Aequiuocations Of many be you contented with this one Pyrrhus his question to that Oracle was Whether he should giue an ouerthrow to the Romans or no the answer of the Oracle was this Aio te Aetacidi Romanos vincere posse That is to say I say that Pyrrhus the Romans may ouercome So whether the Romans which after was true should ouercome Pyrrhus or Pyrrhus which was false should conquer the Romans the aequiuocating Oracle might be found to haue sayd trueth It is recorded by Eusebius that at the birth of Christ all those diuellish aequiuocating Oracles were put to silence when the last which spoke being asked Why they now ceased to giue answers returned this last answer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Because the Hebrew babe meaning Christ is borne So doubtlesse in what heart soeuer there is the regenerating spirit of Christ there the aequiuocating spirit of Delphos doth wax dumbe Now you holde that your Priesthood is conferred vpon you by a Sacrament of Ordination and that Ex opere operato it doth impresse in your soules Charactêrem indelebilem that is a marke neuer to be blotted out By the power of that Sacrament of Order which heerein say you excelleth all other Sacraments that it aduanceth Priests a degree aboue all other Christians The end thereof you beleeue is Tooffer sacrifice for the sinnes of the quicke and the dead Yet do you aequiuocatingly denie your Priesthood sealed vnto you by a Sacrament belonging to faith And what matter can there be wherein such a Priest will not aequiuocate who doth aequiuocate concerning his Priesthood But we haue not so learned Christ but defend that it is essentiall to a Christian whensoeuer or to whomsoeuer he sweareth to vse simplicitie and not to sophisticate for there is a double faith in the Iurer to be tendred the first is faith to the man to whom he sweareth which we call fideline the other is our faith in God by whom he sweareth to beleeue that he is omnipotently wise to discerne whether my words be true according to their signification and omnipotently iust to take vengeance vpon me if I do dissemble The first faith is violated by aequiuocating for it is therefore interpreted to be called Fides quia fit quod dicitur that is The thing is as it is sayd to be And the dissembleâ— in this kinde Tullie as the golden mouth of all reasonable men calleth Infidelem An Infidell So likewise your faith in God is impeached for how shall I call God to acknowledge those words to be true in that sense which I ought to speake them in wherein I know them to be false CHAP. XIX This doctrine concerning Aequiuocating must in the last place be discussed both pro and contra in the effects The Aequiuocator obiecteth VVHen a Protestant Magistrate shall sweare me to bring in a Papist Recusant to the Assises when there is no way for the Recusant to escape I will sweare by aequiuccation The Answer Thinkest thou it vnlawfull to bring a Recusant to the Assises then is it also vnlawfull to sweare that thou wilt bring him for this is one essentiall property which God challengeth by his Prophet that where there is Iusiurandum Ius should go before iurandum and therfore the Prophet saith Iurabis in iustitia Thou shalt sweare in iustice That is to admit your owne Aquinas for expositour not to sweare any thing that is vniust But notwithstanding this direct command Thou shalt sweare wilt thou sweare Then mayst thou not sweare by aequiuocation for that doth wound the very soule of an oath which is simple Truth but verball aequiuocation taketh away the necessary simplicity of an oath because therein is dissimulation If therefore the thing be vnlawfull thou must not sweare no not truth though thou be vrged if thou wilt sweare yet know thou art not vrged to sweare an vntruth The second Obiection is popular supposing Aequiuocation to be a lie thus There are three kinds of lies that one Iesuite may speake for all his fellowes one is a pernicious and hurtfull lie which turneth to the hurt of another the second is an officious and charitable lie which is for the good of another the third is but a iesting 〈◊〉 whereby no man is either helped or hurt Of these we define thus that euery one of these vsed in an oath is a mortall sin considered without an oath the pernicious is only a mortall sinne the officious and â—esting are but veniall The Answer I am not ignorant that the vse of this distinction of mortall and veniall in the comparison of sinnes is frequent in the Fathers but as different from you in sense as they be consonant in termes for they neuer valued any sinne so veniall in his owne nature as not to deserue of it selfe an infinite eternall torment for they alwaies taught that euery sinne being a transgression of an eternall law of the infinitely iust God doth challenge an infinit punishment so to be accounted mortall and yet not therefore equall except you will say that theft and murder and blasphemy against God be therefore equall because they be equally mortall which I thinke you will not But when they consider man in the state of Grace they taught that the sinnes of humane infirmity in a man regenerate are not rigorously exacted and in this sense are called veniall Notwithstanding I dare affirm that of these kinds of sinnes which you call veniall there is not one but being done vpon presumption it is damnable equall with your mortall As thus suppose your officious lie be vnto the examined veniall because he was instantly surprised as it were with a sudden passion and not able to know how to resolue which I call infirmity yet if he had â—â—ed presumptuously that is beene of this resolution that whensoeuer such a case should happen his purpose was to lie this vnto that man had beene a sinne grieuously mortall yet this manner of resolution in like case is your generall doctrine and practise Therefore we must shew that Euery Officious lie for what good intent soeuer it be resolutely done whether in or without an oath is damnable in it selfe and ought to be auoided of all Christians Your practise in the popular opinion is iustified in these respects We doe it for a good end as to secure our selues or a Priest and for the Catholike cause lest holy Priesthood might be defamed and our Catholike faith blasphemed Haue you sayd Then see I pray you how much Christian simplicitie doth abhorre this infatuation For holy Fathers will not allow any lie the adultery of the soule no not for the defence of Chastity nay not for preseruation of a mans bodilie life nay not for the winning of a mans soule nay no euill may be done as your Acosta saith well not for the gaining of many thousand Infidels to the faith So pretious a thing is Truth vnto truely
such proceedings If you yet insist and vrge to know the causes why Popes did so insult vpon Emperors moderate your appetite a while till we come to the confutation where I doubt not but you will at least satisfie your selfe if not surfet For the interim it will content the Reader to vnderstand that which your Barckley proueth namely That in true historie it cannot be found that euer heresie was a cause of abrogating the authoritie of Emperors The moderate Answerer He accuseth Cardinall Allane for approuing of the rendring vp of Douentore vnto the hands of the King of Spaine the true owner by which he condemneth himselfe to be within the compasse of his owne conclusion of Rebellion for all the world can witnesse that towne truly to belong to that King The Reply Was the King of Spaine the true owner Who are you I pray you that can thus define if you will be a true Diuine then learne from our Sauiour Who made me a Iudge ouer you to diuide inheritances among you If you will be according to your State-style a Statesman to iustifie that the King of Spaine was then the true owner of Doâ—entore and for confirmation call all the world to witnesse we shall not greatly maruell at this in you being of the Order of them who would make that King the Monarch of all the world How the case might stand I may be lawfully ignorant excepting onely that howsoeuer Sir William Stanley being no subiect to either parties but onely a substitute to the States and subiect to his Queene from whose command he had receiued that charge he is therin intolerably perfidious for if the right were doubtfull then it is a conclusion which your Iesuite cannot denie but that When the souldiers shall doubt whether the warre and so the possession he holdeth which his Prince maketh be lawfull in all such doubts he ought to obey his Prince for euen to obey doth remoue the doubt Secondly if the case were plaine yet many things are lawfull to be done which are not lawfull for this man or that man to do for our Lawe saith A man as he that shall go to his neighbours house and take twenty pound he lent his neighbour may be hanged for taking his owne and is there no iustice against him who will render vp that which is not his owne But what his intent was he hath discouered to all the world who as he then in violating his Princes repose fled from her subiection so in the inuasion in 88. was bent to returne not as a good subiect but as a mortall enemie against his Soueraigne Lastly for the States in this point suppose their getting of Deuentore were vniust yet another Iesuite though I should condemne it would defend their possession who in like case thus resolueth Admit saith he that it was a great sinne for the Spaniards to vsurpe the Kingdomes and possessions of the Indian people yet can they not O Confessors now be restored for to whom and how can this be performed nay though it could yet will not the danger of decay of O Religion Religion permit restitution Yet there remaineth another example to be satisfied of you which is this CHAP. XXIII The Discouerie An example of a notable Patron of high Treason XIstus Quintus maketh a publike OratioÌ„ in his Consistorie of Cardinals the subiect matter he sheweth is this The King of France is slaine by the hand of a Monke And what of this This saith he is a notable rare and memorable act But why Because he slue not saith he a King painted in paper or grauen in stone but the King of Fraunce in the middest of his hoast Is it a wonder any should wonder that a Monke could murther a mortall King seeing Popish histories do record that Pope Hadrian being guiltie of the like seditious practise against the Emperor Henry the second was choaked with a Flie Nay but if the Monke had killed a painted Image that had bene an act farremore memorable and lesse intolerable notwithstanding no fact is good because great but therefore great because good Say then what is to be thought of the worthinesse of the fact It was a fact done by the admirable prouidence will and succour of Almightie God How by Gods will counselling and approuing it Holy Iudith is famous saith he for the slaying of Holophernes which she did not without the suggestion of Gods Spirit But this religious man hath done a farre more maruellous worke O maruellous Relgioâ— Yet so it is in this sinne of parricide where A Monke doth murther a King The best word the Pope affoordeth the murdred is An vnhappie King and one perishing in his sinne The worst he doth bestow vpon the murtherer is Religious man And thus in not condemning but rather commending one Traitor he hath made vp two Lastly this Henry a note very materiall was a Papist onely he fauoured the Protestants and especially Prince Nauarre because a Protestant excommunicate By this Pope this was his crime vpon which ensued This fact to paraphrase truly of the Popes words rare for the attempt not able for the wickednesse memorable for the shame of the Sect. The moderate And most modest Answerer The Reply What nothing not one word in behalfe of Pope Sixtus Sixtus who First did confirme the league in France for the vtter destruction of Protestants Sixtus who Did excommunicate in that name the King Nauarre and Prince of Condie Neither onely them but expresly All Lutherans and Caluinists proclaiming a Iubilie and indulgence for all in Fraunce who should pray for the successe of the Leaguers against the Protestants One to whom you ascribe power of absoluing you from all your sinnes and yet not one syllable to free him from the suspition of but one sinne patronizing a most brutish parricide Could you not answer that his speech was onely an admiration and no approbation or that he did declaime onely and not determine taking vpon him the person of an Orator and not of a Pastor or that he spake as a priuate Doctor and not as a Pope Nay all such answers you know had bene friuolous for he vseth examples of commendation arguments of asseueration and the Oration was not pronounced in his priuate closet but in the publike Consistorie and Conuent of his Cardinals And therefore herein onely you haue giuen vs a token of your extraordinarie modestie who not finding one ragge to couer your Fathers shamefull nakednesse you shut your eyes as loth to behold it God grant you grace truly to detest it But we find as in all Societies in your Synagogue men of diuers foreheads For the Pope and his Acolythus do extoll the Monke for an Excellent instrument of God whom your Lawyer doth decipher to be a Wicked faithlesse Monke â—nd a most hateful monster He depresseth that King as One
Their Position in the Mator When any Iudge saith one shall demaund an oath vniustly then may the examinate sweare by an equiuocation as for example being thus demanded Whether didst thou that fact or no he though he did it may answer I did it not vnderstanding secretly in his mind at this time or I did it not meaning to tell you or some such like euasion If you desire to know the Author it is Cardinall Tolet if his authoritie Vasques the Iesuite sheweth he had a speciall priuiledge from Pope Gregorie the 13. writing thus vnto him We so approue of your singular learning that we hold it vnmeet that your bookes should be subiected to the censure of others Now their Assumption in this case of our English iustice coÌ„cerning examination of Priests is The Officers of the Queen of England saith Martin cannot challenge Answers and oathes iudâ—â—iously because an hereticall Queene is no Queene Vpon this sand is builded that which they conclude namely Alane Parsons Gregorie Martin that If a Priest shall vpon suspition chance to be asked either in any hauen or else where concerning his ancient name his countrie kindred or friends he may denie all And againe When a Priest is conuented before a Iudge after the oath taken concerning such questions he may answer by the foresaid Equiuocation because these that aske this oath are not to be accompted Iudges but Tyrants Which point of Equiuocation saith Parsons is not onely to be allowed by all Diuines but iudged necessarie also in some cases for auoiding lying and other inconueniences This man we see as if he would driue out Satan by Satan teacheth by lying how a man may auoide a lie This is the generall doctrine of their Schoole more then heathenish for among Pagans this was a Decree of Conscience Craft in an oath doth not lessen but strengthen periurie Now the Practise The practise of this deuice of Equiuocation in Priests hath bene found to haue bene common of late by experience of Magistrates It may be thought to haue crept out of Saint Francis sleeues For He as Nauarre writeth being asked which way the murtherer did flie putting his hands into his sleeues answered he went not that way meaning through his sleeues The moderate Answerer For Tolet among the Iesuites I cite another Iesuite famous among the Casuists Emanuel Sà who writeth that some are of another opinion and peraduenture with better reason The Reply If you oppose the persons of these Authors there is in the opinion of a Iesuite no comparison if their opinions there is scarce any opposition For their persons Tolet was lately a Cardinall But to recken a most reuerend Cardinall speaking of Baronius among the Iesuites saith a Iesuite is as if a fond Astronomer should number Arcturus among the lesser Starres Examine now their opinions Tolet saith This kind of Equiuocation is lawfull Iesuite Sà saith There is more probable reason to the contrarie These may seeme contrarie to men of synâ—eritie but among these speakers in their practicall iudgement there is no contradiction for they haue another winding in this their Labyrinth that Many times the lesse probable opinion is to be followed So then as yet we haue but an Eele by the tayle Againe to determine against so damnable a doctrine onely in these termes More probable yea and peraduenture more probable I say to doubt of such a Protestant and orthodoxall truth is doubtlesse to denie it But of this hereafter How will you therefore excuse your selues The moderate Answerer For our excuse in this place and question Catholikes do generally agree that to equiuocate before a competent Iudge such as we allow all Magistrates in England to be in temporall causes in as ample manner as if they were of our Religion keeping order of lawe is a mortall sinne as it is defined by Thomas Nauarre and others The Reply This excuse will make you more inexcusable because I shall proue that by your dissembling parenthesis you do but cloake your liars Are all Magistrates in England reputed of your Equiuocators competent Iudges So you answer but falsely both against your ordinarie Thesis and practise For in your Positions your now-cited Author Nauarre I omit Thomas as one not acquainted with our English affaires saith that It is lawfull for a Catholike except it be in question concerning his faith to equiuocate speaking expresly of English Magistrates before Heretikes Your Reinolds was by birth English by baine Romish and telleth vs plainely that All people must be instructed thus to reason speaking of the King of France when he was a Protestant This man is an Heretike therefore hath no authoritie ouer vs. Your Parsons English by nature though now translated into Romish commending your Southwel This point of Equiuocation M. Southwell saith he defended before English Protestant Iudges at the barre The booke intituled Resolution of English cases by Alane and Parsons resolueth thus When say they any is brought before those Magistrates to be examined they may answer by Equiuocation because they being Tyrants do not examine iuridically This was then in the dayes of Queene Elizabeth but now in the raigne of our Soueraigne King Iames it may be the case is different Nay now also hath your Arch priest authorized the booke in defence of Equiuocation in behalfe of Catholikes the words of the title before a Magistrate speaking professedly of our present English State and the present practise both of Priests and their Disciples is alas so ordinarie that the daily experience of their equiuocating lying is readie for this your answer to giue you the lye I will not trouble my memorie with multitude of examples which diuers Magistrates haue reported I will onely be contented with two proued the last day in the Arraignment of Garnet the Iesuite your Superior Garnet He as before almost al the Honorable of our State was proued had by manifold protestations and execrations denyed before the Lord Chiefe Iustice and his Maiesties Atturney Generall that he had conferred with his fellow Hall since their coming into prison by and by was witnesse produced who heard their conference and related the very words so directly that both Garnet and Hall did confesse they indeed had had conference together What was his excuse now for his first Answer He did equiuocate his owne words at the Barie because he was not bound to accuse himselfe before he saw witnesse to conuince him An answer wretched and witlesse wretched I say because to vse equiuocation in a religious execration is execrable wickednesse witlesse because to defend a denyall of truth till one be conuicted of a lie is to professe a defence of an vntruth till he be not able to defend it The second example is in your Disciple M. Tresham who vpon his death-bed moued by a sinister spirit of a woman to retract his former true confessions wherin
in his mind hee is imboldened to practise against his King But the Heathen Oraâ—our intreating of the property of an honest man he would haue him tried by the opportunity of Gyges ring No good man saith he would abuse it because honest men do not seeke meanes how they may be secretly euill but alwaies resolue to be absolutely good Surely this Pagan must rise vp in iudgement against this Aequiuocating generation to condemne it I might adde another Similitude taken from chastity the Fathers calling alwaies veritatem 〈◊〉 virginitatem and S. Augustine castitatem mentis Verity is the châ—…y of the Soule It may be they haue taken this from S. Iohn in the description of his Vâ—gines in whoâ—e mouth there is found no guile as though a chast soule should abhorre as much the vse of a lie in the mouth as a deuout Virgin would loath to staine her selfe with a knowen adulterer such is the aâ—tinit betweene these deuises that S. Paul doth range wâ—…gers and liars in one sentence From hence it is that the craft of Vintners in the mixing and colouring of their wines is called Adulterare adulterating of the wine Compare this craft of mixture of wine with your Aequiuocation which you call Amixt proposition and what shall you perceiue else but an artificiall adultery Our last argument which is belonging to this conclusion taken from the effects of Aequiuocating I reserue for the last in the next conclusion because there it will be more effectuall for confirmation of both CHAP. XIIII Our second conclusion that no maner of Aequiuocation whether mentall or verâ—all can be vsed in an oath without sacrilegious profanation WE deny not but ambiguous words may sometime be vsed in common speech for so we reade of Athanasius who flying by shippe the malice of the persecutor and at last ouertaken the pursuer asked Did not Athanasius passe this way Athanasius himselfe made answer Yes he is a little before you if you make hast you shall soone ouertake him The Persecutor imagining A little before must signifie some other shippe then that which was immediately before him passed by Athanasius and pursued a butter-fly The state of this Question from the opinion of the Aequiuocator This aequiuocation of ambiguous words is to vse one word which hath diuers significations as being asked whether a Priest be in my 〈…〉 may answer non est vnderstanding by est the signification of edere and not of esse May this kind of aequiuocating be vsed man oath No not before a competent Iudge lawfully examining this were a mortall sinne We suspect you will proue an honest man therefore tell vs Whom do you hold competent Iudges Do you esteeme any competent and fit who are Aduersaries to your Romish profession When a Magistrate shall sweare me to bring a Papist Recusant to the Assies which is vnlawfull yet seeing there is no other way for the Recusant to escape then will I sweare by aequiuocation Now you returne to your former wallow but we must take you as we finde you CHAP. XV. Our first Argument from the forme of an oath WE are not now to prooue that wrought to take an oath of all them that exact it but only that whensoeuer or to whomsoeuer we sweate we are bound in conscience to answer directly To shew therefore what an oath is we will be comeâ—ed with your Iesuâ—ts definitions One defineth it A religious inuocation whether it be expresly or implicatiuely of God as witnesse of our speech Another It is a dutifull act of religion whereby we professe God to be the authour of all trueth who can neither deceiue nor be deceiued Hence may we reason thus The competencie of God by whom we sweare maketh euery one competent Iudges and hearers to whom we sweare but by swearing by God whom we can not deceiue we religiously protest that we in swearing intend not to deceiue Ergo our deceitful aequiuocating is a profanation of the religious worship of God The Maior is true for that our Sauiour in auouching trueth held Pilate a competent Iudge although he did not Iuridicè but falsly proceed S. Paul in his cause appealed to Caesars tribunall seat who was a Pagan Iacob did couenant with Laban an Idolater and the maid to whom S. Peter swore was competent enough to heare a true oath if he had been as ready to sweare truly and yet neither the maid not that Iudge did proceed turidice for she was no lawfull Examiner and he was a partiall Iudge A Confirmation of the former argument from the authority of the Fathers To know in what sense of words we must take any oath the doctrine of Isidore is insallible Though man vse neuer so great art and cunning in swearing yet God doth value the oath according to the sense of him to whom the oath is made Hereby your art of Aequiuocating is quite excluded which teacheth to vse that signification and sense which is most contrary to his vnderstanding to whom wee swearè To know what is the necessity of performance of a lawful oath the rule of S. Hierome is most diuine which is this Faith must be kept in an oath because we must not regard to whom man but God by whom we haue sworne And thus also your cousenage of falsifying your oath is likewise excluded In both these testimonies we see the Iurer is taught alwayes in swearing to man to fix his eyes vpon God and his omnipotent iustice by whom I sweare maketh euery man to whom I sweare a competent heaâ—er therefore chargeth me to sweare directly euidently condemning our Aequiuocatours who make a Protestant-magistrate competent to take their oath but holde him incompetent to take their sincere and direct oath as though man only and not also God did take our oath Impious for so sacred a thing is an oath that Though a man should sweare by a thing in his own opinioÌ„ vnholy which is holy in the opinion of him toâ— hom he sweareth this man swearing falsley is periured Still we see that though an oath appeare outwardly but as a flame in the hush yet God is in this flame therefore we must put off the shooes of our feet that is our carnall affections for Gods name the foundation ground of an oth is holy ground A Confirmation of the former argument from their ancient Schoole These our Aequiuocators do by their new subtleties foolifie the honest simplicity of their ancient Schoole the two eyes whereof Lombard and Aquinas law clearely in this kind of swearing an homble prosanation of the sacred name of almighty God Whosoeuer sayth Lombard doth vse craft oâ— subâ—… in an oath doth defilâ— his conscience with a double guilt he both deceiueth his neighbour and also taketh the name of God in vaine Therefore Aquinas doth expresly conclude If a Iudge sayth he shal require any thing which he cannot the point in question by order of law