Male audis or An answer to Mr. Coleman his Malè dicis. Wherein the repugnancy…

Surely if such Orleans Glosses be admitted upon mens Declarations signed with their hands; and if he who hath subscribed himself sorry that he hath given offence in the delivery of such a doctrine, shall be allowed to expound himself thus; that he meant he was sorry others had taken offence at a Scripture truth, ⟨p. 52⟩that is, he was sorry for our fault not for his own: I know not how men shall trust one another's Declarations: or how we can practically as well as doctrinally confute the Jesuitical equivocations and mental reservations. And if this must needs be the sense which now the Reverend Brother gives; and was the sense intended, Why saith he that he did publicly recall that Declaration? He might make a revocation of it, in the sense wherein I understood it: but how could he make a revocation of it, as himself understood it, and as he faith the sense must needs be? Was this his sorrow for our taking offence at a Scripture truth, a sorrow to be sorrowed for? Why did he not rather make a second Declaration the next day, interpreting the former? And whereas he thinks that his Revocation ought to have been mentioned together with his declaration, because the whole truth is to be told as well as the truth, his own heart knows that he himself hath not told the whole truth, for he could tell much more, if he pleased; how he was brought upon the business, and particularly upon that Revocation. Why will he challenge others for not telling the whole truth, when himself doth it not? I should have thought, that this Revocation was neither here nor there, as to the point of scandal, for proof whereof his Declaration was brought: and that as it was not to the business in hand, so it might rather, serve for impairing his credit then for any thing else. But seeing himself thinks it more for his credit, to tell the world of his saying and unsaying, declaring and undeclaring, let him be doing.

Surely if such Orleance Glosses be admitted upon mens Declarations signed with their hands; and if he who hath subscribed himselfe sorry that he hath given offence in the delivery of such a doctrine, shall be allowed to expound himselfe thus; that he meant he was sorry others had taken offence at a Scripture truth, ⟨p. 52⟩that is, he was sorry for our fault not for his owne: I know not how men shall trust one anothers Declarations: or how we can practically as well as doctrinally confute the Jesuiticall aequivocations and mentall reservations. And if this must needes be the sence which now the Reverend Brother gives; and was the sence intended, Why saith he that he did publickly recall that Declaration? He might make a revocation of it, in the sence wherein I understood it: but how could he make a revocation of it, as himselfe understood it, and as he faith the sence must needes be? Was this his sorrow for our taking offence at a Scripture truth, a sorrow to be sorrowed for? Why did hee not rather make a second Declaration the next day, interpreting the former? And whereas he thinks that his Revocation ought to have beene mentioned together with his declaration, because the whole truth is to be told as well as the truth, his owne heart knowes that he himselfe hath not told the whole truth, for he could tell much more, if he pleased; how he was brought upon the businesse, and particularly upon that Revocation. Why will he challenge others for not telling the whole truth, when himselfe doth it not? I should have thought, that this Revocation was neither here nor there, as to the point of scandall, for proofe whereof his Declaration was brought: and that as it was not to the businesse in hand, so it might rather, serve for impairing his credit then for any thing else. But seeing himselfe thinks it more for his credit, to tell the world of his saying and unsaying, declaring and undeclaring, let him be doing.