calling it a lie When one shall speake words saith Aquinas which doe not signifie that which he intendeth When he speaketh otherwise then he thinketh saith S. Hierome When he speaketh that which hee thinketh is false saith S. Augustine But the indirect intention of the speaker Vtreuelem tibi cannot alter the signification of his outward words I am no Priest which his direct intention of conscience doth contradict saying But I am a Priest Ergo our Aequiuocating Priest cannot possibly reconcile such a contradiction of his hart and his tongue Wherefore we will desire S. Augustine to conclude against our Aequiuocatours Whosoeuer shall sweare that which he knoweth is false is but a detestable beast CHAP. III. The second Argument from the Definition of Aequiuocation The Aequiuocator must speake WE will speake with Aristotle and the Logicians speaking of foure propositions first mentall only conceiued in the minde secondly vocall vttered with my mouth thirdly written which I haue called literall and the fourth mixt when we mingle some of these propositions together when one part is expressed outwardly as to say I know him not the other part reserued in my mind as to say Vt tibi significem both ioined together make vp one true proposition The Replie Dare you appeale vnto Logicke This is the Art of all Arts and the high Tribunall of reason and truth it selfe which no man in any matter whether it be case of humanity or diuinity can iustly refuse Consult therefore with the ancient Logicians and proue marke what scope I yeeld vnto you that from the beginning of the world in the whole currant of so many thousand generations of mankinde till within the compasse of these last foure hundred yeeres and lesse that euer any Logician whether Infidell or Beleeuer did allow your mixt proposition which is partly mentall and partly verball or thinke it a Proposition and I will be which my soule vtterly detesteth an Aequiuocator Yet I must not now expect impossibilities to trie what you would proue but shew herein what I can disproue The Argument Your proposition I am no Priest mixed with your mentall reseruation Vt tibireuelem if it be true it is so either in his simple signification or by vertue of Aequiuocation but it is not true in his simple signification this you grant neither can it be true by vertue of Aequiuocation this I prooue Aequiuocation in word or speech sayth the Oracle of all Logicians is when one word or one speech doth equally signifie diuers things As when one shall say I am afrayd of a Dogge this word Dogge hath a triple signification for it signifieth aswell a fish in the sea called a Dogge-fish a signe in the heauenly spheare wherein when the Sun hath his course we call the dayes Dogge-dayes or as thirdly it doth signifie mans faithfull seruant a barking dogge Therefore when he sayth I feare a Dogge whether he meaneth he is afrayd of the housholde dogge to be bit with his teeth or to be drowned and so deuoured of the Sea dogge or to goe mad by the poisonfull influences of the Planeticall dogge If I say he vnderstand any of these kinds this his speech is true I am afrayd of a dogge But your mixt and patched proposition is not one word or speech signifying equally diuers things but contrarily as you pretend diuers parts of speech one in the minde and another in the mouth signifying one thing for I am no Priest and To tell it to the what words can be more different which whosoeuer shall call Aequiuocall may be iustly suspected to be bit with the highest dogge the position is so absurd and vnreasonable The Aequiuocator doth insist His Obiection Voices and writings are ordemed for instruments and signes to expresse a Proposition which is in the minde therefore may I expresse all in word or all in writing and the proposition in the minde remaineth the same So may I by another mixt proposition expresse some part and reserue some part in my minde For example If when I say God is not should lose presently my speech before I could vtter the word following vniust which hauing my pen in my hand I exhibit by writing who doubteth but all that is but one proposition the trueth whereof consisteth of the mixture of both parts together So is it where one part is deliuered with the mouth and the other reserued in the minde The Replie It were better that both you I should become speechlesse and handlesse than either in word or writing to minister such a bainfull Conclusion vnto the world But to the matter Voices and writings say you are outward signes of the inward propositions of the minde This is true What then And the part wanting in voice is supplied by the other word in writing This is also true But why Because words and writings be mutuall signes and interpretations of the minde This is againe most true What can you inferre from all this So the signification of the part outwardly expressed I am no Priest may be supplied with the other part of the proposition reserued in my minde Vt tibinarrem I tell you this comparison is vtterly false For the foresaid Oracle in his booke intituled The interpretation of speech saith that Euery proposition enunciatiue that is euery outward speech whether by word or writing whether affirming or denying is ordeined for signification that is as you haue well said to expresse some thing But no mentall or inward conceit of the minde is ordeined of God as a signe to expresse or signifie as words and writings doe but as a thing signified hath need to be expressed and expounded Such is your mentall clause reserued Vt narrem tibi Can you make this a signe or instrument to expresse signifie your true meaning which you haue purposely deuised for a den to lurke in lest your false meaning might be signified and reuealed Thus haue you by your comparison of voices and writings made a strong loope whereby to strangle your selfe This is confirmed by S. Augustine Euery speech sayth he whether it affirme or deny any thing is to be referred vnto that which it doth affirme or deny But your Negatiue I am no Priest can not be referred to your supposed true clause Vt narrem tibi for it doth not signifie any such thing but only to your Priesthood In which simple signification it is by your owne opinion most false A delusion notably confuted by your owne Seraphicall Doctor who affirmeth that A speech is so farre foorth true as it is a signe of a true vnderstanding But your voice you know is contrary to your vnderstanding And as concerning Voice which is the signe he addeth from Aristotle That it is against nature to signifie any thing by words which we haue not in our minde If then this equiuocation be vnnaturall we haue not without reason called it a Monster And now we will shew your
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
Highnesse your grace in sparing me did not spare mee one whit but was pleased to call me whereby is signified a ciuill simplicity foole But let not my Lord from his earthly preeminence too hastily disdaine the Priests of God but in his princely wisedome for his cause whose seruants they be so rule ouer them that he denie them not due reuerence Heerein we finde another clause of the forme of our English oath Power ouer all persons euen the Pope himselfe yeelding that which is not due but only to a Superiour rule and requiring that which may be yeelded to an inferiour Reuerence or curteous respect For it is without doubt saith your Bishop Espencaeus that Gregorie did acknowledge a soueraigntie in Emperours ouer Priests We haue not yet passed the period of 600. yeares now therefore CHAP. X. We descend vnto the ages following of foure centuries more which may make vp a complete thousand yeres The Romish Pretence ANcient generall Councels were gathered not without the cost of good and Christian ones Emperours and were made by their consents for in those dâ—ues the Pope did make supplication to the Emperour that by his authority he would gather Synods But after those times all causes were changed because the Pope who is head in spirituall matters cannot be subiect in temporall Who would thinke this man could be a Papist much lesse a Iesuit how much lesse a Cardinall who thus disableth the title of the Pope granting to vs in these words After these times that is after 600. yeres the truth of purer Antiquity challenging Popes to be subiect vnto Christian Emperours And yet who but a Papist would as it were in despite of Antiquity defend the degenerate State saying After those times Popes might not be subiect in temporall matters As if he should haue said Thou gratious fauour of ancient Christian Emperours thou sound iudgement of ancient reuerend Fathers thou deuout subiection of ancient holy Popes in summe thou ancient purity and pure Antiquity adiew But we may not so bastardly reiect the depositum and doctrine of humble subiection which we haue receiued from our Fathers of the first 600. yeares and not so only but which as your Bercklay witnesseth the vniuersall Christian world embraced With common consent for a full thousand yeares Which is further confessed by others in the Chapters following CHAP. XI We further challenge the consent of successiue Antiquity in the currant of more than 1000. yeares after Christ wherein the Papallpretended Iurisdiction ouer Kings hath beene euidently controwled The Romish Pretence WE haue many examples of Emperours deposed by Popes as Leo Fredericke Henry 1. Freder 2. Otho 1. Lewis 3. Lewis 4. Henry 4. who was deposed by Gregory the 7. The Answer This argument The Popes did depose them from their temporall authority Ergo He had authority to depose them will iustifie all Pyrates and theeues in their spoiles all Tyrants in their vsurpations and will impeach this authority of the Pope which you would heereby defend For as your Cardinall doth confesse Many Emperours haue deposed many Popes Therefore from the act done to conclude a right of doing is no good argument Let vs therefore examine the worke by the square and not the square by the worke and by the law of doing trie the lawfulnesse of the thing done And first beyond the antiquity of a thousand yeares granted we find that the first who euer violently deposed an Emperour is the last of them whom you cite for authority of deposing them For I reade and reade saith your Otto Frisingensis and I find that Pope Gregory the 7. called Hildebrand in the yeare 1060. was the first Pope that euer depriued an Emperour of his regiment He was the first Pope saith your bishop Espencaeus who by making a new rent betwixt Kingdome and Popedome did raise force against the Emperiall diademe arming himselfe by his example excited other Popes against Princes excommunicate An act new you see and that it is also naught will appeare by the Actor Pope Greg. the 7. saith your Chronographer was excommunicate of the Bishops of Italy for that he had defamed the Apostolike See by Simony and other Capitall crimes There is an Instance giuen in the Donation of Constantine which proueth the Popes to haue beene notable forgerers The Romish Pretence Boniface Bishop of Rome so saith Carerius writ to Philip King of France to let him vnderstand that Philip ought to acknowledge vnto him both spirituall and temporall subiection and whosoeuer shall thinke otherwise saith Boniface we iudge and declare him an Hereticke The Answer May it be lawfull for vs to aske you by what law this temporall is assumed There is extant the Donation of Constantine saith Sanders sufficiently defended against all Heretickes Then belike this iurisdiction was from man and not from God Not so saith Carerius for it was rather a restitution than a Donation because he did but returne it being a Christian which he had receiued by Tyrannicall vsurpation being an Heathen therefore according to the iudgement of Turrecremata did not now so much giue it as publish it to be due to the Pope What was contained in this schedule There was heerin specified saith your Valla and so is the tenor of the Donation a conueiance of the kingdome of Sicily Naples all Italy France Spaine the Countries of the Germans and Britans and all the Western part of the world This is a goodly gift if it be good but I heare Luther say It is a large lie But you had rather heare your Doctors speake although they may seem partiall because yours The most ancient Historians authors of best credit saith your Canus and such as purposely and most diligently recorded the acts of Constantine and yet make no mention of any such Donation Which Pius the second Pope of Rome did as saith your bishop Balbus proue to be a slatte counterfet So that now your Popes temporall hold should be forfetted because it doth appeare that your Pastor in this challenge is a meere imposter The Donation is called palea and therefore as light chaffe I passe this ouer What is your next claime CHAP. XII Popish Arguments from Reason The first wherein they failing to prooue the temporall dominion of the Pope by succession endeuour to prooue it from successe The Romish Pretence THe Popes of Rome haue long since got not only possession but also dominion of the city of Rome a matter to be wondred at to see how after that the Emperours had many times sought to root out the Popes of Rome by force the Popes haue contrarily remoued the Emperours out of Rome the chiefe towne of their Empire and the property of Caesars pallaces and the city of Rome is without force come vnto the Pope This saith Sanders is the singer of God This saith Bellarmine is Gods prouidence The Answer As though
vnnaturall countenance in a like example An example of like Sophistrie A presumptuous Gorgias and Sophister in Cambridge vndertooke the defence of this Probleme Virtus est vitium vertue is a vice but being plunged in his answer he fled to a reserued clause fugere And was not this his fugere plainly your subterfugere Therefore as any Philosopher onely hearing these words Virtus est vitium must necessarily call it after that name of one of the markes of Sophistrie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is A singular absurditie so might any hearing a Priest say simply I am no Priest call this after the name of the second scope of Sophistrie which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a lie CHAP. IIII. The third Argument from the description of lying MAior. No man can doubt saith S. Augustine and your whole schoole but he lieth which speaketh any thing which is false with an intent to deceiue another The Minor But our Aequiuocatours professe by a false speech to delude their owne words Protestant-examiners Magistrates Pursuuants and other Officers and whosoeuer may be instruments to call their persons in question Ergo by their art of Aequiuocating haue they obtained a perfection of lying What can you answer The Aequiuocatour This speech I am no Priest is not false being mixed with that clause which is vnderstood Vt tibi significem The Answer I haue already prooued from the iudgement of S. Hierome and S. Augustine two of the most iudicious Fathers out of Lombard and Aquinas the two eies of your Romish schoole that wheresoeuer the speech is contrary to the knowledge such you haue granted your Aequiuocating to be there the speech is false and a slat lie Which is now further proued from the end of lying which is To deceiue the hearer except you professe an intention to deceiue men by true speaking and so make truth a Seducer The Aequiuocatour doth insist Our Aequiuocating doth not alwaies deceiue the hearer for if a man of Couentry a place generally infected with the plague dwelling himselfe in a part of that city which is free from infection and comming to London shall be asked if he came from Couentry they intending to aske him concerning a place infected may answer No for heerein he deceiueth not the mind of the Questioner but answereth directly to his intention The Replie If this one instance were true yet could it not iustifie your other Aequiuocations as that I am no Priest whereby your whole purpose is to delude the intention of the examiner For this is an intention to deceiue saith your Iesuite to seeke to beget a signification of your speech in the mind of your hearer diuers to that which you conceiue your selfe Secondly this your instance is false for euery one that asketh a Question doth intend to receiue a direct answer and therefore his answer I came not from Couentry who came from Couentrie cannot satisfie the intention of the Examiner Thirdly though it shall satisfie the remote intention of the Examiner yet is it a lewd lie in the speaker because he that speaketh truth hath alway a conformity betweene the intention of his mind and his speech but to deny He came not from that place from whence he knoweth he came is no conformity but infinite contrariety between his speech and his owne intention An answer so grosly false that a Iesuite of high esteeme in your church writing against this spirituall iugling of his subtile lying brethren doth confesse That if this kind of answer concerning a place infected with the plague c. be not false then there is no speech so false but it may be freed from falshood because willingly to vse words in a contrary sense to that they signifie is plaine lying By whom you Aequiuocators may learne that if the man you fancied came not from a place infected with bodily pestilence yet this your aequiuocating proceedeth from minds spiritually infected with the contagion of pestilent lying O but you are more subtile then your Aduersaries and so was the Serpent the Diuels instrument more subtile than all the beasts of the field Yet behold one Doctor amongst you so subtile that for that faculty he hath by figure of excellency beene called the subtile Doctour who doth conclude all you Aequiuocatours liars saying To say that I did not that which I know I haue done although I speake it with this limitation or reseruation of mind Vt tibi significem it is not aequiuocation but a lie And not he alone but euen the subtilest of all your Iesuites must be called a liar if this your aequiuocating subtilty be not rancke lying Whosoeuer saith he doth indeuour by feining to deceiue another although he intend to signifie something else yet doubtlesse he lieth Which kind of aequiuocating when your diuine of Cullen doth examine he maketh his Theophilus that is the louer of God to answer Philetus that is a louer of himselfe to wonder at your Trifling foolerie thus contrary to the iudgement of graue and wise men to inuent such a lurking hole and refuge for periurie Concluding that It is certainly a lie when any doth thinke one thing in his mind and signifie the contrary in words with intent to deceiue another Therefore are you to be exhorted as his good Theophilus for the loue of God who is the truth to recant this your doctrine of aequiuocating the metropolis of lies CHAP. V. The fourth Argument a Specie or from a particular kind of lying which is Periury MAior. Periurie as both your now Iesuites and also your ancient Schoole saith is a lie made in an oth For an oath void of truth must needs be a lie Because in an oath to vse such a speech as thou thinkest is false is formally periurie Anancient doctrine for the Prophet requireth in euery Iurist truth Thou shalt sweare the Lord liueth in truth c. But mentall aequiuocating is in an oath perâ—urie Ergo simplie in it selfe without an oath it is a lie The Minor proued This is a certaine maxime in Diuinity grounded vpon the eternall commandement of God Thou shalt not beare false witnesse and expounded by his Prophet Thou shalt sweare in truth and confessed by your Azorius That is to sweare both for the confirmation of a truth and so also in truth as to thinke probably that true wherunto thou art sworn Minor But our Acquiuocatours do neither sweare from truth nor for confirmation of truth Ergo their oath is plaine periury A conclusion thought so iust that your owne great Moralist doth condemne all Aequiuocators heerein as periured liars or otherwise saith he there is nothing which may not be affirmed and denied without a lie Yet against your conceiued reseruation we will obiect a conceiued supposition for further confirmation of this point This last Minor confirmed Suppose that your Guido hath wrongfully impeached some man
of honour as to haue beene an Inginer and worker in the Powder-vault together with Piercie and Catesbie brethren in that euill and thus is the noble person made guilty of high treason but after by more exact triall of circumstances it is found that the man of honour was neuer incorporate in that conspiracie what can you answer for your Gâ—… What else but as your Garnet answered for your Tresham I thinke he did aequiuocate saying The honourable man was present in that vault reseruing in his thought this clause Quatenus vir longissimè absens praesens esse potuit But answer for we wil draw you out of that foxe hole He swearing according to these words This man was one of vs Pioners did his words accord with his direct meaning No then was not his oath a veritate from truth But did his oath the second propertie of a true oath confirme a truth No for it did betray an innocent then was it not pro veritate for truth Therefore call you such an oath Aequiuocation or Reseruation or secret limitation or what you will our great grandfathers I am sure would haue termed it periâ—rie and adiudged it to the pillorie a shame too little for so shamelesse a collusion For seeing that Periurie though not in the iniurie to man yet in it owne iniquity is a more grieuous sinne than murder it may be wished that mentall aequiuocation might haue a corporall suspension and where any of whatsoeuer profession he be shall be found guilty of both murder and the aequiuocating clause of Reseruation the sinne of Reseruation may haue a reseruation of punishment that if for the one he hang by the neck for the other he may hang iointly by the tongue as it is written Iuxta peccatum ita erit poenae modus CHAP. VI. Our fift Argument from the principall subiects of Truth God and Lying the Diuell 1. God HEb 6. 17. God willing to shew more abundantly vnto the heires of promise the stablenesse of his Counsell bound himselfe by an oath that by two immutable things wherein it is impossible that God should lie we might haue strong consolation c. Heere we see the nature of a lie To be so absolutely euill in it owne nature as which all Diuines hold that nothing can make it good Therefore so it is said that to say it is vnpossible that our good God father of truth should lie is as much as to say it is impossible for goodnesse to be euill or for truth to be a â—ie because this is as contradictorie as God not to be God Hence we argue Maior That which God can not doe by reason of lying iniquity hath in it the iniquity of a lie Minor But your aequinocating conceit is that which for the lying iniquity thereof God can not possibly doe Therefore it is a godlesse and lying wickednesse The Minor proued If God by an oth of promising saluation in Christ could vse your aequiuocation then should the Elect of God not haue any strong consolation when God by word or oath he promiseth life and though his spirit witnesseth to the spirits of his Elect that they are the sonnes of God and that they shall no perish yet might they suspect which blasphemie farre be it from the hearts of his Regenerate that it is spoken with some secret reserued clause of delusion But let God be true and euery especially aequiuocating man a liar as it is written for he who is Trueth will be iustified when this sect continuing in this sinne must necessarily be condemned The principall subiect of lying is the Diuell Because when the voice of the Almighty had denounced death to the Transgressours saying Eating of this fruit ye shall die the Diuell in his instrument contradicting that trueth sayd You shall not die at all he is therefore truely called A liar from the beginning From whence we may argue thus Maior That can not be a doctrine of trueth which stoppeth a mans mouth that he can not giue the Diuell the lie Minor But admitting your aequiuocation all mankinde is silenced as not able to giue the Diuell his due title of a Liar Ergo aequiuocating is no doctrine of trueth The Minor proued For Eue who was catechized in this trueth God sayd that if we eat we shall die and hearing the Diuels contrary suggestion Though you eat you shall not die might she not say to the serpent Spirit thou liest If she might not then is that no lying spirit which is father of all lies if she might then is your close aequiuocating a lie Otherwise the Diuell might haue freed himselfe as you do saying I sayd truely for I did aequiuocate The Minor confirmed Though the Diuell haue plunged himselfe in Abyssum the bottomlesse gulfe of wickednesse as to do wickedly for loue of wickednesse Yet is there not the most desperate sinner amongst men but if he could he had rather by honest than by wicked meanes atchieue whatsoeuer his wicked heart lusteth after We will borrow of you an example The late intended conspiracie which as you confesse was so hainous an impiety that God and heauen condemne it men and earth detest it Now then what wickednesse vnder heauen would not these Conspirators haue attempted which haue beene found guilty of so damnable a mischiefe Yet am I persuaded that for aduancement of their Religion they would neuer haue practised by powder if they could haue preuailed with paper All which I produce to this end to let you vnderstand that if mentall aequiuocation were lawfull and did qualifie a false speech to free it from a lie no man instructed in that Art would or could lie and so we should seeme to liue in an Outopia where men shall be conuicted of most manifest aequiuocating falshood only he shall be the liar that giueth the conuicted the lie CHAP. VII The sixt Argument from examples of dissimulation condemned by 1. Scriptures 2. Fathers 3. Pagans 1. Scripture ACts 5. 1. Ananias with Saphira his wife solde a possession and kept backe part of the price his wife being of counsell with him and the other part he brought and layd it downe at the Apostles feet Then sayd Peter Why hath Satan filled thine heart that thou should'st lie thou hast not lied vnto men but vnto God When Ananias heard these words he fell downe and gaue vp the ghost After this came in his wife ignorant of that which was done and Peter sayd vnto her Tell me Sold you the land for so much and she sayd Yea for so much and Peter sayd Why haue you agreed together to tempt the spirit of the Lord and she fell downe and yeelded vp the ghost These pretended to bring all their substance and to tender it to the Apostles for the common good of the Saints an act proper to the infancy of the Church but they reserued one halfe for supply of their peculiar vses if happily they might