but rather the contrary A Clergy man saith he n. 6. carrying Arms forbid by Secular Laws may have his Armour taken from him by the Ministers of secular Justice Again n. 7. A Clergy man taken in a crime may be laid hold of by a secular Judge and given up to the Ecclesiastical c. And surely much more may he be roughly dealt with if catch'd in the highest crime or found guilty of rebellion against his lawful Sovereign I therefore tell the Doctor such a Clergy man deserves hanging and that not so much as one Aphorism in Sa will save his life In the last Paragraph of this Section page 162. and 163. our Doctor is pleased to speak of another Iniquity so he terms it whereof our men are guilty And what is it They hold saith he the seal of Confession so highly of Divine right and Sacred that it cannot bee broken to save the lives of Princes or the whole world I answer they say also that to save the lives of Popes of Bishops of Prelats or the Church from ruin the seal of Confession made secret by God and nature cannot be violated What mischief then have we more by this Doctrine against Princes and worldly Interest than against Popes and the Spiritual welfare of the Church All God knows are a like concerned in the danger if any were though the kindness of our Doctor is for the security of secular Princes only More flattery believe it here then good Divinity To treat in this place of the great secresie whereunto the seal of Confession indispensably binds us is neither my task nor any way requisite Divines have amply done it to our hand It is enough to tell you how unworthily the Doctor fleights both Seal and Secresie in the last lines of his Section where he calls it a trifling Fancy of our own A strange word in the mouth of a Doctor which may both justly work a distrust in the heart of any penitent and make confession ridiculous even among the pious Children of the Church of England CHAP. XXVIII Of the Doctors injurious Calumnies Of his unjust Quotations THe Doctor pag. 164. and last Section tells us That the whole order of Jesuites is a great enemy to Monarchy by subjecting the Dignity of Princes to the Pope by making the Pope supreme Monarch of Christians and this they teach saith he as Catholick Doctrine c. I answer The calumny is so enormously great that I wonder the Doctor trembled not to write as he hath done and disgrace himself with it For if ever men immovably stood for Monarchy both in Church and Kingdomes they are Jesuites To prove this Assertion I need no more but only to remit you to one Learned Bellarmin and there is no Jesuite gainsays him lib. 1. de Romano Pontifice cap. 2. where he shews both by the Authority of Ancient Philosophers and Christian Writers that Monarchy simply considered is a better Government then Aristocracy or Democracy Farr is he off from Calvins spirit that thought it intollerable both in Ecclesiastical and Secular Government O but they destroy Monarchy by subjecting the Dignity of Princes to the Pope and making him the supreme Monarch of Christians I answer Had the Doctor made some Canonists less considerable in their writings asserters of this Papal power even in Politicks he had been more moderate But to ascribe the Doctrine to the whole Order of Jesuites runs beyond all bounds of Truth Jesuites in this particular hold with the other Catholick Doctors and say that the Pope is the Supreme visible Head of the Church in Spirituality that is in Power and jurisdiction Ecclesiastical Consequently is neither Lord nor Monarch of the whole World nor finally hath directly by Divine right any Temporal jurisdiction over Princes See for this Assertion Bellar. lib. 5. de potest pont cap. 2 3 4. Whence it follows and Jesuites assert it that Princes are the sole supreme Lords and Monarchs in their respective Dominions subject to none if we consider their Secular power but to God only Princely dignity therefore stands unshaken no Pope layes claim to that Soveraignty or meddles with it My God! had our Protestant Ministers as it behoov'd dutiful Children been as careful to preserve inviolably Ecclesiastical Monarchy in the Church as Popes have ever shewed themselves tender Fathers to uphold the Monarchy of Princes the World now had not seen what it sees and deplores I mean those woful Rents and Schisms which these wantonizing Children have made in Christendom while the good old Father looks on with a heavy heart and bemoans their folly Know then for certain 't is no dispute Protestant Ministers are the men that destroy Monarchy of Spiritual jurisdiction erected by Almighty God in the Church this is their crying sin unpardonable without Repentance whereunto Secular Princes never made claim nor can they in Justice Let then the Pope have still the Prerogative of Spiritual Jurisdiction over the Church 't is his due he seeks not for more our quarrels are ended And tell me I beseech you are not Princes better secured in their Dignities by owning this Spiritual Power as due to a Supreme Pastor who is Vigilant for their safety and has no little sway in the world then to have their Princely Prerogatives called into question debated yes and judged also by a knot of fickle Puritans as changeable as the Moon who now stand up defendants of Regal Power now turn stiff Opponents and arm against it Now they Crown their Monarch now pull the Crown off his Head Such doings we have seen and bewailed the Injury done to Princes Thought we say is free Every body may think safely but I 'll at present be a little bolder and speak out plainly Had England in the last unfortunate Civil Wars been as it was anciently Catholick or own'd as once it did a due Subjection to the Pope None perhaps had seen so much as a Sword drawn against our Gratious Sovereign who now Reigns nor his Royal Father so barbarously murthered as he was by his own Subjects No. For if Ecclesiastical censures had not stopp'd the raging fury of those Regicides one spark of Catholick Religion would have mollified such hearts though made of Adamant But what will ye When both Religion is bannished and Church Discipline is held contemptible Passion will sway corrupt Laws make Scaffolds draw Swords kill Kings and what not In the next place our Doctor pag. 165 and 166. enters upon this very odious subject of deposing and killing Kings and sayes we Catholicks are Defenders of both Mariana and Santarel are produced by him for horrid things spoken Answ As I hate at my heart to do so much as mention this impious Doctrine of killing Kings and abhor more to approve it So for no provocation of any will I speak a word 't is forbid me of their deposing Though were I minded to recriminate that one Execrable and Tragical shedding of our late Sovereigns blood without
all peradventure as if he had read where an Image is there is no Religion without all peradventure the good man is deceived I say no more To what he next cites out of Origen we shall answer hereafter Now to the Doctors Chapters and Sections CHAP. I. Of the Doctors ungrounded discourse to the wrongful charge on Catholicks for making new Articles in Faith TOugh my task be chiefly to follow the Doctor in his Quotations and note as he goes along some few of his many Errors Yet touch I must a little on a discourse he is pleased to begin with Chapter the first It seems to enervate much our Christian Faith and weaken the Authority of the most Ancient Councils Page then the fourth and first Section he holds the two Testaments the words of Christ and of the Apostles the Fountains of Faith which none denies but next he adds Whatsoever caeme in after these foris est is to be cast out it belongs not unto Christ This latter assertion to say no more hath too much of the harshness in it for the difinitions of the Nicen Council and of the other three general Councils with St. Athanasius his Creed came in after the words of Christ and Holy Scripture are these Think ye like old Garments to be laid a side or cast out as not at all belonging to Christ belong they do most certainly as Rivers to their Fountains though not own'd as Original Springs and the first Foundations of our Faith Observe therefore I beseech you how the Doctor deals with us how he leads us on in darkness whilst he sets men a seeking after the Fountains of Faith but with it turns by the Stream cuts of the Torrent of Authority whereby to find them that is in a word he makes null all Authority that can assert with certainty Such were the Words of Christ such the Doctrine of the Apostles c. Judge whether I say not aright and demand of the Doctor upon whose certain proposal can he rely or indubitably admit of Christ's words as sacred If he answers Scripture the Question return's again and he is asked a new who it is that doth ascertain him of Scripture If the Fathers they are with him Fallible yes and full of ambiguous sences If the Church that saith he is changeable hath brought in novelties contrary to Ancient Faith if Councils not one is found but lyable to Error Turn by therefore these intermedial Streams running between us and the Fountains of Faith destroy the certainty of such Witnesses say that no man or society of men since Christ and his Apostles hath without a possibility of erring assured us that Christ spake that the Evangelists writ as they did the whole Scripture God knows will be cast aside also yes and become a comfortless an unwarranted Book Whence follow 's a total ruin of Christian Religion This is not my assertion but the great St. Austins the Quotation is known Tom. 6. contra epistolam Manichei cap. 5. Ego vero Evangelio non crederem c. I would not believe the Gospel unless the Authority of the Church moved me to believe it Our Doctor may think he salves this objection in his next ensuing lines pag. 4. where he saith To these that is to Scripture we add not as Authors but as helpers of our Faith and Heirs of the Doctrine Apostolical the sentiments and Catholick Doctrine of the Church in the Ages next after the Apostles not that we think c. I Answer Here is no man knows what confusedly shut up in two Ambiguous VVords Heirs and Helpers to get out of darkness I might first demand how knows the Doctor now exactly what the Sentiments or Catholick Doctrine of the Church Anciently were in the Ages next after the Apostles The Proposal of our present Church overgrown as he saith with a thousand Errors is an infufficient warranty Both Fathers and Councils were even then Fallible and had they been Infallible their writings since that may perhaps have fallen into ill hands and lost their purity But I wave this discourse and propose to our present purpose this Question only Are we Christians now being obliged under Damnation to believe those Sentiments of the Ancient Church as undoubted Helpers as certain apparent Heirs of Divine Truth or no if not They cast us wholly upon uncertainties and may as well help us on to Err as hit right if we are bound to own them as certain Heirs of Divine Truth Scripture must assure it for saith the Doctor To believe any thing Divine that is not Scripture is a divillish spirit and undoubtedly affirm that at least in the Ages next after Christ there was a society of men not lyable to Error that kept our Christian Faith entire without spot or blemish faithfully transmitted it to Posterity c. Now all I can desire of the Doctor is to produce that Scripture which purifies the Ancient Church only and makes the next ensuing Ages of that Church Spurious in Doctrine fearfully despicable and lyable to Error Thus much I am confident he shall never shew for our dearest Saviour that Established a Christian Church promised he would be with it to the end of the World Gods alseeing providence drives not on his work by halfs nor leaves his Church when the Doctors fancy listeth Souls are now as dear to Christ as they were in the Primitive Ages He shed his Sacred Blood for All if then he secured his Church from Error and directed Souls into Truth he doth the like favour now and will not permit his Immaculate Spouse to beguile them with falshood All therefore the Doctor saith here is a deceitful Paralogism yes and Paradoxes not to be tolerated A Paradox it is to talk of Heirs and Helpers of Apostolical Doctrine and rob them of their Infallibility A Paradox it is to say that these Heirs and Helpers sent Milions of Souls into the Bosom of Christ and cast more Milions in after Ages out of his Bosom for want of true Faith A Paradox it is that Christ only remained with his Church for a time and then left it destitute of Divine Assistance yes and in points most Fundamental But the greatest Paradox of all which amuses every one is That now towards an end of the World a new sort of unknown men the Doctor is one will become our Teachers and tell us exactly how long Christ was with his Church and when he leap'd out of it He was with it say they for some three or four hundred years and then left it fluctuating tossed and at last saw it without Mercy overturned with a deluge of Errors And credit this we must upon their bare word because they say it without Sctipture without Reason yes expresly contrary to both and all Ancient Authority The Doctor to prove the Church by Scripture only quotes St. Austin in his Margent pag. 4. de vnit ecclesiae cap. 3 4. 5. but both mangles his words and conceals the
force of his Argument Sunt certe saith the Saint libri Dominici quorum Authoritati utrique consentimus utrique credimus c. There are certain books of our Lord He means Scripture to whose Authority we both yeild we both believe Ibi Quaeramus ecclesiam Let us look for the Church there c. That is seeing we both who now dispute admit of Scripture and believe it let us upon such a supposition go forward and prove the Church by Scripture which is an excellent way of Arguing but if any question the Authority of Scripture it self take it we must when we make a right Analysis upon the Church's Authority solely and say with St. Austin I would not believe the Scripture but for the Church I omit the brags he hath pag. 6. of Protestants being more then indubitably Conquerors meer empty words and observe how he puts himself on a new trouble pag. 7th where he saith Whatsoever we cannot prove by Scripture we disclaim it I will not here tell the Doctor he must then disclaim every Tenet of Protestant Religion no more in Scripture then Arianism as it stands opposite to the Roman Faith But briefly I argue thus A Church secured from Error and which Infallibly proposeth Divine Truth can be proved by Scripture or cannot If the first there was is and shall ever be in the World a society of Christians un-crrable and certain in Doctrine that neither injures Faith nor by intromitting Novelties destroy Apostolical Doctrine for the Scripture as we now suppose saith so and what it saith is true One favour therefore I humbly beg of the Doctor that he would by a plain designation point me out this unerrable body of Christians and clearly also design me such known out cast Christians that are not of this Moral body my demand is reasonable and require's no long discourse nor any definition of a Church but to have this unerring company design'd and candidly If the Scripture Warrant 's not such an Infallible company of Christians the Doctor though he pretend to it can never believe with a true and infallible Act of Supernatural faith that the Ancient Church Inherited Catholick Doctrine that it sent Milions of Souls to Heaven That what we now read is the Apostles Creed that the Ancient Councils erred not in their Definitions No nor that there ever was or is now Pure and Incorrupt Scripture among Christians I say he cannot believe these truths with a certain assent of Supernatural Faith but at most with a meer opinative Judgment which may as well be wrong as right false as true staggering assuredly it is and not steddy if a meer Opinion yes and wholly destitute of that strength which God requires to Supernatural Faith In his 10th page he is fierce against the Church of Rome for pretending to a power not only of declaring New Articles of Faith but of making new Symbols and Creeds and imposing them as necessary to Salvation To this purpose he cites the Bull of Leo the tenth against Martin Luther whose twenty seventh Proposition is this and condemned Certum est in manu Ecclesiae aut Papae non esse statuere Articulos fidei imo nec leges morum seu bonorum operum It is certain that it is not in the hand of the Church or Pope to appoint or determine Articles of Faith nor Laws of manners or good Works First here is not a word of making new Articles or Creeds and the word statuere may as well signifie to determine a Question not yet decided as to make any thing a new but to pass these niceties and shew clearly the Doctors Error I demand whether the Fathers assembled together in the Nicen Council made new Articles of Faith against the Arians whether St. Athanatius in his Creed did the like who was no Pope What the Doctors Answer is here is ours also for all and every Definition made by the Church in after Ages And I would have him to reflect that as he now cavil's at both Pope and Church for constituting new Articles so the Arians might have done against the Nicen Council and Athanasius his Creed yes and cried out Novelties novelties as loud as the Doctor In a word then I answer with St. Gregory in Ezechiel homit XVI post med pag. 1164. 6. edit Antwerp 1615. that per incrementa temporum Crevit scientia spiritalium Patrum With time Faith encreased hut how not that either the Church or Pope have Power to coin Articles at pleasure or to force Christians to the acceptance of Novelties contrary to Scripture or ancient Tradition No but the Power given them is to dispence the Mysteries of the Word of God to lay out more clearly verities contained in Scripture so the Fathers did in the Nicen Council when they defined the Son to be consubstantial with his Father which word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is never read in Scripture Finally to declare more explicitely what the Ancient Tradition of the Church and sence of the Fathers hath been within such a compass the Church holds it self when after mature deliberation it defines in Council Hence both Divines and Canonists teach that rigorously speaking the Church hath no new Articles of Faith but only a more full and explicite knowledge of that belief which anciently was among Primitive Christians yet none there is that reads our Doctor both in the page now cited and elsewhere after but must have this perswasion wrought in him that the Church and Pope may define as it were at Random make new Articles new Creeds as they list and impose them as necessary to Salvation All is false and fraudulent dealing CHAP. II. The Doctors Quotations not true His Errors concerning the Index Expurgatorius His ill dealing with Sixtus Senensis THe Doctor in his tenth page to prove our making new Articles cites Augustinus Triumphus de Anconâ—a quaest 59 Art 1 2. and pittifully abuseth that Catholick Author who in his resolution Art 1. â— concludes thus Respondeo quod hanc quaestionem determinat Augustinus libro 1. de symbolo ubi vult quod omnis symboli condendi ordinandi in sancta dei ecclesia terminatur authoritas I Answer St Austin resolves this Question lib. 1. de symbolo Where he saith That all Authority of making and setting a Symbol in order is within the bounds of the Church Mark first St. Austins words Omnis authoritas condendi ordinandi c. Then follow these other in Anconitanus his resolution wrongfully interpreted and unhandsomly mangled by the Doctor Ex his patere potest quod novum symbolum condere solum ad Papam spectat nam in symbolo ponuntur illa quae universaliter pertinent ad Christianam fidem By this you may see that to make a new Symbol belongs only to the Pope for those things are set down in a Symbol which Universally concern Christian Faith These last words which explicate both St. Austins and Anconitanus his meaning are fraudulently left out
that he saith without conscience is there no Pick-lock of secrets or spie upon Families among those Pious Ministers in the Church of England I have heard the contrary that whole Confessions have been revealed by them whether true or no I say not yet I know well that for the space of forty years that I have lived in Catholick Countries I never heard the least complaint against Confessor for being a Pick-lock The Doctor therefore may well expect Gods just Judgment on him for this injustice unpardonably done unless he repents and makes restitution to Catholick Priests But enough of this Section Pag. 86. Sect. 3. he hath a bout with our Penance and satisfaction and makes a long list of their abuses They are saith he reduced from the ancient Canonical Penances to private and arbitrary from years to hours from great severity to gentleness and flattery from publick shame to the saying over their beads from Cordial to Ritual from smart to money from heartiness and earnest to pageantry and theatrical Images of Penance Answ Though 't is true that the Church hath upon weighty reasons much lessened the rigor of ancient Penances and therefore so frequently grant's Indulgences yet what follows in this pretended Catalogue of abuses is nothing but a long List of Calumnies false and injurious False it is that if the sin confessed deserves a years Pennance we reduce it to an hours False that we turn the severity of Penance into flattery unless the Doctor calls the charitable comforting a poor penitent flattery No so far are we from flattery in this Tribunal of Penance that we lay open the enormity of sin threatning Gods Judgement upon it and spare no pains to beget a horror of sinning in a penitents heart False it is that if the sin be enormious or scandalous the saying ones beads is enough False it is that we exact only Ritual and not Cordial satisfaction False likewise that when the penitent ought to smart for his sin the smart is turned into money though I think the Doctor will not deny but that in circumstances of age or infirmity when the penitent cannot bear austerity the charitable giving of Alms is laudable and satisfactory at least holy Daniel liked well of it Cap. 4. 24. Peccata tua elemosynis redime iniquitates tuas misericordiis pauperum Redeem make amends for thy sins with Alms-deeds and thy iniquities with mercies of the Poor False finally it is that we require not heartiness and earnest in the performance of Penance Now what the Doctor means by his Pageantry and Theatrical Images of Penance God I think only knows Perhaps he blames some publick Penances now and then done in the Church If so first all publick Penances are not laid aside 2. You see the Peevishness of our Doctor nothing escapes his censure if Penances be private the Ancient Canons suffer if publick they are pageantry and theatrical Images What will content the man When one stands there among you at a Pillar for Perjury or in a white Sheet for Fornication is this pageantry or any threatrical Images and what further use have you I beseech ye of these ancient Canonical Penances among the Pious Penitents of the Church of England Well to conclude the Doctor I am sure deserves justly a severe Penance for this heap of Calumnies and if ever God as I wish make him a Catholick and choose me for Confessor he shall have it home without flattery an hours Penance or saying his Beads will be too little in a word his Penance shall be proportionate to his sin and if he thinks it not enough let him go on Gods name to Sancta Maria de populo for the gaining of those thousand Indulgences he mentioneth He holds on this 3d. Section and tells you of strange Indulgences granted to several places whether truly or no it imports little Admit he speaks truth all he gets is that the Church is liberally good to such great sinners as he is who as Holy Iob saith Drink iniquity like water and if after their repentance it grants them Mercy what offence is there in doing so In the rest of that weightless Section while he explicates what Divines say of Indulgences sometimes he hits right sometimes misses but is ordinarily very plentiful in jeers all slight stuff I leave him only be pleased to reflect how though without pointing to any place he cites Gerson and Soto against himself for if it be true that Soto saith in 4 Sent. distinct 21 q. 2. a. 1. That the Pope never grants these Indulgences for a 100. or 1000. years The Doctor hath no more to say but that such pardons are not at all the Questuaries only procured them and consequently impugns what never was CHAP. XIII The sum of our Doctors discourse concerning Indulgences His two mistakes are discovered His Objections answered THe Doctor pag. 91. Sect. 4. pretends much chacharity to our Souls and to unbeguile us will needs add one consideration more And what is this think you Marry There is no Foundation of truth in these new Divices and this to boot that when our Doctors are pinched with an objection they let their hold go c. Good man Are these his considerations A young Student in Divinity would make good sport with such considerations But ad rem I constantly affirm that all he has said in this Section hath not so much as a shadow of an objection in it against the received Doctrine of Indulgences much less any that pinches To prove my assertion be pleased to have in mind what this received Doctrine is which the Council of Trent sess 25. decret de Indulg declares thus Sacrosancta Synodus Indulgentiarum usum Christiano populo maxime salutarem sacrorum conciliorum authoritate probatum in Ecclesia retinendum esse docet praecipit The holy Synod teaches that the use of Indulgences is most wholesome and profitable to Christians and commands this use approved by the Authority of holy Councils to be held still in the Church Next it requires a moderation in granting Indulgences according to the Ancient Custome of the Church and that all abuses crept in be amended c. This Catholick truth supposed you 'll find the Doctor strangely beguiled and his whole discourse chiefly founded on two mistakes weaker then a Bul-rush His first mistake is that because Catholicks cannot arrive to a certain knowledge of gaining an Indulgence or the full fruit of it he thinks no trust is to be had in it no endeavour used to purchase this Grace An error For Divines say and truly no one can know with certainty that he hath an act of true supernatural Faith or of true Charity in that Degree Purity and Measure which God exacts is therefore Faith and Charity without trust to be laid aside is our endeavour to have them carelesly to be left off is it wholly useless and unprofitable God forbid His second error is that he builds too much upon those
of his Weights and Measures Who will take upon him to shew us that the worship of the Host in the Papacy is Idolatry When these two great Doctors are agreed which of them teaches the truest Divinity concerning this Point this Section may and it may not too require a farther Answer Till then we 'll leave them to dispute it 'T is pitty they should be parted Cadmus his Brood that came into the world an unnatural and extraordinary way are a proper Embleme of all Hereticks Their births are monstrous and their ends as odd Angry men that they are they cannot agree but without any other help will alwayes if let alone destroy one another Pag. 150. Sect. 13. He takes on to tell those under his Charge how matters stand in point of Religion and saith that we Catholicks dangerously err yes and injure Faith spoil Hope sin against Charity In a word we are men that bring Ruin to all Religion Faith we injure by creating new Articles To this we have answered in the first Chapter that not one new Article is created by us though the Church as occasion is may more clearly explicate some old ones and hath ever done so We spoil saith he our Hope by placing it on Creatures Answ Hope good Doctor is a Theological Vertue and hath God as he is our final good for its formal Object The finis qui is no Creature the possession of this infinit goodness by a clear Vision is Both these which will make us happy in Heaven we hope for and I think without offence Which way the Doctors Hope tends I know not We sin saith he again against Charity by damning all that are not of our Opinion Answ First the Doctor sins most grievously against Charity by damning all his Ancestours his great great Grand-Father and so upward for a thousand years why they were all old Papists and as he tells us had naughty Faith spoiled Hope great want of Charity the Salutary doctrine of Repentance torn in pieces c. But none can be saved with a Faith Hope Charity and Repentance spoyled and worth nothing Therefore his Ancestours with thousand thousands of others are in a sad condition and all damned by his doctrin I Answ 't is a Calumny to say we damn any for differences in Opinion Now if the Doctor will needs tell us what Faith and what Opinion is exactly in every Tenet he goes beyond his skill and takes on him to teach his betters Here is enough of his 13. Section where little is said and less proved CHAP. XXVI The Doctors wrongful Charge on Catholick Doctors His weak Exceptions against Ambiguity in Speech His causless Cavils His Faults and Mistakes PAg. 152. the Doctor begins his first Section thus That in the Church of Rome it is publickly taught by their greatest Doctors that it is lawful to lye or deceive the question of the Magistrate to conceal their name and tell a false one to elude all examinations and to make them insignificant and toothless cannot be doubted c. I Answ This Charge as it is laid out is most injurious Not one amongst us say's that a lye ever is or can be lawful in any circumstance it is alwayes naught and prohibited by the Law of God and nature None say that we may elude all examinations of the Magistrate The Proposition is of so vast extent all examinations that it looses credit with sober men True it is most grave Divines hold that in certain cases of danger and other concernments the ambiguous use of words yes and of mental restriction also is allowable but ever without a lye never without just cause and Reason Impious therefore were it to make use of this Restriction in Contracts Leagues Promises Vowes or Oaths yes and most blameable in ordinary Conversation But If a Confessor be asked by a Judge or any body else whether a penitent confessed such a Sin though confessed doth not the light of nature tell us the question is if possibly to be eluded or if pressed on utterly denyed with a No he did not hear it What will the Doctor answer here will he say yes He betrayes the Penitent and Sacrilegiously breaks the Seal of Confession If he stands dumb and say's nothing S. Austin lib uno de mendacio ad Consent cap. 13 post medium rightly observes in a like case of danger Tacendo eum prodimus per nostram vel taciturnitatem homo proditur that by saying nothing we do as good as disclose the Secret and tell where the concealed man lyes hid and if so much more doth the speechless Confessor in our case though he shakes his head twenty times speaks out too plainly the Penitents Sin The Doctor therefore with his excellent use of Confession in England and we with ours must of necessity find a way not on the one Side to lye for this is never Lawful and on the other to keep the Seal of Confession safe and inviolable How shall we do this I can argue if holy Jacob when he positively affirmed Gen. 27. 19. that he was his Fathers first begotten Son Esau yet was not told no lye as many Fathers hold wel may a Priest also now in the case now proposed though he positively affirms that he heard no such Sin in Confession when he heard it say no He heard it not Jacob said yes that he was Isack's first begotten yet was not and as we now suppose said it without a lye the Priest sayes No he heard not such a Sin when he heard it and this in like manner without a lye The Parity is right every way if Jacob was not a lyar Be it how you wil Christ our Lord certainly spake Truth when he told his Disciples Joan. 7. 8. non ascendo that he did not ascend to the Feast of the Jews yet when they went he blessed Lord ascended also Here is some ambiguity of Speech In the vulgar translation which I follow though the Greek reads 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nondum ascendo and the Arabick nunc non ascendo and because uttered by our Saviour is wholy irreprehensible To clear all I ask of our Doctor what did this non ascendo spoken by eternal Truth signify He will answer that though the particle Non usually makes an absolute denyal and therefore the Apostles might wel think that our Lord would not go at all to the Solemnity yet here it was restrained and only denyed his visible or manifest ascending as may be gathered out of the ensuing words Non manifestè sed quasi in occulto He went but not openly If this answer may pass I argue The words of our Saviour non ascendo I ascend not when he did ascend were true though they had a restrained sense and only denyed the publick manner of his ascending not known to others Ergo these words of a Priest Non andivi I heard not such a Sin when he heard it in Confession are likewise true though they have a