kept from the view of the world. I suppose, some of his Superiours more wary then him­selfe, being ashamed of such shining lyes, did call in the Booke, till some kinde of qualification might temper those shamelesse and hideons vntruths. And then in the yeere following 1623. hee made a new publicati­on of the same worthy Worke, changing onely the Title-leafe, and the Preface to the Reader. And in this second publication, hee is contented to owne his owne abortiue Brat, which in the former hee had without shame fathered vpon the worthy Bishop: and wisheth that himselfe may be taken to haue written those motiues, as a precedent or patterne warranting any Protestant in the change of his Religion, though by a Poeticall freedome pe­culiarly applyed to the Bishop. And whereas through­out the whole Booke, hee maketh the Bishop speake what himselfe had forged; hee now giueth his Reader leaue with his full consent and allowance, to suppose all these passages to be fictiones personarum, and warran­ted by the figure Prosopopeia, that is, a fiction of the Person. It were some signe of grace, if he had acknow­ledged the whole fiction, as hee doth this part of it. But he goeth on still: and euen in the new altered Preface, or Aduertisement to the Reader, hee accuseth the Bi­shop of defection from his Religion; and by a figura­tiue kinde of Pre [...]er [...]tion, hee spareth pere [...]p [...]orily to [Page 67] affirme, that the Bishop did write and deliuer to others a­ny Reasons or Motiues of his change in Religion. In which speech, this Slanderer would haue his Reader to vnderstand that, which himselfe dareth not speake; that when it shall appeare to be a shamelesse forgery, hee may wipe his mouth with the Whore in the Pro­uerbes, and say, that hee said it not. But, foule-mouth, if thou hast any thing to say, spit out: and labour to giue some satisfaction to the World, to auoid the eui­dence of coozening the liuing, and slandering the dead. For know, that the World already is possessed with this opinion, that thou must needes be some ignorant Iesuite▪ (for none else can be imagined to be so Bayard­ly bold.) And if now thou forbeare to produce some proofe, or some probabilitie, or some possibility, how these things might be; wee shall resolue vpon it, that Persons his ghost is risen from the dead, and hath brought with him seuen other spirits worse and more ly­ing then himselfe▪ and that that is the reason, why such vast and shamelesse Forgeries doe shew them­selues in this man. But I leaue this Lyer for this time: and humbly pray the Worthies of our Church, that they would take these things into their consideration: and as men that deale with Thornes, doe fence their hands with thicke Gloues; so seeing they doe liue, and must die in the middest of such slanderous Tongues, they would arme themselues against such malice, by an o­pen profession of their Faith, at such times especially as they are ready to leaue the World; lest they may be slandered after their deaths, when they will want libertie to defend themselues. But heere I stay my course. For I perceiue I haue in part digressed alrea­dy; and yet not so, as that I am gone from the matter in hand. For I was saying, that Equiuocation did serue the Masters of it for this turne among others; that by it they might without scruple of cons [...]lence, [Page 68] defame and belye the Worthies of our Church, that so they might gaine the more credit to their owne. Now how they vse to defame our learned men, I haue decla­red fully by this digression, if the Reader will so e­steeme it: and what vse Equiuocation may stand them in this practice, will not be hard for any man to con­ceiue. For a wonder it might seeme, that men of any religion or conscience, should endure themselues, while they broach such broad-faced lyes. But the Arte of Equiuocation will presently remoue all such scruple or grudge. For it teacheth how to speake all vntruths, without telling of the least lye: and so the Equiuoca­tor needeth not to haue any scruple in that respect. And this doubt being once remoued, there can be no further let to hinder their proceeding. For, what though the Heretiques complaine of wrong and iniu­stice done to them in their good name? that skilleth not. For, in ordine ad Deum, and pro bono Societatis, that is lawfull enough, or rather very meritorious. For the Reply to Persons Libel. pag. 18. Seculars tell vs, that when a Priest complained to the Iesuites, or some one among them, of wrong done to Master Bennet by their defamation, reply was made, that it was necessary or conuenient hee should be disgraced, because hee was against their Societie. Where the Author or Authors of that Booke adde further, that the Iesuites hold such deuillish Principles, whereby they may at pleasure defame whom they please. And if they take such libertie of Conscience against their own Catholique Brethren; they will out of question make no bones to slander and disgrace an Heretique. This then is one turne among the rest, and it is a speciall one and of great vse for their purpose, that by this Arte of Equiuocating, they can defame and disgrace, and (as we plaine-dealers doe call it) belye whom they will, with­out any offence or grudge of conscience.

Sixtly, In ordinary dealings and course of life, Equi­uocation [Page 69] may serue them, for concealing of any truth, or perswading of any vntruth, if either of them may make for their aduantage. So Comment. in c. Human. aur. q. 3. nu. 13. Nauarre telleth vs, that if wee be asked what wee haue eaten, how much mo­ney wee haue, what wee haue heard, &c. In these and all such cases as these, if there be aduantage to be gotten by it, we may by this fine Arte, conceale the truth, or speake an vntruth, so as by subintell [...]ction▪ or a mentall reseruation, wee make vp the matter. And the Reply to Persons Libel. pag. 23. Secu­lars tell vs, that the Iesuites make Equiuocation to serue their turnes so frequently in this kinde, as, that their owne Catholique Brethren; nay, their fellow- Priests can scarce tell when they speake sincerely, when o­therwise. They might haue added, no nor their holy Father the Pope neither. For, Father Standish cooze­ned and deluded him also, by Equiuocation, thereby to oppresse the Secular Priests; as Reply to Persons Libel. cap. 3. pag. 57. True Relation pag. 55, 56. Quod [...]. 3. art. 4. pag. 66. in the Margin. they complaine in diuers places of their Bookes. And if this Arte can serue for this turne, when they deale with his Holi­nesse himselfe; no maruell if they make the same vse of it, whensoeuer they haue to deale with [...] enemies of their R [...]ligion: as Father [...] who Answere to a Letter of a Iesuited Gen­tleman, p. 104. giuing his Faith, in verbo [...] prisoner to the Knight-Marshall, yet did [...] word and that Oath. But the good Father (say his Secu­lar Brethren) had perhaps some mentall [...] ▪ where­with to rescue his Soule, at least from remorse, though not from the Deuill. As for example, as hee was in that minde hee would be true prisoner, or for any thing the Kee­per should know to the contrary, till hee were escaped; or that hee meant not to runne away on his head, but on his feete; or that hee would not breake away so long as the Knight-Marshall or his Deputie stood by and looked on; or that hee wo [...]ld not breake away as a Priest, but is a Ie­suite; or that hee would not [...] with a minde euer to come againe with his will [...] that null [...] fides s [...]uanda [Page 70] Haereticis; or, how many Ors might I make vpon this point? saith the Author of that Booke. But the point is plaine, and as well proued to be true, of all sorts, as heere it is affirmed of the Iesuites; though I will not denie these Fathers the precedencie in this practice. Equiuocation then serueth for many singular turnes, and for vses of great consequence and moment: and therefore it is no maruell that they doe so hugge and embrace it, as a dearling of great worth.

CHAP. V.
Of the Grounds and Arguments, either for or against Equiuocation.

IN setting down the Reasons on either side, I shall not neede to be long; be­cause I haue beene large already in vn [...]olding the nature and conditi­ons of this Art, in the points hither­to spoken of: and the discouery of such a monstrous deuice is argumēt inough to disproue it. It may then be sufficient for this place, first, to answere the chiefe Arguments, which are brought in defence of it; and then in the second place, to set downe some fewe Reasons, that may re­fute it.

And first, for their Arguments, they are many in particular; for Father Persons findeth 8 or 9 at least, in one piece of a Chapter: & how many then might he haue found, if he had sought all the Chapters of the Bible, in the like maner? But the Wren hath moe birds then the Eagle: and errors doe more vsually abound with [Page 71] their rotten proofes, then Truths doe with sound and substantiall Reasons. And it is no maruell. For a false Conclusion hath no direct or good proofe at all: and Cauils and impertinent flourishes for euery thing, may bee infinite and without number. And so it is in this case. For such proofes, as the 8 or 9 are, which Father Persons findeth in one Chapter, he might haue found 8 or 900 in the compasse of the Bible. But howsoeuer the particular allegations be so many; yet all of them may easily be reduced to some few heads: and so many of them together may be cut off at one blowe.

The Heads then, to which the substance of all that they say, may be reduced, are these three. 1. Examples of holy men. 2. Examples of God himselfe. And 3. Examples of Iesus Christ our blessed [...].

And first, for Examples of holy men, they being in, the Patriarches and Prophets, Gen. 20. [...]. and other Saints of God. For Abraham, say they, did equiuoca [...]e, when he said of Sarah, Gen. 27. 19. that she was his Sister: and [...], when hee said, Exod. 5. 1. & 8. 27. I am thy first-borne Esau [...] and Moses, when he said to Pharaoh, that they would [...] the Wildernes, but meant to go to [...] and Samuel, when he said, 1. Sam. 16. 1, 2. he went to offer [...], but principally intēded to annoint Dauid to be King of Israel: and Da­uid, 1. Sam. 21. 2. when he told Ahimelech▪ The King [...] a businesse, &c. and Ieremie, when [...]o question of the Nobles, who demanded of him, What saidst thou to the King, Ier. 38. 25, &c. &c. He answered, I presented my supplication to the King, that he would not cause me to returne to Iona­thans house, to [...] there: whereas hee talked with [...], concerning his yeelding vp to the King of Babylon.

For answere to these and the like, I note [...] things, by way of preamble. 1. That the old Hereticks, th [...] Pris­cillianists, who defended the lawfulnesse of [...], as now the Papists doe of Equi [...]cating, did alledge [...] same places and examples, at least m [...]ny of them, for [Page 72] proofe of their heresie; which our Iesuites doe for con­firmation of their opinion. And they had better shew of reason then these men haue; for diuers of those In­stances were either direct and culpable vntruthes, or seemed at least to border too neere vpon such obliquity: but as for this new found Equiuocation by mentall reser­uation, it hath no shew nor semblance of probability, to be gathered from them. 2. That neither S. Augustin, who most diligently confuted those Heretikes, nor any other ancient Writer, for answering of these obiecti­ons, did euer flee to this Arte of Equiuocation; or once say, that those Fathers and holy men did not lye in any of those speeches, for that they spoke the truth by a men­tall reseruation. Which answere, if it had bin true, had beene most pertinent and easie; as our late, Equiuocators doe not only confesse, but bragge of it too. For Comm [...]n C. Human. aures q. 3. nu. 7. Na­uarre saith; that from his doctrine of Equiuocatiō, there ariseth, or may bee gathered, nouus modus excusandi à mendacio Patriarchas, a new way to excuse the Pa [...]ri­arches from lying. Where, when he saith that it is a new way, he acknowledgeth that it was not knowne to S ^t. Augustin, or those other Worthies, who in former times did beate downe these Errours of the Heretikes. And when he saith, that this way ariseth out of his do­ctrine, he intimateth, that if the Fathers had knowne this, they might easily haue answered the Priscillianists, by interpreting those Texts after his new way. Now from hence it followeth, that the Ancients did not vn­derstand these passages of Scripture, as making any thing for Equiuocation. And therefore, when Equiuo­cators alledge S. Augustin, and some others of the Fa­thers, for their interpretation, they abuse both their Readers, and the ancient Fathers.

These things being first noted, I come to giue a more direct answere to the obiections; and it is this; As they affirme, so I deny, that these or any of these sayings al­ledged, [Page 73] were meant, or are to bee vnderstood and con­strued with any Equiuocall reseruation.

Yes, say they, that they are. For if they bee not so construed, they are apparent lyes, which may not be sup­posed of those holy men.

Answ. 1. If they be not vnderstood and made true by mentall reseruation, they are apparent Lyes, say they. If this doe not follow, then our Equiuocators doe great wrong to those ancient Worthies. And plaine it is, for diuers of them, that they doe so. For when Abra­ham said of Sarah, She is my Sister; and when Moses said to Pharaoh, We must goe three dayes &c. and when Samuel said to the Elders of Bethleem, I am come to sa­crifice vnto the Lord—; and when Ieremie said, I pre­sented my supplication &c. these speeches were all of them true, in the words as they lye, and according to the common acception and meaning of them. And therefore there is in them no Iesuiticall Equiuocation, in which the words are false, till a secret thought doth make them true. And in this sence, and to this pur­pose, Abraham doth interpret his owne meaning, and explaine his words. For when Abimelech challenged him for concealing his wife, and asked, What sawest thou, that thou hast done this thing? he answered for him­selfe, Gen. 20. 11, 12. Because I thought, Surely, the feare of God is not its this place, &c. and yet indeed she is my Sister; she is the daughter of my Father, but not the daughter of my Mo­ther. In which answere we may note three things. 1. He sheweth the reason which moued him to conceale her to be his wife; Because I thought the feare of God, &c. 2 He defendeth his speech to be true as the words doe sound; and yet indeed she is my Sister. q. d. That which I said is very true. And hereby it appeareth, that Abra­ham did not equiuocate; because Abrahams words in their vsuall signification, and as they were vttered by him, were true: but the words of an Equiuocator, as [Page 74] they are vttered, are false, till an inward reseruation do patch them vp, and make a truth of them. And it fur­ther hereby appeareth also, that F. Persons did not on­ly belye Abraham, but Almighty God himselfe, when he saith, that Apologie for Eccles. Subo [...]d. c. 12. in the end fol. 202. both Abraham and Sarah said, that shee was not his Wife, but his Sister: and that this was one a­mong diuers sayings and speeches in Scripture allowed by the Holy Ghost. Thirdly, Abraham explaineth his words, or rather sheweth how they were true and vn­faigned, and that is, because she So S. Aug. in­terpreteth this place, lib. con­tra mendac. cap. 10. was his neere kins­woman on the Fathers side, and such women in the v­suall language of those Countries, were called their Si­sters. Abraham then sheweth that his speech was true, because the thing was so, as his words did sound; and not because he had some secret reseruation in his minde, by additiō wherof they became true▪ And this sheweth againe, that in these words of Abraham, there was no Equiuocation, such as our new Doctros doe imagine. And Abrahams example in interpreting his owne words, may serue vs for a patterne to interpret the rest by. And so; as he said, Indeed she is my Sister, as I said: so we may say of them, Indeed, and intruth the things were so, as they said. Only in these examples, though all that was said, was true: yet something that was true, was concealed; which we grant to bee lawfull: nor doth it any way helpe the Iesuites, or fauour their imaginary fiction.

Answ. 2. When they say, If the speeches be not vn­derstood with mentall reseruation, then those men told a Lye: I answere, that that may be granted of some of them, without any absurdity, or wrong of those worthy men. For if we be forced to confesse, that Da­uid did commit murder, why should we bee afrayd to confesse that he told a Lye, if he vttered any such words as had not a true meaning, as our Equiuocators say that he did? And if we grant it in Dauid, what harme is [Page 75] there, to acknowledge it in others of Gods best ser­uants, if by the Text and their owne speeches, any such thing doe appeare? If then any of these holy men did speake words which were vntrue, wee may without inconuenience grant, that as they did sinne in other things, so they might in this: and therefore herein we must not take example by them, to doe as they haue done before vs. This answere S. Augustin maketh to the Priscillianists, when they alledged the example of ancient men and women, to prooue that Lying was lawfull. For Haec quando in Scripturis sancti [...] legimus, non ideo quia facta credi­mus, etiam faci­end [...] cred [...]mus, ne violem [...] praecep­ta, dum passim s [...]ctamur exem­pla. Aug. contra menda [...]. c. 9. p. 18. A. when we reade of these things in the Scrip­tures (saith he) we must not therefore thinke that wee may doe them, because we know that they did doe them; lest we violate Commandements, while without choice wee follow examples. Say then, that the words of some of those ho­ly men cannot haue a good meaning or true constructi­on, in themselues considered; it will be no inconueni­ence, to grant that such good men did therein doe a­misse, and made a Lye. And (to speake more particu­larly to the point) so I thinke Iacob did, when hee said, I am thy first-borne Esa [...]: and Dauid, when hee said, that hee had made a rode against the South of Iudah, &c. 1. Sam. 27. 10. And so wee may say of Rahab, and the Mid-wiues of Aegypt, and some others.

Obiect. But S. Augustin Contra men­dac. cap. 10. doth excuse those words of Iacob, from being a lye.

Answ. 1. Be it so. Yet S. Augustin doth not inter­pret them to be vnderstood and made true by any reser­uation in the mind. And this doth no way helpe our Equiuocators at all.

2. Say that S. Augustin doe giue vnto those words a more fauourable construction; yet Cornelius à Lapide disliketh that, and preferreth the other opinion, which granteth that Iacob did lye, in Gen. 27. 19. before this of S. Augustin. And for that interpretation, he citeth S. Chrysostome, Lyra, Caietan, Lippoman, Pererius, and others.

[Page 76] 3. Dominicus Soto, Relect. de Se­creto memb. 3. q. 3. Conclus. 7. pag. 3 [...]1. a learned Frier, doth defend or excuse both Saint Augustine & Iacob in this manner; It may be (quod puto sentit Augustinus, Which I thinke was Augustines meaning) that those words of Iacob, were vsed in that Countrey, in that signification and meaning that they might be vttered by him, without telling a lye.

But howsoeuer it be, Iacob was so plaine a man, (saith à Lapide) that it is not to be supposed that hee did vse equiuocation in his speech: nor doth any of for­mer time so vnderstand his words.

2. The second head of Arguments, containeth the example of Almightie God, the God of Truth. But what hath this iust God, this God of Truth done or said, for which hee should be thought to equiuocate, that is, to keepe one meaning to himselfe, and to de­liuer another to his people, and by a double-sensed pro­position to deceiue them, whom he professeth to teach? Yes, say these men, he said to Niniueh, Yet forty daies and Niniueh shall be ouerthrowne, Ion. 3. 4. And he said to Ezekias, Set thine house in order: for thou shalt die and not liue. I [...]. 38. 1. And yet neither of these came to passe, according to these words spoken. And there­fore they are not true, vnlesse they be helped by some inward reseruation, seeing in the sence that the words yeeld, they were not fulfilled.

Answ. These and other such speeches of God, are words of Commination and threatning. Now words of Commination in Scripture, are meant by Almigh­tie God that spoke them, and are vnderstood by men that heare them, with exception of repentance and a­mendment, or some such conditions in the persons a­gainst whom they are vttered, as may moue GOD to reuoke the sentence. For God himselfe hath decla­red his owne meaning to be so, in such like sentences and speeches. Ier. 18. 7, 8. At what instant (saith he) I shall speake concerning a Nation, and concerning a Kingdome, to pluck [Page 77] vp and to pull downe, and to destroy it: if that Nation against whom I haue pronounced, turne from their euill, I will repent of the euill, that I thought to doe vnto them. And Ezek. 33. 13. when I shall say to the Righteous, &c. And when I say to the Wicked, Thou shalt surely die: if he turne from his sinne, &c. none of his sinnes, that he hath committed, shall be mentioned vnto him▪ &c. And according to this plaine Rule giuen by God himselfe concerning his own words, we are to vnderstand Gods threatnings, with some such exception. As for example, yet fortie daies, and [...], &c. that is, vnlesse Nineu [...]h repent, and obtaine Gods fauour for their preseruation. And, Thou shalt die, &c. that is, vnlesse thou by prayer and humi­liation obtaine Gods fauour, to lengthen thy life be­yond the ordinary course, or such like. And these ex­ceptions are not secret reseruations, kept in Gods owne brest, and concealed from the hearers, as the Iesuites reseruations are; but they are conceiued and euer haue beene vnderstood by men acquainted with Gods lan­guage, to be meant by the very words. And therefore when God had threatned the Iewes, yet the Prophet exhorteth them to repentance, that so they might moue God to stay his iudgements, Ioel 2. 14. Who knoweth (saith hee) if hee will returne and repent, and leaue a bles­sing behinde him? And Daniel, when he had told Ne­buchaduezzar of Gods Decree against him, yet hee gi­ueth him counsell Dan. 4. 27. to breake off his sinnes by righteous­nesse, and his iniquitie by shewing mercy to the poore, that this might be a meanes to lengthen his tranquillitie. Yea, and in the very examples alledged to the contrarie, when Ionas pronounced, yet fortie dayes, &c. the men of Nineu [...]h, as either hauing had some aduertisement thereof by Scriptures, or by some of Gods people, or conceiuing so much by the common light of reason, they did vnderstand these words of the Prophet as a threatning, that implyed an exception of repentance.

[Page 78] And therefore the King with his Nobles proclaimeth a Decree, Ionah 3. 8, 9. Let Man and Beast be couered with sack­cloth, and cry mightily vnto God, &c. For, who can tell if God will turne and repent, and turne away from his fierce anger, that wee perish not? And when God had threat­ned Ezekiah, Set thine house, &c. yet Ezekiah Isai. 38. 2. turned his face to the wall, and prayed to the Lord, &c. Where his prayer for freedome, sheweth that hee vnderstood not Gods threatning to be meant without exception. And thus the people of God haue euer beene wont to vnderstand such like speeches, till our late Doctors of Rome haue made God to be an Equiuocator, that they might alledge him for a patrone of their sinne.

The third head of Arguments, containeth the exam­ple of our blessed Sauiour; who though hee were the Truth it selfe, and that there was neuer any guile found in his mouth, yet these men will needes draw him in, to be a fauourer and ring-leader of their falshoods and vn­truthes. And so did their Predecessors, the Priscillia­nists doe before them. For they (as Contra Mē ­dac. cap. 2. pag. 14. A. Saint Augustine saith of them) for defence of their Doctrine of lying, brought testimonies out of Scriptures, and encouraged their Schollers by the examples of Patriarchs, and Pro­phets, and Apostles, and Angels, non dubitantes adde­re etiam ipsum Dominum Christum, making no scruple to adioyne also our Lord Iesus Christ, as a patterne of their lyes. And right so for all the world, doe our E­quiuocators deale now-a-dayes. They bring examples of Patriarchs, and Prophets, and Apostles, and blessed Angels, not fearing to draw in God himselfe, and Iesus Christ his blessed Sonne, to be Abettors of their frauds.

But of God wee haue heard what they say already: let vs now heare what they say of Iesus Christ: and how, and when, and wherein hee vsed this Arte of E­quiuocation. Yes, say they, he did equiuocate, when being with two of his Disciples, Luk. 24. 28. hee made as though [Page 79] hee would goe further: and when speaking of the day of Iudgement, he said, Mar. 13. 3 [...]. But of that day and that houre knoweth no man—, nor the Son, but the Father onely: and when hee said to his Brethren, Ioh. 7. 8. Persons Mitig. c. 7. num. 29. pag. 293. Ego non ascendam, &c. I will not goe vp to Ierusalem to this Feast, and yet hee meant to goe vp, and so went; and diuers other times.

Ans. Neither in these, nor in any other place, was our Lord, the spotlesse Lambe of God, euer found to e­quiuocate, according to the rules of this new Arte.

Not in the first place, Luke 24. 28. For first, there our Lord is said to doe something; hee made as though hee would goe further: but he is not said there to haue said any thing in which this supposed reseruation might be vnderstood.

Ob. Yes, but deedes also may signifie as well as words.

Ans. Deedes sometimes are equiualent to words, and doe signifie as well as words doe: and that is, when as words, so they doe declare our meaning, ex instituto, or by some kinde of compact and agreement among men. And that may be done two wayes. First, expressely, when some words ioyned with the deedes, doe declare that to be the meaning and purpose of him that vseth them. As when Iudas kissed his Master: this signified that hee was Iesus, whom they came to apprehend, because before hee had giuen them this signe, Matt. 26. 48. Whomsoeuer I shall kisse, that same is hee. And when Iesus gaue a sop to Iudas, that signified that hee was the Traitor, because hee had told them before, Ioh. 13. 26. Hee it is, to whom I shall giue a sop, when I haue dip­ped it. And so, when an oath is ministred or tendred vnto vs, if wee lay the hand vpon the Booke, and kisse it, this signifieth that wee consent to the taking of the Oath, because that is appointed and required for this purpose. Secondly, deedes may bee equiualent to [Page 80] words, when by some outward circumstances wee doe declare, that we intend them as signes of our meaning, and doe referre and vse them to that purpose. In this kinde, wee may see a man, who is borne deafe and dumbe, to talke and conferre with his neighbours. And in this kinde a shrugge of the shoulder, (if as Persons saith, it be so meant and taken in Italie) may be a signe, and haue the signification of a Negation or deniall. And when a man openeth his mouth, and sheweth a defect in his tongue, and maketh a gabbling noyse and vndistinct sound, this is a signifying deede, and doth import that that man is dumbe. In either of these kindes, deedes and gestures are equiualent to words, and may containe truth or falshood in them, as well as words doe. But else, deedes and gestures, if in some such manner, ex instituto, by appointment and agree­ment among men, Facta nihil huc auin [...], nisi certam & expe­ctatam [...] altera parte sine siga [...] fi­cat [...]onem si [...]e quasi respension [...] contra [...] de­ [...]u. Abbat. Antilog. c. 2. Pag. 26. And againe, Otio [...]è totum hoc de shategemets v­s [...]satcy quia nulla ibi consi­liorum Commu­nicatio, nulla signorum inter­cessio, quae men­tibus nostris in­ui [...]em aperiendis constituta sunt. Ibid. pag. 26. they be not referred and inten­ded for signification of our minde, though they may carry shew, and men may gather some meaning from them, yet they are not equiualent to words; neither is there any lye contained in it, though the shew be not answerable to the thing. And such a deede as this, was that of our Sauiour, when hee shewed by his gesture, a purpose of going further: and therefore this needeth no reseruation to make it true; seeing without any re­seruation it hath no false or lying signification, such as words haue. And thus Lucas Brugensis, a learned Di­uine of the Roman Church, doth vnderstand and inter­pret this place. His words (that the Reader may iudge of his meaning the better) are these, Non magis in [...]oc facto video inendacij specie, quam in eo quod simulauit se pere­grinum seu [...]a­tor [...]m. Lucas B [...]ugens. in hunc locum. I see [...]o more shew of a lye in this fact of Christ, then when before he seemed to be a stranger or a way-faring man. And he giueth his rea­son, why hee thinketh there is no vntruth in this deed and gesture, Magaum dis­crimen est inter voba & opera [...] verba exp [...]ma iustitutione, signi­ficandi vim ha­bent; non item opera. for there is a great difference betweene words and deedes. For words by their first institution haue the power or vse of signifying; but so haue not deedes. And [Page 81] hence he inferreth that deedes, actions, and gestures, though oftentimes they be, yet they are not alwaies signes either of some ensuing action to follow, or of our present purpose and meaning; nor haue they the nature of a lye in them, etiamsi ad decipiendum aliquan­do siunt, though they be sometimes done, to deceiue the vn­derstanding of the beholder, and to make him beleeue that which is not true. So that if our Lord did make shew of going further, and intended it not, as Father Persons saith; yet in this learned mans iudgement, there was no lye in it: and consequently there nee­deth no mentall reseruation to saue it from being a lye.

Secondly, and more agreeably to our Sauiours mind, wee may answere and say, that our Lord made as if he would goe further: yea, and meant it too, if their in­treaties and importunitie had not stayed him. There­fore the Text saith, They constrained him; that is, they importuned him to stay; and he, ouercome by their intreatie, stayed with them. The clearer meaning of which words, we may the better conceiue and vnder­stand by a like speech, Luke 9. 53. For there it is said, The Samaritans receiued him not, because his face was as though hee would goe to Ierusalem; that is, by his behauiour it seemed that hee meant to goe thither: and so hee did meane it indeed. And so in this place, when it is said, that hee made as though hee would goe fur [...]r; the meaning is, that hee tooke his leaue, and bad them farewell, or vsed some other such like be­hauiour, which made it seeme, that hee meant to goe further. Yea, and so hee meant indeede, sauing that at their request hee was contented to abide with them. And thus Barradius, and Ribera, two famous Iesuites, doe interpret this place. Wee may answere saith the one of them, Barrad. to. 4. l. 8. c. 1 [...]. pag. 356. 2. Dominū voluisse vlteriùs progredi, si non retineretur à Discipulis, &c. That our Lord indeed would [Page 82] haue gone further, had hee not beene detained by his Dis­ciples, and that there was no vntruth in this shew. And the other, Ribera in Amos 2. nu. 21. pag. 344. Nihil veritas fingii, Christ who is the Truth doth not feine any thing. But the common sort might thinke that hee did feine, but it was no fiction or counterfeiting; Si enim eum non [...], tra [...]sset sine dubio, & iss [...]t lo [...]gi [...]s. For if they had not detayned him, he out of doubt had passed by, and had gone on further. Thus not onely the euidence of truth, but the authoritie of Romish Doctors and Iesuites doe vindicate this place from that false glosse that Persons putteth vpon it; and doe free our Lord Iesus from that slanderous imputa­tion, which the Iesuite doth lay vpon him, when Mitig. cap. 9. nu. 58. pa. 386. he saith that Christ in this place did equiuocate: and when Mitig. cap. 9. nu. 72. pa. 397. hee calleth this dealing of his, The dissimulation and fiction of our Sauiour.

The second place mentioned, and produced for E­quiuocation, is that speech of our Sauiour, Mar. 13. Of that day, and that houre, &c. This pr [...]position (saith Mitig ca. 9. nu. 45. pa. 378. Persons) had some reseruation of mind, for that otherwise it had beene false.

Ans. Not so▪ Nay this inference of the Iesuite is false and foolish too: for our Sauiour, according to his wonted manner elsewhere, speaketh of himselfe, as he was reputed and knowne to be, that is, as he was man. And in that sense, the words haue an vsuall and cleare construction and signification; which is, that as he was man, he knew not of that day. This inter­pretation (as Mitig. cap. 9. num 48. Persons doth acknowledge) is giuen by ancient Fathers in great number. Nor is this a mentall reseruation, as Persons would haue his ignorant Reader to beleeue: but an interpretation vsually meant and vnderstood by Christians, in these and such like speeches as these. And therefore our Sauiour in this sē ­tence did not keepe one secret sence to himselfe in his inward minde, and signifie another to his Disciples in the words vttered.

[Page 83] But if it be an Equiuocation, such as they fancy, what then shall the reseruation be? Persons, knowing that no man before the late inuention of this new Art, did euer thinke of secret reseruations, or mentall ima­ginations in our Sauiours words; calleth euery Expo­sition that any good Author giueth, by the name of re­seruation, and reckoneth that Author, for a fauourer of his, like the mad man in Athenaeus, who when any ship came to the Hauē, put it in his Tables as one of his owne. I. c. nu. 49. But that which carrieth most shew of a reser­uation, is this; The Sonne doth not know the day of iudgement, meaning that hee knew it not so, as hee would discouer it vnto them. For this explicatiō is gi­uen by Saint Augustine, and other Fathers, saith Per­sons; and hee addeth, (as triumphing in so plaine a proofe) that this exposition expresseth the very same re­seruation in Christs words, which they talke of in their mixt and equiuocall propositions.

Ans. To this I answere two things: First, That the Exposition giuen by those Fathers, doth not imply any equiuocall reseruation. Secondly, That it doth not giue the true sence or meaning of the place.

First, It containeth not any Iesuiticall reseruation. For those Fathers which giue that interpretation, The Sonne knoweth not; that is, not to make you know it: or rather, the Sonne knoweth it not; that is, hee doth not make you to know it; doe fetch and gather this exposi­tion, not from any secret conceit reserued in our Saui­ours minde, but from the vse and acception and signi­fication of the word, as it is vsed in Scripture. For so, say they, this word, scio or noui, is often vsed. As when God said to Abraham, Gen. 22. 12. Now I know that thou feare [...] God: Deut. 13. 3. and to the Israelites, The Lord your God proueth you, that hee may know, whether yee loue the Lord, &c. the meaning is, that hee may make you to know. And from this vse of the word scio, to know, [Page 84] frequent, as they say, in Scriptures; they thinke they may be the like reason, keeping the same proportion of speech, interpret the word Nescit, knoweth not the day; that is, hee doth not make you to know it. Concer­ning which meaning of the Fathers exposition, if the learned Reader desire any further proofe, Rob. Abbot An [...]l. cap. 2. pag. 22, & 23. he may haue enough to satisfie his minde, in that reuerend and learned Bishop who wrote against Eudaemon-Ioannes. Now this interpretation of the word, being drawne from the vsuall acception of it in Scripture, is nothing at all to the Iesuites purpose, who fancieth a secret clause kept in the minde, but no way included in the vse of the word.

Secondly, This interpretation, The Sonne knoweth no [...]; that is, hee doth not reueale or make it knowne to you, as it maketh nothing for the Iesuites Equiuocation, so it is not greatly to our Sauiours meaning. My reasons are two. First, If that were the meaning, then it would follow, that the Father did so know the day of iudgement, as that hee did reueale it vnto them. For that which this sentence doth deny of the Sonne, it doth by vertue of the exceptiue particle adioyned, af­firme of the Father; No man, no nor the Sonne doth know it, but the Father. Where, if wee fill vp the con­struction, and make the sentence perfect, the whole speech must be this; No man, nor Angell, neither the Sonne, doth know it, but the Father hee doth know it. Now in this speech take the word [know] in the sense of those Fathers, hee knoweth; that is, hee maketh to know, and then the sentence thus expounded, in plaine words will be this, No man, nor the Angels, neither the Sonne, doth make you to know the day of iudgement: but the Fa­ther hee doth make you to know it. But this is not true of the Father; and therefore that is not the true inter­pretation or meaning of the word.

My second reason is, Our Sauiour in these words, [Page 85] No man—knoweth; meant to shew how secret and vn­knowne the day and houre of Gods iudgement was; but take the word in this sence, hee knoweth not; that is, hee reuealeth not, or doth not make you to know: and then this sentence doth not imply or inferre or signifie any secrecie of that day. For, if thousands knew it, yet it might be said of them all, They know it not; that is, they doe not reueale it, or make you to know it. And consequently, this interpretation doth crosse our Saui­ours meaning, and ouerthrow that, for which hee in­tended it. Now, lay these together, and then there is lesse then nothing in our Sauiours speech for the Iesu­ites purpose: both because the word cannot beare that sense in this place, which onely might seeme to fauour them; and because, that sense, as it was vnderstood by the Fathers, was not meant to include any such re­seruation. And so I haue done with this second place, which is the one of the places, that Doctor Norrice did defend his Equiuocation by.

Onely, lest some Popish Cauiller, according to their vsuall manner, should raise clamours after mee, that I doe deny and gain-say the exposition of the Fathers: let the Reader remember, that the other interpretati­on, which I follow, is confessed by Father Persons to be giuen by other Fathers in great number. And a­gaine, if any shall quarrell with mee for leauing an ex­position of some Fathers, where I haue so good reason for it; let him know, that I can produce diuers of their owne Writers, who doe reiect as great a num­ber, and perhaps vpon lesser reason.

Thirdly, The third testimony is from the words of our Sauiour, Iohn 7. 8. which Father Persons and o­ther Equiuocators recite thus, Ego non ascendam ad di­em festū istum, I will not goe vp to Ierusalem to this Feast; and yet (say they) he meant to go [...] vp, and so he went. And therefore here he had a secret reseruation.

[Page 86] Asw. They corrupt the Text two waies, 1 by al­tering the words. 2 by peruerting the sense.

1. By altering the words. For the Originall Greeke is, [...], that is, I doe not yet goe vp. And their authentick Latin, Ego non ascendo, I doe not goe vp. And whereas some Copies had corruptly read it, non ascen­dam, I will not goe; Roman. Cor­rect. Ioh. 7. 8. Lucas Bragensis, lest any man might afterward mistake, hath giuen admonition, that ac­cording to the Roman Correction of their Bible, set forth by the Popes authority, they may not change ascendo into ascendam. Yea, and their Rhemists reade it in their English Translation, I goe not vp to this Festi­uall day. Which was true in the very Letter, & meant by our Sauiour according to the expresse words. For he did not meane then to goe vp, but afterward when time serued. And yet our Equiuocators, to gaine some shew from our Sauiours words, doe corrupt not onely the Originall and truely authentic [...] Greeke, but their owne Latine Text too. But it is no maruell: for such a false Arte could neuer be vpheld by true dealing.

2. By peruerting the sence. For say the words had beene, I will not goe vp, as Persons and Doctor Norice, and others would fame haue it: yet the circumstan­ces of the Text doe shew, that that could not be meant of the whole time during the feast, or that hee would not go vp at all; because it followeth in the next words by way of reason, because my time is not yet accōplished, as the Rhemists trāslate it; or because my time is not yet ful­ly come, as it is more plainly in our Translation. Which words doe plainely shew his meaning to be this, that he would not then goe, when they would haue him: but would goe when he saw his owne time. And this he might both doe and meane, according to the plaine sense of the words spoken. By which it may appeare, that it is want of proofe, and weakenes of their cause, that made them to drawe in this Text, which is so [Page 87] cleere against them. And so, it is the very same reason also, that forceth them (for necessity hath no law) to pro­duce the many other speeches of our Sauiour, which haue as much affinitie with Popish Equiuocation, as there is agreement betweene Christ and Belial, or be­tweene Christ and Antichrist: as I could easily shew, if it were conueniēt to stand vpon all their friuolous & idle allegations. But I thinke it not worth the while, either to tire the Reader, or to trouble my selfe with such fond Cauils. Only for a generall answere to them all, let this be remembred; that there is neuer a Text produced by them for this purpose, but that learned ex­positers, both ancient and moderne, as well of their Church, as of ours, do interpret and expound it in some determinate sense, which they gather or obserue either from the signification of the words, or the vse & appli­cation of them in the Scriptures, or from some circum­stances or considerations in the Text it selfe. And ther­fore such Texts, in the iudgement of all such Interpre­ters, are not to be expounded or vnderstood of any Po­pish reseruations, kept secret in the Speakers minde. For such reseruation as I shewed before, may be any that themselues will fancie. Insomuch, that the Priests do frame seuen seuerall and distinct reseruations, all alike fit for Father Listers Equiuocation, when he deceiued his Keeper; and doe intimate that they might haue framed many moe, and all to as good purpose. And no doubt, as they imagined those seuen, they might haue inuented seuentie moe, that would haue serued the turne. In all which it is not possible, for the Hearer or Reader of such a speech, to imagine, what the Speak­ers reseruation is; it beeing not such as the significati­on of the words, or any circumstances of the businesse doe yeeld, but as the minde of the Equiuocator will fancie within his deceitfull heart. Nor do they in their Equiuocations meane, that the Hearer should know [...] [Page 88] their reseruations. For their intent is, to reserue one sense in their owne breast, and to imprint another in the Hearers minde. This only short note being obser­ued, it will be easie for euery Christian, that will open his eyes, to see that no place produced by them out of the Bible, doth include their secret and hidden reser­uations. Or if any Equiuocator will cauill, or can say, that there is any testimony of theirs, which may not receiue satisfaction by this generall Rule, and is in his opinion worth the standing vpon; let him produce it: and I will promise him either a solution of his reason, or a recantation of mine opinion. And thus much shal serue to be said concerning the Grounds and Reasons which Equiuocators doe build vpon.

Now I proceede to set downe some few reasons a­gainst this new-found Arte, and fond deuice of Equi­uocation. And those for this time shall be these fiue.

• 1. Because this late doctrine of Equiuocation destroy­eth the true nature of Equiuocation, whose name it bea­reth.
• 2. Because it maintaineth a practice of lying, vnder a colour of Truth.
• 3. Because it disturbeth humane society, and hinde­reth mutuall commerce.
• 4. Because it impeacheth God of folly, in making his Lawes against Lying.
• 5. Because it freeth the Deuill from all iust imputa­tion of being a Lyer.

Arg. 1. The Iesuiticall doctrine of Equiuocation, doth destroy the true nature of Equiuocation, which hitherto hath beene receiued of all men, and now (for ought I know) is not reiected of any. This I prooue thus; Equiuocation, in the true nature thereof, is, when a word or speech hath moe senses than one. This the word doth import. For Aequiuocum, by the very notation of the name, is vox aequi plura significans, a word indiffe­rently [Page 89] betokening moe things. And in some such manner as this, doe Writers of all sorts explaine and describe Equiuocation. But in this new-deuised Equiuocation, there is no word, nor no sentence, or saying, that hath moe significatious or senses than one. For in their men­tall equiuocall Proposition, which they fancie, neither the words taken by themselues, nor the whole saying and sentence intended by the speaker, haue any Ambi­guity or doubtfulnes of signification, or any moe senses then one; as I haue shewed Cap. 1. p. 1 [...]. before, out of the Equi­uocators own Rules. And hence I may inferre, that ei­ther their reserued Proposition, is not an Equiuocall and double-sensed Proposition, as they call it without reason, and consequently, that they doe not by Equiuocation speake truth in one sense, and mis-leade the Hearer with another sence: or else, if notwithstanding this, that Proposition bee Equiuocall and double-sensed still, then we must say, that there may bee an Equiuocation, where there is but one single sense and meaning. And that destroyeth the true nature of Equiuocation.

To this reason, first their confession is, that Pers. mitig. cap. 8. num. 8. verball Equiuocation, which is, when a word or speech signifieth diuers things equally, Pers. ibid. num. 15. indeed is onely true and proper E­quiuocation, and agreeth onely to the Defiuition of Equi­uocation, deliuered not onely by Philosophers, but Orators also: and that Pers. ibid. num 8. it is properly called Equiuocation, when a speech or word signifieth diuers things equally, if we con­sider the proper nature of Equiuocation: and, ibid. num. 15 that mentall Equiuocation in rigor is none.

2. Their answere is notwithstanding, that their mixt Proposition may be Pers. mitig. cap. 8. num. 10. pag. 313. called Eq [...]uocation, in a more large and ample signification, as Equiuocall may signifie an amphibologicall, doubtfull or double-sensed Proposition, in respect of the Speaker and Hearer, whereof the one vnder­standeth the same in one sense, and the other in another. And the cause why it is so called, is rather by a certaine simili­tude, [Page 90] then propriety of speech: to wit, that euen as Equi­uocation properly by communitie of name in things of diffe­rent natures, by variety of significations in the selfe-same words or speech, by custome of phrase and composition of sundry sorts, doth make different and doubtfull senses and meaning to the Hearer: so in this case, by mentall reserua­tion of some part of the foresaid mixt Proposition, the like effect of doubtfulnes is bred in the Hearers vnderstanding. For more ready vnderstanding of which perplexed speech, I note that there are three things said by this doubling Equiuocator. 1. That it is onely true and pro­per Equiuocation, & such as is comprised in the Defini­tions giuen both by Philosophers & Orators, when there are diuers senses and significations in the words. 2. That Equiuocation as they meane it in this question, hath no such propertie in it, nor is comprised in the Definition, that Philosophers and Orators haue described Equiuocation by. 3. That notwithstanding all this, yet it may rightly be called Equiuocation, because as true E­quiuocation breedeth diuers senses to the Hearer, by the Ambiguity that is in the words; so this new-deuised E­quiuocatiō may breed diuers senses, one in the Hearer, and another in the Speaker, by reason of the secret re­seruatiō that the Speaker imagineth in his own mind. And this may seeme not so vnreasonable, because words doe signifie ad placitum, and may be changed euery day. And therefore it is no such fault, to frame a new mea­ning and another signification in this word, then euer any body did thinke of heretofore.

Rep. This answere doth not weaken mine Argu­ment, it confirmeth and strengtheneth it rather. For first, I doe not except so much against their new signi­fication of the word, as against the new explication and description of it. For they say, that they call it E­quiuocall, because it is a double-sensed Proposition; and a double-sensed Proposition there fore they call it, be­cause [Page 91] by it they signifie one sense to the Hearer, and i­magine another to themselues. But this doth vtterly destroy the very essence & entity of true Equiuocation. For true Equiuocation cannot be conceiued to be with­out a diuersitie of meanings in the speech: nor was it euer heard of, that a Proposition could be double-sensed, which had none but one single meaning: nor is it ima­ginable that that saying should be ambiguous, which the Hearet can take or construe but one way.

Secondly, Their change and alteration of the word, to another different meaning, as it is by them here v­sed▪ doth conuince them of false and naughty dealing; such as we may obserue Thieues to vse, when they haue purloyned other mens goods. For Thieues (saith Vt reliqui [...]u­res, carum rerum quas cepericat, signa commutan [...]: sic illi—nomina, tanquam rerum notas, mutauc­runt, Cic. de finib. bon. & mal. l. 5. nu. 74. pag. 111. Tul­lie) when they haue taken away other mens goods, doe change the markes of them, that it may not be knowne whose they are, or to whom they belong. And right so doe our Equiuocators deale in this case. For they change the names, which are true markes of things; that hereby they may conceile and hide the nature and pro­pertie of the things themselues. I grant then, that names may change with times; nor is it any fault to alter the vse of a word, so there bee no wrong done to the thing, by the misse-applying of the word: as like­wise it is no fault neither, to change the markes of goods, when there is no fraud intended by it. But if the markes of goods be changed, that the propertie of them may be conceiled, that is a plaine tricke of thie­uerie. And so, if names be changed, that the nature of the things may be peruerted or obscured, that is a trick of iugling, not inferior to that cousonage of the Thiefe. And so it appeareth to be in this case. For this mungrill Proposition of theirs, if it should be censured by Philo­sophers, Orators, or other learned men, no man but would iudge it at the first sight to be a lye: and so hi­ther to all men haue euer called such speeches. But now [Page 92] our new Artificers haue found another name for their new Arte: they call it, Equiuocation. And this they doe for a colourable shew, that it may be thought that there is no vntruth, but onely an Ambiguity in the speech: and that they in deceiuing men by mentall reseruations, doe nothing but what honest men are wont to doe, when they vtter sentences, that may haue diuers meanings. Thus, while they change the names, they doe also confound the things, and destroy their true nature, which wise men, and Aristotle among the rest, haue euer acknowledged to agree vnto them.

Obiect. Nay, saith Father Mitig. cap. 8. num. 16. pag. 310. Persoons, but if Aristo­tle did not comprize this our reserued Proposition vnder [...] of the three sorts of Logicall Equiuocation, mentioned by him in his Elenchs, then he erred grossely in making an insufficient Diuision, which comprehendeth not all the parts of the thing deuided. For if the said mixt Proposition (saith he) be an Equiuocation, (as Iesuites say it is, in spite of all reason, and against the doctrine of all ages) then must it haue place among some of these three kindes; or else the Diuision should be insufficient.

Rep. A ridiculous conce it: whereto I know no ex­ample, that may be paralell; but I will imagine one as neere as I can. Suppose then, a Father deuideth his Lands among his owne Children, and a Conie catcher there by steppeth in, and layeth claime to a share a­mong them: and when the matter commeth to be de­bated, in the Court, the Iudge parteth the Lands a­mong the Brethren, to whom onely they belonged, and shutteth out the Conie-catcher for a wrangler, that layeth claime where he hath no right. What if in this case, the Conie-catcher should complaine of the Iudge, for partiall dealing, and reason against him, as Persons doth against Aristotle, that if this Conie-catcher haue a right, and a share in those Lands, as himselfe saith he hath, then the Iudge erred grossely, that had exclu­ded [Page 93] him? Would not euery Boy kicke such a wrang­ling foole or knaue shall I call him? out of the Court? And such a ridiculous wrangler, is Father Persons, who accuseth Aristotle of a grosse errour, for not rancking a­mong his kinds of Equiuocation, this of the Iesuites, neuer heard of in the world before; and which the wrangler himselfe doth else-where acknowledge not to be true Equiuocation.

Arg. 2. This doctrine of Equiuocation doth main­taine a practice of lying, because hee whom they call an Equiuocator, is in truth a Lyer, and that which they call an Equiuocall Proposition, is a lying assertion. I proue it thus. He that speaketh to another that which himselfe knoweth to be false, is a Lyer, and a lye it is, whensoeuer there is Aug. conta mendac. c. 12. falsa significatio cum voluntate fal­lendi, a false signification with a mind to deceiue the Hea­rer. Or, to speake in a Iesuites words, Tolet Instr. l. 8. c. 54. A Lye is ver­bum falsum, cum intentione fallendi, a false speech, with an intention to deceiue. Which description of a Lye, so far as concerneth this purpose, he explaineth thus. A false speech is heere ment, when a Non est men­dacium, dicere quod nou ita est, sed dicere aliter quàm homo pu­tat. Tolet. ibid. man speaketh otherwise, then himselfe thinketh: and it is said to be with inten­tion to deceiue, because Qui aliter qu [...] sentit proloqui­tur, alterū fallit, et fallere inten­dit. Non etenim sic profert, nisi vt diuersam opi­nionem in animo alterius generet. Hoc autem est fallere. Tolet. ibid. Hee that speaketh otherwise then himselfe thinketh, doth deceiue another, and intendeth to deceiue him. For he would not so speake, but that thereby he may engender a contrarie opinion in another mans mind: and this is to deceiue. Thus the Iesuite describeth a Lye, and that agreeably to the receiued Doctrine of the Schooles. But this which is said to containe the na­ture of a Lye, is all of it found in the new-deuised Equi­uocall Proposition. For first, that which the Equiuo­cator vttereth, is false, and so he knoweth it to be: for Pers. mitig. c. 12. num. 2. pag. 484. & cap. 10. num. 22. p. 424. it may seeme (saith Persons) to haue salsitie in it; and sometimes also hath indeed, in respe [...]t of the words onely, or vnderstanding of the Hearer. And the case is cleere, that the words vttered by the Equinocator, containe an [Page 94] vntruth and a falshood: for else they could not serue him for euasion. But the words vttered are all that the Equiuocator speaketh: and therefore that which hee speaketh, is verbum falsum, a false word or speech. And secondly, that he vttereth this falshood with minde and purpose to deceiue the Hearer, in the sence that Tolet here explaineth it, I haue Cap. 1. pag. 16. num. 6. shewed and proued out of their owne writings: nor can it stand with com­mon sence, to conceiue it otherwise. And hence it fol­loweth that the Equiuocator is a plaine lyer.

Ans. Their answere is, that though the words con­sidered by themselues, and as they are vnderstood by the Hearer, be false: yet as they are meant by the E­quiuocator, and as they are ioyned with the reseruati­on kept in his minde, they are true. The summe is, they are false of themselues, but they are made true by the imagined reseruation.

Re. This is a weak answer, & an impertinent shift; because their mentall reseruation hath nothing to doe either with Truth or Lying; as may appeare by this reason. Truth as it is heere meant, and Lying which is the contrary to it, are morall acts contained in the second Table of the Decalogue or Tenne Commande­ments: and therefore doe include a respect to our Neighbours, nor can they be vnderstood without re­ference and relation vnto other men: so that lying con­sisteth in a signification of falshood vnto others, and truth in signifying or vttering of that which is true; and without such signification, either performed by outward signes, or meant and intended to be perfor­med, if occasion should be offered, Lying and Truth morally taken, can haue no place. Vpon this ground, which hath cleare euidence in it, Bannes a learned Schoole-man doth refute their opinion, who thinke that there may be a lye, where there is no purpose to de­ceiue. Mihi vsque a­d [...]o videtur ille animus fallendi necessarius ad rationem menda­cij; quòd sine illo mendacium esse non possit. Vt v. g. fi Petrus abs­que aliqu [...] teste proferat proposi­tionem, qu [...] scit esse falsam; ille non mentitur, quamuis dicat folsum in voce. Similit [...]r si Pe­trus dicat [...]oann [...]; Tu [...] es Ioctnes: [...] non menti­tur, quamuis di­cat falsum, quia illud non potest dicere animo fallendi ipsum Ioannem. Huius ratio esse potest, quia mendacium est fiotio quaeda, quae est in volun­tate, propterca quòd est ad alteris per quam inten­dit homo, vt ali­us credat aliter, quam sentit ille, qui fiugit, & mentitur. Quòd autem menda [...]ū sit ad alterum, patet. Nam [...] veracitas, quae est virtus oppofila, est ad àtterum, quum sit pa [...]s iustiti [...]; vt ai [...] S. Tho. Do­minic. Baunes to. 3. in 2. 2. q. 1. art. 3. Dub. 1. § Pro deci­sione. pag. 16. I thinke (saith he that a minde to deceiue, is so [Page 95] necessary in a lye, as that without it, a lye cannot exist. This hee declareth thus: If Peter, no man being within hearing, should vtter a speech, which hee knoweth to be false, yet hee should not lye, though hee should speake an vn­truth in the words. In like sort, if Peter should say to Iohn, Thou art not Iohn, doubtlesse hee should not lye, though hee spake an vntruth, because hee cannot speake that with purpose to deceiue Iohn himselfe. And hereof hee giueth this reason, Because a lye is a kinde of fiction or faining, which is in the will, with reference to another, by which a man intendeth that another man may beleeue otherwise than himselfe, who telleth the lye, doth thinke. And that a lye doth include such respect and refirence to another, is plaine (saith hee) because that veracirie, or the vertue of speaking truth, which is opposite to lying, doth consist also in relation to another, because it is a part of iustice. Thus reasoneth this learned Frier. In this discourse of his wee may note two things. First, His Conclusion, which is, that both lying and truth mo­rally taken, which hee calleth veracitie, doe consist in a relation and reference to others; so that no words vttered, without respect of signifying somewhat to some other by them, can be either the sinne of lying, or the vertue of true-speaking. Secondly, wee may note his reason for proofe of this Conclusion; which is, that veracitie, or the vertue of speaking truth, is a part of iustice: and iustice hath a respect to some other, to whom it giueth that which is his due. This reason I take to be vnanswerable; and then his Conclusion must needs be vndeniable. It is proued then that truth morally meant, for a vertue or act of speaking truth, which is a part of iustice, and a dutie which wee owe to our neighbours; doth include a reference and re­spect to others, which respect consisteth in signifying or declaring our meaning to them, truely and sincere­ly. But now in the mentall reseruation, shut vp in the [Page 96] Equiuocators breast, there is no such reference or re­lation, nor doth it admit of any intendment, to signi­fie or declare his meaning to others. Nay, it is there­fore suppressed, and broken off from the speech which is vttered in words, that nothing thereby may be sig­nified to the Hearer. It followeth then, that this reser­uation hath no point nor piece of morall truth in it. And therefore, if that part of the Equiuocators pro­position, which hee vttereth in words, were a false and lying speech before; it must needes remaine a lye still, for any helpe that this Reseruation can yeeld it.

Arg. 3. The Doctrine of Equmocation doth di­sturbe humane societie, and destroyeth that mutuall commerce that one man should haue with another. I proue it thus. This societie and commerce must needs be disturbed, when men in wisedome may not beleeue one another, vpon their words or oathes: but if this Doctrine of Equiuocation be receiued, men may not beleeue one another, either vpon their words or oaths. This is prooued thus. The Equiuocator pro­fesseth to equiuocate, whensoeuer hee may lawfully hold his peace; and if it be for any aduantage of weight, vpon his Oath too. Which how farre it may extend, I haue declared in part already, and euery man may easily conceiue by himselfe: but sure in what bu­sinesse soeuer I haue to deale with such a man, I can­not tell, but that he may thinke it lawfull to conceale the truth, and consequently to equiuocate with mee. And in case his conscience will permit him to equiuo­cate with mee, (as in what case it will not permit him, I know not) then am I as sure to be deceiued, and o­uerreached by him, if I doe beleeue him, as if I belee­ued a plaine and downe-right lyer. For, my credence or beleefe can reach no futher then to the words vt­tered; nor can I learne any thing from the Equiuo­cator, but that which I can gather from his words: [Page 97] but all that is false and lying; as hath beene shewed by their owne Confession. And therefore if I beleeue a man, when hee doth equiuocate, I am sure to be de­ceiued. I declare this yet further by a familiar exam­ple. Say, two Priests haue layed a plot of Inuasion for the Kingdome, and being questioned vpon their oaths concerning the plot, they both deny it. And the one, hee saith, I neuer meant or intended any such thing, vn­derstanding within himself, so as I meane to tell you of it: and the other, hee answereth in the very same words, but hath forgotten to frame a reseruation in his minde: the one of these by their Doctrine is a lyer, and the o­ther an Equiuocator▪ But in respect of being deceiued by them, what difference is there betweene them? Shall I not as soone be deceiued by the Equiuocator, as by the Lyer? Yes certainely, it is no more safe to beleeue an Equiuocating Iesuite, then a lying Deuill. And if this be so; then where men teach and professe the Arte of equiuocation, there in wisdome men may not beleeue one another: and consequently, they can­not haue that commerce and societie that men should haue among themselues. I conclude this argument a­gainst Equiuocators, in the very same manner, as Saint Augustine did against Lyers, onely putting the name of Equiuocator, where he did the name of Lyer. Aut non est credendum bonis; aut credendum est ijs, quos cre­dimus debere a­liquando mentiri; aut non est cre­dendum bonos aliquando [...]. Horum trium primum pernici [...] ­sum est secund [...] stultum. Restat [...]rgo, vt nunquam ment [...]antur boni. Augustin. de Mendac. cap. 8. pag. 6. f. Ei­ther (saith hee) wee must not beleeue honest men; or wee must beleeue them, who wee thinke ought sometimes to tell a lye; or else, wee must beleeue that honest men will not at any time tell a lye. The first of these three is pernicious, (and ouerthroweth societie.) The second is folish, (and exposeth a man to the mercy of euery cheating compa­nion.) It remayneth therefore to say, that an honest man will neuer tell a lye. Thus that learned Father: by whose example I may reason against Equiuocators in the ve­ry same manner. Either wee must not beleeue honest [Page 98] men on their words or oathes: or wee must beleeue them, who wee thinke may equiuocate with vs both in words and in oathes: or else, wee must beleeue that an honest man will not equiuocate. The first is pernici­ous, the second is foolish: and therefore wee must re­solue vpon the third, which is, that an honest man will not equiuocate.

Arg. 4. This Doctrine of Equiuocation defeateth all Lawes made against lying▪ and doth by consequence impeach God of folly for making any such Lawes. I proue it thus. It is a folly to make such Lawes, as are vnauaileable, and cannot reach to the ends, for which they were made. But if Equiuocation be admitted, Lawes against lying cannot serue for the purpose, to which they are intended. This appeareth by two things. First, Gods Lawes and precepts against lying were made for this purpose, to restraine mens tongues from speaking of falshoods and vntruthes. But by the Arte of Equiuocation a man may speake any and all falshoods that hee will, and yet these precepts against lying shall neuer take hold of him: because by a men­tall reseruation warranted by this Doctrine, hee may make any falshood to become true. And therefore the Equiuocator, notwithstanding all Lawes of God and men against lying, yet is at his libertie to vtter what vntruths hee will, without the least transgression of any of those Lawes. Secondly, Lawes against lying doe intend preuention of hurt and deceit to be vsed a­gainst our neighbour. But admit once of this new do­ctrine of Equiuocation, and no deceit toward our neighbour can be preuented by any Lawes against ly­ing. For if this Doctrine be warrantable, then all Lawes against lying must be meant onely against such as doe not keepe a reseruation in their mindes, to make true the falshoods that they vtter in their [Page 99] words. And so, for example, when Moses saith, Leuitie. 19. 11. Yee shall not lye one to another: and when Saint Paul saith, Ephes. 4. 25. Put away lying, and speake truth euery man with his neighbour; the meaning of these Precepts must be to this purpose▪ Speake no vntruth, nor vtter no falshoods to your neighbours, vnlesse yee haue some secret reseruation kept in your minde, which if it be added, will make them to become true. For, by the Equiuocators Doctrine, if such reseruations be kept in the minde, then all their words become true: and therefore they are no way included within these Precepts against lying. But if this interpretation of such Lawes may be admitted, and such libertie of speech may be granted, without a­ny breach of these Lawes: then these Lawes doe no way preuent the least danger of deceit and dammage that may come to our Neighbour by vntrue and false speeches; because I can deceiue him as much by this equiuocall reseruation, as by a formall lye: as hath been proued already. And from these considerations it fol­loweth, that Precepts against lying are vaine, if the practice of Equiuocation be lawfull.

Arg. 5. If the Doctrine of Equiuocation be true, then neither men nor Deuils can be conuinced of ly­ing. First, men cannot. For though they speake ne­uer so vast and apparent falshoods, yet who can say but that they haue some reseruation in their minde, that may free their words from being lyes? And yet all sorts of men, when they heare euident vntruthes vttered, doe without controll of any, charge the speakers with falshoods and lying. Which shew­eth that all men iudge of lying and truth, by the words vttered, and not by fancies reserued in the minde. As for example, the Secular Priests doe charge Father Persons with a continuall practice of lying, so that D Ely in his Notes vpon the Apologie. cap. 9. pag. 311. D. Bagshaw in his Answ. to Persons Apo­logie, pag. 42. Reply to a briefe Apolo­gie, cap. 2. pag. 11. they giue him the Whetstone, and leaue [Page 100] it with him too, as if they thought there were no such a bold and impudent lyer in the World, that could winne it from him. But how did the Priests know, but that Persons spake with some equiuocall reseruati­ons? And if so, then they broke the rule of charitie, in censuring him for a lyer, when hee was but an E­quiuocator. And againe, Father Persons chargeth the Seculars with Apologie for Subord. cap. 12. in the latter end. infinite number of vntruthes, lyes, slan­ders, and open falshoods vttered without scruple of con­science; so that the vse of Equiuocations was little need­full for them; because they could take libertie enough without it. But how doth Father Persons know, that his Secular Brethren did not vse Equiuocation in all these vntrue speeches: and so made them true by some reseruation? Thus all men, when they finde ap­parent vntruthes vttered, sticke not to charge the speakers with lying. But if the Doctrine of Equiuo­cation be true, no man can be conuinced of the least lye, vnlesse himselfe will confesse it.

Secondly, The Deuill himselfe, if this Doctrine be true, cannot be conuinced to be a lyer. For who can say, but when he telleth vs most palpable vntruthes, yet hee may reserue within himselfe some clause to helpe all? Nay, if this Doctrine be true, it cannot be supposed with any reason, that the Deuill euer would or euer did tell any lye at all. For, whatsoeuer he hath spoken at any time, be it otherwise neuer so false and lying; yet it might be made true by a re­seruation: and hee neither wanted wit to deuise such reseruations, nor will, by such or any other meanes to free himselfe from the imputation of lying. First, hee wanteth not wit. I shall not neede to proue this; because, as I suppose, it will be confessed, that hee is as quicke and nimble at such deuices, as the fi­nest witted Iesuite in the packe. But, if any man [Page 101] shall question it, I will engage my selfe to proue it. Secondly, hee wanteth not will, by this or any other tricke to saue his credit, and to auoid the imputati­on of lying. For, hee knoweth that the greatest hin­derance to his proceedings, is, because the World e­steemeth him for a lyer, and the Father of lyes: and if he could once but gaine to be accounted a true and ho­nest dealer, (as by vsing Equiuocation, he might as well proue himselfe to be no lyer, as any Iesuite can:) then hee might finde more credit in the World. For which cause, 2 Corin. 11. 14. the Apostle saith that hee transformeth him­selfe into an Angell of light. And an ancient Writer telleth of a Monke, who was a strict and religious li­uer, that the Deuill, Quum volens eum consuetudine visionum, ad cre­dulitatem futurae deceptionis illi­cere, verissima quaque multo tempore, Diabo­lu [...], velut verita­tatis nuncius, re­uclasset: ad [...]x­ [...]emum, &c. Cassian. Col­lat. 2. cap. 8. purposing by a custome of Vi­sions to winne him to the beliefe of a futur [...] illusion which hee intended for him, did for a lo [...]g time, as a messenger of truth, shew him all true Visions. And when by this meanes▪ hee had gained credit to be be­leeued▪ then by another Vision, hee perswaded him to renounce Christ, and to become a Iew. And it is an vsuall obseruation among Christians, that the Deuill will tell some truthes, that hee may gaine afterward the more credit to his lyes. And therefore it can be no doubt, but that the Deuill desireth not to be repu­ted a lyer; and would gladly put off from him all such imputation, if by any trickes hee could deuise how to effect it. Now lay these two positions toge­ther: first, That the Deuill wanteth no wit to deuise reseruations; and secondly, That hee wanteth no will, by this or any other such deuice, to auoid the discre­dit of a lyer: and then it will follow, that in reason wee cannot imagine, that the Deuill euer would or did tell a lye, if by an equiuocall reseruation hee could cleare himselfe. And hence againe it may be dedu­ced, that as our Equiuocators doe challenge vs for [Page 102] slandering them; because wee call them lyers, when they sweare falshoods by imagined reseruations: so the Deuill himselfe might challenge GOD (be it spoken with reuerence to his Maiestie) for iniustice and slan­der, because hee hath branded him with the note of a lyer, and calleth him the Father of lyes. But these consequents are most absurd: and therefore the Do­ctrine of Equiuocation, from whence they follow, is most false.

Thus, by Gods grace, I haue declared, and I trust, in some measure also cleared the poynts propounded in the beginning. Now, for conclusion, I will onely commend one Caueat to the well-meaning Christian; and that is, to beware of trusting them, whose pro­fession is to equiuocate. For such men are both more impious and more dangerous than any other sort of lyers, that I know beside.

First, They are more impious, because among men of other Religions, though there may be vicious per­sons, that make too common a practice of lying de­ceits; yet that is the fault of the men, and not of their Doctrine. But in the Church of Rome, their great Doctors doe not onely practise this deceit, but praise it too: and commend it to their Disciples, as a good Arte; very fit fo [...] scrupulous consciences. Which do­ctrine cannot be conceiued to be without great disho­nour to God, and much disgrace to Religion.

Secondly, They are more dangerous then any other sort of Lyers, because they come masked vnder a vi­zard of truth, & armed with resolution to protest, and sweare, and pawn their soules and saluations, vpon the truth of that which they say, notwithstanding that for so much as they vtter, and for all that you can heare or gather by them, all is most false, which they speake. From the consideration whereof, I inferred before, that [Page 103] it was not safe to beleeue a Iesuite, or any of his fel­lowes or schollers; for that a man may as soone be de­ceiued by an Equiuocating Iesuite, as by a lying De­uill. Now I adde, therefore wise Christians must be­ware of them; and if wee will not be decei [...]ed, wee must not beleeue either their words or oathes, in what businesse soeuer wee haue to doe with them. This Ca­ueat, that it may the b [...]tter appeare how farre it is to be extended; I will, for example sake, set downe some speciall cases of ordinarie vse, in which it will [...] to beleeue them.

1. [...]irst then we may not safely beleeue them, when they are disputing▪ and arguing for their Religion, and deliuering points of their faith. For they tell vs, that Iesus our Lord did equiuocate, when hee preached of Prayer and Sacraments, and of his office of iudging the World, &c. And I trow, Iesuites will be ready to imi­tate the example of Iesus, whose name they beare. But we need not doubt of their meaning in this case; for they therefore alledge the example of Christ; that they may defend and make good their owne practice. And therefore when I heare a Priest or a Iesuite telling of Popes Pardons, and preaching of S. Patricks Purgat [...] ­rie, &c. and when for these, he telleth me, of the con­sent of the ancient Church, and alledgeth many Fathers to confirme his Assertion; how can I be sure, that hee doth not equiuocate with mee in that case? or what reason haue I to thinke, but that he speaketh against his knowledge, and conscience? or how can I, with­out a note of rashnes and temeritie, beleeue that he [...] doth not wilfully belye the Fathers, and other Authors to serue his owne turne? and when he hath done all, make vp all with a secret Reseruation, that I neuer dreamed on?

Secondly, Wee may not beleeue them, when they [Page 104] giue Answers, or beare witnesse in a Court of Iustice, or before a Magistrate; no, not though they sweare what they say, and take it vpon their soules and salua­tions. For they professe to equiuocate in such cases, if either the Iudge be incompetent, or if he proceed incom­petently. And when I heare one of them speake and sweare before any of our Gouernors or Rulers, either Ecclesiasticall or Ciuill, what can I tell, but hee may thinke either the Iudge, or his proceedings to bee in­competent, and vniust? Nay sure, in most cases, in which they haue to doe before our Gouernors, they are knowne to hold, either the Iudge, or the procee­ding, or both, to bee incompetent▪ And therefore I cannot see how wee may safely beleeue them, when they make answere, or giue euidence vpon their oath.

Thirdly, Wee may not beleeue them, when they tell of great wonders and Miracles, done by men of their Order and profussion; and by Saints and Images of their owne making. For they professe to equiuocate, when it may bee for some good to themselues, and therefore much more when it may proue so great a good to their Order, to their Church, and to their Re­ligion. And therefore, when they tell mee of many great miracles don [...] by their men in the Indies, and by the Ladies of Lauretto and Hall; how can I tell, that they doe not fitten and deuise all that vpon their fin­gers end, to gaine credite to their profession?

Fourthly, We may not beleeue them, when they publish and disperse disgracefull tales and reports a­gainst the professors and Doctors of our Church. For the disgracing of these men, may breede great aduan­tage to their Religion: and beside, it is an Axiom of theirs, He must bee disgraced, because he is an Enemy to their order. And therefore, when they tell mee of Lu­ther, [Page 105] and Caluin and Beza and Bucer and such others, that they either despaired, or recanted, or renounced their Religion; how may I beleeue them, that they doe not Equiuocate? Nay it is certaine, that in the forging of these reports, they did either lye, or Equiuo­cate, or both. And therefore when they now tell vs, that many of our Reuerend Bishops, and learned Prea­chers and Schollers, are of their opinion, and thinke them to be in the right, but that for the worlds sake, they dissemble their iudgement; how can I giue credit to their words, or to their writings? And when they tell vs, that such a Doctor, vpon his death-bed; and such a Bishop toward his latter end, turned Papist, and re­nounced in their eare, what he had taught in the Pul­pit, and was reconciled to the Church of Rome, by one that came and went inuisibly; shall wee beleeue them to speake as they thinke? Nay, wee should ra­ther spit in the Lyers faces, that presume vs to bee so simple, as to beleeue an Equiuocator in a case so a­uaileable for his Order, and in a thing so vnlikely and absurde in it selfe; that the narration of such a thing, might call in question the truth of a knowne ho­nest man.

Fiftly, We may not beleeue Equiuocators in mat­ters of common life, and ciuill conuersation. For they professe to equiuocate in most cases of common pra­ctice, and in all cases in which they are not bound to reueile the Truth, if the thing may be for their aduan­tage. And therefore if one of them should contract to marry a mans daughter amongst vs, how can any of vs tell, that th [...] Equiuocator thinketh himselfe bound to lay op [...]n his heart, and to speake the truth in this case; and that therefore in his opinion he may not equiuo [...]ate and deceiue vs? And if he pro­mise to pay me a summe of money, how can I tell that [Page 106] he keepeth not a reseruation behind, that may disanull his promise aforehand; as that he will pay it, if him­selfe shall thinke it necessary, or if he shall haue so much to spare, or if hee haue nothing else to doe with his money? &c. And so, if he vndertake to be my Sollici­tor for my Law-businesses, or my Physitian for my bo­dy, or my Counsellor in any doubtfull case, &c. how shall I be assured that I may beleeue his word, and that he doth not for some secret reasō kept to himselfe, think it lawfull to cheate me by a mental reseruation? Surely, for mine own part, if I may know him that pro­fesseth the Art of Equiuocation, I wil trust him no further then I would doe a common and noted Lyer, that is no further then I do see him. (⸫)