THE ENCOVN­TER AGAINST M. PARSONS, BY A REVIEW OF HIS LAST SOBER RECKONING, And his Excep­tions vrged in the TREATISE OF HIS MITIGATION.

Wherein moreouer is inserted:

1.
A Confession of some Romanists, both concerning the particular Falsifications of principall Romanists, as Namely, BELLARMINE, SVAREZ, and others: As also concerning the Generall fraude of that Church, in corrupting of Authors.
2.
A Confutation of Slaunders, which BELLARMINE vrged against Protestants.
3.
A Performance of the Challenge, which Mr. PARSONS made, for the Examining of sixtie Fathers, cited by COCCIVS for proofe of Purgatorie; to shew thirtie one of them to haue beene either Apocrypha, or corrupted, or wrested,
4.
A Censure of a late Pamphlet, Intituled, The Patterne of a Pro­testant, by one once termed the Moderate Answerer.
5.
An handling of his Question of Mentall Equiuocation (After his boldnesse with the L. COOKE) vpon occasion of the most me­morable, and feyned Yorkeshire Case of Equiuocating; and of his raging against D. KINGS Sermon.

Published by Authoritie.

IOB. 19. 2.

¶ You haue reproached me, and are not ashamed; you are fierce against me.

IOB. 6. 24.

¶ Teach me and I will hold my tongue; cause me to vnderstand wherein I haue erred.

LONDON

Printed for Iohn Bill.

To the High and Mightie Prince, HENRY Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall and Rothsay, Earle of Che­ster, Knight of the most noble Order of the GARTER, &c.

I Did thinke it a matter not altogether vnseaso­nable, ( most Mighty Prince) if presently af­ter the solemnization of your Princely Creae­tion with military spe­ctacles (wherein innu­merable beholders did, in your reioycing, con­gratulate both the happy comfort of your Royall Fa­ther, our Gratious Soueraigne, and the hopefull ioy of this whole land) I likewise should present vnto you a kinde of military Encounter; which is, although lesse solemne, yet more serious, because it oppugneth an Aduersary vnto your Highnesse, not in a counterfait shew and semblance, but in deede and reall practize: [Page] one, who labored to vndermine the right both of his Maiesties possessions, and of your future succession in this land: then whome this Age hath not found any Scribe more prompt and plausible, or yet a more per­swasiue and powerfull Inchaunter.

For it is he who once durst exclude, in his Doleman, the Royal line of Henry the seauenth from the Crown See his booke intituled Dol­man, part. 2. cap. 5. & cap. 10. of this Kingdome, and interested the Infanta of Spaine in the right thereof; and yet found much credit with some: notwithstanding he, euen the same he, no soo ner vnderstood of our Kinges peaceable and prospe­rous entrance into this land, and ioyfull establishment in his Throne, but forthwith changing his Copy, offered to giue an assurance, that what soeuer had beene See his Trea­tise of Three Conuersions of England, in the Addi­tions vpon the newes of the successi­on of the King of Scotland to the Crowne of England, num. 8. which Addition was printed, Anno 1603. written or done by any Catholike, which with some might brcede disgust, was directed only to the end that his Maie­sty might be a Catholike, before he should be a King. Which two how can they consist? for either must he haue in the former abused his Mistris the Infanta, or in the later deluded our Soueraigne King Iames. He like­wise in his Mitigation protested and promised loyall subiection in the behalfe of all Romanists, and was held a credible Proctor for his Clients; yet since, in this his last Reckoning (bringing in, as it were, a sharpe axe to behead Kings of a contrary profession) he pro­claimeth that none may be an head in Christian commu­nion who is excommunicate, and notwithstanding here­in also he wanted not an applause; So potent a Mer­cury was he.

Of him we heare it now daylie noised by some that say, Our Aduersary M. Parsons is dead: which reporte may be beleeued but only in part; for although it be [Page] possible that M. Parsons be dead, yet will not our Ad­uersary die, as long as his bookes, or cause shall liue in the handes and hartes of his fauorites. As for me, at the first hearing of these news I knew not wel whe­ther rather to reioyce, that he was not suffered any longer to delude the simple; or grieue, that he was taken away before that he could see his owne errours, which are very foule, and in this Encounter fully dis­couered: I say no more, so farre am I from imitating his spirit, by insulting vpon the Ghosts of the dead.

Concerning your selfe ( most Noble, and renouned Prince) it is the longing desire of all them, who are like piously affected, as were Gods people, when they prayed for the long life both of Nabuchodnosor, and al­so Baruch. 1. 11. of Baltasar his sonne; that you would stand vpon two guardes, the one is Confidence in God, the other is wise and due Prouidence vnder God. For God, who was for many yeares so powerfull and glorious, in defending his truth in the weakenesse of a woman (Q. Elizabeth, the King of Queens) in time of extream ho­stility, against a most potent enemy, euen when hee boasted of his Inuincible Nauie, & made that godly and thrise noble Deborah to singe of the vast Ocean after the olde tune of the Riuer Kishon, to wit, The Riuer Kishon Iud. 5. 21. swept them away, euen the ancient Riuer, the Riuer Kishon: the same God can preserue you from the practises of The malignant, for the Lord of Hoasts is his name.

Notwithstanding know likewise ( worthy and migh­ty Prince) concerning Prouidence vnder God; that it was the voice of the Tempter who said, He shall giue his Angels charge ouer thee, to keepe thee, leauing out the Luc. 4. 10. next wordes, In omnibus vijs tuis, in all thy wayes; by [Page] which clause were signified the prescribed Rules of Gods prouidence, and vse of the means which he hath ordayned for mans preseruation; the neglect whereof is not Confidence, but Presumption, and, in very deed, that ver. 9. Mitte te deorsùm.

I neede not to say much more, but that there daylie soundeth in the eares of our Land and State, the report of two Accidents, which, by the mercy of God, may be as it were, the sound of two warning-pieces, to a­wake all out of deafe securitie; the one is the late bar barous and tragicall end of that puissant French King; the other, that Acheronticall Powder-plot, the very belch of Belzebub: therefore will your Highnesse stand attent vnto the gratious voices of the Highest, and dis­pose of your wayes accordingly. That which belon­geth vnto me, I shal neuer cease to performe, euen my humble prayers vnto God for his right hand of prote­ction ouer you, both vnder, and after the most happy gouernement of our most gratious Soueraigne.

Our Lord Iesus preserue you to the glory of his sauing grace.

Your Highnesses in all [...] Obseruance, TH. MORTON.

To the Christian Reader.

IF peraduenture thou hast not knowne (good Reader) the booke which is inscribed, A sober and quiet Reckoning, wherein M. Parsons hath bespotted his Aduersary T. M. with the blacke markes of Falsificati­ons; I shall now desire thee to take some no­tice thereof, and to compare it with this Encounter, and then to iudge what interest I may haue in that saying, Aug. Qui volens detrahit famae meae, nolens addit mer­cedi. In the Reuiew of which Reckoning I called to minde a short Lib. Verisimil. Theolog. &c. ex Gilb. Cogn. lib. 1. Narrat. History of a man, who farmed a custome and tallage, which was taken at a bridge of all such passengers as were ei­ther diseased, or else notoriously deformed: So it was that one, that passed ouer the bridge, who had distortum vultum, was called vpon to pay a peny; which the passenger refused to pay: The Toller caps the fellow, and with that perceiueth that he had an other disease on his head, called Alopecia, and therefore he demaundeth of the party an other peny; but the Trauailer resisteth, and struggleth with the Toller, yet being not able to make his part good, is laide along on the ground, where, by some disaduantage, he bewraied an other disease, which he called the Hernia, and thereupon was charged to pay a third peny: there was no remedy, the cu­stome must be paid.

In some like sort shall my Reader (in the perusall of this En­counter) finde the matter to fall forth betweene me and M. Parsons, wherein may be obserued, that the more he contendeth and struggleth, the more he intangleth himselfe, and bewrayeth [Page] his owne diuers kindes of defaults. As first, to inueigh against me, as a passionate and intemperate man, whome his owne M. Brereley, and his fellow in their booke called, The Pro­testants Apology, &c. the second Edition Praefa. to the Reader. pag. 10. Apologists haue held to be a man not intemperate: and for him to giue that censure, whome his owne Quodlib. pag. 236. fellow noted to be a man of a very violent and vnquiet spirit; and who himselfe, confesseth as it were his own intemperancy, by wishing that in his Mitigation he Reck pag. 669 had not vsed such asperity of speeches against me. This sheweth that he had some cause to betake himselfe to a more sober and quiet Reckoning: wherein, notwithstanding, he dealeth so violently with me, (as my Reader will easily per­ceiue) that he often falsifieth the Title of his booke, not only by heaping vp more grieuous Acerbities, then formerly he had done, but also by setting against me Gretzerus to plow vpon my backe, who is a stranger and a Iesuit, and so profuse and professed a railer, that Cùm vnum tā ­tùm exemplum tuae defensionis ( he speaketh vnto Gretzer) in Frisiam alla­tum esset, hoci­psum propter ne­fandam male­dicentiam non inueniret empto­rem. Lubber­tus Replic. lib. 1. cap. 1. whereas but one of his bookes was to be sould in West-Friesland, no man would buy it, because of the hor­rible slanders and railings which are therein. In all which kinde of raging tempests, I haue learned to cast this Anchor; Non qui patitur, sed qui facit iniuriam, miser est: And so I leaue this default of M. Parsons to receiue that name, which our Reader shall thinke to be most properly agreeable therevnto.

In further examining of him hee bewrayed an [...] both by absurdities in Syllogizing; as concluding of Are, in steade of Make; and being earnestly charged therewith, hath not yeelded so much as one of his bare-faced groates for dis­charge; And also by certaine Grammatical quiddites, whilest as he maketh Verè, being ioyned with Celsus (as it signifieth a pro­per name) to be no true Latine; and the translating of Praesi­dium, Praeseruation, and not Defence, to be false English; and diuers other the like crotchets hath be inforced in this his new Reckoning.

Thirdly, there appeared a far greater fault, euen that [...] whereby he chargeth me with no lesse then fifty wilfull fals­hoods; as though he had learned of the Steward in the Gospell to Luc. 16. v. 6. Sit downe and write fiftie, whom for that cause his Lord termed wise, but yet vniust, vniust to his Master, and wise for himselfe. Such vniust wisedome haue I found to abound in M. [Page] Parsons, who both in his booke of Mitigation, and in his new Reckoning obiecteth wilfull falshoods so vnconscionably, that he himselfe (as is proued in this The margi­nall notes will point almost at euery one. Encounter) is intangled in farre more then fiftie witting (except some had rather I should say witlesse) vntruths.

Of this kinde of dealing I haue more cause to complaine per­haps, then some others, because I finde strange measures offered vnto me by my Aduersaries. For M. Parsons his bent to tra­duce me hath beene such, as sometime to condemne me for omit­ting wordes, which were by me expresly set downe; being in one place so violently transported with passiont, as to lay to my charge the word Fortasse, for not translating it, perhaps, although in the very same place I translated and englished it twise, Peraduen­ture; which he could not but see, because once in the same place he repeated it accordingly: But it seemeth that in leuelling at me, as at his marke, he was onely left-eyed.

Also (which is a profound step of malignity) he diuers times obiecteth for wilfull falsities the Omissions of such clauses, which, if they had beene alleadged to the full, might haue made much more for the aduantage of my cause. This was no more honest dealing then was that of the wife of Putiphar against Ioseph; He, for fear to bedrawnby her pulling him by the cloak to her vn­chaste bedde, hastened away, and left his Cloake, a pledge and token of his chastitie: she, vpon his flight, cryeth out, and com­plaineth that he came to abuse her, and for proofe she saith, Gen. 9. Be­holde his garment; turning the same Cloake contrarily into an argument of his villany, and a Cloake of her owne dishonesty.

Againe, whereas vpon the finding out of mine owne Escapes, I gaue my Reader Aduertisments therof in the end of my books, and added Corrections thereunto; there my The Romish Apologists in their second E­dition of their Protestants A­pology, con­cerning the te­stimony of Delriꝰ And their Mode­rate Answerer in his late pat­terne of a Pro­testant, about the legitimati­on of Q. Mary and Q. Eliza­beth. Aduersaries (yet I cannot accuse M. Parsons of this guilt) being directed to my errour by mine owne Aduertisement, doe forthwith vpbraid mee with it, neuer giuing any notice that it hath beene corrected. So dealt the enemies of Sampson, who first plowed with his owne Heifer, then (which is spoken of the same men) Iud. 10. 20. The Philistimes are vpon thee Sampson. I pray God that they fall not vpon the imprecation, which was extended vnto the imprecation, which was extended vnto the enemies of Dauid, who not regarding his repentaence for his fault, and the amendment [Page] of his life, did point onely at his escape, saying, So, so would we haue it.

But yet M. Parsons is in another point no lesse inexcuseble, whilst (which is his common guise) when foure or sixe, and some­times nine testimonies of his owne Authours are obiected against him, for matter of a point in Controuersie, he singleth out some one alleg ation, wherin he laboureth by art to make at least some shew and colour of misprision, and then dismisseth all the other witnes­ses as dumbe men, and passeth ouer the whole cause it selfe without mention at all; and so diuers times Altercando res non dirimi­tur, sed perimitur. Can this be a tollerable manner of procee­ding, in the disquisition of any truth? This is not all, but (especi­ally of late times) when our Aduersaries are muzzelled, as it were with the confessions of their owne Doctors, obiected for the iusti­fication of our cause, they (as the AEgyptian Dogges are said to lappe here and there of the riuer Nilus, and runne their way) doe catch and snatch onely at peeces, and carpe at some allegations, crying out (although neuer so falsly) against Falshood, and then beholde The Booke, forsooth, is answered. In all these procee­dings they are, I confesse, in their generation, wise, but still vn­iust Aduersaries: And all uniust wisedome (we know) is before God iust nothing else, but miserable and damnable folly.

Fourthly and lastly, by much wrastling we haue discouered two other euils, the one is an Hernia, euen the disposition of disloyaltie in very extraordinary maner brusting out, and betraying diuers­where euident Symptomes thereof: And the other is his Mentall Equiuocation, which we may call Alopecia; the rather because M. Parsons himselfe doth take an argument, for iustification of it, from the Foxe, which, by instinct of nature, can turne and skip forward and backward, to secure himselfe. Vpon which occasion I haue in one place intreated my Reader to accompany me in the Hunting of this Foxe.

Howbeit, thou maiest not imagine (good Reader) that this whole Encounter is spent in vying and reuying of imputed false­hoods, or in our wrastlings together, and laying one the other in the dust: but here are inserted many other points of better consequence; as first, An answere to their challenge, for [...] some Romanists to be [...] which is performed by [Page] examples in their chiefest Writers, by the confessions and com­plaints of their owne men; together with an acknowledgment of their art in corrupting of bookes. Secondly, an answere to the slaunders which Cardinall Bellarmine fasteneth vpon Prote­stants, by imputing sundry Heresies vnto them. Thirdly, an an­swere to a Challenge made by Mr. Parsons, concerning the Romish abuses of the testimonies of Fathers, for proofe of Pur­gatory, and that by the confession of their owne Writers; which is amply discharged, both against the allegations of Bel­larmine, and of Iodocus Coccius. Fourthly, an answere to a late Pamphlet, intituled A patterne of a Protestant; wherein the Authour maketh himselfe the Patterne of an arrogant, ignorant, intemperate, and vnconscionable man. Fiftly, there are diuers large Tracts, in confutation of Mentall Equi­uocation; especially in the answere to his Appendix, wherein there is displayed the egregious forgery of an Equiuocation, in that memorable Yorke-shire case; together with a freeing of the holy Scriptures, the Oracles of truth, from that prophana­tion, which he draweth vpon them, by pretending that they pa­tronize this blacke art. Sixtly, and lastly (to omit many other important coincidents) their doctrine of Rebellion is handled; In consutation whereof (for this was the cause of all their ma­lignancy against me) I was contented to be condemned for a most false accuser of them, vpon condition that they by the e­uents would not iustifie their former Assertions. But alas, still they set their Practizes as seales to their Positions.

Yet as when Bees beginne to cast, men vse to throw vp dust in the aire, to hinder their sight, least they should flie from their homes, and set in some other place, so deale our Aduersaries; for whensoeuer by any not orious practise they become so obnoxi­ous, as to cause their people to suspect their doctrin, and to incl. ne to our Profession: then, for staying of their departure, they in po­licy cast abroad in the ayre some forged Reports of some strange Miracles wrought in the honour of their cause; thus the fame of Garncts Straw was [...] to alley the smoak of the Powder­treason; and late the noyse of Diuels ( [...] it is said) carrying English Ministers away in a Coach, hath been raised to hinder the last sbrill sound of that Royall blood.

I returne to my Encounter against Mr. Parsons his Recko­ning, to let thee vnderstand (good Reader) that I haue vsed him more calmely then, (I will not say) my cause (for, alas, Who am I, that I may not be iniuried?) but peraduenture, then thou wilt thinke the Cause it selfe would permit: And especially in the ve­ry entrance into the Answere vnto his Appendix (when first I heard of any certainty of his death) the point of my Style did be­gin, in a manner, to die with him; for so I thought it my duety, least I might seeme [ Caeco scandalum] to deale too personally a­gainst him, who could not answere for himselfe.

Secondly, to my owne selfe I say, Aug. Non est intuendum quàm amarum, sed qùam falsum quod audio, & quàm verax pro cu­jus nomine audio.

Thirdly, to my Aduersaries I say, that by their practises in carping at allegations, whilst they sought to put out the candles, they haue but topped them, and made them shine more clearely; as may euidently appeare by this Encounter. Notwithstanding, whosoeuer shall intend to Reply vnto this, or any other booke of mine, let him (if he expect to be answered) not carpe at peeces, but proceede soberly and orderly from point to point in the cause; o­therwise I must say with the Apostle, Galat. 6. 17. Let none put mee from henceforth vnto businesse.

Finally to thee (Christian Reader, if thou thinke thy selfe a Scholler) I say with S. Hier. l. 3 Proëm in Epist. Ierom; Figas ipse stylum; tria, (vt dicitur) verba cōiungas; sudes paululum, experiare temetipsū, & ex la­bore proprio discas ignoscere laborātibꝰ. And although thou be of another cōditiō, yet for my iustificatiō, against M. Parsons (who called me a Falsificator) I say as S. Aug. did in answer to Petiliā; Me Petilianus Manichaū esse dicit, loquens de me Conscientia, boc ego iu­dico me non esse, loquens de meâ Conscientiâ: eli­gite cui credatis. He saith (saith S. Aug.) that I am a Manichee, speaking of my cōsciēce, & I say I am not so, speaking of mine own consciēce, & now choose whō thou wilt beleeue. Or eis (because the mat­ter is put vnto thy proof) I rather say with S. Paul 1. Thess. 5. 21. Try al things, & keep that wch is good: Try this book, and my faithfulnes by it, wherin (least any may be suspected for my defects) I professe to al­leage no testimony, that is noted in the margent, which I haue not perused & examined with mane own eyes. Thus I end, beseeching our Lord Iesus to illuminate thee with the spirite of Truth, and to preserue us to the glory of his sauing Grace.

[...] in Christ Th. Morton

THE PRINCIPALL CONTENTS OF THIS ENCOVNTER.

In the first Booke.
CAP. 1.
THe confessed Falsifications of their Ic­suite Suarez §. 2. and [...] § 3 The errours of Baroniꝰ, ilib. Vntruths of Boucher, §. 4 Foule corruptions of Grati­an, §. 5. and vniust dealing of Mast. Parsons himselfe, §. 7.
CAP. 2.
An examination of the sleeping Souldi­ers speech, [ His Disciples came and stole him away.] by a fourfold conuiction, §. 1. An ex­amination of M. Parsons his Syllogisme; no­ting his pittifull pouerty in Logique, and his fraudes thereabout, §. 2.
CAP. 3.
The Impossibility of their due subiection, proued by foure Arguments. His dissem­blances and frauds therabout. In the end hee betrayeth himselfe, §. 1. to § 5. And Iastly, of the Exemption of Priests, §. 5.
CAP. 4.
The hunting of the Foxe, by winding out the subtle tricke of M. Parsons his Mentall Equiuocation: about of the speech of the wo­man Saphyra; shewing thereupon his vn­iust dealings; his pittifull plunges; and lastly the desperatenesse ofall his defence
CAP. 5.
Of Falsities obiected vnto some Roma­nists, especially in Popes, about the feyned Canon of Nice, fully handled. P. R. his per­uerse dealing.
CAP. 6.
The credite of Gratian impeached by their owne Bishop. Mr. Parsons his triple falshood.
CAP. 7.
The Contradictions of Romanists, confu­ting one another about the Councell of [...] in the point of Images, §. 1. Therein Surius his slanderous falshood. Their Con­tradictions about the Councell of Francford concerning Images. Mr. Parsons his wilfull falshood, §. 2. Their Contradictions about the Epistle of Epiphanius, concerning Images, and M. Parson his vniust calumniation, §. 3.
CAP. 8.
Card. Bellarmines manifold Slaunders a­gainstProtestants, as first obiecting the he­resie of the Pelagians about Originall and veniall sinnes. §. 1. Of the Nouatians in deny­ing Penance: Mr. Parsons his fraudulent dis­semblance, precipitate rashnesse, fond and false reprehension thereabout §. 2. And of the Manicbees in the question of Freewil. M. Parsons abuseth the testimony of S. August. and S. Ierome in this point. His heady taxa­tion, §. 3. Of Arianisme against Bullinger. M. Parsons maketh Bellarm. to betray the Ca­tholike cause, §. 4. Another heresie concer­ning the Soules going, but not immediately to heauen. M. Parsons his ignorance of Bel­larmines meaning, with whom hesaid he did Consult, §. 5. The heresie of an [ Onely figure] in the Sacrament of the Eucharist. M. Par­sons his vnreasonable taxation §. 6
CAP. 9.
Card Bellarmine his corrupt Allegations, § 1. Rome by iust consequence not the Mo­ther [...] Mr. Parsons his ignorance, his difsembling, his odde Cauill, his deceitful­nesse, his strange lust to accuse his Aduer­sary, §. 2. The Authority of Platina. M. Par­sons his Answere, betraying therby the au­thority of all late Romish Writers, §. 3.
CAP. 10.
Bellarmine his false allegation of Fathers, [Page] for proofe of Purgatory M. Parsons his dex­terity in fraudulent dealing. His other three Falshoods.
CAP. 11.
M. Parsons his Challenge against T M. ex­acting of him an examination of the sixty Fathers (alleadged by Coccius, for defence of Purgatory:) to prooue that thirty one of them are eyther Apocrypha, or corrupt, or wrested. The state of the whole Controuer­sie, fet downe and prosecuted at large: And the notable and manifold abuses of Coccius reuealed.
CAP. 12.
The Falshoods, wherewith M. Parsons was charged in the preamble, and his fond and false accounts he maketh. His fourefold falshood committed against Caluine: one whereof is most perfidious, §. 1. About the latine Clause of Reseruation. His notable fraude in answering, conteining a brace of vntruths. §. 2. Of the [ Chaire of vnlearned Doctors.] M. Parsons his two falshoods in one § 3. His grosse falshood about Govdman, § 4 His double vntruth about Knoxe and Buc­chanan: and an other new falshood besides §. 5. About the question of [...] Mr. Parsons his confessed errour, but yet mise­rable excuse. His faithlesse dealing against Caluine. §. 6. His many falshoods in one § 7. Touching a Transition. His excellent art in confessing a falshood so, as not confessing it; and the palpabilitytherof §. 8. Concerning the testimony of Holinshed about Wiat. M Parsons concealing his falshood His other poore shift § 9. About the Text of Esa. 29. His threefold falsity § 10. The Citation of Carerius, whereunto answering, he learned­ly bewrayeth want of learning in a Gram­maticall quiddity. § 11. Dolmans testimony. M. Parsons his crafty concealement. His dis loyalty. His denying his owne writing. § 12 The testimony of Frisingensis, concerning Pope Greg. 7. aliâs Hildebrand. M. Parsons, a plaine falsifier. His childish excuse. His ab­surd Reasoning. His treasonable doctrine. His negligence in Story. §. 13. The testimo­ny of Espencaeus, concerning Hildebrand. M. Parsons his palpable vntruth. §. 14.
CAP. 13.
M. Parsons charged with falsities; about the question of Mentall Equiuocation. His lost logicke. §. 1 Sepu'ueda his iudgement, touching mentall Equiuocation. M. Par­sons his euident vntruthes. §. 2. Azorius his iudgement concerning Mentall Equiuo­cation. The State of the question. M. Par­sons his manner of Equiuocating found to be lying His forgery to remooue a rubbe and note of a lie. His strong and strange delusion. He professeth to Equiuocate with his friends. § 3. The opinion of Eman. Sà a­bout Mentall Reseruation. The ob. of lea­uing out of the word perhaps, in translating [ Forte potiori ratione,] being before his eyes repeated: Herein a desperate falsificator. Another as vile a falsity. No certainty, what the opinions of late Romanists are, because of their altering and corrupting of their books. §. 4. Obseru the like out of the §. 5. and cap. 1. §. 6. and ca. 14 §. 1. Maldonate his opinion about Mentall Reseruation. M. Parsons his dissolute ignorance. His friuo­lous distinction [ of principal and not principall intention to deceiue] §. 5.
CAP. 14.
An answere vnto M. Parsons his obiected vntruths, which he hath (out of the preamb.) called into a new Reckoning. First, concer­ning Polydore. M. Parsons his notable fraud. Popes change their Christian names. §. 1. The Pope choaked with a flie. M. Parsons his fond cauillations: And fraudulent con­cealement. The disastrous endes of other Popes. M. Parsons his crafty falshood, about Pope Anastasius death. §. 2. Bouchers testi­mony of killing a Tyrant. M. Parsons his no­totious falshood. Another inexcusable fal­shood. §. 3. The testimony of Raynolds obie­cted and answered. Mr. Parsons his scurrill [Page] sport vpon a word. His deceit. That the po­wer of a King is immediately from God. §. 4. The testimony of Gratian obiected M Par­sons confuted by their owne Cardinall. § 5. The Glosse obiected, and answered The do­ctrine of killing of Kings. Mr. Parsons by si­lence, betrayeth his disloyalty. §. 6. Glosse of the Extrauagants obiected and aun­swered. His frothy Argument, Iugling; fraude. A bloody Glosse, § 7. Bellarmin con­cerning the iudgement of Caluine, about [...] M. Parsons his vnwise demaund, § 8. The text of Esa. 29. [ You are blinde, &c.] obiected and aunswered. §. 9. Carrerius his [ Verè or Verò] ob and answered. M. Parsons in a manner confessing his former slander. His flaude § 10. Dolman his [ Damnable Sin­ner] ob. and answered, § 11. Censure of [ All Priests, &c.] ob. and answered, § 12. Otto Fri­singensis about Pope Greg. 7. ob. and answe­red. What maner of grauel M. Parsons casls. §. 13. Foxe and Holinshed ob. and answered M. Parsons his falsity His figment. His lust­full appetite to wrangle. A memorable ex­ample of treacherous Bishoppes; from the exclamation of Rodulph, § 14.
In the second Booke.
CAP. 1.
First answering M. Parsons his olde ob­iections of Falshoods out of his Mitiga­gation. He beginneth with a lauish falsi­ty. §. 1. Vasquez obiected and answered, § 2. Azorius ob. and answered. M. Parsons his in­ordinate iangling about wordes, § 3. And extreame captiousnesse, § 4. Tolet ob. and answered. M. Parsons his solly, § 6. Barclay and Bellarm. about the power of [ Gathering Synods] ob and aunswered. M. Parsons his profuse fraude. And grosse falshood. And manisold absurdities, § 7. Salmeron (about the soueraignty of the King ouer Priests in the olde Testament) ob. and answered. M. Parsons his notable falshood. Hee is slatly confuted by. Salmeron, § 8.
CAP. 2.
Carerius (about the same point) ob. and answered. M. Parsons his egregious vntruth, § 1. Dolman obiected and answered. M Par­sons his childish exceptions: And ignorance of his owne booke, § 2. Once againe Care­rius ob. and answered. M. Parsons his open falshood, § 3. Victoria ob. and answered M. Parsons his grosse slander, § 4. The Canon of Gratian [ Si Papa] ob. and answered. Mr. Parsons his many idle impertinencies. His great ignorance § 5. His Obiect against Sir Fr. Hastings [about Dominum Deum Pa­pam] answered. M. Parsons his blinde inso­lency, or persidious hypocrisie, § 6. Pope Leo ob. concerning the Oath of Alleagi­ance, and answered. M. Parsons his chole­ricke answere therin; his promise exacted. His ignorance in constructions, § 7. Sepul­ueda touching Equiuocation. M. Parsons his wilfull salshood, § 8.
CAP. 3.
The opinion of Setus, concerning Men­tall Equiuocation, falsly and grossely abused by M. Parsons. The question there discussed by examples, § 1. Cunerus ob. and answered. M. Parsons his meere cauil, § 2. Cassander ob. and answered M. Parsons his idle, and fond collusion His faithlesse dealing. The name of Papist odious, and yet glorious among the Romanists. § 5. Royard ob. and answe­red M. Parsons his excellent falshood: And after that another notorious falsity, § 4. A­gaine, Cunerus ob. and answered. M. Parsons vnconscionably iniurious ibid. Sayr ob. and answered. M. Parsons snatcheth at wordes, and pretermitteth materials, § 5.
CAP. 4.
Cicero obiected in the point of Mental E­quiuocation. M. Parsons a watie gamster. His misconstruction of Tully. His excellent [Page] peece of craft. He preiudiceth his consci­ence, § 1. Barclay and Boucher ob. and aun­swered M. Parsons fine tricke of fraude. His malitious falshood, § 2. Againe, Barclay ob. and answered. M. Parsons his shamelesse fraude, § 3.
CAP. 5.
Heapes of vntruthes obiected, and aun­swered, concerning [ Popes being Heretickes, as Popes, and therefore Deposed.] M. Par­sons his marueylous peruersnes in repor­ting the iudgement of his Authors, § 1. His notable guile, and falshood. His cunning. A Romish mysterie, § 2.
CAP. 6.
Conteyning a briefe Censure of a Pam­phlet, intituled [ The patterne of a Protestant] who hath made himselfe a patterne of singular Arrogancy, untruth, ignorance and malice. Adde heereunto his slaunderous vntruths, when he plaid the Moderate An­swerer, cap 7. § 7.
CAP. 7.
M. Parsons obiecteth the omitting of the defence of some Protestants; as of Caluine about Arianisme; which is answered. (the obseruable testimonies which some Roma­nists giue of Caluine) § 1. And of my L. Cooke § 1. and § 6. Omissions of M. Parsons in not defending his Clients: Answere to mani­folde Slanders, § 3. His not defending the Popes Clergy-men subiect to Emperours. Constantines Donation, § 4. His neglecting the defence of the Moderate Answerer in his notorious Slanders, § 5. An answere to his ob. of fresh lies. Therin his excellent fraude § 7.
CAP. 8.
His obiected Uaunts answered. His Stran­gers Censure against T. M. requited. His Ie­suite [...] censure iustly contemned, § 1 The Challenges made against M. Parsons a­uouched, and performed, § 2.
CAP. 9.
M. Parsons his Appendix confuted. His most memorable Yorkeshire-Case for Equiuo­cating finely, malitiously, and impudently forged: As is manifestly prooued by many vncontrollable conuictions, § 1. His fier edge against Doctor King abated, by exam­ples of Iesuiticall Equiuocators, § 2.
CAP. 10.
A confutation of Mast. Parsons his de­fence of Mentall Reseruation, from the spee­ches of Christ, recorded in the 8. cap. of Saint John, and first distinguishing betweene Verball and Mentall Equiuocation, § 1. That in Generall the Scripture alloweth not Romish Reseruation, § 2. The eight speeches of Christ taken out of the cap 8. Ioh obiected, and satisfied, § 3. Scriptures which M. Parsons ob. in his Mitigation, answered; as Ioh. 1. 21. maith. 9. 10. Ioh. 6. Esa. [...]. § 4. An olde ob. in the Mitigation out of Ioh. 7. 8. [ I will not goe vpyet,] answered. M. Parsons his grosse ignorance touching the state of the question. §. 5.
CAP. 11.
Against mentall Equiuocation, prouing it to be a lie; by the confessions of their owne Doctors; by examples from Fathers, Heretickes and Pagans, § 1. Euidences of the impiety of it, by Cases, § 2. and by Effects, ibid. His foule vntruth. ibid.

THE ENCOVNTER AGAINST Mr. PARSONS.

The first Booke.

CHAP. I. An Introduction to the Reueiw.

SECT. I.

1. THis Encounter consisteth of these two parts, the first is a Reueiw of Ma­ster Parsons his last Rec­koning; the second of such points as concerne his Treatise of Mitigati­on: and the issue of them both will be (God wil­ling) the reasonable per­formance of my former Challenge.

2. And because the first part (which is his Reckoning) is [Page 2] spent especially about the charge and discharge of Falsificati­ons, which haue beene reciprocally obiected on both sides, concerning matters of maine Consequence; I thought it re­quisite to Encounter him first in these: and in this Introducti­on and Entrance to repell his maine assault, who hath made falsifying to be a substantiall distinctiue note of discerning be­tweene Protestants, and his Catholicke writers; and by some particular Instances to take away the fiery edge of his former presumption, after that we haue seene that which followeth.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning in the behalfe of all Romish Writers.

BEcause this is a matter of great importance, I mean to stay my self Reckoning. ca. 3. §. 1. pa. 119. 120. vpon this point, and to shew that it is indeede a substantiall signe distinctiue betweene all Sectaries and vs at this time; and that in matters of Controuersie, our Writers shall neuer be found guiltie of these kinds of false, iying, and malicious Equiuocations, where not on­ly P. R his pre­sumption. vntruth is vttered, but it is willingly also vttered, the Writer know­ing that he writeth an vntruth: which manner of dealing, argueth two points, the one, that such a writer hath no conscience, that vttereth that which God seeth to be false, and falsly meant in his heart; and the other, that his cause hath no ground of substantiall truth, which can­not be defended without such wilfull lies. In this then, if it please you, insist a while, and let Mr. Morton bring foorth in Print, any Catholicke Author that wrote against Protestants, since these heresies began, that hath beene taken in this impietie: I meane, that hath set downe in Print any such falsitie as cannot be excused either by ignorance, ouer­sight, negligence, error of Print, translation, diuersitie of Editions, or the like: but that it must needs be presumed that he knew the vntruth, and yet would set it foorth; of this kind, I say, let him shew me but one example among all Catholicke Writers of our time, and I will in my Conscience greatly mistrust and discredite that Author, whether it be an other, or my selfe: but if he shew me two or three in any Writer in this kind, I shall be hardly able euer after to beleeue him more. And whereas the number and varietie of Catholicke Writers is so great, as the world seeth, it were no great labour to shew it in some, if that spirit doth raigne among them, as it doth among Protestant Writers.

SECT. II.
The Reuiew; yeelding diuers examples of Romish Falsifi­cators, euen by the iudgement of their owne Writers; faithfully related. The first partie accused is their Iesuit Fr: SVAREZ.

3. MAster Parsons will not esteeme any Writers to de­serue better the name of Catholike Writers, then the Iesuites: who are, as it were, the naturall brethren of his own Order; nor can he account any Iesuite a more worthie Wri­ter then is their Iesuite Suarez, publike Reader in the Vni­uersitie of Salamanca, whom their Iesuite Posseuin Appa. rat. Tit. Fr. Suarez. Posseuine hath Re­gistred among the most famous Authors of these times; nor may he iudge any Writing of Suarez, more obseruable then are those his Varia Opus­cula Theologica, approued by the Vniuersitie of omplutum, vnde the hands of eight Doctors See the beginning. workes, which haue beene approoued by a whole Vniuersitie.

4. This Iesuite Suarez commeth now to be conuinced for a Falsificator, but not by Protestants: because Mr. Parsons hath a Licence and Facultie to call their accusations Ltes and Fals­hoods, although they be neuer so iust: therfore must we seeke out of the Romish Schoole, some one approoued witnesse, who hath made a priuie search into the writings of the fore­said Iesuite; and hath also discouered some of his wilfull trans­gressions in alleadging of Authors.

The Accuser is Fr: Cumel.

5. Our witnesse shall be Franciscus Cu­mel, variarum disputationum. &c. 1 ugduni. 1609. Fr. Cumel, Professor also of Di­uinitie in the I niuersitie of Salamanca; See all these Encomia, in the beginning of his worke. commended by Die­go Nuncio, and Antonius Soto-Mayor for one, in whose Me­morie The Church ( say they) which is the Spouse of Christ, may congratulate her owne good, in that she had so singular, and euery way so absolute a Teacher, who in these his last workes hath ex­celled not onely other ancient and moderne writers, but also him­selfe: vnto whose commendation Rob. Bertelot, and A. Pri­queu doe subscribe: Him hath also Ant. Hereros, Publike pro­fessor [Page 4] in the [...] of Pintia, greatly extolled in his com­mendatorie Epistle, calling this Cumel the very heart of the V­niuersitie wherin he was Professor, whose name was honored ( saith he) by Pope Clement the eight. And yet againe is this Doctor further magnified in the Epistle Dedicatory by Fr. IIdefonsus, who reporteth Cumel to haue beene an admirable man, both for learning and wisedome, Insomuch that Kings did consult with him in their most weightie affaires, and that Schollers, when they desired to haue the most hard Questions assoyled, resorted vnto him, as vnto the Oracle of Apollo.

6. Let vs now heare what this so honourable a witnesse and Oracle will say, concerning the dealing of the former le­suite, in a matter of high moment, such as is the power of Gods effectuall Grace in acting mans will vnto good: from the effi­cacie of which Grace of God, the same Iesuite (in the opinion of Cumel) did somewhat detract, for the vniust aduancement of the power of mans will. It will be my part not to examine or discusse: but onely to report the saying of Cumel, which I will do as faithfully, as if the whole cause depended here upon.

The Accusation it selfe.

7. F. Cumel Dispu. Variar. Tom. 3. pag. 126. col.1. Saint Hieroms testimonie ( saith Cumel) Dolosè ciatatur ab Aduersarys ( speaking of Molina, Suarez, and some other Romish writers) that is, Is fraudulently cited: And, Pag. 128. col. 2. Ca­preolus is cited craftily by them: Pag. 129. col. 1. I am grieued to see how frau­dulently they cite Driedo, vrging that which he spake, by way of argumentation, or obiection, for his owne iudgement, whereas Driedo vseth many Arguments to disprooue that opinion. But we shall be contented to dismisse Molina and those others, let Cumel and Suarez meete vpon the Stage alone, and so shall we be better able to discerne the disposition of the par­tie accused.

8. Ibid. pag. 267. col. 2. Suarez ( saith Cumel) doth not intirely, and faithfully, relate the sentence of Molina: And Pag. 15. col. 1. in margine. expoundeth Molina, but in a sense contrary to his meaning: Ibid. pag. 137. col. 2. in margine. Suarez citeth the sentence of Soto, leaping ouer a part of it, and suppressing those words which made against him. Ib. pa 133. [...] I doe obserue ( saith Cumel) that Suarez [Page 5] alleadged Driedo, whose sentence and wordes make plainely a­gainst him, as I haue shewed; so that I cannot tell with what spi­rit he is cited of Suarez: and much lesse doe I perceiue to what end Stapleton is alleadged, whose words doe more expresly make against them. Ibid. pag. 195. col. 1. Suarez hath taken out of the testimonie of Saint Thomas the word, Praeordination, and put in stead of it, Subor­dination, and expoundeth S. Thomas sinisterly. Ibid. pag. 124. col. 2. Suarez produ­duceth for his proofe the testimonie of Chrysostome, [ Ad Heb. hom. 12. super cap. 7. vbi ait, Nostras non antecedit volunta­tates, nè liberum laedatur arbitrium,] cutting of that which went immediately before, and that also which immediatly fol­lowed: because he perceiued that the sense and opinion of Chry­sostome did not fauour his opinion at all. Ibid. pag. 131. col. 2. Suarez vrgeth Pope Clement in his third Epistle, saying that he hath these words; [ Si aliquid esset, quod audientes fidem vel ad creden­dum, vel ad non credendum determinatret extrà arbitrium eo­rum, meritum & libertatem tolli.] Which words he hath prin­ted in new and distinct Characters and Letters, as though they were the very words of Pope Clement, when as indeed that most holy Pope neuer deliuered those words, neither are they in that Epistle.

9. And thus doth Cumel proceed against Suarez, in cen­suring his falsifications in these and other allegations, where­in Cumel seemeth to discerne nothing but wilfull frauds in that their Iesuite Suarez; whom notwithstanding they mag­nifie for one, Epist. Dedicat. in Tom. 3. Who, by the iudgement of all the most learned men, (as they say) seemeth to haue abundantly satisfied Here­tickes (so they call Protestants) and Catholickes, in the doctrine of the Sacraments in the new law.

10. Seeing now (good Reader) that Fr. Suarez, one of their chiefe order (which is the order of Iesuits,) and the choicest writer which is now liuing in that Societie, in a fewe Chap­ters of but one so primarily an authorized Booke, concerning one onely Controuersie, hath committed so many falsities, which their owne so much approoued Doctor Cumel cannot free from wilsull fraudes and corruptions; what multitudes of falshoodes shall we thinke may be found in all the huge [Page 6] and vast Volumes, which he and other Iesuits haue publi­shed, concerning all other questions of Controuersie, if that any ingenuous Cumel might be permitted to ransack all their Allegations?

11. Although this one so singular an Instance, being de­prehended by such an Accuser in so many and so notorious falsities, doth sufficiently encounter Mr. PARSONS his demaund, who offered to be contented but with one example of any one, who hath committed but three such inexcusable defaults: yet lest that Master PARSONS his modesty may giue him leaue, & his wit power to answere me according to the Greeke Prouerbe, [...] which is, to turne an vnitie into a Cypher, and to make account that one one­ly example is as good as none at all; therefore haue I thought it further more requisite to single out Duo magna lumina, that is, the two great lights of that Church, Cardinall Bellarmine, and Cardinall Baronius, and to shew the wonderfull Eclipses and spots of falshood, which their owne Doctors haue discer­ned in these two.

The partie accused is Cardinall BELLARMINE, In behalfe of whomMaster PARSONS hath challen­ged me in this Reckoning, viz.

IF you haue seene how little able Mr. Morton hath beene to per­forme Reekon. cap. 3. 5. 6. pag. 149. 150 his promise before, for wilfull falsities committed by any of our Writers hitherto; much more shall you see now, when leauing the multitude of other Authors, he singleth out Cardinall Bellarmine alone to deale withall: who as he hath written much, so were it not maruell if in so many Bookes, he should haue left some things, where­upon his Aduersaries might probably wrangle. But as for wilfull vn­truthes, it is so farre from his knowen and confessed integritie, as Mr. Morton could neuer haue made choice of an vnfitter match for this point. Nor can it be thought that he chose him, vpon hope to find any such aduantage in him indeed, but onely to honour himselfe, by con­tending with such an Aduersarie, and to cast some clouds, at least in the minds of the simple sort, vpon the shining beames of Cardinall Bellarmines estimation, by obiecting the name of wilfull falsities vnto him. But as when the said clouds are driuen away from the ayre, the force of the Sunne is more sensibly felt: So Cardi, Bellarmines workes, [Page 7] being cleared here from Mr. Mortons calumniations, will be more high­ly esteemed by euery iudicious Reader, as not lending any least true aduantage vnto any impugnation of the Aduersary. And this is all the hurt that he is like to receiue by this Assault.

SECT. III.

The Reuiewe.

12. I Shall desire Mr. Parsons to forbeare a while the exami­nation of the exceptions, which I haue taken against Cardinall Bellarmine, vntill we come to discusse that point; when it wil appeare how feeble a Boreas Mr. Parsons is in dis­pelling of clouds: and for the present to haue so much pati­ence, as to vnderstand, what & how foggie a mist of insinceri­tie, some Authors of their owne profession haue spied in the writings of this their Bellarmine, whom Mr. Parsons prefer­reth for sinceritie before all others of his side.

His three Accusers.

13. The first Accuser is Desensio Iohan­nis Marsi'y in fauorem [...] 8. proposi­tiones contmen­tis, [...] scripsit illustrissi­mus & [...] Bellarminus. [...] 1606. Ioh. Marsilius, who begin­neth his defence against Bellarmine, with prayer vnto God, and to the blessed Virgine; who mentioneth Bellarmine. with all reuerend respect, by the appellation of Most illustrious Lord; who is authorized in this his aunswere vnder the pub­like approbation of the State of Venice. The second is [...] P. [...] An. 1606. P. Paulus, as select a Writer as Marsilius, and equally approo­ued. The third is Guil. Barclaius, who yeeldeth vnto Bellar­mine this dignifying Title of [...] aius de [...] Pape Ad Clemen­tem 8. Pontif. cap 37. Most famous Cardinall and most learned Diuine, in that booke which he Dedicated to Pope Clement 8. The exceptions that they take against Bellarmine, are concerning one onely Controuetsie of his: which is the defence of the Papall power, in censuring of Temporail States.

Their Accusations.

14. For his abuse of the testmonies of Schoolemen hee is [Page 8] thus noted. [...] desens. pag. 280. He erreth ( saith Marsilius speaking of Bellar­mine) in expounding Thomas contrary to his meaning, whose Catholick Doctrine, in all matters of Diuinitie, I doe professe. Pag. 285. He erreth in saying that the Author ( whom Bellarmine im­pugneth) held that Christ was constrained by necessitie to pay Notable falsi­fications of Bellar. confes­sed. tribute, but the Author affirmeth the contrary, to wit, that Christ as the Sonne of God, was not bound to pay tribute, yet did it for auoyding of scandall. Pag. 297. He erreth in denying that Sotus did maruell at the Canonist, (viz. For saying that the Pope is the Lord of the whole world, directly in temporall things.) For Sotus doth expresly name certaine Lawyers, or Canonists, and calleth their opinion in this point commentitious, or fabulous, complaining and maruelling that Syluester departed from the iudgement of Thomas: yea and the same wordes of Sotus were read in the first Bookes of the Lo. Cardinall himselfe ( viz. Bel­larmine) which if he will not acknowledge, it skilleth not, for we finde in his ( viz. Bellarmines) bookes sixe hundred alterations. Pag. 322. He erreth in saying that Nauarre writ, that [The Popes au­thoritie was not meerely temporall,] as though he had confessed the Popes authoritie to be temporall, and accessorily spirituall; but Nauar neuer writ this, but held plainely the contrary. pag. 324. Hee saith indeed that the Papall power may use naturall thinges, which are instituted by Christ, for supernatur all ends, such as are water in Baptisme, and money for Almes: but doth he euer speake of I emporall power? he neuer so much as dreamed hereof. Ibid. But it is no rare thing (as we haue seene) for his illustrious Lordship, ( meaning Bellarmine) to cite Authors for an opinion, whereas they affirme the plaine contrary. Pag. 361. He erreth in saying absolute­ly, that Sotus and Couarruvias affirmed that which they spake with condition, viz. Ordinariè. P. Paulus Apo­log. pag. 569. He Bellerminus planè contra­num Gersoni tribuit, &c. abuseth the testimonie of Gerson (saith the second Accuser) noting that to haue bene spo­ken against the due reuerence vnto the Pope, whereas contrarily he spake in fauour of the Pope.

15. Let vs passe ouer their Schoole, and come vnto the testimonies of Fathers and Councels; wherunto the first Ac­cuser ( Marsilius) proceedeth, saying of Bellarmine, that Marsil. defens. pag. 222. He erreth in affirming that Chrysostome (expounding that [Page 9] place of Paul, Rom. 13. Let euery soule be subiect vnto the higher powers) speaketh of power in generall ( as though hee did as well imply spirituall power, as temporall (according as Bellarmine himselfe doth interpret the text) whereas S. Chrysostome speak­eth plainely of Princes and Magistrates. And because he ( name­ly Bellarmine) bringeth no reason for his Answere, it will not be amisse to demonstrate his errour by reasons: for that which the Apostle calleth [ higher power] Chrysostome interpreteth to be Princes and Magistrates, who make politique lawes, and who sustaine the burthen of the Common-wealth, vnto whom the A­postle commaundeth men to pay tribute; and, which doth preoc­cupate all meanes of euasion, Chrysostome sheweth that obedience vnto these powers is commaunded vnto Monkes or Priests, yea although he were eyther Apostle, Prophet, or Euangelist. Pag. 288. Hee erreth in cyting falsly the place of S. Hierome, who saith the plain contrary: Pag. 289. It grieueth me to see things imputed vnto holy Fa­thers, the contrary whereof they affirme: Jbid. And hee offendeth also in cyting the place of S. Augustine. Pag. 346. Hee erreth in alleag­ing the Councell of Colen, for that Councell determined nothing thereof, but according to the Glosse, &c. Finally, P. Paulus A­pol. pag. 602. See, good Rea­der ( saith their P. Paulus) the cunning of this Author ( name­ly Bellarmine) saying that the fift Romane Councell vnder Pope Symmachus, did allow, as her owne Decree, that sentence of Eu­nodius [Aliorum hominum causas, &c.] whereas that sentence shall not be any where found to haue beene specially approued, or so much as named in that Councell. And Ib. pag. 606. Hee hath added of himselfe ( speaking of a Decree of a Councell of Laterane, vn­der Pope Alexander the third) these wordes, [Quòd nullus sit in terris Papâ Superior,] That is, Because there is none in earth Superiour vnto the Pope.

16. Because a third witness is requisite, for the better e­stablishment of any Accusation, we may admit the testimony of Barclaius in this cause: who albeit he commends Bellar­mine, for his saithfulnesse, in respect of the dealings of others, yet Barcla. de potesta. Papae. c. 37. It cannot be denied (saith he) but that Bellarmine, by follo­wing Sanders and others rashly, hath not a little erred in three points of his defence of the Popes temporall authority: and there­upon [Page 10] could not But maruell (as he himselfe saith) that men, who are for their Learning so famous, doe so negligently set downe their iudgements in writing, as though they had not read the Au­thours which they commend, or had not understood them at all, or else had [...] their meaning: which fault is frequent in this age. And among other errours of Bellarmine, he Ib. cap. 32. obserueth him to follow Gratian in a singular corrupti­on, to wit; whereas an auncient Conc. Agathen. Anno 506. can. 32. Councell decreed Can. 32. [ Ne Clericus quemquam praesumat apud secularem Iudicem, Episcopo non permittente, pulsare] Gratian contrariwise deliue­reth it thus: Clericum msllus praesumat pulsare, &c.

17. These few faults are more then enough, to haue beene discouered by their owne Authours, out of one Controuer­sie of their Cardinall Bellarmine. As for other notes of his contradictions, whereof he is conuinceable, See hereas­ter, cap. 8. I remit them vnto their proper place. In the interim seeing that Card. Bellarm. (who, in Mr. Parsons his estimate; is the most Syncere Author of all other Romanists) hath beene thus deepely charged by their owne Doctors of so much insincerity, our Reader may conceiue thereby how little confidence any may yeeld vnto their other lesse confiderate or conscionable Doctors.

I proceede, and (because the fellowshippe which Card. Bellarmine had with Card. Baronius, will not permit them to be diuided) I adde

An Accusation made by the foresaid Marsilius, against their Cardinall BARONIVS.

18. Cardinall Bellarmine aduanceth Cardinal Baronius in this manner: Marsil. quo su­pra, pag. 357. That most worthy and learned Baronius ( saith he) doth demonstrate by most cleare euidences, that there was neuer such [...] graunted vnto Emperours, for the electing of the Pope. Ibid. But I haue answered ( saith Marsilius) that Ba­ronius hath no authority in the Question of Immunities: I haue heard, that as he hath taken a liberty to mend the Fathers, Canons and Historians, so he will correct the Councels after his [...] and for his owne purpose; and to assume vnto himselfe [Page 11] a license hereunto, which God forbid! Certain it is, he shall not be able to mend the text of S. Paul, of Chrysostome, of Thomas, of S. Augustine, and others: so that we neede not to regard the no­uelties of his illustrious Lordship. Againe he saith that Ibid. pag. 300. The an­sweres of Card. Baronius are not unlike ( meaning, vnto the an­sweres of Card. Bellarmine) who whilst he cannot finde an obie­cted argument, able to be assoyled by History, he saith that these wordes haue beene inserted into the bookes. In breefe, Ib. pag. 354. I will say no more ( saith he) of Card. Baronius, but that he is an Histo­rian yet Liuing, whose workes are suspected, where he intreateth of the Immunity ( namely, of the Clergie,) who, when he wanteth o­ther support, doth dislike all Historiographers; and when he ad­mitteth any, he singleth out the wordes which make for him, but those which make against him, he saith, were inserted by others, as it here happened in the story of Luitprandus, whose booke hath beene the space of 700. yeares approued in the Church: but hee reiecteth the authority both of this, and of other Writers of his time. Seeing therefore that his Annals ( or Chronicles) haue not that estimation in the world, as he supposed; and that there is a booke which will come forth shortly, intituled, The Errors of Baronius, wherein there are discouered more then twenty seue­rall errours, which he hath committed in denying this one most auncient Historie, concerning Pope Iohn ( to wit, Iohn 12. whom the godly Emperour Otho deposed) I shall not neede to say more of his authority.

19. Neyther shall I neede to adde any more to this which hath beene said, because our Reckoner Mast. Parsons knoweth (although we should not reckon by the strict rules of propor­tion, but by the remisse principles of probability onely) that if twenty errours may bee found in the compasse of three sheetes of paper, set forth by Baronius, then may we presume that many hundreth vntruths do lie lurking within his whole Annals, which containe twelue huge volumes, which, in all probability, may bewray some apparances of vniust dealings.

SECT. IIII.

The loose dealing of their Iesuit Boucher, by the accusati­on of Barclaius their owne Romish Doctor.

20. WHereas M. Barc'a. cont. Monarchom. 1. 5. [...] 6. pag. 360. Boucher obiecteth the testimony of Bodine, to proue that It is lawful for a priuate man to kill a lawfull King, if he shall tyramize ouer his subiects, M. Barclay aunswereth, saying, The Authour in the Bodm. 1. 2. de Repub. cap. 5. same Chap­ter doth plainely contradict you, and the wordes themselues doe openly pronounce, that you haue belyed his iudgement. And af­ter that he made the matter manifest, by alleaging the Author at large, he shutteth vp the point, saying, What a mischiefe meaneth this manner of handling Authours? and so procee­deth on to vrge him to confesse eyther his wilfull falshood, or else his rashnesse, in giuing credite to other mens Notes. In the next place he chargeth Boucher for alleaging the Barcla. 1. 6. c. 20. pag. 490. Suppo­sititious and bastardly Tracts, which are falsly fathered vpon Tho. Aquinas, to wit, the bookes de Regimine Principis, which although they be vulgarly receiued as his yet are they fraught with such dotages and fooleries, as if they were written to mooue laughter, as L. 1. de feud. Tit. 1. Cuiacius hath said. Finally (not to diue any deeper into this puddle-water of falsities) Barclay is offended with Boucher, for bringing in the sentence of Barcla. 1. 6. c. 24. pag. 510. Sarisburiensis laymed and corrupted, which ( saith Barclay) you must say you haue deliuered from the relation of others, or else you must needs loose your credite by the crime of forgery.

21. And now may our Reader iudge, whether M. Parsons haue not (as I once said) lauishly hazarded the credite of the chiefe Pillars of the Romish Church, vpon a Triple falsitie, as it were vpon a Trey-trippe, euen by the confessions of their owne Doctors. Something will be expected to be said con­cerning Gratian.

SECT. V.

The Falshoods which are confessed to swarme in Gratian, the auncient compiler of the Decrees of Popes, Fathers and Councels.

22. AFterwards the zeale, which Mr. Parsons hath, for the defence of the Romish Authors, transported him to iustifie their Gratian also, especially in one point, wher­in notwithstanding his guilt Sec hereaftes ca. 5. §. 3. &c. will appeare to bee most transparant. But now in generall their owne Ant. Augustin' Archiepiscopus Tarraconens. de emend. Gratiani. lib. 1. Dialog. 1. pag. 5. Paris. 1607. Antonius Au­gustinus, an Arch-bishop in Spaine, hath lately written a booke professedly for the purging of Gratian, whose faults he saith are Ità multa, &c. So many that they cannot be declared in one day: many false inscriptions of Authors; ascribing many words vnto Gregorie, Ambrose, and Augustine: which are no where to be found, or not in them; producing also true Authors, but yet so, as oftentimes bringing in contrary sentences.

23. Afterwards he proceedeth to vnfold many particular grosse, and dangerous vntruths of Gratian, the Compiler of the Decrees of Councels, and Popes, and of the Testimonies of Fathers; a worke which for diuers hundred yeeres was ad­mitted for the publike directorie of the Doctors of the Ro­mish Church.

24. Heere, heere had beene a large field of falsities, for Mr. Parsons his pen to galloppe in, and to play his Rhetoricall curuets, if that his Holy itch, (as hee calleth such his desire to be meddling with Protestants) had not mooued him, rather to calumniate the manisest truthes of his Aduersaries, then to acknowledge the Falsifications committed by the Principall Authors of his owne side. If peraduenture these confessed corruptions in these their particular, but yet publike and fa­mous Bookes, seeme not to our Reader sufficient to prooue Mr. Parsons his Distinctiue Note to be notoriously calumni­ous, wee haue further to acquaint him with that which fol­loweth.

SECT. VI.

A generall practise of fraud in the Romish Church accor­ding as it is confessed by their owne Doctors.

25. THe generall practise of deceit, which now com­meth into our viewe, is of two kinds: the first is their professed abuse of Authors, as is manifest, both by cor­rupting of their Books, & also by peruerting their meanings. For euidence whereof we haue, concerning the former, the confession of their forenamed Marsilius. Defens. Marsil. Cont. Bellar. pag. 331. A daungerous Art of corrup­ting of Au­thors. It is a matter known vnto all ( saith he) that those things which were written in the be­halfe of Lay Magistrates, haue beene, and still are razed out of the Councels, Canons, and Bookes of other Doctors, yea out of the very Breuiaries and Missals: insomuch as it may bee feared, lest that in processe of time, that vnlimited power of the Pope in tem­porall affaires will be established. So that hee that will compare the Bookes that were written in the yeere 1530. or 1550. with the writings, at this day, whether they write of Councels, or of o­ther things be shall easily finde where the Vintage is: So that it is a maruell, that after this haruest, we found any clusters of grapes, for the defence of our prince Wherby in tract of time it will come to passe, that none will giue credit vnto any writings, and that the Church of God will be ouerthrowen. Which I speake ( saith he) vpon this occasion, which is offered by the Lord Cardinall, as al­so wishing very earnestly, that bookes bee not depraued: which I say with all humilitie, and reuerence. Marsilius pursueth him further, saying, Ibid. pag. 338. It need not be maruelled why we cannot alledge many for this opinion, he sheweth two reasons: the first is, Be­cause this question is but new: the second, because if any write freely, he is forthwith compelled to retract himself, as it hapned to the Lord Cardinall ( Bellarmine) himself; or else such things are blotted out of their bookes; or else threats are cast out: insomuch that Sotus could say vpon the conclusion of this matter, It be­commeth a seruant to thinke much, and say litle.

26. Can there be any greater fraudulencie then this, or in [Page 15] this fraude, a more pernicious tyranny, against either the li­uing, or the dead, then thus to tye, as it were, cords vnto their tongues, and compelling them to speake contrary to their meaning, so farre sometimes, as to chaunge Index Belgieus per Iunium. pag. 17. visible into In­uisible? Besides they doe further so professe to deale with Index Belg. a­pud Pappum. pag. 12. Auncient Authors, as either to suffer many errors (so they call the opinions, when they are obiected against them in di­spute) or to extenuate them, or to excuse them, or else by some newe deuised comment to denie them.

27. The second kind of deceitfulnesse hath beene, belike, sensible ynough at Rome, seeing that their owne learned Doctor Espensaeus was forced to complaine thereof. Cl. Espencaeus Tract. 6. Epist. dedic. ad card. castil. When Pope Paulus 4. (saith he) did seriously affirme that hee intended to choose me into the order of Cardinals, I doe religiously sweare, that as often as I thought vpon the report of obteining the red Hat freely (which others hunted after for money, who were repul­sed) I giue immortall thanks vnto God that he suffered not, I will not say, so much good, but so much euill to happen vnto me: Quid facerem Romae? mentirinescio. What should I doe at Rome? I cannot lie. Now if Rome, which will seeme to bee the Metropolis of all sanctitie, become the Exchange of lying, we may suspect that Mr. Parsons, after his so long residence in that place, may happily haue receiued some taint. This wee may trie by the confession of his owne Romish Authors, after that we haue first heard what he will say for himselfe.

SECT. VII.

Mr. PARSONS his protestation of his own Integritie.

Master PARSONS Reckoning.

As for falsities, they may proceede of diuers causes, and in diuers Reckon. pag. 215. degrees, and with sundry circumstances of more or lesse fault, so that there may be a falsitie without a falshood, where of my mea­ning is not in this place: but whosoeuer shall be found in a wilfull and witting falsitie, or rather falshood, that is knowen to be such by the vt­terer, I doe thinke it to abhorre so much from the nature it selfe of an [Page 16] honest and ciuill man, as of what Religion so euer he be, he will not commit it once, much lesse thrice. As for my selfe, I stand confident, Idem pag. 214. that he will neuer be able to bring any such fraud against me, much lesse thrice three.

The Reueiwe.

28. Mr. Parsons hath truely expressed the Character of an honest man, to wit, that he doth alwayes abhorre all wilfull fals­hood, and he will needs Canonize himselfe, and be registred in the Calender of honest men. But words are but as letters, and deedes as seales: so that if Mr. Parsons protestation bee contradicted by his conuersation, then his writings (where­of we are to speake in the Chapters following) may be presu­med to bee no truer then his other actions. And if in his morall behauiour he be a true man, then their twentie and eight Seminarie Priests were blacke Saints, who in their Declaratio [...] & turba­tionum, quae inter Iesuitas & Sa­cerdotes in An­glia ortae sunt. Ad Clemen­tem. 8, Pontifi­cem exhibita à Sacerdotibꝰ. Appeale made vnto Pope Clement the eight, against the fa­ctions of the Iesuits, speaking of Master Parsons, note, Pag. 23. Patrem Robertum praecipuum, &c. that is, Father Robert Parsons the chiefe Author of these factions: And for a man, Pag. 40. Dissembling to forewarne our Messengers (say they) whom we sent vnto your Holinesse, that they might escape the hands of them that layde watch to catch them, when notwithstanding he was the princi­pall plotter to haue them intrapped; and who, in taking their Ex­amination, appointed a Iesuite to write downe their Aunsweres, but so, as altering their words at his pleasure.

29. This, and much more to this effect, was deliuered to the Pope against Mr. Parsons, by a grand Inquest of their owne Priests, in their ioynt Appeale vnto him, with whom they account it a damnable sinne to lie or equiuocate. The summe wherof one of their Priests in his Quodlibets hath ex­pressed, saying of Mr. Parsons, that Quodlib p. 236 He is the abstract and quintessence of all coggeries, and forgeries, &c. Quodlib. ibid. This is that worthy excellent, that lies, dissembles, and equiuocates at euery word. Notwithstanding I desire the good, Reader, that these imputations which are cast vpon him by his owne brother­hood, may not any whit preiudice his integritie, but rather to [Page 17] suspect them to be lies, except that they may bee reasonably verified by the Reueiw of his Reckoning.

30. Hitherto wec haue heard the censure of their owne Doctors, branding Authors of their owne order with the blacke marke of often falsifying; and also displaying the ge­nerall practise of their Church, in corrupting of Authors sen­tences, contrary to their meaning. So that this Introduction may serue for a reduction of Mr. Parsons into a more Sober Reckoning, who doth pronounce his brethren to be free from that Maladie of falsifying; not so much in confidence (as it may seeme) of their fidelitie, as for the better palliating of his owne guilt, whilest he would be thought religiously, and honestly to detest that vice, which throughout the Reueiw of this Reckoning I shall orderly detect.

CHAP. II. Consisting of two Inquiries.

SECT. I.

The first.

1. WHether Mr. Parsons hath not greatly ob­scured and abused a place of Scripture, which serueth for an infallible conuiction of the Iewish infidelitie, and for the proofe of Christ his resurrection, by defending the probabilitie of that aunswere, which the Mat. 27. Souldiers gaue, ‘when they sayd, [ Whilest we were asleepe, his Disciples came and stole him away.] Which answere Preamb. pag. 3. 4. &c. Iludged to be fond and senselesse, and am therefore called by him vnto a new Reckoning. This is a matter of some moment, therefore I [Page 18] neither may, nor will refuse a triall herein. I obiected Saint Augustine, &c.’ The summe of his answere followeth.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

I Aunswere, that S. Augustine argued well against the Souldiers by a Reckon. cap. 1. §. 1 pag. 7. & 8. Dilemnta, that if they were asleepe, they could not tell by any cer­taintie that Christ his Disciples stole him away, and therefore they did fondly to testifie the same for certaine and true. But Saint Augu­stine saith not, as you say, that the deuise was against common sense, for then it would not haue beene beleeued so generally, for so many yeeres after, as euen in the time when S. Matthew writ his Gospell: nor could the Priests, Doctors, and principall Iewes of the Synagogue, which had not onely common sense, but worldly wisedome also, either haue deuised this shift, or haue giuen money to haue it published; or would they haue suffered the same to haue beene proposed to the Go­ueinour Pilate, for contenting him, who being a Romane, and a wise worldly man, would neuer haue harkened vnto it: or admitted the same, if the proposition had bene against common sense. — I grant that the Souldiers could not know it for certaine, that the Disciples had stolne him away, but by probabilitie onely; which probabilitie not­withstanding, was very great, for that his enemies would not haue ad­uentured to haue done it with so great a danger. Ergo, it is likely that they were Friends, Followers, Schollers, and Disciples. — I grant that the Priests and Souldiers lied therein, but yet I hold that this lie, was not senselesse, nor against common sense.

The Reueiwe, by a threefold Conuiction: the first is from Authoritie.

2. Saint Aug. Tom. 10. Hom. 36. Augustine, by a Dilemma, brought the Souldi­ers vnto one of these extremities, viz. either to say that Christ is risen, and consequently to confesse that they were not a sleepe; or else (if they would needs be thought to haue been a sleepe) to graunt that they aunswered they knew not what: which were, we know, very senselesse. Saint [...] in Mat. 28. Hom. 91. col. 714. Tom. 2. Chrysostome sheweth that the infatuation of the Iewes heerein was great, who, concerning this aunswere of the Souldiers [ Hee was stolne.] (Which Mr. Parsons calleth Greatly probable) saith that it was falsum, & minime probabile, that is, false, and no [Page 19] way probable. The same Father calleth the Priests, who were the diuisers of that aunswere, Impudent and audacious fel­lowes; whom Mr. Parsons would haue esteemed to haue been wise and politique. Yea, and I ansenius, their owne Iansen. Con­cord. Euang. in eum locum. Bishop, saith that the speech of the Souldiers was Valdè absurdus &c. that is, Very absurd: notwithstanding, that it was beleeued of most of the Iewes, the speech being divulged among them, (as Saint Matthew noteth of his time) euen vnto this day: His rea­son is, because They, by their owne malice, were deliuered vp in­to a reprobate sense. Shewing that the Euangelist Matthew, did record the generall beliefe, which the Iewes gaue vnto the Souldiers aunswere, as a speciall Argument of their infa­tuation and senselesnesse; which Mr. Parsons hath vrged to prooue that they aunswered, not without wisedome and po­licie.

The second Conuincement.

3. If wee first consider the persons, who sayd that they were a sleepe, Saint Matthew in the former Chapter, doth tell vs, that after the buriall of Christ, the chiefe Priests and Pha­rises came vnto Pilate, saying, Mat. 27. vers. 62. &c. Wee remember that this Se­ducer, whilest he was aliue, sayd that after three dayes, I will rise againe; Therefore they desire Pilate to commaund that the Sepulcher should be kept vntill the third day, lest perhaps (say they) his Disciples come and steale him away, and tell the people, that he is risen, and so the last error shall bee worse then the first. Pilate said, you haue a Guard, goe guard it as you know, and they departing made the Sepulcher sure with the watch, and sealed the stone. Here we see that the Priests and Pharisees, who ac­cused Christ; the Souldiers also, who apprehended and cruci­fied him, doe all conspire together to haue a diligent watch kept at Christ his Sepulcher, and that but for three dayes, lest his Disciples should come and steale him out of the graue, and consequently, the people might be thereby (as they thought) more strongly and dangerously Seduced: yet now, after all their zeale, care, and prouidence, lest his Disciples should come [Page 20] and steale him away: they date report that His Disciples came and stole him away; could this report seeme probable?

4. Secondly, if we could probably suppose that they were asleepe, yet we know that the aunswere implied two things: the first is a negatiue proposition, viz. He is not risen: the se­cond is an affirmatiue, viz. His Disciples came and stole him a­way. If any in regard of the negatiue part, had demaunded of them, saying, how know you that he is not risen? and heard them answer, saying, We know that hee did not rise, because We were asleepe; could he iudge this Aunswere to bee sen­sible?

5. Thirdly, if we consider the affirmatiue part, His Disci­ples him away, any might haue easily replied, saying, What his Disciples? They were the men, who for feare ranne away from him, when they should haue saued him from death, would they hazard themselues, for the stealing away his body after that he was dead? Improbable. And adde hereunto the reason taken from the wisedome of those worldlings, it will make their Aunswere incredible, because (as their Iansenius hath noted from Scripture) these beleeuers of the Souldiers were now deliuered vp into blindenesse; so that whilst they would seeme wise, they were found fooles. As for example: The Souldiers said they were asleep, & perswa­ded men, that Christ is not risen; the Disciples of Christa while after professed, that they saw Christ, and preached that he is ri­sen; yet these Scribes, Pharisees, Pilate and others (whom M. Parsons hath renouned with the title of wise, & politique men) did rather beleeue Souldiers Sleeping, then the Apostles See­ing. And is not this also senselesse? Let me adde the Colle­ction of their owne Iesuite Salmeron: Salmeron Jes. Tom. 11. in eum locum Matth. Who can beleeue (saith he) that all the men appointed for the watch had beenc asleepe? Or how could they discerne that the Apostles tooke away his bo­die, seeing that they were all asleepe? By these interrogatories implying that the answere was senselesse.

The third Conuincement of Mr. PARSONS, from his owne Contradiction.

6. We haue heard Mast. Parsons arguing, that The Priests, Doctors, and principall Iewes of the Synagogue were worldly-wise men, and inferring hereupon, that therefore they may not be thought to haue deuised any fond or Senselesse Answer: notwithstanding the same Mast. Parsons saith, that They did fondly to testifie the same to be certainely true. Which is all one, as if he had said with one breath, it was not possible P. R. [...] himselfe, for these wise men to doe senselesly and fondly, who notwith­standing did fondly and senselesly: Could he iustly call this a Sober Reckoning, wherein at the first assay he hath so fondly thwarted himselfe?

7. Shall we summe vp this first part of the Reckoning? When we compare Reasons, there are three obiected against his one, which also is such an one, as is contrary to the pur­pose of the Euangelist: Secondly, when we number authori­ties, three are produced against none: Thirdly, when we ex­amine Mast. Parsons his own words, concerning the wisedome and fondnes of the Iewish Priests, we finde his confession to vndermine his former consequence.

8. These three Obseruations will easily prooue, that if according vnto M. Parsons his poesie of his Reckoning, taken out of Dan. 5. 27. ( viz. You are weighed in the ballance, and are found to want weight) we be both ballanced; he will be found to be at least three drammes too light, euen in this first point of our Reckoning, and in the most cases following to haue little weight at all.

9. The next Preamb. p. 5. point of this Reckoning concerneth M. Par­sons his falshood, in not acknowledging the Clause of Reserua­tion to haue beene set downe in Latine: which, for auoyding of tedious repetition, I See hereafter reserue vnto a more proper place.

SECT. II.

The second Inquiry.

10. COncerning a Syllogisme, for the which M. Parsons Preamb pag. 7 &c. hath beene charged with ‘intollerable arrogance and ignorance;’ and now he commeth to reckon for this, but so miserably, that the Reader will pitty his perplexity, both in charging me, and in discharging himselfe. First of the summe of his charge.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning, by charging his Aduersary.

P. R. (saith T. M.) called that a Syllogisme which I named in a more ge­nerall Reckon. pag. 22. & 23. terme a Reason, and not a Syllogisme: now there be many formes of Reasons, besides Syllogismes, neyther did I indeed in­tend to make an exact and formall Syllogisme, but only such an argu­ment, which by due inference and deduction might prooue my Con­clusion good. So he. And is not this a strange euasion in him that professeth such skill in Logike? for that the art of Logike, to my know­ledge, admitteth but foure kinds of reasoning, to wit, Syllogismes, Enthy­memes, Inductions, and Examples: but this of Mr. Mortons can be none of the latter three sorts (as himselfe, I suppose, will confesse) Ergo, it must be the first, which is a Syllogisme, and consequently it is a meere shift Ibid. pag. 24. to say here, when he is taken tripping, that he called it not a Syllogisme but a Reason: — For there are three distinct propositions, and the first is called the Maior.

The Reuiewe.

11. Although there be but foure generall and ordinary heads of arguing, yet ought you to haue remembred that Lo­gicians doe acknowledge a kinde of Reasoning, which they cal a Prosyllogisme, hauing the premises consisting of superflu­ous termes, which notwithstanding may serue to make new Inferences, and is neyther right Syllogisme, Enthymeme, Indu­ction, or Example, albeit all Schollers do hold it to be a toller­able manner of arguing, and yet admitteth a Maior.

12. As for my confused maner of reasoning, it should ne­uer haue beene called into question, if that I had eyther inten­ded to make a perfect Syllogisme, or thought to haue mette with so captious and sriuolous an Aduersarie; who talketh of often Blushing, whereof himselfe may haue a necessary vse in his next Answere following, which he maketh in defence of his owne Syllogisme, wherein he thought to expresse his best skill. I will be but briefe in the examination of his Trifles.

13. Master Parsons vndertooke to make vp a Mitig. pa. 475. ‘ True forme of a Syllogisme, and a good forme of reasoning, according to the rules of Logique:’ yet after his great trauell he brought forth such a mishapen creature, as he is ashamed of, as wee shall prooue. But first how will he answere to his absurdities? The summe followeth.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

IT is sufficient that they ( namely the wordes, Competency of God) be Reckon. pag. 28. necessarily and vertually included and vnderstood by the Hearer. And for the wordes, Expresly or implicatiuely, they were necessarily vnderstood in the Maior proposition.

The Reuiew.

14. You dare not (Mr. Parsons) answere your owne So­phisters thus, for they would readily replie, saying, Sir, you vn­dertooke to make a Syllogisme according to the rules of Lo­gique: [...] Aristotle, that Oracle of Reasoning, and all Logici­ans Mr. Parsons his pitifull pouer­ty in Logique. define Syllogizing to be a forme of arguing, [...], &c. which [...] of the partes, which are expresly set downe. So that he that will say, that it is a perfect forme of a Syllogisme, wherein any thing belonging thereunto is but vertually vnderstood, may as well proue that the picture of a mans face, which hath neither eyes nor nose, and say that it wanteth neither eyes nor nose, because any may suppose, that they should be on the face.

15. But the most capitall fault remaineth, which is the changing of the verbe [ Maketh] competent Iudges (which is [Page 24] the Maior proposition) into [ Are] competent Iudges, in the con­clusion. I expected that Mr. Parsons should shape vs some pecce of an answere to this. Obserue (good Reader) what he saith, and thereby thou mayst discerne, what a cunning Reckoner I am matched withall.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning for another errour.

LAstly then, his third and finall quarrell against this reformed Syl­logisme, Reckon. pag. 29. is proposed by him thus: Thirdly (saith he) there should be but one Minus Extremum, which is, [Sweare by God;] to which he hath adioyned another, to wit, [expresly or implicatiuely, &c.]

The Reuiew.

16. Lastly and thirdly, M. Parsons? then you will perswade your Reader that this (concerning the wordes, Expresly, &c.) was the Last quarrell, as you call it, against your Syllogisme. This is as egregious a fraude, as he could easily haue com­mitted, for in the Preamble, after that I had noted his Three errours, I added a fourth expresly thus: Preamb. p. 10. Mr. Parsons his notorious vn­truth which any English Reader may perceiue. ‘The fourth ( said I) is in the verbe & copula [Maketh] which is altered in the Con­clusion into [Are;] then the which there cannot be a greater absurdity in Syllogismes.’ This was (we see) the deepest charge and the most vgly deformity in his Syllogisme, which I ex­pressed to the full, and made it palpable by the like example of changing the verbe [ Maketh] into [ Are] thus: Preamb. ibid. ‘ Euerie man, in framing his owne will and Testament [ maketh] his owne Executor: but P. R. frameth his last will and Testament, Ergo P. R. [ is] his owne executor.’ And now Mr. Parsons doth nimbly skippe ouer the fourth and principall part of my challenge. I will not vpon this ad­uantage prosecute him with his owne tearmes of Witting fraude, cousenage and grosse lying: I am glad to perceiue in this his dessembling, that he hath so much grace as to be ashamed of his ignorance. I tooke vpon me to reforme Mr. Parsons his Syllogisme by one more perfect, which hee would gladly re­proue. The summe of his answere followeth.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

IF his owne new Rule may take place, that euery distinct clause must Reckon. pag. 31. be held for a distinct Terminus, it will not onely haue two, but foure or fiue termini at least, and so will the Reader finde by looking one­ly vpon it. And I would prosecute the matter more at large, but I see we haue spent too much time about these trifles.

The Reuiew.

17. Is this all the Reckoning which you can make, to call a matter in question, & to put vs off only with Ifs and Ands, M. Parsons free disposition to carp at that he cannot correct viz. If you would prosecute it at large, &c. Heretofore, where­soeuer you thought there was a cause of some reprehension of a Syllogisme, you could take the paines to reade a Lecture, instructing your Reader in the knowledge of the partes and termes of a Syllogisme, setting before him a scurrill example fraught with ridiculous scofferie: yet now, after you haue bin more then ordinarily prouoked, to proue your Syllogisme legi­timate, or else to admit of mine for your better instruction, you reserue the disquistion hereofvnto your Reader. I say no more but that you are wise.

18. And so it might haue become you to haue beene, in not reprehending my Reprehension of your subdiuision, which stood Prcam. pa. 11 thus: ‘Alying Equiuocation, is that which is knowne to bee such vnto the speaker, and this is to be subdiuided, for it is Either a material lie, which is when the thing spoken is a lie in it selfe, but not so vnderstood of the speaker. Or, A formall lie, when the speaker doth know it to be fals’ Here M. Parsons exacteth that I should haue said Reckon. p. 37. A materiall lying Equiuocation,A formall lying Equiuocation; and the omission hereof he termeth craft: but hee will finde out his owne folly (I doubt not) after that he hath more so­berly considered, that these words, Alying Equiuocation, be­ing His irregular taxation. subdiuided into these members, [Page 26] Materiall, Formall; the Reckon. p. 35. To equiuocate falsly and for­mally is the worst kinde of lying Equiuo­cation. Here lying E­quiuocation, is the Genus of his Formall, and Mentall. Genus, viz. [A lying Equiuocation,] doth necessarily inferre the members, and betoken the Ma­teriall lying Equiuocation, as for Example: Euery man is eyther Sober, or Distempered. Will any say that it is a craftie Diuision, because it was not ex­pressed thus, Euery man is eyther aSober man, or a Distempered man? I pray you (good Master Parsons) giue mee not such Recko­nings, which, when they come to be scanned, must make me be indebted vnto you for correcting of your ignorance, euen in Triuiall points and in plaine Dunstable high-way.

The foure next charges.

19. The foure next points, wherein M. Reckon. pa. 41. &c. Parsons hath beene charged with falshood, as first concerning the allegati­on of the text of Esay; secondly the testimony of Carerius, a­bout Verè and Verò; thirdly, the testimony of Dolman, alias Parsons, about the admitting of a King; fourthly, the testimo­ny of Otto Frisingensis, about Pope Gregory the seuenth, alias Hildebrand, are by him repeated afterwards in their more proper places, whether we also See hereaf­ter, cap. 10. referre them, that we may a­uoyde superfluous repetitions, and finde and examine all mat­ters at their owne proper homes.

CHAP. III. About the Question of Rebellion; especially concerning the Title of M. Parsons booke of Mitigation.

SECT. I.

The Preface of M. PARSONS.

HE bringeth in a scornefull fixion, in stead of sound argu­ments, Reckon. c. 2. p. 76 by feigning a ridiculous conference or Colloquie in a Stage-play betweene the Mitigator and Moderator: wherein he himselfe may seeme to play the Vice, &c.

The Reuìew.

1. In that Colloquie was set downe not my fixion, but, that I may so speake, the faction of M. Parsons and his fel­low: for both M. Parsons did pream. p. 30. commend the Moderate An­swerer for his learned Answer; and the same Moderate Answerer did condemne all others, as insufficient, who be­ing without the Kingdome of Great Britaine, should (as M. Parsons doth) attempt to write of these our English cases: by implication, censuring M. Parsons to be no better then the Dauus in the olde Comedie, that is, a busie and trou­blesome body. Such an one as their owne Priest hath expres­sed M. Parsons to be, calling him a Quodlib. p. 21 & 120. Great Polypragmon: So that he shall not neede to seeke abroad for a Vice. Well it were if he plaid that part in iest, and not in earnest, that so he might proue onely ridiculous, and not obnoxious also, as we shall presently demonstrate.

The third Inquirie.

2. Whether Mr. Parsons did not betray his cause, euen by the title of his Mitigation? saying, Pream. p. 34. ‘ It is not possible for his [Page 28] Romish Clients to liue in obedience and subiection vnder his Maiestie of Great Britaine.’ This I iudged to be a Title maruelously preiudiciall vnto them, in whose behalfe hee published his Mitigation. Let vs see how soberly M. Par­sons will discharge himselfe.

Master PARSONS his Reckoning.

THis Inference is a meere cauilling of a seditious spirit, for that Recko. pag. 79. my writing aunswereth directly vnto the purport of his seditious Booke, saying, that it was impossible for Catholicke subiects to liue quietly in his Maiesties Kingdome: My aunswere being then con­tradictorie to Mr. Mortons assertion, conteining so much as was need­full to haue bene said vnto his negatiue; he saying that it was impossi­ble, and I aunswering that it was not impossible.

A Reueiwe.

3. Soberly & quietly, good M. Parsons, & so shall you beter remember that which I told you Pream. pa. 35. before in the preamble, and w ch you haue forgottē: to wit, that howsoeuer this an­swer (if it were true) might confront your Aduersary T. M. a­gainst whom you writ (who said that It is impossible forthem, whom you haue inspired, to performe due subiection) yet could it not satisfie the States of our land, to whom you writ, Mr. Parsens in Straits. who seeke in a dutifull Allegeance, not a constrained, but a voluntarie; nor a suspicious, but a religious possibilitie of sub­iection, which alwayes (according to the Oath of Allege­ance) inferreth an impossibilitie of being rebellious: nor can they be contented with your may, but with a must be subiect, as then I told you out of the Apostles doctrine, commaunding Rom. 13. Euery soule to submit it selfe vnto the powers that be: explai­ned by Saint Augustine: The Apostle saying (saith he) that [It is necessarie that we be subiect,] lest that any might not performe this in loue, but as of cōstraint, he addeth Not for feare of wrath, but for conscience sake,] that is, not dissemblingly, but dutiful­ly in good conscience, in loue of him (that is God) who comman­deth subiection: as in another place he commandeth seruants to [Page 29] obey their iniurious Masters, but not with eye-seruice, as onely pleasing men, but as pleasing God. If this kinde of subiection was challenged of Christians vnder Paganish Kings and hea­thenish Masters, how could you but giue cause of iealousie vnto our kingdome by that your Title, which will promise no more but that [ It is not impossible to liue in subiection?] In the end, for want of better demonstration of your good in­tention in that Title, you run to a similitude.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

ALthough this [It is not Impossible] doe containe but in genera­litie, Reck. pag. 79. 80. yet doth it suppose all necessarie conditions, that are to be required for performance: As for example, If a Noble woman should resolue to depart from her husband; saying, it is impossible for me and you to liue together, the difference of our natures and condi­tions being considered, and that her husband should answere againe, It is not impossible: doth he not aunswere sufficiently and to the pur pose? For he vnderstandeth the other circumstances included, If you beare your selfe like a wife, haue respect to both our honours, and the like.

The Reuciwe, manifesting the absurditie of Master PARSONS his Similitude.

4. Whereas the question is, how a subiect should mani­fest the trueth of his loyaltie vnto his King, Mr. Parsons gi­ueth vs a Similitude, how an Husband, who is the Lord, shall make faith of his behauiour vnto his wife, who is the subiect. This is an absurd elusion rather then an illustration, changing the case, by altering the Sex: For an husband hath a libertie to make his equall conditions, and the terme of possibilitie may become him: but it is otherwise with a wife, who stan­deth in the obligation of subiection to her husband.

5. ‘I propounded vnto Mr. Parsons a contrary similitude, to wit, Preamb. p. 35. If a wife, to mitigate her husbands ielousie, occasioned by her loose behauiour, should seeke to satissie him by saying, be cōtented good husband, it is not impossible for me to become an honest woman hereafter:’ whether her husband wold take this [Page 30] for a iust Mitigation. This any one may know to be an agreea­ble and proportionable Similitude, which Mr. Parsons hath not aunswered vnto; but concealed, that he might more li­berally (which by his leaue, is a peece of fine craft) call my as­sertion vaine and impertinent: as followeth.

Mr. PARSONOS Reckoning.

VAine therefore is the cauillation of Mr. Morton, saying, that there Reckon. ibid. is nothing else prooued but a possioilitie.

The Reueiwe.

6. These words, It is not impossible, by true equipollency, doe they signifie any more but, It is possible? and so è contra. As for example, he that should commend Mr. Parsons saying, It is not impossible for him to write moderately, saith no more, according to the rule of equipollency, but, It is possible for him to write moderately. I wish, that Mr. Parsons, had looked better to his booke of Modals, before that he had made me this rawe Reckoning. We now come to

SECT. II.

The first Argument of the Impossibility of due subiection.

The charge against Mr. PARSONS

7. ‘ HE said that Mitiga. p. 24. n. 22. and Preamb. pag. 37. Christ together with the commission in spirituall affaires, gaue vnto Peters successors a charge and ouersight of temporalities in like manner, with au­thoritie to proceede against temporall Gouernours, for defence and preseruation of his spirituall charge; whether directly, as commonly Canonists teach, or indirectly, as Diuines hold, there is no difference, but in the manner of speech: for in the thing it selfe, both parties doe agree.’ Heere is an aduancing of a power in temporall affaires ouer a King, which I thought [Page 31] could no more possibly consist with the Ciuill Oath of Alle­geance in our land, whereby all forraine Iurisdiction in such cases is excluded, then can temporall Supremacie, and no Su­premacie.

Mr. PARSONS Reckoning, for his discharge.

WHereto I aunswere, that in beliefe and Doctrine they can­not Reckon. pag. 81. be reconciled, but in ciuill life and conuersation and practise of due temporall obedience, they may be no lesse (for any thing touching this point) then if they were al of one Religi­on, if such Make-bates as these would cease to set Sedition.

The Reueiwe.

8. I haue written nothing for mouing, but for remouing of Sedition, which the Title of your Mitigation did but one­ly palliate and cloake, as now in your aunswere you further bewray. They may agree, (say you) although not in Doctrine, yet in conuersation. If I shall replie and say, that you will not agree with vs in the Doctrine concerning Ciuill Conuersati­on, Ergo, you will not agree with vs in Ciuill Conuersation: can you possibly shape me any sensible aunswere? For seeing it is your doctrine to excommunicate and roote out all Pro­testants as Heretickes, whensoeuer there is an opportunitie to proccede against them by armes or otherwise: Shall any looke for Grapes of Thornes, or Figges of Thistles? Can any expect a Ciuill practise from such vnciuill and brutish positi­ons and doctrines?

SECT. III.

The second Reason of Impossibility and charge against Master Parsons.

9. IT was demaunded, how farre it pleased Mr. Parsons to extend the Papall power in temporall affaires, against [Page 32] such as doe contradict his spirituall Iurisdiction? ‘ He [...] p. 83. out of Mitig. pag. 77. tolde vs that Two Protestant Prmces were excommunicated consu­red, and molested by the Sea Apostolike, Q. Elizabeth of Eng­land, and K. Henrie then of Nauarre, now of France: the first of these two for the violent chaunge of Religion which she made in the Realme, with depriuations and imprisouments of Catholicke Bishops, Prelates, and Clergie, &c. The other, for feare he, comming to the Crowne of France in that disposition, wherein hee then was presumed to bee, should attempt the like chaunge in that great kingdome, &c. These examples (said I) are both plaine and pregnant. A Protestant Queene must be depriued for resisting the spirituall Iurisdiction of the Pope, and a Protestant King must bee also deposed, least peraduenture he may make any resistance. Now, we see, that the same Papall authoritie is by the lawes of Greate Britaine as expressely excluded; their Religion suppressed, their Clergie exiled, and Protestants Religion (according to former proceedings) continued. All which doth ar­gue as great an Impossibilitie of dutifull Subiection, as it is for Hinderance and Sufferance; Chaunge, and Continuance of the same Religion, to be matched and married together. Thus then, and now I am ready to take his Reckoning.’

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

His two next reasons of Impossibilitie are so obscurely and intri­cately set Reckon. pag. 82. set downe, as if he vnderstand them himselfe, it is much, in my opinion: for as for me, I see not, I confesse, what infe­rence can be made out of them, though I haue purused them ouer with much attention, more then twice; and the same, I suppose, the common Reader will say, when he hath in like manner considered of them: for they concerne onely the Excommunication of Q. Elizabeth, and of king Henrie the fourth of France, which censure was promulgated by two seuerall Popes of this our age, and consequently the doctrine is dan­gerous (saith he.) But I haue shewed now, that more then three times so many Protestant Princes were tolerated by other Popes. How then doe these examples inferre so generall a necessitie of disobedience in all Catholicke subiects: yea and an impossibilitie of the contrary, that they can be obedient.

The Reuiewe.

10. When he hath the matter so fully and plainely layde before his eyes, and is challenged to make an aunswere, hee telleth vs that he cannot see. Is this a Sober, and not rather a sorie Reckoning? Notwithstanding it was (I must needs say) M. Parsons wisely fainetls himselfe igno­rant. a point of wisedome in him, neither to see this himselfe, nor to let it be seene of others, according to that of the Co­median, Non sapis, si sapis; that is, A wise man must some­time not see that which he seeth. In which Art, our Ad­uersaries are not altogether vnexperienced, for their owne Marsilius noteth this to haue beene practised by Cardinall Bellarmine, Who, according to his fashion (saith Marsil. Defens. cap 8. §. errat. 7. pag. 380. Dissembledig­norance. Marsilius) faigneth himselfe to bee ignorant of the force of an argument, which he cannot aunswere. Wherein they play with men, as the Philosopher, of whom we read, when hearing of a riddle, which he could not vnfold, and being vrged by one that said, [...] that is, Loose this Difficulty, loose it; Answered say­ing, Soft a while, Sir, for were it not great madnesse in me, if I should seeke to loose that, which whilest it is bound doth so greatly vexe and torment me?

11. Thus it fareth with Mr. Parsons: for the reason of this Impossibilitie was taken not onely from the Excommunicati­on of Princes: but from the Preamb. p. 38. Deposing of them, and so the Reader might haue easily discerned, if Mr. Parsons, to inure his penne to deceitfulnesse, had not craftily concealed that point. This deposing of Kings from their Kingdomes inferred, as I then sayd, as much an Impossibilitie as King, and no King. And this consequence diuers Romish Doctors Seehereafter. will readily confesse to be most true.

12. When furthermore we demaund of Mr. Parsons (seeing they teach an eradicatiō of Princes, who will stand excōmuni­cate) how it cōmeth to passe thatsome Protestant Princes haue not bin molested? He, by way of preoccupation, telleth vs that Mr. Parsons al­loweth of safe­tie of Pote­stant Kings only by a To­leration. such Protestant Princes were tolerated-by other Popes. Are not now al Protestāt Princes much beholden to Mr. Parsons who alloweth thētheir Crowns only vpon the Popes Toleration? He thought that I was somewhat Obscure in my former reason, [Page 34] but I suppose that his Clients will iudge that hee hath beene too plaine in this aunswere, in saying, that Protestant Prin­ces haue beene but tolerated by other Popes: to wit, onely so long (as others haue professed) vntill they haue power to resist: who seeth not this aunswere to bee intolerably treaherous, allowing no better Toleration of such Kings, then kings often­times doe in tolerating of Rebels, which is Tolerare dones possint tollere. So that, in very deed, the aunswere which Mr. Parsons offereth, for confutation of the obiected Impossibility of due subiection, doth more strongly confirme it.

SECT. IIII.

The third Argument of Impossibilitie. The charge against Mr. PARSONS.

13. ‘THis was Preamb. p. 38. taken from the practicall Bull of Pius Quintus, in Anathematizing our late Queene, in depriuing her of all Regall dignitie, in absoluing her subiects from their Allegeance; and from Mr. Parsons too tender a touch of that desperate Powder-treason, calling it a Teme­rarious fact, &c. For both which he is to Recken.’

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

I See not what inference can be made. Reckon. pag. 82.

The Reueiw.

14. If Mr. Parsons see not, that by dissoluing of the Oath of Allegeance, there is excluded all possibilitie of due subiection, Dissembled ignorance. the fault is to be imputed rather to his will, then to his wit. The Prouerbe is, that Blear'd eyes will not see the sunne: And who seeth not that this concealement is guilefull? which kind of aunswering may bee called Quiet indeede, but no Reckoning at all.

The fourth reason of Impossibilitie: and charge against Master PARSONS.

15. Whereas, by their Doctrine, it is in the Popes plea­sure, to award his censure of Eradication of Protestant Kings, and of their faithfull subiects: it seemed to mee to imply an Impossibilitie of their dutifull subiection. ‘He aunswered that Mitig. p. 95. [...] 8 There is nothing in this but a May, which being de futuris contingentibus, all remaineth in vncertaintie:’ which aun­swere I iudged to be prodigious.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

IDoe not denie, nor euer did, that due prouidence and prouision Reckon. pag. 85. ought to bee helde of future contingents, but my saying is, that it must haue due limits, lest it become hurtfull, to wit, vaine and vex­ing Iealousie.

The Reueiwe.

16. It is no rare thing in Mr. Parsons to say and gainsay, according as hee findeth the season to fit. Before he made no more of the dangers, which may insue vpon the Popes malice against Protestants, but as a man would doe of his dreame, which he neuer considereth, before it be past. For now that May shall bee something: but when they speake of sub­iection to Protestant Kings, his May is but a meteor, as wee shall see.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

I Say moreouer that euery May, is not a Must. Reckon. pag. 85.

The Reueiwe.

17. I beleeue you, for this your position [ Romanists may possibly bee obedient subiects,] doth not by your doctrine inferre necessarily that they must be obedient, as by ordinarie experience hath beene too truely seene: but yet your may for the eradicating and rooting out of your opposites [Page 36] doth, by your doctrine, necessarily inferre a must, as often as you may finde power to performe it, ‘as hath beene prooued from the Preamb. p. 41. doctrine of your Card. Bellarmine, saying, that such Protestant Kings must not be suffered to raigne: From your Doctor Sanders, saying, They must be rooted out: From your Doctor Bouchier, saying that This must be done by all meanes possible: and from the Bull of Pope Vrban, practi­sing the same, and saying, Not onely Lutheran Kings, but also all their fauourers must be destroyed.’

18. All these were in that Reason expresly vrged, the Au­thours cyted, and now M. Parsons hath fraudulently concea­led, Mr. Parsons most strange fraude. as though this his Answere ( viz. May be, doth not inferre a Must) had not beene so much as thought on before. Here, if euer, it concerned M. Parsons to satisfie; but he dealeth like a close, subtle Merchant, who is loath to acknowledge his debt which he cannot possibly discharge: Is this good Reckoning? Is it not an argument both of a desperate cause, and of a guil­tie conscience? Notwithstanding, in the end, as though hee had cleared the whole Reckoning, and that nothing could be obiected against him, he addeth two other pleasant, but yet prodigious conceits.

The summe of Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

TRuely in this point I see not, what probabilities may be in rea­son, Reckon. p. 87. to perswade his Maiestie that his Catholique subiects would not liue quietly and confidently vnder him, if they might be vsed as Subiects, and haue that Princely and Fatherly protection from him, which both lawes doe allow to free-borne subiects, and they may hope and expect from his benignity, where no personall or actual delict shal haue made them vnworthy thereof.

The Reuiew.

19. If your Catholickes ( M. Parsons) may be vsed as Sub­iects? Let me entreate you for some few minutes of time, to take vpon you the face of an ingenuous man, and tel vs whe­ther you thinke them to be vsed as Subiects, or no? It is like­ly you are of the same minde you were, when you said that [Page 37] The letter of a Catholique touching the Oath of Allea­geance. p. 42. His Maiesties milde and sweete respect towards Catholikes at his first entrance, was soone by arte of their enemies auerted, long before the Conspiracie fell out, for that not onely all the most cruell Statutes and penall lawes made by Q. Elizabeth were re­nued and confirmed before this, with addition of others, tending to no lesse rigour and acerbity, but also the exaction of the same was put in practise with great seuerity: Nor were mens goods and persons onely afflicted, but the liues also of sundry taken a­way for cause of Religion, before this Powder-Treason fell out. Pag. 43. But to proceed a little further in the narration of some points of heauie persecution, which ensued soone after his Maiesties being in England, much before the Powder-treason was attemp­ted. So you goe on, reckoning vs your Pressures, which you call P. 43. 44 46. Violence intollerable; New angariation; yea an huge Sea of Molestations and Exagitations. ‘ One word more. What, I pray you, do you thinke of the Powder-men, who liued at li­bertie in great ryote? Mitig. pag. 50 They were halfe a score young Gen­tlemen, put in despaire by apprehension of publique persecution, without demerit of the persecuted.’ Well then, it is plaine that youacknowledg no Probability of quiet Subiection in your Ca­tholiques, to wards his Maiestie, further then that they are v­sed M. Parsons be­tray eth him­selfe in the point of Alle­geance. as Subiects: but (say you) they are vexed with intollerable violence, new angariations, and persecutions, without their deme­rit. You neede say no more, your Reader will easily vnder­stand your conclusion, which giueth vs a fare-wel vnto all vo­luntary subiection. Thus we haue vnmasked M. Parsons, that we might see his bare face.

20. I willingly omit, as friuolous, his next descant vpon a Rec kon. pa. 87 Red-rose. and a White: for albeit there is Now no difference of Titles betweene the Red-rose, and the White; yet is there oddes betweene loyall subiection, and treasonable Positions and practises, which end in blood as redde as any Rose.

SICT. V.

An Addition vnto the former Impossibilities.

21. ‘VNto the former Argument I pream p. 42. added,as an assi­stant, your professed Couert of Mentall Reser­uation,’ vsed by you in your examinations for a cloake of much perfidiousnesse, which worketh an Impossibility of dis­couery, and consequently addeth vnto the former Impossibi­lities.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning, concerning the priuiledge of Priests and their exemptions.

THat we may equiuocate before incompetent Iudges, and that Reckon. pag. 89. the Lay-Iudges in England are incompetent to examine Priests, may be as well vsed for an argument to proue, that Lay-men and Priests cannot liue together in Spaine and Italy, and other Catholike countries, for that there also Lay-men are incompetent Iudges in Clergie-mens causes, and so are Clergy-men themselues, if they haue no lawfull Iurisdiction, or proceede not lawfully.

The Reuiew.

22 Thus you answere only for iustification of your Priests, we see by this the notable prerogatiue of a Romish Priest, to wit, whensoeuer he commeth to be examined before a Lay­Magistrate, AEquiuocating a Priestly prerogatiue. he is priuiledged to Equiuocate, because Lay-Ma­gistrates (according to M. Parsons doctrine) are unto them Iudges incompetent.

23. But by what law, M. Parsons, can you pleade such an exemption? by Diume law? some of your side haue so taught, but your more sober Authours dare confute them, as we read in their Marsilius, to wit, Ioh. Marsil. Defens. aduers. Bellar. c. 3. p. 199 & 200. &c Exemption of Priests, [...] The Exemption of Ecclesiasticall persons in temporall and criminall matters, Medina rest. q. 15. a most sound and Catholique Authour saith, is not prescribed in any place of Scripture, and concludeth that it is not by Diuine law; Couarruvias lib. pract. ca. 31. conclus. 2. is of the same opi­nion [Page 39] who is also a solid, and Catholique Authour: Victoria al­so, and Sotus consent thereunto; and so did formerly ( meaning Bellarmine) the L. Cardinall himselfe. So he. It must therefore follow, that all such Exemption proceeded from humane in­dulgence; and may vpon humane necessity be altered againe: neither is that prerogatiue vniuersall: therefore it may bee that M. Parsons, when hee named Spaine and Italy, saw some cause to pretermit Fraunce.

24. Howsoeuer their case may be in other Countries, yet the oddes betweene them and ours is farre different, because the Romanist doe acknowledge a power spiritual in their Bi­shoppes, and account them to be competent Iudges, both to examine, and also (vpon iust cause) to deliuer their Clerkes in­to the handes of secular Magistrates, and so vnto execution, according to the nature of their demerit: but in England they hold both lay and spirituall Gouernours to bee in like cases altogether incompetent; and therefore the Argument of Impossibilitie is more in England then it can bee eyther in Spaine or Italy: yet this was the best shift that Mast. Parsons could make, to confound two cases of England and Spaine. which are no lesse different then England and Spaine.

CHAP. IIII.

A briefe Discourse, concerning Mentall Equiuocation; proouing that M. PARSONS, by one Grant, hath ouer­throwne his defence of Mentall Reseruation.

SECT. I.

1. MAster Parsons, for the iustifying of Mental Equiuocation, hath borrowed, as he calleth it, a Reason from the example of the Mittigation cap. 9. p. 403. Faxe, which creature, when he is in danger of hunters, is taught by the instinct of nature [Page 40] to winde and turne, to trip it backward, and forward, and all to deceiue the Hunters, and to secure himselfe: So (saith hee) may man vse the arte of Mentall Reseruation in some cases.

2. This being M. Parsons his owne example, he may not be offended with me, if I intitle the discussing of this point, The hunting of the Fox, especially knowing that their owne Priest hath made bold to write thus against him: Quodlib. p. 288 If you can procure Charles Pagets booke (saith hee) against Father Parsons, you shall finde the Foxe so vncased, and left so naked of all honesty, wisedome, and iudgement in these points, &c. But first we will prepare our selues to the sport.

Mr. PARSONS, his Reckoning.

SEe what ostentation and vaunt hee vsed at his first entrance, as Reckon. c. 2. §. 11. pag. 91. though he would do great matters indeed; for thus he beginneth: That P. R. hath flatly ouerthrowne his desence of Mentall Equiuocation; which is made so euident, as that no wit of man can possibly excuse him. This, you see, is confidently spoken of himselfe, and his wit: but his Reader will finde as great want of wit and discretion in this bragge, and in the Medium here chosen to ouerthrow my whole Treause, as euer perhaps he found in any man, professing wit and learning.

The Reuiew.

3. I haue seene your Reckoning Master Parsons, wherein with the sweate of your braines, you haue forced your wit to defend a desperate cause with no small confidence. In the which cause, there is more neede of Grace then of Wit, but I am willing to ioyne issue with you, and to stand vnto the try­all of any indifferent Reader. Let vs begin at a beginning.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

‘HE beginneth his Confutation thus: How now would my Reader Reckon. p. 92. heare this noble Equiuocator confuted? By Fathers? or by his owne Doctors? or by sensible Reasons? This will be no hard matter to per­forme, as I hope (God willing) to auouch in due time.’ So he. And this, you see, is no otherwise then if a bare and broken Debtor, hauing beene long called vpon to pay his debts, should step forth at length in a vaunt before a multitude, saying to his Creditor, Come Sir, What sort of gold [Page 41] will you be paid in? Will you haue it in Spanish Pistolets? Portugall Cruzadoes? French Crownes? Zechnies of Venice? Dallers of Ger­manie? or English Angels? And his Creditor shall answere him, Sir, any kind of coyne would content mee, although it were but half-faced groats, or single-pence, so I might haue it. And that then the other shold replie, as M. Morton doth here, Well I hope, God willing, to pay you in time, & so leaue him, with lesse probability of paymēt then euer before. And were this now substantial dealing for satisfaction of his creditors? And doth not Mr. Morton the very like, that asking heere the Reader whether he would haue Fathers, Doctors, or Reasons for proofe against me, produceth neuer a one, but saith, that he hopeth to doe it in time?

The Reueiwe.

4. Take heed, M. Parsons, your Reader will suspect that you will turne a Trapezita and Bancker, for you are so skil­full in coyne, as though you had serued some apprentishippe in the trade: but I feare rather that you will turne a Coyner, yet not of money, but of phantasticall conceits, for which cause you haue beene noted by your owne fellowes for Quodli. p. 236. The ab­stract quintessence of all coynes and coggeries, one point wher­of you haue bewrayed euen in this your ridiculous figment: ‘For after my demand, Pream. p. 43. How my Reader would haue the Equi­uocator confuted? Whether by Doctors, or Fathers, or Rea­sons? I added, that for the present I thought it a more glori­ous Victorie to confute him, (that is, M. Parsons) by his own Assertion.’ Wherein I dealt with M. Parsons, not as with a M. Parsons was iustly dealt withall. Creditor (for alas what credite is there in an AEquiuocator?) but as a man would doe with a cousener, whom although I might haue conuinced by witnesses and sound Arguments, yet I thought it sufficient for the present (especially in a Pre­amble) to confute him, as Christ did the Luc. 19. 22. Seruus nequam, by the wordes of his owne mouth.

5. Notwithstanding M. Parsons (a sober Reckoner for­sooth) hath called this kind of dealing an Reckon p. 93. Arte of Mounte­bankes. But, I hope, he will haue cause to say I deale not vnho­nestly with him, when I pay him with his owne coyne, that is, whilst I confute him with his owne Answeres, albeit they are sometimes (I confesse) more bare then halfe-faced groats.

SECT. II.

The state of the Question.

6. ‘ Pream. p. 43. COncerning the answere of Saphyra in the Act. 5. Acts of the Apostles, who being demaunded by Saint Peter, whether she Sould the land for so much, answered, yea for so much, reseruing in her minde (as it was supposed) To giue in common, or, To tell it vnto you. M. Parsons vpon supposall of this her Reseruation, answered notwithstanding, that she lyed, and that No clause of Reseruation could free her speech from a lie.’ I was right glad to heare our AEqui­uocator confesse thus much, and hereupon haue aduentured to call his doctrine of Mentall Equiuocation the Arte of lying: And so (I hope) I shall proue it to be, before that we haue en­ded this peece of our Reckoning.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

BBut first how doth he proue, that she had this meaning of Reser­uation Recko. pag. 97. in her minde? it is but Mr. Mortons imagination to ascribe it vnto her, for it may more probably be thought, that she had ne­uer any such cogitation, to make her speech lawfull by Reseruation, but absolutely to lie, which is most conforme to the text it selfe of holy Scripture, &c.

The Reuiew.

7. This first obiection M. Parsons himselfe knoweth to be an idle [...] for as much as we were both of vs conten­ted to suppose, that this woman did vse a Mental Reseruation, and also to graunt, that (notwithstanding this her Reseruati­on) her speech was a Lie.

8. The reason why I thought she vsed a Mentall Reserua­tion Euery one that lyeth hath in his minde some crochi­tiue [...] in this clause [ With purpose to tell it vnto you, or such like] is this: because euery one, in suppressing a truth, doth therby purpose not to tell it vnto him, whom he would deceiue, and [Page 43] therefore cannot choose but retaine that clause of Reseruati­on, [ To tell it vnto you, &c.]

9. Howsoeuer, Mast. Parsons could not but vnderstand, that a true argument may be grounded vpon a bare supposi­tion, as when the Apostle said, Gal. 1. 8. If an Angell from heauen shall preach otherwise, then that which we haue preached vnto you, let him be accursed: It would not haue become any to re­pile vpon the Apostle, saying, How doe you imagine that an Angel from heauen can preach false doctrine? because the foun­dation of his exhortation was not an Assertion, that an An­gell from heauen could preach otherwise, but a supposition, that If, or, Although an Angel from heauen should so doe: Wherefore we agreeing in the supposall, to wit, that she vsed a Mentall Reseruation, let vs see whether our next Recko­nings will agree.

Master PARSONS his Reckoning.

BVT not to cut him off so short, and put him to a non-plus on the Reckon. p. 97. 98 sudden, I am content to doe him this pleasure, as to suppose with him that the poore woman might haue some such reseruation in her minde, as M. Morton imagineth, to wit, that as the Priest saith tru­ly, I am no Priest (with obligation to tell it vnto you:) so shee might meane, that I haue solde it for no more (to acquaint you withall) and then I say, albeit we should admit this supposall, it is denied by vs flatly, that these two examples were alike, as now I haue declared.

The Reuiew.

10. I thanke you that you are pleased, not to recall what you haue already graunted: I hope that you will be further­more so good, as to declare more plainely, why, albeit the Priest and the Woman vsed the same kinde of Reseruation, yet the one may be thought to haue spoken a Truth, and the o­ther a Lie?

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

THere was obligation in Saphyra to aunswere the truth, and in the Reck. pag. 98. Hearer lawfull authority to demand it, for that hee was lawfull [Page 44] Iudge: but neither of these two things is in the Priest, that is vnlaw­fully examined by the incompetent Iudge. For that as the said Iudge is no Iudge, and consequently hath no authoritie to demaund matters preiudiciall to the partie examined: so hath the other no obligation to answere directly to his intention or interrogatory. And what hath now Mr. Morton to replie to these so euident and important differences, that make the one aunswere lawfull, the other a lie.

The Reueiwe.

11. Then belike I haue not vnderstood you all this while.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

SVrely it is a pitifull thing to see how hee is puzeled in this matter. Reckon. quo sup. pag. 98. 99. First he beginneth with the person of the woman, that is, the spea­ker, that did vnlawfully Equiuocate vnto Saint Peter comparing her to the person of the Priest, that lawfully saith vnto an incompetent Iudge, I am no Priest, and findeth no greater difference betweene theme: ‘ but first, that she is a woman, and he is a man; and then that it is as possible for a Priest to lie, as for a woman to tell truth.’ But he dissembleth the maine difference now mentioned that shee had obligation to tell the truth without Equiuocation, and he not, which is the substantiall difference indeed. Here then is no plaine dealing to faulter so mani­festly in the most principall point that most imported.

The Reueiwe.

12. Heere is no plaine dealing indeed, and that will my Reader presently vnderstand: for Mr. Parsons doth charge me with Dissembling of the maine difference, to wit, That she had obligation to tell the trueth without Equiuocation, and hee not, this being the very principall point. And yet within the com­passe of a fewe leaues following, in this his Reckoning, hee contrarily confesseth, videlicet. Reckon p 106. Mr. Parsons falshood. He himselfe (to wit T. M.) doth often heere repeat, that I do hold the aunswere of the Priest to be true, and hers to bee false; for that his was made to an in­competent Iudge, and hers to a competent, so as she was bound to aunswere directly vnto Saint Peters meaning. Heere Mr. Par­sons confesseth that I repeated and acknowledged this [...] difference concerning the Bond, wherewith the wo­man [Page 45] was tied, and the Priest was not: nay I did further tell him, that whether the iudge be competent, or not competent, it altereth not the propertie of a lie, because that truth, which (in his opinion) is supplied by Mentall Reseruation, is not sus­pended vpon the vnderstanding of the hearer whatsoeuer he be (who may conceiue or misconceiue of the speech) but vpon the agreement which the outward speech hath with the minde of the speaker. What answere will he make vnto this?

Mr. PARSONS Reckoning.

WHat is this to the purpose? I grant that the truth of my an­swere, Reckon. pa. 100. made vnto a iudge, dependeth not vpon the vnder­standing, conceit, or capacitie of the said iudge, but vpon the meaning of the speaker, which meaning notwithstanding is to be mea­sured by the competencie or incompetencie of the Iudge. For if the Iudge be competent, then is the aunswerer bound to aunswere to his intention, and to haue that meaning in his aunswere, which the Iudge hath in his demaund: but if he be not competent, then all this obliga­tion ceaseth, and the speaker is free to haue what meaning he list in his aunswere (so that in his owne sense it be true.) And this for the reason now touched.

The Reueiwe.

13. I know you are not sparing in repetitions, be so cour­teous as to tell vs one thing more, that we may know whe­ther you vnderstand your selfe, or no, and then we shall pro­ceede.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

ALbeit the simple difference of persons themselues, to whom wee Reckon. pag. 102. & pag. 35. speake, altereth not the truth or faisitie of our speech: yet some respect or relation in those persons ( but especially of being a law­full, or vnlawfull iudge) may and doth alter the same wholy, making the one speech truth, and the other falsitie. And thus much for aunswe­ring the force of Mr. Mortons second argument.

SECT. III.

The Reueiw, confuting the former Paradoxe, and last refuge, which Mr. Parsons hath, viz. The bond which a man hath to tell a truth to one doth alter that, which is otherwise a truth, into a lie.

14. THat which you lay downe as the sole foundation, to condemne the Woman, & free the Priest from lying, is onely the obligation or bond of duetie, which she had to speake directly vnto her lawfull Iudge, whereas contrari­wise he was not bound to deliuer a direct aunswere vnto a Iudge incompetent. So that the Thesis, which you giue vs, is this, viz: The same speech made vnto one, vnto whom I am not bound to speake directly, is true, by vertue of men­tall reseruation; which speech being deliuered vnto an other, vnto whom I am bound to aunswere directly, is a lie, by rea­son, forsooth, of the obligation, which I haue not to deceiue him: which doctrine I thinke to be a new and naughtie Pa­radoxe void of all ground of truth, or light of antiquitie. Now therefore let vs follow our Game.

The first Reason, for the confutation of Mr. Parsons, is ta­ken from the vse of Verball Equiuocation.

15. If such be the vertue of a Bond of duetie vnto a compe­tent Iudge, that it can make that outward speech to be a Lie, which (by reason of Mentall Equiuocation) was a truth, as it was spoken vnto a Iudge incompetent, vnto whom I was not bound to make a direct answere: then must there be the like vertue of the same Bond in Verball Equiuocation, to alter the propertie of the same true speech into a lie, which is impos­sible.

16. As for example. In this outward speech [ I tooke a­way the Popes Bull,] the word Bull is equiuocall, that is, of a double signification, equally betokening the Popes written [Page 47] Bull, which is his publike instrument, vnder his seale of lead; or his natural Bull, which is an horned beast, feeding in his pa­stures about Rauenna. It chaunceth that the Popes written Bull, which was publickely fastened vpon a pillar, for all the people of Rauenna to take notice of; was by some body rent and taken away: much questioning there is, who this partie might be; Sempronius is guiltie to himselfe of this trespasse: he is inquired after, concerning the Bull, by a seruant of his owne house, to whom he is not bound to make a direct aun­swer, saying: Sir, did not you take away the Popes Bull? mea­ning the written one. I took not (quoth he) the Popes Bul, mea­ning, the fourefooted Bull. This later sense is true, and the speech (yea euen in Mr. Parsons his iudgement) is likewise true. Afterward the same Sempronius is demanded the same question by a competent Magistrate, vnto whom hee is bound to aunswere directly, and yet he maketh the same an­swere, I tooke not away the Popes Bull; in the same sense, as before, vnderstanding the horned Bull. And shall not this same sense haue the same truth? Shall it now become a lie? Impossible.

17. For albeit, that the Obligation and Bond of duety, wherewith a man is tied to aunswere vnto the one directly, though not vnto the other, haue a force to alter the speech, which was lawfull, being spoken vnto the incompetent hea­rer (such as was his seruant,) to be vnlawfull, sinnefull, and damnable, when it was spoken to a Magistrate, iustly exa­mining him, because the examinate is bound in conscience, not to delude the Magistrate, who is the Minister and Offici­all of God in that businesse: yet this difference of Competent A necessary distinction of truth. and Incompetent, doth not chaunge a true speech into a lie. For there is a double kind of a true speech, the first is direct, the second indirect, as is plaine in the former Verball Equiuo­cation of the Bull, which being vnderstood of the naturall Bul, is a truth, because that word Bull in that sense agreed with the vnderstanding of the Speaker, but yet an indirect truth, because it accordeth not vnto the intention of the hearer. So that, that which Mr. Parsons calleth the principall difference, [Page 48] consisting in being Bound, or not Bound, is nothing else but the singular fallacie of Mr. Parsons, by confounding of two truths, and by not distinguishing an indirect trueth from a lie.

18. To make this yet more familiar vnto my Reader. A boy in the Schoole, who shot at a Hart, which was in the Parke of a neighbour Knight, is asked thereof by his schoole­fellow, (vnto whom he is not tyed in any bond of duetie, to yeeld a direct aunswere) and he aunswereth, I shot not at the Knights heart, meaning, the heart which was in the Knights bodie: which sense although it be not direct, yet euen in the iudgement of Mr. Parsons, it is true: the same boy is asked the same question of his Schoolemaster, (who hath charge o­uer him to instruct and correct him, and with whom he is bound to vse no collusion) and he aunswereth; I shot not at the Knights Hart, vsing the same indirect sense, [...] before: Afterward the fact is discouered, the Boy is whipped, and that iustly; but why? Not because he spake lesse truely vnto his Schoolemaster then vnto his Schoolefellow, but because he spake not more directly, when he was challenged thereunto by the bond of duetie and obedience.

SECT. IIII.

Another Reason, taken from Master PARSONS his Confession concerning the Clause of Reseruation.

19. ‘MAster Parsons is content to repeat my next Rea­son where I sayd, That Recko. pa. 105. out of Preamb. pag. 47. In mentall Equiuoca­tion P. R. saith, that the Clause of Reseruation mixed with the outward speech, maketh but one proposition, which is as true in the mind of the Speaker, as if it were wholly de­liuered in the outward speech. As for example: I am no Priest, mixed with this clause conceiued in mind, To tell it you, is as true, in the iudgement of P. R. as if it had beene [Page 49] without Reseruation fully expressed with the mouth, say­ing, I am no Priest, to tell it you. Now then, Say P. R. (for I meane to fetter you in your owne shacles) the wo­man whē she said to S. Peter, I haue sold it but for so much, if she had reserued in her mind this clause, To giue it vnto you, either had it beene, by vertue of Reseruation, a truth, or els (notwithstanding that Reseruation) it had been a lie. If the clause of Reseruation might haue made it a truth, then hath not P. R. said truth in concluding, That no clause of Reser­uation could sauc it from a lie. If contrariwise the trick of Re­seruation could not saue it frō a lie, then doth not the reser­ued clause, To tell it you, being mixed with the outward speech, I am no Priest, make vp one true proposition, and consequently it must be concluded of the Priestly Equiuo­cation, as is heere by P. R. confessed of the womans, viz. that no clause of Reseruation can saue her speech from a lie. For if she had said vnto Saint Peter in plaine words, I haue sold it but for so much, to giue it in common, or such like, this euery one knoweth had beene a true speech: yet the saying, I sold it for so much, with mentall Reseruation, re­seruing in her mind. to giue it in common, Or, To tell it vnto you, was, notwithstanding this Reseruation. euen by the iudgement of P. R. a flat lie.’ Thus farre Mr. Parsons in re­peating my argument, which if he haue aunswered sufficient­ly, then shall I conceiue better of his euill cause.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning for his owne discharge.

‘THis is his [...] and greatest argument, whereof, as presently you Reckon. pa. 106. shall heare, he vaunteth exceedingly, conquering me first in his margent, writing there, An [...] conuiction of P. R. and then againe, A plaine demonstration:’ To say nothing of the fetters and sha­cles in the text it selfe. And I haue thought good to lay foorth his whole Discourse, as it lieth together in his booke, that hereby you may see with what manner of substance he filleth vp Paper, and what sort of shacles he hath to fetter men withall, which are as strong as the nets of cobwebs: for that in this place his whole Discourse and argument is founded vpon a manifest false ground and principle, to wit, vpon the meere mistaking, or fond supposition, that the two aunsweres of the [Page 50] Priest and the Woman, viz. I am no Priest, with obligation to tell it vnto you, And, I sold it for no more, with obligation to giue vnto you, are of equall falsitie, which we still denie, and he cannot proue: and yet him­selfe doth often heere repeat, that I do hold the aunswere of the Priest to be true, and hers to be false, for that his was made to an incompe­tent Iudge, and hers to a competent: so as she was bound to haue an­swered directly vnto Saint Peters meaning. Which being so, what nee­ded all this long obscure speech of Mr. Morton, which might haue bene spoken in foure lines: for I grant that the aunsweres of the Priest and the Woman, do make each of them in themselues, being mixt with your Reseruation, a whole perfect proposition, as if they had bene vttered without Reseruation.

The Reueiwe.

20. You are exceeding tedious, M. Parsons, when will you come to the aunswere of the former argument, which was grounded vpon your owne Grants? The first was this: that The clause of Reseruation, mixed with the outward words, doth make a whole perfect proposition or speech, which agreeing with the minde of the Speaker, is as true (said you) as if it were wholly vttered with the mouth. Now the womans supposed Mentall Equiuocation had beene a true speech, if it had beene wholly vttered with the mouth, thus: [ Sir, I sold it but for so much, to deliuer in common, &c.] which, being concealed by a Men­tall Reseruation, Mr. Parsons hath called a Lie. Whereupon I haue inferred (and that necessarily) that the Mixture of the Clause of Reseruation with an Outward speech, doth not of it selfe make the speech true, and consequently their doctrine of Equiuocation, and Mentall Reseruation is not onely a ly­ing Doctrine, but also a Doctrine oflying. By this time we haue him in such straits, that he must either denie his answere of Obligation, or els condemne his former position of Reser­uation: I doubt that Master Parsons will play vs some tricke or other of his foresaid Schoolemaster Raynard the Foxe.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

IT is euident that the womans proposition, that shehad sold her land Reckon. pa. 107. for no more, with Obligation to giue it vnto Saint Peter, or, to be [Page 51] spent in common (this being the true effect and substance of her Aun­swer) was a lie, whether it had beene vttered wholly together in plaine wordes, or part in speech, and part in Mentall Reseruation; and Master Morton doth childishly suppose and affirme, that euery one knoweth, that it had beene a true speech: for albeit the wordes of S. Peter in the text of the Acts of the Apostles be, Tel me woman, if you solde it for so much? Act. 5. and her answere was, yea for so much, yet is it euident by the drift and circumstance of the place, that S. Peters meaning was, whether they sold it for so much, and no more; and therefore if she did equiuocate, as M. Morton will haue her, her secret meaning must needes be, that she solde it for no more, so as she was bound to vtter it, Or, giue it vnto him, Or bring it to the common purse. All which was false and a lye, in respect both of her vow, to bring the whole to the common purse, and for that S. Peter was her lawfull and competent Iudge, and she obliged thereby to tell him the truth.

The Reuiew; reuealing an intollerable tricke of Sophistry, vsed by M. PARSONS, in peruerting the whole State of the Question.

21. Marke now (good Reader) for we now come to vncouch this creature:) It was supposed that the woman said, I solde it but for so much, reseruing in her minde, To giue into the com­mon purse, Or, To tell it vnto you, that is, but for so much, with any purpose to tell vnto you, or, to giue in common: which wordes if they had beene deliuered with the mouth, had (as e­uery one seeth) beene most true. Now Mast. Parsons finding himselfe driuen to an extremity, putteth into her Reseruation M. Parsons piti­full plunge. the word, Bond, or, Obligation, as though she had aunswered thus: I sold it but for so much, with this Reseruation, So as bound to tell it vnto you, Or, With Obligation to giue in com­mon, inserting the word Bound, in her Reseruation, which, be­ing deliuered with the mouth, maketh a false speech: for shee could not say without a lie, that shee was not bound to tell S. Peter what she sould it for. And thus Mr. Parsons hath altred the whole subiect of the Question, falsly supposing a Reserua­tion, which vttered with the mouth is false; and that witting­ly, because he euen in this Reckoning, where he repeateth the State of this question, as it was first laid downe by me, confes­seth [Page 52] , that I spake of Reckon. p. 105. A mentall Reseruation, mixed with the outward speech, which in the iudgement of P. R. is as true in the minde of the speaker, as if it were wholly [...] in the outward speech. But now, by instancing in that proposition, which is in the outward speech, a flat lie. Thus, as we see, M. Parsons hath changed the point in question, which is the most absurd and base kinde of Sophistry that can be vsed.

22. This may appeare by a like example. Two Disputants are met together, the question to bee decided is, Whether it may be lawfull to licence Titius to haue a Concubine (by Concubine vnderstanding a Woman, who is not his married An example. wife.) After much debating of the question, the Answerer is so miserably plunged, as, for his last Refuge, to say, that he onely desended it to be lawfull to licence Titius to enioy a Concu­bine, to whom he, For thus doth Bellarm. vnder­stand the word l. 2. dc Conc. c. 8. S. 11., is married. Would not the hearer abhorre or scorne such Sophistrie as this, whereby the Question about a woman vnmaried, is changed into the Question concerning a married wife?

23. Yet thus dealeth M. Parsons with mee in this present Example: For our question was of a speech, vsed in mentall Reseruation, which being vttered with the mouth, is a true speech, as when a man shall say to a competent Magistrate, I know no such thing, with any purpose to tell it vnto you: This, I say, is a ‘I am no Priest such as I should be, Or such as I de­sire to be, Or the like.’ Mi­tigat. c. 8. num. 55. p. 344. true speech, when it is wholly and fully vttered with the mouth: and of this kinde of speech is our question pro­pounded, as M. Parsons himselfe knew right well; yet now hath he turned it, as if he had said thus, I know no such thing, as bound to tell it unto you, which spoken vnto a lawfull Magi­strate, is certainely a lying speech.

24. If M. Parsons vse to change the question in this man­ner, he may dispute indeede, but like a vaine man, who onely beateth the ayre: And if I should follow him in this course, we might well be represented by that Embleme of one man milking an hee Goate, and another holding vnder a siue, resem­bling A simile. two such Disputers, whereof the one obiecteth nothing to the purpose, and the other aunswereth hee knoweth not what.

[Page 53]25. Although he be now in our handes, yet will we bee content to giue him more play, and trie if hee in another course can shift for himselfe. To this end I will yeeld so farre vnto M. Parsons, as to suppose with him that the Reseruation which the woman made, was such as he hath now pretended, to wit, [ I sold it but for so much] reseruing in her minde as bound to tell it vnto you and also that No clause of reseruation could saue this her speech from a lie: All which being graun­ted, yet doe I now auerre as confidently as before, that this second Position is the ouerthrowe of his whole defence of Mentall Reseruation, as will now appeare.

A third Reason of Confutation by a Dilemma.

26. After that M. Parsons had Reckon. p. 113. confessed such a Reseruation Reckon. p. 113. of the woman, which no clause of a second reseruation can saue from a lie, and thereupon was challenged to graunt, that the manner of a Romish Priests reseruation is likewise a lie, and so the tricke of Mentall Reseruation to bee but a lying de­uise: He had no other refuge in the world, but to forge a manner of Reseruation of his owne, by putting in the worde Bound, as if the woman had answered, I sold it but for so much, conceiuing in her minde, As bound to tell it vnto you. Which speech he calleth a lie, and saith, that no clause of Reseruation can saue it from a lie.

27. Now therefore I am to pose M. Parsons, and if he aun­swere this, I shall not call a Mentall AE quiuocatora lyar. My question is this: If vnto that proposition [ I sold it but for so much, as bound to tell it vnto you, she had added such clauses as these, saying, I solde it but for so much, as bound to tell it vnto you (Saint Peter) meaning, As you are a priuate man: Or, As bound to tell it vnto you, meaning, with any intent to kill you: Or, as bound to tell it vnto you, meaning [ with any desire to steale a mans cloake: and a thousand such like additions to the former clause of Reseruation: My question is, I say, whether euerie one of these additions doe make the supposed speech of the woman true or no? For if the womans speech standing thus, [Page 54] I sold it but for so much, as bound to tell it vnto you (by reseruing further in minde) as you are a priuate man; make not the speech true, then is there not any case of Reseruation, which is not a The miserable straights of Mr. Parsons de­fence. lie, and so farewell all Mentall Reseruation: but if those clauses being added to her speech, doe make the first clause true, then hath Master Parsons deceiued vs, in saying that her speech was such, Which no clause of Reseruation could free from a lie. This being the maine and substantial point, indeede, I craue leaue to conuince M. Parsons by another Argument.

A fourth Reason, which is taken from his owne descrip­tion of Mentall Equiuocation.

28. ‘We will leaue the womans supposed manner of Equi­uocation, and argue from M. Parsons his description of Men­tall Equiuocation. Mitig c. 8. n. 55. p. 344. I say ( saith M. Parsons) that in Mentall Reseruation the speech agreeth with the minde of the Speaker, for that I truely and really meane, that I am no Priest, in the sense which I speake it, which may be what pleaseth me, or that which I lust to frame to my selfe, so as I mean, I am no Priest, such as I should be, or such like.’ Here M. Parsons (speaking in the person of an Equiuocating Priest) doth tell vs, he may make a Mentall Reseruation of any thing that pleaseth him, or what he list to frame in his imagination: so that it doth agree with his minde, which is as liberal a graunt, as I could require.

Now then let M. Parsons thinke with himselfe that some Priest is called in question before the Pope, by whom hee is asked, Whether he kept a Concubine, or no? The Priest al­though he kept a Concubine, yet answereth the Pope, saying [ I haue kept no Concubine] reseruing in his minde [ for the vse An example. of your Holinesse.] I would be so much beholden vnto Master Parsons, as to tell me, whether the Priest lyed in his Answer, or no? And so we shall make a short Reckoning.

29. He hath told vs, that all indirect Reseruation in a law­full question, and before a competent Iudge, is a lie: because of an Obligation and Bond, which the partie hath to answere directly: he hath said also that whensoeuer Mentall Equiuo­cation [Page 55] is true in the mind, it is as true, being vttered with the mouth. Wherefore if hee shall aunswere, that the Priests Mentall Equiuocation was no lie, then is he compellable to forsake his last refuge of Bond and Obligation to a competent Iudge, which he said doth make the speech a lie. But if hee aunswere that the Priests Reseruation in the minde was a lie, which (as is apparant) being fully declared with the mouth, is not a lie, then doth not the mentall Clause of Reser­uation make a true mixt proposition, and consequently his maine ground of Mentall Equiuocation is quite ouer­throwen.

30. Finally the summe of all this is thus much, that if the same speech, which being vttered fully with the mouth, is true; shall (as it is mixed with Reseruation of the mind) bee The desperate­nesse of Mr. Parsons de­fence. iudged a lie: then Mentall Reseruation and the Doctrine thereof is an Art of lying. But if that reseruation make the proposition true, then the Bond of speaking directly to a com­petent iudge, cannot make the speech a lie: And so his last Euasion by an Obligation to tell a truth, is a false and lying As­sertion. So that if he will but looke againe to his legges, he shall finde the Shacles of his owne Confessions to sticke so fast to his heeles, as although he be the most nimble heeled of all his Order, yet hee shall neuer bee able to shake them off. Thus much may serue for this present, concerning Mentall E­quiuocation. We shall adde other conuictions in their due and proper places.

31. In the Interim I am to satisfie for my selfe, because Mr. Reckon. p. 103. Parsons obiecteth against me a contradiction forsooth, for that I called the woman, vnto whom Saint Peter sware, an Examiner incompetent; and yet else-where say that the same Mayd was competent enough, to heare a true Oath. Vpon these two strings of Contradiction (as they may seeme to be) he maketh himselfe Musicke, by a meere cauillation. For al­though Mr. Parsons Cauill. that I had expresly named that Mayd a Competent Iudge or Examiner (as I did not) yet Mr. Parsons knoweth that the same word may be taken properly, and improperly: properly for him, who by office, hath authoritie to exact an [Page 56] Oath, and to censure the person: but improperly, for euery one that hath libertie onely to heare and to vnderstand the truth of an Oath: what can be more familiar? How often doth Mr. Parsons in this Reckoning require his Reader to Iudge indifferently betweene vs? And yet I suppose that hee holdeth not euery Reader of his Booke to be properly a Iudge. This distinction is sufficient to breake his Fiddle, and to hinder his friuolous descant vpon words.

CHAP. V.

Of Falsities obiected vnto some Romanists, and first vnto certaine Popes, alledging a false Canon, for proofe of Appeales vnto Rome.

SECT. I.

1. MAster Parsons, before he came to the matter, had leysure to make a Preface vnto his after Recko­ning, thus.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

HIs hatred howsoeuer it was not against this or that particular Reck. c. 3. p. 117. man, or against their persons, yet was it against their cause, and that in such a bloody sort of Sycophancie, as included all the persons of that Religion: and therefore in fawning vpon two or three in externall words and countenance, either in person, or else­where, whilest in his chamber he sought by writing his spitefull, infa­mous, and virulent, lying Bookes to oppresse them all, and cut their throats, this measure was not good, but may be iustly called a malici­ous measure. And yet was this Master Mortons measure, for so much as no man did euer write so malitiously, to my knowledge, as he; not in so odious argument, and iealous a time.

The Reuiewe.

2. Master Parsons being thus raging in his Quiet and so­ber [Page 57] Reckoning, how would he (shall we thinke) behaue him­selfe in his furious and drunken fits, if he should fall into such distempers? As for my selfe, I can say truly, as in the presence of God, that when I heard the Romish Doctrines crying (in "their generall Allarumes against Protestants) Depose, kill, roote them out, &c. (as I then fully prooued in one para­graphe,) and besides had considered the practized Treasons, Rebellion, Massacres and Inuasions, together with that last Nouem. 5. 1605. Powder-furnace, the inuention of the bottomlesse pit; which all of them, as so many blazing comets, presented themselues vnto me, I could not forbeare but discharge my duety vnto God, and my Countrey, to the Discouery of such mischieuous Positions and Practises, not with purpose to in­cite vnto, but to preuent euen gulfes and floods of Christian blood; which that hatefull doctrine doth destinate vnto Pro­testant States, Wherein I did but onely awake men out of securitie, according to that of the Poet, Vt iugulent homines, Horat. lib. 1. epist. 2. surgunt de nocte Latrones, Vt teipsum serues, non expergisceris? Which being the voice of God in nature, what spirit is that which shall call it a measure malicious?

3. But who is M. Parsons, that hee should thus inueigh a­gainst Virulencie and Maliciousnesse? Looke vpon him (good Reader) as thou maistsee him described by their owne Priest, and then tell me what he differeth from an Edomite. Quodlib. p. 238 & pag. 243. & Important Con­sider. pertotum. What hath he to do (saith a Priest, speaking of M. Parsons) to ballast his pen with gastfulgoars of English blood? or to imbrew a Priest­ly hand in Princes bowels? O monster! &c. And againe, Ibid. pag. 234. Hee became with others (namely An. 88.) the trumpeter of inuasion, Mr. Parsons bloodie dispo­sition. blood, crueltie, and destruction. The same Author proceedeth in decyphering M. Parsons his lineaments, bestowing many pa­ges in setting foorth his bloodie and cruell disposition: yet this is the Sober Reckoner, forsooth, who dare exclaime a­gainst Virulencie and Maliciousnesse, calling else-where my Discouerie of the Romish crueltie a meere Barking. Where­in I am dealt with no otherwise then was a Lawyer in the dayes of Tully by certaine Catilinarian Conspirators, who called him a Barking dogge: but he aunswered, You may not [Page 58] be offended with me, if when I see theeues and murtherers, I cannot chuse but barke.

SECT. 11.

The first Inquirie.

‘4. I Haue Preamb. p. 51. said, that I may not denie euen this my Ad­uersarie his commendation of Modestie, who being ashamed (we may thinke) of the Romish Frauds and Falsifi­cations of former times, will insist onely vpon such mens examples, as haue professedly written of late against Prote­stants. It were to be wished that his fellow Iesuite Coste­rus had kept himselfe within the same precincts: but hee maketh a more generall challenge, thus; Nemo hactenùs vel Princeps, vel Praesul, vel Scriptor fuit, qui mendacy vel malae fidei Romanos arguerit. That is: Neuer yet (saith hee) Did any Prince, or Prelate, or Writer accuse the Romanists of falshood.’ I am heereupon called by Master Parsons to a shrewd Reckoning, the summe whereof is, as followeth.

Master PARSONS his Reckoning, in charging his Aduersarie.

NOw I must demaund of the Reader, what he vnderstandeth Mr. Recko. pag. 121. Morton his purpose to bee in this place? Is it not to shew that Costerus was lesse modest then I, forasmuch as I said, If in any one Catholicke writer of Controuersies in our age, there might bee found but two or three Examples of wilfull lying, I would neuer trust him more. but that Coste­rus went further saying, That no Prince, Prelate, or writer had euer hitherio accused any Romanists of falshood. Is not this Mr. Mortons plaine meaning (thinke you) as both his words and drifts doe shewe? Yes truely. Which being so, I would aske him why he did clip the Latin wordes of Costerus, who saith, But neucrthelesse there was no Catholicke man bitherto, (to wit, the time assigned, when Bishops of Rome were Saints and Martyrs) whether Prince, Bishop, or Writer &c. Which two words, Ne­uertkelesse, and Catholicke man, demonstrate that Costerus spake not of Romane Writers, but of Romane Bishops and Popes.

The Reueiwe, and charge.

5. The words of Coster are, Nemo Catholicus: and by Ro­manos, id est, Romanes, he meant the Romane Popes, yet spake M. Parsons idle cauilling. he it indefinitely Romanos, And Coster in the words following descendeth as lowe as Pope Damasus, who was no Martyr: and the instances, which I gaue against Coster, were onely a­bout Popes, and taken from the Councell of Affricke, which consisted of 203 Bishops, among whom Saint Au­gustine was a principall Actor. All which Catholicke Bi­shops, tooke exception vnto the challenge of three Popes, viz. Sozimus, Boniface, and Celestine, who, vpon the false pre­tence of a Canon, in the name of the Councel of Nice, exacted Appeales vnto Rome: where it is plaine that I instanced in no examples, but onely in Romane Popes. If I had vrged any exception taken by any, but by those whom they will con­fesse to haue bin Catholike Bishops; or against any Romane Writers, sauing onely against Romane Popes, then might hee haue had iust cause to note me of wilfull falshood, both in re­spect of the word Catholicke, and in the word Romanes. But seeing that I haue not committed any such error, what meant Mr. Parsons to be so violent? It may be that I haue offended him, by saying that Coster was lesse modest then he. I craue pardon for this fault, and hereafter I shall iudge otherwise of his immodestie.

SECT. 111.

A second Inquirie, concerning the false Canon sug­gested by those Popes.

NOw he beginneth with three ancient Popes, Zozimus, Reckon p. 125. Boniface, and Celestine, that liued in the time of S. Au­gustine, and were much commended by him for holy men, but are accused by Mr. Morton for falsaries, as though they had forged a Canon of the first Councell of Nice, in fauour of their owne supremacie, to proue thereby the lawfulnesse [Page 60] of Appeals to be made to them, and to their Sea from the Bi­shops of Affrica: which Canon was not found in the ordina­ry Copies then extant of that Councell.

The summe of Mr PARSONS his Reckoning for their owne discharge.

First of all, howsoeuer this matter passed, it appertaineth little or no­thing Reckon. ibid. at all to our purpose, or to the question now in hand of Mo­derne Catholicke Writers, nor doth it prooue wilfull falshood in those three auncient Popes, if they cyted the Canon of one Councell for another of equall authority (as indeed they did:) for that it might be ascribed either to the variety of Copies (when no print was yet extant) or to ouersight, forgetfulnesse, or to some other such defect, rather then to malice and voluntary errour.

The Reuiew.

6. What a pace doe you vse to gallop, when you feare that any danger lieth in your way? For you saw in the Pream. p. 51. Pre­amble how three Popes, Zozimus, Boniface, and Celestine, at the Councell of Carthage in Affricke, did claime a right of Appeales vnto Rome, by vertue of a Canon of the Councell of The Councell of Affrica a­gainst Ap­peales to Rome. Nice, as they pretended. And when all the auncient Copies of that Councell had beene diligently sought, it appeared by the testimony of three Patriarches, viz. of Constantinople, A­lexandria, and Antioch, that Jn quibus &c. That Canon concerning Ap­peales vnto the Bishoppe of Rome (as their Lindane speaketh) could not be found in those Copies: Or, as the Councell it selfe speaketh, Lib. conc. de Actis conc. Car­thag. 6. Istius Concily Affricani seu Carthaginensis ducen­ti tres Episcopi tribus Papis restiterunt, & Canonem Concily in defensionem primatus sui falsum esse deprehenderunt. And a lit­tle after: Concludunt tandem nemini licere ad Romanum Pon­tificem prouocare. That is, Two hundred and three Fathers in the Councell of Carthage resisted the three Popes, and found that the Canon of that Councell, brought for the defence of their Primacy was false. Therefore in the end they conclu­ded, that it should not be lawfull for any of Affrick to appeale vnto the Bishop of Rome.

[Page 61] 7. Where you perceiuing both the authenticall Records of auncient Churches, and the diuers oppositions of so many Bishoppes of that Councell, conuincing the falshood of that obiected Canon, doth this appertaine nothing to the purpose trow you?

The summe of Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning, about the former point, in charging his Aduersarie.

BVT now to the former olde, idle, worme-eaten obiection against Reckon. p. 128. the Pope, for counterfeiting the said Councell of Nice, Although it hath beene oft answered at large by other writers, yet nothing will serue those men, but still they bring it in againe, as though it had neuer beene answered before. Which false dissimulation is heere also vsed by Mr. Morton, who saith not one word of any aunswere that euer hee saw vsed thereunto.

The Reuiew.

8. Would any Sober man euer haue vsed such taxation as this is, to call it a false Dissimulation sometime to propound plaine Histories, without particular notice of the Answeres, which our Aduersaries doe vse to make? Mast. Parsons could M. Parsons dou­ble iniury, one to his aduersa­ry, the other to himselfe. not haue beene more iniurious eyther vnto me, or else (to omit all other his fellowes) vnto himselfe. For first I profes­sed not a full Treatise, but onely a Preamble vnto a Treatise; and else-where Apologia saith part. 2. l. 3. c. 18. And more ex­actly in the Catholicke ap­peale, l. 4. c. 8. &c. I haue particularly set down the Answere of your Authours, together with a large replie thereunto. How then could I deserue this reproach? And (that which excee­dingly argueth vnshamefastnesse in him) the matter which I alleaged out of his owne Authours, was no more then that which both he and others will confesse to be true, to wit, that the Bishoppes of Carthage, did renounce that pretended Ca­non as false.

9. Secondly, Master Parsons in his Three Conuer­sions, Cap. 2. for the proofe of Transubstantiation, &c. did M. P. is confu­ted by himself. cite within the compasse of foure leaues the [...] of some Fathers, as namely of Ambrose, Cyprian, [...] Nissene, Chrysostome, Theodoret, Irenaeus, Augustine, Theophilact, [Page 62] &c. without acknowledgement of the Aunsweres, which Peter Martyr, Zanchius, [...] and others, who are cyted by Bellarm. vp­pon this Argu­ment. Protestants haue made vnto euery particular testimonie. Will he hereupon suffer Mr. Parsons to fall vpon M. Parsons, and to condemne him for a false Dissembler, because hee pre­termitted the Answeres which Protestants haue made? So shamelesse and lucklesse doth this his Accusation prooue. What yet more?

Master PARSONS his Reckoning.

THere were diuers other Canons made in the Councell of Nice, Reckon. pag. 131. &. 130. which are not now extant, and the Canon questioned of, was in the Councell of Sardis, which was an Appendix of the Nicene Councell, which the Popes did mistake: These things haue beene dis­cussed by sixe of our Authours, as Card. Bellarmine, Barenius, &c. whom if Mr. Morton had seene, as I suppose he did, though not perhaps to his contentment, why then, if he meant plainely, as often he protesteth, had he not eyther mentioned them, or else refuted them, or at least wise told his Reader that ther had beene such Answeres, although not sufficient to ouerthrow the Obiection, &c.

The Reuiew.

10. We may reckon vnto the worldes end, if that in euery asseueration (which is obiter, although plainely vsed) all Obie­ctions His peruerse dealing. and Aunswers of all Authours must be necessarily pro­duced. And to exact this in a Preamble, and, as it were, a pre­face vnto a Treatise (which I called an Encounter) is as dispro­portionable, A Simile. as was the little Citie of Myndas, and the great gates thereof, which occasioned the Diog Laert. Philosopher to cry, Shut your Gates (ye Citizens) lest that your Citie runne out.

11. But because he hath laid such heauie loade of false dissimulation vpon me (as though for the terriblenesse of the Answeres, I had beene affraid so much as to mention them) I shal desire him to know, that he could not haue ghessedmore falsly: for I haue already produced his Authours, discussed their Obiections from point to point, Catholicke appeale. l. c. 8. where (if he will bee pleased to looke) he may peraduenture satisfie, or at least as­swage his earnest appetite; wherein the great obiection out of Sanders is likewise answered. I passe on vnto the next Taxatiou.

CHAP. VI.

Of the small credite of their Gratian, and of the far lesse credite of M. Parsons in his defence, by his multipli­cation of fraudes.

SECT. I.

The Charge.
WHat can be said (said
Pream. p. 52.
I) for the defence of Gratian,
Bellar. l. 2. de Rom. Pont. c. 24. §. tertiò.
Who ( as Card. Bellarmine wit­nesseth) citing a Canon of a Councell of Mileuet, wherein it was decreed that none should appeale beyond the Sea, did adde of himselfe this exception Except it be vnto the Apostolicke Sea of Rome; when as that Councell, in forbidding Appeales be­yond the Sea, did especially intend to forbid Appeales to Rome?
Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

WHereunto I answere, that if they be no better then this, they Reckon c. 3. §. 2. pag. 107. are not worth the alleaging, but only to entertaine time, and to shew your fraude in dealing. For first Gratian did liue di­uers hundred yeares agoe; but we talke of Writers of our time, and of such onely is our Question and Controuersie: wherein you finding your selfe barren would now extend your Commission to all Catho­like Writers of all ages past, which is a miserable shift.

The Reueiwe; noting his idle, but yet peeuish opposition.

2. Thou supposest (gentle Reader) by this taxation, that I had cyted Gratian an old Writer in stead of a new; or that I had insisted vpon such reproofes of Gratian, and other olde His crooked af­fection. Writers: ‘But I alleaged Gratian onely, and that onely in that one place, adding withall, that Preamb p. 52. I might alleage many such like falshoods, but the nature of a Preamble (said I) wil not suf­fer me to pursue olde forgeries, and P. R. doth challenge me to [Page 64] instance onely in new Writers.’ Therefore it was but a peece of M. Parsons his hatefull zeale, to conceale my purpose, and then to call this dealing a miserable shift. The second part of his Reckoning is more rigid.

SECT. II.

M. PARSONS his Reckoning, charging his Aduer­sarie with shifting.

SEcondly, there be so many other shifts and trickes, in cyting these Reckon. [...] 127. few wordes, as doe make demonstration that you can cyte nothing in simplicity of truth, without some wilfull corruption, as heere where you say it was decreed (in the Councell of Mileuet) that none should appeale beyond the Sea, you cut off craftily the wordes before cyted of the said Canon, Inferiores Clerici, the inferiour Clergie-men, as though the prohibition had beene for all (aswell Bishoppes, as Inferi­our Clergy-men) which presently we shall shew to be false.

The Reuiew, reuealing the singular fraude, which Master Parsons vseth.

3. I cyted not Gratian, but the obiection of Caluine out of Bellarmine, and his immediate answere thereunto, where the wordes, Inferiores Clerici, are not mentioned: and so, to M. Parsons o­ther falshood. make me a falsifier, M. Parsons hath falsely foysted vpon mee those two wordes of Gratian, Inferiores Clerici. Iudge, good Reader, whether this be a fit man to talke of Simplicity of truth.

4. Againe if the wordes [ Inferiores Clerici] had been cut off, yet could not this necessarily in true sense argue any fraud; as though, where the Inferiour Clerkes were forbid to appeale vnto Rome, it should consequently follow, that the Superiour Bishops were vpon some occasions necessarily to appeale thi­ther, because (as it is in the body of the Councels set forth by Surius) the Bishops of Affricke in their Epistle, writing vnto Celestine Bishop of Rome, and intreating him not to receiue into his communion such as had beene excommunicated by [Page 65] their Church, argued thus: that Conc. Affric. in Ep. ad Caelest. Surius Tom. 1. Conc. pag. 590. col. 2. If this were so decreed con­cerning the Superiour Clerkes, how much more ought it to be ob­serued concerning Bishops: Which consequence is flat contra­ry to this of M. Parsons, who still roaueth and raueth about impertinencies, to draw me from the point in question, which is onely this, whether Gratian did falsly corrupt the Canon of the Councell of Mileuet. And now we desire him to reckon for this.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

THirdly where you say that Gratian did adde of himselfe this ex­ception Reckon. P. 127. to the Canon, you would make your Reader thinke he had added these wordes, as the wordes of the Canon it selfe, which he did not, but as a commentary or Explication of the Canon in a sepa­rate place, and so is now extant, in a distinct letter: and consequently your note in the margen, that Gratian is a falsificator, fals vpon yourself, Bellar. l. 2. de Pont. c. 24. §. 3. which doe falsifie his meaning. For that the most that can be obiected to Gratian in this place, is that which Card. Bellarmine saith, he mistooke the true meaning and intent of that Canon of Mileuet, as though it had beene meant of Bishops, as well as of inferior Clergy-men, which is farre from the proofe of wilfull false meaning, which may bee verie probably obiected vnto M. Morton in this and many other places. For that it cannot be well thought but that he must know that he dealt in­iuriously and calumniously with Gratian in this place.

The Reueiwe.

5. O the wickednesse of this mans malice! Could hee note me of wilfull falshood, yea or of falshood at all in this mat­ter? The wordes of Gratian, (saith M. Parsons) as they are now extant in a distinct Letter, are not added as the wordes of the Canon, but as a Commentary, &c. Is this it? But I am sure these wordes of Gratian here spoken of, in his Decretum, printed An. Dom. 1519. at Paris; and another Edition at Lyons, Per Hugonem de Porta, Anno. 1548. (which two onely I then had by me) are not distinguished in a different letter: which M. Parsons well knew, who therefore opposeth onely their new Editions of Gratian (in saying, so it is now extant) which nei­ther freeth their auncient Editions nor Gratian himselfe from [Page 66] falshood: and yet with an hard face durst M. Parsons im­pute vnto me herein the note of Falshood. And not so onely, M. Parsons fals­hood in impu­ting of fal­shood. but doth furthermore repeate and register this in a peculiar Chapter, among those, which he calleth Reckon. pa. 630 New and fresh lies of M. Morton. How can I expect any conscionable dealing from a man so peruersly malignant?

6. Furthermore I am right sure that the wordes of Bel­larmine are these; See in the place aboue cyted. Gratian added vnto this Canon this excep­tion, viz. [ Except perhaps the Appeale bee made vnto Rome.] Which exception flatly contradicteth the principall purpose of the Canon, which forbad (saith Bellarmme) Appeales be­yond the Seas; which Decree the Affricane Bishops made prin­cipally, because of Rome. Here, (M. Parsons) your Gratian hath neede of your helpe, for he yet lieth vnder an arrest of a notorious falsification.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

THe most that can be obiected vnto Gratian in this place, is, that he Reckon. [...] su­pra. mistooke the true meaning and intent of that Canon of Mileuet.

The Reueiwe.

7. Let it be so, yet so to mistake it, that when that De­cree was principally made to forbid Appeales vnto Rome, he should expound it to forbid Appeales, excepting onely vnto Gratians grosse crrour. Rome. If M. Parsons should chance to finde such a mistaking in any Protestant, O what an hue and crie would he make?

8. Neyther was this the errour of Gratian alone, for Bellarmine (speaking not of your olde, but of your new Ro­mish Writers) saith that [...] Aliqui respondent cum Gratiano, &c. Some there be (saith he) who answere (the obiection of Caluine) together with Gratian, &c. Wherefore you may put downe this in your Reckoning, as a point confessed by Bel­larmine, that Some amongst you haue no other shift, in answe­ring, but so to expound a Canon of a Councell, as if it allow­ed that, which principally, purposely, and plainely it did for­bid: then the which there cannot bee a greater apparance of [...]

[Page 67] 9. Now that the Reckoning is made vp, we may recount the gaines which M. Parsons hath gotten, by his defense of Gratian. First he hath falsly put Gratian vpon mee, in stead of Bellarmine, with an intent to proue me a falsifier. Secondly, to the same end he presenteth a new Edition of Gratian, not­withstanding that he knew that the sentence stood, as I deli­uered Mr. Parsons is thriee guilty of falshood. it, in the auncient Copies of Gratian. Thirdly, after all his plea he would cleare his Clyent Gratian from faithlesnes, in expounding a Canon of a Councell flatly contrary to the purpose of the Councell it selfe. Fourthly, hee findeth now Some other of their new Romanists intangled in the same falshood with Gratian. Fiftly, by labouring to free Gratian from one vntruth, he hath occasioned me to See aboue, c. 1. Sect. 5. reueale the ma­nifold guilt of Gratian in his false inscriptions, false allegations, and false Additions in such abundance, that (as their Arch-bi­shoppe hath confessed) they cannot be declared in a day. And thus Mast. Parsons (I confesse) hath euery way gained in fal­sities.

CHAP. VII.

Of the Contradictions among other Romish Authours, one confuting another: first about the Councell of Eliberis.

SECT. I.

1. ‘THE Question Pream. p. 53. was, whether the Councell of Eliberis did forbid the vse of Images in Churches? Protestants say it did: our ad­uersaries oppose against Protestants other expositions, but yet so, that they, are still ex­treamely Aduersaries among themselues.’

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning, in dischar­ging his Romish Writers.

THe state of the question is to prooue that these Authors lied vo­luntarily: Reckon. cap. 3. §. 3. pag. 135. you accuse them that they haue different exposi­tions vpon the said Canon of the Councell of Eliberis, some vn­derstanding it one way, some another: but how doth this prooue that they erred wilfully? If you proue not this, you proue nothing. And now I would aske you, when diuers auncient Fathers in your commen­taries vpon the holy Scriptures, doe set downe different expositions of hard places, euery one thinking that he goeth nearest to the truth: may you by this condemne them all of wilfull falshood? Are not you ashamed to come forth with these ridiculous proofes?

The Reuiew, aunswering his Obiection.

2. Hardly can any absolutely charge another with wilfull falsitie, because there are so many infirmities in a man (be­sides the corruption of his will) to draw him into error, as ig­norance, negligence, desire of breuitie, besides other their ob­iects in reading, such as are falts in print, obscurities of senten­ces, Independences, and (which is not the least) often trans­scriptions of sentences of Authors out of one written Note­booke into an other, and such like: so that in such cases we are compelled to stand most commonly vpon probabilities.

3. ‘Neither doe I take the exception vnto their diuerse Expositions (to aunswere your friuolous obiection concer­ning the Fathers) but vnto the manner of their Expositions, whereunto some of them were drawen, being (as was Preamb pag. 53. 54. con­fessed) oppressed with the force of their aduersaries obiectiō: one kinde saying that the Synode forbad onely an Image made to represent God, which kind of Images (saith another) were not then in vse. Secondly others aunswere that it was because they seemed to the Heathen to commit Idolatrie: Which (saith an other) agreeth not with the exposition of the Canon. Thirdly, others affirme the cause to haue beene, be­cause they did commit Idolatrie: Which (say others) is not a­greeable. [Page 69] Fourthly they Forbadde (say some) onely Images to be painted on Walles: whereunto others oppose, saying, that This agreeth not with the Canon. Fiftly, Others, as it were, oppressed with the obiection, thought it their best refuge to denie the authoritie of the Councell.’

4. Finally, after that twelue seuerall testimonies had bene alleadged, against which Mr. Parsons (notwithstanding his eagernesse) could catch no shadow of exception, hee in the end fixeth his teeth vpon one, which was the citation of Se­nensis, as saying, Elibertina Synodus omninò vetuit Imaginum cultum, that is; The Synode of Eliberis did absolutely forbid the worship of Images. And this is called by him an Absolute lie, for thus it pleaseth him to worke vpon it.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning, charging his Aduersarie with falshood.

HE maketh the Latin Text of Senensis to speake in like manner, Reckon. p. 139. Omninò vetuit Synodus Elibertina Imaginum cultum: But in him you shall not finde the word, Omninò, absolutly, wherein standeth all the force of the matter. And the fraud cannot seeme but wilfull, nor can it any way stand with the intention of Senensis, who saith and affir­meth onely (according to the interpretation which he best alloweth a­mong many other) that the meaning of the Councell was this, to forbid the vse of Images for a time, least the new conuerted Spaniards not being wellinstructed, seeing Images vpon the walles, should think there were no difference betweene them and the Heathen Idols. For auoiding whereof, it seemed good to the Councell, for a while, to re­mooue the vse of Images, which of it selfe they held for lawfull and pi­ous. This is the opinion of Senensis.

The Reueiwe, satisfying the former exception, both concerning the words and sense.

5. [ The word, Omninò, is not there,] no truely, nor yet the other words in their order, Whereby you might well know, and now conceiue that it was onely an error of tran­scription, which is incident vnto any that writeth, when the [Page 70] same wordes, which were set downe by me in the Romane Character, as a general note of Senēsis his meaning, are by the Transcriber altered into an Italian Character, whereby they seemed to be the very words of the Author himself. If you wil not credite me vpon my word, yet be so charitable as see my Catholiq Ap­peale l. 4. c. 27. §. 2. lit. (m) booke (which was published before I hard of your taxation) where, vpon the same occasion, I haue cited this testimonie of Senensis in the very words as they lie in the Author himselfe. Ratio cur prouinciale Concilium, &c. Vnto which citation there can be no exccption taken at all.

6. We come to the sense. Your Iesuite Vasquez a Spani­ard, speaking of the interpretation which I gaue concerning this Canon, citeth this sentence: Vasques Jes. li. 2. de Adorat. disp. 5. c. 2. n. 120 Seeing that it is forbidden (saith he) by the law of nature to worship Images as God, and the people at that time were prone to Idolatrie, the Fathers of that Councell thoght it a present remedie, if Images were taken from among them, and saith that, Martin of Ayala, and Senensis do imbrace this interpretation. The words of Senensis are, that the Fathers of that Councell, Thought that they could not o­therwise heale the present disease (namely of Idolatrie) then by forbidding Images. Which sheweth that not onely Images representing God, as some answered; as some Images painted upon walles, for feare of contempt by Infidels, as others con­ceiued; nor the forbidding of them to be painted in tables, as some els fancied, but as Senensis saith, There was no other remedie, but to remoue them, that is absolutely not to vse them.

7. Albeit, Images were forbid only for that time, whilest the people of Spaine was prone to Idolatric: yet when are not people naturally so addicted? I would to God you could excuse your owne people, who (to omit auncient times) how prone, nay how much plungèd they haue beene in Ido­latrie, your owne Polydorus de Inuent. rerum. l. 6. cap. 13. prin­ted Ann. 1558. and Cassander Consult. Art. 1. Authors by their complaints haue ac­knowledged: and what their disposition is at this day, the Image at Loretto, and other such like, if they could speake, would relate to your conuiction. It sufficeth, that Images are to be absolutely remooued, whensoeuer there is great daunger of Idolatrie. And vnderstand by the way, you that [Page 71] obiect [ omninò] so sinisterly; See hereafter chap. 12. § 1. your owne plaine and inexcu­sable bodge in putting in [ omnes] vnto the sentence of Cal­nine, flatly contrary to his meaning.

SECT. II.

Their next Contradictions about the Councell of Franc­ford, concerning the worship of Images.

8. DIuers were obiected in the Preamble, which required some reasonable Reckoning, but Mr. Parsons turneth all into a seorne.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

WHat is this to the purpose then, to proue that these Authors Reck. c. 3. § 4 p. 141. did erre wittingly against their conscience? Doe you not see that still the poore man runneth quite from the purpose, and hath nothing to say to the effect he should say?

The Reueiwe.

9. You were loath to expresse the particulars, least your Reader might perceiue what silly Reckonings you vse to make. ‘I am therefore constrained to call them to your re­membrance. Preamb. pa 56. There we heard your Surius prael. in Syn. Francof. Surius, charging Pro­testants of so Incredible impudencie, and maruelling that they [...] appeare in the presence of any honest man, because they corrupted the Councell of Francford, as though it had condemned the second Councell of Nice, for decreeing the Surius his slan­derous false­hocd. worshipping of Images, when as by the iust iudgement of God their fraude was made manifest, for they forgot to raze out Constantinople, and to place in the stead thereof the Councell of Nice.’ So farre Surius. ‘A man would thinke, that so deepe an accusation as this should not want some colour, and yet behold, The sentence of Surius cannot stand, saith their Vasques de A­dorat l. 2. cap. 5. num. 225. Ietuite Vasquez, which he proueth (as his owne words are) [Page 72] from all Historians.’ Yet this so impudent a slaunder against Protestants, when it is obiected vnto Mr. Parsons, he maketh a quiet Reckoning of it, and passeth it ouer as nothing to the purpose.

10. ‘Others haue deuised other aunsweres, such as were Binius in banc Synod. pa. 429. & Coster. En­chirid. cap. 13. Alanus Copus, Saunders, Suarez, who say that The Councell of Francford did not condemne the second Councell of Nice. Notwithstanding the Bellar. l. 2. de Concil. c. 8. and Baron. vt resert. Binius Comm. in Francf. Synod. pag. 391. Cardinals Bellarmine & Ba­ronius doe acknowledge that that Councell of Nice was condemned in the Councell of Francford. And yet Mr. Par­sons will haue this also to be to no purpose.’

11. ‘Againe, a third sort (to wit, Vt refert Bel­lar. quo supra. Platina, Blondus, and Sabellicus) granting that the Synode Francford condemned the Synode, which the Greekes call the seuenth generall one; not for decreeing that Images shuld be adored: but that they should be remooued: which is flat contrary to the words of the Synode of Franckford, as is acknowledged by their Iesu­ite Vasquez. quo suprà. Vasquez, Quam pro adorandis imaginibus fecerunt, which was made for adoring of Images.’ Neuerthelesse Ma­ster Parsons will not thinke this to be any thing to the pur­pose.

‘12. Their last refuge is this, that Bellar. quo suprà. Baronius apud. Binium quo su­pra The Synode of Franc­ford was deceiued, in thinking that the Synode of Nice de­creed any vnlawfull worship of Images, and so did erre in con­demning it.’ Which last aunswere serued me to make a de­maund, which I am now to reckon for, with Mr. Parsons.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

‘ANd Mr. Morten doth fondry insult, when he biddeth his Aduer­sarie Recko. pag. 142. P. R. to tell him in good earnest, if the Fathers of the Counsell of Francford, iudging that second Councell of Nice, confirmed by the Pope, did erre in defending the vse of Images, did they erre in faith or no?’ Whereunto I aunswere, &c.

The Reueiwe.

13. Soft Sir, whereunto will you aunswere? ‘I propoun­ded [Page 73] a full Argument, adding that If the Councell of Franc­ford did erre in faith, in condemning the other of Nice, then your Bellarmine and Baronius haue deceiued vs, who sayd that it erred but in fact: but if it erred not in faith, when it condemned that Councell, which the Pope consirmed for the worship of Images, then to cōdemne the definition of the Pope, for the worship of Images, is no error of Faith.’ This your sim­plicitie would not expresse, but make an abrupt answere, say­ing, that it was an error of Fact, not of Faith, Let vs heare it.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

THe Fathers of the Councell of Francsord erred in Fact, and not in Reckon. pag. 142. Faith, being informed that the Councell of Nice, had determined that which it did not, to wit, that diuine honour was giuen vnto Images; for if they had beene informed of the truth, they would not haue contradicted it, as neither if they had knowen that the Rope had confirmed it, would they haue doubted of the authoritie thereof.

The Reueiwe.

14. Then, belike the Fathers of the Councell of Francford did not know that Pope Adrian had confirmed the second Councell of Nice.

Master PARSONS his Reckoning.

IT is a witting error in M. Morton to say that they of Francford knew Reckon. quo sup. that the Councell of Nice, was confirmed by the Pope. But Mr. Morton would deceiue vs by craft and subtiltie.

The Reueiwe.

15. Except that Master Parsons had prostituted his con­science vnto iniurious dealing, hee would neuer, against his perfect knowledge, haue thus accused me of Witting craft and deceit. For first hee was not ignorant that A­drian the Pope did confirme the second Councell of Synodus Septi­ma ( which is called Nicaena secunda) ab A­driano ap­probata fuit. [...] les. l. 2. disp. 7. c. 5. n. 233 Nice, as their Iesuite Vasquez did witnesse. ‘Secondly, he Pream. pa. 58. saw me further alleadge out of the same Iesuite that The Councel of [Page 74] Francford could not be ignorant of the decree of the second Councell of Nice, because that the Legates of Pope Adrian were present in that Councell, as all Histories doe write (saith he) and the subscrptions doe demonstrate. These two, viz. that Pope Adrian did confirme the second Councell of Nice in the Decree of Images: And then this, The Councell of Franc­ford could not be ignorant of the confirmation therof;’ being M. Parsons wil­full false im­putation of falshood. both put together, doe inferre that The Councell of Francford could not be ignorant that the Pope had confirmed the Decree of the second Councell of Nice. How then could hee call such proofes (which are taken out of their owne Authors, and layd so visibly before his eyes) a witting error, craft, and deceit? whereunto although I shall not answere, as the Arch­angell did vnto the Diuell, saying, Iud. vers. 9. The Lord rebuke thee; yet must he giue me leaue to say, God forgiue thee: for I poin­ted directly in my See the place of Vasquez a­boue cited. Preamble vnto this place of Vasquez, which Mr. Parsons subtilly concealeth, and according to his woont, faceth out the matter with a false imputation of false­hood: yet least he might seeme to haue erred without reason, hee vseth an Argument.

M. PARSONS his Reckoning.

FOr the Caroline Bookes themselues, euen as they are set out by the Reckon. pag. 142. Centuriators, doe vse that for a principall argument on the behalfe of the Councell of Francford, to impugne the Nicene Councell, for that they supposed that the said Nīcene Councel was not confirmed by Adrian the Pope, wherein they were deceiued by false information, I meane, those of Francford: but Mr. Morton would deceiue vs by craft and subtiltie.

The Reuiewe.

16. He talketh of craft, telling vs of the Caroline Bookes (mentioned by the Centurists) how they Supposed that the se­cond Councell of Nice was not confirmed by Adrian, without quoting the direct place: wherin he hath committed as great a falshood, as may serue to giue him his owne true denomi­nation. For if we shall consult with the [...] 8. cap 8. [...] 639. Centurists themselues, [Page 75] they will tell vs, that Pope Adrian did rule by his Legates in the second Councell of Nice, which he afterward did approue: whereunto the Legates of the Pope doe require a subscription, but the Decree goeth against the sentence of Pope Adrian, and concluded that the adoration of Images is wicked, and condem­ned that Councell, which Pope Adrian held to be vniuersall. And more then to that purpose, I doe not finde. I pro­ceede.

SECT. III.

The Contradictory aunsweres of Romish writers, about the Epistle of Epiphanius, against Images.

‘17. THe matter Pream. p. 59. is, whether Epiphanius did not con­demne the worship of Images? Their contradi­ctory aunsweres are many and memorable.’

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

IT is to be noted, as before, that whatsoeuer difference of opinions Reckon. p. 159. there be, or may be among Catholicke Writers of Controuersie, a­bout the true meaning of Saint Epiphanius in this place, yet is it no­thing at all to Mr. Mortons purpose, who is bound to proue that they wrote against their owne knowledge and conscience, which I suppose were hard to do, for that euery man must haue bin presumed to haue written according as his iudgement gaue him, and consequently that all this, which M. Morton hath so studiously gathered together, is nihi' ad rhom bum, nothing to the purpose: and therfore I could not but laugh, when I read his conclusion of this Instance, saying, That if P. R. shall desire 500. (instances) of this kind, I bind my selfe (saith he) vnto him, by a faithfull protestation; which I beleeue, yea if it were 5000. in a weekes warning.

The Reuiew.

18. It is well, that your Church is so richly fraught with such Contradictions, which if they seeme not vnto you very ougly, why did you conceale them? ‘The Epistle of Epiphan. Epist ad Ioh, [...] Epipha­nius [Page 76] is obiected by Protestants, wherein hee is said to haue seene hanging in Church an Image, as it were of Christ, or of some Saint, and to haue taken and rent it, as being an a­buse contrary vnto the authority of holy Scriptures. Will you see what tripping and skipping your Authours make, to free themselues from this obiection? One thus; Waldens. Tom. [...] Tit. 19. cap. 157. Epipha­nius did it in a zeale, but not according to knowledge, all for feare of the errour of the Anthropomorphites, who sought to haue an Image of God; but it is confuted by Lib. 2. de Ado­rat. disp. 5. c. 3. Vasquez, as being repugnant vnto the text, which nameth the Image of a man. A second thus: Vasq. ibid. c 4. It was the Image of no Saint, but of a prophane man. But the text saith, As it were of Christ, or of some Saint: and therefore this aunswere is reiected by L. 2. de triumph Eccles. cap. 9. Bellarmine, as lesse common and true. A Alphons. de Castro Haeres. Tit. Jmago. third is displea­sed with Epiphanius, and therefore censureth the fact to be er­roneous: but Quo [...] Vasquez, vpon another conceite, saith, that Epiphanius did well in renting the picture. A Alanus, & San­derus, vt refert Vasq. quo suprà & [...] En­chirid. Cap. 13. fourth sort be­take themselues vnto this refuge, saying that The wordes of that Epistle of Epiphanius are counterfeit: but the cause, why they were glad to make this shift, is made plaine by their Vasquez, Vasquez quo suprà, cap. 4. They, being oppressed (saith he) with the difficulty of the obiection, returned this Answere. But what if it be not a counterfeit Epistle? Now commeth their Iesuite Valentia in the last rancke, saying, Valent. Ies. Yet we aunswere that the Church is of greater authority then Epiphanius. Very good: but E­piphanius condemned the vse of Images,’ as being contrary vnto Scripture, which he spake according to the iudgement of the Church of his time.

19. These so many, so contradictory and so violent An­sweres, so really confuting one another, for the auoyding of but one obiection, what can they possibly bewray, but distor­ted wits, especialy seeing that it may be presumed of the most, that they were driuen thereunto by force, as men oppressed (as some are said to haue beene) with the difficulty of the O bie­ction?

20. Notwithstanding, M. Parsons denieth not, but plain­ly confesseth, that fiue thousand such like instances of their [Page 77] contradictorie Answeres may be collected out of the Romish Writers in a weeke: and these kinde of contradictions seeme to him to be a matter to be laughed at. Can there bee any Sobriety in such a Laughter? or could he haue more preiudi­ced Admirable [...] of contradictions confessed by M. Parsons, to be amongst their Doctors. the Romish profession? For if our Aduersaries in satisfy­ing of the Arguments of Protestants, in points of this nature, be thus inforced to thwart and contradict one another, what can more bewray the desperatenesse of their cause? Now fol­loweth the last contradiction about this Question.

Whether part of the Epistle of Epiphanius were counterfeit?

21 ‘ Pream. pa. 60. Bellarmine, Valentia, Suarez, among other Reasons, to proue it was fictitious, do vse these two; one is because, that Bellar. l. 2. de Eccies. triumph. ca. 9. Of the Epistle of Epiphanius vnto Iohn Bishop of Hieru­salem, being almost wholly translated by S. Hierome in his E­pistle to Pamachius, hath not in it that part, Cum venissem Anablatha, concerning that Image. This Answere was con­futed by their Vasquez Ies. l. 2 de Adorat. disp. 5. c. 3. p. 244 Vasquez, who sheweth this Reason to bee Infirme.’

22. ‘An other answer is Pream pa. 61. vsed from Senensis, to wit, Senens. bibl. l. 5. Annot. 247. Because Damascene said that that Epistle was counterfeit. Which is a meere falsitie, and so acknowledged by your Vasquez, she­wing that Vasquez. quo suprà. p. 241. Damascene spoke not of the Epistle of Epiphani­us, written vnto Iohn of Hierusalem (which conteyneth the History of the Image) but of the Epistle which Epiphanius writ vnto Theodosius.’ Where we still see, that their great Doctors haue committed two notablevntruths, to proue one, Two notable vntruths. viz. The Historie of the Image to be counterfeit. Now let vs see how M. Parsons will reckon hereabout.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

I Wish the Reader, that whereas Card. Bellarmine is here calumniated Reckon. p. 148. about Epiphanius Epistle, translated by S. Hierome for denying the last clause thereof to be his, he repaire, for the solution thereof, vnto Card. Baronius, who mere largely detecteth the fraude, then is expedi­ent Tom. 4. Ano. 392 fine. for me at this present to relate; especially for so much as I am to [Page 78] passe to other particular calumniations against Card. Bellarmine, in his very next Example or instance.

The Reuiewe.

23. Whither hasten you so fast, M. Parsons? Let vs haue one word more, I pray you, before wee end this Reckoning: Tell me but with what reason you said, that I haue calumnia­ted Bellarmine? That which I obiected was the testimony of M. Parsons fro­ward Calum­niation. your owne Iesuite Vasquez, who bestoweth a particular Chapter, in confuting the Obiections which are vsed by Ro­mish Authours, for proofe that that part of the Epistle of Epi­phanius was supposititious and counterfeit; promising to Vasq Ies. l 2. de Adorat. [...] Shew Singulas rationes, &c. That is, That all the Reasons, which some Doctors of late doe vse, for the disabling of that E­pistle, are infirme, and of no validity. Thus we still see Roma­nists M. Parsons vn­iust Calumnia­tion. contradicted by themselues; Card. Bellarmine his debt doth hang still on the score vndischarged; and so doth Mast. Parsons his calumnious and vniust dealing, in obiecting ca­lumniation against me.

CHAP. VIII.

Instances against Card. Bellarmine his Slanders, The first whether Caluinists be Pelagian Heretickes, in the point of Originall Sinne.

SECT. I.

The Charge.

1. ‘FIRST I Preamb. p. 63. asked with what conscience Bellar­mine could charge Caluine with the Heresie of the Pelagiani, &c. Bellar l a. de Eccles. Misit. c. 9. §. Pelagiani Pelagians, who denied that there was any originall sinne in Infants, especially being the chil­dren of faithful Parents? For as he could not be ignorant that Hic propri­us &c. Valet Ies de mig pecc. c. 2. This doctrine of denying originall sinne was (as their owne [Page 79] Iesuite confesseth) the proper heresie of the Pelagians. And not so onely, but saith furthermore that Caluinus, &c. Idem. ib. in princ. &c. 8. & in Tom. 2. disp 6 q. 11. punct. 1. Caluine and all other Protestants are so farre from denying originall sin, that they doe monstrously extend the nature thereof, euen vnto persons regenerate:’ so it could not be but he must haue vn­derstood, that Caluine was a greater Aduersarie vnto the Pe­lagian, then is any Romanist that can be named. Hereunto M. Parsons answereth.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

BEllar mine is guilefully abused by M. Morton, in setting downe his Reckon. ca. 3. §. 7. pa. 155. opinion, as though he had said that Caluine had denied with the Pelagians, that there is any originall sinne at all in Infants, though lesse in the children of the faithfull, cyting his Latine wordes in the margent peruersly thus: Pelagioni doccbant, non esse in hominibus pecca­tum originale, & praecipue in [...] fidelium; idem docent Caluinus & Bucerus. The Pelagians did teach, that there was not originall sinne in men, and especially in the children of the faithfull. The same doe teach Caluine, and Bucer. Thus he.

The Reuiew.

2. Bellarmine his wordes stand thus: Pelagiani, &c. That is, Bellar. loco suprà citato. The Pelagians taught two things, First, that there is no originall sin, especially in the children of the faithfull; and of this first he addeth, Primum, &c. That is, This first opinion Zuing­lius, Bucer, and Calume doe plainely teach; which wordes M. Parsons cut off: Bellarmine addeth, that Zuinglius did absolute­ly denie originall sinne in euery man, but Caluin and Bucer onely in the children of the faithfull, who are ( say they) holy, and saued without baptisme. Where we see, that Bellarmine, speaking of these two, the first that There is no originall sinne; the second, A Calumnious Taxation. that There is no originall sinne in the children of faithfull Pa­rents; doth make both to be the heresie of the Pelagians.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning

I Aske T. M. with what conscience could he falsifie Bellarmine, in ma­king Reckon. ib. him say that which he did not, for that he saith not absolutely that Caluine denied all originall sinne in all Infants, but onely in the children of the faithfull.

The Reuiew.

3. Why doth P. R. obiect this? where haue I said that Bellarmine affirmed absolutely, that Calume denyed all originall sinne in all Infants? but I haue alleaged him pertinently, as I haue shown; and do now further auerre in the behalf of Cal­uine, that Bellarmine, by affirming that Caluine did denie origi­nall sinne in any kind of Infants, whether they be the children of Infidels or Christians, doth slanderously traduce Caluine, to draw him violently into the errour of Pelagianisme; which heresie Caluine abhorred and detested as gracelesse and dam­nable: which M. Parsons himselfe might haue seene, if he had not looked vpon him onely with his left eye; as will now per­fectly appeare.

Euident proofes that Caluine hath beene slandered by Bellarmine; and Protestants are generally freed from Pela­gianisme in this point by their owne Vega, and that accor­ding to the iudgement of the Councell of Trent.

4. Bellarmine hath deliuered his iudgement vpon Cal­uine, saying that Caluine denyed originall sinne in the children of the faithfull: which I take to be an vnconscionable Slaun­der.

5. For first Jnstit. l 2. c 1. §. 4. &. 5. Caluine spendeth foure Sections in confuta­tion of this doctrine, proouing that euery childe of Adam is borne in orginall sinne, from the example of Dauid, saying, that he was borne in iniquity, and conceiued in sinne: and as if Caluins iudge­ment. he had sought to stoppe the mouth of all Slanderers, hee ex­presly confuteth the Pelagians doctrine, euen in this very point, Quod autem, &c. That is, Ibid. §. 7. But that the cauelling Pelagi­ans do say ( saith he) that it is not likely, that children should draw any corruption from godly Parents, from whom they doe rather receuse purity, it is easily confuted, for they ( that is, the children) doe not descend from their spirituall, but from their carnall gene­ration. Wherefore as Saint Augustine saith, whether the Parents be guilty, and in the state of Infidelity, or being in the faith, be ab­solued, [Page 81] both of them beget no free children, but guilty. Further­more in that they partake of the parents sanctitie, it is the speciall blessing of God, which doth not hinder but that the vniuersall course of mankinde goeth before, for guilt is from nature, but sanctification proceedeth from spirituall grace. Wherein we see, that there is as much difference betweene the Pelagians and Caluine, as there is betweene nature and Grace.

6. Secondly, to consult with his Accusers: although that Bellarmine and Valentia (but not Reckon. p. 155 In the very same place by me alleaged, as M. Parsons pretendeth, but about three leaues after) doe obiect the former heresie, Denying originall sinne in the children of faithfull Parents: yet doe they not alleage any such wordes out of all his workes. The onely reason, which Bellarmine hath, is, Because he saith that the children of faith­full parents are sanctified and saued without baptisme: but Bel­larmine else-where, reckoning vp the opinion of some of his owne Doctors, concerning some children vnbaptized, saith thus; Bellar. l. 1. de bap c. 4. §. quintum. Caietane, Gabriel, Gerson, Catharine, and some other Ca­tholikes say, that it is contrary to the mercie of God, that all chil­dren, which die without Baptisme should perish. Among others who were of the same opinion, are reckoned Tilmannus, Si­gebergensis, Caluines iudge­ment iustified by Romanists. Tho, Elisius, and See Cassander himselfe, de baptismo Infan­tum. Cassander, all affirming that al­though Infants want Baptismo aquae, that is, the out ward bap­tisine by water, yet, through the mercy of God, they are bap­tized Baptismo flaminis, that is, with the baptisme of the spi­rit of sanctification; and consequently with Caluine doe con­fesse that the children of the faithfull, dying before baptisme, are sanctified and saued. Notwithstanding all this, Bellarmine no­teth Caluine for a Pelagian Hereticke, and tearmeth his owne Doctors Catholickes, which is a direct argument of a distor­ted and corrupt affection.

7. The second Accuser Valent. lib. de pecc. orig. c. 7. in princip. vnto the end of the Chapter, & Tom. 2 de pecc. orig. disp. 6. q. 12. punct. 1. §. 4. Valentia commeth nearer to the point, when (speaking of Protestants Kemnitius, Melancthon, Caluine, and all others) he saith: Qui omnes, &c. Who all e­uery where, although they differ in word, yet they agree with a ioynt consent, affirming that originall sinne is an hereditary cor­ruption and prauity of nature, which maketh vs. guilty of the e­ternall [Page 82] warth of God, and is the fountaine of all wickednesse in men. Which manner of speech may be applied to the iudgement of Illyricus, onely differing from him, in that he teacheth the he­reditary corruption to be forme substantiall, but these others do teach, that originall sinne is conteyned onely in the defect of ab­solute perfection and iustice, which ought to be in man. And much more to this effect, as to confesse that Caluine placed Originall sinne principally in the Defect of perfect righteous­nesse in our first conception, which defect is properly a sinne; and the Sinner to be damned; which sinne hee holdeth to be Re­mitted in baptisme, not that it is not, but that it is not imputed. So that in the children of the faithfull Parents, in respect of their naturall originall, wherein there is a Defect of perfect righteousnesse, they are sinfull and cursed; yet, through the co­uenant of Grace, they are the children of Adoption. If this be not sufficient, our next witnesse will make all cleare.

8. Vega, a Doctor greatly commended by the Iesuite Praef. in libros Vegae. Canisius, and a principall Actor in the Councell of Trent, doth, in expounding the meaning of that Councell, yeeld vn­to vs this his ingenuous and iudicious confession; Vega. l. 2. de Iustif. c. 6. § Et probauit. Protestants iudgement concerning original sinne, iustified by their aduer­saries. The Prote­stants (speaking of all that hee had read, (and his reading of Caluine he sheweth almost in euery Chapter) do teach in their Confessions, Apologies, and other bookes, the doctrine of origi­nall sinne, constantly and consonantly with vs: but they, who were condemned at the Councel of Trent, were Pelagians, Ar­menians, Albanenses, who denied originall sinne. Doe you heare this, M. Parsons? Caluine and Bucer are accused by Bellarmine for dissenting from your Church, by denying o­riginall sinne in the children of faithfull Parents. Heere your Vega telleth you, in effect, that it is a meere slaunder: for spea­king of Protestants, without exception, he saith that They do consonantly agree with your Church in this question of origi­nall sinne, and that euen according to the meaning of the Councell of Trent. How then may your Cardinall bee thought to haue dealt honestly or conscionably with Caluine? But they haue decreed to draw Caluine within the compasse of [...] and to this purpose they proceed to another Question.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning, concealing Veniall Sinnes.

WHereas Card. Bellarmine did charge Caluine and Oaluinists with Reck. c. 3. §. 7. pag. 158. two principall errours of the Pelagians, the one, that which now hath been handled, Of denying Originall Sin in chil­dren and Infants of the faithfull; and the second, Of the denying of the difference of mortall and veniall sinnes, and holding that by euery least sinne we loose our iustice, and consequently that all sinne is mor­tall, Bellarmine cyting for the same the testimony of S. Hierome, who a­scribeth Hierom. 2. l. cont. Pelag. that for Heresie vnto the Pelagians. And whereas in like man­ner he proueth the same heresie not onely to bee held by Luther and Melancthon but also by Caluine in diuers partes of his workes, as 1. 2. Instit. c. 8. §. 85. & 1. 3. c. 4. §. 28. &c. M Morton taking vpon him to cleare Cal­uine in the former charge about originall sinne, though so vnluckily as you haue heard, saith neuer a word against this second, about the di­stinction of veniall and mortall sinnes, whereby it is euident in all pro­bability, that he admitted that for true, and consequently yeelded se­cretly that Caluin sts doe agree with the Pelagians in this heresie, though he storme sharpely against [...] as you haue heard, for charging Caluine with any point of Pelagianisme at all. And this fraude or frail­tie he committeth commonly in all the rest of the Heresies obiected, denying the one weakely, and by his silence granting the other, as now by experience you shall finde.

The Reueiwe.

10. Which by experience your selfe shall finde to haue beene both vnsoberly and vnluckily obiected by your selfe: for in my last Catholique Appeale. 1. 5. cap. 22. § 3. Booke of Catholicke Appeale, both this and the rest of the Heresies obiected by Bellarmine, haue bene pro­ued to bee very slaunderous. Concerning this particular, The summe of my aunswere is this: First, There appeareth no such words in Saint Hierome,: nor doth Saint Augustine in his Catalogue of Heresies: nor yet the Romish Authors Castro, Prateolus, Lindane, or others, in their discussing of Here­sies, obserue any such heresies in the Pelagians.

11. Secondly, sinnes are said to be Veniall in two respects, Sinnes, how veniall and mortall. either in their owne nature, or else by Gods grace and in­dulgence. In nature all sinnes are mortall, albeit not all equal. By Gods mercy, (who doth not deale with his regenerate [Page 84] according to his exact iustice) many kind of infirmities may be called Veniall. In which respect onely, your Roffensis is Apud Vasquem Tom. 1. in 1. Tho. 2 disp. 42 c. 1. n. 4. p. 929. noted to haue iudged of them accordingly, calling them Ve­niall, but not in their nature; but onely through the mercy of God, who doth not impute them vnto damnation. And what the impossibilitie of contrary doctrine is, hath beene like­wise Cath. Appeale quo supra. §. 4. manifested at large. Neither doth Gerson or Almain ac­cord vnto your common opinion, as Bellar. l. 1. de Amiss. grat. c. 4. §. His erroribꝰ. Bellarmme himselfe doth confesse. The cause of Caluine standing thus vpright, the slaunder which is cast vpon him, will proue no Veniall sinne.

SECT. II.

The second slaunder vsed by Card. Bellarmine.

The Charge, concerning the Heresie of the Noua­tians, in denying Penance.

12. Preamb. p. 63. BEllarmine Maketh Protestants guiltie of the He­resie of Nouatia­norum, &c. Bellar. l. 4. de no­tis Eccl. c. 9. §. Nouatianorū. The Nouatians, in taking from the Church all power of recōciling men vnto God, but by Baptisme, wherby he meaneth no Sacrament, but Baptisme. When as his own Authors note that Nouatia­norum, &c. Castro. l. 12. Haer. 3. Tit. Paeniten­tia Vega li. 13. de Iustif. c. 2. p. 486. Moldon. Ies. in Ioh. 5. 4. The Heresie of the Nouatians was this, viz. to denie any man, who should sinne after Bap­tisme, all hope of remission of sinnes, although he should repent. Yea and also Bellarmine himselfe, in behalfe of Protestants, confesseth els-where, that Non Ne­gant, &c. Bellar. l. 3. de Iustif. c. 6. & sae­pe alias. They require repentance and faith in Christians, that they may be iustified and obtaine Re­mission of sinnes. Neither doth hee note any difference betweene vs and the Romanists, Non de &c. Bellar. l 1 de [...] c 8. §. vt [...] about repentance, as it is a conuersion vnto God with detestation of sinne, or as it consisteth in outward signes of sorrow, weeping, confession, and outward chastisements; yea and almost all of them allow an outward rite of absolution. But the only controuersie between vs is, Whether Penance be properly a Sacrament.

Heere I am [Page 85] called to a seuere account, the briefe whereof followeth.

The summe of Mr PARSONS his Reckoning.

HEere he will make a difference betweene Card. Bellarmine and Reckon. cap 3. §. 8 pag. 160. other Authors about the Heresie of the Nouatians: but all is full of fraud. His drift is to argue Bellarmine of falsitie, for affirming that Protestants of our dayes doe ioyne with the old Heretickes, the No­uatians, in taking from the Church All power of reconciling men vnto God, for these are Bellarmines words, and to contradict Bellarmine hee citeth the words of Alphonsus de Castro, saying that the heresie, &c. But these are not contrary: for the Nouatians taught both points, principally that ther was no power in the Church to reconcile them, who fell after bap­tisme, especially into grieuous sinnes, as testifieth Cyprian, Saint Am­brose, and others; and this first part was against the keyes of the Church and power to remit sinnes, and herein all Authors doe agree. But the second part of this error went further, as some doe gather out of the auncient Fathers, as testifieth Suarez (although others be of a contra­ry opinion) which was to denie furthermore, besides the Sacrament, all vertue of Penance whatsoeuer, whether priuate or Sacramentall. Bellarmine doth not ascribe vnto Protestants the deniall of priuate re­pentance, either inward, or outward, by sorrow and teares, but their deniall of Penance, as it is a Sacrament. And for M. Morton to inferre that forasmuch as Alphonsus de Castro saith, that the Nauatians did denie all power of Penance, therefore Bellarmine said not truly, that they de­nied the Sacramentall vse thereof, is a most absurd manner of reaso­ning, called à disparatis, for both may be true, the one excludeth not the other.

The Reueiwe.

13. If I shall giue you leaue to make my Reasonings, it is not vnlikely but I may haue them absurd: you must therefore suffer me to make mine own account, which I will bring in­to the true forme of reasoning thus:

Whosoeuer doth hold the heresie of the Nouatians, in the deniall of remission of sinnes, doth (according to the iudge­ment of Alphonsus de Castro) denie That there is any hope in any man, sinning after Baptisme, to obtaine remission of sinne, although he shall repent: But Protestants (as Card. Bellarmine consesleth) do not denie all hope of remission of sinnes, com­mitted after Baptisme, if sinners repent. Ergo, the Prote­stants [Page 86] holde not the Doctrine of Nouatians.

14. Is not this conclusion established in the Maior by Ca­stro, and in the Minor, by Bellarmine, which in the conclusion is fully contradictory vnto his former assertion, where he said, Protestants hold the Heresie of the Nouatians? Neither is the argument taken à disparat is, but à contradicentibus, and standeth thus: Nouatians denie all hope of remission of sinnes committed after Baptisme, and Protestants confesse some hope of remission of sinnes committed after Baptisme. This reasoning, I hope cannot be called absurd.

15. Neuerthelesse (passing ouer this priuate Penance, as it is a vertue which euery man must vse, for the obtaining of Remission of sinnes) let vs proceede vnto a second conside­ration of it, as it is a power of reconciliation by vertue of the Keyes of the Church. Concerning this, Protestants are confes­sed to admit a power of absolution in the Church, after Bap­tisme, and Almost all of them (saith Bellarmine) doe allow an outward rite thereof: for the reconciliation, in respect of no­torious sinners, which the Nouatians did denie. But as for the forme of this Reconciliation, as whether it be a Sacra­ment, or no, it was neuer called into question, or censured to be the heresie of the Nouatians. Therefore Bellarmine by deuising a newe heresie, which he calleth Nouatianisme, that Bellarmines slaunder. he might drawe Protestants into the guilt of an heresie, hath committed a grosse and inexcusable slaunder. And if Mr. Parsons shall answere this, I shall be contented to weare his badges, and termes of disgrace.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

PRotestants are not accused by Bellarmine, for denying all Penance Recko. quo supra. in generall, but for denying a Sacramentall Penance.

The Reueiwe.

16. If you had spoken in Bellarmines Dialect, you would not haue said the Deniall of Sacramentall Penance, but the Denying of Penance to be a Sacrament. Now I shewed out [Page 87] of your owne Authours Castro, Vega, Maldonate, that they, in censuring the errour of the Nouatians, did neuer note this to be the Nouatians heresie, viz. [ The deniall of Penance to be a Sacrament.] Neither could you, M. Parsons, proue this out M. Parsons frau­dulent dissem­bling. of any one of them, albeit you haue giuen your diligence to finde it out. And this I take to be a sufficient conuiction: for although the denying of All power of Penance doth imply a deniall of All Sacramentall power, yet because the former was an heresie, it doth not follow that the latter must be also here­ticall. For the Sadduces denying the Resurrection of mens bodies, which is an heresie, of heresie, doe consequently de­nie, that in the Resurrection mens bodies shall haue their pa­radise vpon earth, which was the opinion of some: yet the denying of this is no heresie, nay it is an heresie not to denie it. After that M. Parsons had thus bemudded the water, hee sought to catch an Eele, which is no sooner taken, but slippeth from him, because he, like one of the wise men of olde, tooke her by the taile. Shall we see how?

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

LEt vs see briefly how many false trickes he vseth in this place. The Reckon. p. 163. first of all may be, that whereas Card Bellarmine, to proue that our moderne Protestants doe symbolize and agree with the olde No­uatian heresies, alleageth two particular Instances; first, in denying the power of the Church to remit sinnes, by the Sacrament of Penance: secondly, in denying the vse of holy Chrisme, in the Sacrament of con­firmation: M. Morton hauing nothing to say to the second, replieth on­ly to the first by an Equiuocation, as you haue heard. And yet if the se­cond onely be true, Bellarmine is iustified in noting Protestants of Noua­tianisme; and therefore to denie the one, and dissemble the other must needes proceede of witting fraude, graunting that which is chiefly in Controuersie; to wit, that Protestants doe holde in somewhat Nouatia­nisme.

The Reueiwe.

18. That which in my Preamble was, for breuity sake, M. Parsons pre­cipitate and rash in diui­nation. remitted to a further Treatise, no man of discretion would conclude to be therefore omitted craftily, as though it could [Page 88] not be iustly confuted. Yet such is the intemperate &, indeed, vnfortunate peremptorinesse of M. Parsons, for I haue Ctholicke Appeal. l. 4. c. [...] And to proue that such like Denials doe not make an Here­ticke, see the Audiani in the same booke. else­where noted, that Bellarmine, euen in this second point, hath committed an iniury not onely against Caluine, but euen a­gainst the Nouatians themselues; where this, & the rest of the heresies, which are obiected, are handled at large. Whereby the discreet Reader will perceiue, that there was as little fraud in my omission, as there is much folly in Mr. Parsons his Infe­rence and Collection.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning, and charge of falsity.

THe second fraud is, that when Bellarm. saith, that this was the prin­cipall Reckon. pag. 162. 163. error of the Nouatians, the word [ principall] importing that they had other errours besides, is craftily cut off by M. Morton.

The Reuiewe and discharge.

19. True it is that Bellarmine did note two errours in the Nouatians, the one was principall, and the other was of lesse importance; I, for breuity sake, prooued Card. Bellarmine a Slaunderer in the principall, and M. Parsons is offended with M. Parsons his childish & rash obiection of craft. me, that I haue spared his reputation in the lesse principall; and calleth it a point of craftinesse to omit the examination of that in a Preamble, which I haue discussed Catho. Appeale. quo supr. else-where in a full Treatise. So loose and lucklesse a man is M. Parsons continually in his imputation of craft.

M. PARSONS his Reckoning, and charge of falsity.

WHere Bellarmine said, that There is no power in the Church to re­concile Reckon. pag. 162. men vnto God, but onely by baptisme: These last wordes also, [ but onely by baptisme] were by Mr. Morton, and by the same arte shifted out of the Text, for that they haue relation to the Priests of the Church, to whom it appertaineth by publicke and ordi­nary office to baptize: and in this the Protestants are accused by Bel­larmine to concurre with them in deniall of Penance, as it is a Sacra­ment.

The Reuiew, and discharge.

20. M. Parsons his pallate is so distempered, that it tur­neth [Page 89] euery thing that it tasteth into craft, which vnto me see­meth to be an argument of his selfe-guiltinesse in points of craftinesse. I alleaged the sentence thus: Nouatians denie all hope of remission of sinne after Baptisme. This was sufficient for the acknowledgement of a power in Baptisme for remissi­on of sinne. How could he call this a Shifting? hath he any reason for it? Yes he hath one, I pray you mark it (good Rea­der) His fond and false conie­cture. for it is pretty: The words were shufled out of the text (saith he) for that they haue relation vnto the Priests of the Church, to whom it appertayneth by publique and ordinary office to bap­tize. He might as well haue said, that I did it in enuie vnto our owne Protestant Ministers, vnto whom I held The pub­lique office of baptizing to appertaine. Such is the exceeding impotency of this professed Cauiller.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning, and charge of falsity.

THirdly, he doth bring in guilefully the foresaid testimony of Ca­stro, Reckon. p. 163. Vega, and Maldonate, as contrary to Bellarmine, whereas they speake of another thing, to wit, of Penance in another sense.

The Reuiew, and discharge.

21. Castro, Vega, and Maldonate did indeede speake of His loose and vniust repre­hension. Penance and Absolution in another sense then Bellarmine did: for they neuer iudged it to be an Heresie of the Nouatians, to Denie Penance to be a Sacrament. Neyther was there euer a­ny auncient Father or Romish Writer, whom Mast. Parsons could produce, who so conceiued of the Nouatian Heresie, as Bellarmine hath done, who rather then Protestants should not be Nouatian Heretickes, hath feigned a new Heresie, which was neuer imputed to the Nouatians: which is, I must needes say, a craft and fraude intollerable.

22. The fourth traducement hath beene answered before, and the last is more childish then any of the rest, which is the alleaging of Luther truely in that sense, which I haue already iustified to be most true.

SECT. III.

The third charge against Bellarmine, for his Slander a­gainst Caluine, in the Question of Free-will.

22 Pream. pa. 64. THE Manicheo­tum, &c. Bellar. l. 4. de notis Ec­cles. c. 9. §. Ma­nichaeorum. Manichees ( said he) did condemne the nature of men, depriuing them of Free-will, and as­cribing the originall and beginning of sinne vnto the nature of man, and not vnto his Free-will: yet hath hee obserued that Iohannes Caluinus, &c. Bellar. l. 1 ae Grat. primi [...] c. 1. §. In codem. Caluine teacheth, that man in his first creaticn had Free-will, whereby in his integrity he might, if he would, haue attai­ned vnto eternall life.

This contradiction in this point is no more then this, to charge Caluine with that which he did not beleeue. Is not this singular falshood? And yet behold a more notable then this.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning, and charge of folly.

WHerunto I answere, if it be more notable in folly then this, or Reckon. ca. 3. § 9. pa. 167. else in fraude; it is notabler indeede. For to accuse a man to hold that which he holdeth not, is no contradiction, but [...] false accusation, nor alwayes falshood, for it might haue beene errour. And this for the folly.

The Reuiew.

23. Wisely, forsooth, M. Parsons; Bellarmine is supposed to haue written knowingly what was the opinion of the Ma­nichees concerning Free-will, and as knowingly, to haue ac­knowledged the contrary opinion of Caluine: and yet not­withstanding did he ascribe vnto Caluine that opinion of the Manichees. Can this but imply a contradiction? But you say, this might haue beene by him not in falshood, but vpon errour. so any thing, wherein you haue charged mee with falshood, might haue proceeded onely from errour. Is not this a rare Bellarmines flaunder. point of wisedome, so to excuse and free Bellarmine from fals­hood, as that your owne Accusations of falshood shall be of no force? Where is the Folly now? But now to the fraude.

M. PARSONS his Reckoning, and charge of fraude.

CAluine graunting free will to haue beene in man before the fall, Reckon. p. 167. and lost after the first sinne of Adam, may concurre with the Ma­nichees in this, that after the fal of Adam, as now we liue, we haue free-wil, and so doth Card. Bellarm. take him, and proue out of his works, This then is an egregious fraude, and chiefly to delude in this place his Reader with ambiguity of different times. Reckon. ibid. pag. 168. The Manichees taught that man after Adams fall had no free-will, as both S. Hierome and S. Augu­stine doe testifie in the sentence of Mr. Morton here set downe (though craftily he couered their names) and Bellarmine proueth Caluine to hold the same, out of his owne wordes and workes. What answereth M. Mor­ton? Caluine (saith he) is confessed by Bellarmine to graunt free will in man before the sall of Adam in his first creation. Yea but the question is after the fall.

The Reuiewe, demonstrating the Slaunder.

24. What is this? Do those Fathers speake os Free-will af­ter Adams fall? Eyther M. Parsons vnderstandeth not Bellar­mine, or else Bellarmine vnderstood not those Fathers, sor I am Two Fathers notably abused by M. Parsens and Bellarm. sure they spake of the Manichees denying free-will in mans first creation: First S. Augustine writing of this heresie of the Manichees, who taught that there were two first causes of mans nature: God, the Authour of the good part, and an cuill Spirite Authour of the euill part of mans nature: and so Aug. Tom 6. de Haeres. c. 46. Pec­catorum originem non libero arbitrio voluntatis, sed substantiae tribuūt gentis aduersae: quā dogmatizantes esse hominibus mix­tam, omnem carnem non Dei, sed malae mentis perhibent esse opi­ficium &c. That is: They ascribed the originall cause of sinne not vnto the free-will of man but to the substance of an aducrse and contrary Nation, which they taught to be mixed in man, tel­ling vs, that all flesh is not the workemanshippe of God, but of an euill Ghost. Heete is a manisest mention of the nature of man in his first workemanship, and an exposition of the [...] of the Manichees, ascribing the beginning of Euill, not vnto the free­will of the created nature, but vnto the eternall cuill Creator, which was the Authour of that euill.

25. So likewise Saint Hierome in the place alleadged. [...] dagian. It [Page 92] was (saith he) the Doctrine of the Manichees, to condemne the nature of man, to take away free-will, and also the helpe of God. What he futhermore meaneth by condemning the nature of man, wherein they acknowledge no free-will, he sheweth, where he condemneth the Manichees, for saying that Hier. in Jsaiam There was two created natures of man, one of the children of perdition, the other of the good ones. But if, as they say, the children of per­ditiō were of most wicked nature, how is it said that that is found, which first was lost, how is the prodigall child said to haue beene lost, except first he had beene in some safe estate? All this con­cerneth Free-will in the first creation. If you did not see this, Mr. Parsons, when you imputed Fraud vnto me, you haue erred: if you did see thus much, and yet would besprincle me with note of Fraude, then you cannot auoid the shame of a calumniator vnder any pretence of error: but I must pardon you, for this is but a peece of your occupation. Which that it may be more euident, you proceede.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

ANother fraud, though somewhat lesse perhaps then the former, Reckon. pag. 168. was, that in setting downe the charge of Bellarmine against Cal­uine, he recounteth the same as in Bellarmines own words, which are the words of S. Hierome and S. Augustine. And why, thinke you, did Mr. Morton conceale these two Fathers names? the causes are eui­dent, first least the deniall of Free-will, defended by Protestants, should be pronounced Heresie by two so graue Fathers: the second for that it would haue marred his sleight of thinking that there was ment Free­will, in respect of the first nature of man.

The Reueiwe, confuting M. Parsons and his fellowes, by the confessed sentences of Fathers.

26. Bellarmine alleadging the former sentence out of the Fathers, to wit, The Manichees condemned the nature of man, denying freedome of will, did adde of his owne; which was the Doctrine of Caluine. The former I graunted for a truth, ac­cording to their proper sense: but Bellarmine his application [Page 93] of that heresie vnto Caluine, I cordemned (and that iustly) for a slaunder. All the Iniuirie which I did, was not vnto Bellarmine, or vnto you, M. Parsons, but vnto my owne cause, to wit, euen because I did not alledge the sentence in the names of those Fathers, whereby the lauishnesse of the slaun­der might haue beene made more manifest, as from the Testi­monies of those Fathers hath beene already proued.

27. And for a more perfect conuiction both of Mr. Par­sons, and his Client, it will not be impertinent to set downe the confession of their owne Iesuite Maldonate, Maldon. Ies. Comment. in Luc. 15. ver. 13. Many Fa­thers ( saith he) by the substance, which the Prodigall child lost ( Luc. 15.) did vnderstand Free-will, as Saint Augustine, Bede ( he might haue added Saint See aboue. Hierome) Euthimius, and Saint Bernard. So Maldonate, who disliking these speeches, faineth an exposition of his owne: but the sentences of these Fathers The fathers iudgement concerning free-will. doe grant a losse of Freewill, by Adams fall. And how ordi­narie is that sentence of Saint Augustine: Man, by abusing his Free-will, lost both it, and himselfe? yea and the Schoole­men thought ( saith Epist. dedicat. ante libros Hi­lary. Erasmus) that Saint Augustine in some places yeelded too little vnto mans Free-will. Now let any iudge whether of vs two is the man of Fraude. But I must not escape thus.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning, and fourth charge of Fraude.

WHereas Card. Bellarmine doth alleadge two points, wherin Reck. pag. 169. the Protestants of our time, but especially Caluine, do con curre with the Manichean Heresie; the one, that which hath bene sayd of the denying of Free-will, the other in reprehending and condemning Abraham, Samson, Sara, Rebecca, &c. and other Saints of the old Testaments, as Saint Augustine testifieth, that the Ma­nicheans did; and Bellarmine sheweth that Caluine doth hold the very same, prooued by multiplicity of places quoted out of his workes: M. Morton passeth ouer with silence this latter proof as vnanswerable, yet will haue vs thinke that Bellarmine did iniure Caluine, in noting him with the Manichean Heresie: which is as much as if a man hauing two writings to shew for a suit in Law, the Atturney of the Aduerse parte should suppresse the one, which is most plaine and euident, and cauill about the other.

The Reueiwe.

28, This is pretty (Mr. Parsons) but yet I must needs say, His heady tax­ation. it is both witlesse and lucklesse: for bee it knowne vnto you that I could not thinke that second obiectiō of Bellarmine vn­answerable, which I haue already Cath. Ap­peale, l 5 c. 19. aunswered, and prooued to be as wicked a slaunder as any of the rest: I may not denie your Palat a tast of that aunswere.

29. First I prooued out of your owne Doctors, that the Heresie of the Manichees, was not the noting of the Idolatry of Abraham, &c. Secondly, that to say with Caluine, that Caluin. In­struct aduers. Libert. c. 3. Abraham had once beene an Idolater, is no Heresie, but a truth, and by your Iesuite Pererius Jes. in Gen. 11. l. 16. Disp. 17. n. 255, &c. Pererius confessed to haue bene iustified by many Romish Doctors, & other Authors, such as Genebrard, Masius, yea and by Iewish Rabbins, and Philo: af­terward by Lindane out of Suidas and Saint Augustine. To which of all these dare you (who are so bold with Caluine) ascribe the note of the forenamed heresie of the Manichees? Therefore it cannot be, but that this your Holy itch, (as you haue named it) doth proceede from a malignant humour.

SECT. IIII.

The fourth slaunder vsed by Bellarmine. The charge.

30. Pream. pa. 64. HEe accused Bullinger of Henr. Bul­lingerum, &c. Bellar. praef. in contr. de Christo. §. Henricē. & Greg. Valent Ics. lib. devnit. & Triait. c. 9. Arianisme,

because of this sentence, [ Tres sunt non statu, sed gradu, &c. Notwithstanding'he knew that this was the very sentence of Tertullian. And is therefore else-where expounded as orthodoxall and iustifiable by
Tertullianus &c. Bellar. l. 1. de Cluisto. c. 10 §. Respondeo 2.
himselfe.
Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning, and charge of abuse.

MAster Morton doth offer him (that is, Bellarmine) great abuse, for Recko. pag. 172. he neuer alloweth any where of the whole sentence, as it stan­deth in the Booke against Praxea, but onely of the first two words, Non statu, [...]; saying; that per gradum: he vnderstandoth or­dinem personarum.

The Reuiew.

31. The Antitrinitarian Heretickes obiected, for proofe of their error, the whole sentence of Tertullian, which is this; Tres sunt non statu, sed gradu; non substantia, sed forma; non potestate, sed specie differentes. And now Mr. Parsons telleth vs, that Bellarmine cutting off the latter part of the sentence, aunswered onely the first two words, Non statu, sed gradu: so that when Mr. Parsons would free Bellarmine from a slaun­der, he doth in effect accuse him of singular fraud, in cutting ost the chiefe part of the sentence of Tertullian, as though it M. Parsons ma­keth Bellarmine to betray the Catholique cause. had beene vnanswerable, and so (as much as that testimonie of Tertullian could worke) betrayed the Catholick cause vn­to the Arians. Whensoeuer I happened to cut off any sen­tence, although altogether impertinent, Mr. Parsons pursu­eth me as vehemently, as he would doe a man that had cut a purse: here hath he taken his Lord Cardinall Bellarmine cut­ting off that part of the Sentence, which did most principally concerne the cause, and yet doth he professe himsefe an Ad­uocate in his behalfe. Surely, this prooueth that Mr. Par­sons was nothing lesse then Sober (for spitefulnesse is a kind of drunkennesse) when he made this Reckoning, who, that hec might charge me with abusing of Bellarmine, hath himselfe so farre abused Bellarmine, as to make him a fraudulent Abu­ser of Tertullian.

Master PARSONS his Reckoning, and second charge of Fraude.

MAster Morton bringeth in Valentia in his Margent, approuing, or at Reckon. p 171. least-wise, not improuing the same sentence of Tertullian thus: Sic [Page 96] scribit Tertul. Tres sunt non statu sed gradu, non substantiâ sed formâ, non po­testate sed specie. This is a Fraud, for Tertullian is not so much as named by him in the place alleadged, but Bullinger is reprehended for vsing the same sentence, Tressunt, &c. Which Mr. Morton would haue his Rea­der thinke he had allowed.

The Reuiewe, and discharge.

32. Here is onely a Marginall note, not insisted vpon in M. Parsons lauish wrang­ling. the Text, so much as by name, nor any inference to bee iustly made out of it, but intimating onely that Valentia knew that this was the Sentence of Tertullian, which probably he did: So that in this there is no occasion or iust suspition of fraude: And now the onely errour was the As is plaine in the first part of my Apolog. Cath. pag. 149. whence the sentence was transcribed. misplacing of a margi­nal quotatiō. For the senteuce, which I alleaged was thus Ver­batim set down in the See in the beginning of Tertul. Basil. An. 1521. Admonitio ad Lectorem, de quibusdam Ter­tulliani dogmatis Author of the Preface vnto Tertullian: Sic scribit Tertullianus aduersus Praxeam, Tres sunt non statu sed gradu; non substantiâ, sed formâ; non potestate, sed specie dif­ferentes. Which being obserued, may acquit me not onely of fraude, but euen of any fault, except that which will happen sometime to the most vigilant Writers. Let vs returne to Bel­larmine.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

BEllarmine expounded the first wordes of Tertullian, saying Per gra­dum Reck. p. 173. intelligit ordinem personarum: Tertullian in this place by Degree vnderstood onely the order of persons, and not a different degree of perfection: But the whole sentence of Tertullian he neuer defended nor admitted, but held it rather for erroneous in Tertullian, and hereti­call in Bullinger: And now, you see what notable aduantage M. Morton hath gotten out of this his so notable obiection.

The Reueiwe.

33. If I had gotten no aduantage before, yet now haue I gained much by this Reckoning: the first is this, that Bellar­mine, whom I was to proue a falsificator, may be conuicted of falshood by your confession, for to cut off a necessary part of a sentence of Tertullian, where the whole was obiected, doth argue fraude in the highest degree. Secondly I finde in your [Page 97] Answere, that which may be obserued in many of your fel­lowes, that Protestants are condemned by you for Heretikes Three obser­uable points. sometimes, when they speake the very language of auncient Fathers. Thirdly I discerne in you, Mr. Parsons, eyther igno­rance not to vnderstand, or malice not to acknowledge the truth of this doctrine of Tertullian, which hath beene thus M. Parsons ig­norance of the iudgement of Tertullian. cleared by the Authour of the Admonition, concerning the opi­nions of Tertullian, praefixed before his workes, expounding the fore-named sentence, Tres sunt, &c. thus; Tertullian (saith he) calleth that a State, which the Schoolemen cal the substance: that he calleth a Degree, which they cal Notion: that he nameth a form, which they terme properties: & he taketh that to be Spe­cies, or kinde, which they note to be the maner of being. Will not now M. Parsons blush to perceiue his malady detected, whil'st that he chose that Tertullian should bee rather condemned, then that (as I may so say) his sonne Bullinger a Protestant should not be condemned? Here is malice.

SECT. V.

The fift slaunder vsed by Bellarmine.

34. Preamb. p. 65. BEllarmine said of Protestants (said I) that Secundum errorem, &c Bellar. l. 1. de be­at. Sanct. c. 4. Paulō post ini­tium. They teach that the soules of faithfull men departing this life, doe not goe directly vnto heauen. In ano­ther place he together with his fellowe Iesuite, hath pub­lickely recorded that it is a common Octaus obiectio, &c. Bellar. l. 1. de I­mag. c. 8 §. 14. 13. Obiection of Pro­testants prouing from Scriptures, against the doctrine of Pur­gatory, that the soules of the faithfull presently after death, go directly vnto heauen.

Hereunto Master Parsons doth aun­swere.

Octaua ob. & Gregor. de Valent. de Purg c. 8. & Rhemists Annot. in Apoc.

Mr PARSONS his Reckoning.

I Haue consulted with Bellarmine, at leastwise with his booke, and hee Reckon. pag. 164. 165. answereth that the word, Protestants, twise heere repoated, is not found in him in the place by you cyted: for that hee ascribeth not [Page 98] this heresie vnto all Protestants in generall, but onely vnto three in particular of our time, viz. Luther. Cornelius Agrippa, and John Caluine. So as M. Morton hath made him to taxe all Protestants, and to say, They doe teach, &c. Whereas he taxeth only three particular men Neyther haue I yet read any other that defendeth the same.

The Reueiwe.

35 Neyther did I say that Bellarmine did accuse All Pro­testants, as you inferre, but onely Protestants, as you confesse. In whom then is the fraude? But you say he noted Caluine and Luther by name. As though in them hee did not often condemne Protestants in generall, although not in vniuersall. And because you say you haue consulted with Bellarmine, or with his booke; I must tell you, that either your outward or in­ward sight hath deceiued you, for if you shall, for your better M. Parsons is ignorant of Beliarmines booke, with which he saith, he consulted information, consult againe with the 4. cap. of the same booke, §. Primus, you shall finde these wordes: At secundùm errorem Caluinistarum, non ad Deum ibant (namely, the Martyrs,) sed ad inferos, aut ad alium locum extra coelum. That is, According to the errour of the Caluinists, the Martyrs went not vnto God, but vnto some other place without heauen. Doe you not see that Calumists are here generally charged with this error? And in the margent I said Caluinists. After that you haue examined this, it may be you will confesse that by your former Consul­tation you made no Sober Reckoning.

36. Furthermore, I neuer read (say you) of any other, but the aboue-named Luther, Agrippa (who was no See his booke Devanit Scient. cap. 6. ve. sus fi­nem, where he calleth the Protestants Hereticks. And, as some note, was commen­ded by Pope Leo the tenth, l 1. Ep. 38. See the booke of Pope loan, pag. 104. Protestant) and Caluine that defended the same: and yet your Bellarmine hath not feared to charge not onely Caluine, but also Caluinists, for defending this doctrine. Doost thou not see (good Rea­der) what an vnhappy Proctor M. Parsons is become in Bel­larmines behalfe, who will seeme to haue consulted in this M. Parsons his answere en­tangleth Bellar­mine in an higher suspiti­on of slander. point with Card. Bellarmine, and yet yeeldeth no better satis­faction, then that which may bee a confutation both of him and of his booke? If the Card. should know this, it may be M. Parsons should heare that Luc. 26. 2. non eris vltrà villicus: and be presently put out of this office of Reckoning. Let vs come neerer vnto Bellarm. his accusation of Caluine.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

CAluine cheifly maintained this errour, saying that the Saints doe Reckon. pag. 175. expect without in a certain Porch or Entry, vntil the consumma­tion of the world: From whence Bellarmine infcrreth that, The Saints by Caluines doctrine, are shut out of Heauen.

The Reuiew, discouering the manifolde fraudes vsed by Bellarmine, and the integrity of Caluine in this Article of entrance into Heauen.

37. This I say and auerre to be an vngodly and vnconsci­onable slaunder, and so may you know, if you will haue the patience but to heare eyther the accused, or the accuser speak: first Caluine, who is the party accused, deliuereth vnto vs, as part of his Creed, saying, Credimus quòd, &c. Caluin. aduers. Libertin. c. 22. We beleeue that which Paul speakes, viz When our earthly house is destroyed, we shall haue a permanent house In Heauen; therefore doe we de­sire to flit out of this life, that we may be with the Lord, and en­joy all good things. For if the soules of the faithfull, as soone as they are out of this body, doe liue with God, and enioy the happi­nesse of that Kingdome, yet the perfect felicity (whereby Caluin meaneth that which is the consummation of blessednes both in body and soule, which cannot be vntill the generall Resur­rection) God hath referred vntil the second comming of Christ. What better Comment would any require of one Article of faith, concerning the direct passage of soules into the reall Kingdome of God in heauen? Thus much the accused partie for himselfe.

38. But what if Bellarmine, who is his Accuser, shall also free him from excluding the soules of Saints out of Heauen? Si quis petat, &c. Bellar. l. 4. de Christo c. 9 §. Si quis. If any (saith Bellarmine) doe aske Caluine where the soules of the iust were, before the comming of Christ? he answereth that they were in Heauen, although they sawe not God, nor shal see him til the day of iudgment. By which Bellarm might know he meant the perfect sight of God both in soule and body (as he himselfe expoundeth Irenaeus, Lib. I. de beat. [Page 100] c. 4. §. Quod ergo) vntill the day of iudgement. Here is a plaine confession, that Caluine taught a locall presence of the soules of the faithfull, who, before Christs comming, entred into Hea­uen: And would he then exclude the faithfull of the new Te­stament from the same hope? No; for Caluine himselfe rea­soneth thus: Quod si Latroni, &c. Caluine vpon the text of the penitent thiese. If the theefe vpon the Crosse had entrance into heauen, much more will Christ, now, after he hath conquered death, put out his hande out of his Throne to apprehend vs, & to gather vs into the fellowshippe of life, seeing he receiued the thiefe into his bosome, and did not a­bandon him into purgatory. Who seeth not now the wilfull Slaunder, which Bellarmine hath committed against Caluine?

39. Furthermore that his malice heerein may better ap­peare, we shall finde that first he depraueth the sentences of Caluine notoriously, by wresting his obscure sentences, rather then by acknowledging his most plaine conclusions.

40. Secondly, by peruerting the testimony alleaged out of Caluine: for whereas Caluine said: Instit. l. 3. c. 20. §. 20. Christus solus ingressus est Sanctuarium, Christ onely entred into the Sanctuary of heauen; distinguishing the Sanctuary of heauen from the Atrium; Bel­larmine Bellar. l. 1: de Eccles. Triumph. c. 1. §. Eundem habet. maketh his conclusion to haue beene, Christum solum esse in caelo, that is, Christ onely to be in heauen, as though there were not in heauen (as Christ speaketh) many Mansions; and that he, who is not in the chiefe place of heauen, were there­fore excluded out of heauen. This is another falshood.

41. Thirdly Caluine speaketh of a porch of Heauen, by al­lusion Bellarmine de­praueth the sentence of Caluine. vnto the people of the olde lawe (who stood in the Porch, whilst only the high Priest went into the Sanctuary to offer for the people) and saith, that so Instis. que suprà. Christ our high Priest is onely entred into the Sanctuary of Heauen, that he may offer vp the vowes of the people, which stand in the Porch a farre off; meaning the people of the militant Church in this life, of whom he said, Sic membrorum omnium adhuc in terra labo­rantium vnus Mediator Christus, That is, Christ is the onely Mediator for his members, which trauell in this earth. And now to change the Atrium of Saints in this world, into the Atrium of Saints in glorie, is to turn earth into heauen, which is another iniury.

[Page 101] 42. Lastly, if we shall suppose that Caluine by Atrium, had meant the place of soules departed, and had said that the soules departed could not enter into the Sanctuary, yet Bel­larmine knowing other plaine and iustifiable sentences of Caluine, might haue affoorded his obscure places as fauoura­ble an exposition, as he allowed S. Bernard, who taught an Atrium also, to wit, Bellar. l. 1. de beat. sanct. c. 5. §. [...] Dicit quidem Bernardus, &c. Bernard in­deed saith, that the Saints shal not see God before the resurrecti­on, and vntill then to remaine in Atrio, That is, in the Porch: Whereby he meant not (saith Bellarmine) to denie the simple visi­on of God, but that perfect vision which shall be both in body and soule after the resurrection. Here againe wee may discerne a malignancie in our Romish Writers, who when they finde Fathers and Protestants agreeing in the same tearmes (as be­fore was obserued in the testimony of Tertullian) yet do they iustifie the sayings of the Fathers as holy truths, and reiect the sentences of Protestants as damnable heresies.

The same slaunder fastened by Bellarm. vpon Luther.

I Haue consulted with Bellarmine, at least with his booke, and he ascri­beth Reckon. quo suprà p. 174. this heresie vnto Caluine and Luther, &c.

The Reueiwe.

43. He doth so indeed: Bellar. l. 1. de Eccles. tri­ump c. 1. §. Secundum er­rorem. Luther (saith Bellarmine) held the same errour in his Lectures vpon Genesis, as Fredericus Staphy­lus doth cyte him. Who accuseth Luther? Bellarmine, a profes­sed Reader against him: but by what witnesse? euen by Sta­phylus, a Romanist, and a professed Rayler against Luther: Lastly, from what place? From his Lectures vpon Gen. where I can finde nothing for defence of that errour, but much for the confutation thereof. For Praelect. in Gen. cap. 25. where (after that hee had affirmed, that the soules of the iust after death, doe not go eyther into Hell, or into Purgatorie, but into peace) he saith Iustos omnes, &c. That is: That all the iust, when they depart out of this life, doe goe to Christ, and are re­ceiued into his bosome, euen into Paradise; which Paradise he [Page 102] there calleth Heauen. Therfore the former accusation doubt­lesse, came not from heauen.

44. It may please the Reader to obserue, that whereas I See here af­ter, l. 1. c. 12. §. 13. happended to produce the testimony of Tolossanus, a Romish Authour, cyting Frising ensis against the violent and turbu­lent practizes of later Popes, M. Parsons held it to be a frau­dulent iniury to alleage the Relater Tolossanus, and not Fri­singensis, M. Parsons partiality. who was the Authour himselfe. But now M. Parsons in this place, seeth Bellarmine cyting Staphylus, the professed enemy of Luther, by whose testimony Luther is noted of He­resie, and yet he thinketh that Bellarmine hath done honestly. Here is good Reckoning.

The sixt slaunder vsed by Cardinall Bellar­mine against Caluine.

45. Preamb. p. 65. Bellarmine challengeth Bellar. l. 4. de notis Eccles. c. 9. ad finem. Calnine for as he calleth it) an auncient Heresie alleaged by Theodoret, affirming that there is onely a figure of Christs body in the Eucharist. And yet in another place affirming, both Quae sen­tentia. &c. Bel­lar. l. 1 de Euch. c. 1. initio. That that opinion is not auncient, nor yet now to be found in Theodoret; and also that Docet Caluinus &c. Bell [...] §. Secundò docet The foresaid doctrine of Caluine doth teach, that in the Eucharist there is to be exhibited vnto the faithful, not onely a figure of Christs body, but also the body and blood it selfe, by which meat soules are nourished vnto eternall life. Or, as another Iesuite testifieth for Caluine, Docet Caluinus, &c. Valent. Ies. Tom. 4. disp. 6. [...] 3. punct. 1. §. Item. That our soules communicate with the body of Christ substantially. Here is no more oddes in this Accusation, then ancient and not aunci­ent; heresie and not heresie.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

THE obiected contradiction in this place is, that Bellarmine con­fesseth k Reck. cap. 3. §. 12. pag. 181. Caluine to hold, that together with the Sacrament of the Eucharist, God doth exhibite vnto the faithfull not onely a signe of Christs body, but also the body and blood it selfe, yea and as Valen­tia addeth further, that aCluine confesseth that our soules doe commu­nicate with the body of Christ substantially. Whereunto I answere, true it is, that in wordes al Cuine doth affirme as much in some parts of [Page 103] his workes, but denyeth it againe in others, and thereupon doe both Bellarmine and Valentia conuince him of most eiudent and palpable contradictions in this matter. Which prooueth no contradiction in Bel­larmine, but in Caluine himselfe.

The Reueiwe.

46. So doe you pursue many testimonies of Caluine to no purpose, for there is a reall eating of Christs body spiritually, and not onely bodily: all the question is, whether in the Sa­crament we receiue onely a Signe of Christ, and not the very body it selfe: So said those auncient Heretickes, and so Cal­uine is traduced by Ballarmine to haue affirmed. This matter would bee better examined. A Syllogisme would set all straight.

Maior. No man admitting more then a Signe of Christs body to be receiued in the Eucharist, doth concurre with the auncient Heretickes, mentioned by Theodoret, who defended receiuing only of the signe of Christs body:

Minor. But Caluine, by the confession of Bellarmine and others, taught, that we receiue in the Eucharist more then a signe of Christ his bodie:

Ergo, Caluine taught not that auncient Heresie mentioned by Theodoret.

47. The Maior will not be denied: the Minor is this, that Calume taught that we receiue more then a signe, euen a Seale also, as M. Reck. P. 182. lin. vlt. Parsons noteth; by vertue where of Caluine saith, that We receiue the very body and blood of Christ, as Bellar­mine himselfe confesseth: not onely Sacramentally, but (as Valentia witnesseth) Substantially communicating in our soule with the body of Christ. So that in the conclusion (which is contradictory vnto Bellarmine his assertion) wee see in Bellarmine a manifest contradiction. Neyther shall Master Parsons with all the arte hee hath, auoyde this, vntill he can shew some place in Caluine, wherein it is said, that We receiue onely a signe of Christs body in the Eucharist, and not his bodie: which neyther he, nor any of his Disciples shall euer be able to performe.

[Page 104] 48. A second contradiction is as plaine, wherein, as hee would charge Caluine with an Auncient Heresie mentioned by Theodoret, and yet saith, Ne glorientur Caluinistae suam sen­tentiam esse valde antiquam, That is, Least the Caluinists might boast that their opiniō is very auncient (towit, as were the daies of Theodoret,) &c: so doth he hereby confesse that it was not so auncient. But so auncient, and not so auncient, make a con­tradiction. And yet whilst I doe accuse others, I am called to a coràm my selfe.

M. PARSONS his Reckoning, and charge of fraude.

Mr. Morton hath commonly alleaged no instance of fraude in his Reckon. p. 177. aduersary, but with some fraude in himselfe, and none perhaps with more, then in this sixt and last obiection in that kinde, con­cerning the testimony of Theodoret for reall presence, for that heere be so many foule faults and wilfull corruptions, as truely if after so many admonishments I should vse the same, it would make me ashamed to looke any man in the face.

The Reuiew.

49. I am right glad to heare that M. Parsons hath a face, which can possibly be ashamed. For I shall put his face to the tryall, euen in these his obiected falsities. What is the first?

Master PARSONS his Reckoning.

HE mentioneth Caluine to be challenged by Bellarmine for his beresie, Recko. pag. 179. leauing out Zuinglius, who is equally challenged with Caluine. This is one tricke.

The Reuiew.

50. When Card. Bellarmine, in slaundering two parties, did contradict himselfe in his Accusation of one, was it not suffi­cient M. Parsons silly wrangling. to proue, that he had wilfully transgressed his consci­ence from the apparant contradiction in that one, except it were prooued that he did contrary himselfe in his accusing of them both? Would any Sober braine note this for a Tricke of fraude? Neuerthelesse Bellar. l. 4. de notis Eccl. c. 9. & l. 1. de Eucha­rist. c. 1. §. edidit. &c. seeing that the doctrine of Caluine and [Page 105] Zuinglius were (according to Bellarmine his opinion) in this point both one, will M. Parsons denie that in Caluine, Zuing­lius is absolued?

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

THen he omitteth wholly the mention of the seuenth generall Reckon. p. 179. Councell, which so long agoe confuted the same heresie. And this is another tricke.

The Reuiew.

51. It did indeed confute that olde Heresie, whereof Cal­uine His fond im­pertinency. (by the iudgement of Bellarmine) was not guilty: and therefore this is a point of your owne idle trickishnesse, to put this Councell into your Reckoning. What yet more?

M. PARSONS his Reckoning.

FVrthermore he concealeth in like manner the name and authority Reckon. ibid. of olde S. Ignatius, who in his time (which was immediately after the Apostles) held the denying of the Reall presence to bee an heresie: and this is a third tricke.

The Reuiew.

52. Bellarmine himselfe hath Bellar. l. 1. de Eucharist. c. 1. said, that the contention in the dayes of Ignatius, concerned rather the incarnation of Christ, then the Sacrament of the Eucharist. And yet hath M. Parsons the power to face out the matter, as though the o­mission M. Parsons Ig­norance of the obiected here­sie. of the name of Ignatius were a fraudulent Tricke. Know furthermore that the Heretickes spoken of, held that Christ had not a naturall, but a phantasticall bodie; and that therefore in the Eucharist his body could not be exhibited in a figure, but onely a phantasticall body: and so made the Eu­charist, a figure of a figure.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

WHereas Card. Bellarmine saith, Quae sententia, &c. Which sen­tence Reckon. ibid. is cyted by Theodoret in his Dialogue out of the Epistle of Ignatius ad Smyrnenses where now it is not to bee found, [Page 106] meaning that it is not found in the Epistle of Jgnatius, M. Morton saith that it is not found in Theodoret; and vpon this falsity of his owne, will needes frame a contradiction in Bellarmine.

The Reueiwe.

53. From these wordes [ Where now it is not to be fiund in Theodoret] I did not draw any note of contradiction against Bellarmine, this is Mr. Parsons his wilfull vntruth, as the Rea­der will iudge. But yet say, I pray you, (Mr. Parsons) if I had so censured Bellarmine, whether had it beene a greater fault in him, to haue abused the Dialogue of Theodoret, or Epistle of His wilfull vn­truth. Ignatius?

54. I know you will be muttering within your selfe, say­ing thus: If I shall aunswere, that the corruption of Theodo­ret is worse, then will T. M. note me of grosse ignorance, be­cause Ignatius was S. Iohns Scholler, and therefore farre more auncient and worthy then Theodoret. But if I say that it had beene a greater offence to corrupt Ignatius, then will T. M. M. Parsons aime is eyther false or friuolous. reply, that I shew my selfe malitious in condemning him of wilfull falshood, for charging Bellarmine with a lesse offence, (that is, the corrupting of Theodoret) when as he might ra­ther haue challenged Bellarmine for a greater fault, euen the abusing of the Epistle of Ignatius. The last Accusation was false, this is friuolous, both malicious. When will he end this part of his Reckoning?

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

BEfore I enter into this other Examen, there occurreth vnto mee Reckon. pag. 183. a consideration worthy to be pondered by the Reader, which is, that all these sixe obiections made against Card. Bellarmine for im­puting olde heresies vnto Protestants, are taken out of his fourth book of the notes of the Church, cap. 9. where he chargeth the Protestants of his time with twenty seueral condemned olde heresies, yet M. Morton thought good to set vpon fixe: Which M. Morton picking out onely a few, and leauing all the rest as not excusable, and vnderhand by his filence graunteth that they are held by Protestants. Which how mark­able a point it is, I leaue to the Reader to iudge.

The Reuiew.

55. Good Reader, know that Mr. Parsons hath required thy iudgement, in a matter which he holdeth worthy conside­ration, and ponderous. His consequence is this: M. Morton Mr. Parsons vn­reasonable ex­action. hath chosen onely sixe Obiections of Heresie (which he calleth Slaunders) of twenty: Ergo, by his silence he doth in effect ac­knowledge the rest fourteene Heresies, to haue beene iustly obiected against Protestants. Now I also desire thy further consideration, to iudge, whether this Reckoning of his be ey­ther sensible or conscionable.

56. For first, the Treatise was onely a Preamble vnto a Treatise, and as it were the foote to the bodie of this booke, yet doth M. Parsons exact, that I should haue either set down all the rest of the slaunderous accusations, which Bellarmine hath vsed against Protestants, or else to confesse them to bee no slanders. But hath not the Apostle demanded from reason, that if 1. Cor. 12. 17. All the body were an eye, then where should be the hea­ring? So say I, if all had beene a Preamble, to what end had beene an offer of a large Encounter? Would any thinke Mr. Parsons to be in his sober wits, if when he seeth the picture of his Fathers face onely, he should thereby conclude that his Father was all face, and no bodie? And yet doth hee quarrell with me for not setting downe all things in the Preamble, and as it were the Preface of this Encounter.

57. Secondly, it is also an vnconscionable, or at least an inconsiderat Consideration, which Master Parsons vrgeth: For euen all those other Fourteene, and diuers moe heresies, obiected by Bellarmine, against the Protestants, haue beene by me particularly examined discussed, and prooued to haue beene so many inexcusable slaunders, euen in that Booke of Apolog. Cathol. part. 1. Noto. 6. Apologie, whereof Master Parsons himselfe hath taken particular notice: but more fully and exactly in my lass Ca­tholicke Appeale, the fift Booke whereof is spent in the confutation of these and otherslaunders, which our Romish Aduersaries haue falsly obiected against Caluine, and other Protestants. Thus we see that his Ponderous Consideration, [Page 108] being put into the ballance, is found to weigh no more then doth a vaine and fantasticall conceit.

CHAP. IX.

Concerning three other corrupted Allegations of Cardi­nall Bellarmine.

SECT. I.

The charge concerning Saint Cyprian in the poynt of Tradition.

1. ‘ Preamb. p. 66. SAint Cyprian stood vpon written Tradition: Bellarmine said that he did it in defending an error, Therfore no maruaile ( saith he) though Cyprian erred in so reasonning; for the which cause Saint Augustine doth worthily refute him. In which place S. Augustine seemeth to bee so farre from confuting him, for reasoning so, that he saith: That which Cyprian warneth vs, to runne vnto the fountaine, that is vnto the Tra­ditions of the Apostles, from thence to deriue a Conduict to our times, that is chiefly and doubtlesse to be performed.’

The summe of Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

THis was no good forme of arguing in him, but in this necessitie, Recko. c. 3. § 13. pa. 187. for defending this error: for first Saint Augustine doth of purpose refute the same, and Saint Cyprian doth elsewhere yeeld and al­low the vnwritten Traditions: I graunt that S. Cyprian saith (as Saint Augustine also doth) that when any Tradition or Doctrine can bee clearely shewed out of Scripture, Optimum est, It is questionlesse the best way of all: But when there is no Scripture for proofe of it, then (saith S Augustine) Consuetudo illa, &c. that is, The custom which was op­posed against Cyprian, must be beleeued to haue proceeded from the Apostles, as many things else, which the Vniuersall Church doth hold, [Page 109] and therefore are well beleeued to haue beene commaunded by the Apostles, albeit they are not found written.

The Reueiwe.

2. What Saint Augustines iudgement was concerning the sufficiencie of Scripture, as it is defended by the Prote­stants, he hath often vnfolded, saying that Aug. de doct. Christ. l. 2. c. 9. Amongst all things which are contained plainly in Scripture, all those things may be found, which concerne faith and manners of life. And a­gaine, Lib. 2. depec­cat. merit. & re­miss. ca. 36. Whensoeuer there is a case of greatest difficultie, and we haue no cleere proofes of Scriptures for our conclusions, so long must mans presumption keepe silence. And euen of this question of not rebaptizing, he doth refute it out of Scriptures Contra Dona­tist. l. 1. c. 7. Tom. 7. By (as he speaketh) certaine proofes, (and not by coniectures, as Bellarmine calleth them) before the definition of a Coun­cell. And heere also although Bellarmine be in part iustifia­ble, yet looke vnto the sentence of Cyprian, and you shall find his reasoning negatiuely from Scripture (which is condem­ned by Bellarmine) to bee iustified by Saint Augustine, al­though it be there applied by him affirmatiuely.

SECT. II.

The second exception against Bellarmine.

The charge concerning S. Peters Ordination.

3. THe summe of the exception standeth thus, Bellarmine defended that, Bellar. l. 1. de Rom. Pont. c. 23. Saint Peter onely was ordeined a Bi­shop by Christ, and that the other Apostles were ordeined Bishops by Saint Peter: and endeuoured to prooue this out of the te­stimonies of Anacletus, Clemens Alex. Eusebius, Cyprian, Leo, Augustine. But these Fahers ( saith their Relect. 2. §. 2. num. 8. Victoria) do not in­tend that which the Authors of this opinion doe pretend. As for other writings which are attributed vnto Clement, and Pope A­nacletus, which are both many and great, they are ( saith their [Page 110] Cardinall Cusanus) Cusanus l. 3 de Concord. c. 2. Apocrypha, wherein they, who extoll the Romane Sea (which is worthy of allpraise) do aboue that which is conuenient or meete, either wholly or partly rely, We are now to Reckon, first for the matter it selfe, and then for the maner of deliuerance of it in my Preamble.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

ALl this which Mr. Morton alle adgeth heere, if it were graunted, as Reck. pag. 195. it lieth, conteineth nothing but two different opinions, between learned men in a disputable question. Whether Christ did im­mediately, and by himselfe, consecrate all or some of his Apostles Bi­shops, or one onely with authoritie to consecrate the rest? Turrecre­mata and Bellarmine doe hold the one for more probable, but Victoria, Cusanus, and some other do allow rather the other. What wilfull false­hood is there in this? Or is it not singular folly to call it by that name?

The Reueiwe.

4. If all this were graunted Mr. Parsons? Then I can tell you, you must either renounce the iudgement of Bellarmine, or else recant your owne Reckoning: you haue graunted first that Recko. p. 193. Bellarmine did prooue out of Turrecremata, that Christ did make onely Saint Peter Bishop, with authoritie to consecrate the rest: Secondly, that Pag. 194. Victoria thinketh the contrary opini­on to be more probable, and aunswereth the argument of Turre­cremata, saying, that the Fathers cited for the same; Reuerà non significant id, quod Authores huius sententiae volunt, That is, That in trueth they doe not signifie so much, as the authoritie Mr. Parsons crooked dissi­mulation. ( Mr. Parsons should haue said Authors) of this opinion would haue them: Lastly, that Cardinall Cusanus here cited, doth to the like effect, aunswere the same arguments.

5. In all these confessed points consisteth the maine mat­ter of my former exception: Notwithstanding this euidence, Mr. Parsons saith, If it were graunted, &c. What tricke shall we call this? Yet thus much being graunted, marke Master Parsons, what will follow hereupon, viz. that the Church of Rome hath lost her supposed Motherhood: For Bellar. lib. 1. de Pont c. 27. §. Secund rat. Bellarmine presuming that all auncients held the Church of Rome to bee [Page 111] the Mother-church, addeth in these words, Quod non vide­tur, &c. that is, Which seemeth not to be true (saith he) except Rome by iust consequence is not the Mo­ther-church. in that sense, because Peter, who was the Bishop of Rome, had or­deined all other Apostles Bishops, either by himselfe, or by others. See this, and blush at your ignorance, Bellarmine reasoneth thus: Except Peter did ordaine the rest of the Apostles Bi­shops, your Church of Rome cannot be truely called the Mo­ther-church: but that Peter ordained the rest of the Apostles Bishops, Mr. Parsons doth hold it to be a matter disputable: their Cusanus thinketh it to be improbable, their Victoria con­cludeth Mr. Parsons ig­norance. pro certo, that Certamly Peter did not ordaine them Bishops. The conclusion will follow of it owne accord, which is this, viz. It is therefore but Disputable, or Improbable, yea an Incredible doctrine to say, that the Church of Rome is the Mother-church. When Mr. Parsons shall consider this, I thinke he will repent him of this Reckoning.

6. May I be furthermore so bold with Mr. Parsons, as to demand: why he did translate [ Authores eius sent entiae, that is, The Authors of this opinion] into The authoritie of this opi­nion? I say, what authoritie had he for these trickes, for of his purpose we will make no question: For he was loath that the opinion of Bellarmine should be held by any certainely false; or that such Authors as were Anacletus, Clem. Alexandrinus, Cyprian, August. Leo, should be thought to write against his opinion. The matter being thus cleere, for their conuiction, M. Parsons (according to his old guise) diuerteth his Readers eye from the matter vnto the manner of deliuery, & first thus.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

HE alleadgeth the sentence thus: that Saint Peter was the onely Reck. p. 192. Bishop, and that the other Apostles took their Orders from him. Where he should haue said, Peter was ordained Bishop alone by Christ, he changeth Episcopall Consecration, into holy Orders.

The Reueiwe.

7. Seeing that Peter onely is said to haue bene ordained Loose and ab­surd cauils. [Page 112] Bishop, who can imagine any ordainer but Christ? And the question being onely of ordaining a Bishop, how can the word Holy orders betoken any other orders, but those which are Episcopall, that is, the Orders of Bishops? Except Mr. Parsons transgresse so much, as to denie the orders of Bishops to bee Holy: which sheweth the exception, heere vsed by M. Par­sons, to be but an arrant quarrell.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

WHereas he saith, that Bellarmine laboureth to euince from the Recko. pag. 193. testimonies of Anacletus, Clemens Alex. &c. the proofe of this prerogatiue; he abuseth him egregiously, for that Bellarmine doth alleadge this opinion, that Christ hauing all his Apostles Priests, did make onely S. Peter Bishop, with authoritie to consecrate the rest, as the opinion of Turrecremata, alleadging diuers manifest reasons and proofes for the same.

The Reuiewe.

8. Bellarmine contended to grace the Pope in Peter, and Peter with many prerogatiues aboue the other Apostles; The two and twentieth is this aboue mentioned, viz. Peter alone was ordained Bishop by Christ, and the other Apostles by Peter. This Bellarmine holdeth to haue beene Saint Peters preroga­tiue, and then goeth about to defend it: but how hee is con­tented to reason from Cardinall Turrecremata, alleadging and allowing the same arguments and testimonies of Fathers as his owne, and in the end making the same conclusion which Turrecremata did, All this Mr. Parsons cannot denie, and yet behold forsooth an Egregious abuse of Bellarmine; but why? because Bellarmine doth alleadge the reasons of Turre­cremata. As if Mr. Parsons seeing some dissolute Rusfian, A Simile, illu­strating Mr. Parsons deceit­ful peeuishnes. borrowing a sword of an other, wherwith he doth wilfully kil a man, forthwith to be apprehended, and in due time con­demned and executed, should runne vpon the iudge, and re­uile him, saying, he did not the murther, for hee borrowed the sword: So it is, Bellarmine did borrowe the reasons of Turrecremata: but did vse them and applie them for the [Page 113] proofe of his owne conclusion, which by other Romish Do­ctors hath beene condemned as false.

9. Therefore in this so senselesse an accusation, the bent of Mr. Parsons malice doth shew it selfe, who furthermore vrgeth the leauing out of the word Reckon. 194. [ fortasse] in the testimo­nie of Cusanus, when as he could not be ignorant that Concord. Cath. l. 3. c 2. Cusa­nus doth immediatly after prooue them to be Apocrypha and counterfeit Epistles, which are attributed vnto Anacletus and Clemens. For first, There is no mention (saith he) of them His malignant lust of accusing his Aduesary. in any writings of antiquitie. Secondly, The Epistles themselues being but applied vnto the times of those Saints (namely of A­nacletus and Clemens) they doe bewray themselues: meaning that they are Apocrypha. Thirdly by their Contents; a­mong others this, that The writer of the Epistle of Clemens, Popes Epistles forged. feineth Clemens to haue written this Epistle vnto Iames Bi­shop of Ierusalem, after the death of Peter, whereas it is mani­fest (saith Cusanus) that Iames suffered Martyrdome eight yeeres before the death of Saint Peter. So that you cannot be so much, offended with me, for leauing out one word, as I am offended with my selfe, for omitting the large proofes of Cu­sanus, which doe make the matter without all Peraduenture.

SECT. III.

The third Exception against Bellarmine, concerning Platina.

10. ‘ Preamb. pa. 67 BEllarmine cyteth the testimony of Extat. apud, &c. Bellar. l. 4. de Pont. c. 13. § Extat. Platina for the commendation of Pope Hildebrand: and in another place finding Platina obiected in the question of Confession, answereth for disabling of the Authour, saying, that Being vr­ged, &c. Platina had no publique authority to pen the liues of the Popes from publique records: which is notably false, Platina himselfe in his Epistle Dedicatory to the Pope, wri­ting thus: Tu Theolo­gorum, &c. Platina praef. operis. Thou (O Prince of Diuines, and chiefe of Bi­shops) hast commaunded mee to write the liues of the Popes: [Page 114] whose History is therefore greatly commended by Balbus as being Que Pla­tina, &c. Balbus de coronat. §. Post mortem. True, and taken out of publique Monuments.’

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning, and charge of fraude.

CAluine cyting Platina thus: Eorum Annales dicunt. &c. Bellarm. aun­swereth Reck. cap 3. §. 15. pag. 197. that neyther Platina did write those liues of the Popes by publique authority, nor out of publique Records: and addeth im­mediately, which M. Morton hath fraudulently cut off, Vt Annales nostri dici possint, That they may be called our Annals.

The Reueiwe.

11. As though the denying that Platina had written them by publique authority, did not effectually enough denie them to be Annales nostri, that is, such Annales, or Histories, whereby you will be tryed. This is the point, speake some­what to the purpose, for your Clyent expecteth your excuse.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

ANd albeit Platina saith in the Preface of his History vnto the Reckon. pag. 198. Pope Sixtus the fourth, who liued somewhat aboue 100. yeares past, that he had commaunded him to write the Popes liues, yet this proueth not that his collection is an authenticall History of our Church, or so well performed by him, as all things therein contained must be held for exact truth and we bound to accept of the same, which is all, in effect, that Card. Bellarmine auoucheth.

The Reueiwe.

12. Master Parsons, let me fore-warne you, that this An­swere be not heard of at Rome, euen for your Clyents sake, if not for your owne. May not Rome call any writing of men Mr. P. by his answere hath betraide the authority of almost all Ro­mish Writers. Nostra, that is, Ours, except they be Exactly true; and which the Reader is bound so to accept of? By this aunswere you are compellable to graunt that you haue no Histories at all in your Church, which you may iustly acknowledge: for how shall you be able to call any Authours, eyther Annales no­stri, or Pontifices nostri, or, Patres nostri, or, Iesuitae nostri, if in [Page 115] all things conteyned in their bookes, there must be necessari­ly required an Exact Truth? But M. Parsons was forced to an­swere somewhat.

13. The point in question is, why Caluine might not as well obiect the testimony of Platina against some Romish assertions, as Bellarmine might do for their defence; and whe­ther his reiecting of Platina, as an Author not rightly autho­rized, were eyther reasonable, or conscionable? But now heare what M. Parsons doth iudge of Platina.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

THe censure of Bellarmine is true and prudent, concurring with the Reckon. p. 196. iudgement of diuers learned men of our time, especially of Onu­phrius Panuinus, who writing obseruations vpon the history of Pla­tina, doth offentimes note the said History concerning Popes liues, of diuers defects, both in Chronologie of times, & truth of matters set down by him. And I doubt not but whosoeuer shall haue read the worke of Onuphrius and of Balbus here cyted in commendation of Platina, will greatly preferre the iudgement of the first before the latter in matters of History.

The Reueiwe.

14. Must then Onuphrius be suffered to crowde out Pla­tina, who is but a Commentator vpon Platina? Or shal Onu­phrius The authority of Platina. be the Historian, whom you will acknowledge for au­thentical, and whom you presume to be so Exact, that he may not be reiected? How is it then that your Baron. Anno. 44 num. 54. de Simone Mago. & Anno 253. n. 2. & Ano. 337 n. 73. & Anno 1001. n. 9. & Ao 1071 n. 15. Baronius and O­nuphrius can no better agree? If Balbus his commendations of Platina beare no credite with you, I will trie how Bark­laius may preuaile: he speaking of Platina, saith, Barkl. de po­testate Papae. c. 39. Huic ego au­thori, &c. I will rather credite this Author Platina herein, then any other Historians, although they be more auncient, because he writ his Historie at the commaund of Sixtus quartus, and of o­ther Popes. Here Barcklauis preferreth Platina before o­thers, because of the Popes authority, M. Parsons notwith­standing the Popes authority preferreth Onuphrius: not that M. Parsons is lesse Papal, but because he is more partial when­soeuer any witnesse doth contradict his conceit.

CHAP. X.

Concerning Card. Bellarmine his false Allegations, for proofe of Purgatory, in discussing whereof, the doctrine of Purgatory is discouered.

SECT. I.

The first charge, concerning his cy­tation of Ambrose.

1. ‘ Preamb. p. 68. WHereas hee professeth to bring in Lib. 1. de Purg cap 6. §. Deinde. Apertissima loca, that is, Most euident places out of the Fathers, for proofe of Purgatory-fire already de­scribed, hee produceth such testimo­nies, which by his owne consequence do not concerne the questioned Purgatorie: as first alleaging Jbidem, l. 2 de Purg. cap. 1. § Ambrosius. Ambrose vp­pon the Psal. 118. Serm. 20. and yet Ambrose in that Psal. 118. saith, All must passe thorow those flames, whether Iohn or Peter, onely Christ, who is iustice it selfe, shall auoyde them. Of the which place of Ambrose, Bellarmine saith, Bellar. ibid. §. Adde. Am­brose vnderstandeth not the fire of Purgatory, but the fire of Gods iudgement.’

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

BEllarmine in the first place of Ambrose, saying, See Ambrose vpon ps. Reckon. c. 3. §. 16 pag. 202 118. Serm. 20. signifieth, that that Father hath something more for prouing Purgatory: and in his second booke cyting the same Sermon of Ambrose vpon the place of Genesis, [God hath placed a sword of fire, &c.] saith that it is rather to be vnderstood of the proo­uing fire of Gods iudgements. What contradiction is this? May there not be different sentences and senses in the same Sermon?

The Reuiewe.

2. Yes, there may, but when as in examination of that [Page 117] Sermon of Saint Ambrose, your selfe cannot finde any place, which speaketh of any fire, but that of Gods seuere iudgement, which Bellarmine hath said is not the fire of Purgatoric, you thereby confirme that which I haue said, that Bellarmine cyted Ambrose in a sense different from his meaning.

SECT. II.

The second charge, concerning his cytation of Hilarie.

3. ‘ Preamb. p. 68. BEllarmine cyted Lib. 1. de Purg c. 6. §. Hilarius. Hilary in Psal, 118. vppon these wordes [Concupiuit anima, &c.] We ( saith Hilary) must vndergo that indefatigable fire, in the which we must passe thorough the grieuous punishments of purging of soules, This he Reckoned among his most plaine places, for proofe of Purgatory-fire: and notwithstanding else-where alleaging the same text, saith of the Comment of Hilary, that Lib. 2. de Purg c 1. §. Idem videtur: Hilary doth therein insinuate, that the blessed Vir­gine ought to haue passed thorow the same fire, adding a little after, that Jbid. §. Adde. He ( that is Hilary) therein by Purgatory, vn­derstood not the fire of Purgatory.’

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

WHereunto is answered, that both are conteyned in that Reckon. p. 203. Discourse of Hilary, both the proouing fire of Gods iudge­ments after death, and the purging fire of Gods iustice.

The Reuiew.

4. You should haue answered for the same place of Hila­ry which was obiected: otherwise if you shal labor to prooue that Bellarmine meant, that both these fires were vnderstood in that one place, where he himselfe confesseth that the fire of Purgatory is not vnderstood, this would be as haplesse a worke, as if you had sought by contradicting Bellarmine, to free Bellarmine from contradiction.

SECT. III.

The charge of many false Allegations together.

5. ‘ Preamb. p. 69. YEt againe, among his Bellar. l. 1. de Purg. c. 6 §. Deindè sunt. manifest places for Pur­gatory, he alleageth Vt Origenes hom. 6. in Exod. Saluus fit, si quid fortè plumbi ha­bent admixtum: &c. Origen, Basilius in Isa. 9. Quod depascatur & deuoret ignis Purgatorius: &c. Basil, Lactantius l. 7. c. 21 Perstring entur inge, atq, comburentur: &c. La­ctantius, Hieronymꝰ in fine Cōment in Isa. Quorū opera in igne probanda. &c. Hierome, [...] Psal. 36 Non exuremur, tamen vremur, &c. HaecomniaBel­lar. l. 1. de Purg. c. 6. Ambrose: all which are ac­knowledged expresly by Origenes dixit, Omnes homines, excepte Christo, aliquo modo vrendos esse igne conflagrationis diuini iudicy. Et Hilarius vnà cum Ambrosio Originem secutus est. Eòdem pertiuere videntur quae Basitius annotauit: Adeandem opinionem apparet allusisse Hieronimum; & longe ante Hieronimum quo (que), Lactantium. Sixtus Senens. Bibl. l. 5. Annot. 171. Lactanti is l. 7 c. 21 Perstringentur, inquit, &c. Loquitur de ijs, qui in resurrectione sunt igni tradendi. Suares les. in part 3. Thom. q. 59. art. 6. Disp. 57. sect. 1. Sixtus Senensis, from the eui­dence of the contexts, to haue spoken onely of the fire of the day of iudgement, and consequently, as Bellarmine hath taught vs, Not of the fire of Purgatory.’

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

I Would demaund of M. Morton, why we should ascribe more vnto the Recko. pag. 205. iudgement of Senensis in censuring these places of the Fathers, then vnto other learned, that thinke the contrary: They are all acknow­ledged (saith M. Morton) expresly by Sixtus Senensis from the euidence of their contexts to haue spoken onely of the fire of the day of iudgement, and conse­quently not of Purgatory. This is now properly to helpe a Die indeed: for that Senensis doth not talke of any such euidence of the contexts, but speaketh rather doubtfully, and by coniecture, saying of Origen, that his opinion (that both good and bad should be purged by fire) is confuted by S. Augustine in his bookes de Ciust. Dei, but yet for excusing the same from errour he saith; Tu vide an Origenis verba interpretari queant de ig­ne vltime conflagrationis. Doe thou (Reader) consider whether the words of Origen may be interpreted of the fire of the last conflagration, or not; so as he did not expresly acknowledge from the euidence of the contexts, (as M Mortons shifting and lying words are) that these authorities must needes be vnderstood of the last combustion of the world, but rather leaueth it as vncertaine to be considered by the Reader.

The Reuiew.

6. I said indeed that Senensis by the euidence of contexts acknowledged the testimonies alleaged, to haue spoken of the fire of the day of iudgment, and consequently (according vnto Bellarmines doctrine) not of the fire of Purgatory. This you call Shifting, Lying, and helpint the Die; but the perfect Cogger will presently appeare. For first I alleaged diuers te­stimonies, which might haue licensed me in a generalitie to say by the euidence of contexts, seeing that M. Parsons could take exception but onely to one.

7. And the truth is, that I cyted Senensis his Biblioth. l. 5. Annot. 171. who writeth thus: Ambrose seemeth to agree with Origen, who saith that all (Christ onely excepted) must be tried, and, in a sort, burnt in the fire of the conflagration of Gods iudgement: Where Senensis expresly affirmeth, what his iudg­ment is concerning the sentence of Origen. To confure this M. Parsons fin­gular dexteri­ty in falshood. M. Parsons setcheth a skip out of Senensis, Annot. 171. backe­ward vnto his Annot. 170. where Senesis saith of Origen, Vi­de an. &c. O confuter! Origen spake of a fire thorow which Apostles, Martyrs, and euery one, Except Christ, must passe. So that this could not bee the Romish Purgatory-fire, for neither Senensis, nor any Romanist durst euer say, that Saints and Martyrs did euer take their voyage vnto heauen by hell. Thus then the [ Vide] of Senensis bringeth no doubt in the cause, for it is stil plain by the contexts, that by it is not meant your Purgatory-fire.

8. Finally, to Mr. Parsons (demaunding why I should a­scribe more vnto the iudgement of Senensis then vnto Bellar­mine?) I answer, because Bellarmine did write in his heate of altercation, but Senensis in the calme of contemplation. By which distinction, Senensis himselfe discerneth betweene the more and lesse iustifiable sentences of holy Fathers. Albeit in­deede I doe yeelde to Senensis, especially because of the eui­dence of his proofe.

SECT. IIII.

The next Charge against Bellarmine.

9. ‘ Preamb. pa. 69 IT follweth in the Preamble. Lastly, hee professeth to confirme the Doctrine of Purgatory Purgatori­um ex Patribus Graecis & Lati­nis probamus. Bellar. l 1. de Purg. c. 6. out of most of the Greeke and Latine Fathers: And an other Iesuit saith more largely Omnes ve­teres Graeci Pa­tres agnouerunt Purgatorium, & Scriptis suis luculentissimè prodiderunt. Salmeron Ies. Comm. in 1. Cor. 15. disp. 15. in fine. Of all the Greeke Fathers, which is an Assertion as false as peremptorie, euen by the confession of their owne Bishop, saying, that Legat qui vesit Graecorum veterum Commentarios, & nullum quantum opinor, aut rarissi­mum de Purgatorio sermonem inueniet: Sed neq̄, Latinisimul omnes huius rei veritatem concepe­runt. Roffens. Art. 18. aduers. Lutherum. There is very rare mention of Purgatory in the Greeke Fathers; and that the La­tine Fathers did not all at first apprehend the doctrine thereof.’

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

THis is vnderstood by him as well of the name of Purgatorie, not Reckon. pag. 207. then so much in vse, as that the most Ancient writers, next after the Apostles time, when many things were not discussed so ex­actly (as in processe of time they were) did not so clearely handle that matter: Nemo iam, dubitat orthodoxus (saith he) an Purgatorum sit, de quo tamen apud priscos illos nulla, vel quàm rarissima fiebat mentio. No rightly Art. 18. con. Luth. beleeuing Christian doth now doubt, whether there be Purgatorie, or no, Of which notwithstanding there was none, or very rare mention made among those Ancient Fathers. Whereof hee giueth diuers rea­sons, and indeede the same may be said of sundry important other Ar­ticles of Catholicke Religion: For so much as in the first Primitiue Church, when the said Fathers were vnder Persecution, and occupied in other weightie affaires against Heretickes and Persecutors, they had not time, nor occasion to discusse many things, which the holy Ghost did afterward make more cleare to the Church by successe of time: And yet doth not B. Fisher say, that there was no knowledge of this Ar­ticle of Purgatorie, in the very first Fathers; but onely his meaning was, that the name, nature, and circumstance thereof was not so well discussed, and consequently the thing more seldome mentioned by them, then afterward by the subsequent writers. And he after proueth it out of many Greeke and Latine Fathers, and out of Scriptures.

The Reueiwe.

10. Their Bishop Roffensis confesseth, that among the Greeke Fathers, there is Rarissima mentio, that is; Most rare mention of Purgatorie. M. Parsons translateth Rarissima, ve­ry rare, which is but a tricke of a nibler. Againe, M. Parsons will haue vs to vnderstand Rosfensis so, as though he had one­ly meant that, The name, nature, and circumstances were not so well discussed or mentioned by ancient Grecians. But Roffensis speaking of Purgatorie it selfe, saith that, Roffen. Art. 18. cont. Luther. Aliquandiù in­cognitum fuit, — & serò cognitum vniuersae Ecclesiae, &c. This is the confession of their owne Bishop Roffensis: That is, Purgatorie was for a while vnknowen, and not, till of late, knowne to the vniuersall Church. With what assurance can the Romanists call the Doctrine Catholicke, that is, Vniuersall, Romish Pur­gatorie no Ca­tholicke Do. ctrine which was not knowne vniuersally in the Primitiue Church of Christ? Yet hath Rome adopted this Article of Pur­gatorie, and suffered this Creeper to come into her newe Bulla iuramen­ti annexa Conc. Trid. Creede, vnder the title of a doctrine necessarie to saluation. But more of this hereafter.

SECT. V.

The next Charge.

11. Preamb. pag. 69. 70. IF any shall but obserue in this one Controuersie, the number of witnesses brought in for confirmation of this their new Article, in the name of Ancient Fathers, which are (by the confession of our Aduersaries) meerely counter­feit, as Clemens his Constitutions, Clemens his Epistles, Atha­nas. in Quaestion. Eusebius Emissenus, Iosephus Bengorion, Hieron. in Prouerb. August. ad fratres in Eremo, the Liturgies of S. Iames, and others: All which, as they are vrged for proofe of Purgatorie, so are they reiected by their owne men (I de­sire to be challenged for proofe hereof) as Forged, or Corrup­ted, or Apocrypha, &c.

M. PARSONS his Reckoning.

HE cannot be trusted in any thing he saith: For these are not so Reck. pag. 210. much as named by Bellarmine (except onely the two fitst in a word or two) much lesse are they brought in for principall Au­thors in the Catalogue of Ancient Fathers, whose Authorities hee set­teth downe for proofe of Purgatorie. So as this is one deceitfull vn­trueth, to make his Reader beleeue, that these are our chiefe Authors, whereas Bellarmine besides these, doeth alleadge twentie, viz. Ten of the Greeke Church, and as many of the Latine.

The Reuiew.

13. But if this Answere of M. Parsons bee fraught with grosse vntrueths, what faith shall any man giue vnto him? First, I named not Bellarmine in that place, but spake in gene­rall of the ordinarie practise of our Aduersaries, in alleadging corrupt and counterfeit writers. Secondly, I called not the M. Parsons tri­ple falshood. foresaid Authors either chiefe, or principall, as M. Parsons pre­tendeth. And lastly, in saying that Bellarmine nameth but the two first of the foresaid Writers, viz. Clemens his Constituti­ons and Athanasius, is a notable falshood: for Bellarmine al­leadgeth Bellar. lib. 1. de Purg. c. 6. §. Euseh Emiss. Eusebius Emissenus, Ibid. c. 7. §: Tertia ratio. Iosephus Bengorion, and Ibidem cap. 5. § Accedant. S. Iames his Liturgie. So that I know not what M. Parsons meant by his denying of this, except happily he laid some wa­ger of falsifying, and meant to winne it.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning, and Charge against his Aduersarie.

SEcondly it is an other manifest vntrueth, to say that our Doctors do confesse all these Authors to be meerly counterfeit. Recko. pa. 211 For albeit some of them be excepted against, or called in question by some Writers, whether they be the true workes of the Authors, whose names they beare, or not, and thereof all reputed Apocryphall, that is, hidden or [...] Yet it followeth not that they are meerely counterfeit, for that they may bee ancient workes, and not to be contemned, though not of those Authors.

The Reueiwe.

14. M. Parsons is so transported with passion, that hee hath forgotten the last clause, which I vsed concerning these Authors, to wit, that they are either forged, or corrupted, or Apocrypha; and so Apocrypha, as being sometime not Ob­scure onely, but euen to be contemned. Whereof in these and others, I shall giue him such a taste, before we end our Rec­koning, as may, I thinke, soone set his teeth on edge.

SECT. VI.

The last Charge.

15. ‘ Preamb. p. 70. IF he shall furthermore marke (said I) how true Fa­thers and Scriptures are instanced in, for proofe of the same Article, whereof (when I speake of Fathers) most of them; (when I speake of Canonicall Scriptures) all of them are found, by the iudgement of their owne Doctors, to be tortured, wrested, and forced, as it were, to say that which they neuer meant, &c.’

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

THis now, whether it be not such a wilfull and witting Lie, as before Reckon. pa. 211 I described for a formall malicious Lie, such as the Writer did know to bee a Lie, when he wrote it, I am content to remit my selfe vnto any iudicious and ciuill Protestant in the world. For if our owne Catholicke Doctors doe finde this in their owne iudgement, how doe they beleeue Purgatorie to be true? Why doe they not change their opinion, and become Protestants? Can M. Morlon answere any thing vnto this lewde and wilfull absurditie, and did he not know that he lied when he writ this?

The Reuiew.

16. What meaneth our Quiet Reckoner to reuell so tur­bulently? M. Parsons vn­quiet Recko­ning. Will he needes falsifie his owne title? The Asserti­on which I made, and which hee calleth a Formall malicious [Page 124] Lie, is put vnto the triall in the next Chapter, where it will be auouched to be an obseruable, iust, and incontrollable trueth. The reason, which hee opposed, I shall now confute in this Section, and compell him to repent his loose tearmes, by an instance, which will manifestly discouer a Romish malladie.

17. The Doctrine of Indulgences hath beene of late put into their Romane Creede in their Councell of Trent, by the Bull of Pope Paulus the fourth. This their Doctors will be­leeue, albeit they confesse, concerning Indulgences, that Roffens. Art. 18 There is not found any expresse sentence, either in Scriptures, or in the writings of Ancient fathers; and that in the beginning of Indulgences, being their noueltie the Primitiuc Church there was no vse of them, nor yet did they come in vse, vntill the feare of a fierie Purgatorie had brought them out. Who, while they pleade for Indulgences, doe it in this maner, viz. Alfonsus lib. 8. aduerl. Haeres. Tit. Indulgenti. e. Indulgences are not therefore to be contem­ned, because the vse of them seemeth to haue beene but of late in the Church, for many things are knowne by posteritie, which the ancient writers were ignorant of. Which we take to be a kind of cracke in their cause, especially seeing that, for want of better light of Antiquitie, they are glad to collect an Antiquitie of them from the Stations vsed anciently at Rome. Now what Stations. were these Stations? Their Onuphrius doeth tell you. Onuph. in Pla­tinam, interp. vo­cum Ecclesiast. The word ( saith he) commeth of Stando, standing, because the peo­ple in their solemne Conuents did stand: For the ancient Bishops of Rome vpon some set dayes, especially in Lent and Holydayes, did goe vnto diuers Churches of Rome, where a Sermon was made vnto the people there standing, and saying Prayers, they did afterward communicate with the Clergie and people of Rome in the Diuine Sacraments. In all which, there is no sent of Romish Indulgences.

18. Againe, we find them obserue, that Agrippa de vanit. Scient. cap. 61. Pope Boniface the eight (about the yeere 1300.) was the first who extended Indulgences vnto Purgatorie: Which is the Indulgence where­vpon we dispute. Besides, they tell vs, that the inuisible spi­rituall Treasurie of the Merits of Holy men, is the Bellar. l. 1. de Indulg. c. 2. in the Argument of the Chapter. Foundati­on of Indulgences: Notwithstanding, Maironis and Durand, two of your principall Schoolemen euen of later times, [Page 125] As Bellarm. confesseth, ibid Doubted of the truth of such a Treasurie. And lastly, that some, whom they call Catholickes, iudged no otherwise of these kinde of Indulgences, then of Greg. Valent. Ies. de Indulg. c. 2. Godly deceits. Heere we see more then a glimpse of that light, which we professe, ac­knowledged by your owne Doctors. I must hereupon make bolde to demaund of Mr. Parsons, why their Doctors, hauing so great an apparance of the noueltie of this Article, did not­withstanding still yeelde vnto the practise of their Church? When he shall answere this, then may he easily satisfie him­selfe, concerning his last demaund.

Master PARSONS his Reckoning.

BEllarmine hath alleaged ten seuerall testimonies out of the Scrip­tures Recko. pag. 213. of the old Testament (with the expositions of the auncient Fathers vpon them) which are confessed by Procestants to be Ca­nonicall, excepting the Maccabees, and Toby which were notwithstan­ding Canonicall in S. Augustines time, by the third Councell of Car­thage, in which himselfe was present. And out of the new Testament he alleageth fiue other places, with the expositions in like manner of the Fathers vpon them, that vnderstood them to meane of Purgatory. And will our owne Doctors say that these fifteene places are all tortu­red and forced against their meaning? and all the Fathers expositions violated against their owne iudgement? If our Doctors will say so, they must be M. Mortons Doctors, and not ours.

The Reuiewe.

19. It is a thing superfluous, Actum agere. This which I say of the principall places of Canonicall Scriptures, wherein your Doctors doe most insist, I haue proued Cath. Appeal. l. 1. c 2. §. 1?. also, from the meere literal Expositions of your owne Doctors to be infor­ced And as for the obiection from the Councell of Carthage, it is satisfied, ibid l. 4. c. 18. §. 1. beyond compasse, and want not a supply of like Answers vnto other Scriptures, which haue beene omitted. But I shall not need to insist vpon places of Scripture, the rather because I am not so greatly prouoked by M. Parsons heereunto, who hath reserued his maine violence for the tryall of Fathers.

20. Yet notwithstanding, one confession of Bellarmine may not be so easily let passe, which hath not beene mentio­ned [Page 126] in my Appeale, to wit, Bellar. l. 1 de Purg. c. 4. §. Est igitur. Cùm nusquam in Scripturis fiat mentio ignis, vbi apertè de Purgatorio agitur, nihil dubium est, qum Cyprianus ad hunc locum respexerit. That is, Seeing that in no place of Scripture, where Purgatory is plainely handled, a­ny mention is made of fire, it is not to be doubted, but that S. Cy­prian had respect vnto this place of Scripture, to wit, 1. Cor. 3. where it is written, He shall be saued as it were by fire: Which is a sufficient confession, that there is not in any place of Scrip­ture any mention of fire, wherein there is any plaine proofe of Purgatory, except in these fore-cyted wordes of 1. Cor. 3. And can he say that this onely place is plaine for Purgatory No place of scripture wherein fire can plainly [...] Purga­torie fier. fire? By no meanes: for Bellarmine confesseth hereof, that an­cient Expositors doe not agree in the interpretation of fire in this place: Some vnderstand by fire the Tribulations of this life, some the eternall torments, some the fire of the last day, and some the Purgatory fire. How shall our aduersaries presume of any plain place of Scripture for proofe of Purgatory-fire, see­ing that this their onely plaine place is thus obscured and per­plexed with foure different Interpretations?

CHAP. XI.

The earnest challenge which M Parsons hath made, that I should disannull the allegations of the testimonies of those Fathers, whom Iodocus Coccius hath cyted for proofe of the Romish Purgatory.

SECT. 1.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

COccius produceth vpon the point of threescore Au­thours, Reckon. p. 218. within the compasse of the first sixe hundred yeares, that confirme the common faith of that Church in those dayes, to haue held Purgatory, and [...] for the dead, for Catholike doctrine, and for the practise also of praying for the soules departed. TO WHAT END DO YOU SAY THIS [Page 127] M. PARSONS? Reckon. p. 212 To the end that T. M may haue somewhat to do, I doe earnestly challenge him herein, requiring at his handes, that of the first 60. mentioned by Coccius within the first 600. yeares, he doe re­ally and sincerely [...] 31. at least, which is the major part, to bee so tortured, and so graunted by the iudgement of our Writers; or else he faileth wholly in his cause.

The Reueiwe.

2. There is none, I thinke, but will holde it a point of wisedome in M. Parsons, to set mee rather to combate with Coccius, then to suffer me to Encounter himselfe, by manife­sting his owne singular falsifications; which notwithstan­ding, by his leaue, I must performe, before we end our Recko­ning. In the meane time, I willingly yeelde vnto his present challenge, wishing that I had him in a good Obligation by oath, that he will as willingly accord vnto the euidence of those things, which shall be reuealed. And now I enter the Lists.

That the testimonies of Fathers, and other Antiquities, alledged by
Coccius The­saur. Tom. 2. l. 7. Art. 5.
Coccius, for defence of Romish Purgatorie, are, for the most part, eyther out of bookes falsly fathered, and vnwarran­table; or else, out of true testimonies falsly applyed. The tryall of both which dependeth vpon certaine general Obseruations.
The two first.

3. For my more plaine and expedite discharge of this Challenge, I shall request the Reader to passe along with me, in reuiewing some confessed Obseruations, which will make Counterfeit, Apocrypha, corrupted, wrested. clearely for the conuiction of Coccius, whereunto the parti­cular testimonies must haue a necessary relation; which may be thus distinguished: The first Obseruation is, that the Au­thors and testimonies which shall be confessed to bee eyther forged, or corrupted with heresies, or else Apocrypha, may not be thought to be of sufficient credite.

4. The second Obseruation may bee taken out of their Iesuite Suarez, where he saith, that Suarez [...] Tom. 2. in Thom. q. 59. art. 6. sect. 1. disp. 57 §. Veruntamen. They that thinke that the [Page 128] soules of men are not iudged in death, nor that they receiue ey­ther paine, or reward, but are reserued in secret receptacles vnto the vniuer salliudgement, they doe consequently acknowledge, non purgarj, i. e. That men are not purged before the generall resurrection and iudgement: whereupon it must follow, that they are to be purged in the day of the Conflagration, &c. but to say The opinion of receptacles ofsoules: without both heauen and hell. that some soules of the iust are not purged, vntill they be vnited with the body, and so receiue pur gation in the fire of conflagrati­on, both in their bodies and soules; although it doe not contradict the principles of our Faith, yet is it vtterly false and erroneous. So Suarez. His Consequence is plaine: They that taught se­cret receptacles of soules voyd of paine or of reward, vntil the day of the general resurrection, do denie the Romish doctrin of Purgatorie torment, before the last day; but diuers Fathers (by our Aduersaries confessions) taught such kinde of Recep­tacles of soules of all the faithfull, as namely, Lactant. l. 7. Inst. cap. 1. as Suarez noteth, ibid. q. 54. art. 4. sect 3. §. Quarto loco. Lactantius, so saith Suarez: And Scnens. bibl. 1. 6. Annol. 345. & Renatius Laurentius Annot. in Tcrt. de Testimonio anima pa. 519. saith, Omnes fere antiqui in ea ferè sententia erant, vt puta­rent animos iusiorum non esse omnino beatos ante resurrecti­onem. Senensis, where he relateth the sentences of diuers Fathers, who seeme to haue inclined to the same o­pinion, after that he had excused some by name, he leaueth I­renaeus, Iustine Martyr, Tertullian, Clemens Romanus, Origen, Lactantius, Theodoretus, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Euthymi­us vnto the descretion of his Reader, thus farre to excuse them, if he cannot acquit them, because in their dayes the Church had not defined any thing, concerning that Article. Which is, by Suarez his consequence, to graunt that, in that auncient time, Romish Purgatory was no Catholicke doctrine of faith.

The third Obseruation is concerning the diuers signi­fications of the word Fire.

5 We are furthermore necessarily to consider the con­fessed Diuers accep­tions of the word Fire. differences of the word Fire, vsed in the testimonies of Fathers; as first by Fire vnderstanding the Ribera Ies. in Mala. 3. nu. 18. Holy Ghost, which purifieth and purgeth the soule from sinne: And of this Bellar­mine confesseth, that it Bellar. l. 1. de Purg. Doth not signifie that Purgatorie fire, which is now controuerted: Or secondly, signifying the Idem l. 1. de Purg c. 1. §. Quarta. Tribulations of this life, whereof he likewise confesseth, that [Page 129] It maketh not for the now questioned Purgatory. Or, [...] betokening The seuere iudgement of God (euen after death) by onely trying and examining the actions which men haue com­mitted in this life: which (as our Bellar ibid. c. 4 §. Superest. Aduersaries accordingly confesse) doth not concerne the question of Purgatory fire, which they hold to be not onely an Intellectuall fire of trying and examining, but also of tormenting and purging, because the Trying and examining iudgement is in regard of the workes, by iudging them vnprofitable, but the purging and tormenting fire doth seaze onely vpon the Workers. Or, Fourthly, noting fire of conflagèration in the day of Doome, when all the world shall be on a flame: which, as Bellarmine acknowledgeth, is not that Purgatory fire, which he in the name of their Church vn­dertooke to defend, because, as some thinke, all mettals, as well Gold and Siluer, as Wood and Siubble, that is, as well the godly Saint, as the lesse sanctified, must passe thorow the fire of conflagration: Or, Lastly, specifying the fire of Hell of the damned, which is eternall, as it is onely a Tormenting fire, but not purging: for the purging fire (saith Bellar. l. 2. de Purg. c 6 §. Oc­taua est. Bellarmine) is tempo­rall, and not eternall.

6. If then Coccius shall bee found to abuse the testimo­nies of Fathers so notoriously, as to mistake the fire of the Holy Ghost (which purgeth the soule by sanctification) in stead of the fire of vexation: or the fire of Tribulation (which is in this life) in stead of fire after death: or the fire of Gods iudgement (which is onely in the examination of workes) in stead of the fire of torment: or the fire of conflagration (which is onely in the last day) in stead of fire presently after death: or the fire of the damned in Hell (which is eternall) in stead of the fire which is temporall: then, I suppose, Mast. Parsons will be ashamed of his choyce, in making Coccius his Champion in this cause of Purgatory.

The fourth Obseruation, in remoouing our Aduersaries Obie­ction, taken from Prayers, Sacrifice, and Oblations for the dead.

7. The generall and most popular Argument, wherwith [Page 130] our Aduersaries vse to vnderproppe the ruinous structure of their Purgatory, is this, that Bellar. L. 1. de Purg. c. 11. § De quarto. The Fathers (saith Bellarmine) prayed for the dead, Ergo, they beleeued Purgatory: and from this he saith, that Purgatory is euidently collected; wherein M. Parsons is peremptory, saying, that Reckon. 218. To pray for the soules departed doth necessarily suppose Purgatorie: and this seemeth to be the scope of Occius in most of his allegations, wherein Sacrifice, Pray­er & Oblation nothing will be found more frequent for the proofe of their Purgatory, then onely the offering prayers, Oblations, and Sa­crifice for the dead.

8. For consutation of our Aduersaries Consequence, it wil be sufficient to appeale vnto our Aduersaries confessions, who doe readily graunt that Prayers, Sacrifices, Commemo­rations and Oblations haue beene vsed for the dead, without all respect of their Purgatory torment: as first in regard of the soules of the Damned, whom Bellar. l. 2. de Purg. c. 6 Bellarmine denieth to be in Purgatory, and there is good reason thereof, because the fire of the hell of the damned is a fire of Satispassion onely, and not of Expiation. And yet not withstanding we read that some Ancients prayed for the damned ones (especially such as died in the profession of Christian faith) whether it were for their absolute deliuerance out of hell, which was the errour of See hereafter Sixtus Senens. bibl. l. 6 Annot. 47. § In his O­rigen, or else, as some Ibidem, citeth some Doctors who thus thought. others Suarez. Jes. Tom. 4 in Them. disp. 47. §. 1. haue done for the mitigation of their torment, which, euen in the opinion of our Senensis quo suprà. Aduersa­ries, is reiected as erroneous: so that from prayers made for the damned, to conclude that there is a Purgatory fire of them who are to be saued, is, by M. Parsons leaue, but a wide and wilde consequence, and an abuse of such testimonies, because in case of bearing witnesse, both a condemned opinion and a condemned person are equally incompetent.

9. The second state of soules departed is of the Saints in Blessednesse, who are not in Purgatory, and yet haue some Fa­thers offered both Sacrifice and Prayers for them: for of Sa­crifice Bellarmine confesse th: Bellar. 12. de Purg. c 18. §. Ad primum. Sacrifice (saith he) was offered for Saints: but how? Not (saith he) that we may aske any thing for them, but that we may giue thanks to God for the glorie, which he confirred vpon them. And this prayer was found in their [Page 131] Romish Missall, to wit, Grant O Lord, we beseech thee, that this Prayer may profit the Soule of blessed Leo. Bellarmine will haue vs to vnderstand that these kind of requests were Jbidem, §. PraetereaSccun­do & deinceps, § Adde tertio. Possibly for the glorifying of the bodies of the Saints (albeit the Prayer is said to be for his soule) in the day of Resurrection.

10. This confession likewise strangleth Bellarmines eui­dence, and M. Parsons his Consequence, except they will iudge it no impietie to thinke, and that necessarily, that Pope Leo and other glorious Saints, are tormented in Purgatorie. Fur­thermore, Cassander con. sull. Art. 24. See more fully confessed hereafter. n. 55. It was an vsuall custome ( as saith Cassander) that oblations were made for Martyrs, when as thankesgiuing was vsed for them, and when the mysticall action, wherein Christ his body is presented, there was mention made of them, as it appea­reth out of Cyprian and Augustine, and as it is expressed in the Greeke Liturgie, saying that the vnbloody Cultus incru­entus. worship is offered for the Virgine Mary, and for the Apostles, and Martyrs. And all the good, which their Suarez will acknowledge to accrew vnto the blessed Saints by our Suarez Tom. 4. in Thom. disp 48 § 4 nu. 10. Oblations and Sacrifices (which are, saith he, our giuing of thankes for them) is not any degree of essentiall glory, but onely an extrinsecall, such as they knowing our Prayers doe retoyce thereat. By this also Master Parsons his necessarie consequence ( concluding from offering of Prayers and Sacrifice for the dead, a Purgatorie torment of them) is found to bee a notable falshood, and delusion, by confounding Prayers of thankesgiuing, with Prayers of suppli­cation; and the state of the Blessed with the condition of men tormented, and in effect heauen with hell.

11. The third respect of soules, mentioned by the Fa­thers, is when the Soule entreth either into the Examination of Gods seuere iudgement, or else thorough the flame of the con­flagration of fier in the last day, through which all Soules must passe with their bodies: In both which respects, wee heare some Fathers praying for the dead depàrted, albeit neither of these conditions doe imply the Romish Purgatorie, as Bellar­mine See aboue num. 5. hath confessed.

12. If therefore Coccius shall bee found to cite, for de­fence of their imagined Purgatorie, Prayers made for the dam­ned, [Page 132] in stead of Prayers for the Godly; or made for the Blessed, to prooue that men are Tormented; or Sacrifices and Prayers of Commemoration and Thankesgiuing, in steade of Prayers of Deprecation; or Supplications for the perfect consummation of happinesse, in the eternall rest of both body and soule, in stead of Prayers for redemption out of an hellish Prison, and other such like incongruities and abuses; Then must M. Par­sons wish that he had made some other challenge. And now I betake my selfe vnto the particular Examination of his. Al­legations: First of Liturgies, and then of Fathers.

SECT. 11.

Coccius his Allegations of ancient Liturgies, for proofe of Romish Purgatorie, abused.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

COccius alleadgeth ten Liturgies, as that of Ierusalem, Rome, &c. All Reckon. pa. 218. which were in vse in the Churches of the Christian Countries, a­boue the space of a thousand yeeres agone, in all which there is Prayer for soules departed: All which doe necessarily infer Purgatorie.

The Reuiew.

13. This Consequence for Purgatorie we haue See aboue, num. 7. prooued to be so drousie, that it may seeme to neede a Purgatorie fier to purge it, which may be further confuted by the same Li­turgies. But first seeing Cardinall Bellarmine, in answering vnto an obiection taken out of the Liturgie of Hierusalem, passing vnder the name of Saint Iames, (which Liturgie Coc­cius rangeth in the forefront of his battell) could say that Bellarm lib. 4. de. [...] cap. 13. [...] obstat. All things which are contained in the Liturgie of Saint Iames, and others, are not taken from the example and precept of Christ, for it is manifest (saith he) that many things haue beene added by others; They may bee as iustly excluded by vs, with an Eare­marke of Apocrypha: Which were no hard matter to euince [Page 133] by many reasons, if M. Parsons his Challenge would suffer me to vse that weapon, and not force me (as hee hath done) to insist vpon the Collections from the confessed principles of the Romanists.

14. Notwithstanding, to admit for the present these Li­turgies alleadged by Coccius, I will begin at the last, the Li­turgie of the Armenians, because it may best explaine the rest. In it we reade thus: Giue eternall peace, O Lord, vnto all that before vs haue departed in the Faith of Christ, the Holy Fa­thers, Patriarkes, Apostles, Prophets, Martyrs, &c. Pray yee vnto the Lord for the Soules that rest in peace. Here is a Prayer wee see, for Peace vpon soules, euen Apostles, Martyrs, &c. whom it prooueth to bee in Peace: Which cannot signi­fie any thing, but the desire of the consummation of blessed­nesse in their bodies and soules, at the day of the generall Re­surrection; And plainely demonstrateth, that M. Parsons his former consequence, which from the Prayer concluded a Purgatorie punishment, is marueilously false, because in this Liturgie we heare of Prayers for the peace of Apostles and Martyrs, whom no Christian heart can fancie to be in Purga­torie Torment. The Liturgie of Alexandria, attributed to Saint Marke, and praying for Requiem, that is, Arest for the Soules of Fathers, and Brethren, who are a sleepe in Christ; being mindfull of our Ancestors, Fathers, Patriarkes, Prophets, Apostles, &c. may seeme to admit the former Ex­position. So likewise the Liturgie of Constantinople, ascribed vnto Saint Chrysostome, carieth this tenour: Be mindfull, O Lord, of thy seruants, who haue sinned, and pardon them, for there is none but they haue sinned, excepting thee, O Lord, who canst giue rest to them that sleepe. The Liturgie of AEthiopia is for all that rest in a true faith: Of Cappadocia, for all that sleepe in the hope of the Resurrection vnto eternall life: Of Rome, Giue place of refreshing for all that rest in Christ; and so we may thinke of the rest. Yet may not any conclude vpon these Prayers, that All Soules, that are departed in the faith of Christ, were therefore in Purgatorie.

15. Will Coccius (trow we) bee more circumspect in cy­ting [Page 134] the Fathers? I must trie this; and because M. Parsons hath begunne to Recken vp ten Liturgies, I will bring in the Fathers also by Decades, or tens, and see, whether I can satis­fie M. Parsons in his exacted number of thirtie and one.

SECT. 111.

The Greeke Fathers abused by Coccius, for proofe of Romish Purgatorie.
THE FIRST DECAD.

16. THe first Father, whom Coccius produceth, is Cle­mens Epist. 1. Quotidiana, &c. Senens. Bibl. li. 2. Tit. Clemens Which Epistle Card. Turrecremata reiected, as being doubtfull, saith their Sixtus Se­nensis, adding from himselfe, that It is not possible that Cle­mens should haue written this Epistle vnto S. Iames, &c. And Bellar. l. 3. de bonis operib. c. 11 § Caeterum non. Bellarmine noting the same errour in the fift Epistle of this Clemens, calleth the Authour fictitius Clemens, that is, A for­ged Clemens. Where was the braines of M. Parsons, when he set me a worke to prooue some of these witnesses to be, as I called them, Knights of the Poste, seeing that this Clemens, (as hee might haue well knowne) is dubbed such a Knight by their owne Doctors, and yet this Clemens happeneth to bee the chiefe of this Inquest.

17. The second witnesse is Clemens his Constitut. lib. 8. cap. 41. Oremus, &c. who may passe for an Author of the same Knighthood, for although their Iesuite Turrian, laboured to free these Bookes from exception: Yet doth the Iesuite Posseuin Jes. Apparat. Tit. Clemens. Pos­seuine, call his Reasons rather Coniectures then Arguments: And the Episc August. de [...] Gratiani Dialog. 6. pag. 47. Sixt Councell noted these eight Bookes to haue beene corrupted by Heretickes, as their owne Bishop testifieth: The same doeth Cardinall Baron. Anno 102 num. 9. & An. 32. num. 18. & 19. Baronius affirme, and in answering an obiection taken out of these Bookes, calleth his answere Ho­nestum confugium.

18. The third Author is Dionysius Areopagita, Hierarch. cap. 7. part. 2. Posteà, &c. Which Bookes Cardinall Caietane, [Page 135] and many others (saith Senensis Biblie. l. 6. [...] 229. Senensis) did make doubt of, whether they were the Bookes of Dionysius Areopagita. Cardin. Caiet. in Act. 17. Neither durst S. Gregorie (saith Caietane himselfe) affirme these to be the same Dionysius his Bookes; Wherein there was one point of Doctrine, Ribera Jes. in Heb 1. num. 99. Which S. Gregorie would not allow (as witnesseth their Iesuite Ribera) lest that he might seeme to contradict the sacred Scriptures. In briefe, Erasmus Annot. in Act. 17. Guilielmus Grocinus, Diuinitie Reader in S. Paules, reading Lectures out of these Bookes, before the end of his Lectures, concluded that they were not the proper workes of that Dionysius. Therefore may we dismisse him as a [...] Although, if we shall allowe him for a legiti­mate Author, we shal not loose, but gaine by the Reckoning: for Dionysius sheweth that such Prayers (although made for the remission of the sinnes of the dead) were rather protesta­tions, that their sinnes were now forgiuen, then Supplicati­ons for their forgiuenesse: where he will haue euery Christian to hope confidently, that after his death, he shall not change this life for a worse Hierarch. Ec­cles. § Haec qui­dem. estate.

19. The fourth is Hermes, Visione 3. De triumph, &c. who presseth in to beare witnesse, albeit their owne ancient Pope Gelasius, hath taken sufficient exception against him, Bellar. l. 1. de verbe Dei. c. 20. §. Vox igitur. Who calling these Bookes Apocryphall (saith Bellarmine) which were set foorth either by Hereticall Authors, or else by such as were suspected of Heresie, Ibid. §. Nec minus. did reiect Hermes as Apocryphall: which Author also Baron. [...] 159. num. 56. Prosper reiected and iudged to be of no authori­tie. And is not this enough to deserue such a Knightship?

20. Origen is the fift, who foloweth Hermes at the heeles, whose name [...] it bee famous, yet Senens. Bibl. li. 6. Tit. Origenes §. Caeterum. His workes (saith Senensis) were corrupted with innumerable heresies, by the fraude of auncient Heretickes, who sought to broach their impi­ous Doctrines, vnder the fauour and grace of the name of Ori­gen: which writings, if in any thing they seeme to loose cre­dit, then especially where he intreateth of the State of Soules departed: in which respect, Driedo lib. 4. de varijs dog­mat. c. 1. fol. 109. Origen was (saith Driedo) repre­hended of ancient Fathers; And in the same regard is hee reie­cted by Bellarmine, euen for holding that, Bellar. l. 2. de Purg. cap. 1. §. Primus, & §. Secundus. All (except Christ) whether good or euill, must bee purged; and that all the [Page 136] wicked, yea the diuels shall in the end be saued, viz. after that for a long time, they haue suffered the extreame paines of Hell. Notwithstanding, if we should admit Origen for a com­petent witnesse, yet his testimonies doe not reach home vn­to the Romish Purgatorie. The first, Hom. 14. in Leuit. Some sinnes are so light, that they are compared to stubble, which can­not continue long in the fire. The second, Hom. 25. in Num. Thou seest that euery one that passeth out of this life, needeth a purification ( meaning by fire) for I dare say that none can bee cleane, as the Scripture speaketh. The third in Psal. 38. He tal­keth of Caldrons of decoction. In the fourth, Hom. 12. in Hier. 12. God is a consuming fire, and will consume that which is mat­ter for fire, as Wood, Hay, Stubble: &c. I answere, that the An­swere, which their owne Senens. bibl. l. 5. Annot. 171 & Annot. 230. Senensis giueth vnto other places of Origen, may satisfie these which are now obiected (for the Tenure of all is alike) vide Origen in Ps. 36. All men (Christ onely excepted) must passe thorow the fire of conflagration. And againe, In Psal. 118. All men must be tried by fire, whether it be Iohn the Euangelist, or others. And yet againe, in Hier hom. 31. All that haue sinned after Baptisme must be purged by the fire of conflagration Suarez Ies. Tom 2. in Thom qu. 59. Art 6 [...] 1. §. Tertia sen­tentia. Wherein ( saith Suarez) Origen seemeth to allude vnto his owne errour, &c. And Bellar. l. 2. de Purg. c. 1. Bellarmine lighting vp­pon these wordes of Origen in Luc. 14. After the resurrecti­on euery soule must suffer a purging fire, saith, that These words of Origen will not admit any commodious exposition. Still wee see that the fire which Origen speaketh of, being that fire of conflagration in the last day, is not the Romish Purgatory.

21. Eusebius Coccius cal­leth him Alex­andrinꝰ Pres­biter, Turrian, Episcopus: but Baronius num­bring vp the [...] of that See, neuermen tions any such B. The truth is, they know not what to make him. Alexandrinus marcheth next after Origen whom Photius Patriarch of Constantinople, and their owne Authours Trithemius, Posseuinus, and others haue left out of their Catalogues. But that we may feigne a dumbe man to speake, what will he say for their Purgatory fire? He talketh of a song of a generall Requies pro defunctis, namely, that which hath beene giuen to blessed Saints; but these come not into that fire as See aboue, sect. 1. n. 4. hath beene confessed.

22. The Councell of Nice Can. 65. Arabico, is the seuenth witnesse. Who will not reuerence the name of so famous a [Page 137] Councell? But in what Canon shall wee see any mention of the fire of Purgatory? In Can. 65. But what language? For it is not in the Greeke, or Latine Councels: In the Arabicke, saith Coccius. But when came these Arabicke Canons into the publicke light? Not (for ought that I can finde) vntill 1500. years after Christ, which afterwards their Iesuit Turrian pub­lished to the world: But what credite are they of? Card. Baron. Anno 325. n. 180 Because our Elders (saith Baronius) seeme to haue beene ignorant of these Canons, at what time the authority of them had beene most necessary, as namely when the Controuersie of Affrica was on foot, (meaning that solemne reiecting of Appeals vnto Rome) I leaue these to be discussed rather by some others. This con­fession of their Cardinall layeth a shrewd suspicion of forge­rie vpon them: And their Bishop Augustinus E­piscopus Tarra­conensis de E­mend. Grat. Dial. 20. Tarraconensis, speaking to the same point, saith, that the Iesuite Turrian could not per­swade him, that these are the true Canons of the Councell of Nice. We see the zeale that Coccius hath for this Article, who leauing the ordinary Canons of Nice, runneth into A­rabia to seeke for some sparke to kindle a Purgatory fire: And yet, when all is done, there is nothing in that Canon but Fiat Oratio pro eo, which proueth no more the fire of Purgatorie, then that the See aboue, sect. 1. n. 7. Blessed soules are purged in that fire.

24. Eusebius Caesariensis, vitae Constant. l. 4. cap. 60. & cap. 71. [Prayers are made for the soule of the Emperor Constantine,] is the eight witnesse: This is the testimony which Coccius v­seth for proofe of Romish Purgatorie; as though Eusebius and the faithfull of those times had thought, that the Soule of that godly Emperour could bee then deteyned in torment of Purgatorie fire, before it could ascend into blessednesse. But Coccius Tom. 1. l. 5. Art. 2. cyting Euseb. Caesor. out of his lib. 1. cap. 1. de vita Con. stant. Coccius himselfe else-where doth both know and acknow­ledge the confession of Eusebius, concerning the soule of Constantine, to wit, When as I thinke (saith Eusebius) how that his most blessed soule doth enioy life with God, and that he is ho­norably inuested in immortality of the blessed world, I am surpri­zed with an amazement, and cannot speake. And againe, Coccius in the same place addeth a second testimony of the same Eusebius, out of Lib. 3. de vita Constant. cap. 45. where [Page 138] it is said of the same Constantine, that His soule being now dis­solued from the bands of this slesh, is assumed vnto immortality, and an Angelicall nature, and vnto our Sauiour Christ Iesus. Which testimony of Eusebius Coccius bringeth in to prooue, that The soules of holy men, after their departure out of this life goe directly into heauen. Marke now, good Reader, the distor­ted wit of this Coccius, who in one place instanceth in the Soule of Constantine, to shew that soules are deteined in a Purgatory torment, before they can ascend vnto blessednes: and yet in another place, singleth out the example of the Soule of the same Constantine, to proue by the testimony of the same Eusebius also, that the Soules of holy men are not kept in places of anguish and affliction after their death, but are pre­sently Assumed into the kingdome of happinesse: I wish Mr. Parsons to looke vnto his Coccius, whom hee hath chosen to be the witnesse of all these witnesses, and let him tell vs whether such kinde of dealers, deserue not to be nayled to the post.

25. The ninth witnesse must bee Athanas. Quaest. 34. which, in the iudgement of their Sixtus Senens. Biblioth l 4. Tit. Athana­sius. Senensis, Seemeth not to be the booke of Athanasius, but is, as their Iesuite Posseuin Ap­par. Tit. Atha­nasius. Posseuin confesseth, a [...] that is, Falsly inscribed Athana­sius. Coccius, belike, was in doubt that this feigned witnesse would be in danger to loose his [...] and therfore he sought to corroborate his sentence with another testimony of Atha­nasius, cited by Damascen.

26. The tenth witnes is Damascen. Serm. De defunctis, citing Athanasius out of his bookes, De ys qui fide dormierunt: but this witnesse also is one of the Poste, concerning whom Bellarmine saith, that Bellar l. 2. de Purg. c. 8. §. Contra hoc, & §. Prima quia. It may be easily prooued to be none of the bookes of Damascen. Here againe we see what little cre­dite is to be giuen vnto Coccius in impannelling his Iurie, who will haue a forged booke of Damascen to confirme a forged booke of Athanasius, and all to defend a forged Pur­gatory, which may well become both Coccius to doe, and M. Parsons to approue.

Greeke Fathers abused by Coccius, for defence of Romish Purgatory.
THE SECOND DECADE.

27. The first witnesse following after Athanasius, is Basil. cap. 4. in Esaiam, Qui abluit, &c. where he telleth vs of a Reser­ued tryall and examination, which shall be made by fire in the life to come: whereinto Flagitia, that is, Criminall sinnes must enter, such as a man doth purposely commit, which must be pu­nished with the fire of iudgement. And againe, In cap. 6. There is a purifying fire. And yet againe, In cap. 9. There is an expur­gation, according to that of the Apostle [ He shall be saued, yet as it were by fire.] Al these testimonies are of the same stampe, therefore that answere, which their owne Senens. Bibliot: l. 5. Annot. 171. Suarez Tom. 2. in Thom. q. 59. art 6. disp. 57. sect. 1. §. Ex hac. doth expound these places, De diuine igne, and not of Purgatory-fire Senensis giueth vnto two places, may satisfie for all three, viz. The speech of Basil in Esa. 4. vpon these wordes [ He shall purge Hierusalem in the spirit of iudgement, and in the spirite of heate, &c.] where he saith, that this is referred vnto that triall and examination, which shall be in the world to come, &c. as also his speech vpon Esa. 9. saying, that the Prophet sheweth that earthly things must be deliuered igni punitiuo, that is, vnto the punishing fire for the good of the soule, &c. These speeches doe seeme (saith Senensis) to imply that which the former sentences did, (to See aboue, sect 1. num. 4. wit, the senten­ces of Lactanctius, and Origen) viz. the fire of conflagration, which shall be in the last day, which, by the confession of Bel­larmine doth nor make for Romish Purgatory.

28. The second is, Ephraem Orat. aduersus superbiam. Doost thou consider the fire (saith hee) which we must passe thorow? What fire, trow we, is this he sheweth? in 1. Cor. 3. The day of the Lord will declare euery mans worke, which day shall be re­uealed by fire. This fire is so plainely the fire of conflagration in the last day of iudgement (and consequently not the Romish Purgatory-fire) that Bellar. l. 1. de Purg. c. 4 §. Tertiò quia Grecus. Bellarmine discussing the meaning of that Scripture 1. Cor. 3. The day of the Lord shall be reuealed by fire] saith that Omnes veteres, &c. that is, All the auncient Wri­ters [Page 140] seeme to vnderstand by this the day of their last iudgment, and their opinion ( saith he) herein seemeth vnto me most true. Then may we say that Coccius his inference from that fire of the last iudgement, to proue a fire of Purgatory, before that day of iudgement, is most false. The second place of Ephraem, Parae­net. 49. is of the same stampe; onely, Transitus per ignem. The last testimony is out of Ephraem his Testament: but read Tri­themius de Illust. Scriptoribus, and especially the Iesuite Pos­seuin, Posseuin. Ies. Apparat. Tit. Ephraem. who reckoning almost an hundred Tractats of Ephraem, did omit his Testament.

29. Cyrill of Hierusalem entreth in the second place of this scene, who in Cateches. 5. mystag. saith, that Prayer is offe­red in the dreadfull Sacrifice for the helpe of Soules: which he illustrateth by a similitude of making Supplication for one that is cast into exile, by the displeasure of a King: which sheweth the State of soules in exile, not in a fierie Fornace; & in paenâ damni, and not Sensus; it is the not fruition of blessednesse, but yet not the sense of Torment, and therefore concerneth not the Romish Purgatory, as may appeare by the See aboue, sect. 1. n. 4. second confes­sed Obseruation.

30. Greg. Nazianzene is the fourth of this ranke, who Orat. 10. in Laudem fratris defuncti, Prayeth God to receiue the soule of his brother Caesarius. This is the onely testimony, which Coccius produceth out of Nazianzen: vpon this kinde of prayer, by M. Parsons and Coccius his conclusion, we are to beleeue that Nazianzen thought, that the Soule of that Cae­sarius might then haue beene in Purgatory torment, and not in heauenly blessednesse: But alas for the crookednesse of contentious spirits! for Coccius The­saur. Tom. 1. l. 5. Art. 2. Coccius himselfe vseth the very same Orat. 10. of Nazian. in Laudem fratris Caesary defuncti, which is, in praise of his brother Caesarius then departed, to prooue a quite contrary conclusion, to wit, that the Soules of the faith­full, after they be departed, doe goe immediately into heauen: Al­beit the wordes of Nazianzen be in manner of prayer, thus: But thou, O diuine and sacred man, I wish thee to penetrate the beauens, and to rest in the bosome of Abraham, to beholde the Qxire of Angels, and the glory of the blessed Saints, &c. Not [Page 141] that he doubted of his present blessednes, for in the same O­rat. he saith thus: Credo, &c. I beleeue that euery generous soule is pretious in Gods sight, and, as soone as it departeth out of the body, goeth presently vnto the Lord, and receiueth blessednesse. Euen as he doth in his next Oration, which hee made in the commendation of his sister Gorgonia, then dead: Equidem non dubito, &c. I doubt not (faith he) but that thou now enioyest the Quire of Angels, and the contemplation of the blessed Trinity, &c. Which was the so vndoubted doctrine of Nazianzen, concerning the soules of all the godly, who depart in the faith of Christ, that Nilus the Greeke Bishop doth vse a sen­tence of Nazianzen, for the confutation of Romish Purgato­rie, viz, Nazian. Serm. de Pasch. speaking of the state after this life, saith (saith Nilus Episcopus Thessal. de purg. igne. Nilus) [...] i. c. That there is no Purgation.

31. The fift is, Gregory Nissen. in Orat. Quòdnon sit dolen­dum ob eorum obitum, qui in fide decesserunt; And li. de animâ, & resurrect. he maketh mention of Purgatory fire after this life &c. This witnesse reacheth beyond the Romish Purgatory, and further then the Romanists themselues will allow: for if a Greeke Bishop may be thought fit to vnderstand what was the iudgement of Greg. Nissene, concerning the state of the dead, then let vs listen vnto Nilus, Nilus quo suprà. who telleth vs that Greg. Nissen seemed to fauour that opinion, which defended [...] that is, a Redint egration, which sinners (meaning the dam­ned) shall finde after the ende of their punishment, and calleth that punishment a Purgatory fornace: therefore wee answere (saith Nilus) that those were the pernitious Comments of cer­taine Heretickes, who accorded vnto Orlgen, and did to that end abuse that singular light of the Church ( viz. Greg. Nissene) to make him seeme to be a Patron of their opinion. Secondly we say (saith Nilus) that although that holy man (Greg. Nissene) did hold that opinion, which being questionable in his time, was af­terward condemned by a Councell, yet he is not to be followed in his errour; which errour was condemned in See Origen re­iected by the Romanists a­boue § 3. n. 21 Origen. And that his bookes are not free from such like corruptions, it is herein very credible, because that Niceph. Calix­tus l. 11. c. 19. Nicephorus, speaking of [Page 142] his Booke De anima, suspecteth that Certaine Heretickes had infused some Origenicall opinions into it. Seeing then that ei­ther the witnesse Nissene himselfe was in the errour of Ori­gen; or else his Bookes were infected therewith; An erroni­ous witnesse, may not bee admitted for a competent Author of trueth. For if the blind leade the blind, beware the Ditch. That next place, which they take out of Damascene, wee See aboue num. 26. haue seene already nayled vnto the poste for forged stuffe.

32. Timotheus Alexandrinus, commeth in for a sixt wit­nesse, in his Resp. Interrog. 14. Oblatio non est facienda super eum, qui sibi mortem intulerit: But such sentences doe not in­ferre Purgatorie, as See aboue, sect. 1. num. 7. hath beene proued. The Bookes them­selues of Responsa, and Interrog. heere cited by Coccius; are not admitted by their Iesuite Apparat. Tit. Timo. Alexan. Posseuine, who bringeth in Gennadius to report, that this Timotheus was condemned by the Councell of Calcedon, and to haue beene exiled for an Here­ticke; What dealing is this of our Aduersaries, to obiect him, whom they themselues doe reiect?

33. Epiphanius approacheth in seuenth place to yeelde his testimonie, who saith nothing but Prodesse orationes mortuis, which (as See aboue, sect. 1. num. 7. hath beene prooued) containe not in them any sparke of tormenting fire. Besides, it may con­cerne our Aduersaries to examine this witnesse more strictly, least whilst they labour to draw from him their pretended trueth, they draw vpon themselues an errour condemned by the practise of the Church (which is to pray for the mitigati­on of the paine of the damned, with whom we haue no com­munion) because Epiph. Epist. ad Joh. Hieros. Epiphanius, albeit hee accounted Origen after his death an Hereticke, and an enemie of the Church, by whose doctrine some were made meate for the Diuell, yet did hee pray that Epiphan. lib. Anchorat. p. 347 God would pardon him.

34. Chrysostome, being the eight witnesse, is hayled in by the heeles to speake nothing to the purpose: For either his speeches may signifie onely Prayer for the dead, which doeth not necessarily inferre any Purgatorie torment; or Prayer for them who are in ioye, which confuteth Purgatorie; or else Prayer for them, who died in their sinnes, in the state of dam­nation, [Page 143] which is farre beyond Romish Purgatorie; and which kind of Prayer our Aduersaries themselues doe thinke to bee transgressions, rather then deuotions. These we shall shew by examining the seuerall particulars in order.

35. The first, Hom. 6. de Sacerdotio. cap. 4. He speaketh of Prayers, for the sinnes of all both quicke and dead. Whereas (according to our former Obseruations) Prayer for remission of sinnes may haue diuers respects, besides the deliuerance out of the torment of Purgatorie fire immediately after death, as namely, remission from Poena damni onely; or from the Iudgement of Examination, which is not of purgation; or if of sense, yet of that which is the Fire of conflagration in the body at the last day, and not presently and lingeringly after death.

36. The second, Hom. 32. Why dost thou intreate the Priests to pray for the dead? I know thou wilt answere, that thou dost so, that he may obtaine rest, and finde the Iudge mercifull vnto him. But if Coccius hadhad the leisure to haue stepped but one foot further to the words next following, hee should haue seene Chrysostome confute his Inserence, As thus: Dost thou therefore weepe and crie? Dost thou not see how contrarie thou art to thy selfe? For seeing thou thinkest that the Soule departed is gone in­to flourishing and delightfull Meadowes, Why dost thou raise vp such tempests, meaning, of teares? Will M. Parsons iudge that this place can prooue a Purgatorie torment? Will he erect a fierie Fornace vpon flourishing meadowes?

37. In the rest of the testimonies wee may obserue that which Senensis obserued in Hom. 33. in Matth. Senensis Biblio. lib. 6. Annot. 47. Chrysostome (saith he) may seeme to haue fallen, after a sort, into the opinion of them, who thought that Prayer for the dead might profit the ve­ry damned. We say more, that he doeth more then seeme to haue beene of that opinion, as the places themselues, which Coccius hath pointed at, doe easily bewray: For Hom. 16. in Ioh. The partie, whom Almes and Oblations are said to profit after death, is called a Sinner, and such a sinner, as Did often offend God; and such an offender as did transgresse in malice, therefore he saith: His malice is cut off by death, but the iust is [Page 144] placed in safetie, and freed from future feare. And Hom. 21. in Act. Apost. Wishing to Diminish the punishment of the dead, he describeth such a dead partie, as spent the most part of his life vainely, seruing sinne and the diuell.

38. In Hom. 41. in 1. Cor. There is, we confesse, the appro­bation of Prayer for soules, that they may receiue some comfort: But what kind of Soules they bee, the place doeth manifest, where Chrysostome diuideth them onely into two Orders, Them who liued well in this life, and them who liued ill: And the Sinner, for whom the Prayers are required, was such an one, Who had power (namely in his life) to expiate his sins, and would not; and who by death Was hindred, lest he should mul­tiply sinnes. Like as is more plainely manifested in the next place, In Epist. ad Philipp. Serm. 3. Moral. Where he telleth vs, that much profit redoundeth vnto the dead by our Prayers for sinners departed: But will you know what colour these Sinners were of, verily as blacke as Murrians, for they were such, in Chrysostome his estimate, Who dying in the abundance of riches, which in their life time they neuer vsed for the comfort of their soules. And the last place, Hom. 69. ad Pop. Antioch. doeth not differ from the rest. I aske therefore, with what conscience doe our Aduersaries cite these testimonies, which (because they are erronious) they themselues will not iustifie and imbrace.

39. Palladius Hist. Lausiac. cap. 40. Possesseth the ninth place, but (as if Pallidus were his name) being afraid to bee knowne; and no maruell, seeing that their Iesuite Posseuine doubteth not to say of him, that he was Posseuin. Appa­rat. Tit. Palladi­us. spotted with Orige­nicall impieties. The same Palladius (who writ the Historia Lausiaca) their Cardinall Baronius Baron. An. 388. num. 103. & 107 prooueth, both out of S. Hierom, and Epiphanius, to haue rotted in the contagious he­resie of Origen, &c. which Baronius further Anno 400. num. 61. collecteth out of that Historia Lausiaca, which are the Bookes of Palladi­us, which Coccius here produceth for proofe of their Purga­torie. Which may disable the credit of Coccius, who in impan­nelling the Iurie, could make no better choise.

40. Synesius, Epist. 44. is the last of this Decade, in whom [Page 145] there is no mention of Prayer for the dead, nor yet of any paine after death, excepting that which is paena immortalis; That is, eternall: But our Aduersaries dreame not of any o­ther Purgatorie paine, but that which is See aboue. sect. 1. num. 5. Temporall: And thus much of these ten witnesses. I referre vnto the iudge­ment of my Reader, to discerne, whether they bee not either counterfeit, or Apocryphall, or corrupt, or else violently vr­ged beyond their proper aime.

Witnesses among the Greeke Fathers, abused by Cocci­us, for defence of Romish Purgatorie.
THE LAST DECADE.

41. Atticus Patriarcha Constantinop. Epist. ad Cyrillum Alexand. Here is a solemne Preface, what will this first wit­nesse say? There is mention to be made of Bishops departed, &c. at the time of the Communion, on the mysticall Table. But we See aboue, sect. 1. num. 7. and more fully hereafter, nu. 47. and 48. haue obserued from our Aduersaries, that Commemoration doeth not inferre any Supplication, nor yet Supplication any tormenting purgation.

42. Iohannes Cassianus, Collat. 2. cap. 5. is called vpon by Coccius to speake for Purgatorie: But he may not bee admit­ted into the number of witnesses, because he hath long since beene impeached of falshood by Pope Gelasius, who reck­neth this Booke among the Gratian. Dist. 15. Apocrypha writings, which is a thing that their Card. Baronius will haue vs obserue: Baron. Anno. 433 num. 30. See (saith he) the censure of Gelasius, wherein the same workes of Cassianus (speaking of the Collations here mentioned by Coc­cius) are reiected, as being no way Catholicke. Yet are not Coccius, and his assistant M. Parsons, ashamed to shake this Knight by the hand, and to make him one of their choyse witnesses.

43. In the third place, Socrates steppeth forward, in his Lib. 7. Hist. cap. 25. to tell vs how See this larg­ly consuted hereafter by their owne confessions. num. 47. and num 48. that In solemne Prayers there was mention made of Bishops after their departure. But I demand of M. Parsons, how often hee hath heard mention made of the names of Holy men and women departed out of [Page 146] this life at S. Paules Crosse, and els-where by our Preachers of England, in their Prayers of thankesgiuing for their former grace, and present ioy; and not as of requests to free them from any Purgatory torment? Yet so it is, Socrates must serue their turne to fill vp a number.

44. But what shall we say to Theodoret? Hee first ( Lib. 5. Hist. cap. 36.) recordeth the Act of Theodosius, who prayeth to God to pardon the iniuries, which his Parents had committed of ignorance. Wee reade that Isaacke said vnto Abraham, Gene. 32. 7. Father, behold the fier and the wood, but where is the Lambe for the burnt offering? I may inuert the speech and say, here is the Sacrifice of Prayer, but where is the fire, for we haue al­ready See aboue, sect 1. num. 7. prooued, that Prayer for remission doth not necessa­rily inferre any Purgatorie torment. The second place alead­ged out of Theodoret is Hist. Sanct. Patrum de Iacobo Nisi­bita: But this is not found in their Posseuin. Ies. Apparat. Tit. Theodoretus. Posseuine, among the workes of Theodoret. The third place is noted to be in 1. Cor. 3. Quiequid interuenit, &c. Which words (as Coccius, in the place obiected Coccius himselfe confesseth) being cited by Aquinas (for Purgatorie) are not now found either in the Greeke or Latine Copies of Theo­doret. May we not then iudge them worthy the post? No doubtlesse saith Coccius; for Marke (for he will giue vs a rea­son) the words were rased out (saith he) by some Greekishenes, who misliked Purgatorie. If this were sensible, then the Latines likewise misliked Purgatorie, for the Sentence (saith Coccius) is not now found in the Latine Translations of Theodoret: So that M. Parsons is to make his choise, whether hee will con­fesse that one sentence of Theodoret to bee forged, for proofe of Purgatorie, or else both the Greeke and Latine Churches, to haue beene false Registers of the Bookes of Theodoret.

45. The fift Authour is Basilius Seleucius, Conc. de Exsus­cit. Lazari, speaking of Sacrifice offered for those, who offen­ded God in many things; vsing the same straine of speech as Chrysostome See aboue, §. 3. num. 37. had done, by extending Prayer vnto the soules of grieuous and mortall offenders. Which doctrine the sto­macke of the Purgatorians will in no wise disgest.

46. What will become of the testimonie of their sixt wit­nesse, [Page 147] whom Coccius nameth Diadochus, de perfectione Spirit. cap. 100? All that he will say, is that Men fearing death a lit­tle, enter, as it were, into iudgement to be Examined by the fire of iudgement, &c. But their Cardinall Bellarmine See aboue, sect. 1. num. 5. hath told vs already that this fire doeth differ from the fire of Purgato­rie: For the fier of Iudgement is but a Trying and examining fire; and that fire of Purgatorie is a purging and tormenting fire.

47. But now let euery man giue roome, for two Emperors doe approach, and seeme to offer their testimonies for Pur­gatorie: The first is, Iustinus Imp. Epist. ad Hormisdam, who saith; That we may not contemne all the memories of the dead, That is: The Commemorations of their names, as their Cardinall Baronius Anno 520. num. 53. & 54. making the subiect of the Letters of Justi­nus, and of Ju­stinianus the same: Nowe num. 34. hee sheweth the cause, as I haue related. Baronius teacheth, shewing that heereby was meant the tollerating of the mention of the names of some in the Catalogue of orthodoxall Bishops, who died in the schisme of Acatius. Now if Commemorations of Bi­shops and Saints departed, doe necessarily conclude them to be in Purgatorie fire, then See aboue sect. 1. num. 4. and sect. 2. num. 13. how shall wee celebrate the names of Patriarkes, Prophets, Apostles, Martyrs, yea and of the glorious vessell of Grace, the Virgine Marie, to praise God that they are in rest and blessednesse? What iniurie will not these Purgatorians doe vnto other Authors, who dare offer such violence vnto the sentence of so great an Em­perour?

48. The nex Emperour is Iustinianus, Nouella de Mona­chis. Hee is also without due reuerence thrust in, and vrged to speake nothing to the purpose, saying onely that There are Funerals performed for the dead, which are called their Me­morials. To what end is this? Let M. Parsons stretch this out with his teeth as farre as he can, yet shall hee not possibly make Memorials of the dead, reach so farre as the Purgatorie fire, for the afflicting of their soules as hath beene shewen, and will be See in the Section fol­lowing. hereafter more apparant.

49. Procopius Gazeus, Ad cap. 6. Esaiae is the ninth Au­thor, vpon whom M. Parsons must serue a Latitat, before he will appeare: For their Sixtus Senensis, speaking of these [Page 148] Commentaries, saith that Sixtus Senens. Biblioth. lib. 4. They haue not as yet beene turned into Latine, but are kept in the Venetian Librarie. And when he is suffered to speake the best that he can, it is no more but this, that There is a celestiall place of Purgation of mens soules, euen by the Seraphins. This celestiall and heauenly Purgato­rie must needes be spirituall, by the force of the Holy Ghost, and not by any hellish torment; but differeth as much from the reall fire, which is our Aduersaries fornace, as doth Hea­uen from Hell.

50. The tenth and last man of their Greeke witnesses is Iohannes Climachus, (who liued about the yeere 580.) Gra­du. 4. de Insomnijs. All that the testimonie hath, is but the Celebration of seruice for the sleeping of ones soule: which doth make no more for Purgatorie, then to pray that the soule of him that sleepeth may, in the end, be ioyned with the body, and made partaker of the consummation of blisse.

51. Because M. Parsons in his Challenge hath allotted vn­to me but the compasse of sixe hundred yeares, I will not transgresse, to proccede in discouering many base counter­feits and corrupt Authours, whom Coccius hath brought to serue his stage. I now desire the Christian Reader to pon­der and apply the Obseruations and Grants of our Romish Aduersaries, noted See aboue, fect. 1. num. 4. aboue in the first Section, & to apply the allegations of Coccius vnto them, and (seeing that M. Par­sons did earnestly desire that I should demonstrate the abuse of one and thirtie Fathers, whether Greeke or Latine, within the compasse of sixe hundred yeeres after Christ) to trie whether I haue not satisfied him already, euen in the Greeke Authors, for besides the ten Greeke Liturgies, we haue found Greeke Authors (if we shall admit Damascen for one, who fell in o­biter into Coccius his Catalogue) thrice Ten, which by being examined, according to the confessed principles, conclusi­ons, animaduersions, and obseruations of our Aduersaries themselues, appeare to be either foysted, or corrupted, or dis­credited, or wrested, to prooue that which cannot bee euin­ced from them, which wee may so much the rather suspect, because that their owne Bishop Roffensis, Art. [...] S. Cor. [...] Roffensis went so farre in his [Page 149] time, as to confesse that There was none or very rare mention of Purgatory in the Greeke Fathers; and that the doctrine ther­of was hardly knowne in those times: and more absolutely their Inuent. l. 8. c. 1. Polydore Virgil graunting that It was not acknowledg­ed by the Grecians vnto this day. Which sheweth that their Salmeron and Coccius, in alleaging more then all the Greeke Fathers, for proofe of that doctrine, haue done this with a Greekish (according to the Prouerb) with a deceiueable faith. Thus much of the Greeke Fathers.

SECT. IIII.

The testimonies deliuered in the name of the Latine Fa­thers, abused by Coccius, for proofe of Purgatory.

52. THis booke groweth bigge and corpulent; if I should deale as particularly in the Latine, as I haue done in the Greeke Testimonies, I might complaine of an — Am­phora exit: therefore will I insist onely vpon those allegati­ons, which may be best satisfied from the principles of our Aduersaries, and leaue the rest, remitting my Reader to the Confutations which other Protestants haue yeelded vnto them.

53. Tertullian is made the Captaine of this band, whom See aboue, [...] 7. some of our Aduersaries haue noted to haue held, that the soules are in sequestred receptacles, wherein they neyther re­ceiue paine, nor their reward of blessednesse; which doctrine (in the iudgement of their Iesuite Suarez) doth consequently gainesay the doctrine of Purgatory fire. And this answere in generall, might satisfie their particular obiections out of Ter­tullian; notwithstanding we shall examine these.

54. The first is, De testimonie animae, aduersus Gentes, cap. 4. Thou prayest for the bones and ashes of the dead, that they may haue refreshing, and wishest that he ( the departed) may rest well with them, who are apud inferos. The party whom Tertullian bringeth in praying thus, is not a Christian, but a Pagan, and [Page 150] the purpose which Tert. hath to alleadge that, and other opi­nions of the Heathen, was not to approue them, but to proue out of them that there is an Immortality of the soule, euen as he doth from another absurd opinion of theirs, in calling wic­ked men diuels, and thereby confessing that there is a Diuell, and consequently a Tormenter, and therefore also a Day of iudgement. Concerning the truth of this answere, my Reader may consult with their owne Renatus Laurentius in his Ar­gument, and Annotations vpon this booke.

55. The second, Tert. de corona militis, ca. 3. We make Ob­lations for the dead; and ( this parte Coccius hath cut off) for their birth-dayes. Must Oblations for the dead once a yeare ne­cessarily imply a Purgatory torment? or wil our aduersaries al­low the whole testimony of Tertullian? Neither of both: for their Renatus Lau­rent. Annot. in Tert. l. ad Mar­tyres. Oblations and Commemora­tions. Renatus answering vnto places of S. Cyprian, l. 3. cap. 6. & l. 4. cap. 5. That saying of Cyprian ( saith he) that Oblations are offered for Martyrs, if I be not deceiued, signifieth the comme­morations, and remembrance of them according to the custome of those times, which was, after the repeating of the Creede, to giue vp the names of godly men departed, in a scrowle, to lay it on the Altar there, to be recyted not without some praise and com­mendations of their vertues, which shined in them, whilst they were aliue. What can be more plaine to infringe the necessity of this consequence, which is, from Oblations for them to in­fer a Purgatory punishment and torment of them? That which Tertullian addeth concerning the yearely celebrations of their Birth-dates, Was ( as both Rhenanus Arg. in Tert. de corona. Rhenanus and Renatus vpon the place it selfe. Rhenatus ac­knowledged) an Heathenish custome, and for a time onely by in­dulgence tollerated in the Church, but afterwards condemned by the Councell of Nice.

56. The third, De anima, cap. vlt. speaking of a little offence, which (as the vttermost farthing) must be paid in that morà resurrectionis, That is, in the time of the delay of the Resurrecti­on: Coccius should haue considered that Tertullian is recko­ned by their Senens. bibl. l. 6 Annot. vlt. &. l. 5 Annot. 233. & Ribera. Ies. in A­poc. 20. ver. 4. owne Doctors among the erroneous Chiliasts, who held that the Saints should liue a Thousand yeares in this world in all spirituall delights, at what time men should rise (as [Page 151] Ribera expoundeth them) according to their merits, some soo­ner then others. Therefore if we take [ Mora resurrectionis,] in the last day, for lingring and delay in the time of their re­surrection, this, we see, is twelue score wide of Romish Purga­torie.

57. The fourth, De Monogamia, cap. 11. & De caestitate cap. 11. are bookes which both Pammelius & Rhenanus in Tert. Pammelius and Posseuin Ies. Apparat. Posseuine con­fesse to haue beene written when he was a Montanist, euen against the Church. And the testimonies themselues talking but of Prayers and Oblations, and refreshing, will not carry leuell to the scope that Coccius aymeth at, as by many exam­ples we haue proued.

58. The next Authour, concerning whom I may haue some direction from our Aduersaties, is Zeno Veronensis, in whose testimony, In Serm. de Resurrect. there is no mention eyther of Fire or of Purgatory. And the booke it selfe is of so small credite, that their Notaries of auncient writings, viz. Trithemius, Senensis, Posseuine, Baronius, and others, doe not so much as vouchsafe this Author the naming.

59. The third is Lactantius, lib. 7. Instit. cap. 21. Perstringen­tur, &c. That is, God wil examine the iust wtth fire, and the sinnes of men shal be burned. Which testimony also Bellarmine vrgeth to prooue their Purgatory fire after death, not considering that Lactantius speaketh ( as their Iesuite Suar. Ies. Tom. 2. in Thom. q. 59. Disp. 57. sect. 1. §. Tertia sententia. Suarez confesseth) of the fire in the day of the resurrection; Which is ( saith their Senens bibl. l. 5. Annot. 171. Senensis) the fire of conflagration in the last day; Which is not ( saith Bellar. see a­boue. Bellarmine) that Purgatory, now controuerted. And Suarez. Tom. 2 in Thom. disp. 57 sect. 1. § Verun­tamen. Su­arez doth furthermore call this a false erroneous opinion, to thinke that there shall be some iust men in the day of the resurre­ction, who being not perfectly purged of their sinnes, must bee ioyned to their bodies, and so purged with fire in their bodies and soules, before that they can be blessed.

60. Hilarius Pictauiensis in Psal. 59. where he speaketh of purging of sinnes with fire, alluding vnto that of 1. Cor. 3. of many That shall be saued, as it were by fire, according as else­where, In Psal. 118. vpon those wordes [My soule hath desired thy iudgements] We ( saith he) must passe thorow that indefatiga­ble [Page 152] fire, wherin we must vndergoe those grieuous punishments, for the expiation of the sinnes of our soules, and is obiected by Bellar. l. 1. de Purg. c. 6. ad finem. Bel­larmine for confirmation of Romish Purgatorie: notwith­standing the same Bellarmine repeating the same place of Hilary in Psal. 118. vpon the same text, [My soule hath desired thy iudgements, &c. where Hilary saith, that All (except Christ) yea, the Virgine Mary must passe thorow the fire, Bellar. l. 2. de Purg. c. 1. §. Adde. she­weth that Hilary seemeth not to meane the Purgatory fire, but the fire of Gods iudgement, thorow which indeede all Saints must passe. And their Senens. bibl. l. 5 Annot. 171. §. Hilarius vnà. Senensis will haue vs vnderstand that herein Hilarius followed the opinion of Origen, who taught that all, ex­cept Christ, must passe thorow the fire of conflagration at the last day: which opinion Bellar. quo. sup. §. Hec sententia. Bellarmine condemneth for a manifest errour.

61. S. Ambrose his worthinesse mooued Coccius to be plentifull in alleadging diuers testimonies out of him: but (if I be not much deceiued) very vnfortunately. The first place is his Orat. de exitu vitae Theodosy, praying thus: Thou Lorde giue perfect rest vnto thy seruant Theodosius, let his soule come where it may not feele the sense of death. What then? did Am­brose thinke that the soule of this godly Emperour was now in a Purgatory fire? This is indeede, Coccius his ayme, and M. Parsons his consequence, but behold (good Reader) the vertigo of these men, for in the beginning of that Oration Ambrose professeth publiquely of Theodosius, that He hath not lost his Kingdome, but changed it, being assumed into the Tabernacles of Christ: which testimony destroyeth Purgatorie. What then meant Ambrose (will some say) by this Prayer for Theodosius after his death? surely nothing, but as he meant in praying for other Emperors Gratian and Valentinian, which was (as their Salmeron lib. 1 in part. 3. Cōment Epist. Pauli, disp. 6 §. Est ergo. Iesuite Salmeron confesseth) To pray for their speedie resur­ection.

62. A second place is Epist. 8. ad Faustinum, wherin there is onely Prayer for the soule departed: which breth (as wee haue heard) is not stronge enough to kindle a Purgatorie fire.

63. We descend vnto a third testimonie, which is Orat. 1. [Page 153] praeparans ad Missam: Epist Erasmi ad Lectorē, initio Tom. 4 operum Ambrosij. And albeit he seeme com­mendable vn­to Erasmus, yet not knowing what age he was off, he can challenge no place here. which I iudge (saith Erasmus) to be none of the Writings of Ambrose: and therefore we may dis­misse it for a [...] Neuerthelesse the testimony it selfe cannot euince the Romish Purgatory, as may appeare by comparing it with the See aboue, num. 5. third obseruation.

64. The last place is the Authour of the Comments vpon S. Pauls Epistles, which passe vnder the name of Ambrose, teach­ing that A man must suffer a purging fire, lest that hee be tor­mented in the fire eternall: but hee telleth not what purging fire he meaneth, whether the fire of the spirite, or the fire of tribulation in this life, or the fire of examination, or the fire of conflagration (as he meaneth in Psal. 118. by the confession of Senens. bibl. l. 5. Annot. 171. Senensis) by all which the Romish Purgatorie is excluded. And although Coccius could fashion his owne meaning out of that place, yet may it be as lawfull for vs to answere in this case, according vnto the iudgement of their Iesuite Salmeron, who proueth those Comments by many Arguments to bee none of S. Ambroses: Salmeron Ies. Comment in Epi. Pauli in genere disp. 19. p. 61, 62. &c. Which (as he censureth) are infected with the errours of the Pelagians.

65. Prudentius in Hamert. in his verses prayeth that A light kinde of fire may burne him, and not the eternal: which he might do, vnderstanding other fire, besides the Romish Pur­gatorie. But the same Prudentius in his verses saith, that the damned Ghosts haue sometimes paenarum sub styge ferias, That is, Play-dayes and remissions from the paines of hell: ther­fore could Bellarmine say no lesse, but that Bellarm. lib. 2. de Purg cap. 18. § Ad quintum. Prudentius did herein play the Poët. And so say we, Termes of Poësie do not alwaies besit the Virgine Theologie.

66. Hierome cap. 66. in Esa. As we beleeue all torments of them, that denie God to be eternall, so doe wee thinke that the sentence of the Iudge, will be moderate and mixed with clemen­cie against the vngodly Christians, whose workes must be purged with fire. And againe, In Cap. 7. Micheae: The soule, after that it hath indured torments, and is deliuered out of darkenesse, vp­pon the payment of the last farthing, I shall see the iustice of the Lord. S. Hierome vpon those wordes of the Prophet Amos, cap. 3. [Behold he will call fire vnto iudgement, and will deuoure [Page 154] the depth, and also eate vp a part,] Saith thus ( saith Senens. bibl. l. 5 Annot. 171. Senensis:) The fire doth deuoure all kinde of sinnes, as wood Stubble, Hay, and afterward doth eate vp part] that is, it seazeth vpon the Saints, who are the peculiar people of God, for it is time that iudgement begin at Gods house: if any mans worke burne, hee shall haue a losse, but he himselfe shall bee safe, yet so as by fire: when as we shall all be in sinne, and stand before the truth of iudg­ment, God will haue mercie vpon vs, and raise vs in the time of resurrection. Which Sentence Senensis expoundeth of the fire of Conflagration: and other purgation of fire, then this, wee finde not in S. Hierome.

67. The other place is out of Hierom in cap. 1. Nahum. He indeede compareth Temporall punishment with eternall, but they are the temporall in this life, such as the punishment of the man who gathered stickes (for this is one example) and not of the Romish Temporall punishment in Purgatory.

68. Ruffinus Ad Psal. 37. who liued Anno 390. and is alleadged out of a Comment vpon the Psalmes, which (for ought that doth appeare in their owne Somti' Epist. before Ruffinus vpon the Psalmes. Sonnius, or by their Iesuite Posseuin Jes. Apparat. Posseuine) came not into publique Print, before the yeare 1570. which may serue for a note of an Apocrypha booke.

69. The next Allegation of Coccius, which may be control­led by our aduersaries confessions, is out of Paulinus Nola­nus his Epist. 18. & Epist. 19. We demaund some euidence for the antiquity of these Epistles, Card. Baron. Ano. 431. num. 198. Baronius aunswereth, that They were preserued by the industry of S. Amandus a Bishop: But what apparance haue they for this? The Epistle (saith he) of Paulinus written vnto Amandus: But how shall we know this? This (saith he) is in the Vatican Index, and hath not as yet beene put in Print: That is, as wee may lawfully interpret it, these Epistles ascribed vnto Paulinus, are but Apocryphal. That which is further drawne out of the Paraphrasis of Pau­linus, in Psal. 1. speaketh of The fire which tryeth the worke, which Bellarmine hath distinguished from his Purgatory fire, because this Trieth the worker.

70. Pope Sixtus De malis doctoribus & operibus fidei (which [Page 155] Coccius calleth Sixtus tertius: but Posseuine sheweth to haue beene Sixtus secundus) Our apparitor Coccius calleth into the Court to beare witnesse for Purgatory: but hee no sooner appeareth: but their Iesuite Posseuin Ies. Apparat. Tit. Sixtus secund. Posseuine dooth pull off his Vi­zard, and findeth him to be a counterfeit, lurking vnder the name of that holy Pope. There were (saith Posseuine) three vo­lumes of Pelagians, written in the name of Pope Sixtus, the se­cond of them was De malis Doctoribus & operibꝰ fidei, which Baronius obserueth to be fraught with Pelagianisme, whereof Lindane hath complained. And thus we see also Coccius vn­masked in his allegation of Pope Sixtus, for still hee abuseth his Reader with the Aequiuocating names of false Authours. But what else may we expect from Aequiuocators?

71. Seduliꝰ vpon 1. Cor. 3. saith that S. Paul did compare the ex­amination of iudgement vnto fire, because it shal be proued in the Purgatory fire of iudgement. But if we aske their Suarez how we may call Examination a fire, Suarez Jes. Tom. 2. in Thom. disp. 57. sect. 1. §. Circa pri­mum. he will informe vs that it is so to be vnderstood as is that of Dan. 7. [A stood of fire went out at his mouth] which was the iudgement of God, and fignifieth nothing but that sentence which Christ shall pronounce, which like a fercible fire shall separate and discerne the wicked from the good. If then this signifie nothing but the sentence, how can it argue any Purgatory punishment?

72. Caesarius Arelatensis, vpon 1. Cor. 3. viz. He shall be safe, yet as it were by fire, distinguisheth betweene the Which word is in Caesarius, in the Edition set forth by Bigne in biblioth S. Patrum, Tom. 7. perpetua pae­na, and paena Purgatoria. And although he talke of Purgato­ry punishments, by tribulations in this life, yet that which is here mentioned, is a Purgatory-fire after death; but when? not vntill the last day of Resurrection; which as it doth not dis­proue, so it doth not prooue the Romish Purgatory fire, as hath been confessed. That he meant the Fire of the day of the Last Resurrection, it is not denied by Suarez Iesuita Tom. 2 disp 57. sect 1. §. Tertia sententia, & §. Veruntamen Suarez, by whom he is reprehended as Erroneous for holding, that Some soules, which are not sufficiently purged before the resurrection, shall in that day be purged with that fire. Not to stand-vpon the disabling of this witnesse, to proue him Apocryphall.

73. It were but expence of time to prosecute other Alle­gations, [Page 156] which Coccius hath pyled vp as Billits, to vse for the making their pretended Romish Purgatory fire to burne more bright, wherein there is onely eyther praying for their peace, as in Arnobius lib. 4. contrà Gentes, or only Oblations or Prayers for the dead, as that of Bacchiarius, De recip. Lapsis; and Victor Vticens. de persecutione Vandalica; and Martinꝰ Bracarensis, de Graecorum Synodis, cap. 69. and Conc. Carthag. cap. 79. or the publicke remembrances, commemorations, and Memorials of some in their publicke prayers, in testimony of the faith of those seruants of God, and thankefulnesse vnto God, as Conc. Carthag. 3. cap. 29. and Conc. Vasens. cap. 2. and Conc Valentinum Hispaniae, cap. 4. All which in an orthodoxal sense haue bin applied (as we haue seene) vnto Martyrs and other Saints of blessednesse, who are many thousand miles se­parated from all breath and sent of that fierie fornace of their Purgatory: which their Coccius, according to his common errour aymeth at, who will not be found excusable in his last two witnesses.

74. The second Councell of Arles, cap. 15. decreeing that The Oblations of the dead should be receiued, except they were knowne to haue murthered themselues. Concerning these kinde of Oblations, we read in more auncient Canons, as Can. 3. & 4. of the Apostles, wherein it was ordained, as Binius Annot. in eos Canones. Binius ex­poundeth them, that No Oblations should bee receiued of the Church from any departed, except they had in their life-time pro­fessed the Catholicke faith, and liued a godly life. And in the Councell Apud Binium part. 1. col. [...] 60. Vasatense, 1. cap. 1. it was decreede, that Whosoeuer did withdraw from the Church the oblations of the dead, they should be separated from the Church as Infidels. In these we see Oblations of the dead, which they by their Willes and Te­staments left to the Church, to bee bestowed in charitable vses, which Coccius alleadgeth for proofe of Oblations for the dead, to inferre that loose and dissolute Consequence for the state of such soules in a fierie Purgatory. And are not the ho­ly and glorious Saints much beholden vnto Coccius, who from their Oblations of Charity must likewise conclude, that they are in affliction and torment?

[Page 157] 75. Primasius is the last witnesse, whom I finde within the precincts of the first sixe hundred yeares, and he lib. 5. in Apoc. 19. speaking of Martyrs, saith of them (as of others) that The soules of the godly, who are departed, are not now sepa­rated from the Church, which is the Kingdome of Christ: other­wise (saith Primasius) we should not at the Altar haue a remem­brance of them in the communion of the Lords Bodie. Now all the Romanists doe, together with vs, professe to the glorie of Gods grace, that Martyrs and holy Saints are in the Taber­nacles of rest and blessednesse, where there is no Teares, but all ioyfull songs of Alleluiah: whom notwithstanding wee beleeue to be ioyned with vs by a spirituall Communion, we praysing God for their holines in their life-time, and for their happinesse after death, as they likewise in generall doe pray and praise God for the Elect. Therefore it cannot be, but M. Parsons himselfe wil be offended with his Apparitor Coccius, who vseth no other sentence out of Primasius, to prooue that some soules are in the fire of Purgatorie, sauing that whereby it must necessarily follow, that Martyrs and the In­habitants of Paradise are in miserie.

76. Thus haue I (as I hope) abundantly performed my Taske, offering vnto Mr. Parsons, our fierce Challenger, his choise of aboue fiftie Testimonies in all, to take out one and thirty Instances of abuses of Fathers, vsed for the proofe of their Purgatory: To the satisfying of his Earnest Appetite from the confessed Obseruations, Principles, and Conclusions of our aduersaries themselues: and yet I did not examine all the sixtie. This Combat being ended, I returne to my Encountor with M. Parsons.

CHAP. XII.

The falshoods, wherewith M. Parsons hath beene charged in my Preamble (part whereof followeth in the thir­teenth Chapter) and his defence thereupon in his Rec­koning.

SECT. I.

1. HE hath beene deepely charged with grosse vn­truethes, and yet doeth insert himselfe in the Catalogue of sincere writers.

M. PARSONS his Reckoning, and professi­on of sinceritie.

I Say for my selfe, if hee haue found thrice three palpable falsities, Reckon. pa. 214. such as cannot be excused by any ouersight, and errour, but such as must needes be iudged malicious and wittingly vntrue, I doe not desire any pardon or relaxation from my first promise, that I be neuer credited more; yea if it be but thrice, which is the measure that I offe­red vnto others. Hitherto we haue seene no one alleadged and proo­ued: and truely I do confesse, that if I did perswade my selfe, or doubt that M. Morton or any other could prooue any such one vntrueth vtte­red by me, I should be much troubled in Conscience therewith: But for that I am sure I neuer had such meaning, I stand very confident, that he will neuer bee able to bring any one example, and much lesse thrice three.

The Reueiwe.

2. If that M. Parsons bee an honest man, then his fellow Priest hath played no honest mans part, who hath branded him in the forehead, with singular markes of Quodlib. pag. 236. See aboue Forgeries and Lies. Neuerthelesse, I stand not vpon his Conscience, but contend by due proofe to lay open his foule spots of falsifica­tions, formerly obiected against him in my Preamble, which in this Reckoning he laboureth to wash off, with like successe as the Aethiopian doeth his blacknesse, As we shall see.

A Charge against M. Parsons of Rashnesse.

3. In the Preamble, ‘I said that I would not vrge him with Preamb. pag. 71. his owne contradiction, who in his Preface to his Reader saith, He knoweth not the name of T. M. and yet in his Epi­stle Dedicatorie vnto both the Vniuersities, which is set be­fore the Preface,’ he mentioned the name of Tho. Morton at the full; which is a note of rasnnesse.

The summe of M. PARSONS his Reckoning.

BVt what if this be no contradiction at all, and M. Morton did know Reckon. pag. 227 it to be so? First the Dedicatorie Epistle of euery worke is wont to be the last thing that is written, or Printed, which M. Morton will not denie. Secondly, I doe expresly signifie in my said Epistle Dedi­catorie, that the said Epistle was written after the Preface and Treatise thereof, &c. Thirdly, to conuince him indeede and most apparantly of witting and willing fraude in this point, I must tell the Reader, I did in the place here cited of the third Chapter of my Treatise, set downe clearely and perspicuously when, and by what occasion I came to vnderstand, whom the two Letters T. M. did signifie, which before I vnderstood not. Reckon. pa. 229 And now let the Reader iudge betweene vs, whe­ther it be likely that M. Morton knew my Dedicatorie Epistle, wherein I take notice of his Name, were written after the common Preface, and first two Chapters of the Treatise, or no; and so let him consider of his idle obiection.

The Reuiewe.

4. Albeit the matter be of no moment, yet seeing that M. Parsons is so vehemently vrgent, I shall intreate the indiffe­rent Reader to do him iustice, after that I shall be vouchsafed to speake. I obserue in all this defence, that there is an Epistle Dedicatorie (wherein the name, Tho. Morton, is men­tioned) which giueth notice of a large common Epistle (wher­in M. Parsons said that he knew not the name) prefixed be­fore a Treatise; and in the third Chapter of that Treatise, the occasion is expressed of knowing the name; often telling vs that the Dedicatorie Epistle was written after the common Preface, saying furthermore that hee was Mitig. cap 3. pag. 89. Forced by sicknesse, to lay a­side that which he had written; and hence inferreth, that in the [Page 160] Preface hee said truely that hee knew not that name. In all M. Parsons in­considerate taxation. which his Answere hee hath forgot the principall verbe, viz. [ Printed:] For if the Preface, wherein he saith hee knew not the name; were, as he also saith, laide aside in his writing Pa­pers, and not Printed till afcerwards hee knew the Name at full, then ought hee to haue Corrected the Preface (because now hee knew the name) before it were committed to the Presse: Otherwise, that part of the Preface, to wit, [ As yet I know not his name,] although it were true in his papers when he writ it, yet must it needes bee a Lie in Print, and a speciall Argument of great rashnesse. And Rashnesse being the fault which I imputed vnto M. Parsons, he was too inconsiderate to put this in his Reckoning, for one of the falshoods which were obiected against him.

5. Neuerthelesse, lest that I might disturbe the Order of M. Parsons his Reckoning, I thought good to fill vp this his first place, with a perfect falshood indeede of his owne (not yet mentioned) which is such as may perswade any man of Conscience, that M. Parsons his Conscience hath taken such a leake, as is able to drowne his soule, except hee repent, which I will vnfold in the next Paragraphe.

A foure fold falshood committed by M. Parsons against M. Caluine, in the end of his last third Chapter.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

FInally, Iohn Caluine himselfe, treating of this matter, confesseth that Reckon. cap. 3. pag. 219. the vse of Prayer for the dead (which supposeth Purgatorie) was practised in the Primitiue Church aboue one thousand three hun­dred yeeres agone: Ante mille & trecentos Annos (saith hee) vsu receptum Caluin. lib. 3. Instit. ca. 5. §. 10 fuit, vt precationes fierent pro defunctis: It was receiued in vse aboue a thousand three hundred yeeres past, that Prayers should bee made for the soules of them that were departed. And a little after: Reckon. pa. 220 where Iohn Caluine in the former place cited, after his confession of the receiued vse of Prayer before one thousand three hundred yeeres, saith, Sed om­nes, Calu. vbi supra. fateor, in errorem abrepti suerun: But all of them, I confesse, were ca­ried away with errour.

The Reueiwe.

6. M. Parsons hath singled out of all the bookes of Mr. Caluine this one place, which he presenteth to his Reader for a spectacle of contempt vsed by M. Caluine against auncient Fathers, and hath laid this downe, as it were, for the vp-shot of his whole Reckoning of that his third Chapter. But see (I beseech thee, good Reader) what a knot of falsities hee hath tyed together in this one accusation. First, these wordes An­te mille annos, &c. are propounded onely as an Obiection of Romish Doctors, thus: Cùm ergo obijciunt Aduersary ante mil­le & trecentos annos &c. That is, Wheras my Aduersaries (saith Caluine) doe obiect vnto me, that prayers for the dead were wont M. Parsons per­fidious forgery to be vsed in the Church a thousand, three hundred yeares since: Secondly, when he commeth to answere, he saith, Ipsiverò ve­teres, &c. But those auncients were carried away with errour: Where M. Parsons, to make M. Caluines aunswere more odi­ous, put in Omnes veteres, that is, All auncient Fathers erred therein, as though Caluine had condemned them All in this point.

7. Thirdly, Caluine a little after in the same Section, yeel­deth a fuller answere, saying: Verum nè glorientur Aduersaris nostri, quasi veterem Ecclesiam erroris sui sociam habeant, &c. But least that our Aduersaries ( iaith Caluine) may boast, as though they had the auncient Church a companion in their er­rour, I say that there is a great difference between them, for those ancients vsed a memory of the dead, least that they might seeme to haue altogether neglected them, but yet did also confesse, that they did not doubt of the State of the dead: As for Purgatorie ( saith Caluin) they held it to be an vncertaine thing. Besides, we might easily produce diuers testimonies of ancient Fathers, wher­by the vse of those prayers is manifestly confuted. Thus farre Mr. Caluine; signifying that he was not destitute of the iudgement of Antiquity, for the oppugning of the doctrine which was obiected against him: which part of the answere Mr. Parsons hath wholly concealed.

8. Lastly, Caluine ( saith M. Parsons) confesseth that the vse [Page 162] of Prayer for the dead (which supposeth Purgatory) was practi­sed, &c. Neuer taking notice that Caluine denieth that conse­quence, holding that Prayer for the dead doeth not inferre Pur­gatorie.

9. Is not here as great a manifestation of witting malice, and falshood (for ought that can appeare to any Reader) as an Aduersarie could possibly vse? First to alleadge Caluines A quadrupli­citie of M. Par­sons falshoods. obiection, in that sense wherein it was obiected, as if it had beene his Assertion: Secondly, by cogging a Die in deede, in foysting in the word All: Thirdly, by concealing Caluines more absolute answere: And lastly by implying a conse­quence, which is by Caluine plainely confuted. What will now become of M. Parsons his Confidence of his owne since­ritie, who boasteth that there cannot be brought against him any one example of such a falsitie, much lesse thrice three, see­ing that here are at least three grosse falshoods in this one? we further enter vpon the falshoods wherewith he was charged in the Preamble.

SECT. II.

The second Charge of the Clause of Reseruation.

10. HOw could M. Parsons, without some Equiuocating Preamb. pag. 5. & pag. 72. "fraude, affirme that the Clause of Reseruation was not set downe by me in Latine, except onely once, seeing that it was expressed in Latine aboue twentie times?

The summe of M. PARSONS his Reckoning.

THe trueth is, that my meaning was according to the meaning of Reckon. pag. 14. M. Mortons assertion, promising that he would alwayes so set down the clause of Reseruation in Latine, that the simple Reader should not vnderstand it, no more then simple men could vnderstand Aristotles Philosophy; in which maner I found it put downe, but once indeede thoughout the whole Booke, to wit, in the place before mentioned, that is to say, wholly in Latine, for thus hee writeth, comming to the said clause of Reseruation: Loquar enim Latinè, nè Jdiotae ansam sibi arripi­ant nequitèr [...] [vt quis [...] illud detegere.] [...] words hee [Page 163] Englisheth not, and consequently might bee some veyle to the igno­rant, not to vnderstand him. But in all other places, though he put in oftentimes, I know not this, or that, Vt tibi dicam, vt tibi reuelem, &c. Yet doeth he so vtter in English all the rest of the cases professed, as the simpliest man may vnderstand the same, and consequently I hold them for vttered in English, and not in Latine.

The Reuiew of the former Reckoning.

11. The onely shadow of excuse, which M. Parsons hath, for couert of his former vntrueth (when hee said that The clause of Reseruation was set downe in Latine but once, not­withstanding it bee found in Latine aboue one and twentie times) is to point at one place, which hee saith is onely and wholly in Latine, thus: Loquar enim, &c. But here he craftily M. Parsons his notable fraude cutteth off the words, which goe immediately before, for thus it standeth in the Booke. Full Satisf. Part. 3. pag 48. A Catholicke being asked, whether a Priest be in such a place, may, notwithstanding his perfect knowledge to the contrarie, answere, [Hee is not there, vt (loquar enim Latinè, nè I diotae ansam sibi arripiant nequitèr mentiendi) quis teneatur illud det egere.] Where it is as appa­rant that the mentall Equiuocation in this place (for the Pa­renthesis is no part of the sentence) being this, [ Hee is not there] Vt quis teneatur detegere, cannot be said to be wholly in Latine, more then [ I am no Priest,] Vt tibireuelem; Or, [ I am no Priest,] Vt tibi dicam: Which M. Parsons doth know to haue beene twentie times repeated in that Treatise.

12. Wherefore by this Reckoning I am iustly occasioned to charge M. Parsons with two vntrueths, the first for his former saying, that The clause of Reseruation was put downe in A brace of vntrueths. Latine but once: The second is for now excusing it. by in­stancing in one place, as though it were put downe wholly in Latine, where not withstanding the first part of the mentall Equiuocation is as much in English; and the latter part (being the clause of Reseruation) no more Latine, then are the twen­tie other examples of mentall Equiuocation, which I did par­ticularly recount. And thus we see that which we may rea­dily obserue in his other answers, to wit, how fruitfull false­hood [Page 164] is, for still one vntrueth doeth engender another. Hath M. Parsons no more to say for himselfe?

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

I Answere that small guilt can be found (though the errour were gran­ted) Reckon cap. 4. § 2. pag. 230. where no malice or interest can be presumed. For to what end or profite should P. R. erre willingly in a matter that importeth him and his cause so little &c.?

The Reuiew.

13. Then belike, he would be thought to haue wronged me in iest: but who knoweth not that euen iesters haue as His ridiculous euasion. well teeth in their heads, as reuilers? Salomon doth characte­rize such like fellows: Pro. 16. 17. As he that faineth himselfe mad casteth fire-brands, arrowes, and mortall things: so dealeth the deceitfull man with his friend, and saith, Am not I in ieast? As for Mast. Parsons he hath intituled himselfe an Aduersarie, and as all men know, he vseth to ieast vncharitably enough.

SECT. III.

The third charge against M. Parsons, concerning the Moderate Answerer.

14. WHere I said particularly of one of your Doctors, Preamb. p. 72. ‘surnamed the Moderate Answerer, that He set­teth himselfe in the chaire of the vnlearned Doctors, reprehen­ded by the Apostle, &c.’ because of his shallow Answeres, which he made with an If, &c.

Mr. Parsons in all snuffe and fume rageth against me, as though I had said that All Ro­mish Doctors were vnlearned.

This I called a falshood.

The summe of Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

I Remit my Reader, for tryall of this, vnto the ponderation of the text Reckon cap. 4. §. 3. pag. 233. it selfe of his said Epistle [To our deceiued Brethren] and to his infer­ring wordes applied to our Priests, in calling them an erring Priest­hood. [Page 165] And here I demand of M. Morton in sincerity, whether he did meane of our Doctors in generall, or no?

The Reuiew.

15. And I answere in as good sincerity, that I meant no more to perswade that All the Romish Doctors were Vnlear­ned, then that they were All learned. But is not this subtly done of M. Parsons, by asking to seeme to doubt of that, which a very Childe might haue vnderstoode, by a plaine di­stinction; of one ignorant Priest, which was the Moderate an­swerer. Mr. P. subtle and craftie in­terrogatory. But the High Priests of the Iews, did not ignorantly but vnconscionably, and wilfully delude the people, saying that Christ was stolne out of the graue, vnto whom that miserable people performed blinde obedience. As for that Title of Se­duced Brethrē, it can make no good cōsequence to proue that I thought Seducers to be vnlearned; no more then if M. Par­sons would say, that because Eue a silly woman was Seduced by the Diuell, therefore the Diuell, who deceiued her, was no sub­tle seducer. Seeing therefore that M. Parsons (after so cleare a conuiction of his errour (which any English Reader may perceiue) doth still persist in aunswering, that he committed Reckon. p. 234. Two of his fal­shoods in one. No errour at all, but gaue a true explanation of my meaning, he, by this deniall of one falshood, hath made vp two.

SECT. IIII.

The fourth charge about Goodman.

16. COncerning the seditious doctrine of Goodman, ‘I an­swered, Full satisfact. part. 2 cap. 3. & Preamb. p. 73. that If I should iustifie him, my heart should condemne my selfe, and furthermore called his seditious posi­tions Wicked and false:’ yet did M. Parsons informe his Reader that I did particularly iustifie Goodman.

The summe of Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

MY wordes were these, that he ( T. M.) taketh vpon him more fond­ly Reckon. cap. 4. §. 4. pag. 235. in the second part of his Replie, to make a publique iustifi­cation of all Protestants for rebelling against their Princes [Page 166] in any Countrey whatsoeuer, but more particularly in England, and therein doth he iustifie Cranmer, Ridley, and others, that conspired a­gainst Q. Mary: Kuoxe, Buchanan, Goodman, in Scotland, as his iustifica­tion is a more condemnation of them, then if he had said nothing at al. Which I spake, because he said [ If I shall iustifie Goodman, although the ex­amples of your Priests might excuse him, yet my heart should condemne my selfe.]

The Reueiwe.

17. I thought M. Parsons had beene a professed Diuine, M. Parsons dis­sembling his vnderstanding of a triuiall phrase of speech to cloak his grosse fals­hood. and had read in Scripture that the Prophet doth vpbraide Ie­rusalem and Israell, saying that they did Iustifie Sodome by their iniquities, that is, (must M. Parsons say, if we admit of his own Comment) God doth commend Sodome for her iniqui­ties, because the Scripture saith, that other wicked Cities doe iustifie Sodome: whereas euery triuiall Scholler, and almost vulgar man, who hath beene exercised in the Scriptures, kno­weth that it is spoken onely by a Comparison of two vngodly people together, wherein Ierusalem is brought-in to iustifie the other, yet not so, as to acquit Sodome of sinne, but euen to aggrauate the vngodlinesse of Hierusalem, as which excee­ded Sodome in her wickednesse. Thus, said I, Although your Priests by their Examples (namely, of more bloody positions) might iustifie Goodman, (as being lesse seditious then they are themselues;) yet if I should not condemne Goodman, my heart should condemne my selfe. What can be more plaine to expresse my purpose in condemning Goodman, whom not­withstanding M. Parsons, to his no smal shame, did say I Iusti­fied? Therefore this vntruth also must still remaine vpon his score with the rest.

SECT. V.

The fift charge against Mr. Parsons about Knoxe and Buchanan.

18. Mr. Parsons hath likewise signified vnto the Reader, ‘that I iustified these also, albeit I Full satisfact. part. 2. cap. 4. iudged their do­ctrine [Page 167] Seditious, and worthily condemned by a Parliament in Scotland.’

The summe of Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning

WHereunto I answere, first by the very wordes of his defence Reckon. cap. 4. §. 5. p. 240. & Preamb. p. 74. in the former obiection, set downe about Goodman, he see­keth to cleare all other, saying;

If I should iustifie this Good­man (though your examples might excuse him) yet my heart should condemne myselfe: But what doe you professe to proue? All Protestants teach positions rebellious: proue it: Here is Goodman, &c. By the example of all the rest, J answere, there is but one.

By which answere it is euident he cleareth all the rest. Nor doe I finde that M. Morton did vse these wordes which hee now doth, [ Their Seditious doctrine was condemned in Scotland:] Nay, as I noted before, by saying that one Goodman had held positions seditions, he thought to iustifie and cleare both these two.

The Reuiewe.

19. I maruel by what priuiledge M. Parsons is imboldened thus to face out a matter so manifestly false, as the meanest English Reader may see. ‘For concerning Knoxe and Bucha­nan, I said that Full satisfact, part. 2. cap. 4. An Acte of Parliament calld-in the bookes of Buchanan, censuring all such contempts and Innouations, Adding that, you may not call that the doctrine of the Church of Scotland, which the generall current of the Church and M. Parsons out­facing of truth. State did condemne in publique Parliament, such is the sediti­ous doctrine of resisting and deposing of Kings.’ But yet thus it became M. Parsons to couer his former faithlesse dealing His double vn­truth. with a shamelesse deniall, which (lest it should not be manifest enough) he maketh more visible by a palpable vntruth: and yet againe.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

NAy, as I noted before, by saying that onely one Goodman had held Reckon. ib. p. 241. positions seditious, he thought to iustifie and cleare both these two, and all other their companions from iust reprehension. Whereby you see how idle an obiection against mee this is of wilfull falshood.

The Reueiwe.

20. Be pleased (good Reader) to looke vpon the place it selfe, and if M. Parsons haue dealt sincerely in this point of Reckoning, then discharge him in all the rest. ‘ I writ thus con­cerning Goodman: Full satisfact. part. 2. p. 103. Here is one Goodman who in his pub­lique booke doth maintaine them. I haue no other meanes to a­uoyde these straits, which you obiect by the example of one, to conclude All Protestants rebellious, then by example of all the rest, to answere there is but one.’ Particularly intreating of the examples of English Protestants, whom the Moderate Answe­rer A newfalshood of M. Parsons, in defence of an olde. had obiected, and spending the whole third Chapter for the iustifying of the English Writers, excepting Goodman, whom I there held worthy of condemnation.

21. After, in the fourth Chapter, intituled [ The obiections against the Church of Scotland] I answered (as is aforesaid) for the condemning of Knoxe and Buchanan: whereas there is not so much as any intimation of these two in the other place: Was there euer man so distortedly squint-eyed, who could looke North-ward and South-ward in one moment, as M. Parsons hath done, who could not distinguish the speech, which particularly concerned England, from that which was applied onely vnto Scotland. Hee held it sufficient, if I could shew but Three plaine falshoods for his conuiction, here we finde in this one charge Three, which are not of the least size.

SECT. VI.

The sixt charge against M. Parsons, touching Mast. Campian.

22. ‘THe testimony of M. Campian was Full satisfact. part. 1. p. 20. & Preamb p. 75. brought to accuse M. Caluine; concerning his doctrine of calling Christ [...] and censuring it to be monstrous:’ Vnto the which crimination vsed by M. Campian,

and by sixe other Ro­mish [Page 169] Doctors against Caluine, I opposed the iudgement of Card. Bellarmine,

who iustifieth the sense of Caluine, as be­ing Catholicke: yet did Mr. Parsons so relate the matter, by changing Campian into Bellarmine, as though I had foolishly brought in Bellarmine to be contrary to himselfe: This I tooke to be a witting falshood.

The summe of Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

BEcause vpon the word [ your Iesuite] M. Morton placed the letter ( r) Reckon. p. 243. for reference in the margent vnto Campian, and vpon the next Au­thour put downe the letter ( t) vpon the quotation of Bellarmine to the same effect, rescuing the opinion of Caluine and Beza; the letters being very small, the one was taken for the other, and the name of Bel­larmine set downe in the text, in stead of Campian: the difference impor­ting nothing at all, yet doth M. Morton make a great matter of it, as though it had beene done of malice, when as for me to change volunta­rily these two names, Cuibono?

The Reuiew.

23. Here M. Parsons confesseth his errour, but saith that he did it not voluntarily, or vpon an euill intent But alas the good mans meaning bewrayeth it selfe, by the manner of his owne Accusation, wherein hee spared not to note me for a Mitig. cap. 6. n. 53. &. 54. p. 230. Shifter, by intending to deceiue the Reader: Neuerthelesse perceiuing his owne vngratious shift discouered, he will haue me to take it for a reasonable part of a Reckoning, to answer, M. Parsons con­fessed errour. Cui bono? that is, What good would it haue beene for me (saith he) to haue done this willingly? When as he should rather haue asked, Cui malo? that is, To whom hee might worke a mis­chiefe hereby; especially seeing that he doth bewray almost in euery page, that it is his cordiall good to traduce mee, and His miserable excuse. make me odious, as if I were (God forgiue him) the vilest shif­ter and falsificator that hath beene heard of. And yet the poore man thinketh to be excused by the littlenesse of the superiour letters ( r. and t.) who See hereaf­ter, §. 11. notwithstanding was him­selfe so Eagle-eyed, in discerning in verò, and verè, the two lit­tle vowels, ò, and è.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning, concerning CALVINES [...]

BVt now for the thing it selfe, albeit Bellarmine in the place here Reckon. pag. 243. & 244. quoted doe shew, that, according to the Exposition of Josias Sim­lerus a Caluinist, the words of John Caluine, in a certaine sense may haue a true meaning, yet simply and absolutly doth he condemne the same as Hereticall, saying, Caluinum existime, quoad modum loquendi, sine dubio errasse. I doe thinke without doubt, that Caluine did erre in Bellarm. l. 2 de Christo. ca. 69. his maner of speech. (A little after the relation of the sentence of the Booke) Whereby it appeareth that Bellarmine, neither is contrarie to himselfe, neither to Fa. Campian, and other Catholicke writers before mentioned: for that all of them doe agree, that the maner of Caluines speech is hereticall, dangerous, and to bee auoided, though in some strained sense it may passe.

The Reuiewe.

24. Heresie (as Mr. Parson knoweth) consisteth not in words, but in sense: for these words of Scripture, Iob. 14. 28. My Fa­ther is greater then I, are vsed both by Catholickes and He­retickes; but by Catholickes in a true, by Hereticks in a false sense. Now where I produced Romish Authors, condem­ning the foresaid sentence of Caluine (concerning [...]) iudging the sense thereof Hereticall, &c. and opposed Bellar­mine against them, iustifying the sense of Caluine as Catho­licke: M. Parsons faithlesse dea­ling against Caluine. M. Parsons endeauoureth to reconcile his Romish Au­thors, as though they all agreed to condemne Caluines maner of speech, and to allow his sense. I should maruell that Mr. Parsons durst seeke to delude his Reader with so open false­hoods, but that his disposition is now habited by vse.

25. For the accusations of the Romish writers against Caluine, were Full satisfact. part. 1. cap. 7. thus specified by me. First Rat. 8. Campian, ‘calling the Doctrine of Caluine portentum: Next, their Annot. in Ioh. I. 1. Rhemish Translatours, calling it Blasphemie: After Lib. 3. de Notis verbi Dei. Posseuinus, cal­ling it Atheisme: Then Stapleton. Prompt. ser. 3. post. Dom. [...] Stapleton, calling it a wicked Here­sie, which Feuardentius (saith hee) doth not ably refute.’ And can these agree with the iudgement of Cardinall Bellarmine, who iustifieth the sense of Caluine to be Catholicke? And for M. Parsons his further conuiction, I shall desire my Reader [Page 171] but onely to heare the words of Bellarmine himselfe in the Bellar. 1. 2. de Christ. ca. 19. place alleadged. Genebrard ( saith hee) and Lindanus, and Canisius, ( all Romane Authors) did attribute vnto Caluine this Heresie: Neuethelesse, when I doe examine the matter ( saith Bellarmine) and doe diligently ponder the sentence of Caluine, I dare not pronounce that he was in this errour.

26. Doe you not heare Genebrard, Lindanus, and Canisi­us, pronouncing Caluine an Hereticke for that opinion, for which Bellarmine saith, that hee himselfe durst not condemne Caluine? How then could M. Parsons say truely, that these writers doe agree? Herein hee offereth no small iniurie vnto Bellarmine, whom whilst he would reconcile vnto others, he maketh to be an Aduersarie to himselfe, as though Bellarmine had condemned Caluine in that, wherein he iustified him, ac­cording to the Index of his Booke: Tom. 3. Edit. Lugduni, Anno 1596. Caluini sent entia [...] explicatur, & defenditur, That is: The sentence of Cal­uine concerning [...] is explained and defended. But especi­ally hee wrongeth his owne conscience, by an inexcuseable falshood.

SECT. VII.

The seuenth Charge.

27. ‘M. Parsons in his Mitig. cap. 4. num. 14. & Tre­amb. pag 76. Mitigation brought me in as Con­fessing, in effect, all that my Aduersarie the mode­rate Answerer had obiected against Protestants:’ when as contrariwise there was scarce any thing See full satisfa­Part. 2. obiected (excep­ting the aboue named examples of Goodman, Knox, Bucha­nan, and Muntzer,) which I did not particularly consute. These and almost euery particular instance I then prosecuted, oftentimes by the confessions of their owne Doctors, whom M. Parsons in his Answere durst not so much as touch by any

mention. And could such like confutations be, In effect, a confessing of all?

This seemed vnto me to bee a large and lauish falshood. Let vs see what account Mr. Parsons will make for this.

The summe of M. PARSONS his Reckoning.

ALthough he vsed all possible Art that hee could to answere, yet Reckon. pa. 247. 248. are his Answers such, where hee doeth answere (for to sundry chiefe points he saith nothing at all) as doe easily shew that in substance he confesseth all, and cannot denie what is obiected; and where hee seeketh to denie any thing, there hee intangleth himselfe more, then if flatly hee confessed the same. And in proofe hereof, I spend a dozen leaues at least, in refuting all his Answers, proouing that they yeeld not a full, but a faint satisfaction.

The Reueiwe.

28. This you haue now affirmed, and that in Print, euen in Romane letters. But I appeale vnto any Reader vnder­standing English to iudge hereof, what Full satisfact. Part. 2. I haue done in con­futation of the moderate Answerer, the particular instances Mitig pag. 112 where his Dis­course of 12. leaues begin­neth. there obiected doe fully manifest, which concerned either England, Fraunce, Geneua, Germanie, yea, or the losse of Rhodes, and part of Hungarie, which (according to the re­port of their owne Histories) befell thorow the couctousnesse of Pope Adrian. Secondly, what Mr. Parsons hath not An­swered in his Dozen leaues of his Mitigation, vnto the se­cond His many fals­hoods in one. part of the Full satisfaction, consisting of twelue Chap­ters, will be as euident: Wherein any may obserue the diuers Arguments then vsed, for the defence of Protestants, which Mr. Parsons passed ouer without Answere; the Summarie points whereof are these.

29. Full satisfact. Part. 2. p. 97. 98. First the generall Doctrine of Protestants, by (as Bellarmine confesseth) expounding the place of Saint Paul, Rom. 13. to signifie that the Pope, and all Ecclesiasticall per­sons, ought to bee subiect vnto Princes. Ibid. pag. 99. Secondly, that the English Protestants (by the confession of the Iesuite Salmeron,) Doe acknowledge a Soueraigntie of Kings in cases Ecclesiasticall. Thirdly, the expresse Doctrine of Jbid. pag. 108. Caluine, and of Jbid. pag. 109. Beza, aduancing the Authoritie of Kings. Fourth­ly, the iustifying of the Protestants in Jbid. pag. 111. France, from the te­stimonies of Romish Historians. Fiftly, (to omit some o­ther proofes) acquitting Ibid. pag. 121. & 123. Luther, by his owne expresse Do­ctrine, [Page 173] and by other euidences, confuting the Ibid. pag. 127. slarders, which the moderate Answere cast vpon him, which M. Par­sons nimbly skipped ouer, in fauour of his shinnes; playing the very Mare-maide, a woman aboue water, talking largely, and promising a confutation of all points, but when he com­meth to the principals, — Atrum desinit in piscem, as mute as a Fish, as might bee manifested by many examples. In the Simile. meane time we may reckon this his last Assertion, in the num­ber of his grauida mendacia, because this one falshood is big with many other falshoods in the belly thereof.

SECT. VIII.

The eight Charge, concerning a Transition, asking [haue you ought to say to their practise?]

30. I Mitigat. cap. 4. pag. 131. Was accused by M. Parsons, to haue dissembled the practises of Caluine and Beza, which were obiected by the moderate Answerer, and to haue vsed this Interrogation, ‘[ Haue you any thing to say to their practise?] in an hypocriti­call dissemblance,’ as though nothing had beene obiected against them, to the end that I might passe them ouer, and answere nothing at all:

Preamb. pa. 77
Albeit it bee most euident by the place it selfe, that I vsed that Interrogation by way of a Transition onely,

to the end that I might more emphati­cally and effectually, both note and confute the obiections against Caluine and Beza, which immediately I also perfor­med. Therefore M. Parsons in accusing me of Dissimulation and hypocrisie, did me no litle iniurie, and now commeth hal­ting in with a strange maner of Reckoning.

The summe of M. PARSONS his Reckoning.

I Am so equall and easie to bee intreated in this matter, or rather so Reckon. cap. 4. §. 8 pag. 2 q 8. indulgent, as I am content to accept of his interpretation, profes­sing sincerely notwithstanding, that I vnderstood him in another meaning, when I wrote my Booke, the words themselues leading mee thereunto: Howsoeuer it bee, there can bee no least matter of malice [Page 174] framed against me. True it is, he endeauoureth both before and after to Answere vnto diuers proofes of seditious practises, obiected by his Aduersaries against Caluine and Beza.

The Reueiwe.

31. In this part of his Reckoning I shall desire my Rea­der to obserue these two points: M. Parsons his maner of Confession, and protestation, for they are remarkeable. He confesseth now that in that place I Endeauored both before and after, to Answere vnto the seditious practises obiected a­against Caluine and Beza, and yet accused me in his Mitigat. cap. 4. pag. 131. Mitiga­tion, for concealing the whole matter, rating and reuyling me, and calling my Satifaction in this point Hypocrisie and Dissimulation, so farre forth as to make me a man not to be tru sted hereafter. But why? for concealing and dissembling for­sooth such obiections against Caluine and Beza, which now, vpon better consideration, he confesseth I did not dissemble, but expressely mentioned, and also endeauoured to answere them.

32. Thou seest then (Christian Reader) how vile and hai­nous The excellent Art of M. Par­sons, in confes­ing his witting falshood so, as though hee would not confesse it. an opprobrie M. Parsons laide vpon me, euen of [ Not to be trusted hereafter;] and vpon how friuolous and false a pretence, according as he hath here plainely confessed. I call the Confession plaine, because hee graunteth I did not con­ceale them.

33. Notwithstanding, marke I beseech thee, in what ma­ner he conueigheth this his Confession, which he beginneth thus: I am so equall and easie to bee intreated, or rather so indul­gent, as I am content to accept of his interpretation, &c. See now, after that hee had beene charged with egregious impu­dencie, by his false imputation of Hypocrisie & Dissimulation, and being at length ashamed of his owne discouered naked­nesse, although he cannot denie his errour, yet doth hee not cast away all the Fig-leaues of couert, and although hee can­not but yeeld, yet will he seeme so to yeeld, as onely vpon an Intreatie, forsooth, which indeede he doth vpon a Charge and Challenge; and to be onely content to doe that, which he doth by constraint; and to haue condescended onely in the way of [Page 175] Indulgence, which he doth thorow the euidence of his owne guiltinesse. I suppose that Theophrastus did neuer shewe a more liuely Character and Picture of any vice, then is this Character of a smooth and subtile Reckoner, which is exem­plified in this confession of M. Parsons, who so acknowled­geth his most manifest errour, as if hee did not, or would not acknowledge it, which maketh me to hold his Protestation to be lesse credible.

34. His Protestation is, that He then vnderstood the matter otherwise; that is to say, otherwise then he dooth now in his more Sober Reckoning: which doubtlesse (if he had bin then truely Sober) he could not haue vnderstood otherwise, as may The palpabili­tie of M. Par­sons falshood, a­gainst which he doth now protest. be made euident by a like example of a Lawyer pleading in this manner: The debt which your Clyent challengeth of the de­fendant, is of two sorts, the one is vpon Bils, the other vpon Bonds; I haue answered vnto all that you can challenge by vertue of Bils, what haue you to say to the Bonds? The Bonds, you say, were made vpon due considerations, and before diuers competent witnesses: whereunto I answere, that the considerations are vn­lawfull, and the witnesses are insufficient, and (that which will discouer the inualidity of the Bonds most) they are razed and in­terlined. Thus the Pleader for the defendant. Presently star­teth vp a Lawyer for the contrary part, and desireth to bee heard for the Plaintife. My Lord (saith he to the Iudge) the last Pleader concerning the debts challenged by vertue of Bonds, hath said thus: What haue you to say for the Bonds? as though nothing had beene said thereunto: Did we not alleage that there were faire instruments, that there were due considerations, that there were sufficient witnesses, &c. What a notorious dissimulati­on and Hypocrisie was it then in him, to conceale our alleadge­ments? Or how can your Lordship suffer such a one to pleade in your presence? His Aduersary standeth vp, and replieth, saying, Your Lordship seeth the impudencie of this fellow, for I haue both mentioned the Bonds, the witnesses and considerations; and haue particularly answered and disabled these his obiections. In the end the peruerse wrangling Lawyer perceiuing his owne folly, maketh the same Apologie for himselfe, which M. Par­sons [Page 176] hath done. Well, I am so equall and easie to be intreated in this matter, or rather indulgent, as I am contented to yeeld vnto your interpretation; protesting sincerely, that I vnderstood you in another meaning. Would not such a protestation, ioyned with such a confession, mooue eyther laughter or indignation? Such is the case betweene me and M. Parsons in euery degree, and yet will he be thought to haue dealt sincerely.

SECT. IX.

The ninth Charge, touching the testimony of Holinshed.

35. WHereas I Full satisfact. part. 2. pag. 102. & Preamb. 80. &c. related onely Holinshed, to proue that there was not any Scruple of Religion obiected "against Wyat in the Oration of Q. Mary: Mitig. p. 128. M. Parsons, to prooue me a falsificator, leauing the Authour Holinshed, put "in his place M. Foxe, and concludeth against me, that The Minister lieth openly. He now bestirreth himselfe in this case.

The summe of Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

THough the History of Holinshed doth relate the pretence of Wiat Reckon. pa. 252. to haue been against the Queenes marriage, concealing and dis­sembling the point of Religion in that place (which else-where he confesseth, as after shall be seene) yet John Foxe, a more auncient and authenticall Historiographer then he, doth plainely set downe, that to­gether with the pretence of marriage, the cause of Religion was also pretended, &c. And it cannot be presumed, but that M. Morton had seene and read this, yet durst affirme, that there was no mention of Religion at all in Wiats pretence: Which is the first lie.

The Reueiwe.

36. Doe you see the falshood of this Reckoner? he is char­ged to haue put vpon me the testimony of M. Fox, as though I had cyted it contrary to his meaning, which I did not indeed so much as mention: And now at length perceiuing his own fraude to be laid open, whereunto hee cannot answere one [Page 177] word, he doth onely endeuour to bring me into his owne pre­dicament of falsifying by another tricke, so, as if in reckoning M. Parsons not able to denie his former fal­shood, doth conceale it. he meant to play some stoppage of debt. But I asked M. Par­sons why he did so faithlesly and malitiously change Holinshed into Foxe? he answereth iust nothing: This is Soberly and quietly Reckoned. Thus much for my charge against him. Let vs heare what he hath now against me.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

AND the same M. Foxe also sheweth, that in the Oration of Q. Reckon. p. 252. Mary, that their pretence of mariage seemed to be but a Spanish Cloake, to couer their pretended purpose against Religion. And this testimony of M. Fox must needes haue beene knowne to M. Morton, and consequently here is a second lie.

The Reuiew.

37. Holinshed is a professed Historian, and writ a large and determinate Storie of all memorable things, which were done in the daies of Q. Mary, and other Kings of England af­ter her raigne: but the subiect and matter of the Actes and Monuments written by M. Foxe, is the passions and Martyr­domes of the faithful, both of ancient and latter times, not on­ly in England, but also in other Countries; as for other mat­ters of Historie, he relateth them but obiter, not professedly, nor yet so copiously, as Holinshed hath done. Wherefore it is as great indiscretion in M. Parsons to challenge me to neglect His indiscre­tion. Holinshed, and in a point of History to take my Certificate from M. Foxe, whom then I had not; presuming that I must needes haue seene and read that sentence in him, to drawe me thereby into suspition of a wilfull falshood: wherein he hath giuen vs the perfect length of his owne foote, because mala His precipitate iealousie. mens, malus animus, that is, according to the English Prouerb, As a man vseth himselfe, so he museth and iudgeth of others. For could any but a selfe-guilty minde censure another so pe­remptorily, that he must needes haue seene a booke, which might haue bin wanting, and was not (as I haue shewed) so needefull to be seene? But I leaue this to M. Parsons more so­ber [Page 178] consideration: wherein it may be, he will be contented to thinke that he hath done me an iniury. What yet more?

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

WHeras he saith that no Minister of the Gospel was brought Reckon cap. 4. § 9 pag. 253. in question, as a Commotioner in that cause, it is both false in it selfe, and cautelously set downe, for it being notori­ous that al Protestants in England did concur in the rebellion of the D. of Northumberland, who can doubt but that in the second also of Wiat they had their hearts there, although not so fully their hands. And that Cranmer and Ridley with others, were not brought into publicke iudge­ment for tryall, the same Master Saunders yeeldeth a reason, for that Q Mary being a zealous Catholicke would haue them rather called in question for heresie, which is treason against God, then for conspiracy or commotion, which was a treason against her person.

The Reueiwe.

38. In the Part. 2. p. 101. Full Satisfaction you haue bin answered, concer­ning Mr. Cranmer, Ridley, and others, that they could not be challenged of any crime of treason, Full satisfact. ibid. where of you might not aswell make the State parties, which accorded vnto the testament of K. Edward 6. in the behalfe of Lady Iane, as their owne Historian Thuan. Tom. 1. 1. 9. An. 1553. pag. 954. Thuanus doth report: what better rea­son can there be for their discharge, then is this confession, to wit, that they were not called in question of Treason in the dayes of Q. Mary? As for the Answere made by Saun­ders, it is nothing but his vnseasonable figment: For where was it euer heard, that any State put a man to death for heresie, whom they might cut off for treason? For although M. Sanders odd euasion, about Heresie and Treason. heresie be a more heynous crime, yet the Hereticke recanting is receiued againe into fauor: but a Traytor notwithstanding his repentance, is to giue satisfaction of the law, by suffering death. The Church dealeth as a Mother, the law as a Iudge. Neyther can the former Answere consist with Christian poli­cie: for if a man be both a Traytor and an Hereticke, it would be lesse preiudiciall vnto Religion, to execute him for Trea­son, then for his opinion, because euen the ashes of but one burnt for an Hereticke, doth breede some wormes of like na­ture. [Page 179] Finally, common wit and vnderstanding of a man will teach him, that whosoeuer is both guilty of heresie and Trea­son, he should be accused and conuicted of them both, that by the heynousnesse of his Treason, his Heresie might seeme M. Parsons poore shift. more odious. By this we see vnto what poore and miserable shift M. Parsons is brought, which hee knew he must eyther haue vsed, or else haue marred his whole Reckoning.

39. He furthermore addeth, that he hath since Reckon. ibid. Tooke the paines to search Holinshed more diligently, and hath found that he doth more expresly affirme, that the Commons and many of the Nobility conspired to raise warre both for the marriage, and for the cause of Religion. He may the more easily excuse me, if I did not so readily meete with that, which cost him so diligent paines to finde out; which I had lesse cause to inquire into, see­ing that in the large Oration of Q. Mary against Sir Thomas Wiat, reported by Holinshed, there is no such scruple, concer­ning Religion, to be found, which is al that I vndertooke then to auouch. For as for Wiats intention, how good soeuer it might seeme to be, I did not iustifie it, because (as I then said) Lawfull things must be performed by lawfull meanes: signifying that his taking vp of armes against the Queene, could not be warranted by presumption of any good intent. We proceede to our other accounts: of the Three charges next following M. Parsons giueth vs a breefe note.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

IN signe that M. Mortons matter now groweth barren, in obiecting of Reckon. cap. 4. §. 10. pag. 260. wilful falsities against me, he beginneth to huddle vp diuers of them together, but of so small moment, and so fully answered, and con­futed before, as it is euident he seeketh but some shewe of number to helpe himselfe for some ostentation.

The Reueiwe.

40. It was not barrennesse, but the briefnesse of a Pream­ble, which occasioned me to remit other your falsities vnto a further discouery, as before wee end our Reckoning, will a­bundantly appear. For this present we are now to recal those [Page 180] charges, which you haue handled in your first Chapter, which I promised (for one more orderly paslage) to reduce vnto their proper places, and therefore I now begin with the An­swere vnto the next charge.

SECT. X.

The tenth charge, concerning the text of Esay 29.

41. I Set downe for the poësie of my Preamble, the text of Esay, 29. 9. Ye are blinde, and make others blinde. This Preamb. p. 23. &c. M. Parsons so canuased, as intimating (as I said) that I had for­ged a Text of Scripture; and that the wordes were by mee "falsly alleadged, which I proued in him to bee a slaunderous and vnconscionable taxation. He is to Reckon vnto me for this also.

The summe of Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning, concerning a Text of Scripture.

I Doe not say that hee hath forged a Text, but that the sentence of his Reckon. p. 43. Poësie against Catholickes, pretended to be taken out of this place of Esay, 29. 9. is falsly alleadged, corrupted and mangled, the same not being found there eyther in wordes or sense.

The Reuiew, noting Mr. Parsons his apparant falshood.

42. What call you forgerie M. Parsons? Is not the corrup­ting M. Parson for­geth an excuse apparantly false. of a Writ, so that it be not the same eyther in word or sense, plaine forgery? or can there be any greater then is the corrup­tion of holy writte? Therefore the action which you laid, is an action of forgerie. ‘But whom did you note to be the cor­rupter? your owne wordes are these: Mitig. pa: 88. and in his Rec. kon. pa. 42. I cannot well preter­mit, for ending of this Chapter, one little note more of rare sin­gularity in this man (namely, T. M.) aboue others, which I scarce euer haue obserued in any one of his fellowes, and this it is, that the very first wordes of Scripture, illeadged by him in the first page of his booke, for the poesie of his Pamphlet, are [Page 181] falsly alleadged, corrupted, and mangled, though they containe but one only verse of Esay the Prophet: and then may you ima­gine what liberty he will take to himselfe afterward, throughout his whole Discourse.’ Adding much more bitternesse of Ca­lumniation. But this is sufficient to shew, that I haue been thus bedawbed with his vile and false imputations of rare singula­rity aboue all my fellowes, and that for falsifying and corrupting a Text of Scripture: And yet dooth not this honest man blush to tell vs that hee had not accused mee of forging a Text of Scripture; nor is hee ashamed to note me of rare singu­larity aboue all my fellowes: for alleadging this translation of the Text, which standeth so in our English Bible, common vnto me, with all my fellowes. This last point calleth for a bet­ter Reckoning.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

NEyther did I see, or looke for the English translation. Reckon. quo suprà.

The Reuiew.

43. Dooth this dealing agree with that propertie of an honest man, whom you would seeme to be, Not to looke the common English translation, which might haue freed mee Mr. P. bent to slander his ad­uersary. from the slaunder of so rare singularity in corrupting a Text, if yet there had beene in it any corruption? As this doth but a litle lessen your fraud, so doth it much aggrauate your malice, which was bent to make me obnoxious aboue all my fellowes. I haue not done with you yet, for we must Reckon for a third falshood of yours, where you affirm that the sense of the Text is so notoriously corrupted.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning, concerning the sense of the Text.

I Said that the 9. verse of Esay 29. is falsly alleadged, corrupted and man­gled, Recko. p 43. n. 67 the same being not found there, eyther in wordes or sense. Ibid. p. 44. n. 69 And now, for your conuincement in this place, I meane to stand vpon the originall Texts themselues, and the verse by you alleadged, to see whe­ther your poesie against vs may be framed thereof. First then the He­brew hath it thus, as both Pagninus, Vatablus, and others doe set it down: Be astonished and wonder, shut vp your eyes, and let them be shut, be ye drunke, [Page 182] but not with wine, doe you recle, but not with Sisera. Or otherwise: They haue shouted and cried, are drunke, but not with wine. And the Greeke Septua­gint thus: Doc you faint, &c.

The Reueiwe.

44. Belike M. Parsons being angric with himselfe, for his M. Parsons per­tinacy in his errour. former boldenesse with the Hebrew Text, meant now to re­double his owne disgrace vpon himselfe, by saying that Pag­nine, Vat ablus, and others (who follow the Hebrew) haue not anything agreeable to our English Translation, [ Ye are blinde and make men blinde,] eyther in word or sense. For he could not but remember, that I Preamb. p. 14. alleadged, ‘for defence of the Eng­lish, the wordes of Pagnine, printed Anno 1528. reading the same verse thus: Excaecati sunt, & alios excaecauerunt, that is, They are blinde, and haue blinded others. I cited also their owne Doctor Hector Pintus vpon the same verse, who she­weth that in the Hebrew it is read thus: Your Priests shall be blinde, and make others blinde: Besides Vatablus himselfe, who readeth the Text thus: Be ye astonished and wonder, Oblinite vobismetipsis oculos, that is, Daube vp your eyes. And in his Annotations vpon the same wordes, he paraphraseth thus;’ They haue blinded themselues, and made others blinde. So that (for we are to deale only with the Hebrew text, which differeth not in sense eyther from the Greeke or Latinc) our English is hereby sufficiently confirmed.

45. Therefore M. Parsons in the vp-shot of this Reckoning is become chargable for three falshoods; the first is his former false accusation, in challenging mee of corrupting a Text of Scripture: the second is his now-denying that hee meant to note me for forging a Text: the third, by vrging the English His threefold falsity. Translation, as being altogether different from the Hebrew in sense, which, by the iudgement of their own Hebritians, is ve­ry consonant. And thus our Conscionable Reckoner forsooth, who would seeme not to bee guilty of Three falshoods tho­roughout all his books, is often displaid to be guilty of Three in one Section.

SECT. XI.

The eleauenth Charge, concerning Carerius.

46. WHether M. Parsons did iustly Preamb. pa. 15 charge me with al­tering of the Title of a Booke of Carerius de "Pote­state Rom. Pontificis; and with changing of verè into vere?

The summe of M. PARSONS his Reckoning.

NOw M. Morton will cleare himselfe, and produceth to this pur­pose Reckon. pag. 47. an other Edition, Printed at Colen, that hath these points as he citeth them. Which Edition, though I haue not seene, nor heard off before, yet doe I thinke it meete to giue credit vnto his affir­mation, nor will I doe him that iniurie as to doubt thereof, especially for so much as he saith that hee hath shewed the same to many friends of his, naming also the yeere and forme in which it was Printed, all which being granted, and that in this latter Colen Impression, the Ad­dition of [...] Haereticos, &c. may haue beene added, which was not in mine, yet doth this inferre nothing against me, nor my charitie.

The Reuiewe.

47. Except M. Parsons first prooue himselfe to be of bet­ter credit, then either I haue reason to presume of, or his owne fellow See aboue, lib. 1. cap. 1. &c. Priest will acknowledge, who hath charged him with loose Equiuocating, lying, and cogging, I shall not greatly desire his credence. It may bee, that he hath seene some Colen Edition, clearing me of his former imputation of M. Parsons his rash and pe­remptorie As­sertion. falshood, and that afterwards he beleeued his owne eyes, and became ashamed of his former rash presumption, to say so omnisciently that, There is but one Edition of Carerius, and thereupon hath hee beene mooued to vse more sobrietie in censuring of Titles and tearmes. But what will hee say fur­ther vnto the matter it selfe?

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning, for a Gram­maticall quiddity.

BVt now for the second point obiected of verè, for verò, though M. Morton Reckon. pag. 47. num. 74. doe alleadge in like maner for his excuse, the authoritie or rather the errour of his Colen Edition, yet cannot hee so easily [Page 184] discharge himselfe thereof, for that the very contexture of speech must needes argue to his conscience, that it should be verò and not vere, for that otherwise their should haue beene no apt sense, nor any coniun­ctiue Particle, to connect the testimonie of Celsus Mancinus to the for­mer. The great letter C. also in the beginning of Celsus (if this bee not in like maner altered in M. Mortons Edition from the originall) must needes haue shewed vnto him, that it was no Nowne Adiectiue, but a proper name of a man, and consequently must bee ioyned with verè, and not with verè.

The Reuiew.

48. Good M. Parsons, if I should say I were ashamed of your ignorance, you would say that I spake it in choler: Therefore I will but onely propound vnto you your errour, and then will you (I thinke) bee ashamed of your selfe. You haue said that Celsus being no Nowne Adiectiue, but a proper name of a man, could not bee ioyned with verè. But I doe con­trarily affirme that there is no proper name, which doeth both betoken a mans person, and also signifie some proper­tie M. Parsons lear­nedly bewray­eth his want of learning in a Grammaticall quidditie. and qualitie agreeable vnto that name, but it may be vsed both Substantiuely and Adiectiuely with verè, as Celsus was, which was the proper name of Mancinus, and Adiectiuely signifieth Loftie.

49. For you know that Pius signifieth godly, and it was the name of many of your Popes: If I should say of your Pope Pius Secundus, iam audiamus Pontificem verè Pium, would you say that I had offended against my Grammer? Nay, is not euery such citation a singular elegancie of speech? Lend your eare (amongst infinite examples of this kind) to your owne Doctor Barkley, who speaking of S. Ambrose, Barclaius con­tra Monarchom. li. 3. ca. 5. p1. 137 saith; O Dominum Antistitem verè Ambrosium, cuius ex di­ctis [...] tanquam ex sacro quodam penario, tam suauem ca­pimus Ambrosiam, That is: O that Prelate, truely Ambrose, from whose writings and workes, as out of an holy Store-house, we may take the sweete Ambrosia of Euangelicall trueth, so he. M. Parsons, I thinke, will not compare with Barkley in Grammer learning, and though he should, it would bee but according to the prouerbe, Sus Mineruam. This word, Ia­cob, which signifieth a supplanter, was the proper name of a [Page 185] Patriarke, the yonger Sonne of Isaac, vnto whom his bro­ther Esau spake, saying: Was he not truely called Iacob, for hee hath supplanted me twice? I now demand, if Esau had said vn­to him, behold one truely Iacob, would M. Parsons his lear­ning, Gene. 27. 36. licence him to condemne that speech of incongruitie? Although I haue M. Parsons now at this aduantage, yet will I not (in requital of his owne scurrilitie, about the Syllogisme) send him vnto the Schoole againe to learne his Grammer, but rather hold it sufficient to haue thus admonished him hereof.

SECT. XII.

The twelueth Charge, concerning Doleman, alias Parsons.

50. THe inquirie is, Pseamb. pa. 22 whether Doleman, alias Parsons held ‘it to be a damnable sinne for any of his Catholicks to suffer any Protestant Prince to succeede in the Crowne.’ This is your owne case, M. Parsons, and it wil therefore con­cerne you much to make vp a straight Reckoning, if you will free your intention from Treason. Your Answere in your Mitig. cap. 2. pag. 72. Mitigation was this. ‘ Is there any word peculiar of a Prote­stant Prince, or of his successor? Nay, doth not the text speake plainely of making a King where none is, &c. How then can this malicious cauelling Minister, &c.’ This you spake in your lesse temperate moode: but since I haue Preamb. pa. 23 told you thatthe materiall subiect of that Booke, was the ‘ Succession to the Crowne of England, after the decease of Queene ELI­ZABETH,’ where you spake expresly of an Heire appa­rant, and in particular and by name tooke exception against our now Gracious Soueraigne King IAMES, to debarre him from the inheritance of Great Brittaine: I must expect of you a more solemne account.

M. PARSONS his Reckoning.

HIs last words ( Of damnable sinner) were spoken as well against Ca­tholickes, Reckon. p. 1. 51. num. 82 and p. 1. 263. where he calleth this the eleuenth. as Protestants, and meant more principally of Election, then of Succession.

The Reueiwe.

51. Mr. Parsons in his Mitigation would not be knowne to haue meant any more then of making a King by Election: Now hee is brought to confesse that hee vnderstood it (al­though M. Parsons re­lenteth some­what from his former Tenet. lesse Principally) of Succession also. Which I confesse is a more Sober Reckoning. Now yet wheras there is as good a right for an heire to succeed in the Crowne, as there is for a King to possesse it, M. Parsons reason of not making or ad­mitting the right heire apparant (who, by the lawes of Eng­land, is King immediatly after his Predecessor hath yeelded vp his last breath) did necessarily inferre, that he meant indeed by not making to marre a King, which I prooued by a Syllc­gisme, which did sufficiently manifest his meaning. viz.

Treamb. pa. 24 Maior. Euery man is a damnable Sinner, who admit­teth any to the Crowne, whom he thinketh faultie in Re­ligion:

Minor. But euery Romish Catholicke, (in the opinion of Mast. Parsons) thinketh all Protestant Princes faultie in Religion:

Ergo. Euery Romish Catholicke, who admitteth a Protestant to succeede in the Crowne, is (in the opinion of M. Parsons) a damnable Sinner.

Let vs, if you please, Rec­kon likewise for this.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

ALl this Syllogisme, I say, is as well verified of Protestants as Ca­tholickes, Reckon. [...]. 54. and consequently the force of this Argument, conclu­deth nothing at all against vs, more then against himselfe and his. For as for the Maior proposition, no Protestant of sense, I thinke, but will grant, that it is a damnable sinne to admit any Prince, if it lie in his hand to preferre or hinder, whom he thinketh to bee faultie in Re­ligion, for that otherwise we must say that Protestants haue no Consci­ence concerning Religion, if they will aduance wittingly any one, that [Page 187] will in their opinion destroy the same. And then I make the Minor, But euery true Protestant thinketh Romish Catholicks faultie in Religion: Ergo, euery true Protestant that admitteth a Catholicke Prince to suc­ceede in the Crown, is a damnable sinner. And then what shall we say of the Dolphine of France, when he commeth to yeeres to succeede in that Crowne, after the death of the king his Father? Will the Prote­stants receiue him, or no?

The Reueiwe.

52. The Maior was indeed propounded generally, but according to the euident scope of that booke of Dolman, it was intended only against Protestants: for their Dolman (a­lias Mr. Parsons) himselfe, being of the Romane Religion, did professe it to bee a damnabē sinne to admit of King Iames, and so of other Protestant Princes, notwithstanding the right of their inheritance, to succeed in the Crowne, which is all that I haue affirmed of Dolman, for the which notwithstan­ding he hath made so lowde and a lewde clamor, saying How is this fellow to be trusted in these his Assertions, &c. But yet now graunteth in effect my former Assertion.

53. True it is, that in electing a King a man is bound in conscience to vse his libertie for the good of religion: but re­ligion Difference be­tweene Electi­on and Suc­cession. it selfe teacheth vs that in admitting a Successor, (who according to the lawes of that Kingdome hath a right vnto the Crown) the libertie of election ceaseth, and the necessitie of admittance (by the doctrine of Protestants) is layd vpon vs, be the partie neuer so aduerse vnto vs in faith; as it ap­peared in their admittance of the now King of France, euen when he reuolted from their Religion, whom the Romanists would not admitt, whilest that he was a Protcstant in profe­ssion. And this difference of comparison, betweene Prote­stants and Romanistes, will continue vntill the Romanistes haue taken out this Lesson of Primitiue and Catholicke Doctrine, to witte; Diuersitie of Religion doth not change the naturall right of Inheritance, which Rule preuailed in the mostpure times, (as Barkley their owne Barckley in two Bookes, the one Contra Monarchomakos The second, De potestate Pa. p. e, handleth this at full, and concludeth ex­pressely against the Doctrine of the Iesuites. See also the confession of others, Full sa­tisfact. part. 3. cap. 8 &c. Doctor proo­neth) euen when Christians were winnowed and purged with persecution, at what time the Apostle exhorted them, saying, Rom. 13. Let euery Soule be Subiect vnto the higher powers. [Page 188] And Euen then (saith your Cunerus,) when the Martyrs, by reason of their multitude, were able to conspire against their Persecutors, yet chose they rather to suffer for the obedience and honour, which they were commaunded to performe vnto Kings, then to resist, if it happned that they could not saue them­selues by flying. This was the true victorie of Christians. There is one thing more which you will haue me Reckon for.

M. PARSONS Reckoning, in Charging his Aduersarie.

ANd to prooue this to bee an exaggeration, That all Priests doe vt­terly Reckon. pag. 51. [...] the Succession in all Protestant Princes, I alleadged con­trarie examples in all the Protestant Princes, that euer succeeded in England since the beginning of the world, who are knowne to bee but three in number, King Edward, Queene Elizabeth, and King Iames, who were admitted both by Priests and Lay-men: Ergo, all Priests doe not vtterly abolish all Succession, in all Protestant Princes, &c. And consequently, some moderation must be graunted on our side, against this odious exaggeration.

A Reuiewe, shewing how M. Parsons is fettered in his owne Assertions.

54. Is this an honest kind of Reckoning, to tell what you alleaged and to conceale what I replied? namely, that it is a sillie sophistrie for you, in a question of right, to oppose for His craftie concealement. your discharge only a matter of fact, which is no better rea­soning then to say that certaine Robbers were honest and quiet Subiects, because they suffered three stronger men A Simile. then themselues to passe securely on the way: For you know M. Parsons, that your not resisting, where you want force, is done with that reseruation (as your Doctors Preamb. haue taught) Vntiil there be sufficient firce to resist. Otherwise tell me, I pray you, when you obiect that three Protestant Princes were admitted peaceably, How is it (which you could not denie) that Mitig. pag 77. num. [...] Henry King of Nauarre was resisted, lest that comming to the Crowne of France in that disposition, wherein he was pre­sumed to bee, (namely a Protestant) hee should attempt the change of Religion in that great Kingdome? Here the case of [Page 186] Religion (we see) was the same in K. Edward of England, and King Henry of France, and yet behold, resisting the one, and not resting the other: Can you imagine any other reason of this difference, but the hauing and not hauing of Power to resist? Therefore in this Reckoning you haue beene wisely craftie, by concealing an Obiection, which you could not satisfie.

55. I doubt I shall but trouble you in asking you another Question, but you must pardon me, for the cause it selfe doth challenge thus much. The three Protestant Princes, who were (as you say) so peaceably admitted to the Crowne, were they admitted voluntarily on your part, or no? If they were admit­ted voluntarily, then (by your owne former Doctrine, M. A Dilemma. Parsons) all your Catholickes were damnable sinners, who ad­mitted any to the Crowne, whom they thought to be of a faultie Religion: If they were not voluntarily admitted, then are you See aboue. a fraudulent AEquiuocator, in answering that They were ad­mitted peaceably, (reseruing, as it may seeme, in your minde) because our Catholickes had no power to resist. Wee draw to a conclusion.

M. PARSONS his Reckoning.

WHerefore to come to knit vp this Reckoning briefely with Reckon. pag. 53. M. Morton, we see first that he hath not beene able exactly to verifie any one of his two former propositions out of his owne Syllogisme, concerning Dolemans Assertion, but that he hath v­sed exaggeration and calumniation in them both, and that whatsoeuer he hath vrged neuer so boldly to incite his Maiestie against vs, may with much more reason and force of argument, bee retorted against himselfe and his.

The Reuiew, confuting M. Parsons, from the iudge­ment of his fellow Priest.

56. I haue bin earnestly and sharply censured by M. Par­sons as one false, calumnious, and malicious, because I noted his booke, which he named Dolman, to be a Treatise, very se­ditious and rebellious, and (as though he, goodman, had meant nothing but well therein) he durst in his Mitigation [Page 190] pleade for his Dolman, and now againe forbeareth not to reuiue the iustification of that booke in this his newe Rec­koning; Albeit he could not be ignorant of the iudgment, which one Romish Priest with the consent of many moe had passed vpon him: Quodlib. p. 107 and againe, pag 310. Parsons his bookes (saith he) were sedi­tious, as his Philopater, speaking most rebelliously against her Maiestie, and the whole State and Nobles of this land; his Dolman intituling most trayterously the Spanish Infanta to the M. Parsons false and treaso­nable dealing, discouered by his owne fel­low. English Crowne. Thus we see his will was extreamely Tray­terous.

57. The same Authour dooth furthermore display a fine peece of witt-craft, which M. Parsons vseth to practise. Quodli. p. 286. In the most of Father Parsons seditious books, which he hath published, (saith the same Priest) he hath eyther concealed his name, or gi­uen thē such a name, as pleased him to deuise: and one of his said bookes being set out by him under the name of M. Dolman: Now that many exceptions are taken against it, hee (Goodman) was M. Parsons can denie his owne writing. not the Author of it, his name is not Dolman, and gladly wold he shift and wash his hands of it, but all the water betwixt this and Rome will not serue his turne so to doe, although by the common opinion of the Iesuits, he may by lying and Equiuocating make a faire shew. So their Priest. And now I ofter the matter to our indifferent Readers to iudge, whether Mr. Parsons, being thus blazoned by their owne Priest, as a man notably Seditious (e­uen in their booke called Dolman) and a lying Equiuocator, may be thought to haue beene eyther in answering and qual­lifying of the obiected rebellious position, a iust Mitigator; or else in this booke a conscionable Reckoner in charging me with falshood.

SECT. XIII.

The thirteenth charge, against Mr. Parsons; concerning Pope Gregory 7. alias Hildebrand, the first Pope that deposed an Emperour, from the testimony of Otto Frisingensis.

58. I Prcamb. p. 27. Said in the Text that Gregory the seuenth was the first Pope, who dcpriued any Emperor of his regiment, as saith your Otto Frisingensis: Adding in the Margent, Vt refirt Tolossanus, that is, According as he is alleadged by To­lossanus. Mr. Parsons supposing that the testimony of Otto Frisingensis is alleadged contrary to his meaning,

noteth me for the falsificator, whereas not I, but their owne Romish Doctor Tolossanus was the reporter of the testimony of Fri­singensis. I would onely know whether it were not a maliti­ous tricke in M. Parsons to charge me with the error (if yet it were an errour) of my Authour Tolossanus?

The summe of Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning, in the discharge of himselfe.

IN the English Text, which was written for the deceiuing of the Eng­lishcommon Reckon. pa. 61. reader, was nothing layd at al of Tolossan', but thus in dis­grace of Pope Gregory the seuenth. I reade and reade again (saith your Otto Prisingensis) and I finde that Pope Gregory the seuenth called Hildebrand in the yeare 1060. was the first Pope that euer depriued any Emperour of his Regiment. Onely in the margent he setteth downe in Latine the words of Frisingensis, with cyting the booke and Chapter, and then addeth, Ut [...] Tolossanus lib. 26.

The Reueiwe.

59. That is to say in plaine English, that not I, but Tolossa­nus M Parsons, a plaine falsifier. cyted Frisingensis contrary to his meaning: And so is Mr. Parsons found to haue falsified in accusing me offalshood. And now consider (good Reader, I pray thee) that he hath no co­lour for the excuse of his former slander and errour, but to say that the reported Authour Frisingensis was in the text, to [Page 192] deceiue the English Reader, and that Tolossanus the reporter was set downe in Latine in the margent: which any man of Sobriety would be ashamed to alleadge, for were not Frisin­gensis and Tolossanus both Latine Authours, and therefore in­differently His childish excuse. knowne and vnknowne to the English Reader? How then can this excuse Mr. Parsons fraudulency, for he vn­derstood that these Latine wordes, which were set downe in the margent, viz. Vtrefert Tolossanus, do signifie (being Eng­lished) As Tolossanus reporteth: so that the very childishnesse of this excuse of his false dealing, doth more fully bewray both his folly and falshood.

60. As for me, I could not thinke it necessary to seeke for Frisingensis, when I had at hand so good a Reporter, as is their owne Doctor Tolossanus: and yet when al is said, Frising Chron. lib. 6. cap. 35. Frisingensis saith, that that Pope Gregory the seuenth was the first who ey­ther excommunicated or deposed an Emperour.

Mast. Parsons charge against me, about the same matter.

61. In the second part I am chargeable to answere Mast. Parsons, who asketh, ‘ that seeing Tolossanus said that Gregory the seuenth was the first who excommunicated, and depriued an Emperour of his Regiment, why I alleadged the word De­priued onely, and left out Excommunicated? I readily Preamb. quo suprà. answe­red that it was because the question ( Satisfact. 3. c. 11.) was onely concerning Emperours and kings, who had beene de­posed from their gouernements by Popes, and not, who had been excommunicated:’ And for so answering am called to a new Reckoning.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

YEa Sit, thinke you to escape so? and yet know that deposition of Princes is an effect of Excommunication, and can neuer happen Reckon. p. 64. by Ecclesiasticall authoritie, but where Excommunication is gone before?

The Reueiwe.

62. Yes Sir, I may lawfully answere So. For although Ex­communication goe before deposition and Eradication, yet was His absurd reasoning. it lawfull for me to intreat of Deposition, without mentioning any precedent Excommunication. For if being asked how A Simile. many theeues were hanged at Tiburne the last weeke, I had truely answered fiue; forthwith some captious Constable should quarrell with me, saying, Yea Sir, dare you say so? will you tell vs that any were hanged, without mentioning that first they were condemned, for condemnation goeth before execution? Euen so childishly hath Mast. Parsons cauilled in earnest, who still holdeth on his pace.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

AND I would aske M. Morton in good earnest out of his Diuinity, Reckon. p. 64. when a Christian Prince is lawfully Excommunicated, and shut out from all societie of Christian communion, and he persist im­penitent, how can he be head of a Christian Common-wealth, for so much as he is no member, nor hath any place, or part at all in the whole body, the head-ship being the chiefe part of all others?

A Reuiew, discouering the rebellious humour of Mr. Parsons.

63. If Mastr. Parsons had not asked me in earnest, I might haue taken him to haue beene but in iest: but now by this his M. Parsons will needes behead a King, whom he accounteth an Hereticke. serious demaund, our Christian Reader will easily perceiue, that he hath cast Diuinity in a new mould: for a King, by his doctrine, cannot be Excommunicated, but forthwith hee must as it were be be-headed, and remoued from his Kingdom: we now haue found out the whole portrayture of M. Parsons bo­dy by his finger, which writeth and teachethth; at A King per­sisting A necessary obseruation, concerning Excommuni­cation and E­radication. in Excommunication may bee no more a King among Christians. No King, or Queene, or Prince, or Counsellour, or Iudge, or Magistrate, being excommunicate, may, by Mast. Parsons censure, haue any communion among Christians, but [Page 194] must be rooted out. Behold our Romish Mitigator! Behold our Sober Reckoner! Doth not this smell strongly of fire and Gun-powder, whensoeuer opportunity shal serue for the per­formance of such their exploits?

64. But to answere directly to the question, moued by M. Parsons, not from his owne doubt, but for his Readers delusi­on; because otherwise hee could not be ignorant, that their Arch-Priest M. Blackwell had answered that point to the full, M. Blackwell exam. pag. 41. from Medina in primā secunde p. 513. q. 96 art. 4 M. Parsons fully confuted by his fellowes. shewing first out of Soto, from Medina, that Excommuni­cation is not a priuation of any proper good, which the transgres­ser doth possesse, but of the common good, which he was to receme from the Church, as namely, the spirituall communion with them, and the participation of Sacraments.

65. Secondly he alleadgeth Ludouicus Richeome, a Iesuite, saying that Ludouic. A­polog. p. 175. Excommunication is not thundred against Prin­ces, that they should be remoued out of their Dominions, or that the raines should be loosed vnto subiects, or they be freed from the Oath of fidelity.

66. Thirdly, he adioyneth the testimony of Aquinas, say­ing Aquin secunda secundae. q. 11. art. 3. Aliud est Excommunicatio, & aliud Eradicatio; Which, ( saith M. Bl.) is set down in the Canon law of an Epistle of Pope Vrbane, thus: Liquidò, &c. that is, It doth plainely appeare that Excommunication is one thing, and eradication is another, for he which is excommunicate, as the Apostle saith, to this end is excommunicated, that his soule may bee saued in the day of the Lord, for Excommunication is a correction and no extirpation.

67. Finally, the holy Scripture, speaking of the Excommu­nicate, saith: Matth. 18. 17. Let him be vnto thee as a Publicane and an Ethnicke. I demand then, was there no Magistracy acknow­ledged in Ethnickes, by Christians in the dayes of the Empe­rour Iulian the Apostata? or shall not Christian children or wiues acknowledge naturall duety vnto their Parents and husbands, as vnto their Heads, if they being excommunicate, shall proue contumacious? Grace doth not extinguish nature, but perfect it. And this may briefly serue for an Answere vnto your irrelegious and rebellious demaund, which hath beene exactly confuted by your owne Doctors.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

ANd Tolossanus here alleadged by Mr. Morton produceth in ano­ther Reck. p. 64 & 65 example both of Excommunication and of deposition a­boue an hundred yeares before this of Frisingensis, saying, Anteà quidem Gregorius tertius &c. Before this, Gregory the third beeing made Tolos. de rep. l. 6. c. 13. n. 20. Pope vpon the yeare 759 did depriue Leo the third Emperour of Con­stantinople, both of his Empire, and the communion of Christians, for that he had cast holy Images out of the Church, and defaced them, and held a wicked opinion against the blessed Trinity. And that Tolossanus in this saith truth, is testified also by Zonaras a Greeke Historiographer in the life of the said Emperour Leo Jsauricus.

The Reueiwe.

68. Tolossanus in another booke reporteth this, and Zo­naras testifieth this, Ergo, (by Mr. Parsons his consequence) it must be True: which argueth his owne inconsideration and rashnesse, because first the matter is not so true, but that their owne Barclay de potestate Papae cap. 40. Barkley durst iudge it incredible: and secondly their witnesse Zonaras seemeth to their Baron Ano. 726. num. 26. M. Parsons neg­ligence in Storie. Baronius to be so insuf­ficient, in reporting the behauiour of this Pope Gregory to­wards the Emperour Leo, that he reiecteth him as a man Ig­norant of the affaires of the Latine Church; and one, who in Malice against the Church of Rome, doth obiect that the Pope was the cause of the rent of the Empire in the West. Thus farre Card. Baronius: which sheweth how little we are to regard M. Parsons his iudgement, who respecteth not so much how rightly, as how readily hee may shape vs an Answere. And that Gregory the seuenth called Hildebrand, was the first Pope, who set the Emperours at such defiance, it will now further appeare.

SECT. XIIII.

An Inquiry into the iudgement of Espencaeus, concerning the case of Pope Hildebrand.

69. THE last point, Preamb. p. 29. which is to be inquired into, is, whether the Authour Espencaeus did not accord [Page 196] vnto the same iudgement concerning Gregory the seuenth (who, to yeelde vnto M. Parsons computation, was Pope a­bout the yeare 1066.) to thinke that he was the first Pope that did depose an Emperour.

The summe of Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning, obie­cting fraude vnto his Aduersary.

ESpencaeus heere is handled iniuriously and fraudulently, for that Reckon. pag 66. & 67. Espen. l. 2 Digress in Ep. ad Timoth these wordes against the Pope, are not the wordes of Espencaeus himselfe, but related of him out of an angrie and paffionate Epi­stle, written by certaine Schismaticall Priests of Liege, that were com­manded by Pope Paschalis to be chastised by Robert Earle of Flanders, for their rebellious behauior, in the yeare 1102. which Priests, together with Henry the Schismaticall Bishopp, wrote a passionate inuectiue a­gainst this acte and Commission of Pope Paschalis, inueighing against Pope Hildebrand (who was not long before deceased) for the like Reckon. p. 67. & in Espen. cap. 6. p. 274. Edit. Paris 1561. cause, All which M. Morton concealeth, and cyteth the wordes of Espencaeus himselfe. Your Bshop Espen. (saith he) [...] of Hildebrand, &c. which he could not but know to be false, if he read the booke and place by him­selfe cyted, for that Espen. doth not onely in the beginning of his citati­on vse this sentence, Extat in secundo Tomo Conciliorum Edit. Colon. Cleri Leodiensis ad Pascalem 2. Quaerimonia; There is extant in the second Tome of Councels, a complaint of the clergie of Liege to Pope [...] 2. But in the end also of al his speech, which containeth a long Discourse, he conclu­deth thus, Hactenus Leodiensium & verba & sensa, &c. And presently for himselfe saith, that he wil not meddle with the Controuersie of fighting betweene Popes and Emperours. Reckon. ibid. Now for M. Morton to come and a­uouch this as affirmed by Espencaeus, whereas he must needes know that he saith it not, but relateth it onely out of others. without approouing the same, is to adde preuarication vnto preuarication, and neuer to make an end of wilfull lying.

The Reueiwe.

70. Let me entreate your patience, Mr. Parsons, but to heare my answere, and then I doubt not but you will waxe more calme and sober, and consequently a farre fitter Recko­nner, to see more clearely, whether of vs is the true lyar.

71. You haue said that Espencaeus did but onely relate it, and not approue of it. You may not now fetch skippes as you vse to doe, to escape from your owne sayings: Heare now the [Page 197] wordes of Espencaeus in the very same place, which M. Parsons hath cyted. M. Parsons pal­pable vntruth. Espencaeus: He, speaking of the same Epistle of the Clergie-men of Liege, beginneth thus: Querimonia graui­tatis & subiectionis plena, that is, A complaint (saith Espencaeus) full of grauity and of subiection. Neyther could you be ignorant of these wordes, for they goe immediately before the words which you haue mentioned out of Espencaeus. Hath hee then onely related it (good Sir,) hath he not also commended it?

72. Espencaeus proceedeth to shewe the cause of the dis­pleasure of Pope Paschalis against them. Quòd, &c. That is, Because they were obedient vnto their Bishop Henry, who stucke vnto the Emperour. In the end, I forbeare (saith Espencaeus) to vse any discourse about the temporall contentions, which fell be­tweene the Popedome and the State imperiall from that time, (Marke, I pray you, when) euen after a thousand and an hun­dred yeares after Christ. Hee meant therefore to note his be­ginning of the Papali turbulency to haue beene at that time. May not now M. Parsons perceiue how bolde he hath beene with himselfe, to affirme that Espencaeus did not approoue the Epistle of those Priests, but seemed rather to hold them Schis­maticall? And how to this end he quoted the Author, booke, digression, page, place, and time of impression, as though hee had studied to set himselfe vpon a publique Stage of reproach for his open leesing? Which that my Reader may know to be spoken of me in true sobriety, I propound further vnto him the expresse iudgement of the same Espencaeus out of two places of his workes.

73. The first place is in the Pag. 273. of his booke aboue cyted. page going immediately be­fore, where comparing the more auncient times of the Church with the latter, concerning the Clergies disposition to war-fare in their owne persons, saith thus: Et tales [...] fuerunt in [...] Deipopulo Sacerdotum inermium & pacifico­rū erga seculi Dominos fideles & infideles, mites & barbaros vi­ctoria nonminus gloriosae quā incruentae, &c. j. e. such indeed were the victories of vnarmed and peaceable Priests among both sort of people (namely of the olde and new Testament) towards their temporall Lords, whether they were faithfull, or Infidels, gentle or barbarous: Which their victories were no lesse glorious, then vn­bloudy: [Page 198] Namely, atchieued by teares and Prayers: But what afterward? Quibus, &c. For after that lawlesse necessitie had exercised not only the minde, but also the hand of the Clearg ie to fight, it came to passe that they, with time (which corrupteth all Bloody Popes. things) did play their part, as soone as they had adioyned vnto ministeriall places secular Seigniories, and that some lesse peace­able Vicars of our Lord God, did wage Warre not onely against the Barbarous, but euen against the Princes of the same blood, sometime of the same Countrey, yea and of the same faith, giuing examples full of infinite scandals, and no way warrantable by any Scriptures or Canons. And then beginning at the yeere 770. when Adrian and other Popes raised Warre against the Sarracens and Lombards, he descended vnto Pope Vrbane the second, Who although he would not iudge them to bee murthe­rers, (speaking of Ecclesiasticall men) who had killed certaine Excommunicate persons, yet did he inioyne them Penance. And at length he fasteneth vpon the foresaid Epistle of the Priests of Liege vnto Paschale the second, condemning the practise of Hildebr and, alias, Gregorie the seuenth, which Epistle hee commended, as we haue heard. Hee hath compared former vnarmed Bishops, with the Souldierly Romish Popes of af­ter-times, and iudgeth the ancient sort peaceable, and the o­ther to haue caried themselues after an heathenish and slan­derous manner.

74. Therefore (M. Parsons) when you say that Espencaeus did onely relate the passion of other men against Pope Grego­rie: Good Sir (to returne your owne Rhetoricke vpon you) will you stand vnto this? Is it true? Is this sincere, seeing that Espencaeus both condemneth all such bloody Prelates, and ap­prooueth of the Epistle of those Priests against Gregorie him­selfe? Is this good dealing? Nay is it not altogether perfidious?

75. Elsewhere the same Author Espencaeus expresseth his iudgement more fully, concerning this point of Subiection, saying that Espen. Comm. in Tit. 3. 1. Di­gress. 10. pa. 513. Paris. 1568. The Apostle doth teach all the faithfull to be sub­iect vnto the powers, saying, [Let euery soule be subiect, &c.] that is, as Chrysostome speaketh, Whether Prophet, or Apostle, or Bishop, let him be subiect: And accordingly doeth Euthymius, [Page 199] Theod. Theoph. and other Greeke Fathers teach: And Saint Bernard doth collect as much out of the same sentence, [Let euery soule, &c.] When, writing vnto the Archbishop of Sans, he saith; Be you subiect also, hee that offereth to exempt you, doeth offer to tempt and deceiue you. Thus farre Espencaeus.

The former Assertion, concerning Gregorie the seuenth, confirmed by the testimonte of their owne Archpriest, and others.

76. Exam. pag. 54. M. Blackwel your late Archpriest, alleadged to the same purpose Bish. Vincentius (who receiued his testimonie from Sigebert, Anno 1088.) saying (with relation vnto Gre­gorie the seuenth, and to him who succeeded next but one, to wit, Vrbanus.) Vt pace, &c. That is, That I may speake it (saith he) with the fauour of all good men, Haec sola nouit as, nè dicam haeresis; That is, This meere noueltie, that I say not He­resie, was not as yet sprung in the world, that the Priests of him, who saith vnto the King [Apostata,] and who maketh the Hypo­crite to Raigne for the sinnes of the people, should teach Subiects that they owe no subiection vnto wicked Kings, that albeit they haue taken an Oath of fidelitie vnto such an one, yet they are not bound in Alleageance vnto him, and that such as should take part against their Kings, may not be said to be periured: So he. Barcla. De pot. Papae. cap. 9. Barkley out of Otto Frisingensis defendeth that, There is not found any example of deposing an Emperour of his State in any age, before Gregorie the seuenth. Which made their late Pope Apologia. P. Pauli. §. Videre non. pag. 624. Paulus, to acknowledge no violence vsed by any Pope, vn­till A thousand yeeres after Christ. At what time There were not wanting some (saith Cardinall Cusanus Card. Concord. Cathel. l. 3 c. 41. pag. 812 Cusanus) yea, euen among the Cardinals, besides a Councell at Rome, who defended Henry the Emperour from the Excommunication of Hildebrand.

77. I forbeare to vrge the Epistles of the Priests of Leige, which M. Parsons calleth a Passionate inuectiue against Pope Paschalis; Lest it might driue the old man into passion. Al­beit, whosoeuer shall Reade that Epistle, hee shall find the commendation of Espencaeus to be most true, who calleth it A [Page 200] complaint full of grauitie, &c. Hee might further haue added, and of Religious pietie. But Mr. Parsons hath not yet done with Espencaeus.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

YEt Espencaeus prooueth by sundry examples out of Scriptures, Fa­thers, Reckon pag 67. and Councels, that in some cases it is lawfull for Priests to vse Temporall Armes also.

The Reueiwe.

78. It is true, and amongst others, he Jbid. pag. 275. produceth the ex­ample of Dudechine, a Priest, who went to Warre against the Turke, with Conrade the third, and of Turpinus Bishop of Rhemes, who warred vnder Charles the Great, and of Delbo­dus, who tooke Armes against the Sarracens vnder Henry the Emperour. All these, in their Warres, stood with their Em­perours, none is found to haue caried Armes against their Emperours: Therefore this obseruation, which M. Parsons M. Parsons his militarie Dis­cipline. vseth, seemeth very idle, except it be to bewray his owne dis­position (whom their Quodlib. p. 236 Priest hath noted to bee of A furious, chollericke, and passionate humour) in desiring, like a tall Soul­dier, the vse of a Iacke and a Speare.

79. By this Reckoning it appeareth, that M. Parsons is be­come a fower-fold Debter, First, vnto the State, by his Trea­sonable Doctrine, in teaching an eradication of Princes Ex­communicate: His manifold vntruethes. Secondly to himselfe, by a wilfull falsifying of the iudgement of Espencaeus: Thirdly vnto me, by foysting vpon me the related Historian Frisingensis, instead of the Re­lator Tolossanus, with a malicious purpose to proue me a fal­sifier: Lastly, to the cause it selfe, in not acknowledging the noueltie of their new Doctrine of Deposing of Kings and Em­perours.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning, in censuring of Espencaeus.

CLaudius Espencaeus was a Parisian Doctor, and a Writer of small Reckon. ibid. account, whom he calleth a Bishop, but I neuer heard of his Bi­shoppricke.

The [...] shewing the Eclipse of M. Parsons his iudgement in this censure.

80. Mr. Parsons is fallen forth with Espencaeus, and good reason, for he saw right well that Espencaeus doeth, in effect, call the Doctrine of M. Parsons and his fellows, Rebellious: and therefore now must he be esteemed A writer, but of small account. Wherein our Reader may obserue, what small ac­count any man is to make of M. Parsons his iudgement, who Reading Espencaeus, doeth so greatly debase him, especially seeing that their owne learned Authors haue affoorded him a better approbation: For Espencaeus is called by Medina (saith Cumel. Tom. 3. var. Disp. pag. 131. Col. 1. Cumel) A most learned man; whom Cardinall Bellarm. l. 1. de Cleric. cap. 22. Bellarmine himselfe vseth to alleadge among your Doctors of account. And Espenc. Epist. Dedic. ad Card. Castil. antè Sex Tract. Espencaeus himselfe can further assure vs, with a prote­station of trueth, that when he was in possibilitie to bee cho­sen a Cardinall, he thanked God that he missed it, concluding with this Epiphonema; Quid Romae faciam, mentirinescio? That is, What shall I doe at Rome, seeing I cannot lie? Doe you heare this, M. Parsons? We know where your dwelling is, and your Booke sheweth you in euery Page to bee truely Romish: So hard a thing it is for you to tell a perfect trueth. The last Charge will require a Chapter of it selfe.

CHAP. XIII.

Contayning the last charge of falsitie against M. Parsons, about the iudgement of Romish Writers, concerning Mentall Equiuocation; conteyning a large Discourse hercof from their doctrine.

SECT. I.

First in generall.

1. MAst. Parsons his falsitie Preamb. p. [...] 2. & Mitigat. pag. 279. & 281. & 284. was the imputing vn­to me an acknowledgement of the Vniuersall use of Mentall Equiuocation in the space of foure hundred yeares.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

FIrst, I said no more in my Treatise, then that Mr. Morton had mani­festly set downe, that for these last 400. yeares he graunted the law­fulnes Reckon. cap. 4. §. 11. pag. 265. of Equiuocation to haue bin taught in our Schools. And con­sult (saith he) with the auncient Logicians from the beginning of the world, till within the compasse os these last 400. yeares, and lesse, that euer any Logician did allow your mixt proposition, partly mentall, and partly verball, and I will &c. Out of which exception, for these last 400 yeares, it is euidently deduced, that he granteth the vse of such mixt propositions (which are properly Equiuocations) whereof the one part is vttered, the other reserued in mind, as before hath beene declated. And thereof I inferred further by euident consequence, and sequell of reason (though he specified not the same) that for so much as our Catholicke Schooles were then ouer all Christendome, and none publikely knowne or in vse but they, (for those three hundred, or at least these foure) it must needs follow that the same doctrine, during that time, was generally receiued in the said Schooles, Vniuersities, &c.

The Reuiew.

2. Here is new Logique, which Mast. Parsons hath sent vs from Rome ouer the Alpes, to wit, Mentall Equiuocation was not vsed before the last 400. yeares, Ergo, In the last 400. yeares M. Parsons hath lost his logicke it was vsed Uniuersally in all Uniuersities, Chaires, Schooles; by al Diuines, Casuists, &c. This he calleth an cuident deducement; he should rather haue said an impotent Seducement, for so it is; and all one as to reason thus: the Moone was not this yeare in the Eclipse, before the last moneth, Ergo, it was in the Eclipse euery week, euery day, & euery houre of the last mo­neth, which is most ridiculous. Ex nihilo nihil fit (M. Parsons) none can euer deduce an affirmatiue conclusion from a nega­tiue proposition, be then ashamed of your Euidence. And so may you be likewise of your next shift, in telling vs that you did not seeme to perswade your Reader Reckon ibid. pag 266. Expresly and by name that I graunted the generall vse of Mentall Aequiuoca­tion in All Schooles, Chaires, Vniuersities, Tribunals, and the like, for these 400. yeares, but onely by Consequence. For what can be more expresly assumed than was this, where you said, ‘ Mitig. p. 284. Seeing it hath beene admitted (say you) so long time in Chri­stendome, [Page 203] as our aduersaries doe confesse, and that it hath beene receiued so vniuersally and generally both by Prelates and peo­ple: and if it haue beene so publikely taught by all learned men, and contradicted by none,’ (This was an Antecedent, and not a consequence, for that followeth in the next words:) it ought to be a great argument to discreete men, that it hath some ground of truth? Neyther is it sufficient to inferre a matter by Conse­quence, for the diuell made a consequence when hee said, Matth. 4. If thou be the Sonne of God, cast thy selfe downe: but this was a lying consequence. And what froath, rather then force M. Par­sons consequence hath, I haue already shewed. In the next place we are to discusse the Authours, who seeme to except a­gainst M. Parsons his arte of Aequiuocating.

SECT. II.

The first Instance of the charge, from their Doctor Sepul­ueda, against their Mentall Equiuocation.

2. GEnesius Preamb. p. 83. Sepulueda made against you: what say you to him?

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

Mr. Morton findeth out but one Authour that contradicteth the Reckon. pa. 267. same Equiuocation in all the time by him appointed, euen Ge­nesius Sepulueda, and that onely in some particular cases, though graunting and defending it in others.

The Reuiew.

3. Here are but two things you wil haue vs to obserue: one is, that Sepulueda alloweth The same your mentall Equi­uocation in some cases; the other is, that this Authour was found to be but one: in both which I spie a litter of manisest falsities. For first, what is the Mentall Equiuocation which you defend? tell vs; See aboue. It is a mixt proposition (say you) partly vttered with my mouth, as I am no Priest,] and partly reserued in my [Page 204] minde, as in this clause, [ To tell it vnto you.] But what if this clause be such (for this is the chiefest point of this whole dis­pute) as that it will not agree with the outward wordes in the common interpretation, and vse of speech, as thus; I am no Priest, reseruing in your minde, as bound to driue a Cart? The first part vttered with the mouth, [ I am no Priest,] cannot possibly, in the common apprehension of man, signifie or imply this clause which followeth [ As bound to driue a Cart.] Doe you thinke then that such a clause (for I shall neede to aske no more) which is not comprehensible by the outward wordes, doth therfore make the outward speech true, because it is true in the minde of the speaker? See above Yes (say you) for that I truely meane that I am no Priest in the sense which I speake it, which may be what pleaseth me. This being the very Besis and foundation of your doctrine of Mentall Equiuo cation, I now make bold to auerre, that euery such speech, in the iudg­ment of Sepulueda, is a lie.

4. For so he censureth euery such kinde of reserued clause, where the Sepulueda de ration. dicendi tellimon. cap. 3. pag. 468. obiection is made concerning one, who is called in question by a Iudge to bewray another mans secrecie, which he ought not to reueale, and shall answer thus, [ I know nothing of it,] keeping this reseruation in minde, [ As bound to tell it vnto you.] Here we finde a mixt proposition, part in word, and part in minde; secondly, here the Iudge is incom­petent, demanding that which the party is not bound to re­ueale; thirdly, here your Clause of Reseruation is the same, wherein you principally insist: so that if this be not lawfull, you must necessarily faile in your former defence. Come we now to our Authour Sepulueda. Vnto this obiection of Phi­letus and louer of himselfe, he opposeth his owne iudgement in the name of Theophilus, that is, A louer of God, saying, Ibid. cap. 5. pag. 471. If you Philet us be prepared to answere so, then you tell me in briefe that you are prepared to periure your selfe. Hercunto Philet us reply­eth: I doe not lie, seeing that the reserued Clause, viz. [ That I S. pulueda con­demneth Mast. Parsons Equi­uocation for a lie. ought to tell it vnto you , agreeth with my minde. Then Theophi­lus returneth vpon him, saying: Who taught you to trisle so fine­ly? Who did first shew you such a lurking hole for periurie? And [Page 205] in the end concludeth, concerning the former Aequiuocati­on: That the speech is a lie, because the signification therof doth dissent from that which lieth secret in the minde: for thou sayest (saith he) that [ thou knowest nothing at all thereof] and euery one that heareth thee, doth so vnderstand thee, notwithstan ding thou art guilty to thy selfe, that thou doost know it, although with purpose not to reueale it.

5. All this you saw, M. Parsons, and therin could not but perceiue that Sepulueda hath flatly contradicted your Men­tall Equiuocation, notwithstanding haue you dared to say that M. Parsons wilfull vn­truth. he doth defend the same in some cases. What shal any man thinke of you, when you talke of rectitude of conscience? Certainely this pretence is nothing but a Pharisaicall cleansing, as it were, of the outside of the cuppe: for when we looke within it, there is nothing but foule cob-webs of falshoods and follie.

6. Although the examination of the former obseruation doth argue a distorted minde in you, yet in the second you do excell your selfe, where you say that I finde but One Author M. Parsons se­cond vntruth. Sepulueda contradicting your Acquiuocation, especially kno­wing that if this Sepulueda, then I do not bring him in alone, seeing that he goeth accompanied with all those Au­thours, vpon whom the same Sepulueda doth ground his for­mer conclusion: which I signified vnto you in my Satisfact part. 3. p. 82. out of Sepulueda de rat. oc­culta ca. 19. Full Sa­tisfaction, out of the wordes of Sepulueda, saying; But that you may know (saith he) how long it is since that Comment of Di­uines did preuaile for the excuse of a lie, in bearing false witnes in another mans case, I thinke you can finde none before Gabriel, who durst publiquely defend it, That is, the trick of Reseruation, M. Parsons AE­quiuocation not ancient. for he speaketh of it. He telleth vs furthermore, concerning the same Equiuocation, that he found it Sepulueda quo suprà in praefat. Aquinas. Defended by some publique Readers in Spaine, albeit (saith he) it is condemned by the most auncient and principall Diuines: Ibid. cap. 15. Scotus. Amongst whom I reckon Aquinas. As for Scotus, he acknowledgeth this denyal of Secrecie (namely Equiuocatingly) to be a sinne, onely he made doubt whether it be mortall, or veniall. And Ibid. cap. 18. Henricus de Gandauo. Henricus de Gan­dauo, a most learned man, saith, that in such a case it is lawfull [Page 206] for the Examinate not to answere the Iudge at all, but to denie the secrecy, to answere falsly, and by art of wordes to lye ( calling Equiuocation a lye) he houldeth it unlawfull. Ibid. cap. 19. Gabriel. Gabriel him­selfe denieth that he can escape the guilt of, at least an officious lye, and therefore a sinne, who vseth that artificiall manner of denying with the minde: his reason is, because his wordes are taken according to the common vnderstanding, in the which sense they are not true. Which sentence of Gabriel being true in such a speech without an oath, how much more true is it, if it be vsed in anoath? for by an oath an officious lye becommeth pernicious, because of the neglect of the reuerence of God, who is witnesse vnto a mans oath. Thus farre Sepulueda.

7. Whence we vnderstand the fraudulent dealing, where­vnto Mr. Parsons accustometh himselfe, who informed his Reader, that I could find but onely Sepulueda contradicting their Equiuocation in all the time appointed, and yet all these were within the compasse of foure hundred yeeres: Aquinas liuing about the yeere 1210. Scotus Anno 1300. Biel Anno 1462. Henricus de Gandauo Anno 1293. Mr. Parsons hath yet one note more which he would haue obserued. I would pray my Reader not to denie him his best attention.

M. PARSONS his Reckoning.

NOte, by the way, the lauish immodestie of M. Morton, citing that Reckon. Ibid. pag. 267. learned Doctor Gabriel Biel, out of Genesius [...] by the con­temptuous title of Lewde Sophister: Whereas Sepulueda, stileth him in the same place, Theologum Doctissimum, a most learned Diuine.

The Reuiew.

8. Then, belike, I haue made Sepulueda call Gabriel a lewde Sophister: will you be so good as but to looke once againe vnto the place, which is in the Preamble, pag. 83. M. Parsons dent falshood. and I doubt not but you will finde out your owne errour, or rather recognize your notable falshood. For I named not Ga­briel a lewde Sophister in citing the testimonie of Sepulueda, but some eight lines after I made bold to censure him so of my selfe, which any one, who is not wittingly captious, will plainely discerne. What then must we note you for, M. Par­sons, [Page 207] for noting this by the way, but a man that was by the way when you made that note.

9. If you further aske me a reason of so censuring Gabriel, I shall tell you, he attributeth vnto the power of nature so much, as doth detract from the power of the spirit of Gods grace. If this reason be not sufficient, take an other, viz. Although Gabriel held that the Equiuocation aboue mentio­ned is a lye, and consequently a sinne: yet I thinke Sepulueda quo supra. none be­fore Gabriel Biel (saith Sepulueda) durst affirme that a lye, in bearing false witnesse in an other mans behalfe, is excusable. Be he therefore as learned as you wil, yet might he be said to play the part of a Sophister, who excused a lye, which none did euer before him.

SECT. III.

The second instance, against Mentall Equiuocation, is from the iudgment of the Iesuit Azorius in his Instit. Moral. part. 1. lib. 11. c. 4. §. Meatamen. And vpon occasion hereof, the Doctrine of Equiuocation is more exactly examined. First we propound the state of this Question, as it is defined and defended by M. Parsons.

The Charge of T. M. against M. Parsons.

10. THe second Preamb. p. 84. falsity of P. R. is his affirming that Mental Equiuocation (for herevpon we only di­spute) hath beene vniuersaly receiued of all Vniuersities and people in Christendome,

and not contradicted by any. The first witnesse conuincing this Mitigation of falshood, is A­zorius, &c.

M. PARSONS his Reckoning, and Charge against his Aduersarie.

THe opinion of Azorius is falsly obiected by M. Morton, as making Reckon. cap. 4. §. 12. pag. 269. for him, whereas it maketh wholly against him.

The Reuiewe.

11. Here is a [...] a maine gulfe of difference be­tweene our two iudgments. I affirme that Azorius doth condemne the AEquiuocation, which M. Parsons hath defen­ded: M. Parsons saith that Azor hath beene falsly obiected, and that he maketh wholly against me. Vpon this point hath M. Parsons diuers times raised vp his most clamorous inue­ctiues against me, in this his book of Reckoning: wil it please thee (gentle Reader) now to audit our accompts?

First, wee are to set downe the state of the Question.

M. PARSONS his Reckoning.

BVt now let vs see notwithstanding further what Azorius saith a­gainst Reck. ibid. p. 269. Equiuocation in generall, for to this effect he is brought in, in this place, as though he held that al Equiuocation were to be re­iected as lying: for proofe whereof he citeth two places out of the selfe same leafe and page of Azorius.

The Reuiewe.

12. All AEquiuocation, M. Parsons? thus you say, and ther­fore put this in the number of my new and fresh lyes (as you cal them) saying, Reck. cap. 9. pag. 643. Here followeth a notable conuiction of false­hood against him, for alleaging Preamb. p. 84. Pa. 84. of his Preamble the Ie­suit Azorius, as condemning all vse of AEquiuocation, &c. And yet you know that before the propounding of the testimonies of Azorius, and other Iesuits, in the very same page of the Preamble, I restrained our whole dispute vnto Mental AE­quiuocation M. Parsons vn­truth. only; for hereupon only (said I) we dispute: which word, only, was repeated in the Preamble more then seauen times; And yet can you with a wide mouth say, (without ex­ception) that I would haue Azorius to speake against All E­quiuocation. Are you not like to make a good end of your Reckoning, who haue thus falsifyed in the beginning?

13. In all disputes it is necessary wee know the point in question: we contend therfore about Mental AEquiuocation [Page 209] only. It is in the second place as necessary to know,

What is the mentall Equiuocation, which M. Parsons doth defend.

14. Mitigat. c. 12. n. 3. pag. 484. True Equiuocation ( saith M. Parsons) may be either verball, or mentall: Verball is that, when word or speech hath either naturally, or by peculiar custome of particular language two or more significations.

This is truely and plainly said of the Verball Equiuocation, tell vs as distinctly what the Men­tall is. Jbidem. Mentall Equiuocation is,

when any speech hath or may haue a double sense, not by any double signification or compo­sition of the wordes themselues, but only by some reseruation of minde in the speaker, whereby his meaning is made different from that sense, which the wordes that are vttered, doe beare or yeld without that Reseruation.

Doe not now forget, I pray you ( M. Parsons) that you distinguish Mentall Equiuocation from Verball, by this note, to wit, that the double sense, which is in the Mentall Equiuocation, is not in the words themselues, but only by some reseruatiō in the mind of the spea­ker, which meaning is different from that sense, which the words vttered doe beare: very well, we shall afterwards try whether Azorius doe iustifie this manner of Equiuocation or no.

15. In the next place, seing that the outward speech, and the inward mentall Reseruation are so different, we demaund whether you thinke the same kinde of Mental Equiuocation to be true or no? ‘ Mitigat. c. 8. These wordes of a Priest [I am no Priest] mixed with this reseruation [To tell it vnto you] or such like, agreeing with the minde of the speaker, is as true as if the whole proposition were vttered with the mouth without reser­uation, thus;’ I am no Priest, to tell it vnto you. We must re­member this also, in discussing the iudgment of Azorius, to know whether he did allow that euery such speech, which being vttered wholy in the mouth, and agreeing with the minde of the speaker, be likewise true, when it is halfe reser­ued in the minde of the speaker in the same sense: for if it be not equally true, then your mixture cannot qualifie the out­ward speech, to make it a perfect truth.

[Page 210] 16. Lastly, what kinde of Reseruation will you allow, and before whome? ‘ Reck. pag 100. So that the party, to whome the answere is made, be not a competent Iudge, the speaker is free to haue what meaning he list, so that it be true in his owne sense. Mitigat. p. 344 Although it agree not with the Hearers vnder standing; as [I am no Priest] reseruing in my minde, [such as I should be] or such like, whatsoeuer it pleaseth me.’ So he. This last assertion I must naile vnto the hinder part of your head, that you may remember it: Therefore, if it please you, let this be the Reser­uation in the minde, [ with purpose to tell it vnto you,] and let vs trye whether Azorius will condemne this kinde of Reser­uation for a lye or no, euen when it is vsed before a Iudge in­competent. Now commeth in the combat: I will be first the party defendant, and answere your charge.

The summe of Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning, and charge against his Aduersary.

Mr. Morton skipping ouer foure rules Azorius vseth, for they make Reck. pag. 270. expresly against him, runneth only to the fift and last, whereof he saith, that it bitteth the naile on the head. And is it so, Sr.? what say you then to the precedent foure? why say you nothing to them? what part of the naile doe they hit, if the last only strike the head? Jbidem. pag. 270. & 271. In the first he resouleth that a Priest may AEquiuocate, and say he know­eth nothing, when he is de maunded any point about Confession. In the second he resolueth that whensoeuer any man is demaunded by an incompetent Iudge, euen in an oath, whether he hath committed this, or that sinne, he may by AEquiuocation deny the same euen in an oath. Ibid. pag. 271. As if a man be wrongfully compelled by a Iudge to sweare to pay a summe of mony to his Aduersary, he may sweare, though he haue no intention to performe it, as being against law hauing this Reseruation in his mind, that he will pay so much as by law he is bound. And other three or foure such cases are there in the explanation of this Rule.

The Reueiwe.

17. Azorius neuer vseth the name of AEquiuocation: and in his explanation of his first and second rule, doth fully aban­don M. Parsons his doctrine of Reseruation, thus: Azor Inst. Mor. Tom. 1. l. 11. c. 4. §. Secunda Regula. Ratio v­triusque Regulae, &c. that is: The reason of both these Rules [Page 211] (saith Azorius) is not that which some doe yeeld, saying that it is lawfull, when we sweare, to take the wordes in our sense, which we feine vnto our selues, and not in the sense, which the hearers doe vnderstand. Yet is this the reason which M. Parsons hath Azorius his meaning. laid do wne, for the defence of his Mental Reseruation before a Iudge incompetent, saying. I may feigne what I list, al­though not agreeing with the vnderstanding of the hearer. But Azorius alleageth a reason against this infatuation. Because (saith he) whensoeuer the wordes are of a doubtfull signification, and we are asked any thing against the law, then is it lawfull for vs to take them in that sense which we like, albeit the hearers doe take them in an other sense. Which doth againe confute M. Parsons his doctrine: for he defendeth an Amphibologie of speech, which may haue a double sense only by the reser­uation in the minde of the speaker, which sense is different from the wordes of the mouth. But Azorius admitteth not any am­biguous or doubtfull sense, which is not incident vnto the outward wordes themselues, and whereof the hearer is not by some outward circumstance of speech, capable and appre­hensible.

18. This may be made plaine by comparing examples to­gether. A Iudge is acquainted with a mans cause, which he An Example. is to determine; the party, whose cause it is, commeth to the Iudge for aduife: Now it is knowne that a Iudge is not to giue counsaile in any case, wherein he is to execute the office of a Iudge: yet the party being instant and vrgent, saying, Sir, doe you not know how I shall free my selfe in this cause; the Iudge answereth, Friend, I know nothing of this matter: mea­ning, that howsoeuer, as he is a Lawyer, he know his cause, yet now, as a Iudge, he is not to acknowledge it: And this double sense is in the speech it selfe, and, by circumstance of the person, may possibly be apprehended by any discreet hea­rer: and is to be called a Verball AEquiuocation, according vnto the former definition, which M. Parsons himselfe hath deliuered; and not a Mentall.

19. Such like is the example, which Azorius hath offe­red concerning a Priest, who knoweth some secret reuealed [Page 212] vnto him in priuate Confession, as he is a Priest, and therefore as a Priest is bound in conscience and by his calling, not to reueale any such secrecie (except the concealement may be pernitiously damnifiable vnto persons, and States, as some of them doe hold): In such a case Azorius saith, that hee may answere, I know not, because he knoweth it not but as a Priest, which is, that he knoweth it not, to reueale it: but why? by ver­tue of an Onely reseruation mentall? (so hath Mr. Parsons defi­ned): No, but because, as Azorius saith, The wordes them­selues, according to their vfe, haue this ambiguous significati­on in themselues: so that it is not now to be called absolute­ly Mentall, but a verball Ambiguity.

20. Sepulueda hath made the case verycleare, shewing that it is allowed by the Sepulucdo de rat. dicendi te­stimon. cap. 3. common consent of Christians, that a Priest, who knoweth the crime of any, as he is a Priest, that is in confession, may not disclose it: then his answere, in saying I know not, doth issue from the common interpretation of the words themselues, to signifie, that he is not to take knowledge of any such matter, to tell it vnto any: which interpretation issueth from the outward circumstance of his calling, because he is a Priest. So that still the oddes betweene M. Parsons and Azorius is thus much: M. Parsons speaketh of an Equiuoca­tion, or ambiguity of speech, which consisteth not in the out­ward wordes: but Azorius iudgeth contrarily, as wee haue heard, and M. Parsons shall better see, to his no small rebuke, before the end of our Reckoning. After this Azorius addeth a third rule.

The summe of M. PARSONS his Reckoning.

BY the third rule he proueth the like in other cases, as when iniury Reckon. p. 271. [...] 272. is offered, to vse ambiguous wordes, and to take them in our sense, as farre as the wordes will beare: as the wife being asked of her husband, whether she be an Adultresse: and of a man fallen into the handes of theeues, &c. and in the case of a man demanded whether he came from a place suspected to haue had the plague, &c.

The Reueiwe.

21. Azorius explaneth himselfe in this third Rule, as in [Page 213] the former, saying, that We may vse wordes ambiguous, taking them in our sense, which the wordes themselues will yeelde; and not (as M. Parsons holdeth) in whatsoeuer sense we list, whereun­to our minde shall agree: which meaning sometime is such, as the diuell himselfe cannot by any circumstance of the speech possibly vnderstand. Such as this is: where a man demanded of his friend, whether he hath any money, to answere no, re­feruing in his minde, To lend it vnto you: which although it be a true proposition, being deliuered with the mouth, yet spoken halfe in the mouth, and halfe reserued in the minde, doth not make a true proposition, but is a very lie, as Azorius Encount. p. 216 hereafter will tell vs; euen because the outward wordes can­not by any congruity of speech import that same Clause, To lend it vnto you. And if this shal appear in Azorius, it wilbe no hard thing for our Reader to discerne, whether of vs dooth performe a true Reckoning.

22. Notwithstanding, I speake not this to iustifie all the examples which Azorius giueth; but I insist in his generall rule, which is, that the Outward speech doe carry in it a double sense: for we must measure the examples by the rule, and not the rule by examples, and so interprete Azorius his exam­ples, that he thereby doe not contradict himselfe.

23. The fourth rule concludeth directly, that in the case, when no iniury is offered vnto vs, we may not vse any speech; but in a sense which is vnderstood of the Hearer. This rule chal­lengeth plaine dealing, without any Equiuocating at all. And now discend we vnto the last rule, which I said did hit the naile on the head, which M. Parsons laughed at; but it will in earnest hit him on the head, albeit hee doe vse all the wit in his head to auoyde it.

Acharge against M. Parsons.

24. The first rule of Azorius ( Preamb. p. 85 said I) is this: Quinta regu­la, &c. If the wordes we vse are not according to their common signification among men, ambiguous or doubt full, and haue onely one sense, Azor. Jes. Jnst. part. 1. l. 11. c. 4, in fine cap. We ought to vse them in that sense, which they haue in them­selues: neyther is it lawfull for vs, although we be examined a­gainst [Page 214] right and iustice, to detort or turne our speech, by our in­ward conceit of minde, because it is not lawfull for vs to lie: but he doth lie, who vnderstandeth his speeches otherwise then they doe signifie in themselues. The difference betweene our Mi­tigator and this Iesuite is no more then this: first P. R. de­fendeth an Equiuocation, which is, when the speech hath no double sense in the outward wordes themselues, but onely in M. Parsons AE­quiuocation found to be a lie. some secret reseruation in the minde of the speaker. But Azo­rius saith, that we ought not to vse any sense of speech. which is not in the wordes themselues, but onely in the inward thought of him that speaketh. Secondly P. R. maintaineth, that his mentall Reseruation is a truth: but Azorius concludeth, that it is a lie. And can there be a greater contradiction be­tweene M. Parsons and Azorius then this is?

I pray thee, good Reader, let vs heare M. Parsons his defence, and so shall we easily discerne his spirit, and coniure it.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning, for his discharg.

You see that Azorius forbiddeth onely, that words, which haue Reckon. p. 272. 273. but one onely naturall sense and signification, and are not ambi­guous, or of diuers sense, should be vsed by the speaker in any o­ther signification, then naturally, or by common vse among men they doe yeeld: As for example, if one that had an Horse, and not an Oxe, should be demanded whether he had any Horse, hee should say, No, meaning that he had no Oxe, for that hee conceiued an Oxe for an Horse; this were not lawfull, saith Azor, in the vse of wordes, because the word Horse hath but one proper meaning amongst men, and can­not signifie an Oxe: and consequently cannot be so taken, but by a lie. But if the word Horse had a doubtfull or double signification, fig­nifying as wel an Oxe as an Hors, then might a man vse the amphibo­logie of the word, to auoyd any iniury offered him by an incompetent Iudge, as Azor himselfe determineth. Who would thinke then that a Reckon. ibid. man of common sense, or of any mean modesty, and care of his credite would haue alleadged Azor so confidently against his Aduersary, as M. Morton doth? and that which is most ridiculous, so to insult against him, as he doth against me here, saying, P. R. maintaineth that his mentall Re­seruation is a truth, but Azorius concludeth that it is a lie. And can there be any greater contradiction then this? &c.

The Reueiwe.

25. Often haue I called the indifferent Reader to audit A wicked for­gery vsed by M. Parsons, to shift himselfe from the note of a lie. our Reckoning, but in this so strange a knacke of Sophistrie, I would make bolde to appeale vnto the Priests and Profes­sors of Aequiuocation, to iudge of Mr. Parsons his practise in this point. The wordes of Azorius are these: When the words are not of any doubtfull signification, but haue but one onely sense, we must vse them in that sense, which they yeeld: (his reason) be­cause he doth lie, who taketh them in another sense then they sig­nifie: Which M. Parsons expoundeth by an example of one, that hath an Horse and not an Oxe, and being demanded whe­ther he haue an Horse, he should say no, meaning, that he hath no Oxe.

26. But Azorius doth not make any mention of an Horse or an Oxe, or of any such examples, which beeing vttered wholly with the mouth, doe make no true sense. For this out­ward speech vsed without mentall reseruation, viz. I haue no Horse, meaning, I haue no Oxe, is doubtles a lying mixture. But Azorius vseth onely such examples, which being deliuered outwardly with the mouth haue a true sense; and yet being vsed with a mixture of reseruation, are in his iudgement, a lie. I must craue patience of thee (Christian Reader) to suffer me to inlarge my selfe in discussing the iudgement of Azorius, because M. Parsons his fraude will be more notoriously appa­rant, and his defence of Mentall Equiuocation receiue (as I may so say) a deadly wound.

27. Azorius beginneth his dispute thus: Azor. part. 1. Inst. Moral. l. 11. c. 4. §. Quintò. Some (sayth he) speaking of the same Romish Doctors) propound this gene­rall rule, and say, that it is no lie, although the wordes (which a man vseth in his promise by an oath) be not of an ambiguous M. Parsons vseth a strange and strong delusi­on to abuse his Reader. and doubtfull signification, but that the speech is made true in our secret vnderstanding. This is the state of the question, which Azorius intendeth to determine by his fiue rules aforesaid, namely concerning a Speech, which some Romish Doctors doe holde to be true in the secret vnderstanding. But there was neuer man of any sober vnderstanding, who could fancy that [Page 216] to be true in the secret vnderstanding of man, which M. Par­sons hath propounded, viz. I haue no Horse, meaning no Oxe, which is M. Parsons his proper deuise.

28. Secondly, the example which immediately follow­eth in that place of Azorius, and was vsed by the Patrons of Equiuocation, for the manifesting of their meaning, is this: Azor. ibid. As for example (say they) if thou require any summe of money of me, and I hauing so much money, shall answere [I haue it not] reseruing in my minde [To lend it vnto thee,] although they say (saith Azorius) that this outward speech hath no ambiguous sense, but that I therem doe absolutely signifie, that [I haue it not] yet I conceiue in my minde [I haue it not to lend:] Therefore, say they, I doe say the truth, and doe not sinne by periury. This is the immediate example, which is set downe to patterne the for­mer question, concerning an Ambiguous speech by mentall Reseruation; which Azorius is about to decide, and to tell vs whether this kinde of Reseruation be a lie, or no. Can there be any affinity betweene this example, and M. Parsons his Horse and Oxe?

29. Thirdly (which amplifieth his conuiction mre fully sons) Mr. Parsons doth iumpe both in doctrine and example with those Romish Patrons of mentall Reseruation, whom Azorius in this place doth professedly confute. Of Mr. Par­sons his doctrine we haue often heard: ‘ Now let vs vs behold his example set downe in his Mitigat. cap. 9. pag. 403. num. 80. where it pleased him iocantly to pose me thus: I would aske M. Parsons ex­ample of men­tall AEquiuo­cation, proued a lie out of Azorius. Tho. Morton this case, that if a man in England, whose fauor he much desireth and esteemeth, and yet hee would be loath to lend money, for that he knew him to spend much, and not to hold payment of his debts to be necessary to saluation; If this great man demand of him, whether he had fiue hundred pound to lend him, and supposing that he had them, but loath to lend, or loose them, what would he do or answere in this case, if there were no other meanes, but eyther to confesse that he hath them, and thereby loose them by lending, or denie that he hath them, and thereby incurre a lie, and damne his soule? Hath the God of nature left no lawfull maner of euasion by reason and force of [Page 217] wit in such an incumbrance? Hee that hath giuen vnto the Hare & Foxe sharpenes of sense, by leaps, turnings, & windings, by going backe the same trace they came, to deceiue dogges? I doubt not but that Tho. Morton would answere the Noble­man, he had them not, though they lay in his Chist, vnderstan­ding by force of AEquiuocation [That he had them not to lend, Or, not so as he could spare] Or, some other like reseruation, which we say that without a lie he might vse.’

30. We see yet that M. Parsons doth conspire together with those other Aequiuocators, of whom Azorius spake both in the position and example. Now if Azorius call both their former conclusion, and this very same example a lie, then I thinke I may lawfully aske M. Parsons, what kinde of crea­ture he himselfe may be iudged to be, who doubting of Azo­rius his sincere iudgement, hath foisted in this aliant, and fond example of an Horse and an Oxe.

31. Azorius therefore, after hee had repeated those Do­ctors reasons, whereby they sought to confirme their owne position, he saith, Meo tamen iudicio, &c. But in my iudgement, they extend that Rule further then is meete, for there can be no­thing so false, which cannot be freed from all lying, if we keepe any thing, as we list, concealed in our minde: for by this meanes whatsoeuer a man shall demaund of vs, we may answere by deny­ing that we haue it, yea though we haue it, vnderstanding in our minde [That we may giue it,] What soeuer we shall do, What soeuer we shall see, What soeuer we shall thinke or purpose, we may by this meanes denie, that we haue eyther done, or seene, or thought, or purposed it; namely in this sense, [That I may tell you.] There­fore I thinke otherwise, which I will specifie in certaine Rules. Thus farre Azorius.

32. By this it is manifest, that taking the same example of denying that I haue it, with reseruation, [ To lend or to giue it,] Azorius matcheth it with the vilest kind of lying, saying that, if this kind of speech be true, there is nothing so false, which may not be freed from a lie. And in the end, (concerning the same obiection) he answereth by the fift Rule, saying, (as wee haue heard) That if the wordes, which wee vse, be not ambiguous in [Page 218] their owne signification, and common vse of men, wee must vse them in that sense which they yeeld; neither is it lawfull for vs, although we be asked against right and equity, to wrest any thing into a different sense, by the inward conceit of our minde, for it is not lawfull for vs to lie; but he lyeth, who taketh wordes other­wise then they signifie in themselues. Such as he iudgeth M. Par­sons his speech concerning not lending of money, to be; M. Par­sons calleth the Speech qualified by only mentall Reseruation a truth; Azorius contrarily calling this speech a flat lie. So that this being the true, reall, direct, and professed resolution, de­termination, His abuse of his Reader. and conclusion of their Iesuite Azorius, M. Par­sons must needes be thought to haue wilfully iniured this Au­thor, and also to haue abused his too credulous Reader, whom by this his owne fiction of an Horse and an Oxe, he purposed to make as wise as an Asse.

33. And now I cease to maruel why M. Parsons propoun­ded for his Schoolemaster the nature of the Foxe, by vsing windings, turnings, & skippings forward and backward, seeing he hath shewed himselfe so excellent a proficient in that arte: on­ly this is to be wondered at, that seeing the Foxe doth vse this M. Parsons pro­fesseth to AE­quiuocate with his friends. guyle onely in flying from Dogges, which are mortall ene­mies vnto him, M. Parsons professeth the practise of his craft in the case of lending money to his friends and fauorites. Wee proceede to the next witnesse against Mentall Reseruation.

SECT. IIII.

The next witnesse against Mentall Equiuocation, is the Iesuite Emanuel Sa: concerning whom it was my Charge against M. Parsons.

34. MY Aduersary the Moderate Answerer ( Preamb. p. 86. ( said I) to qualifie the hatefulnes of the Equiuocating Sect, did tell vs that Mod. Answ. cap. 10. A Iesuite famous amongst the Casuists, Ema­nuel Sà, in his Aphorismes, writeth of this matter in these [Page 219] wordes: Quidam dicunt, &c. Some there be who say, that he who is not bound to answere vnto the intention of the exa­miner, may answere by reseruation of some thing in his minde, to wit, [That it is not so, viz. that I must tell it vnto you] al­though others doe not admit this manner of answering, and peraduenture vpon better reason then the former. Whereby it is manisest ( saith that Moderate Answerer) that all Catho­likes doe not allow of Equiuocation. Thus farre that Answe­rer: confessing hereby that diuers Catholike Authours haue contradicted this Equiuocating forgery, which P. R. hath auouched no Catholike writer did euer contradict.

The summe of Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning, charging his Aduersary with falshood: First concer­ning a word.

LEt the Reader stand attent, for that Mr. Morton may not escape, Reck. c. 4. §. 13. pag. 276. vntill he haue satisfied somewhat. Reck. pag. 279. Mr. Morton hath here com­mitted many falshoods both against Emanuel Sa, against the Mo­derate Answerer, and against my self Against Eman. Sa: thus Reck. p. 276. about the 20. line. Sa addeth vnto his sentence, forte potiori ratione non admittunt, that is, Perhaps this latter opinion is the better. Which word ( perhaps) Mr. Morton craftily lest out.

The Reuiew.

35. I beseech thee (good Reader) stand attent, and doe M. Parsons right and iustice, and let not me escape vntill I haue satisfied. Thou hast heard, the first Accusation is of craft, for omitting the word, perhaps, in translating the sentence of the Iesuit Sà, viz. fortè potiore ratione; which M. Parsons hath (I must needes say) truely rendred into English thus, [ Perhaps with better reason:] I likewise confesse, that in my translation of those wordes, I vsed not the word, perhaps, for How desperat ly M. Parsons can falsifie. I rendred them thus, [ Peraduenture with better reason:] which translation I expresly then set down both in my booke of Full Satisfact. Part. 1, cap. 27. pag. 86. and in my last Preamb. pag. 86. about the 24. lin. which M. Parsons also hath alleaged in his margent, where it is Englished thus, Although [Page 220] others doe not admit this manner of answering, and [peraduen­ture] with better reason. Which M. Parsons himselfe was not ignorant of, for in the 275. page of this his Reckoning, about the 30. line, he acknowledgeth that I deliuered the wordes thus: Others doe admit this reason, and that [peraduenture] with better reason. If it shall please any reader, who can but spell English, to examine these places, he shall finde them so as I haue now alleaged. How then can M. Parsons escape the accusation of a crafty and malicious accuser? will he say that in translation perhaps, and, peraduenture, are different, and not sinonimically and significantly the same? So may he deserue to be reckoned among the wise men of Gotham, who could not see wood for trees, or to shake the fellow by the hand, who said that pepper is hot in operation, but cold in wor­king. I should call this manner of dealing of M. Parsons monstrous, but that it is ordinary, as we haue proued, and will now further manifest.

M. PARSONS his Reckoning, and second Charge against his Aduersarie.

THat which Emanuel Sa spake of a particular case before a Iudge Reck. pag. 276. incompetent, he taketh vniuersally against all AEquiuocation. without exception. Reck. pag. 277. Which Mr. Morton could not choose but know to be a fraude, for that in the next lines Eman. Sa doth resolue two other cases, wherein a man may AEquiuocate.

The Reuiew.

36. Here he saith that I haue taken Sà as speaking vniuer­sally against all AEquiuocation, and yet knew that our whole dispute is by vs both restrained Miligat. cap. 8. pag. 321. and as I repeated it. Preamb. pag. 43. M. Parsons wit­lesse falsity. only vnto mentall AEquiuo­cation: which is euident by the very place, ( Preamb. pag. 86) mentioning expresly Mentall AEquiuocation. Therefore this accusation of excepting against all AEquiuocation, is a wit­ting (except he had not haue me rather call it a witlesse) fal­sity. Secondly, I deliuered that sentence of Sà out of the testimony of my Aduersary the Moderate Answerer, as M. Parsons himselfe knoweth and Reck pag. 278. num. 79. confesseth: if therefore there [Page 221] were an errour, why doth M. Parsons let his owne compani­on escape, and runne vpon me for his debt, who neuer vnder­tooke His singular fraude. to be surety for so loose a fellow as that man is, to pro­mise for him that he would not deale falsly? His reason is, because I could not (saith he) but know this to be a fraude. If it were a fraude, more shame for the Moderator: but if it be no fraude, what shame will it be for our sober Reckoner: who e­uen in saying that I could not but haue read Sà, bewrayeth his lauish presumption, because probably I might haue rested vpon so plaine and sufficient a testimony of that my Aduer­sary.

37. Notwithstanding, I may not deny but that I did reade Sà in the place cited Tit. de mendacio, where the case is thus put: If a man demaund the whole debt, whereas thou owest him only a part, thou maist deny that thou owest him, viz. so much as he demaundeth. Weigh the sense of the wordes themselues; and the ambiguity, and we shall easily discerne that that which they call Equiuocation, is not only in the secret re­seruation of the minde, but sufficiently implied in the out­ward speech it selfe, so that the hearer may collect out of the wordes the secret sense, and so it is a verball Equiuocation, and not Mentall. Nay, when one asketh the whole debt, and I denie that I owe it him, who is there almost but will vnder­stād that in that speech is signified, that] owe not that whole debt which is demaunded? Neither doth the iudgment of Sà in other cases differ from the former opinion of Azorius, by whom the Mentall Equiuocation, as it is described by M. Parsons hath beene condemned for a lye: Only Sà deliue­reth his iudgement with a fortè, or, peraduenture, (I cry you mercy M. Parsons, I should haue said, perhaps) and Azorius doth resoluedly shew that your doctrine of Equiuocation is concluded in a lying case. But I demaund whether M. Par­sons will stand to the iudgment of their Iesuit Sà, or no?

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

INdeede in the last edition of his booke at Rome, An. 1607. his whole Reck. pag. 276. last sentence was left out, as though he had changed his opinion.

The Reuiew.

38. Or rather that your booke-gelders haue changed his writings, according vnto your new professed occupation, in A due suspiciō of craft among the Romanists in altering and corrupting the opinions of their owne Iesuits. corrupting of your owne Authours, whensoeuer they chance to say any thing which soundeth preiudiciall to your cause: which caused your owne Doctor to complaine; and that not without some indignation, that none can be suffered to write freely among you, but forthwith, as it happened See aboue cap. 1. §. 2. & 6. (saith he) vnto Card. Bellarmine himselfe, he is compelled to recant it; or else such thinges are blotted out of their bookes, &c. Which bookish massacre being so generally practized, God knoweth how fatall it may proue. The like to that of Sà wil probably befall one day vnto your Iesuit Azorius, who holdeth the same with Sà, yet (without all perhaps) determinately: and so the bookes being changed, it must happen in processe of time, that these allegations, which we now vse out of him, will be noted for lying slanders, euen as I haue beene already dealt withall by M. Parsons, about the testimony of See herafter Cap. 14. §. 1. Poly­dore, when he charged me with falshood in citing him out of his old Editions, which they themselues haue professedly and publikely altered, and indeede corrupted. Can such dea­ling stand with tearmes of common honesty? But M. Parsons will lay some accusations against me, for he hath vowed that I may not escape.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

HE citeth the foresaid authority of Eman. Sa, alleaged out of his Reck. pag. 278. & 279. Moderate Answerer for a shadow, dissembling that he had looked vpon the Authour: but could not doe this hansomely enough, for he doth egregiously abuse his foresaid aduersary, by making him seeme to deduce out of that particular case an absolute deniall of all Equiuocation, making him to conclude thus, that all Catholikes doe not allow of Equiuocation. But Mr. Morton let me pose you here: Is it true that your Aduersary said so farre, and no further to the purpose in hand? Or is it not rather true that you cut him off, and would not suffer him to say any further? for your Aduersary did fully cleare the matter, if you would haue suffered him to tellon his tale, for these are his wordes: [ Whereby it is manifest that all Catholikes doe not allow of E­quiuocation, [Page 223] where he is not bound to answere the Iudge or Examiner procee­ding vniustly, and not according to law and equity.] Whereby is euident that he alleaged not Sà, as denying all Equiuocation, but in particu­lar cases, where he that is demaunded is not bound to make answere.

The Reueiwe.

39. The Moderate Answerer saith that Sà allowed not E­quiuocation, &c. and I reported no more: for if my Reader can finde that I added All Equiuocation, then wil I be conten­ted with the adiunct of a detestable lyer. What else? I cut off, His rude cauil. forsooth the Answerers tale, not telling that be meant of such cases, wherein a man is bound to answere, Graue crimen: this his meaning was sufficiently expressed in the very que stion it selfe, as I alleadged it, standing thus: Preamb. p. 86. Some there be that say that he who is not bound to answere, &c. Here the case was ma­nifested to hold onely, Where the partie is not bound to answer, in which cases M. Parsons doth iustifie Mentall Reseruation: but Eman. Sâ telleth vs, that some Romish Doctors doe not admit this doctrine, and perhaps (saith he) with better reason. We shall neede no more, for now I haue our Raynard in the straits; what are the cases (Mast. Parsons, for I meane to pose you) wherein you would haue your Eman. Sâ seeme to admit of a mentall Reseruation? Eyther must they be when the par­tie is bound to answere vnto a competent and lawfull Iudge, which kinde of mentall Reseruation, you haue held to be vn­lawfull, Dilemma. and a lie: Or else it must be vnderstood in case that the partie is not bound to answere vnto the Iudge, because the Iudge is incompetent; and in this case Eman. Sà (as you know) doth not allow of your Mentall Reseruation. There­fore as I did not conceale the case you speake of, so haue you no cause to haue it reuealed, because it maketh fully against you, who defend a Reseruation, when a man is not bound to answere, as before an incompetent Iudge. Now therefore, af­ter you haue gained attention of your Reader, consider what arrerages come vpon you by this Reckoning: first your fals­hood, in taxing the omission of the word perhaps: Secondly in obiecting the word All: thirdly, imputing a concealement of [Page 224] the Case: and lastly, the losse of your cause, by the iudgement of Sà, and together with him by the iudgement of Some other Romish Writers.

SECT. V.

The next witnesse against M Parsons his described men­tall Equiuocation, is the Iesuite Maldonate.

The Charge against M. Parsons.

39. ‘MAldonate ( Preamb. p. 87. said I) a principall Iesuite and Casuist resolueth thus: Maldon. Ies. Commen. in Luc. vlt. vers. 28. Whosoeuer dooth endeauour by fey­ning to deceiue another, although he intend to signifie something else, yet doubtlesse he lyeth. Mr. Parsons How will satisfie for this?’

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning against his Aduersary.

HE stileth Maldonate a Casuist, who is neuer knowne to haue read or written of Cases in his life, but Scholasticall Diuinity hee Reckon. cap. 4. §. 14 pag. 283. professed many yeares in Paris, and left very learned Commen­taries vpon all the foure Euangelists, though the Roman Index [...] Anno 1607. doe mention, that certaine cases of conscience published by another, and Printed at Lyons, Anno 1604. were falsly ascribed to him.

The Reueiwe.

40. Rather will M. Parsons play small play then sit out: and now the Gamster thinketh that he hath taken a blot; for Maldonate, forsooth was no Casuist. If this be an error, then marke (good Reader) what guides haue mis-led me: First (a Casuist being one who discusseth cases of conscience) the ve­ry Title of the booke Anno 1605. in the name of Maldonate M. Parsons dissolute and vast rashnesse and ignorance is this: A briefe Summe, conteyning most difficult Questions of Cases of conscience, necessarie for euery Priest, when he heareth confessions. Which booke was set forth Permissu Superiorum, [Page 225] that is, By permission of the Superiours. Secondly, in the Epi­stle Dedicatory the same Maldonate is, by name, commen­ded by the Collector of these cases (a Friar) in these wordes: When I sought for a man, who had explicated the difficulty of some cases of conscience, I could finde none among the most lear­ned, who had performed this better then Maldonate: which ar­gueth that he was to bee esteemed a most singular Casuist. Lastly, your owne Iesuite Tit. Ioh. Mal­donatus. Ribadineira in his Catalogue of Ie­suiticall-Authors, An. 1608. expresly recounteth among the workes of Maldonate, the foresaid Summa Casuum Consci­entiae.

41. Will Mr. Parsons charity giue him leaue to say that your Friar Martin, and the other Superiours who suffred it to passe, and your Iesuite Ribadinèira also were heerein Grosse deceiuers? Then indeede must I confesse, that I haue beene grossely deceiued. But seeing that he knew that Maldonate was thus esteemed of by these Romanists, his charity towards Obserue the little credite which may be giuen vnto new Romish bookes. his owne friends might haue a little asswaged his malice a­gainst me, whilst that he chargeth me by the Grossenesse of o­ther mens deserts. And we may furthermore obserue what little credite is to be giuen vnto their Romish bookes, which come vnder the name of their Writers, seeing that the books of Iesuites are falsly inscribed. Let vs leaue titles, and examine the truth of the matter it selfe.

M. PARSONS his Reckoning.

DOth Maldonate say any thing in this sentence, that is not con­forme to our common doctrine of Equiuocation? No truely: for we graunt that whosoeuer doth indeauor by feyning to deceiue Reckon. pag. 283. 284. another, doth lie. Insomuch that it agreeth well with the definition of a lie, set downe in St. Aug. Mendacium est falsa vocis significatio cum intenti­one Lib. de mend. c. 4. & lib. con. mend. ca. 12. fallendi: A lie is a false signification of speech, with intention to de­ceiue: which two clauses of the definition of a lie, I doe proue and de­monstrate for diuers leaues together in the 8. Chapter of my former Treatise, that they cannot agree with the nature of Equiuocation, and by consequence that Equiuocation is no lie. Not the first clause, a false sig­nisication of speech, which is when the speech doth differ from the mea­ning and sense.

The Reuiewe.

42. Least that Maldonate might seeme to make against you, you answere not directly to these wordes, Although he intend not to signifie aliquid praetereà, that is, Something else, which indefinitely signifieth something Else, whatsoeuer it be. Now apply your last example vnto this Rule. If your friend demaund of you to lend him some money, which you know that you haue in your Chest, yet you are prouided to answere, I haue it not, meaning, to lend it: This your Azorius called a plaine lye, and this is it which Maldonate doth intend, who in this exception against any Reseruation, which is onely men­tall, doth imply all, saying, [ Although he feine to himselfe some­thing else.] Let vs see whether your second deuise will stard you in any steade.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

NOt the second of intention to deceiue: for that the first and princi­pall Reck. pag. 284. intention of him that is forced for some iust cause to Equi­uocate (for otherwise he may not vse it,) is to deliuer himselfe from that iniury which is offered him, and not to deceiue the Iudge or hearer, though consequently that doe follow. And this I proue to be so cleare, as that by this are iustified all Stratagems in warre, which are in­deede nothing but Equiuocations in fact, that otherwise should be vnlaw­full and sinfull.

The Reueiwe.

43. What haue we to doe with Stratagems of warre? for onely actions (which is when there is no word or promise go­ing before, which may be contradicted by their own actions) Stratagems not properly lies. in themselues, doe neyther affirme nor denie: We speake of the speech of man, which doth eyther affirme something, or denie something: and a lie, or truth (we know) doth proper­ly consist in affirmation or negation. Drawe nearer to the Question.

M. PARSONS his Reckoning.

NOt the second clause ( of intention to deceiue) conteyned in S Au­gustines Reck. pag. 285. definition of a lie, doth in no case truly enter into Equiuo­cation. For that he which vseth lawfull Equiuocation, hath not his first [Page 227] and principall end to deceiue the hearer, but to auoyde the hurt, which he is subiect vnto, if he did not Equiuocate; albeit thereby it followeth that the other be deceiued, which is without all fault of him which spea­keth doubtfully. Which I doe demonstrate by many examples out of the Scriptures and Fathers; whereby it is euident that this permission of others to be deceiued by our speech, when we doe in effect but con­ceale a truth, is lawfull, and vsed by Saints, yea God himselfe, and conse­quently can be no lie.

The Reuiew.

44. You shall neuer be able to prooue your Mentall Equi­uocation, which you haue described, from Scriptures or Fa­thers. And here you haue no way to auoyde the second part of S. Augustines definition, which is, an Intention to deceiue another, but by distinguishing of the intention, as principall, and M. Parsons fri­uolous distin­ction. lesse principall; because his principall end is to auoyde hurt, his lesse principall is to deceiue: yet we see that when man doth intend to Equiuocate, that he may auoyd lying, he doth, for a­uoyding hurt, intend to deceiue. And if this were a good an­swere, what sinne is there almost, which M. Parsons might not iustifie by this distinction? The thiefe, whilest hee robbeth a man of his money, doth not principally intend to robbe, be­cause his principall end is to enrich himselfe: For if hee were not moued by the desire and hope of gaine, hee would neuer commit robbery. So likewise he that deceiueth any by lying: As for example, the damnable couple in the Act. 5. Acts, who lyed in denying the iust price of their sale of the land before S. Pe­ter. If any should doubt, whether in that speech to lie or to gaine something to themselues were their more principall end; it may be easily discerned by this, because they did not seeke aduantage that they mught lie, but they did lie for their aduantage: What can M. Parsons say now? (for I must pose him) Will he answere that by such lying a man doth not lie, because his principall end is not to lie? Then will it follow that a man lieth not, when he lieth. Or did he lie notwithstan­ding that his lesse principall end was to lie, or deceiue? Then doth not his distinction helpe you, for freeing his mentall E­quiuocation from a lie. As yet Maldonate is against him, and [Page 228] this M. Parsons saw in his Mitigation, otherwise why did he skippe ouer this place, where it was particularly obiected against him.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning, in charging his Aduersary.

HOw did I willingly pretermit to answere him, when as he said Reckon. pag. 285. 286. nothing against me, but with me, and for me, as I doe shew by diuers distinct numbers, citing him also num 75. pag. 399. and this very place here quoted by Mr Morton, together with another of Toletus to the same effect? What meaneth, I say, Mr. Morton to deale so vnsincerely in such sort as euery child may see his fraude? And if any man will doubt, whether Maldonate did defend Equiuocation in such cases as we doe, wherein somewhat is rescrued in the minde of the speaker, more then is specified in the wordes, let him reade him in his Commentaries vpon the Gospels, in the places that containe such reseruations.

The Reueiwe.

45. I haue dealt most sincerely: for that, which I charged you with, was only the aboue cited testimony of Maldonate, which you (as I said, and you cannot deny) did pretermit, as a timerous weakling doth willingly passe by his ouer-match: yet now to scrape some acquaintance with him, leauing his positiue rule, you are gladde to seeke into his Explications of Scriptures, wherein you may see for your purpose; what? euen the man in the moone. But of this hereafter.

CHAP. XIIII.

Containing those obiected untruthes, whereof I cleared my selfe in the Preamble; which M. Parsons doth ex­amine againe, and call into his new Reckoning. First, in the testimony of Polydore.

SECT. I.

My former discharge.

1. ‘I Made bould to cite Polydore, to shew that Popes of later times had their names chan­ged by Antiphrasis, that is, a contrariety, as being unciuil to be called Vrbanus, &c. Vpon this M. Parsons grew very violent, saying, The Minister hath neither simplicity nor truth, but a a Mitigat. Epist. dedic. n. 18.19 lost conscience, by calumniations fraught with deceitfulnesse and malice, laying this obseruation vpon Polydore, and ci­ting no place.’

The Charge against M. Parsons.

2. Since that I Preamb. p. 90. Excellēt fraud in abuse of their owne Authors See a little after. num. 5. haue both cited the direct wordes, and al­leaged the place, which his fellowes haue put out of their new Editions, and yet since hath M. Parsons [...] char­ged me with not citing of that, which, least it should be ci­ted, they themselues haue blotted out of the booke: and now he reckoneth both for the Authour, and for the testimony it selfe.

M. PARSONS his Reckoning.

I had not that part of Polydore, Deinuentoribus Rerum, by me. Reckon. cap. 5. §. 1. pag. 295.

The Reuiewe.

3. ‘Had you not Polydor by you, M. Parsons? wee shall try th's by your answere in your Mitigation. Mitigat. Epist. Dedicat. num. 18. &. 19. Let the iudi­cious Readeriudge (say you) whether the Authour thereof be [Page 230] a Minister of simple truth; Polydore saith only that some­time Popes, as other Princes, haue had names, which haue beene different and contrary to their nature.’ Is this the tenure of an answerer, who saw not Polydore; to say that Polydore saith only, &c. But it may be M. Parsons, although he can­not free himselfe from fraude, will escape the guilt of a lye by Equiuocation, saying that he saw not Polydore, meaning, with his heeles: otherwise to charge me with so infamous a falshood, in alleaging Polydore, when as yet he himselfe had not Polydore by him; doth in effect tell vs that M. Parsons, in answering, is sometime by himselfe. What further concer­ning the booke.

Mr. PARSONS Reckoning.

ALbeit the wordes, which he saith he hath cited out of Polydor. de Reck. pag. 296. 197. Jnuent. lib. 4. cap. 10. be not in any of our bookes now common­ly extant, yet he saith that they are in the Edition of Basil An. 1570. and that two yeares after by Pope pius Quintus the Index Expur­gatorius did put out these wordes: but he telleth not what Index it was, for I haue one containing both the Flemmish and Spanish Index, Printed at Basil An. 1544. wherein this obseruation is not found, which M. Morton saith was Printed Anno 1570. which was 26. yeares after. Whereof must needes be inferred, that either M. Morton dealeth not sincerely with vs in this matter (which yet I will not be so vnfreindly as to suspect) or that his Edition of 1570. (which hitherto I cannot see) hath receiued this addition about the Popes changing of their names after the foresaid Edition of 1544.

The Reueiwe.

4. Can M. Parsons possibly not suppose me to be insincere in this point, who hath challēged me for so egregious a falsi­ficator in so many passages? either is he more credulous then he ought to be, or else am I more credible then he hath decy­phered me to be. Howsoeuer, I haue little reason to credit a­ny of his Reckonings: and euen in this very place he is in­tollerable, for the bookes of Polydore which haue not that sentence in them haue (as he knoweth) beene much purged; as their owne booke, which is intituled, Index librorum pro­hibitorum, that is, The Catalogue of bookes which haue beene [Page 231] prohibited, doth expresly shew, telling vs that, Index libror. prohibit. Tit. Polydor. Virg. The booke of Polydore, De Inuentoribus Rerum, is permitted, which was purged by the commaund of Pope Greg. 13. in the yeare 1576. How could he then but suspect, that such a sentence as this was blotted out?

5. Againe, I cited in the margent the Index Belgicus, which was printed Lugduni An. 1586. ( pag. 195.) wherein these wordes, Extraà iocum, &c. and nine lines following are commaunded to be blotted out. Which euery one that will may finde in the auncient bookes of Polydore, and yet (as M. Parsons confesseth) is not in your new Editions: which sheweth that their new deuise of purging of bookes hath li­censed them to belye the old.

M. PARSONS charging his Aduersary.

BVt let vs heare the wordes themselues, which M. Morton setteth Reck. pag. 297. downe as found in his Tolydore: Primus honos, &c. This is the first honour giuen to the Bishop of Rome after his creation (saith he) that if his name be not faire, he may change the same: as for example (which yet be not spoken but in iest) if before perhaps he had beene an euill doer, he may be called Bonifacius, that is a good doer; if he had beene fearefull, then may he be called Leo, a Lyon; if rusticall, then Vrbanus, or ciuill, &c. and the first Authour or beginner of this cu­stome is said to haue beene Pope Sergius 2. whose name hauing beene before Os porci, which signifieth the mouth of an hogge, it was permitted vnto him (saith the supposed Polydore) for the auoiding the obseenitie of his former name, to change the same. These two thinges, that the first occasion of changing names should haue beene from Pope Sergius 2. hath no substance at all, Platina deliuereth it vpon report, [...] confuteth it. Besides it is to be noted that Os porci is a sir­name of a family, which no Pope is wont to change, but only his Chri­stian or proper name, as of late when Hypolitus Aldobrandinus was cal­led Clemens 8. hee changed not the name of Aldobrandinus, but of Hypolitus.

The Reuiewe.

6. Well, I am content to leaue your Authors in their con­flict. Can you shew vs a reason, why he that will change his Popes change their Christen names. Christian name, will not also change his naturall name or sir­name? Saul Iewish was changed into Paul Christian; Peter [Page 232] neuer left his name which Christ gaue him. Now for the Pope to reiect his name which he receiued in Baptisme as a token of his Christendome, this seemeth to be a prophane mistery.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

POlydore saith only (and in a iest) that some might be named by Reck. pag. 300. &. 302. changing their names: Non extrà iocum dictum sit, that is, let it not be spoken without a iest. And Polydore saith only, Liceat mutare, they may change their names, but saith not that it was practized by any.

The Reuiew.

7. For Hystorians to report thinges in such manner, doth not imply that the matter was fabulous: Ridendo dicere ve­rum, Iesting. quis vetat? a man may laugh and tell a truth, as I might doe, in telling M. Parsons that I cannot without a iest ob­serue the differences of translations, which he hath inuented in [ Let not] and [ May not,] as though there had beene craft herein. For I beseech you, Sir, when the Apostle, speaking against vnlawfull separation of the wife from her husband, saith, 1. Cor. 7. v. 10. Let not the wife depart from her husband; if he had de­liuered it thus: A wife may not depart from her husband, had these two differed any thing in sense? But why doe I hinder M. Parsons his sport, whose disposition is euen to play with a feather?

SECT. II.

His second charge against his Aduersary, about the pope that was choaked with a flye.

THe Preamb. p. 91. 8. mistaking of the name of the Emperour Henry 2. in stead of Fredericke 1. who was excommunicated by Pope Adrian; which M. Parsons will haue to proceede from maliciousnesse.

My discharge.

9. The only question was whether Pope Adrian, who excommunicated the Emperour, was choaked with a flye, or no, this was the maine; but whether he excommunicated H. or F. is but on the by, in respect of the scope of our dispute. Cardinall Bellar. in his Correctorio. pag. 170. & pag. 192. Bellarmine erred often, in citing of Authours, and hath lately corrected those escapes, as alleaging Ambrose, in stead of Augustine; Cyprian in stead of Cyril; Innocentius in stead of Clemens; and in such like errors their Gratian doth superabound: And yet may we not iudge so vncharitably, as to impute these faults vnto perfidiousnesse.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

IF Mr. Morton had not seene, nor read Nauclerus (as he saith) how Reck. cap. 5. §. 2 pag. 308. did he presume to set downe his Latin wordes so precisely, as his Reader could haue no probable cause to doubt, but that they were his owne proper wordes? Was not this crasty perfidiousd aling? This an­swere of Mr. Morton doth more intangle him in falshood.

The Reuiew.

10. Did euer sober man make such a question? how can one set downe precisely the wordes of an Authour, which he himselfe hath not read? Any child can answere, that this may easily be Fond cauil­lations. done, by reciting the sentence out of a writer, who hath col­lected it out of the Authour himselfe, which is vsuall in all that write. If I should aske M. Parsons this, did you neuer deliuer any testimony from an other mans writing, which was true? he would say that this is but a fond question, and yet it is Cosen germane to his owne, nor is it much vnlike vnto his next taxation for setting downe, out of Nauclerus, Many Italian writers, in stead of, so many Italian writers as he could see; as though all the writers which Nauclerus could see; were more then many.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

So to conclude this Accompt, &c.

The Reuiewe, shewing how M Parsons hath slipped ouer a peece of a former Charge, wherein he was accused of an euident falshood.

11. I doe not maruaile why M. Parsons maketh so great hast to conclude, before he haue satisfied the Reckoning; lea­uing a peece of debt on the score seeing that he had iust no­thing to pay. ‘For as he cannot but remember that he said that Mitigat. cap. 2. pag. 79. Nauclerus reiecteth this story as false, and confuteth it by all Writers, especially of Italy: so may he not forget what Preamb p. 93. in sine. I answered him from Nauclerus his owne wordes, viz. that he doth not reiect it as false, but was brought by differēces of story of Adrians flye, to doubt whether side rather to choose or beleeue.’ Thus was M. Parsons his censure of Nau­clerus His fraudulent concealement of his falshood his iudgment, confuted out of the wordes of Naucle­rus himselfe. This his fraude he passed ouer without mention: belike he either esteemeth of so petty a fraude, as of a flye, and therefore neglected it; or else he feared that if he should mention it, it would proue like Pope Adrians flye, to choake him, because he was not able to swallow it downe.

SECT. III.

The disastrous endes of some Popes.

12. ‘EXamples herof I Preamb. p. 94. related out of Vrspergensis: among others, the example of Pope Anastasius, reported by your owne Doctors (said I) to haue beene strucke with the hand of God, and so to haue perished. Citing for witnesses Platina, Supplementum Chron. Liber Pontificalis, and Turrecremata.’ M. Parsons redily swalloweth all the first three Cammels, and straineth a Gnat, to wit, the testimony of thelast Authour Turrecremata.

M. PARSONS his Reckoning, and Charge against his Aduersarie.

IT followeth in your Narration out of some of our Doctors as you Reck. pag. 313. say; Bene legitur Anastasium Diuino nutu percussum interijsse It is read [Page 235] that Anastasius the Pope was strooken with the hand of God and perish­ed: you cite for it Ioh. de Turrecrem. lib. de summa Eccles. de Anast asio. Which citation is so set downe, as I perswade my selfe that in his next reply he will haue this euasion, to say that he saw not the worke him­selfe: for there are foure bookes of Turrecrem. de summa Ecclesiae, and one only hath more then an hundred Chapters, yet doth Mr. Morton neither specifie Booke nor Chapter; which alwaies, you must imagine hath some mysterie. Turrecremata lib. 2. Summae Eccles. cap. 103. spake only by way of answering certaine obiections of them that brought in the example of Anastasius, &c.

The Reueiwe.

13. My Reader will be so indifferent as to obserue the place and wordes of Turrecremata lib. 2. Eccles. cap. 103. Item nec facit ad propositum, &c. Neither (saith he) doth it make any thing for the purpose, which some aduersaries say of Anastasius ( out of the Cap. Anastasius, Dist. 19. & in Glossa) because although we reade there that some honest men departed from Anastasius, for that he had communicated with Photius and Acatius, yet doe we not reade that he was condemned by the whole Church; but, Benè legitur quòd fuerit diuino iudicio percussus, & ità à Deo depositus, that is: It is well said that he was strucke with Gods iudgment, and so deposed by God; mea­ning, by a sodaine death, accordingly as it is in the Glosse, whereunto he hath relation. Which is not spoken by Turre­cremata as we see, only by way of answering an obiection as M. Parsons pretendeth, but very asseuerantly: And therefore our Reader may discerne in M. Parsons a mysterie, and the iniqui­ty M. Parsons his admirable craft and falshood. and falshood thereof. So little cause had I to conceale the right Chapter, which M. Parsons (least the truth might be acknowledged) did, asit may seeme, wittingly ouer-passe, only that he might guilfully latch me within the suspicion of fraude and deceit.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

I Must aduertise the Reader, that the whole current of other Writers Reck. pag. 314. doe deny this matter about the inclination of Pope Anastusius to re­call Acatius, affirming that the said Acatius was dead diuers yeares be­fore Anastasius was Pope, as doe [...] Niceph. Calixtus, Euagrius, Ana­stasius [Page 236] Bibliothecari is Liberatus, Gelasius, and others: all which, or most are named in the first part of the Decree of Gratian, which is cyted also by M. Morton, and so if he looked vpon it, he abuseth vs greatly in dissem­bling the matter: and if he did not, why doth he eyre it?

The Reuiew.

14. And I doe earnestly entreate our Reader to marke M. Parsons Aduertisment, and he will perhaps wonder at his im­portunate desire, to haue the witnes of Gratian produced; for thus we reade in Gratian, Dist. 19. Cap. Anastasius: Anasta­sius the second, a Romane by birth, liued (saith he) in the dayes of M. Parsons la­uish vntruth. K. Theodoricus, at what time many of the Clergie separated themselues from his Communion, because he without a Councell of Bishops and Priests, and Clergie of the Catholicke Church did communicate with Photius, who had communicated with Aca­tius; and because he meant secretly to call backe Acatius, he was strucken with the hand of God. That is (saith the Glosse) whilst he rid on an Asse, his bowels burst out, and hee ignominiously fell downe. Had you any reason to aske why I pretermitted these testimonies? And yet furthermore where it is obiected, that Acatius was dead before Anastasius was Pope, this is answered in the Glosse vpon the Chap. going before, beginning thus: Secundum, &c. He (namely Anastasius) would call againe Aca­tius after he was dead, that prayers might be made fir him in the Church. By this time you see the vnluckinesse of your impor­tunity, requiring an Answere to that which was answered by your owne Glosse about the same place of Gratian. Which if you saw, then haue you (to vse your owne wordes) abused your Reader greatly in dissembling the matter. If you saw it not, then Why did you cite the booke which preuenteth your Aunswere, and causeth you to repent of your rash imputation of dissem­blance?

15. Againe, Other examples of like nature were Preamb p. 94. cyted, as that of Pope Iohn 10. who, by the practise of an infamous and lewd woman, was thrust into Peters chaire, and afterward by the vnchaste daughter Theodora choaked with a Pillow: and of Iohn 12. who when hee was in daliance with another [Page 237] mans Wife, was strucken in the temples of his head by a Diuell: and of Pope Urbane, by a nick-name called Turban, who ( saith Urspergensis) rebelled against the Emperour, troubled the Church, and was strucke by the hand of God.

These cyta­tions haue beene right, and your answer is by opposing other Historians, who commended these Popes liues, vnto Histo­rians, who condemned them; and all is to teach your Reader to dance in a round.

SECT. III.

The third Obiection, concerning the testi­mony of Boucher.

16. ‘COncerning Preamb. pa. 95. Boucher a Romish Doctor, who held it lawfull for a priuate man to kill a Tyrant in the case of publique enmity, eyther against the Church,’ or the Com­mon-wealth, which I iudged to bee a rebellious position, I must now answere according to my charge.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning, and charge against his Aduersary.

BVt it is graunted by Doctor Boucher (sayth M. Morton) that when the Reckon. cap. 5. § 3. pag. 321. 322. Common-wealth hath condemned and declared any Tyrant for a publicke enemy, he may be slaine by a priuate man. Whereunto I answere, that then he is no priuate man, for that he doth it by a publique authority of the Common-wealth, as doth the executioner that cutteth off a No­ble-mans head, by order and authority of the publicke Magistrate: so as in this M. Mortons distinction serueth him to no purpose, for that ney­ther for priuate, or publique iniuries can a priuate man, as a priuate man, that is to say, by priuate authority kill any Prince, though he were a Tyrant, for any cause eyther priuate or publique whatsoeuer So as in this principall charge M. Morton remaineth wholly conuicted, as you see.

The Reueiwe.

17. Boucher calleth him a priuate man: Take the case as [Page 238] M. Parsons hath propounded it, that a priuate man, after the publique sentence of the Common-wealth, is no priuate man, but a publique and iust executioner: by the same rule he must imply, that when the Pope (whom they make Supreame in such cases) hath excommunicated a King, and commaunded Armes against him, then euery man may vse Marshal-law, and iustly murther that King. What is this but to put into the handes of men dagges, and knyues, and poisons for execution of their hatefull designes? But we returne vnto Doctor Bou­chier. Lib. 3. de ab­dicat. Hen. 3. c. 16 pag. 267. The case may be so vrgent (saith he) that the publicke iudgement neede not be exspected, because where the crime is no­torious, it is sufficiently condemned without further iudgement. And he bringeth in the place of Deut. 13. Thou shalt presently slay them, euen before the publique iudgement of the Church pub­lished. By this I conuince M. Parsons of notorious falshood, M. Parsons no­torious fals­hood. who defended that Boucher did not allow the killing of any King, but after the publique iudgement of the Common­wealth. Here we see a case, wherein Iacke Straw and Wat Tyler, and euery Rascall is armed for this purpose: euen be­fore publique iudgement. The answere which M. Parsons will giue vs in this his Sober Reckoning, is worth our attention.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

DOctor Bouchier in his fourth booke hath a whole Chapter to Reck. pag 322. proue that in some vrgent cause the matter may be preuented, as when the thing is so notorious, instant and perilous, as the said publique iudgement cannot be expected: then for subiects to vse poená priuatiua, to withdraw their obedience, and only to defend themselues; and not positiuá, that is, the positiue punishment of actuall Rebellion, or [...] offensiue: So as considering what here is in the Question, hee (that is, T. M.) must needes be condemned of a Nihil dicit, or a falsum dicit.

The Reueiwe.

18. Iucundè dictum, & iocularitèr. M. Parsons is a iolly but yet a iugling fellow: for although D. Bouchier de iusta abdic. l. 4. c. 2. Bouchier doth vse the distinction of priuatiue and positiue punishment, yet in the Ibid. c. 3. p. 354 next Chapter he sheweth that The iudgement of the Church may [Page 239] be preuented, by the notoriousnes of the crime: but how preuen­ted? M. Parsons excusable falshood. by onely a priuatiue punishment, or onely by armes, for defence? No, he is not contented with a Buckler of defence, but he putteth a sword in mens handes for to kill euen before iudgement, saying that they are taught out of Deut. 13. Sta­tim interficere, Presently to kill; adding the examples of Phi­noes killing the Israelite, Num. 25. and of Mattathias killing the Kings Captains, 1. Machab. 2. Next he seeketh to establish the Acte of killing by a Canon, That hee who falleth into a crime, which is condemned by the Canon, may without further iudgment be held condemned by the sent ence of the Canon. Thus farre of the proceeding by Ecclesiasticall censure.

19. In the Cap. 4. p. 358. fourth Chapter he entreth the same question concerning execution before publique iudgement. Shall we think (saith he) that secular men in their proceedings in iudgment ought to be more religious, or cautelous, then the Ecclesiasticall, as that they ought to expect that publicke iudgement (as Politi­tians teach) before that they may set vpon a Tyrant by armes? Immediately to prooue that they ought not to expect any publicke iudgement, he saith that in such a case If publicke iudgement may not be had, the safet ie of the Common-wealth is to be sought by other meanes whatsoeuer, euen as against an ar­med theife. And if any, whom he calleth Tyrants, shall happen to be slaine in such insurrections, Who (sayth he) will denie, but they are iustly slaine? In the fift Chapter he giueth an instance in Henr. 3. King of France, who was murthered by Iacob Cle­ment a Friar: which fact Bouchier in the cap. 23. of the same booke doth highly commend as meritorious. Is heere M. Par­sons, eyther falsum or nihil? Is it nothing to arme Subiects a­gainst Kings, before publique iudgement? Is it nothing so to arme them, as, if they kill such Kings, to holde the fact lawfull and meritorious? If there had beene any tincture of truth in you, you could not haue obiected falsity vnto mee against so many and so plaine instances and examples.

20. I call them plaine, because Bouchier is challenged by your own Doctor Barclaius, euen for the same matter: Barcl. l. 5. con tra Monarchom c. 6. p 361. Thou teachest (saith Barclay vnto Bouchier) there, that it is lawfull [Page 240] to kill Henry the third, King of Fraunce. It had beene there­fore safer for M. Parsons his conscience, to haue answered Ni­hil, then to haue answered Falsum, that he is conuicted by the iudgement of their owne Barclay: which is likewise the censure of their owne Priest in the Quodl. p. 296. Quodlibets, saying, that In the Treatises de tusta Abdic. Henr. 3. they affirme that it is lawfull to kill a Tyram, for so they termed that King, although there be neyther sentence of Church, nor Kingdome against him. The case thus standing, we may thinke that Mr. Parsons his guiltinesse concerning the matter, did driue his penne awry to wrangle [...] about wordes.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

THe adding these wordes ( which I say by common consent) is an acces­sary Reck. pag. 323. vntruth, for excuse whereof he runneth to other Chapters, wherein he saith that Bouchier auoucheth, Mirum esse in affirmando consensum, that there is a wonderfull consent in allowing this doctrine. But these are other matters vpon other occasions, &c.

The Reuiew.

21. If this was spoken of other matters, which were imper­tinent, why did you not name them? I suspect you haue found some reason: for, indeede, in his third booke and cap. 15. his position is this, viz. That it is lawfull to kill a Tyrant; which (saith he) it is marueilous what a great consent it hath not onely of prophane, but euen of our owne Authours. Which is the very ground and basis of all his former conclusions. And could you, M. Parsons, with any truth, signifie that this was vpon o­ther impertinent matters?

SECT. IIII.

The fourth testimony of M. Raynolds.

22. THe testimony of M. Raynolds, and the censure thereof M. Parsons calleth againe into question so rigidly and [Page 241] scornefully, as if both his wit and malice had conspired toge­ther, by virulency and scurrility, to make the matter incompa­rably odious; telling vs that at the hearing of the word Sug­gestion Reckon. cap. 5. §. 4. pag. 326. he imagined, and that (as he saith) truely, that I would haue confessed the Diuell to haue beene my Suggester: wher­in the Iouiall and Iocular olde man meant onely to make himselfe and his Reader sport, and intended in this play, as it M. Parsons vn­seemely scur­rility. were, not to be without a Diuell and a vice; the first onely to be imagined, but the other to be acted by himselfe, and all this to prouoke vnto laughter. But the Greeke Prouerbe, [...] that is, The old-wife danceth, is verified in him: for our Reader may easily perceiue how little this first part of M. Parsons his play doth become him, if he shal but consider how Pope Alexander the third, Decret. l 1. de Rescript. Tit. 3. cap. 5. Prauâ in­sinuatione sug­gestum, &c. acknowledged himselfe to be subiect to wrong Suggestions and Informations: And that their own secular Import. Consi­der. pag. 8. Priests haue no other way, to excuse the violent proceeding of their Pope Pius Quintus against the Q. of England, then by telling vs that hee was stirred vp by wrong Suggestions. Would it now become M. Parsons, who is a Romish Priest, by the strength of his imagination to thinke and that Truely (as he saith) that these Popes would confesse hereupon, that they receiued sometimes their intelligences, Insinuations and Suggestions from the Diuell? Or would not a­ny Priest at the first hearing of this asseueration of M. Parsons saying, Truely, &c. acknowledge that in this first word he had committed a True-lye?

23. Afterwards he himselfe offereth (by I know not what suggestion) to spell two dumb Characters, bewraying thereby his personall malice; especially considering that the common letters in themselues might as easily represent Robert Cow­bucke, as any other, in the which name M. Parsons himself was presented to Pope Clement the eighth, by the P. Robertus Personus, aliàs Cowbuccus, Iesuita praeci­puus &c. Declarat. mo­tuum & per­turb. inter. Ie­suitas & Sacer­dotes. pag 23. Declaration of more then twenty Priests: Yet after his trifling hereabout he commeth to debate the matter it selfe.

Mr. PARSONS Reckoning.

HEare, Ipray you, his last shift: Though not the place alleadged (saith Reckon. pag. 331. & 332. he) yet the scope of M. Rainolds his whole booke doth conuince him of re­bellious [Page 242] doctrine, as will more plainely appeare in the Encounter. Marke now whither he is fled de. He confesseth that in the place alleaged by Mr. Raynolds (whereabout onely stands our Controuersie) his drift was not to abase, but to exalt Princes authority, and confequently hee must graunt that he abused him in that crimination. But hee saith that the scope of his booke is otherwise, which he deferreth to prooue, vntill he make his larger Encounter, which I suppose, will require a large time.

The Reuiewe.

24. I rather suppose that you will thinke this Encounter came too soone, when you shall perceiue how you are char­ged hereby with manifold abuses, both of loose lying, and al­so of close and iniurious dissembling, of which kind you haue giuen vs a present example. ‘For whereas (in my Pag. 102. Preamble) I added a reason, why M. Raynolds might haue beene presu­med to haue Abased the State of Kings, to wit, because in his Chapternext following he teacheth, that Subiects may de­pose them; and albeit Saint Peter taught Subiection vnto Nero a Pagane and Sauage Tyrant, yet M. Raynolds holding it to be naturam generosiorem, that is, a more generous and noble disposition to kill Tyrants, among whom he reckoned K. Henry the eight: I hereupon inferred, that the scope of M. Raynolds his booke was to professe a doctrine rebellious:’ notwithstanding all which, M. Parsons conueigheth the mat­ter, M Parsons ex­ceeding craft and deceit. so cunningly and craftily, as though I had deferred all proofe vntill a Large Encounter should come foorth. There­fore I may more then imagine, that this his Dissimulation was suggested vnto him by no good spirit.

25. Thus much of my Accuser, for now I enter vpon the Accusation it selfe, by performance of a more perfect dis­charge: to which purpose I shall desire Mr. Parsons, that wee may both betake our selues vnto our second thoughts, to consider more exactly the doctrine of Mr. Raynolds; so wee shal discerne the censure which was giuen vpon that Author, how that notwithstanding his commendation of secular gouernment, he ment to abase the authority which is due vn­to a King, as may be euidently euinced by iust proofes. I shall but onely desire M. Parsons to vnderstand my Aunswere, and [Page 243] then he shall neede to require no more for this peece of his Reckoning.

A proofe of M. Raynolds his abasement of the Royalty of Kings, both out of his owne doctrine, and out of the confessions of his owne Doctors.

26. M. Raynolds his doctrine, in that place alleadged, is plainely this: that in choosing any State of Gouernement, whether it be Reynolds in Rossaeo, p. 18. Monarchicall, or Aristocraticall, or Demo­craticall; The consent of all people is the voice of nature: and that euery such Election, by the consent of the people, is Ap­proued by God; for althogh terren principality ( saith he) be called by the Apostle (1. Pet. 2.) An humane creature, because it is con­ferred vpō certain persons, by the suffrages & voices of the people; notwithstanding because that same election of Princes doth issue from nature, which God hath created, and from reason which is infused into man, therefore doth another Apostle plainly pronounce, saying (Rom. 13.) That ther is no power but from God, and that he that resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God.

27. This is the sentence which in outward shew (as I con­fessed) doth establish the dignity of Kings: but when we ex­pound M. Raynolds by himselfe, hee will appeare not to haue intended their due aduancement: for in the very same Chap­ter he Pag. 10. M. Raynolds sentence of detraction from Regall authority. saith; when the People haue created a King, the Ma­iestie of the King dooth depend vpon the will of the Common­wealth, which ordained him: Insomuch as that Pag. 85. They may de­pose their Kings: and for example hee produceth Pag. 539. Henry of Nauarre, the now King of France, whom whilst hee was a Protestant M. Raynolds held to be an Hereticke, and wor­thy to be Excommunicated by the Pope; and consequently to be Deposed by the French Catholickes. Doe wee not now see The Euidence. plainely what kinde of Creature M. Raynolds his King must be, viz. such an one who shall not haue predominant power absolutely in himselfe, but dependantly of the people, by whom he may be created, and vncreated, as if the power were formally still in the people, and but onely instrumental­ly [Page 244] in the King. Can any deny but such a King fancied by M. Rainolds is but a slauish creature; and that in his pretense of commending the power of a King he intended closely to di­minish and depresse his authority?

28. Least perhaps any may doubt of this collection, I shall A cōfirmation from their owne Doctors. in the next place corroborate it by the ingenuous and eui­dent confession of their owne Doctors; their Doctor [...] cont. Monarch. lib 3. cap. 3. Bar­clay (writing against these kinde of positions, and (as The Authour of the Booke intituled, ve­risimilia Theolo­gica, Iuridica, &c. pag. 155. one obserueth) against this their Rossaeus, aliàs Reinolds, hath be­stowed a whole booke vpon this argument, prouing especial­ly that Barcla. quo supra. A King, although he be constituted by the people, yet being once constituted, he hath afterwards power to rule the peo­ple, and not to be subiect vnto them. Jbid. lib. 4. Who (saith Barclaius) although he be vnworthy of his Kingdome, in respect of the Ma­iesty of God, vpon whom the Kingdome doth depend; yet in re­spect of the subiects he is alwaies superiour, as long as he is a King. And againe he else where addeth that Lib. 4. cap. 4. Kinges, who are lawfully constituted, albeit they fall to be cruell, yet are they a­boue all lawes and iudgments of man, and cannot be hurt of any, without publike miury and treason. And answering vnto this argument of Boucher (which is the same which Master Rei­nolds vrgeth) to wit; The Common-wealth, which is the same as the people, (which made the King) is superiour to the King, and the publike authority doth remaine in them. This reason (saith he) I haue proued many waies in many places to be lying and false. His principall argument, to confute it, is that which their owne Marsilius hath lately vrged against Bellar­mine: Marsil defens. cont. Bellarm. pag. 212. If (saith he) there remaine a power in the people to de­pose Princes, then Princes are no Princes, but subiects. Now let M. Parsons gather his fiue wits into one Senate, and an­swere, whether this confession doe not plainly discouer, that the intendiment of M. Reinolds was to make a King a Sub­iect, which is as sensible an abasement of a King, as can be imagined.

29. Although this may suffice both to represse M. Par­sons his insolency, who insulteth so deformedly vpon the for­mer allegation, and also to reproue my negligence, who de­ferred [Page 245] this Answere and Discharge, vntill the publishing of this Encounter, yet will I not forbeare to inlarge my selfe in this argument, and by a further answere vnto his next obie­ction, to euince the foresaid vile estimate, which M. Reinolds had concerning the State of Kings and all Temporall Estates.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

BVt what saith he for his (owne) defence? Vpon this presumption, Reck. pag. 328. if true (saith he) that Mr. Reinolds had spoken this to the debase­ment of Kinges, it could be no falshood in me to adde the particle [but,] especially being acquainted with the doctrine of Cardinal Bellar­mine, who that he might disable the authority of a King, in comparison of the dignity of a Pope, doth defend that Kinges being chosen by men, are not immediately created by God: and yet the Pope, being elected by Cardinals, bath his authority immediately from God. Reck. pag. 329. Whereunto I answere, that well he might say so, for that Christ both God and Man did institute in particular and immediarely the supreme authority of S. Peter, and his Successours, when he gaue to him, and by him to them the keyes of heauen: but he instituted not the authority of Kings immediately, but left by each people to be gouerned by what sort of gouernement they liked best, albeit where that forme of gouernement, or of any other (as of Dukes, Common-wealths, or the like) was once lawfully intro­duced, he commaunded due obedience to be performed thereunto. And although the Popes be chosen by Cardinals, who are men, yet is not their office, power, or authority chosen by, or appointed by those men, as in Kinges, but immediately is of God, so as this hole will not serue M. Mortons turne for his excuse.

The Reuiew.

30. I say with our Sauiour Christ that the Foxes haue holes, and so hath M. Parsons, Mitigat. p. 403. who hath taken an example from the instinct of nature in the Foxe, for iustifying his Mentall Equiuocation; whose difference betweene the Popes and Princes authority from God, by Bellarmine his distinction of mediately and immediately, hath beene proued of late by their M. Parsons and Bellarmines so­phistry. owne Marsilius to be a meere sophisticall fallacy, and indeed no better then a Fox-hole, into which they doe creepe, who seeke by such a distinction, to diminish the Regall power, in respect of the Papall. I shall neede only to collect the summe of the confutation, because I presume, our Reader will not [Page 246] like too long Reckoning. Marsil. [...] cont. Bellar. c. 3. pag. 201. Nauarrus, a most sound Catho­like ( saith Marsilius) houldeth that the power Laique is imme­diately from God, infusing in people a naturall instinct to haue a gouernement: And of Gouernements established, The Apo­stle Power of a King imme­diately from God. S. Paul saith (Rom. 13.) that the powers which be, are of God. Seeing also that the lay Prince can make lawes, which doe binde his subiects consciences to obserue them, therefore is their authority not of man, but of God; whereupon the Apostle. addeth, [He that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God;] and although the manner of obtayning a Kingdome be from man, ( This proueth M. Rainolds contrary estimate of a A necessary di­stinction be­tweene Title and Power. King to haue beene but base) yet the authority and power is immediately from God. A similitude whereof we haue in the generation of euery man, for although it be necessary that the bo­dily Organs, instruments, and other naturall dispositions be first perfected, before the soule is infused, yet will not any therefore deny, that God doth immediately infuse the reasonable soule of a man into his body. As for his illustrious Lordship ( meaning Cardinall Bellarmine:) he erreth, first by not distinguishing be­tweene Bellarmine con­futed by Mar­filius. the Title of authority, and the authority it selfe, ( An e­uident conuiction both of Bellarmine and M. Rainolds.) For the title vnto an authority is not without the meanes of man, but the authority it selfe is immediately from God, as hath beene expressed by the former similitude. Secondly, he erreth in saying that all, which dwellwithin the Princes territories, are not imme­diately from God Subiects vnto him, and yet all Christians are immediately subiect vnto the Pope; for as the Prince is not a Prince without either right of his birth, or by election, &c. So the Pope is not Pope but by the election of Cardinals. Thirdly, he erreth in saying that when the Prince dieth, the authority re­maineth in the common-wealth; especially, where as the succession is by election; but when the Pope dieth the power Papall remay­neth not in the Cardinals, who are to make an election, nor in the Church; But the Doctors of the famous College of the Sorbonists in Paris doe defend the contrary. Fourthly, he erreth in making this difference betweene Prince and Pope, to wit, that the Title of the Prince is but mediately, and the Title of the Pope is im­mediately [Page 247] from God; if by the Title, he vnderstand the manner of obtaining the authority, he erreth: for both the manner of the one, and of the other are equally humane, neither will the Concla­uists themselues suffer me to be conuinced of a lye in this point. Thus farre their owne Marsilius.

31. As for Bellarmine his imagination, who thinketh that in the vacancy of the See of Rome, by the death of the Pope, the keyes or supreme authority, is neither in the Councel, nor in the Cardinals, but in the handes of Christ, it is no better then a dreame, wherein he saw the keyes, as it were, flying vp into heauen. For when the See was often voide of a Pope (as their Historians recorde) the space of three or foure yeares, and sometime also for Card. Cusan. Concord. Ca­thol. lib. 3. c. 41. Post Marcelli­num Papatum vacâsse septem annis. Seauen, or Sunt qui scri­bunt, post mortē Nicolai primi Sedem vacâsse annis octo men­sibus septem. Platina in vita Nicolai primi. Eight yeares toge­ther, as some haue thought, dare any Romanists conceit, that their Church was all that while destitute of the keies of spiri­tuall Iurisdiction?

32. Finally, because M. Parsons plaieth the flesh-flye, delighting himselfe with sucking of but seeming corruptions, I must direct him vnto the examples of his owne friendes a­boue mentioned, to wit, Suarez, Bellarmine, Baronius, Bou­cher, Gratian, &c. in whom their owne Doctors haue spied diuers vlcerous putrefactions of true and notorious falsifica­tions, by See aboue. cap. 1. alleaging authours flat contrary to their meanings; with which loathsome matters his corrupt appetite may sa­tiate it selfe. One example of this kinde, offereth it selfe out of Bellarmine, which I may not let passe: whome P. Paulus hath confuted for abusing a sentence of Gerson, by so inuer­ting the sense thereof, as P. Paulus Apo­log. pro Gersone cont. Bellar. pag. 569. Bellarmines ap­parant & con­fessed falshood that which Gerson said in fauour of the authority of the Roman See, the Authour (meaning Bel­larmine) changing the wordes, doth interpret as spoken in con­tempt. Is this to dispute, (saith P. Paulus) or to deceiue? I know not what the Authour, (to wit, Bellarmine,) can answere. And when M. Parsons hath considered this, let him tell vs in good earnest whether he will stand vnto his owne Reck. pag. 328. Rule of Pe­nance, against any one who shall be found guilty of so noto­rious a falshood, that he neuer be trusted hereafter? I forbeare to mention his owne falsifications, because he exacteth an [Page 248] example of any one, who hath the degree of Prelacy in their Church.

SECT. V.

The fift charge: concerning the testimony out of Gratian, for paying of debts.

33. ‘TO shew that, by their doctrine, they will pleade freedome from paying of debts vnto such persons, whom they shall excommunicate, the Glosse of a Canon was alleaged by R. S. and mistaken; but yet only in part, for their Iesuit Tolet Preamb. p. 105 expoundeth that Canon, and an other of non-payment of debts,’ which are made by promise. And now M. Parsons beginneth to play his prizes, and to haue about with two at once.

M. PARSONS his Reckoning.

WE may see how poore men in substance our Ministers are, who Reck. pag. 335. double thus.

The Reueiwe.

34. Hath R. S. mistaken this one place? and hath neuer any Romish Priest beene found so culpable, as to mistake an obiection for the resolution? We See aboue. Cap. 1. haue heard the complaint, which their owne Doctor Cumel made against certaine Ro­mish writers, such as were the Iesuit Suarez, and others, say­ing, Romists ouer­taken in the guilt, which they impute to others. I am grieued to see how falsly they alleage Driedo, vrging that, which he spake by way of argumentation, or obiection, for his owne iudgement. And M. Parsons himselfe, who is the ac­cuser, must necessarily runne vpon his owne blade of reproch, who See aboue. Cap. 12. §. 8. called an Interrogation, made for the more sensible in­troduction of the matter, a crafty and hypocriticall silence and dissimulation.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

Mr. Stock alleageth the Canon it selfe, making his Inference thus: Reck. p. 339. 340 This is the decree, which in generall carricth as much, or more as is set [Page 249] downe. [...] that he saith, that it carrieth as much in generall: but gene­ralities are not sufficient to auouch particulars. This Canon doth pro­hibit obedience to be exhibited to excommunicate persons, vntil they doe conforme themselues: it speaketh nothing of debts; how shall we trie it? first by the wordes themselues, wherein there is no mention at all of debts: and for that cause it is probable that Mr. Stock was asha­med to English them, as M. Morton before to recite them Secondly, by the Commentary, or Glosse, whose wordes are plaine, Licèt excom­municatio tollat obligationem, quoad fidelitatem, non tamen quoad alios con­tractus: albeit excommunication doe take away obligation of fidelity, or subiection towardes the person excommunicated, yet not in other contracts: so as if I doe owe to an excommunicate person, money, I am bound to pay him. Thus doth the Glosse expound the Canon, and the scaberd doth agree with the sword, and both of them doe hurt Mr. Morton, and M. Stock, though neuer so good fencers in a badde cause.

The Reueiwe.

35. Although we two should seeme too weake for this M. Parsons, who maketh himselfe greater then an Hercules: yet it may be we shall ouer-match him, when we adioyne vnto our small force the help of their owne Card. Tolet, who citing these two Canons, to wit, Nos Sanctorum, and Canon Iuratos saith Tolet. Instruct. Sacerd l. 1. c. 13. §. Sixtus. M. Parsons con­futed by their Card. Tollet. These Canons doe proceede concerning debts, yet not debts which are reall (meaning, by Bill, or Bond) but debts contracteà by promise. This exposition of their owne Cardinall, and sometime Iesuit, doth not only ward M. Par­sons his blow, but also driueth it to his owne pate, by con­trowling the audaciousnesse of his answere, wherein he de­nied that there is signified any non-payment of debts in this Canon.

M. PARSONS his Reckoning.

Mr. Stock goeth further to alleage an other beginning of a Ca­non, Reck. pag. 340. 341. Absolutos senouerint, which was made by Gregory the ninth. Wherein the very same thing is decreed, as in the other; wher­in Greg 9. Decret. l. 5. Tit. 7. c. 16. there is no mention of debts, although, by occasion of this decree, a certaine Glosse, whichi of Bernardus de Buttono Parmensis, doth pro­bably hould that to such a man there is not obligation of payment of debt (at leastwise of such debts as are only contracted by promises, but are not reall debts) so long as he remaineth in that case. And to this effect also speaketh Tolet in the place here cited by M. Morton, and we [Page 250] haue heard before how the other Glosse of Bartbolomaeus Brixiensis held it for probable, though the contrary for more true, vpon the Canon, Nos Sanctorum.

The Reuiewe.

36. Well then, their Card. Tolet, and Romane Glossers haue held it lawfull for men to with-hold their debtes con­tracted onely by promise (which may passe without witnesse) from persons excommunicate. But why onely these kinde of debts made onely by promise? Is there, in respect of God, The mistery of non payment of debts made by promise. more iustice in a mans letters, then in his wordes? in his hand, then in his tongue? in his specialties by billes and bonds, then in his obligation by promise? no, but it is rather, as it may seeme, because the Creditor hath not so good cuidence be­fore men, to clayme his debt by word, as he hath by writing; wherefore the Romish Canon sauoureth rather of humane craft, then of good conscience; and is farre vnworthy the ti­tle of Nos Sanctorum. But let vs proceede.

SECT. VI.

The sixt charge taken by M. Parsons against R. S. about another Canon.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

WE must call him (namely R. S.) backe againe for cyting the Reck. pag. 374. Glosse apud Gratianum, that is, in the Decrees collected by Gratian, which is not there, but in the Decretals of Pope Greg 9. gathered by Raymundus Barcionensis. And the [...] of that Glosse was Bernardus de Buttono.

The Reuiew.

37. This exception, taken from the difference of Glosses vpon the Popes Decrees, which were gathered by Gratian; and betweene the Glosse vpon the Popes Decretals, whose [Page 251] Authour was Bernardus de Buttono, is not worth a button: seeing the argument, which was vsed by Mr. S. consisted not vpon the authority which the Collectors, or Glossers had in themselues, but from the common approbation, which they receiued in the Romane Church. The matter, which princi­pally was to be insisted vpon, followeth in the next Inquiry.

An Inquiry by a logicall Racke.

38. ‘Whereas the Canon of killing of Heretickes is men­tioned among the Popes Decretals, authorized by Pope Gre­gory the ninth in my Preamble, I demaunded of M. Parsons Popes Canon; of killing of Heretiques. in this manner: Pream. p. 107. If Romish ones applying this Canon ( of niurthering their kindred, &c) against Protestants, when the Pope shall iudicially denounce them Heretickes, whether it may be called a Massacre, or no? I haue now my Mitigator vpon a Logick racke; eyther he must say, that it is no bloo­dy massacre, but Catholicke iustice: and then what shall his A Dilemma. Reader thinke of his Mitigation otherwise then of Iu­das his lippes in kissing, and yet betraying his Master? and if he hold it an excerable mischiefe, then how shall he iustifie the application of this Canon, when the Pope shall extend it against Protestants? He cannot answere directly, but he must manifest himselfe eyther a Traytor to his Country, or a preuaricator to his cause. Pream. p. 108. Yet consider how zealous P. R. is in authorizing that Canon: to what end can this be, but that Protestants, being in their opinion Hereticks, may haue al the penalties, which are awarded against Hereticks, executed vpon them (as Boucher and others defend before or at least (as P. R. holdeth) after denunciation of sentence? And consequently Protestants may bee by these Romish ones, without exception of sexs or kinred, or friendship, as it was by execution in the cruell Massacre in See Thuanus hist. lib. 52. Fraunce, and by intention in the powder-treason, vtterly consumed at once.’ Doe not these demaunds require a plaine, full, and satisfiable account? yet now marke, and maruell at his answere.

M. PARSONS his Reckoning.

WHereunto I answere, that the demand is foolish, and not Reck. pag 349. worthy the answering at all: for that the like odious de­maunds may be made about the execution of all criminall lawes. And it is a token that M. Morton is at a non-plus, when he seeketh to entertaine time in these impertinencies.

The Reueiwe.

39. At a Non-plus Mr. Parsons? surely if I were not so then, yet may I now be, but neuer for want of Argument in this case, but by reason of astonishment to see such an Aun­swere as this is, wherby any Reader (who hath any apprehen­sion of a consequence) may see and groape, and sensibly feele the beating of your rebellious pulse. For whereas the booke of the Discouery of Romish positions and practises for rebellion, was written onely to manifest in how desperate a State all Protestant Kings stood in, whensoeuer the Romish power might preuaile against them: and your Answere hereunto in your booke of Mitigation, intended wholly to mitigate the bitternesse of the obiected positions, and to asswage the iea­lousie of the State, by pretending a possibility (but yet onely a possibility) of a peaceable conuersation in this Kingdome. Yet now, where a demaund is made, whether it be not the full in­tendment and resolution of all Romish Professors, to execute your Canon of Killing Heretickes vpon Protestants, whenso­euer M. Parsons his vngodly si­lence betray­eth his whole pretence of their loyalty in the States of Protestants. an expected possibility of effectuating such an exployt, shall be offered: and when hereby being vrged and impor­tuned to giue vs a plaine and direct Answere, euen as you wil be thought not to haue iustified eyther the Massacring of Protestants in Fraunce; or that late barbarous, or rather Tray­terous and hellish Powder-treason in England; yet now wee can haue no other Answer for our satisfaction, but to say that the Demand is foolish, odious, and impertinent.

40. This Reckoning is able (I confesse) at the first to driue a man vnto a non-plus, thorow an amazement to heare so pro­digious an Answere: Yet so, that therein he may see suffici­ent [Page 253] matter (if there were none other argument in all the booke) to prooue M. Parsons (when he taketh vpon him the name of a Mitigator, and Sober Reckoner) to bee no better then the deceitfull Apothecarie, who writ Apium vpon a boxe of Opium: And what is this his concealement else, but a kind of confession, iustifying the former book of Discouery; the scope whereof was onely this, to proue the Romish do­ctrine to be a profession of Conspiracie in Protestant King­domes?

41. This matter may be illustrated by a similitude, viz. M. Parsons A Similitude. and some other are to trauell together, and their way lyeth thorow a desart, much haunted with theeues; the ho­nest man is desirous of M. Parsons his fellowship in that tra­uell, swearing vnto him that for his part he will be true vnto him, and hazard his life in resisting all violence, that shall bee offered against them in the iourney, and exacteth of M. Par­sons the like promise, saying: Sir, will you sweare to bee true vnto me likewise, or if your heart will not serue you to fight, will you promise not to betray me? and then he should heare M. Parsons answere only by calling that demaund odious, foo­lish and impertinent, might he not iustly suspect that hee had met with a treacherous companion, and forthwith desire his lesse Acquaintance?

42. So likewise the whole Controuersie, which M. Par­sons and I haue taken in hand to debate, is onely this, whether the Romanists will by Oath professe so full a league of friend­ly and Christian conuersation with Protestants in their Kingdomes, as to defend each other from forraine inuasions, and to appease and suppresse to their power, all intestine sedi­tions and rebellions against the publique State; or else, at least, not to conspire together to the cutting of throats: yet now M. Parsons answering in the name of all Romanists, will allow vs no better satisfaction, then (as we haue heard) to call the Demand odious, foolish and impertinent.

43. By this time wee haue a reasonable vnderstanding of M. Parsons his Answere, who hearing vs as it were questio­ning, and demaunding of him, saying: Sir, whether will you [Page 254] kill vs, if you had vs in your power, or no? thought it was not for his purpose to answere no, for then must hee condemne their Romish positions and practises, which haue sounded out so many allarums of warre and bloodshed; neyther durst he say yea, for then he must recant his former booke of Miti­gation, and cancell the summe of this his present Reckoning, which doth make, at least, some semblance of a peaceable con­uersation; and therefore he thought it a point of wisedome to call it foolish, as though he would teach vs to be as wise as doues,, whilst he and his Complices may remaine as innocent as Serpents. Here M. Parsons may bee serued indeede with a Nihil dicit, but such an one, which conteyneth in it an Omnia dicit, for it is all one as a confession of all the former charges of seditious doctrine, which I hane obiected against them.

44. I should passe on to that which followeth, but that I may not denie M. Parsons the due commendation of his wit, who finding himselfe plunged with the former Demand con­cerning their reall shedding and spilling of blood, dooth call this obiection impertinent, and presently diuerteth his Reader to a verball and idle contention about the difference of these two phrases Shedding and Spilling (which may be vsed pro­miscuously:) as though his question about wordes were per­tinent, and my Demaund about deedes were Impertinent.

45. ‘I added in the Preamb. p. 108. Preamble that M. Parsons affirmed the aforesaid Canon to haue beene in the Councel of Carthage, where (said I) there is no such thing to be found:’ and hereupon am called to a further examination.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

IT is most apparant, and may be inuincibly prooued against him: for Reck. pag. 351. first the Canon it selfe beginneth thus: Si quis Episcopus, &c.

The Reuiew.

46. Our question was about Shedding of blood, which was obiected as out of their Glosse. Preamb p. 106. This Glosse (said M. Parsons) or Commentary of the Canon law, is vpon a Canon beginning, [Page 255] Si quis, &c. which Canon is taken out of the Councel of Carthage: where indeede there is mention of Dis-inheriting of chil­dren, His extraua­gancie. but no word at all concerning Shedding of blood: accor­dingly as I then intended to proue, as may well appeare.

SECT. VII.

The seuenth Charge.

47. ‘NOw commeth in the citation of the Extrauag. in a general implying the Glosse, wherunto I haue Pream. p. 111. an­swered that Greg. 13. ad futuram rei memoriam, &c Gregory the thirteenth hath ratified the fore­said Glosse and Annotations, with priuiledge and authority, equiualent and answerable to the authority of the Decre­tals, and Extrauagants themselues.’ Now followeth the briefe of

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

THis is a shamelesse assertion, to say that the Glosses and Annota­tions Reckon. cap. 5. § 7 pag. 355. haue beene equally warranted by Pope Gregory, as are the Constitutions. Pope Greg 13 prefixed an Epistle before the De­cretals of Gratian with this title, Ad futuram rei memoriam, wherein he giueth license to Paulus Constabilis Magister sacri palaty to reuiewe the same, and to print it exactly, according to the Romane example. From whence M Morton would inferre, that he commanded them to be prin­ted without corruption, therefore he made them equall.

The Reueiwe.

48. The former Decree of Greg. 13. standeth thus, concer­ning Decrees, and Glosses, the Sextum, Clementines, and Extra­uagants; Which we commend (saith Pope Greg.) vnto our belo­ued sonne, to be reuiewed and allowed: And a little after: Which The authority of the Romish Glosse vpon the Decrees, and Decretals, &c. we command to be printed and published that the body of the Ca­non law may be faithfully and incorruptly printed, according to the Copie which is printed at Rome, for the better helpe of all faithfull Christians whomsoeuer. In this Constitution heere is mention of Decrees, Glosses, Sextum, Clementines, and Extra­uagants, [Page 256] where we see that Glosses doe possesse the second place: And was the Pope thus religious to prouide for All faithfull Christians, least any of them might possibly be poyso­ned with a corrupt Text, and would he not haue the like care that the Glosse should be perfect, which being false (according to the Prouerbe) doth corrupt the Text.

49. In the same Constitution Greg. saith, as followeth: We prouide that this body of the law may passe purged, sound, and safe, that it may not be lawfull for any man to adde any thing, or change it, or ioyn any interpretation vnto it: Therby forbidding only new Interpretations, for the old Glosses and Interpretati­ons do stand still warranted ioyntly with the Text and body of the Canons. If therefore the Pope thoght those Glosses men­tioned in the Constitution to be corrupt, why did he autho­rize them? if he iudged them to be perfect, how did he not authorize them? And who can conceiue any inequality in the Popes approbation of these things, seeing that both De­crees and Glosses, &c. are without any note of difference war­ranted in the same Constitution at the same time, Anno 1580. by the same power of Pope Gregory 13. and to the same end for the helpe of faithfull Christians.

50. Neuerthelesse it is an hard thing (I confesse) for any man to vnderstand precisely when, and how the thing is ple­narily and fully authorized by the Popes Decree, for in their last Councell of Sess. 4. Trent it was decreed, that there should be One authenticall vulgar Edition of the Bible, which none might presume to reiect: yet that which was called then [ The vulgar Edition] hath since that time beene twise diuersly cor­rected: The dubious authority of their vulgar Romish Trans­lation of the Bible. once by Pope Sixtus Quintus, and after by Pope Cle­ment the eight, euen with contradictory approbations. Ney­ther seemeth it vnto their owne Iesuits to be so perfect, but that they dare reprehend it: their Iesuite Mald. Ies. in Matth. 6. 5. Maldonate, saying of one place that It is to be corrected by the Greeke; the Iesuite Ribera Ies. in Heb. 4. 2. Ribera affirming of another place, that It ought to be accor­ding to the Greeke; their Iesuite Salmeron Ies. [...] Iac. 5. 16. Salmeron affirming of ano­ther place, that Without doubt this word were better left out: be­sides the diuers other corrupt peeces of that Translation, [Page 257] which, by the confession of some other Romish Doctors, haue occasioned corruption in doctrine, as Catholike appeale, Lib. 4. cap. 18. §. 3. elsewhere hath beene discouered. But M. Parsons is ready to pose me.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

IF Queene Elizabeth did approue the Printing of the English new Te­stament with Bczaes notes, did shee thereby equall the said notes with the Text of the Testament it selfe? Who would reason so, or who would goe about to abuse his Reader and himselfe, that had care of conscience or credit?

The Reueiwe.

51. This Simile is dissimile, and an vnlikely comparison, for our Aduersaries know right well, that we doe not attri­bute vnto either King or Queene that infallibility of iudge­ment, M. Parsons his frothy argu­ment. which they doe vnto the Pope; so that the dispropor­tion of this comparison appeareth herein, because we dis­cerne betweene Scriptures and the Annotations, (by whom­soeuer they be approued) as betweene the word of God, and Mans opinion. But the Romanists, who hold the iudgment of the Pope in all thinges, which he shall publikely decree for the good of all Christians, to be diuinely true, must therefore intertaine with equall faith the Decretals and Glosses, because they haue beene reuiewed and approued with the same au­thority. I hasten to heare my next Charge.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

HE was charged with adding the wordes of Apostata Princes, not Reck. pag. 357. found at all in the Glosse, yet may the matter in the Glosse be ex­tended vnto them. He also cut off the last wordes of the sentence, Nisi [...] What neede these nibblings?

The Reueiwe.

52. Nay rather what neede these iugglings, which M. M. Parsons false iuggling. Parsons vseth, who knowing that the wordes of Apostata [Page 258] Princes were not my Additions, but the Satisfact. part. 3 pag. 34. Obiection of M. Parsons owne fellow, the namelesse Authour of the Apology of the English Catholikes, cap. 5. as I did Preamb. p. 111. shew him, and he could not denie: yet doth he wilfully runne vpon the same straine, a note beyond true sobriety, especially seeing that he also confesseth that in true sense the Glosse did extend vnto A­postata Princes.

53. In the Preamb. pag. 111. 112. same place I furthermore iustified the relating of testimonies of Authours, according to their sense, without His notable fraude. the precise repetition of their wordes, by the example of their owne Pope in his alleaging of Scripture Deut. 13. but M. Parsons (which is fraude indeede) hath peremptorily con­demned me, without confutation, yea or so much as mention of that answere.

54. Finally, I was so farre from iniurying the Glosse, in hope of any aduantage, that now (considering the peruers­nesse of my Aduersary) I cannot but be offended with my selfe for loosing my best aduantage, in not expressing the In Extrauag. comm. lib. 1. de Maior. & Obed. cap. 1. Glosse to the full, because the wordes following will suffi­ciently manifest the Glosse to be (which was the matter in­tended) both sacrilegious and rebellious. As Iesus by his na­tur all right (saith the Glosse) might enter into iudgement, and pronounce the sentence of deposing an Emperour, or any other A false and bloudy Glosse in the Extra­uagants. person, so also may his Vicar, meaning the Pope. Which as­sertion is so grosly false, that their owne late and learned Do­ctors doe greatly abhorre it, as hereafter will fully appeare.

SECT. VIII.

The eight Inquiry.

55. ‘ CAmpian, Genebrard, Canisius, and diuers other Ro­mish Doctors with maine force fell vpon Caluin, and laide vnto his charge no lesse then impiety, heresie, and blasphemy, because of his opinion of [...] Bellar­mine, [Page 259] howsoeuer he condemned the phrase, did notwith­standing iustifie the meaning of Caluin,’ and iudged it to be Catholike. Which I Preamb p. 112 produced to the iust reproofe of their malice, who haue so vnconscionably traduced the doctrine of Caluin.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

I Handled this matter before: albeit Bellarmine teach, that in some Reck. pag 358. sense it may be truely said that Christ is God of himselfe, yet abso­lutely doth he condemne the speech of Caluin herein. Reck. ibidem. pag. 363. Seeing Bel­larmine condemned Caluin, quoad modum loquendi, in his manner of speech, which he proueth Hereticall by foure sorts of arguments; Why had not M. Morton so much as mentioned this condemnation by Bellar­mine, seeing it imported the matter so mightily? Which is sufficient to argue the faulty minde of the corrupter.

The Reuiewe.

56. Surely M. Parsons is a mighty Questionist: Caluin called Christ [...] Bellarmine condemned the phrase of Calum, but iustified his meaning against some Romish Do­ctors, who had wickedly imputed Heresie and Blasphemy vn­to M. Parsons his vnwise demād. Caluin his iudgment iu­stified by Bel­larmine. to Caluins iudgment: And M. Parsons asketh why I mentio­ned not Bellarmines condemnation of the phrase, as well as his iustification of the meaning? I answere, I was to deale with the kernell, and left the shell for him to exercise his teeth withall; and knowing that Heresie consisteth not in the word, but in the sense (as I haue See aboue. cap. 12. n. 27. proued) I omitted the con­tention about that word: which notwithstanding might haue beene iustified, against Bellarmine, by the equiualent Danaeus Resp. ad Bellar. con­tro. 2. lib. 20. cap. 19. phrases of auncient Fathers [...] and such like, which argue M. Caluins aduersaries to be but mighty wranglers, as hath beene more amply proued See aboue. here­tofore, where M. Parsons is found to be the corrupter not of Authours wordes, but of their confessed meanings in this point: who beeing vnable to oppose any materiall thing against me, riotteth about the omission of Hoc errore, This [Page 260] errour, albeit the question were only of This errour, and none other: and then for saying Illos, for, Illum, although I was li­censed thereunto by Bellarmine himselfe, who ioyned both Caluin, and two other Protestants, as namely Beza and Sim­lerus, together, whose iudgment in the same point he did likewise approue. So that a man would imagine, that M. Par­sons was scarce either hic, or ille, when, for want of matter of exception, he reeled vpon illos and hoc.

SECT. IX.

The ninth Charge.

THis is about the See this a­boue. cap. 12. Text of the Prophet Esay Chap. 29. vers. 9. They are blinde and make others blinde.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

I Noted him only for false alleaging, corrupting, and mangling this Reck pag. 364. place: the Reader will see my reason, by looking vpon the Text: And how little he hath beene able to say for himselfe, in iustification of his fancy, may be seene in the Chapters before mentioned, and so we passe to an other, as trifling as this.

The Reuiew.

57. M. Parsons noted me (as he saith) for false alleaging, corrupting, and mangling that text of Scripture, and hath shewne himselfe thereby a notorious malicious man, as I See aboue. cap. 12. num. 41. haue fully euicted: shewing first that I corrupted not the Text, but alleaged it as it is found in our common English translation. Secondly, prouing that the same translation is iustifiable both in wordes and sense. And whereas M. Parsons in his Mitigation did vehemently pursue me, saying, Mitigat. p. 88. I can­not easily pretermit, &c. Now in this Reckoning he is willing partly to pretermit his owne errour, calling the matter a tri­fling, as he vseth to doe, when he is deprehended in a volun­tary deceit.

SECT. X.

The tenth Charge.

THis is See this a­boue. cap. 12. num. 47. touching two wordes of some affinity, verò, and verè: whereof we haue discussed before.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

THis is also a Colewort twice already sodden, whereof I spake but a Reck. cap. 5. §. 10. pag. 365. word or two in my Treatise of Mitigation, censuring it for a trifle: and now M. Morton hath so stretched out the matter, for that he may seeme to haue some little patronage for his errour, by the later errour of an other print.

The Reuiew.

58. Now since that M. Parsons hath seene, by the last Preamble, his owne rash, vile, and slanderous accusation de­tected, he can be contented that his Reader may thinkje, that he censured me for that pretended abuse only in a word, or M. Parsons for­mer grieuous slaunder part­ly confessed and throughly discouered. two, that is, not rigorously, but remissely, as a man of sobrie­ty would doe any Trifling matter: but I, who tasted his gal cannot so easily forget the bitternesse of his inuectiue; who made his exclamation against me thus: ‘ Mitigat. p. 234 And where is now the assurance of his vpright conscience protested in his Epistle Dedicatory? Where is his simplicity in Christ Iesus? where is his naked innocence? can this be ignorance? can this be done but of a guilty conscience? what may we beleeue of all that he saith, when he seeth himselfe intangled with such foolish tre­chery?’ Thus farre M. Parsons. And couldest thou con­ceiue otherwise (good Reader) by this hue and crye, but that I had beene guilty at least of some periury or sacrilege, or blasphemy, notwithstanding now he confesseth that it is but a trifling matter, and is willing to thinke that it was vrged against me vpon a false surmise? Here we see that his trisling [Page 262] coleworts were first sodden in vinegre and gall, euen in the bitternesse of his maliciousnesse, but now he is content to mingle oyle with it, being in part ashamed of his former cookery.

59. Neuerthelesse, whereas M. Parsons hath not prose­cuted any one taxation against me, either in his former booke of Mitigation, or in this his new Reckoning with more varie­ty and virulency of wordes, then he hath done this his Tri­fling, rash, and lying slander, euery word peircing to the very soule, saying, Where is his conscience? where is his simplicity in Christ Iesus? where his innocencie? here is his guiltinesse, and M. Parsons ex­quisite fraudu­lency in coue­ring his fal­shood. here his trechery: yet now shameth not to say (as though he had not greatly vrged that point against me) that he passed ouer the matter in a word, or two. Much like as one, who af­ter he had peirced a man into his braines, and stabbed him at the very hart with many a mortall wound, should excuse himselfe, saying, I gaue him but a Trifling blow, or two.

SECT. XI.

The eleauenth Charge.

60. COncerning the doctrine of Doleman, houlding it a damnable sinne for any Romanist to admit a Pro­testant Prince vnto the Crowne. Which I haue answered, and (as I hope) satified: but yet M. Parsons hath found out some other odde endes to be reckoned for.

Mr. PAROSNS his Reckoning.

I Deny that either the true wordes or sense of Doleman was related by Reck. cap. 5. §. 11. pag 366. him, and consequently he cannot be excused from a witting false­hood.

The Reuiew.

61. Who is this that accuseth me? M. Parsons: in whose behalfe? in the behalfe of Doleman, alias, M. Parsons: for [Page 263] what? for accusing Mr. Parsons to haue held it a damnable sinne for any of his Catholiques to admit any Protestant vnto the Crowne of England: which notwithstanding was proo­ued M. Parsons de­fendeth that booke which hath beene ac­counted rebel­lious by their owne Priest. by the force of a Syllogisme, concluding thus, Ergo Dol­man, aliàs, M. Parsons held it a damnable sinne for any Romish Professour to admit a Protestant to the Crowne. But since that M. Parsons tooke a surfeit of his owne foolish Syllogisme, the consequence of Syllogismes could not wel relish in his mouth. Secondly this sense is so euident, that their owne Priests haue called that booke intituled Dolman, a Important Con­sider. in the E­pist. Dedicat. And see the like confessed aboue. Trayterous, Seditious and most infamous booke against the English State, which is so euident, that whosoeuer shall but reade that booke, may see that if M Parsons his own conscience could be heard speake, we should neede neyther the confession of their own Priests, nor the consequence of M. Parsons to make vp the conclu­sion.

SECT. XII.

The twelfth Charge.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

THis imputation was about false dealing on M. Mortons behalfe, in Reck. cap. 5. §. 12. pag. 367. setting downe in generall, that All Popish Priests doe abolish the succession of all Protestant Princes, vpon the pretence of prerogatiue in Pope and people. Wherein he is conuinced of diuers falshoods, handled before by vs, in the first Chapter.

The Reuiewe.

62. I answere, that if I haue beene iustly conuicted, nay if I haue not beene iniuriously traduced by M. Parsons in this matter, then shal I subiect my selfe vnto him, as worthy to be condemned in all. We both remit our selues vnto our See aboue. for­mer Reckoning about this point.

SECT. XIII.

The thirteenth Charge.

63. IT concerneth the testimony of Otto Frisingensis against Gregory the seuenth,

M. PARSONS his Reckoning.

WHich was alleaged quite contrary to the wordes and meaning Reck. c. 5. P. 367. of the Authour Frisingensis, so that he was enforced to lay the fault partly vpon Doctor Tolossanus, partly to abuse the testi­mony of Claudius Espencaeus, and to make him say and auerre that which he doth not, but relateth out of others. And in no one imputation hi­therto was he more grauelled then in this, as the Reader may see by turning vnto the place it selfe.

The Reuicwe.

64. I haue much cause to thanke M. Parsons for this so plaine dealing, in saying that I haue not beene grauelled hither­to in any one imputation more then in this: because hereby our Reader may more easily conceiue of Mr. Parsons his former Imputations, and thereby coniecture of them that follow, how sicke and feeble they are, by my answere vnto this: wherein I What kinde of Graueller M. Parsons is. shall shew what kinde of Grauell Mr. Parsons vseth to cast in my way; for if in this point I stand not cleare, then let our Reader holde me guilty of all the other Imputations, where­with M. Parsons hath besmeered me.

65. The summe of the Answere, which I See aboue, cap 12. Sect. 13. haue deliuered at large, is this: First that I cyted truely the testimony of To­lossanus, whom onely I pointed out in the marginall note, to be the Authour of that testimony, neyther hath M. Parsons ex­cepted against it. Secondly, that M. Parsons, with fine fraude concealed my Allegation, that thereby his imputation of fals­hood might carry the better pretence; and now since the disco­uerie [Page 265] of his craft and malignancy therein, he findeth no bet­ter euasion then to say, that my marginall cytation was not in English, as though that would be any excuse for Mr. Parsons, who vnderstandeth Latine: Thirdly, that Cl. Espensaeus dooth expresly approue the Epistle of the Priests of Liege, wherein Pope Gregory the seuenth, aliâs Hildebrand is noted and re­proued, as being the first Pope who perturbed the Emperiall States of Christendome, by presumption of deposing the Em­perour from his dignity: Lastly, that M. Parsons in this his new Reckoning, in saying that Espensaeus did not approue that Epistle, hath committed an irrecouerable vntruth, which will be vnto his conscience, as grauell would be to his mouth, vn­till he spit it out by true repentance.

SECT. XIIII.

The fourteenth Charge.

65. THe crimination, which Mr. Parsons vrged against me was this: Mitig. ca 6. n. 37. pag. 215. His wordes ( saith he) are these: ‘Pope Hil­debrand ( saith our Chronographer) was excommunicate of the Bishops of Italy, for that he had defamed the Apostolique Sea with Simony, and other capitall crimes; and then cyteth for proofe hereof, Lambertus Schaffnaburg. Anno 1077. As if this our Chronographer had related this as a thing of truth, and not rather as slanderous obiection, cast out by his Aduersaries, that followed the part of Henry the Emperour.’

The discharge.

66. My discharge Preamb. p 120 Lambertꝰ Scass­naburg. hist. [...] An. 1077. [...] sin. was taken from the wordes of Shaff­naburgensis, Which are these: After that the fame had gone thorowut Italy, that K. Henry had set foote within the coasts, All the Bishops of Italy did flocke vnto him, congratulating his [Page 266] comming, because he came with a resolute courage to depose the Pope ( to wit, Gregory 7.) Afterward he sheweth their reasons: That they feared not the Popes excommunication, whom all the Bishops of Italy for iust cause had excommunicated, who had by violence obteyned the Sea Apostolike by Symoniac all heresie, had defiled the same by murthers and adulteries, and other capitall crimes.

67. Thus the Bishops of Italy (by the testimony of Shaff­naburgensis) behaued themselues against Hildebrand, and this was the onely matter, which I proposed as worthy of proofe: ‘for as I then said, Preamb p. 120. The point now in question is, whether this Author Lambertus Schaffnaburg. did thinke that those Bishops of Italy had condemned this Pope Gregory (for whe­ther they did it iustly or vniustly, is the second question) for such crimes, or no? I haue affirmed that Schaffnaburg. was of this opinion: but P. R. denyeth it, calling my assertion impudent impiety. Let vs be iudged by the euidence of the Authour himselfe.’ Which is a plaine conuiction of M. Par­sons his slanderous dealing, who now strugleth to free him­selfe from this blot, but (alas!) as a bird in the lime, to his fur­ther intanglement.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

WHereunto I answere, that this is not the point in question, Reckon. cap. 5. pag. 376. whether Lambertus did thinke, that they had excommuni­cated him, or no? Neyther did we euer ioyne issue there­vpon, as doth appeare in my charge before set downe: though Lamber­tus is not found any where to affirme that they did excommunicate him, but onely relateth that some of his enemies in their fury, rage, and passion did obiect such things against him: but the true question is, whether Lambertus supposing such a thing had beene done, were of o­pinion, that it was iustly or iniustly, rightly or wrongfully done, for o­therwise he should impertinently be brought in for the condemnation of Pope Gregory: for so much as if he had beene wrongfully and iniuri­ously so condemned, it would haue beene more for his praise, as by the examples of S. Athanas. S. Chrysoft. and other holy men so condemned by multitudes of eyther bad, or deceiued Bishops, may appeare.

The Reuiew.

68. Doth M. Parsons know what he saith? hath not a Rea­der liberty to iustifie any thing by the actes of men, testified His meere quarrelling. by an Historian, albeit the same Historian doe in his iudge­ment condemne them? We reade of certaine Princes who accused Daniel, for transgressing the Kings commandement, in praying thrise a day vnto God, and not onely vnto King Darius (according as the King had inioyned:) had it not been lawfull for the godly Iewes of those times, to haue col­lected Dan. 6. from the report of those Princes, concerning Dani­el, that he was a deuout man, in praying vnto God? Would M. Parsons, if he had liued in those dayes, haue said that this obseruation had beene deceitfull, because the enemies of Da­niel, who were the Reporters, disliked that acte of Daniel, and did therefore accuse him to the King?

69. M. Parsons himselfe is pleased sometimes to make vse of the relations of M. Foxe, and Holinshed, when they record any matter, which may serue his purpose, neuer regarding whether they that report such things do also reproue them. But of all other men, the late Romish Apologists are they, with whom this kind of practise is most frequent and familiar, who repeat many testimonies of Authours fauouring your cause, but out of the relation of Protestant Writers; notwithstan­diug the same Protestants in the same places, doe expresly re­prooue and refute the alleaged Testimonies. Wherefore if M. Parsons will make good this part of his Reckoning, then must he allow vs a new Index Expurg. for the cancelling of the principall arguments of their late Catholique Apology.

70. When will M. Parsons vaine veine of cauelling bee spent, that we may come vnto the point? which is, whether the Bishops of Italy did oppose themsclues against Pope Gre­gory the seuenth, as hath beene said, for (by your leaue M. Par­sons) this was the issue; for the argument which I vsed in con­futation of your rebellious doctrine, was taken from the au­thority of the Italian Bishops (according to the confession of [Page 268] your Historian Lambert Schaffnaburg.) withstanding the Popes rebellious practise; and not vpon the opinion of the Reporter, in censuring the opposition of those Bishoppes.

M. PARSONS his Reckoning.

BVt he mentioneth All the Bishops of Italy; the word, A l, is frandu­lently Reck. pag 374. vrged by him, as you will see. so that scarcely hee dealeth sincerely in any thing:

The Reueiwe.

71. If I haue not dealt sincerely in this word All, then will I confesse that I haue beene guilty of insincere dealing in all the rest: I hope M. Parsons will be so good, as to acquite mee in his charge following.

M. PARSONS his Reckoning.

ALbeit these wordes be in Lambertus, Certalim ad cum omnes Italiae Reck. pag. 374. Episcopi & Comites confluebant, All Bishoppes and Earles of Italy did flocke vnto him yet that they were certaine Italian Bishops and Eatles that dwelt about the Alpes, is euident by the narration it selfe: for the very next precedent wordes, left out by M. Morton, are, Superatis asper. rupib. iam intra Italiae fines consistere, certatim ad cum omnes Italiae Episcopi. After that it was vnderstood that the Emperour had ouer­come the high rockes, and was within the borders of Italy, all the Italian Bishops and Earles flocked vnto him. And what sort of Bishops these were, he expoundeth within a few lines after, saying, Qui se iampridem ab Ecclesiasticâ communione suspenderat: they hated Pope Gregory, as him that had suspended them from Ecclesiasticall Communion And a little after setting downe the clause of suspension, especially of Clergie men, to haue beene of them whom Pope Gregory had forbid marriage, to wit, some of Lombardie about the Alpes: and though Lambert call them Ita­liae Episcopos, that is, the Bishops of Italy, yet doth he not meane all the Bishops of Italy.

The Reuiew.

72. I grant that the word Al vseth to be taken in Authors in a double signification, to wit, eyther betokening a Generality, that is, All for the most part; or an Vniuersality, that is, euery [Page 269] one, as euery scholler knoweth. M. Parsons will perswade his Reader, that I vsed and vrged the word All in the larger ex­tent: now if this may be euidently prooued to be M. Parsons both aduerse and peruerse exception against me, I suppose our Reader hereby will discerne, that if his charity and his truth be put in true ballances, they will weigh both alike, iust M. Parsons mi­serable fraude and falsity. nothing at all. For I was so farre from arguing from the word All, either vniuersally, or generally, that in reasoning from that testimony I left out the word, All, and said indefi­nitely, The Bishops of Italy. And this M. Parsons himselfe was not ignorant off, who reporteth my wordes in his Mitiga­tion, thus, Mitigat. p. 215. Gregory was excommunicate by the Bishops of Italy: And (although I could not, in repeating the testimony of Lambert, but sometimes vse his word, All,) yet in my infe­rence and conclusion I pretermitted the word, All, and was contented to say, The Bishops of Italy did excommunicate the Pope. Hactenùs de me, nunc de re.

73. The Comment which M. Parsons maketh vpon Lam­bert, by restraining the wordes, All the Bishops of Italy, vnto His fabulous figment. the Clergie men, who were married, as though all the Bishops of Italy, there spoken of, had beene married, is his owne false and fabulous figment. The case stood much alike, as if our future Historiographers, in setting downe the story of the first comming of our dread Soueraigne King Iames into En­gland, should say thus: And when that his Maiesty was arri­ued at Barwicke, and after approached towardes Newarke vp­on Trent, the Nobles of the land went to meete him for to con­gratulate his, and, in him, their owne ioy. I thinke that the Rea­der would hould it to be a fond comment to collect hereup­on, that by Nobles of the land, were therefore meant only the Northeren Lordes, because the meeting spoken off was be­yond Trent. I am almost weary with pursuing M. Parsons, he is so extrauagant, but yet I may not giue him ouer, for then I know he would insult in his slanderous vaine, as followeth.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

Mr. Morton corrupteth the Text of Lambert, by putting in Quia, for, Reck. pag. 378. Qui, and saying that the Bishops of Italy did excommunicate the Pope [ Quia] because he had defiled the Apostolike See by Simo­ny and other crimes, (as though that had beene a cause) in stead of Qui, that is, who had defiled the Apostolike See.

The Reuiew.

74. What a lustfull appetite hath M. Parsons to slander his aduersaries? For if I should say that the Iudges of England doe condemne Romish Priests [ Qui] that is, Who are found M. Parsons lust­full appetite to wrangle. guilty of treason, hath it any other sense then this; The Iudges of England doe condemne Romish Priests, [ Quia] that is, Be­cause they are guilty of treason? And that it is so in Lambert, I desire no other euidence then the very wordes of the Author himselfe, where he saith that the Pope expostulating the mat­ter, said that the Emperour and his fauourites had accused him of attayning vnto the Sea Apostolike, by Simonicall heresie, and defiled his life with other crimes. Now then whether Simony and other crimes were obiected for a, Quia, and cause of ex­communicating him, let any Reader iudge; and consequent­ly whether M. Parsons his charge of corruption, proceeded not from his owne corrupt affection. Howsoeuer, this I dare say, that the alteration of Quià was not voluntary, but acci­dental, euen as contrarily it happened vnto the Latin Romish translation in Matth. 6. v. 5. Qui amant, for, Quià amant: as their owne Iesuit Maldonat. Ies. vpon the Text. Maldonate doth confesse.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

Mr. Morton alleageth Abbas Urspergensis as writing that Gregory Reck. pag. 384. was an vsurper of the See, and intruded by fraude, &c. but urspergensis related that such words were vttered, against Pope Gregory, by the enimies of the Pope, by the commaundement of Henry in a forme of a Councel or Synode of thirty Bishops of Brixia: but that urspergensis did affirme any thing of it or approue the same, is not [Page 271] found, but rather the quite contrary: for in the very same place and page, he sheweth how these thinges were contradicted by Anselmus Bi­shop of Luca then liuing, a man (saith he) most excellent, learned, and fearing God, &c. So Urspergensis.

The Reueiwe.

75. What estimate Urspergensis had of the Papall claime, especially ouer Kinges, M. Parsons his owne conscience can tell, who hath Mitigat. cap. 2. num 46. pag. 80. called Vrspergensis a Schismaticall writer, be­cause of his opposition against the Popes vsurped iurisdiction at that time, euen as now he likewise iudgeth these thirty Bi­shops to haue beene Schismaticall, which condemned Pope Gregory the seauenth for his like vsurpation. Whether there­fore Vrspergensis meant to yeeld rather vnto the Decree of those thirty Bishops, or vnto the single testimony of Ansel­mus, I remit it vnto M. Parsons his second consideration to iudge off, after that he hath obserued that, which followeth a little after in the same Authour Vrspergensis, where he wri­teth concerning Rodulph Duke of Burgundy ( Vrsperg. quo suprà. whome Pope Gregory the seauenth, as Sigebert writeth, caused to proclaime himselfe Emperour, and to take armes against the Emperour Henry the fourth) that the same Rodulph in a battaile against the true Emperour, hauing his right hand cut off, and looking A memorable exāple of trea­sonable pra­ctise by Bi­shops. vpon it, spake vnto the Bishops who were by him, and with a sigh said; Behold my hand wherewith I plighted my faith to Henry my Lord; behold I leaue both the Kingdome and this present life; see you vnto it, who haue made me ascend vnto his throne, whether you haue ledde me the right way, who haue followed your admonitions. Afterwardes he telleth vs of the Emperours go­ing to Rome, and of the Romans yeelding vnto him, and abdi­cating Pope Gregory, because he refused to appeare before the Emperour: and in the end, In a Synode at Mentz all the re­bellious Bishops were iudged to be deposed. How will M. Par­sons like this?

M. PARSONS his Reckoning.

HE telleth vs that Seuerinus Binius confesseth, that Bishops in a Reck. pag. 385. Councell at Wormes declared Gregory the seauenth to be depo­sed; and an other at Papia to haue excommunicated him, and an other at Brixia to haue deposed him. How can M Morton cite Binius contrary to his owne iudgement, who calleth these Councels Concilia­bula, that is, factious and schismaticall conspiracies?

The Reueiwe.

76. I cited Binius, but not contrary to his meaning: This is M. Parsons deceitfulnesse: ‘for in the margent I expressed His deceitfull opposition. his meaning to the full in these wordes, Although Binius (said Preamb. p. 121. I) called these Councels Conciliabula;’ that which was to be euicted from Binius, was his acknowledgment that such and so many Assemblies of Bishops (which carried the gene­rall name of Councels) had condemned Pope Gregory. As for the censure of Binius, a late Romish Doctor of this pre­sent age, and a professed Proctor and Aduocate for that See, it ought to carry no more waight in this cause, then may the censure which Doctor Stapleton Doctr. princip. lib. 13. cap. 15. pag. 547. Stapleton vseth against the Councell of Basill, when he calleth it Conciliabulum Schismaticum, ac­cording vnto our Aduersaries guise of reiecting all other Councels, as oft as they conclude any thing against the pre­tended authority of the Pope. As for the authority of the foure Councels against Pope Gregory, we may be better dire­cted by Sigebert and Benno, and other Historiographers, who liued in or about those times of Gregory, and iustified those Councels.

THE SECOND BOOKE OF ENCOVNTER, against M. Parsons, Answering his Reckoning of olde Falshoods, which were obiected in his Booke of Mitigation: and are againe by him repeated in his sixt Chapter of his new Reckoning.

CHAP. I.

Conteining an Answer vnto his first eight charges.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

THe sixt Chapter conteineth a Recapitulation Reckon. cap. 6. pag. 392. of many manifest vntrueths, wherewith M. Morton being charged, did willingly pretermit to answer them in his last Re­plie, and thereby left a suspition that he could not answer them.

The Reuiew.
SECT. I.

1. SUspicious men are malicious, if the Pro­verbe say true, which M. Parsons (I feare) doth now verifie, who knowing that I was in hand with an The Prote­stants Apolo­gie for &c. other booke, which was of greater moment than are all his libellious Treatises, if they were [Page 2] bundelled vp in one, doth notwithstanding importune mee to turne, as it were, a porch into a palace, and make a Pream­ble a full Encounter: yet a word more of the Preamble.

M. PERSONS his Reckoning.

In his Preamble, he hath chosen out both the fewest Accusa­tions, Reckon pa. 392 and the weakest of all the rest, although hee professed to single out such as were most vehemently pressed and vrged: I thought good therefore to set downe other vntruths laied against him in my Treatise (of Mitigation) which hee hath concealed. Let vs run ouer them, if you please.

The Review.

2 With a good will, Maister Parsons, but first I would trie whether I did single out the Weakest accusations, and such as were not so vehemently pressed. A briefe Recapitulation would make a cleare Reckoning for the accusations which you then vrged, although falsly, yet fiercely thus. In the first, This is (said you) a malicious lie of a lost conscience. In the M. Parsons beginneth this second part of his Reckoning with a lauish falshood. second, thus: Is not this persidious dealing, and open treachery? In the third, He hath no conscience at all in cousening. In the rest we heare of nothing but of Egregious abusing of testimonies: of Many frauds in one quotation: of Many false trickes of a craftie Minister, of Rare singularity, and the like scarse euer obserued in corrupting a text of Scripture: of a manifest lie and cousenage: and of Where is his syncerity in Christ Iesus: of foolish treachery. In the eleuenth; How can the malicious lying Minister expect to be trusted hereafter. In the next, Consider how falsly and calumniously this Make-bate doth reason. In the thirteenth, Can any thing be morefraudu­lently alleaged. In the last, It is a fraud and impudency, or ra­ther impudent impietie; will euer any Reader credit him here­after? These and other such like Emblemes and flowers of M. Parsons his Rheterique may giue our Reader a sent and sense of his extream Vehemency, which is strong & ranck, & Proue that I singled not out his weakest Obiections, as hee [Page 3] falsly pretendeth, and as scquel of this discourse will make more manifest.

SECT. II.

M. PARSONS his Reckoning and summe of his first charge.

FOr proofe that hersie may be without obstinacy, he citeth in Recken cap. 6. pag. 393. his margent Vasquez Iesuit, whose words are, Malitia huius peccati in intellectu, non in voluntate perficitur, that is, The malice of the sinne of heresie is perfected in the vnder­standing. Which our Minister vnderstanding not, hath fondly slandered the learned man Vasquez, by making him patronize his absurd doctrine, whereas Vasquez doth expresly establish the contrary, defining heresie to bee an errour in faith with ob­stinacie.

The Reuiew.

3 I Full Satisf. part. 1. pag. 3. M. Parsons fraud. alleaged nothing out of Vasquez, but his ownesen­tence, viz. Malitia. &c. Heresie is consummated and perfected in the vnderstanding; and knowing that the formall perfecti­on of euery thing giveth the Denomination vnto the subiect, I did inferre not as his (for this indeed had beene an iniury) but as mine owne consequence, viz. that we may conclude of Heresie, as it is an error in the minde, without respect of Obstinacie, which is a peruersnesse in the will. Which liber­tie of arguing, from an Aduersaries proposition, against his conclusion, is granted vnto any, by the law of all schooles, especially whensoeuer the proposition, and conclusion may seeme to be repugnant. As for example Bellar. Ricog. operum. pa. 81. Bellarmine, in de­fence of Transubstantiation, saith that the counersion of the bread into the bodie of Christ, is not wrought by production of the bodie of Christ out of the bread, but by Adduction of the bodie vnto the bread: Some Romish Authours appre­hending this position of Adduction, did plainely conclude against Bellermine his conclusion, saying that so it shall not [Page 4] be a Transubstantiation, but a Transtocation. Playing vpon his Antecedent by their owne conscequence. Thus much for my conscience.

4 Concerning the cause I haue no way offended, but in distinguishing of Heresie, in respect of a double Court, Poli & fors, that is, of Inward before God, and outward in re­spect of the Church. And the whole controuersie then be­tweene vs being about the outward apparence of an Here­ticke, I hold, in that respect, Obstinacy to bee the propertie of an Heretike; which is, for the cause it selfe, as much as any Romanist would require. If therefore this first point haue in it (as M. Parsons saith) more difficultie than many others, layd togither, then may we prognosticate that M. Parsons will be in others manifoldly absurd, for in this first he seek­eth nothing but a knot in a rush.

SECT. III.

The summe of M. PARSONS second charge in Reckoning.

To make vs odious by seuere censuring of heretikes, he bring­eth Reckon. pa. 398. out of Azorius this sentence: If a man doubt of his faith willingly, he is certainly an heretike: but by our Mini­sters leaue Azor addeth more, He that doubteth willingly, and pertinacitèr, that is, obstinately, he is thereby an heretike. So we see the most substantiall word [ obstinately] to be craftily conueyed away, &c.

The Reuiew.

5 M. Parsons knoweth right well that I needed not to omit this word, pertinacitèr, to make his Professors odious, who multiplied other farre more odious positions than this, such as were the accounting of euery one an obstinate here­tike, that maint eineth anything contrary to the Church of Rome: together with their Bulla coena vpon Maundie-Thursday, curssing and excommunicating all heretikes (among whom [Page 5] they recken Protestants) ioyntly with all their Fauorites or His inordi­nate iangling about words. Commenders of their behauiors, which, for the odiousnesse of them, he cunningly pretermittcd, and yet noteth me of craft, for the omission of pertinacitèr. As though the defending of an vntrueth wittingly and willingly did not emphatically enough implie that it was done obstinately, according to the saving of our Sauiour Christ, in condemning the obstinacie of the lewes, notwithstanding he did say no more but How ost would I haue gathered you, &c. but you would not? Finally, because I am willing to satisfie M. Parsons to the full, if he be offended for want of pertinacitèr, let him put in his Recken­ing pertinacissimè, if he will, it shall not displease me.

SECT. IV.

The summe of the third charge of M. PARSONS Reckoning.

THe case was, whether a man comming from Couentrie, Reckon. pa. 399. which is held to be infected with the plague, which the man himselfe dwelling in a part of the citie, which is not infected, and is asked at the gate of London, whether he came from Couentrie, the Keeper intending to aske him concerning a place infected, whether he may answer No? The Questioner saith he may, M. Morton saith No, and citeth Azorius, as though he had said of this case, Nihil tàm falsum, &c. where he saith that we may not feine words of our selues in an oath without circumstances, &c. But Azorius in his third Rule; speaking of this case of a place thought to be infected, and is not, resolueth that such an answer is lawfull.

The Reuiew.

6 M. Parsons can not denie, but after that Azorius had propounded diuers obiections concerning Equiuocating clauses, whereof that of this Case was one, he doth applie vnto them two kinde of answers. The first is a generall, in the words that I did allege, Nihil tàm falsum, &c. telling vs [Page 6] that We may not feine, &c. Wherein I then insisted, and so The odds be­tween M. Par­sons and A­zorius con­cerning E­quiuocation. much the rather, because I saw there is the foundation of M. Parsons Defence of Equiuocation ouerthrowen, where Azo­rius calleth it a lie for a man, when he is demanded whether he haue any money, and hauing it shall answer, I haue it not, reseruing in his minde, to giue it vnto you; which kinde of Equiuocation M. Parsons holdeth for a truth, as you haue heard. But let vs take the Resolution of Azorius, as it is deli­uered in his third Rule, and his reason of the approbation of that case, doth confute M. Parsons ground of Equiuocating: for Azor restraineth a mans speech vnto the vse of words which are ambiguous in a sense, which the words themselues will beare. But M. Parsons alloweth such a speech of words, which haue no ambiguitie in themselues, but according to that sense, whatsoeuer it be, that the speaker shall conceiue in his minde, so that by mixtion it may make a true proposition: as for example, I haue no money, meaning, to lend it vnto you, which Azorius, as I haue often said, condemneth for a lie.

M. PARSONS his Reckoning.

The sentence, which he allegeth truly in the margent, [si ab a­liquo Reckon. pa. 402. loco peste minimè infecto, &c.] This he translateth falsly into English thus: [If he come from a place which is infected,] which altereth the whole case.

The Reuiew.

7 I durst almost sweare that M. Parsons is not perswa­ded His extreme captiousnes. that I either would, or did falsifie in this place, for the English being this: Azor answering, (concerning the place infe­cted with the plague) said, &c. which thus spoken, by the way of parenthesis, could not be false, because, as the case was propounded, the place was called infected, vz. accord­ing to the opinion of the Demander: and it was also called not infected, in the iudgement of the speaker, and therefore by either of them might haue been indifferently vsed, espe­cially [Page 7] by the way of pareuthesis. And that I would not so far transgtesse, the Margent may beare me witnesse, where­in Azorius owne expresse words are set downe.

8 But such and so great good will M. Parsons doth beare me, that he had rather produce me for a falsificator, than acknowledge the trueth of the thing, or (if it had been Escapes in Bellarmines books, wher­in the parti­cle NON is wanting. an errour) to iudge it an escape of the pen, or of the print. Therefore am I vrged to present him with a number of con­fessed escapes of Bellarmine, which abound in his sentences, euen by omissions of that kinde, against which Maister Parsons now doth so lauishly inueigh. As for example, Bellar. Recog. lastly printed. pag. 127. In whom there are two persons (saith Bellarmine) in stead of NON. &c. that is, There are not two persons. And Pag. 144. To haue doub­ted, in stead of, NOT doubted. Pag. 153. To signifie Continencie, in stead of, NOT to signifie Continency. And Pag. 159. Twice, for, NOT Twice. And Pag. 162. The wall, in stead of, NOT the wall. And, Pag. 178. It shall bee perpetuall, in stead of, It shall NOT be perpetuall. And, Pag. 185. Let it be reiected, in stead of, Let it NOT bee reiected. And Pag. 186. They might haue obeied, in stead of, They might NOT haue obeied. And, Pag. 188. If our heart shall condemne vs, in stead of, If it shall NOT condemne vs: And (not to labour vpon trifles) many such like erroneous omissions of the Negatiue NON. Which seene, I doubt not but M. Parsons will now play Ployden, and grant that such errors may accidentally happen without falsifying and iugling.

SECT. V.

The summe of M. PARSONS his fourth charge.

HE would proue out of Azorius that Equiuocating in an Reckon. pa. 403 oth is periurie, when as Azorius putteth downe many ex­amples, wherein the swearer may take an oth in his owne sense, though false in the sense of him that exacteth the oth.

The Review.

9 The diverse examples, which you name, haue beene already discussed, but there is one example, which proueth [Page 8] M. Parsons his description of Equiuocating a flar lie, and consequently periurie in an oth See aboue, lib. 1. c. 4. One may in equiuocating (said M. Parsons) reserue in his minde what it pleaseth him, so that the clause reserued do agree with his minde. If this be true, then may this Equiuocation goe for currant, viz. I haue no money (reseruing in my minde, although I know that I haue money) to giue it, for it agreeth with the minde; and is notwithstanding condemned by See aboue, Ib: Azorius for a perfect lie. Therefore wheresoeuer the outward words doe not carrie that ambiguity of sense, wherein they are vsed (for of this kinde onely we do dispute) it is, in Azorius his iudgement, to be reckoned for a lie. Yea, and so must the examples of [...] be also, if they doe not accord with his owne Rule. It might therefore haue become M. Parsons to haue spared his bitter Invectiue against me, vntill hee haue first reconci­led himselfe with Azorius.

SECT. VI.

M. PARSONS his fift charge. The summe of his Reckoning.

HIs next falshood is, in that he would prooue out of Tollet, Reckon. pa. 407. that affected ignorance doth not excuse one, but doth ra­ther argue him to be an heretike. Now all that be learned know that affected ignorance is the most culpable; but Tollet sasth that Ignorantia crassa &c, that is, Grosse ignorance doth not exeuse aman from heresie, which is different from affected igno­rance: for the grosly ignorant is when one careth not to be infor­med, but affected ignorance is when one doth purposely flie to be informed. So that besides his impertinencie, here is discouered his impundencie. This was then my conuiction against him, and was not this worthy of some consideration in his Answer?

The Reuiew.

10 Yes verily; for it is worthy a double consideration, His folly. the one is, to note heerin M. Parsons his follie, and the next [Page 9] his malice. The first, that he who hath so often bewrayed his owne grosse ignorance, both in ordinarie Grammar lear­ning and in Logike, euen then, when he made most osten­tation of his skill: should now note it for a point of im­pudencie to faile in distinguishing such subtleties of their schoole, as are, Not to care to informe a mans selfe, and, To flie to be informed.

11 But that he should stampe vpon this also the title of His malice. falshood, it argueth that he doth looke vpon his Aduersaries writings with an oculus nequam: for if any will aske M. Par­sons, whether Affected, or Grosse ignorance be worse; he will answer (as he hath done) that the Affected ignorance is most culpable. Now then, in as much as I sayd not that the Ro­manists meant to draw Protestants into the sentence and condemnation of Heresie, and consequently into their ex­treme Censures, and vengeance against them for Grosse igno­rance, which is the lesse fault, but for Affected ignorance, which M. Parsons calleth The most culpable (albeit the word, Grosse as he sheweth did allow me to aggrauate their ma­lice against vs) with what minde could he call this difference a falshood, whereof the matter it selfe freeth me so cleerely? For as I haue been but too fauourable to our Aduersaries, in lessening their malice, so haue I not been vnfaithfull to the cause, for M. Parsons will not denie this to be their doctrine, that Affected ignorance in matters of faith doth argue a man to be an heretike. Thus much for his Grosse wrangling. From Card. Tollet he proceedeth vnto Card. Bellarmine, and doth obiect Barclay by the way. I will first take this rubbe out of the way.

SECT. VII.

The sixt charge about the authoritie of calling Councels.

M. PARSONS Reckoning.

LEt any man reade the booke and chap, of Barclay, and he Reckon. pa. 410. will woonder at the impudencie of this vaunter: for he spea­keth [Page 10] no one word of gathering Councels, or comparison of spiri­tuall Barkl. lib. 6. ad­vers. Monarch. c. 26. authoritie between the Pope and Emperour, concerning their gathering of Councels or Synods, but of a quite different subiect, of taking armes by subiects against their lawful temporall Princes. And what will our Minister then answer to this mani­fest calumniation so apparently conuinced out of Doctor Barcley.

The Reuiew.

12 The Minister will answer, that M. Parsons was scarse sober, when he called either my allegation a calumniation, or his answer a conuiction: for in that place (of Full Satisfact. M. Parsons his prosu. e fraud. part. 3. chap. 10. pag. 27.) I did not produce the testimonie of Barkley for the point of Gathering of Councels, but for the generall matter of Temporall subiection due vnto Emperours by all persons. Which Argument Barkley prosecureth at large in the place alleged, being lib. 6. cap. 26. pag. 521. con­furing the common answer, which is vsed by the Roman­ists, which is this; that Although Christ, and Iohn Baptist, and other Apostles did not teach that wicked Kings ought to be remoued in the first plantation of the Church among Infidels, yet afterwards this was the doctrine, when Kings should become noursing Fathers. Their owne Barkley in the sentence which was alleged confuteth that thus: This ought to be vnto vs ( saith he) a weightie argument to know that neither any of the holy Fathers, or any orthodoxall Writer, for the space of a full thousand yeers and more (although the Church did abound with troups of armed souldiers, and the number of tyrants was great) is red to haue taught any such thing either in word or writing. Adding, concerning the times of Emperours, which profes­sed Christ, although heretically: Why did not then those ex­cellent Pastors and Fathers excite the people against Valens, Va­lentinian the yonger, Heraclius, and other wicked Princes?

13 Who yet againe in his late booke, Depotestate Pon­tificis, writing professedly against Bellarmine (by whom the Pope is held to haue a supreme power Indirectly in tempo­rall causes) doth cap. 34. argue thus: The Pope hath not now [Page 11] greater power ouer temporall Princes than he had before he was a temporall Prince: but before he was a temporall Prince he had no temporall authoritie any way ouer Kings, therefore now he hath no such power any way ouer them. This Confession of their Barkley must needs choake the Romish vsurpation. By which my Reader may obserue the impotencie (I for­beare to quit him with his owne word of impudencie) of this calumniation, and his notable falshood, in dissembling the opinion of Barkley. Now we come to Card. Bellarmine.

M. PARSONS his Reckoning.

He vseth heere afarre greater immodestie, or rather perfidie, Reck. pag. 413. in mine opinion.

The Reuiew.

14 These are fearefull termes: Will you stand to them? Let vs then trie your exceptions which concerne first words, and then matter; but first let vs examine the materi­als, the summe whereof followeth.

The summe of M. PARSONS Reckoning.

The drift of Bellarmine is wholly against M. Mortons as­sertion, Reck. ibid. for that he denieth that euen the Emperour had any spirituall authority for calling of Councels, but onely that they could not well in those dayes be made without them, and that for foure seuerall causes. The first: because the old Imperiall lawes made by the Gentiles were then in vse, whereby all great meet­ings of people were forbidden, for feare of sedition, except by the Emperours knowledge and licence. The second, because the Em­perors being then Lords of the whole world, the Councels could not be made in any city, without their leaue. The third, for that the Councels being made in those dayes by publike charges and contributions of cities, and especially of Christian Emperours themselues, it was necessarie to haue their consent and approba­tion [Page 12] in so publike an action. And the fourth and last cause, for that in those dayes, albeit the Bishop of Rome were head in spiri­tuall matters ouer the Emperours themselues, yet in temporall affaires he did subiect himself vnto them, as hauing no temporall state of his owne, and therefore acknowledging them to be tem­porall Lords, he did make supplication vnto them, to command Synods to be gathered by their authoritie and licence. But since those times (saith Bellarmine) Omnes iste causae mutatae sunt All those causes were changed, The Pope himselfe being now a temporall all Lord also, as other Kings and Princes are, which was brought to passe (saith he) by Gods prouidence, that he might haue more freedome and libertie to exercise his Pastorship.

The Reuiew.

15 This relation of M. Parsons is very true, and my drift was only to shew how that Popes were anciently subiect in temporall matters, which is Bellarmins flat assertion: where­in then haue I abused his meaning?

M. PARSONS Reckoning.

Let vs consider the varietie of sleights and shifts, which this Reckon. ibid. our Minister hathvsed, first hauing said that generall Councels were not gathered without the Emperours cost, he addeth pre­sently of his owne [and with their consent,] which is not in the Latine.

The Reuiew.

16 I will not trouble M. Parsons his patience with any M Parsons grosse fals­hood. quittance of like language, although I am often prouoked therunto by his rigid and vnconscionable taxations, where­of this must needs be one. For the Latine words of Bellarm. are these: Bellar. lib. 1. de Cont. c. 13. §. Habemus ergo. Non poterant aliquid facere inuito Imperatore, that is, They (viz. the Popes) could doe nothing without the Emperours consent. Yet this deuout olde man feareth not to [Page 13] say that I added these words of mine owne, albeit he himselfe confesseth the necessitie that then was to haue the Empe­rours consent. This is my kinde Reckoner. But let him proceed.

M. PARSONS his Reckoning. Reckon. ibid.

Then he cutteth off the cause of the Popes subiecting them­selues in those daies, touching the temporality, which was, because they had no temporall state of their owne.

The Reuiew.

17 I alwaies thought it lawfull for mee to make vse of an Aduersaries confessed conclusion, such as this is ( Popes were Plaine 'iang­ling about words. formerly subiect vnto Emperours) without the expressing of his causes, especially seeing that the causes (whatsoeuer they were) are likewise confessed to haue beene since chan­ged. Was little Dauid to blame for cutting off Goliah his head, with Goliahs his owne sword, because he did not first tell what mettall was in it, and who was the maker there­of? Ridiculous. And as fond is his next exception.

M. PARSONS Reckoning.

Bellarmine said that Popes made supplication to the Em­perors, Reckon. ibid. to command Synods to be gathered, which T. M. transla­teth that they [would gather] Synods; as though Bellarmine did affirme that Empersrs had right to doe it.

The Reuiew.

18 As though Emperors may not bee said to doe that, which they commanded to be done: Iosuah commanded the Tribes of Israel to be assembled, and yet it is Iosh. 24. 1. M. Parsons manisold ab­surdities. written that He assembled the Tribes of Israel. Or as though the Empe­rors had not right to doe that which the Pope did by Sup­plication [Page 14] intreat him to doe. This were to reach the Pope The power of gathering of Synods. a boxe on the eare. Or as though Bellarmine did absolute­ly denie that Emperors had any right to gather Councels, who saith that it cannot be denied but that Tortus aliâs Bellarminus, in Resp. ad [...] pag. 144. In Concilys gene­ralibus indicendis, &c. that is, That the Emperor had some au­thority in appointing of generall Councels, and that sometimes They were gathered by Emperors. Or as though Bellarmine: (in denying that the Emperour hath chiefe power heerein) might not be confuted by a Doctor of the same chaire, Card. Card. Cusanus Concord: Cath. lib. 2. cap. 25. Cusanus confessing in expresse tearmes that The first eight generall Councels were gathered by Emperors; but the Bishop of Rome (like as did other Patriarks) receiued the sa­cred command to wit of the Emperors) to come vnto the Synods. Thus doth M. Parsons his impotent calumniation vanish into a fancie which (if he should spie in an other) hee would call a phrensie.

M. PARSONS Reckoning.

Then where Bellarmine saith, Omnes istae causae &c. All Reckon. pag. 414. these causes were changed, he fraudulently cut off the particle, [ istae, These] which includeth areference vnto these foure cau­ses, as though all causes and matters were now changed.

The Reuiew.

19 If I would be as captious as M. Parsons vseth to be, I could tell him he must goe to the schoole againe to learne to M. Parsons his carping veine. English Istae: which signifieth Those and not These: but I will not imitate him in trifling. To the matter: There were but foure causes which Bellarmine did, or could note for the Change of the Popes Subiection, and euery one of Those, hee saith, were changed; doth he not therefore say that All cau­ses were changed? If M. Parsons shall say that his horse is lame of his foure feete, and heare some by stander confirme A similitude. it, saying, that indeed his horse is lame of All his feet, hee would not (I suppose) thereupon call him a fraudulent fel­low, [Page 15] seeing that All the feet his horse hath are but foure, for I will not imagine that Maister Parsons his horse is a monster? I will now cease to insist any longer vpon these his foolish wranglings.

20 The cause standeth thus: wee see that Popes then an­ciently A strange change in pa pall presump­tions. acknowledged Subiection vnto Kings in a maine point, which is, authority of Commanding a Councell to bee gathered: but now (as it is confessed) the case is changed. Then Christian Emperours were humbly intreated to lend their helpe: now they are imperiously commanded. Then they obeied them in Temporal affaires: since they challenge authority to Depose them, which as their Barckley maintain­eth is contrary vnto the disposition & the Doctrine of the Christian Church, both in, and long after Times of the Apostles. From Bellarmine he holdeth it not amisse to passe to the Iesuit Salmeron.

SECT. VIII.

The summe of the seuenth charge of M. PARSONS his Reckoning.

MAister Morton will needs shake Salmeron by the sleeue, Reckon. page 415. and shew him a tricke of his art, telling vs that he allowed that the King was supreme in [spirituall] affaires and ordering Priests: citing Salmeron for proofe heereof; which is not ably false, for Salmeron prooueth the quite contrarie.

The Reuiew.

21 Heere I am constrained to shake M. Parsons by the M. Parsons notable fals­hood. sleeue, and tell him in his eare that hee hath plaied me a feate of that art, which he calleth not ably false; by opposing vnto me the sentence of Salmeron, concerning the authority of the Kings of the old Testament In spirituall affaires, and a­gaine, in spirituall matters: seeing that the title of that Que­stion, concerning the authoritie of Kings ouer Priests, was in the very Ful Satisfact. part. 3. pag. 2. place now obiected expresly, and noted only [Page 16] to be In ciuill causes, and not in spirituall affaires. Is not this indeed a notable falshood? But he will still be like himselfe.

M. PARSONS Reckoning.

Summarily thus: Whereas Salmeron said by supposition, Reckon. ibid. vbiid euenisset, If it had happened that Kings had prescribed some things vnto Priests, it had beene no maruell, for so much as the Synagogue was earthly: which supposition the Minister left out, that he might more cunningly shift and auoid it.

The Reuiew.

22 I will not contend with M. Parsons about the words, vbi id euenisset, to examine whether it signifie, by way of supposition, If it had happened; or without supposition, Whereas it had happened, seeing it may indifferently carrie both senses. The question is, whether Salmeron (whom M. Parsons commendeth for a learned man, who hath writ many volumes, and was one of the first tenne of the order of the Iesuits) did suppose onely, and not affirme that Kings in the old law had supreme authoritie ouer Priests, or no? Who can better decide this contention than Salmeron himselfe? First looke to the same place, and he saith in the words following; Salmeron. Ies. Part. 3. Disp. 12 in epist. Pauli in genere. §. Sed contrà. Itaq cùm populus &c. Seeing that the people of God doth consist of a bodie and of a soule, the carnall part in the old Te­stament had the chiefdome, and was so appointed for signification of spirituall things. A little after, speaking of the olde Te­stament; The law (saith hee) is abolished, and the subiection of Whether the Prince or the Priest was supreame in the law of Moses. Priests vnto Kings. These termes exceed the degree of supposition.

23 But howsoeuer Salmeron may seeme to reele, and stagger in that place, both by Supposing, and by affirming; by doubting, and yet by concluding, notwithstanding if M. Parsons had had a desire to know the resolute, & determinate iudgement of Salmernon in this point, hee might haue easily vnderstood this expresse sentence of Salmeron. Salmeron. Ies. Tom. 12. Tract. 63. pag. 428. §. Sed nunc. Nunc omis­sâ. [Page 17] &c. That is, Now omitting the spirituall power (saith hee) in the law of nature, or in the law of Moses, which was lesse in the M. Parsons flatly confu­ted by Sal­meron. old Testament, than is the Regall and Kingly, and therefore the high Priests were subiect vnto Kings, as also among the Gen­tiles &c. Let M. Parsons ponder this sentence, and he shall finde that this his learned man Salmeron, one of the first tenne of M. Parsons his order, doth confute many score of Iesuits, who since haue held the contrarie; This also sheweth how absurdly ignorant M. Parsons is of the iudgement of Sal­meron. I am almost tired with his verbosities, and verball skirmishes, and therefore hauing obteined the cause, I passe ouer his canuasse of the word Synagoga, and the other of Po­pulus Dei, and proceed vnto the Materials.

CHAP. II.

Conteining an Answer vnto other eight charges.

SECT. I.

The summe of the eight charge of M. PARSONS his Reckoning.

OUt of Salmeron, and Carerius patched together he Reckon. pag. 420. maketh this Romish pretence, that the old Testa­ment was a figure of the new in Christ, & that ther­fore the spiritual power (as Popedome) must be the cheife, or substantiue &c. and answereth, calling this rather ba­bish Grammar, than sound Diuinity, and saith that the earthly elements were figures of the spirituall and he auenly things in the eternall and celestiall Hierusalem: Will he therefore conclude by sound Diuinity, that it was not a figure of things vpon earth, which should be fulfilled in the new Testament? Was not Manna a figure of the Eucharist, and Circumcision a signe of our Bap­tisme? And Saint Paul. 1. Cor. 9. applieth that of Deut. 25. Thou shalt not muzzell the mouth of the Oxe, that laboureth, vnto Preachers maintenance of the new Testament. and 1. Cor. 10. All these things happened vnto them in figures.

The Review.

1 I answere, that some of these Instances were ceremoni­al, Ceremonies of the old law how figures of the new. and some examples of Gods extraordinarie punishments. For the first, I denie not, but that Circumcision, Manna, and the Rock were types, and had analogie with the Sacraments, which are antitypa, and both conspire together in one Christ, as the archetypon of all, and therefore both are spirituall: for the which cause the Apostle sheweth of the Israelites that they in their Elements 1. Cor. 10. Eate the same spirituall meat, and dranke the same spirituall drinke, meaning Christ; which was, as S. Augustine expoundeth it, The same which we do, name­ly Christ.

2 The second, concerning the Oxe, had the same mo­rall equitie in the old law, for the maintenance of the Priests & Leuites, as it hath now in the Ghospel for the Preachers. And as touching the third, we may say that the diuerse mi­raculous iudgements of God in former time vpon Fornica­tors, Murmurers, and Idolaters in Israel, are figures vnto the after-Christian world, that if wee finde not the like visible vengeances. yet are we taught to make true consequences from them, to wit; that if we dwell securely in like sinnes, al­though we feele not the like outward plagues, yet wee shall be sure to bee tormented in the end, because the God, who hath beene iust visibly, will bee euerlastingly iust, to punish transgressions and sinnes.

3 In the next place hee exaggerateth this difference of translation, to wit, The old Testament is a figure of the new in Christ, in stead of this (as M. Parsons will haue it) The earthly kingdome (of the Iewes) was a shadow of the spirituall gouernment, that was in the Church of Christ. Both which are no more disferent, in effect, than figure and shadow, for M. Parsons confesseth that the proposition is true, that The old Testament was a figure of the new in Christ. The next ex­ception is of some importance.

M. PARSONS his Reckoning.

There followeth in the Consequent or second proposition ( that Reckon. pag. 422. therefore in the new the popedome is the substantiue) which is no lesse corruptly inferred in our name; than was the Antece­dent affirmed: for that we do not inferre, nor yet the Author Carerius in the said second Prop. or Consequence by him allea­ged, that forsomuch as the old Testment is a figure of the new, therefore in the new the Popes spirituall authority is the sub­stantiue &c. For that this were a weake inference, as euery man seeth. Nay Carerius maketh no inference at all in this place by him alleaged, but only vseth that similitude which before you haue heard, of the Sunstantiue and Adiectiue.

The Reuiew.

4 What is this? doth not Carerius make that Inference M. Parsons his egregions vntruth. M. Parsons? yea and doth he not make any inference thereof at all? Thus you haue written, but with what conscience? For Carerius propounding this position, by way of obiecti­on, viz. Carerius depotestate Rom. Pont. lib. 2. in [...] & cap. The Pope hath not, by the law of God, any temporall power, nor can he command secular Princes; a ground of which position was this, That one and the same person cannot be both a Politicke and Ecclesiasticall: this foundation hee la­be la­boureth to confute by many examples of the old. Testa­ment, from the which he concludeth thus: Hinc inlege, &c. Hence (we see) that in the old law the Kingdome was the Sub­stantiue, and the Priesthood the Adiectiue: but in the new law of the Ghospell Priesthood is the Substantiue, and the kingdome is the Adiectiue. Which is brought in to prooue, that the power Politike, as the Adiectiue, & the Power Ecclesiasticall, as the Substantiue may be both in one man. And is not this an Inference? And thereby further intimating, that as in the old the Temporall was the Substantiue, that is, the superior; so vnder the Gospell the Ecclesiasticall is the Substantiue, and superiour. And is not this That inference which I speake [Page 20] of; And finally the speciall drift of that booke of Carerius lib. 2. de potestat. Pont. c. 9. p. 127. Careri­us is nothing else but to establish a Monarchicall power of the Pope both spirituall, and temporall throughout the world.

SECT. II.

The ninth charge of M. PARSONS his Reckoning.

THere followeth against Dolman a like sleight.

The Reuiew.

5 Dare Dolman yet againe shew his face? Quod lib pa. 152. & 288. Which booke M. Parsons made (saith their Priest) and is a seditious booke, most trecherously intitling the Infanta of Spaine to the English crowne. Could M. Parsons so often countenance this Tro­iane horse except he had meant to play the part of a Sinoni­call dissembling Mitigator? But to the point.

The summe of M. PARSONS charge.

He alleaged Dolman to say, that the Commonwealth hath Reckon. pa. 424. authority to chuse a King, and to limit him lawes at their pleasure. Which if it were truely alleaged, yet is there not heere any mention of people, or Democratical state, but only of the Com­mon-wealth, which includeth both the Nobility and people. Se­condly Dolman speaketh not of chusing a forme of gouernment, Dolman. part. 1. pag. 13. be it Democraticall or other, but speaketh (as by his words we see) of a power of a Common-wealth that is deuoide of any cer­taine gouernment, to chuse them what forme of gouernment they like, with limitations they thinke most expedient.

The Reuiew.

6 Vpon this his conceit he complaineth of Falshoods both in alleaging the words of the Author, which are not in him, and [Page 21] also in inferring from them, which the words themselues will not M. Parsons his childish exceptions. beare. First of the words. Dolman said, The Common-wealth hath power to chuse her gouernment, I said, To change her King. If she can change her Gouernment, may not she alter her Go­uernour? And Dolman saith in the margent of the same place, that The Common-wealth limiteth the Gouernours authority. And is not a King a Gouernour?

7 Concerning the sense M. Parsons seemeth to perswade vs that Dolman (that is, M. Parsons himselfe) did allow vn­to M. Parsons wilfull igno­rance in his owne books. a Common-wealth onely a power to chuse a gouernment, and not to depose a Gouernour. Is he not like to bewray his ignorance in reading other mens bookes, who is thus vnskil­full in his owne? For in his Dolman we read, that Dolman. lib. 1. c. 3. P. 32. The Com­mon-wealth hath authority not onely to put backe a new Inheri­tor vpon lawfull considerations, but also to dispossesse them that haue beene lawfully put into possession. And againe, Pag. 38. The Com­mon-wealth (saith he) may cut off their heads, if they infect the rest. Heere M. Parsons plaieth the nimble Barber, and can teach people to polle the heads of Kings. It is no maruell why his owne fellow exclaimed against this booke, calling it Trecherous, as though he had sentenced the Authour to be woorthy to haue his head shauen for his doctrine. As for the word, Democraticall, which M. Parsons misliketh, I would but aske whether euery Common-wealth were not inclu­ded, where Common-wealth in general was expressed? After this he returneth vnto Carerius his Paduan Doctor, whom I propounded as affirmmg that Full satisf. part. 3. pag. 2. The high Priest of tho old Te­stament was Suprema in ciuill causes.

SECT. III.

The summe of the tenth charge, of M. PAR­SONS his Reckoning.

HE maketh Carerius say, that The high Priest was Supreme Reckon. p. 426. in ciuill causes, which words, Ciuill causes, he putteth in of Lib. 2. de po­testate Rom. Pont. c. 18. his owne: for Carerius hath them not either in words, or sense, but teachcth the plaine contrary in all his discourse, to wit, that [Page 22] he meaneth, in matters belonging vnto religion and Priest hood, and not of temporall Principality, or ciuill causes, as this Mini­ster doth beue him: Neither could Carerius meane so, except he should be contrary to himselfe, and therefore that clause was per­fidiously thrust in by the Minister, &c.

The Reuiew.

8 Except M. Parsons had a dispensation to traduce his Aduersary by wilfull vntruthes, I would not thinke that he could deale thus vnconscionably: the matter is, whether Carerius named, or meant that the Priests of the old law had a superiority ouer Kings in Ciuil matters. M. Parsons denieth it, I haue affirmed it, and shall now demonstrate it out of Ca­rerius. M. Parsons his egregi­cus and open falshood. And because M. Parsons calleth to witnesse All the discourse of Carerius, I shall craue so much leaue of my Rea­der, as to suffer me to passefrom the fountaine downe the ri­uer of this discourse.

9 Carerius in his booke ca. 9. laieth downe this position, that Carerius lib. 2. de postate Rom. Pont. cap. 9. The Pope hath by diuine law most full power throughout the world, Tùm in rebus Ecclesiasticis, tùm in Politicis, that is, both in Ecclesiasticall and Ciuill things. And concludeth the Chapter in the same tearmes of Both in Ecclesiasticall and Ci­uill things. And this is the expresse and direct subiect of that discourse, which he laboureth to prooue (professedly against Ballarmine) from Canonists, from Decrees of Popes, from Reasons, vntill he come to the 13. chap. concluding therein, as before, that The Pope hath power ouer the whole world in Ecclesiastical and Ciuil matters. Carerius lib. 2. cap. 18. He pursueth the same point vnto the 18. chap. wherein we now insist, where he seeketh to remooue an Obiection, which was made against his for­mer conclusion of the Popes authority in Ecclesiasticall and Ciuill matters. The obiection is this Ib. num. 13. The Kings of ludah did depose the Priests, Ergo, The Emperour may depose the Pope. Marke now (good Reader) the answers of Carerius. His first is, that In the old Testment the iurisdiction Ecclesia­sticall and Ciuill were both one, and was gouerued by the King, [Page 23] who had power ouer Priests to put them to death. This, you will say, is contrary to my assertion; it is true, I consesse it: but now heare his last answer in the same Chapter. There (as though he would recant the former, and be contrary to himselfe) he thus assirmeth. I say (saith he) that euen in the old Testment the high Priest was aboue the King, which I proue out of Num. 27, where it is sayd that at the word of the high Priest Iosuah the Prince and all the people was to go in and out. The obiection being concerning both Ecclesiasticall and Ciuill power of the high Priest, and that the King might put him to death (a ciuill censure): The answer being of the Prin­ces and peoples going in and out (ciuill acts): and the whole scope being about Ecclesiasticall and ciuill matters, M. Par­sons must, to his owne shame, necessarily acknowledge that I haue not been contrary vnto Carerius, but Carerius hath been contrary to himselfe. To this Paduan Doctor M. Par­sons joyneth a Dominican.

SECT. IV.

The summe of the eleuenth charge of M. PARSONS his Reckoning.

VIctoria (saith M. Morton) saith that Priests, besides that Reckon. pa. 428. Victoria Relect. 1. de potestate [...] §. 7. and not the 4. as it is al­leged by M. Parsons. they are Ministers of the Church, they are likewise mem­bers of the Common-wealth, and a King is aswell a King of the Clergie, as of the Laitie, therefore the Clergie is subiect in tem­porall things, for such a matter is not ruled by any power spiri­tuall. Aplaine demonstration. So he. And so I say, it is a plain demonstration, but of M. Mortons falshood and abusing the Reader, to make him belecue that Victoria fauoured him in this matter of the exemption of Priests, whereas in the very place heere cited Victoria saith that Ecclesiasticiiure exempti sunt, that is, Ecelesiasticall men are by law exempted and freed from the ciuill power, so as they may not be conuented before a se­cular Iudge either in criminall, or ciuill causes.

The Review.

10 I haue called my proofe, taken out of Victoria, a plaine [Page 24] demonstration, to consute the now pretended Romish ex­emption of Priests, which M. Parsons calleth a plaine de­monstration of my falshood, as though I had abused the sen­tence M. Parsons his grosse slander. and sense of Victoria: wherein if M. Parsons haue dealt iustly, then thinke (good Reader) that he can not doe me an iniurie. I shall easily acquit my selfe both by the euidence of the place of Victoria, and by the confession of their owne Doctour, in his like exposition of Victoria. First, the text standeth thus: Victor. Relect. 1. § 7. Prop. 4. The persons of Clergie-men (saith Victoria) are not altogether, nor in all things exempted from the ciuill power, neither by humane, nor by diuine lawes. And after, in The excem­ption of Priests. the Prop. 8. If the libertie of Clergie-men (saith he) were to the manifest destruction of a Common-wealth, so that Ecclesia­sticall persons should riotously worke the slaughter of Laicks, and the Pope would not remedie it, then secular Princes might pro­uide for the good of their Laicks, notwithstanding the priuilege of the Clergie.

11 This is so contrary vnto the claime that the now Pope hath made of a power to exempt Ecclesiasticall persons, notwithstanding the contrarie opposition of Magistrates, that their owne Doctor (in his Defensio Marfilij ad­uers. Bellar. c. 3. §. Pri­ma prop. confutation of Bellarmine about this point) doth produce the iudgement of many scholasticall writers, as Ibidem, §. Pro tutela. namely, Medina, Couarruuias, So­tus, Victoria; vnto whom (which is our second point) he ad­ioineth himselfe; who, although he say it is lawfull to ex­empt the Clergie; yet doth he not defend an absolute neces­sitie. And thus the Argument proueth to be a Demonstration of M. Parsons his ignorance. Another Demonstration of his idlenesse hee will giue himselfe in his next Addition: the summe wherof followeth.

M. PARSONS his Reckoning.

We shall further finde so many monstrous corruptions, inter­missions, Reckon. p. 1. 429. and geldings, as is a shame to behold: for whereas Vi­ctoria saith that Clergie-men aliquo modo subjiciuntur Re­gi, that is, in some sort are subiect to the King, he leaueth out [Page 25] these words, In some sort: And instead of saying that Clergie­men, for so much as appertaineth vnto temporall affaires, are not gouerned by Ecclesiasticall power, he saith: that the Clergie is subiect to ciuill authoritie in temporall things, for such matter is not ruled by any spirituall power: whereby hee would haue his Reader to imagine, that no spirituall power may haue authoritie to gouerne temporall matters.

The Reuiew.

12 I did effectually enough translate the words, In some His veine of contentious­nesse. sort, when I expressed the sort to be In temporall things, and not in spirituall. In the second place, if the other two trans­lations be compared, I thinke the Reader shall finde that as much may be collected out of M. Parsons his translation as out of mine; which maketh me partly to take vp the O­rators complaint, who was affraid to deliuer an Oration to the vulgar people, Because (saith he) they will not vnderstand the meaning; or to the learned, for they will vnderstand more than is meant. I may reckon M. Parsons among the learned sort, for sure I am that I intended not any such perswasion. From priuate Doctours he thinketh good to passe vnto an Archbishop and Martyr, Boniface.

SECT. V.

The summe of the twelfth charge of M. PARSONS his Reckoning.

THe Canon, as it is alleged by M. Morton, is this, [Though Reckon. pa. 432. a Pope should carrie many people with him into hell, no man may presume to say, Why do you so?] I maruell with what con­science, or if not conscience, with what forehead at least, these men can write things, which they know, or may know to be meer­ly false and forged? Is not this a signe of obstinate wilfulnesse, and that neither God nor trueth is sought for by them, but only to maintaine a faction, with what sleight and falshood soeuer.

The Reuiew.

13 What is that whereof M. Parsons his head is so full, that he should require a fore-head in his Aduersaries? Heere is a Parturiunt montes, we shall see many ridiculous mise by and by. The first followeth.

M. PARSONS his Reckoning.

M. Morton citeth the Canon of Gratian, Si Papa, in the Reckon. pag. 432. name of Pope Boniface, in stead of Boniface a Martyr, who was neuer Pope, but a vertuous learned Englishman, who liued 850. yeares agone, and was Arch-Bishop of Mentz in Germany. Which escape; besides the ignorance, tasteth also of much profane malice and impiety.

The Reuiew.

14 Can there be any thing spoken in preiudice of any Pope, which will not prooue vnsauoury in M. Parsons his palate? If I haue erred in mistaking the Inscription of Gratian, you might the more easily pardon me, knowing that Gratian himselfe is charged by your owne Epist. Tara­con. De emend. Grat. Dial. 1. pag. 5. Bishop for applying false inscriptions to the testimonies which he alleageth. But let vs take him for that Boniface the Martyr, and not Boniface the Pope, yet hath this Canon beene alwaies allowed by many Popes: and what difference of iudgement can there be in an Author, and in an authorizer of any worke? Neither may any hold it an Impiety, to except against the saying of The Martyrs haue beene men of im­perfection. some Martyrs, for diuers Martyrs haue not beene without the tincture of some errours, otherwise S. Cyprian should not haue held vntill this day the title of a Saint. Victorinus erred in the question concerning the state of soules, and is therfore taxed by Cardinall Bellarmine, who saith that Bellar. l. 1. de beat. Sanct. c. 5. §. His adde. Victorinus was a Martyr, yet (as S. Hierom saith) he wanted learning. How will this answer of S. Hierom, and Cardinall Bellarmine [Page 27] relish with M. Parsons: must both these also be noted of Im­pietie? See the next.

M. PARSONS his Reckoning.

The Summe. He sheweth from the Canon, that the Pope is Reckon. ibid. not to be reprehended, &c. but concealeth that the same Canon pronounceth damnation vpon such a negligent Pope: and that such a one is to suffer eternall punishments.

The Reuiew.

15 I was onely to prooue what prerogatiue was ascribed vnto the Pope in this life which was, Non iudicandus, nisi à fide deuius: it concerned me not to tell that a wicked Pope must be iudged and condemned after this life, whereof none can doubt, but an Atheist. Yet more.

M. PARSONS Reckoning.

In repeating the Canon thus: [No mortall man shall, or may Reckon. ibid. presume to reprehend him] there he endeth; in which short there are many fraudes; for first he leaueth out, istîc, heere in this life: then praesumit, doth presume, he translateth, may presume: and lastly he leaueth out the reason, because the Pope is not to be iudged.

The Reuiew.

16 That is to say, I would not imitate M. Parsons in idle M. Parsons many idle im­pertinences. and impertinent superfluities: for he that saith, No mortall man may presume to reprehend a Pope, must needes vnderstand in this life, except M. Parsons haue some diuine power and commission to send a Mortall man (for in heaven there is not any reprehensible) to reprehend some Pope in hell. Thus much of the first fraud.

17 The second is as childish: for the sentence is, as M. Parsons calleth it, a Canon; and the propertie of a Canon is [Page 28] directory, prescribing what may, or may not be done; and the next words explaine the meaning, The Pope must not be iudged. This sheweth M. Parsons his follie. The third is yet more friuolous, for the assertion being nought, the rea­son cannot be good, which is this: The Pope cannot be iud­ged, which conclusion hath been condemned by their coun­cell of Constance, and of Basil, both which held that Popes are subiect vnto the iudgement of a Councell euen for maners. These former exceptions, were but little my se: now the great one leapeth out.

M. PARSONS his Reckoning, summarily.

But the greatest corruption, which most importeth the simple Reckon. pag. 435. Reader, is this, that he translateth the former sentence thus: Though hee should carrie many people into hell, yet no mortall creature may presume to say, Why doe you so? But in the Latine, neither in the Canon it selfe is there any such in­terrogation at all, as why doe you so? And therefore I may aske T. M. why doe you lie so? Or why doe you corrupt your Author so? Or why doe you translate in English, for the abusing of your Reader, that which neither your selfe doe set downe in your Latine text, nor in the Canon it selfe, by you cited, hath it at all? Is not this wilful and malicious fraud? Wherein when you shal answer me directly and sincerely, it shal be a great discharge of your credit with those, who in the meane space will iustly hold you for a Deceiuer. I find the same obiected by Sir Francis Ha­stings and afterward by Mathew Sutcliffe, but I find the same confuted at large by the Warnwoord. Pag. 432.

The Reuiew.

18 And I must tell M. Parsons, that seeing the Canon M. Parsons his wyld reto­rique. doth not allow Any mortall man to reprehend a Pope in this life, except he deflect from the faith; consequently it will not permit a man to say, in way of reproofe, Why do you so? As euery Barber, Baker and triuiall man knoweth, by the com­mon [Page 29] phrase of speech: and therefore I may well eccho a­gainst M. Parsons, and say, Why doe you trifle so? Why do you riot so? Why do you rage so?

19 But it may seeme that M. Parsons is thus earnest, be­cause His zeale for the Pope without knowledge. he thinketh it would be no small staine to their Pope, if hee should bee knowne either to say, or to allow any to teach that None may reprehend the Pope, saying, Why do you so? Oh fie! this is more than euer M. Parsons heard of. I would therefore intreat this our great. Doctor to turne his eye vnto the Glosse vpon the Extrauagants, where it is said, in the behalfe of Popes dispensation, Extrauag. de Concess. Tit. 4. cap. 2. Nec est qui au­deat dicere, Domine, cur it à facis? that is, Neither is there any, that dare say, Why doest thou so? Where (as though this point M. Parsons his grosse ig­norance, or else peeuish malice. were worthy the sight of al passengers) there standeth in the Margent as it were a finger pointing vnto it, saying, Let no man say to the Pope, Domine cur it à facis? My Lord, why doe you so? Therefore must I aske you once againe, Why deale you so rashly, in writing you know not what? or, in obiect­ing malice in such a matter, why doe you reproach mee so maliciously?

20 Furthermore, because I finde M. Parsons making mention of Sir Francis Hastings, and of his owne booke of Warnwoord, I must furthermore bee so sawcie as to pull him once againe by the sleeue, and aske him by way of digressi­on whether he be not the man that denied that this salutati­on, [ Dominus Deus Papa] is found in the Glosse of some Canonist?

SECT. VI.

M. PARSONS his Warn-woord, against Sir Francis Hastings his Wast-woord, con­cerning, Dominus Deus Papa.

SIr Francis Hastings saith that the Canonists say roundly Warn-woord, Enc. 1. cap. 2. Pag. 30. num. 10. in the Glosse, Dominus noster Deus Papa, Our Lord God the Pope: but if it were so, why doth not Sir Francis either roundly or squarely quote vs the text? Sure it is, that I cannot [Page 30] finde it, though I haue much sought for it; and hard it is to be­leeue that any such text may be found. But yet here to helpe out S. F. with some part of his credit, and for very compassion I will adde a coniecture of a friend of his, how he might chance to haue beene deceiued about Dominus Deus noster Papa, if he cite it vpon his owne reading, for that perhaps he might find it written thus, D. noster D. Papa, both D. D. signifying a double Domi­nus, which some cauilling Heretike espying, & iudging it inconue­nient to repeat Dominus twice, would needs inforce the second D. to be set for Deus. This my coniecture is confirmed some­what by the similitude of a like fond chance, whereof I haue heard as happened in the Subscription of an English letter, writ­ten from certaine Marriners to the Lord Admirall in these words: To the right honourable, our good L. the L. Admirall, which second L. a simple fellow interpreted to sig­nifie the Lady Admirall, saying that the first L. signifying the Lord himselfe, the second L. must needs signifie also his Lady. If I misse in this coniecture or comparison, S. F. is cause thereof, that cited not the text, thereby to cleare all matters, and to de­liuer both vs of this doubt, and himselfe of new suspicion of imposture.

The Reuiew.

21 I like you well, M. Parsons howsoeuer the matter goe, you can make your selfe mirth with your owne fancies M. Parsons blind insol­lency, or else perfidious Hypocrisie. and coniectures, as though there were no such thing as Sir Francis alleaged out of their Romish Glosse, when as yet there can be nothing more apparent, for in the Extrauagant at the word significâsti, Tit. 14. cap. 4. the Glosse saith plainly in the very same words, Dominum Deum nostrum Papam, that is, Our Lord God the Pope, euen, as it is set out by their best approoued edition of the Extrauagants. But so it pleased M. Parsons rather to bewray his owne ig­norance of the common Romish Glosse, than to lose his ieast of Lord, and Lady, although it bee but a silly one God wot: for what man could bee so simple and indeed stupid [Page 31] as to thinke there could be any congruity of speech in such a superscription as he hath feigned, viz: To the right honora­ble our good Lord, the Lady Admirall; wherein, as it were, by a strange metamorphosis, the sex is changed, a Lord, being turned into a Lady? What then shall we thinke of M. Parsons his wit, who hath so vniustly imputed vnto Sir Francis a suspicion of Imposture? If he sported thus in dis­semblance, he must be iudged to haue beene malicious; if in ignorance, hath he not beene ridiculous? I returne to our Reckoning; wherein from Boniface an Archbishop hee passeth to a Pope Leo.

SECT. VII.
The thirteenth charge, concerning the Oath of Allegence. The summe of M. PARSONS Reckoning.

POpe Leo (saith M. Morton) writing vnto a true Cntholike Reck. pag 436. 437. Emperor said, You may not be ignorant that your Prince­ly power is giuen vnto you not onely in worldly regiment, but also in spiritual, for the preseruation of the Church. As if he had said, not only in causes temporal, but also in spiritual, so far as it belongeth to the outward preseruation, not to the personall administration of them; And this is the substance of our English Oath. And further neither doe our Kings of England challenge, nor subiects condescend vnto. In which words you see two things are contained: first what authority S. Leo the Pope aboue 1100. yeares agone ascribed vnto Leo the Emperor in matters spiritual & ecclesiastical. The second, by this mans assertion, that neither our Kings of England challenge, nor doe the subiects condescend vnto any more in the Oath of supre­macy, that is proposed vnto them. Which if it be so, I see no cause why all English Catholikes may not take the same in like manner, so far foorth as S. Leo alloweth spirituall authority to the Em­perour of his time. Wherfore it hehooueth that the Reader stand attent to the deciding of this question: for if this be true, which here M. Morton auoucheth our Controuersie about the Supre­macie [Page 32] is at an end. Reckon. pag. 439. Heerupon I vrged him very earnestly, that this assertion might be maintained, saying, among other things: Mee thinks such publike doctrine should not be so publike­ly printed and set forth, without publike allowance and in­tention to performe and make it good. If this be really meant, we may easily be accorded: if not, then will the Rea­der see what credit may be giuen to any things they publish, notwithstanding this book commeth forth with this speciall commendation, of published by authority, &c. Which words in my iudgement, should haue mooued M. Morton to leaue some­what to the matter in this his Answer, and not to haue passed it ouer so stily, as though neuer mention had beene made thereof. But euery man will guesse at the cause, and so we shall expect it at some other time.

The Reuiew.

22 I will take no longer Time than this present, and vpon the issue heerof will I appeale vnto the Reader, to iudge ac­cording to the iust apparence of truth. That which I thena­uerred hath been since published in print by one of far more exact iudgement, than that I may be worthy to say, that he hath published the same. And this passed vnder the appro­bation and priuelege of our gratious King, who is the Lex loquens, and can best interpret the sense of the Oath. The Reuerend B shop of Chi­chester in Tortura Torti, pag. 380. Wee yeeld ( saith this reuerend Prelate) nothing to our King, which belongeth vnto Priestly function, neither doth the King affect it: he iustly challengeth, and we acknowledge due vnto him those acts which appertaine vnto outward policy, for the care of religion, which is, according to the law of God, to be both keeper, and pro­tector of the tables of the law of God, by punishing of blasp hemous idolatrous, and false Prophets, in restoring religion vnto her anci­ent purity, gouerning all kinde of persons (within his Kingdom) aswell Ecclesiasticall as Laicks, yea euen vnto the deposing of a Priest vpon his demerit. This is as plaine a profession, and with as good Authority, and from as worthy a pen, as the M. Parsons his promise chalenged. State, which made the Oath, could performe.

23 What say you now, M. Parsons? Will you, as you [Page 33] said, Accord vnto this Oath? Then must you renounce the Breues of your Pope: if you will not Accord, then are you, Pope Leo subiect vnto the Emperor. in these offers, but wretched AEquiuocators. And the rather, because Card. Cu­sanus Concord. Cathol. li. 2. c. 20. Pope Leo (as your Car. Causanus obserueth) submit­ted himselfe vnto all the punishments, which were contained in the lawes of the Emperor Martianus. Vpon which considera­tion the same Cardinall made bolde to complaine of after­Popes, Popes dege­nerate. who haue degenerated from the humility of their Ancients. In his next exception there is nothing but ver­bality, that is, a lauish trifling about words.

M. PARSONS his Reckoning.

These words, Debes incunctantèr aduertere, he transla­teth, Reckon. pa. 437 Thou may not be ignorant, he should haue Englished it thus: Thou ought resolut ely to consider.

The Reuiew.

24. By M. Parsons his Grammar, Incunctantèr, is, reso­lutely. I thinke the Boies of his Colledge will correct this, and tell him that, Incunctantèr, is, without delay. There is no M. Parsons his ignorance both in Latin and in Eng­lish constru­tion. reason wee should expect true Latine-Grammar of him, who faileth so absurdly euen in his English Grammar: for Resolutely to consider is a phrase (I thinke) which an Eng­lish eare will hardly indure. It had beene better thus, To consider resolutely, and yet this is absurd: for our English is, To resolue consideratly, and not, To consider resolutely; because in this the cart draweth the horse.

25 I am ashamed of these impertinencies, whereunto I am constrained by Maister Parsons, who delighteth so much in friuolousnesse, that Reckon. pag. 438. hee reprooueth mee for tran­slating the word, Praesidium Ecclesiae, preseruation of the Church, and must haue it, forsooth, Englished, Defence of the Church, as though defence were not preseruation, and preser­uation M. Parsons his ridiculous exception a­gainst transla­tion. Defence. It seemeth that M. Parsons meaneth to claime some kindred with that wise Asynonomist, who once said, that Pepper is hote in operation, but cold in working: and to shake hands with that miserable comforter, who vsed A similitude. no other reason to comfort a yong scholar, that had beene [Page 34] expulsed out of the College, than to tell him that he was but Expelled onely, and not expulsed.

SECT. VIII.

The fourteenth charge, in the point of Equiuocation, out of Sepulueda. M. PARSONS Reckoning.

BUt what saith this Doctor Genesuis Sepulueda? He will Reckon. pa. 440. tell you (saith Maister Morton) that this sense (of this text of Scripture) which you conceale is not onely contrary to the sentence of all Fathers, but also against all common sense. And is this possible? Will Sepulucda denie all those Fathers, alleaged by me before for our interprotation, to be Fa­thers? Will hee say, that their exposition is contrary to all com­mon sense? doth not Genesius himselfe in the very chapter here cited alleage both S. Hierom, and S. Augustine for this interprotation, and alloweth the same? What shamelesse dealing then is this of our Minister, to charge Genesius with such folly or impietie, which hee neuer thought off? For Genesius de­nieth not either the sense or interpretation of the place, and much lesse saith, That it is contrary to the sentence of the Fathers, and least of all, to commonsense: but denieth onely the applica­tion thereof for use and practise to certaine cases, wherein he ad­mitteth not Equiuocation. &c.

The Reuiew.

26 The [...] part. 3. pag. 5. Text of Scripture is Mare. 13. 32. Of that day and houre knoweth no man, no not the some himselfe &c. Se­pulueda alloweth the interpretation which the Fathers giue hereof, but not in the sense which the Equiuocators do vrge, and therefore he admonisheth his Reader to take heed lest M. Parsons [...] by his [...] presump­tion. that vpon this interpretation there be brought in a doctrine of Equiuocation, which in his former chapter hee did con­demne for a lie, as I See aboue lib. 1. c. 13. num. 5. haue prooued at large. Therefore the falshood is of M. Parsons his part, who will not distinguish the interpretation which Sepulueda admitteth, from that E­quiuocating [Page 35] sense, which he abhorreth. After this M. Par­sons returneth to his word-bate.

M. PARSONS his Reckoning.

Secondly be maketh Sepulueda discredit the Fathers, which Reckon. p. 441. he himselfe alleageth, Englishing ancient Fathers, for, ancient Schoolemen; and addeth, consensum, of his owne, leauing out, hominum, to make it sound common sense.

The Reuiew.

27 If there had been in M. Parsons any sense of common M Parsons wilfull fals­hood. shamefastnesse, he could not haue sayd, that I made Sepulue­da discredit the Fathers: for Sepulueda said, I wil tel you (Equi­uocators) that the sense, which you conceit, is contrary to the sentence of Ancients. Was this to discredit the Fathers, nay was it not greatly for their credit to professe simplicitie, and to condemne your Equiuocating subtletie? And such like is his next Cauill: for Setulueda Tract. de [...] &c. pag. 469. Sepulueda doth as expresly name these ancient Fathers, Hierome, Augustine, Basil, as well as he did the ancient Schoole Doctors. His other vn­truth.

CHAP. III.

Conteining an Answer to the next fiue charges.

SECT. I.

The summe of the xv. charge, in the point of Equiuocation.

M. PARSONS Reckoning.

HEe quoteth Sotus, but all is treacherie, falshood, Reck. pag. 442. and lying in this Impugner of Equiuocation, for first by subtle Doctor all vnderstand Scotus, and not Sotus.

The Reuiew.

1 I Called your Sotus the subtle Doctour: you say that this epithet belonged vnto Scotus. I haue heard that two Gentlemen, the one English, the other Scotish, met toge­ther, the one sitting on the one side of the table, and the o­ther A Similitude. on the other side. And when the English man asked, Quid interest Scotum & Sotum? What therewas betweene a Scot and a Sot? The Table, quoth the Scot. There was wit in this. But if we aske M. Parsons what oddes there is be­tween their Scotus the Franciscan Frier, and Sotus the Do­minican? hee will answer vs, Subtletie. Is not this a great His vaine vaunt. piece of learning for M. Parsons to vaunt of? And yet, if we may beleeue Sotus, euen Scotus also will condemne your maner of Equiuocating for a lie.

M. PARSONS his Reckoning, & summe of his charge in the point of Equiuocation.

He will neuer be able to shew out of Sotus, that all Equiuo­cators Reck. pag. 444. are liars; this assertion is an incredible impudencie, be­cause Sotus saith, that in some cases it is lawfull to equiuocate, [...] lib. de le­gend. secretis, nu. 3. q. 3. con­clus. 4. as where hee teacheth a man, that is asked vniustly, to answer, Nescio, Qui iure intelligitur, Nescio, vt dicam, aut Nescio eo modo, quo iure debeam dicere, &c. Reck. pa. 445. This wrote I in my former booke, and bauing conuinced so euident falsifications, as heere haue been laid downe, quite contrary to the meaning and sense of the Author alleaged, I maruel that some little place had not been allowed for somepiece of Answer to this also among the rest. But belike M. Morton was not readie.

The Reuiew.

2 I was as ready then, as now, to tell you that heerein you play a kinde of Scotus and subtle Sophister with mee, wilfully abusing both your owne knowledge, and your Rea­ders [Page 37] ignorance, by not acknowledging the principall point in question, which was not against Verball, but only against that Mentall Equiuocation, which hath been described by your selfe to be lawfull, whensoeuer the speaker shall reserue any thing in his minde, which according to his vnderstanding doth agree with the outward words of his mouth, be the clause of re­seruation whatsoeuer it pleaseth him to imagine; As to say, I am no Priest, meaning, with purpose to tell it you. All such kinde of mixt propositions you in your Treatise of Mitigation do absolutely defend: Which (I say againe & againe) is by So­tus reiected as meere lying; which I shall easily prooue out of Sotus his positions and examples, from the same booke wherein you haue insisted.

3 If we would know what kinde of Equiuocation Sotus will allow, let vs consult with him in his positions. First, Sotus de le­gend. Secret. memb. 1. q. 3. concl. 1. pag. 295. He that is iniuriously examined may vse all kinde of Amphi­bologies, or doubtfull speeches, so as they may be vnderstood in some vsuall sense withont a lie. He admitteth not Equiuocating in any sense, which is not by the vse signified in the outward speech it selfe: and of this kinde is (in his iudgement) the Sotus falsly and grosly abused by M. Parsons. word, Nescio, in the cause before mentioned, whereof Sotus saith, Ibid. conclus. 2. pag. 299. Words doe carrie that signification which the people ap­prehend; and Christian people, when they heare a Priest (who is asked whether he know such a mans sinne) answer, Se ni­hil scire, do vnderstand his meaning to be, that he knoweth it not extrà confessionem: which maketh a verball Equiuocation, or Amphibologie, the knowing of a Priest being of two sorts, In confessione, and Extrà confessionem. So that the man which is asked, whether he knoweth that which he heard only by relation from another, may (in the opinion of Sotus) answer Ibid. pa. 300 NESCIO, because a man properly knoweth that which hee comprehendeth by strong reason. And this Amphibologie is verball, for Nescio hath a double sense in it selfe, according to the vnderstanding of men, properly signifying that which I do certainly not know; and vnproperly that which I know but vncertainly, and by report: And thus, saith Sotus, Ibid. pa. 301. the Priest may answer, NESCIO, because he had it but by relation [Page 38] of the partie confitent, who might (peraduenture) haue lied. Ibid. Conclus. 4. pag. 304. Except the matter be manifest, and so he proceedeth to ap­proue Ibid. pa. 307. Nescio, in such a case to signifie, by the intendment of the law, Non scire, vt dicam, or, vt debeam dicere. To con­clude, Ibid. Conclus. 4. pag. 304. Sotus neuer alloweth any other Equiuocall sense, which is wholly infolded in the clause of Reseruation, but that only which the outward speech it selfe may (in his opi­nion) carrie in the common vse, according to the apprehen­tion of the discreet hearer: which, in the opinion of Sotus, is a verball Equiuocation. And this matter may be demon­strated by his examples.

4 First, Ibid. Conclus. 4. pag 314. If a Tyrant aske a Priest, whether Peter killed Iohn, which the Priest knew in confession. whether he may answer, He killed him not, reseruing, That I may tell you, So­tus Sotus his ex­amples. resolueth that this answer cannot free the Priest from a lie: for (saith Sotus) It were a most foolish exposition to say, M. Persons falshood in not acknow­ledging the iudgement of Sotus by whom his AE­quiuocation is prooued a starke lie. Non occidit, Vt dicam, because facta ordinom immediatum non habent ad hoc, quod est, Dicere. Let vs compare our new AEquiuocators with Sotus. M. Parsons admitteth any Reser­uation, which being mixed with the outward speech, ma­keth a true proposition, as, I am no Priest, conceiuing in my minde, To tell it: which differeth not from that of Sotus, He murdered him not, reseruing, That I may tell it you: which Sotus cannot excuse from a lie. A second example. When a party is Vniustly, demanded, concerning a fact which he had committed, Whether he may answer, Non a concerning a fact which he had committed, Whether he may answer, Nonfeci, I did it not: Scotus (saith Sotus ibid. Conclus. 5. Sotus inclineth to the negatiue part, And I (saith Sotus) cannot be perswaded that it is lawful to answer, Non feci, neither can I perceiue, how it can be excused from alie: for if any way this might be, then especially by vnderstanding in his minde, Vt dicam, That I may tell you. But this sense were most vio­lent: for the fact hath not any such order to the speech. Yet doth this mixt speech make a true proposition, which vttered in part with the mouth (in the iudgement of Sotus) cannot be excused from a lie: and consequently M. Parsons his art of AEquiuocating is an art of starke lying. Another ex­ample.

5 An other example: we haue often heard of the story [Page 39] of S. Francis his sleeues, which for the time we will suppose to be true: He, when a malefactor was pursued by ossi­cers, being asked whether he saw the malefactor passe by, or no? Answered, Non transiuit hàc, that is, He passed not this S Francis his lying sleeue. way, (meaning, as Sotus readeth it, per sinum, as others, per manicas) through his sleeue: This example our AEquiuocators vse to vrge, to the end that they may couer their lying deuice with S. Francis his sleeue: but if we beleeue Sotus, that sleeue is too short to hide so long a lie: for Ibid. p. 318. This deuice (saith he) will not content me, because although he that is vniustly asked a question, be not bound to answer vnto the intention of the deman­dant, yet is he bound to hide a secrecy in such words, which are true in a sense which is receiued either among the people, or else among wise and discreet men. Heere Sotus iudgeth a Mentall Reseruation, agreeing with the minde of the speaker, to be no better than a lie, euen because the outward speech will not carry the secret sense, in the vnderstanding of discreet hearers. Which is the whole and onely point, which in my dispute against the Romish AEquiuocation I vndertooke to prooue. And lest that any might thinke that their AEqui­uocating deuice were any way sanctified by touch, as it were, of S. Frances his sleeue, Sotus opposeth against that a contrary example out of S. Augustine, as followeth.

6 An other example. Ibid. S. Augustine reporteth another example: There was a Bishop (saith he) whose name was Firme, Another ex­ample out of S. Augustine. but himselfe was firmer in his resolution, who hiding a man that was pursued by officers, and being asked, who it was, answered onely thus: I may neither lie, nor yet betray the party: and there­upon he himselfe was carried to be tortured, who suffered tor­ment, yet through his patience he obteined fauor of the Emperor for the deliuerance of the man that had fled vnto him. This be­ing by Sotus opposed vnto the former example of S. Fran­cis doth teach vs that he would not allow our AEquiuoca­tours pretense, who would haue readily answered that que­stion by saying, No-body, meaning, To tell it vnto you: and S. Augustine his Firmus in these daies would be hissed out of their schooles for a simple and witlesse fellow euen as our [Page 40] AEquinocatours would (if they had liued in these daies) been driuen out of Christendome for gracelesse mont-bankes. But heare what followeth.

7 An other example. Before he deliuereth this exam­ple, Another ex­ample, confu­ting Romish AEquiuoca­tors. he propoundeth a Conclusion, which is principally to be obserued. In the case of a man who is wrongfully questio­ned about a most secret fault, Ibid. [...] 7 P. 319. If (saith Sotus) he cannot finde words, whereby, through an Equiuocation, which is in the com­mon vse of men, he may couer his fault without a lie, he ought ra­ther to die than lie. Still we finde, that whatsoeuer the AEqui­uocation be, it ought to be such as consisteth in the common vse of the words themselues. And therefore where the que­stion is, concerning a guilty person, who killed Peter and is examined thereabout, Whether he may answer, I haue not kil­led him, conceiuing in his minde another man of the same name Peter, being one whom indeed he killed not: Such an answer (saith Sotus) cannot be without a lie, because according to the receiued vse of all men, an affirmation and negation in pro­per names are so taken for the same man, as if this onely had been therby signified, viz. for that Peter, of whom the question was asked. How then shall their AEquiuocating Priest auoid the guilt of a lie, who being asked, whether he were a Priest, An­swered, No, meaning, A Priest of Apollo, the heathenish God. And being demanded whether he were euer beyond the Sea, answered, No, meaning, the Adriatique Sea. We see that heere also their Sotus meeth with their AEquiuocator, to prooue him alier.

8 The last example. Ibid. pa. 322 But what shall the guilty misera­ble The last ex­ample to the same purpose. woman doe, when her husband shall constraine her by violence to confesse whether she had committed Adultrie, or no, and shee cannot finde any amphibologie, to hide herselfe in? I answere (saith he) That the iniquities of men are more than that wee can preuent them: therefore in such a case it is better to die, than to transgresse by lying. This had beene but a fond Resoluti­on, if he had thought that Nescio, vt dicam, would haue ser­ued the turne, which to free the speech from a lie, notwith­standing is the [...] in the profession, and practise of [Page 41] our Equiuocators, and whereby it is most easie to preuent all guiles of the most subtle Interrogatories. In briefe; in the shutting vp of this Treatise hee granteth that Words which haue not a true sense, according to the signification, which is receiued into common vse, cannot bee excused from a lie. Which conclusion, with all these premisses, I leaue as a Glasse vnto M. Parsons, and other Professors of Mentall Equiuocation, to looke their faces in, and at their leasure to tell mee what they see. From the Spanish Doctor Sotus, hee goeth to a Flemmish Doctor Cunerus.

SECT. II.

The summe of the sixteeneth charge of M. PARSONS his Reckoning.

CVnerus is no lesse iniuriously alleaged than the former: for Reckon. pag. 444. 445. Cunerus de offic. Princ. cap. 13. Cunerus saying, In religione concordiae sola est ratio vt omnes, &c. that is, This in religion is the onely way of concord, that all men with apious minde doe wholly conceiue and practise that which is taught in the Catholike Church of Rome: Maister Morton translateth; This is the onely true religion, which is taught in the Church of Rome. What dealing is this? &c.

The Reuiew.

9 Any man may perceiue what kind of fish M. Parsons M Parsons a meere Car­per. is, who can thus carpe at words, peruersly concealing the plaine intention of the Author Cunerus: hee intending to proue the Hollanders to be Rebels against the K. of Spaine, who were Cunerus. pag. 131. not possibly to except concord, except first they would consent in one Religion, and that there is no true re­ligion but that of the Church of Rome, Whereunto (saith Cunerus, pag. 133. Cunerus) a Christian Prince is sworne to be a defender of the faith, namely of that Romish, and therefore he wil haue that King, as Sara, to cast out Agar and her sonne, so to remoue out of Holland all of the contrarie profession of Religion. If then he allowing no possibilitie of Concord, without consent [Page 42] in religion; and no Religion, but that which is Romish, doth he not euidently say that the Romish is the onely Religion? I am vexed with M. Parsons his vanities, and desire some­thing materiall. Peraduenture we shall finde it in the next instance.

SECT. III.

The seuenteenth charge. M. PARSONS his Reckoning.

NOw we come to another abuse perteining to two menindiffe­rently, Reckon. pa. 446. to wit, Cassander a Germane Schoolmaster, and Bellarmine a Cardinall: but wee shall ascribe it rather to the Germane for this present, for that we haue had diuerse examples about Cardinali Bellarmine before.

The Reuiew.

10 Shal I attribute this omitting of my Abuse of Bellar­mine M. Parsons idle and fond collusion. vnto M. Parsons his remisnesse, or rather to his barren­nesse, and indeed fondnesse? who offereth to Reckon for an abuse of Bellarmine, and yet will not tell what it is. Where­in M. Parsons abuseth Bellarmine (in my opinion) bringing him vpon his stage, to no other end than (as Cato went into the Senate) to carrie him out againe. But what of Cassander? I would heare first something of the man, and then of the matter.

The summe of M. PARSONS his Reckoning.

Finding my selfe weary with prosecuting the labyrinth of his in­tricate Reck. pag. 448. iuggling trickes, I will draw to an end, adding only one ex­ample more in this place. First to pretermit that he goeth about to deceiue his Reader by the opinion of grauity, and learning in George Cassander of Bruges, who was but a Grammarian in his daies: and that hee was a Catholike, who is consured for an [Page 43] Heretike primae classis in the Index of prohibited bookes: and not onely for heresies of his time, but also Quòd dicit Spiritum S. minus aduocandum, & adorandum esse. &c.

The Review.

11 It were good you knew how to make an end, and better it had beene for you in your reputation, that you had His shame­lesse falsity. not begunne at all with this taxation of Cassander, it is so notoriously shamelesse: for (I beseech you M. Parsons) what great cause haue you to contemne a Grammarian, how Cassander his estimation. much lesse to say that Cassander was but a Grammarian? As though hee had beene vnworthy of any better esteeme, whom See Cassan­der his booke De Consult. printed at Colen, 1577. where are the letters of the Emperor Ferdiand, and Miximilian both the Emperor Ferdinand, and Maximilian King of the Romanes sent for (about the time of the Councell of Trent) and made singular choise of him, before any other Doctor, with whom they might consult, concerning the weightiest points of controuersie in Religion, and in that re­spect was he commended by the Emperor for a man of sin­gular learning, and godlinesse, and intituled, Theologus, that is, a Diuine: and by Maximilian hee was extolled for a man godly, learned, and discreet, & benè versatus in sacris literis, that is, One very conuersant in holy Scriptures, of whom we haue need, saith Miximilian.

12 Who may not hereby perceiue with what eies M. Parsons looked vpon this so rare and excellent a Diuine (as His enuious detraction a­gainst Cassan­der. the testimonies of those Prince, and his own writing shew) in whom notwithstanding hee can see nothing but a Gram­marian? Which sauoreth of an enuious detractiòn, euen as his next exception doth taste of vanity, in alleaging their Index Expurgatorius as though it were euidence enough to proue one no Catholike. Those that haue red that Index Their Index Expurgato­rius. know that it often purgeth out of Authours more good bloud, than grosse humors. And whether any such words bee in Cassander, concerning, the holy Ghost, or in what sense hee speaketh them, I haue not yet obserued: this is plaine, that his whole works doe magnifie the Deitie of the [Page 44] holy Ghost, and also doe inlarge mans duetie in the worship of the blessed spirit of Grace.

13 Afterwards M. Parsons anatomizeth, as it were, the whole text of Cassander, cauilling about vnnecessarie, and impertinent termes: for the scope of all was to shew that Protestants ( in the opinion of Cassander) were hold to bee Uera membra Christi, that is, The true members of Christ; and that Princes were to seeke to establish a peace of religi­on betweene, them, and the Romanists. To what end then are M. Parsons his other skirmishes? where with he beateth the aire? Onely onething excepted, which concerneth Cas­sander, to know what profession he was of, seeing M. Par­sons can not abide his Acquaintance, as will further appeare,

M. PARSONS his Reckoning. The summe.

Thirdly he doth most notably cogge, in thrusting in the word, Reck. pag. 450. & 451. à nobis, meaning thereby to make Cassander seeme a Catho­like, and to speake in the behalfe of Catholikes. And then hee translateth Catholikes, Papists, as though Cassander, if hee were a Catholike, would call vs Papists.

The Reuiew.

14 By M. Parsons his censure Cassander is not to bee called a Catholike, nor yet may Catholikes bee called Pa­pists. First of Cassander. That my Reader may know that M Parsons his faithlesse dealing with Cassander. I was as farre from coggery, as M. Parsons is from true mo­desty in his denials: I shall but desire him to obserue that Cassander in the same booke of Consult. Art. 7. in defence of the Romance Church, Canssand. Cansult. Art. 7. saith; Verum, nil tam graue in Ponti­fices NOSTROS dicipotest, quod non in Saccrdotes Iudaici po­puli conueniat; that is, Nothing (saith he) can be spoken against OVR Popes, which might not aswell bee obiected against the Priests of the Iewes. Thus he inserteth himselfe in the num­ber of 'Papists. Secondly, he was held to be a Papist of Pro­testants, [Page 45] as by Osiander in his Papa non Papa, epist. ad lectorem Osiander, and As Netuius confesseth in his defence of Cassander. Beza. Thirdly, some Ro­manists themselues haue acknowledged him in their pub­like writings for theirs, as namely, In his defence of Cassander. Bartholomeus Neruius, and Thuanus hist. part. 3. Anno. 1572. pag. 107. Thuanus, who reporteth of him, that hee was the in­strument to draw Baldwine vnto the Romane religion. Not­withstanding as Mable of Windsor, that thought that there is no other part of the world which shee saw not within the compasse of her Horison, so M. Parsons cannot discerne a Catholique except hee bee within the circumference of his own seditious doctrines: in briefe, this deniall that Cassander was a professed Romanist, is an inexcusable falshood.

15 If M. Parsons be disposed to see a notable coggery in­deed, he need but turne backe againe to a See aboue lib. 1. c. 12. num. 6. testimony of his owne cited out of Caluin, where to make Caluin an Aduersa­ry vnto all the ancient Fathers, in the point of prayer for the dead, M. Parsons himselfe hath foisted in the word [ Omnes] All, of his own, against the expresse meaning and resolution of M. Caluin, in that very place. This is properly Coggery to foist in a word which agreeth not vnto the truth of the matter; whereof we haue See aboue. lib. 1. cap. 1. seen diuers examples in Suares, Bellarmine, and Gratian.

16 Howsoeuer it giueth vs some cause of admiration, that M. Parsons is ashamed of the name of a Papist, seeing that the word [ Papists] commeth of Papa, that is, The Pope, The name of Papist held both as glori­ous and odi­ous among the Roma­nists. to whom M. Parsons professeth subiection, as a matter ne­cessary to Saluation; how can he then abhor his owne sir­name? His fellow Anast. Coche. let Palastrit. houoris &c. p. 9. & 6. Cochelet is more zealous in the defence of that title, We are Papists (saith he) and confesse it and glory in that name. And Doctor Stapleton Doctr. prine. li. 4. c. 2. ad fincm. Staplet on maketh Papists and Ca­tholikes to be Synonmies. But why doe we busie and abuse our Reader with discourse about such impertenencies?

SECT. IV.

The eighteenth charge. M. PARSONS his Reckoning.

DRawing to an end, I am forced to ioyne diuerse together, Reckon. pag. 452. whereof I accused him in my former writing to haue corrup­ted [Page 46] two Authors ioyntly, Royard a Friar, and Cunerus a Bi­shop.

The Reuiew.

17 Be not offended if that which you deliuer in grosse, Two together, I vtter by retale, yet so, as to keepe your owne order, which is to let your Friar Vsher your Bishop.

M. PARSONS his Reckonig.

It is not credible to him, that hath not compared the bookes Reck. pag. 453. themselues, how he hath abused diuers Authors: As for exam­ple, Royardus the Franciscan Friar is brought in with commen­dation of an honest Friar, for that he saith; That a King, when he is made by the people, can not be deposed by them again at their pleasure: which is the same doctrine that all other Fri­ers and learned Catholiks do holde, so long as he conteineth him­selfe within the nature of a King: for that otherwise (which is the question in controuersie) Royard himselfe saith, Parendum ei non esse, That he is not to be obeyed. But this is not to be Dominic 23. post. pentecost. Con. 2. iudged by the people and their mutiny, as Protestant Doctours do teach.

The Reuiew.

18 This M. Parsons hath brought in for a choice exam­ple, among [...] of (as he saith) an incredible abuse of my Authours: therefore I desire my Reader to esteeme of those diuers others, by this, wherein he doth particularly, insist, and it will proue M. Parsons to be an incredible Accuser: for the sentence of Royard Full satisfact. part. 1. p. 30. standeth thus: [...] Serm. 2. in dom. 23. post. Peutecost. Although there be in the people a freedome of election, yet, after they haue chosen a King, they haue no power to remoue the yoke, but stand in neces­sitie of subiection. M. Parsons hath surueyed the sentence, and can not take any exception to the citation of it, wherein he saw that Friar Royard preached vnto the peoplea Neces­sitie of subiection, so farre, as Not to remooue the King, whom they haue once chosen. Which conclusion, as M. Parsons knoweth, doth condemne the now positions of their Iesuits, [Page 47] and especially M. Parsons his Dolman prouing them indeed to be no better than rebellious. How will M. Parsons auoid so plaine a witnesse of their own Friar? Marke, I pray thee, Christian Reader, (for this tricke he fetcheth out of the bor­tome M. Parsons egregious falshood, misciting the iudgement of Royard. of his budget) by a false repetition of the sentence, as if it had been thus: That a King, when he is made by the people, can not be deposed by them againe at their pleasure: whereby he turneth Royards necessitie of subiection of the people, and their not hauing any power to remoue the yoke, into not remo­uing him only at their pleasure. Is this good dealing? but the necessitie of his cause did constraine him to this shift, be­cause there was no other meanes to make this Royard. serm. 1. Dom. 1. Aduentus. Friar and himselfe friends and professors of the same doctrine, but only by abusing the sentence of Royard, and making it not to be the same.

19 His next guile and cunning is, by inquiring into ano­ther Tome of Royard, to finde out (if he might) some sen­tence M. Parsons next wilfull & notorious falsitie. to counterpoise the former: which paines needed not, if hee could haue shifted himselfe honestly of the former, without notorious fraud. But at length, after much fishing, all that hee hath catched is but this poore gudgeon. A King, saith Royard, must not be obeied, when he commandeth any thing contrary vnto godlinesse, which (saith M. Parsons) is the controuersie: which is his godlesse falsitie, for looke the place in my Full Satisfact. part. 1. pag. 31. the controuersie, there set downe, was not whether people are bound to obey the vnlawfull command of their Kings, but whether they haue power to depose them. The Apostles being comman­ded, not to preach the Gospell, answered, Royard. dom. 23. post Pente­cost. serm. 2. Whether it be bet­ter to obey God or man, iudge you: yet did they not teach the people to reiect such Commanders, and to holde them for no Magistrates. And Royard in this place, now cited by M. Parsons, insisteth in the fact of S. Ambrose, who obeyed not the Emperor, but reprehended him; but yet did not Ambrose teachmen to depose him. I would propound an argument to M. Parsons, but I doubt he wil stumble vpon it, and fal & breake his forehead. It should bee this: If the Popeshould [Page 48] command him any thing, which is directly against Gods commandement, would M. Parsons obey him? He would not, for then he should make the Pope his God: but in not A Dilemma. obeying him, would he seeke to depose him? He would not; for he hath taught, that for wickednesse of maners the Pope may not be iudged by any. Whereupon it followeth, that these two, viz. the not obeying, and the deposing of Kings, are not the same controuersies.

20 Therefore may I easily allege against M. Parsons the saying which a Philosopher vsed against a fond Disputer; A. Gellius. A similitude. Hic homo sinè controuersia doctus est; This man without con­trouersie is very learned, for in controuerting he sheweth no learning or very little. To conclude, M. Parsons hath shew­ed vs two singular knacks of leger-demaine; the one is, the wilfull peruerting of the testimonie of Royard, changing a necessitie of not remouing the yoke, into not remouing at their pleàsure; which are two contrary senses: the second, by changing the state of the Controuersie, to wit, the Depo­sing of a Kings person into Disobeying the Kings vniust com­mand. We leaue the Friar, and draw neere the Bishop.

The summe of the charge. M. PARSONS his Reckoning.

He citeth Cunerus, though brokenly, testisying that it lieth not Reck. pag. 453. Full Satisfact. part. 1. pa. 30. Cunerus lib. [...] offic. Princ. c. 5. in the peoples hand to reiect their Prince at their pleasure: But Cunerus saith nothing against vsbut against the Rebels of Flan­ders, & altogether for vs, who notwithstanding this exact obedi­ence, which we require of subiects to their lawfull Princes, hath aspeciall Chapter expresly proouing that in some causes the Com­mon-wealth and the Church haue authority to restraine and re­mooue them. What falshood is this, to alleage Authority flatly a­gainst their meaning? doth this become a Minister of simple truth? is this for a man, who so much abhorreth AEquiuocation? So I said to M. Morton at that time, when I expected he would returne some answer to my demand: The like I doe repeat againe now, and will attend what may come from him heereafter.

The Reuiew.

21 I am sory that I haue beene so long in your debt, and therefore now vpon the second sight of your Reckoning I hope to make all strait by an answer which will be, I doubt, lesse acceptable vnto you, in giuing you to vnderstand that you are, M. Parsons, in this Reckoning, a most vnconsci­onable person, in imputing vnto me matter of falshood heere­in. For the doctrine which I Full Satisfact. part. 1. pag. 29. there sought to refell, was the opinion of your Iesuit Sa meron in epi. Pauli in [...] disp. 12. §. I am de. Salmeron. If a Catholike King ( saith Salmeron) shall fall to be an Heretike, or an Apostate, reason willeth that among Catholike people he be remooued from the gouernment of the Common-wealth: but why? Because the power was first in the people, then in the King, and is deriued from M. Parsons is vnconsciona­bly iniutious. the King to the people. This reason I confuted by the testimo­nies out of your owne Doctors, the first was Royard, who said, that the people had not any power to remooue the yoak: the second testimony was out of Cunerus, which standeth thus: Cunerus lib. de offic. Prnic. 6. 5 Some say that the authority of Princes dependeth vpon the courtesie of the people, as thinking, that they, who gaue con­sent to choose a King, haue power likewise to depose him. But (proouing this from Scriptures) wheresoeuer a King is establi­shed by the consent of the Kingdome, this ordinance is of God, and the people must obey. Which flatly contradicteth the former Conclusion of Salmeron. And further than this I did not med­dle with the opinion of Cunerus. Therefore in this charge you haue plaied either the Equiuocator, or the flat (aposio­pesis;) or both.

22 Furthermore, to satisfie your expectation to the full, if I had stepped a degree further in alleaging Cunerus, your owne Barckley would euen out of Cunerus haue iustified my Conclusion: for he (vnder standing, by people, Barcl. lib. 5. contrà Monar­cho. c. 12. p. 385. All them who are associated together vnder one ciuill law, in one common­wealth, of what kinde, age, wisdome, dignity, soeuer they be) doth prooue out of Cuncerus, Lib. 3 c. 12. That the King hath not his au­thority onely from the consent and couenant made betweene the [Page 50] people and the King, but from the ordinance of God: and that he Obserue a necessary do­ctrine, and forcible e­nough to con­fouud the re­belleously af­fected. that resisteth this authority, doth violate the constitution of God. And (out of his 7. Chapter) That the Scripture euery where witnesseth, that albeit Kings doe sinne, yet may they not be resi­sted with armes, or violence, but are to be iudged of him, who is greater than all Kings, which is that wisdome and truth, which crieth, Heare, ô Kings, and vnderstand. &c. Which he illu­strateth by an example of Ioas, an idolatrous King of Iudah, who most cruelly put the Prophet Zachary to death, and was slaine by the hands of his owne seruants in his bed-chamber: who after that fact were iustly slaine by Amaziah the King and next Successor vnto Ioas in the Kingdome of Iudah. It will therefore stand M. Parsons vpon (if he affect truth) to compare this of Barckley and their Cunerus together and trie how he can reconcile either Barckley with Cunerus or else Cunerus with himselfe. M. Parsons his next passage is vnto our Countri­man Sayer.

SECT. V.

The summe of the nineteenth M. PARSONS his Reckoning.

OUt of Sayer he alleageth this sentence: An obstinate He­reticke Reckon. pa. 454. 455. is he that is presumed to be, as he that is mani­fest: but Sayer speaketh not of heresie, but onely of him, who may be excommunicated by a Iudge, for contumacy, in not Sayer. lib. 1. [...] consc. c. 9. appearing; which is a different thing from obstinacy or perti­nacy, and this whether he be an Hereticke or Catholike. And he defineth contumacy to be nothing else but a certaine disobe­dience, whereby he is not obeied that sitteth in iudgement: and putting down two sorts of contumacies, either manifest, or by presumption; manifest, if a man being cited doth refuse openly to appeare or obey the Iudge: by Presumption, when he is presumed to be contumacious, and so may excommunica­tion, if it be a spirituall court, proceed against him, as if contumacy were manifest. Is Master Morton so simple in Diuinity, as not to discerne betweene Contumax, and Perti­nax, [Page 51] whereof the one is a disobediency towards Superi­ours, the other is a tenacity of opinion, as hath beene de­fined?

The Reuiew.

23 If M. Parsons would be so equal, as to allow me that, which hee in his owne defence hath alleaged and preten­ded for himselfe, which is, the excuse of lapse of memo­ry concerning tearmes, then can I not be inexcusable here­in, because at that time I could not see the booke of Say­er. And although euery Pertinax bee not a Contumax, yet euery Contumax is Pertinax. If I had dealt with Sayer, as their Iesuite Suarez is confessed to haue done with a testi­mony of Aquinas, when in stead of See aboue lib. 1. cap. 1. Sect. 1. preordination he put in Subordination, which are flat contrary, then might it well haue become M. Parsons to call it (according to this Recko­ning) The most faithlesse deceit, and corruption that euer any honest man put to paper against an Aduersary. For this change of termes doth fully contradict the Authors meaning, which he did, because the word of Aquinas would haue ouer­throwen his whole cause.

24 But if we take the testimony of Sayer, which M. Par­sons M. Parsons maliciously snatcheth at words and shadowes, and witting­ly loseth the substantiall matter. will acknowledge to be truely his, it will sufficiently prooue the principall matter, which I then intended, which was especially to know in what case Protestants may be thought to stand, by the principles of Sayr, and whether they may not lie vnder the Romish excommunication, and so be made liable to their cruell censures, before any publike and parsonall praemonition by name. Shall we heare Sayer discoursing vpon the nature of excommunication? Sayer de ca­sib. consc. lib. 1. ca. 12. §. Primò siuè. There is an excommunication (saith he) of man, and an other of law: in excommunication by man the party inobedient must first be ad­monished; The doctrine of Sayer is preiudiciall vnto the State of Prote­stants. but in excommunication by the law it is sufficient that the admonition be generall, which is made of him, who is the Au­thor of the law, whereupon it hapneth, that he who offendeth a­gainst the admonition of the law, doth thereby fall presently into [Page 52] excommunication. Ibidem, §. Quartus est. There are certaine cases, wherein the personall citation and admonition is not necessary, to wit, when it is not giuen against any particular person, but generally, which is when it is giuen for future offences, such as are all the censures which are giuen by law, for that the law doth alwaies admonish, lest that any commit a crime which it forbiddeth: in which case there is not any other admonition necessary. Againe, Ibil. §. Pri­mus est. When a man hath beene often mooued to repentance, seeing that now his contumacy is manifest, he may without any further admonition be excommunicated. Let then these rules be but applied a­gainst Protestants, whom they call Heretikes, and what shal wee need more for the knowledge of Sayr his iudgement concerning the cause it selfe? M. Parsons would rather haue pondered the matter, than canuassed words, if he had not beene stronger in raging than in reasoning.

CHAP. IIII.

Conteining an Answer to other three charges.

§. I.

The twentith charge, concerning the point of Equi­uocation, according the iudgement of Cicero.

M. PARSONS his Reckoning.

FRom Christians and Country-men hee passeth to Reck. pag. 457. Heathens, and committeth such notorious falshoods against one of them, euen then, and there where he speaketh of faithfull dealing, against perfidiousnesse, as may tustly make any man admire, what hee did suppose his iu­dicious Reader would thinke of him, when hee should see the fraud disclosed.

The Reuiew.

1 I doubt that you will play the part of some Heathen rather than of a Christian, before you dispatch this peece of [Page 53] Reckoning. The Storie was thus deliuered. Reck. pa. 457. There was a man ( saith Maister Morton) who together with nine other pri­soners beeing dismissed out of the prison of Carthage, vpon his oth, that hee within a prefixed time should returne againe: as soone as he was out of prison, hee returned, as though he haed for­gotten something, and by and by departeth home to Rome, where he staied beyond the time appointed, and answered that hee was freed from his oth. But see now the opinion of his owne Coun­triman Cicero, concerning this Equiuocation of returne. This was not well done (saith Tully) for that craft in an oth doth not lessen, but make the periury more heinous. Wherefore the graue Senators of Rome sent this cousening mate backe again to the prison of Haniball, their enemie, from whom he had escaped. &c. This example of sincerity in that Heathenish Rome I obiected against the now Christian Rome, to confute the or­dinarie doctrine and practise of Equiuocating. The excep­tions, which M. Parsons taketh, are partly for the method, partly for the meaning of Cicero.

M. PARSONS his Reckoning.

Marke then the deportment of this man in this one point, and Reckon. pa. 458. if you knew him not before, learne to know him by this. First then I would haue some Grammar-scholar, that studieth Tullies offices, to turne to the places here quoted, and comparing them with that which this Minister setteth downe in English, consider how they hang together, and how hee picketh out one sentence in one place, and another in another, and leapeth forth and backe to make some coherence of speech, contrarie to the Authors or­der, sense, and method, as is ridiculous to behold, and fit for the cousening mate, of whom he talketh in his text.

The Reuiew.

2 I did thinke that M. Parsons could not haue so soone forgot his grosse absurdity in syllogizing, which I commen­ded vnto the examination of his Scholars, & wherof he hath [Page 54] beene so much ashamed, as that being charged for changing the Copula, which in the Maior was [ Maketh] the Iudges competent, into [ Are] competent Iudges in the conclusion, M. Parsons plaieth both fondly and falsly vpon a wrong string. which was the great blot and losse of his whole game. Ther­fore I presumed that hee would bee wary, in calling young Scholars any more to witnesse betweene vs. The place is knowne in Tullie his offic. lib. 3. it beginneth at, Sic decem. &c. and endeth at, Ad Hannibalem ducerentur: If I haue mis-re­ported the substance of the Storie, or made any excursion out of the due compasse thereof, then let his Scholar-boies (for I desire not to trouble men with these triflings) hold mee worthy of his taxation. As for the calling of the place Carthage, which Tully nameth Castra, quorum erant potiti Poeni, that is, The campe, which the Carthaginians did hold, and wherein the man was kept prisoner, it cannot helpe or hin­der the point of Equiuocating. Now come wee to the matter.

M. PARSONS his Reckoning.

The most notorious cousenages, that he poruerteth all Cicero Reck. pag. 459. his meaning, words, sense, and discourse in this matter, alleaging them quite contrary to himselfe, as before you haue heard him doe many other Authors, so hee belieth and corrupteth them all, both diuine and profane. And if in this one point hee can deli­uer himselfe from Punicafides, I will say hee, plaieth the man indeed.

The Reuiew.

3 If I shall free my selfe from the note of cousenage, then M. Parsons is a warie Gam­ster. all that M. Parsons will allow mee in the conquest is onely the reputation of a man: this is an excellent gamster, hee will cast at me, and aduenture nothing himselfe. But, good M. Parsons, if you will say that I haue plaied the man, when I haue freed my selfe from this slander of cousenage, what will you giue mee leaue to call you, if the cousenage shall fall vpon [Page 55] your selfe? May I not thinke, that you play the part not of man, but of that animal the foxe, which you propounded vnto your Equiuocators, as a naturall example for their imi­tations? Let the wager be but indifferent, and I shall not re­fuse the Triall, whereunto I proceed.

M. PARSONS his Reckoning.

First, I say that if they sware absolutely to returne againe, if Reck. Ibid. they obteined not their sute, they were bound truly and sincerely to performe the same. And secondly, that they being now iust­ly by law of armes prisoners of Hanniball, they were bound to sweare sincerely to his intention, and not to any other reser­ued meaning of their owne, as in the former Chapter hath beene declared.

The Reuiew.

4 Very good, they were Prisoners by the law of armes, A compari­son betweene Heathenish and sume Romish pri­soners. and might not therefore violate their oath: some of yours who haue beene prisoners by the law of the land, according to the law of nature in cases of meere treason, somtime (notwithstanding their oathes vnto their keepers to bee true prisoners) haue made vse of their heeles and af­ter their escape haue found intertainment and securitie in the now Rome. Neither may you answere, that such men sware not absolutely, but equiuocatingly, for so (you know) did that faithlesse prisoner, whom the Senate there­fore sent backe againe in a vengeance vnto Haniball. All this while we heare nothing of Mentall Reseruation.

M. PARSONS his Reckoning.

This very doctrine also teacheth Cicero by light of nature, in Reckon. pa. 459. 460. these words perfidiously cut off, and left out by this Minister in the very same place, out of which he taketh the rest. Est [...] (saith he) ius etiam bellicum, fidésque iurisiurandi saepe [Page 56] hosti seruanda: quod enim ità iuratum est, vt mens coucipe­ret fieri oportere, id seruandum est: quod alitèr id si non fe­ceris, nulium periurium est. There is also a law of armes (saith he) and a faith in our swearing to be obserued often times, euen vnto our enemie. For that which is so sworne by vs, as our mind doth conceiue that it must be done, this is to be obserued: but if it be otherwise sworne, that is no periurie, if he performe it [...] Beholde heere the very same distinction, which Catholike Di­uines put downe of swearing according to the intention and vn­derstanding of the swearer, or of him, to whom it is sworne: and that the former is, that bindeth and maketh periurie, if it be not performed, and not alwaies the second, to wit, when any violence or force is vsed.

The Reuiew.

5 Behold heere a strange and strong delusion: M. Par­sons collecteth from those words, [ That which is sworne, as M. Parsons his miscon­struction of Tullies offi­ces. our minde doth conceiue that it must be done, that is to be obser­ued: but if it be otherwise sworne, that is no periurie, if he per­forme it not,] that Cicero did vnderstand some reserued clause conceiued in the minde mixed with the outward speech, to make vp one full proposition, such as is their Priestly Equi­uocation, I am no Priest, conceiuing inwardly, with purpose to tell it vnto you: which kinde of mixture neuer came vnto the fantasie of Cicero, or yet of any heathen Writer. But his meaning may be easily explaned, thus: That which is sworne as our minde conceiueth, must be done: that is, when we sweare vnto any, to whom wee conceiue that we owe faithfulnesse, albeit they be euen our hostile enemies, vnto whom (as hee speaketh in the words immediatly going before) there is a faithfulnesse due, according by the common law of armes, That oath is to be obserued, and may not be broken: but if wee sweare otherwise, that is, vnto them vnto whom wee thinke that there is no fidelitie due, such as are Pirats, that oath, al­though it be not performed, yet is it not periurie, that is, in the exterior Court of men, because Pirats, and such perfidious kinde of men (of whom he speaketh in the next words) who [Page 57] are transgressors of the law of Nations, haue no authoritie to iudge it periurie.

6 If this exposition, concerning the outward Court of man, do not satisfie M. Parsons, I shall not refuse to ioyne is­sue vpon the inward Court of the minde and conscience. And the proposition of Sin aliter in Tullie truely resolued standeth thus: If I sweare any thing, thinking in my minde that I ought not to do it, this is no periurie, although I shall not performe it. If our Equiuocators will allow this propo­sition, then must they say that no man can be periured in swearing any thing, which he thinketh to be vnlawfull; but this is incredible: If they will condemne it, then must they A Dilemma. also condemne M. Parsons for a profane man, who esteemeth of this impious doctrine, as of a Catholike trueth, especially seeing they can not finde their clause of Mentall reseruation in all this: for when a man sweareth with his mouth, saying, This I will giue thee, and in his minde shall conceiue, yet I will not giue thee this, because I ought not; these are two diuerse, and partly contradictorie propositions, and make not a mixt proposition, which is the only point that the Equiuo­cators do defend. This will be more manifest by the exam­ple following.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

Which Cicero doth expresse in the very next immediat words, Reck. pag. 460. by the selfe same example, that Azor vsed before: Si praedo­nibus pactum pro capite precium non attuleris, nulla fraus est: nè si iuratus id non feceris, &c. If thou should not pay the price or ransome vnto publike theeues, which was agreed be­tween you for sauing of your life, it is no deceit, no though you had sworne to performe it, &c.

The Reuiew.

7 Methinke I doe perceiue an (&c.) there: Yea M. Parsons? can you play the gelder so openly, to cut off the [Page 58] words which follow, and are of so great importance? to wit M. Parsons his excellent piece of craft, in cutting off words of Ci­cero, which are of most importance. these; Nam Pirata non est ex perduellium numero definitus, sed communis hostis omnium: cùm hoc nec fides esse debet, nec iusiurandum commune. That is, For a Pirat is not to be reckoned in the number of enemies (meaning such, with whom we ought to keepe fidelitie, for Perduelles in this place is no more than [...]) but is the common enemie of all, with whom there ought not to be common faith, or oath. This verifieth my former ex­position, concerning the outward Court of man, supposing that the meaning of Cicero is, that seeing Theeues and Rob­bers are outlawes, the oath which shall not be kept with them can not be periury, and so censured by any law ofman: for when there is no Ius, which is to be violated, there can be no periurium. And in all this there is no note of our Equi­uocators mixt clause of Reseruation, which the sequell will more fully explaine.

M. PARSONS his Reckoning.

It followeth in Cicero: Non enim falsum iurare peierare est, Reckon. pa. 460. 461. sed si ex animi tui sententia iuraueris, sicut verbis concipitur more nostro, id non facere, periurium est: scitè enim Euri­pides, Iuraui linguâ, mentem iniuratam gero. That is: It is no periurie to sweare false, (in any sort whatsoeuer) but if you sweare a thing which you determine in your minde, and do vtter it in words according to the common custome of speech, and do not performe it, this is periurie: for well and fitly to the purpose saith the Poet Euripides, I haue sworn with my tongue, but my minde hath not sworne. So he. And consider now, I pray you, the pu­nica fides of our Minister against our Romane faith. He saith that Cicero and other Heathenish Romans shall rise vp against vs at the day of iudgement, for that they condemne all reserua­tion or doubtfull sense in an oath, and do condemne it for periury: wher as Cicero affirmeth, that there is neither periury nor fraud therein. And the same Philosopher alloweth the very same ex­ample of swearing, with a reserued intention, to a publike theefe without either meaning or obligation to performe it.

The Reuiew.

8 This is soone said by you of Cicero, and may as easily Cicero can not patronize M. Parsons Equi­uocating, ex­cept M. Par­sons do pro­fesse and iu­stifie a lie. be confuted out of Cicero, who held that the oath, which he spake of, is false, and also that notwithstanding the falsitie thereof, it was lawfull to vse it against theeues, who are law­lessemen: which piece of Philosophie our Christianitie did neuer allow.

9 For proofe that Cicero thought that to be lawfull, which Christians call a lie, we need not the coniectures of your Sotus, who saith, with a peraduenture, that Sotus de te­gend. secret. membr. 3. q 3. It was the opinion of some Philosophers, that it is lawfull to lie, for the auoi­ding of some grieuous euill, which they called a mercifull lie, whereof there is mention in Plato Tom. 3. de Repub. and in Cicero pro Q. Ligario. Of Plato there can be no difficultie, for he allowed Physicians to lie vnto their Patients, to the end that by cordiall words they might better reuiue them.

10 As for the knowledge of Cicero his iudgement in this case, Cicero himselfe will suffice in this present place: for The proofe. first (as we haue heard him say) It is not periury to sweare false, thereby confessing that that oath, although made vnto a Pirat or theefe is false, because the promise vnto the theefe was to giue him something, but his intention was not to giue him any thing; Can there be a greater falshood in speech? Yet hee calleth this no periurie, because this being done to theeues, who liue vnder no law of men, there is no law of man that will in that case condemne a man of periurie. But if contrariwise the like oath should be made vnto men, who liued vnder a common law, Cicero calleth it periurie, be­cause in this case words are conceiued more nostro, that is, ac­cording vnto humane fashion of speech, which amongst ci­uill men in the outward Court exacteth a performance, and not to do this is periuric. I would but demand of M. Par­sons, If one of his Equiuocators should make such an oath to a theefe, which he meaneth not to performe, whether there­in he sweare false, or no? If he shall say, No; then is he con­demned [Page 60] by Cicero, who saith that it was falsum iurare, that is, to sweare a false thing. If he say yea, then is not that true which they sweare, and consequently (how soeuer it stand in the outward court of man) it being false, it must be in it selfe, and in the in ward court of our conscience a flat periury.

11. The second Argument issueth out of his application of the verse of Euripedes, alleaged by M. Parsons; I haue Cicero his plaine lying is brought in by M. Parsons to the coun­tenancing of his AEquiuo­cating sworne with my tongue, but my minde hath not sworne. So he, saith M. Parsons, whence he collecteth thus: Cicero affir­meth that there is in such an oath neither fraud nor periury. So he; thereby to confirme the art of Ment all Reseruation in an oath; which is as absurd a collection, as could haue beene made, for the oth, signified in this verse, we see a swearing with the tongue, and a not swearing with the minde, that is, the tongue is diuided and distracted from the minde; the tongue promising and saying [ I will giue thee this] the mind denying and gainsaying thus [ I will not giue thee this,] which in Chri­stianity cannot but be a maine lie, according vnto the vulgar description vsed by S. Augustine, Aug. supra. Mentiri est contrà mentem ire: It is a lie, to goe against the minde.

12 Shall wee compare the Equiuocatours art in this? In Cicero's oath we see two propositions, the one is in the mouth, and affirmatiue, I will doe this; the other is in the minde and negatiue, I will not doe this; and in both there is a flat contradiction between the tongue and the minde, which is downright lying. But the Equiuocators are refined falsi­ficators, for that they may auoide the infamy of a lie, which must needs be in two contradictory propositions, they haue inuented a tricke, to put two propositions in one, as thus, the mouth saying, I will giue thee it (which he inteudeth not to giue, and supplieth in his mind) but onely in conceit, or such a like clause, which he shall fancy to himselfe. If therefore the Equiuocatours will defend Cicero his reseruation, then must they professe flat lying, affirming with their mouth, that which they deny in their minde. But if they will main­taine only their mixt proposition by Mental Reseruation, they must seeke another Parron for it than Cicero, who neuer fan­cied [Page 61] any such conceit. Notwithstanding Cicero is thus far more righteous than the men of this generation, for he ad­mitted no vse of his maner of falshood, but against Theeues, Pirates, and such as were perfidious euen vnto humane so­ciety, liuing without the law of Nations: But our Equiuo­tors can professe and practise their art of delusion among Christians, yea and (as M. Parsons hath taught vs) in decei­uing our deere friendes. We passe now on to M. Parsons his Conclusion: for that which he obiecteth out of Azorius is but a twice or thrice sodden colwoort.

M. PARSONS his Reckoning.

Truly when I reade it ouer together with many other points Reck. pag 461. before mentioned, and doe cousider how weighty matter of accu­sation they doe containe, and how much I doe insist vpon them, to make the deformity thereof appeare in the Readers eies, and those also of M. Morton, if it were possible, and thereby to draw from him either some sound answer, or a simple confession of his errours, so far as such they may be called: or rather of his witting fraude, to beguile his Reader, which were the best and truest forme of answer, if almighty God would giue him light to see the same (though I will presume that he sinned not wholly against his conscience theerein, but framed rather his conscience so, as he might thinke it lawfull perhaps to streine truth, for helping such a cause as his is) yet I cannot but maruell, that he would passe ouer with silence all these grauer matters, and betake himselfe to slighter things in this his last Answer.

The Reuiew.

13 What sound conscience can M. Parsons haue in him­selfe, who iudgeth that any man can thinke he may lawfully M. Parsons, by censuring o­ther mens consciences, hath preiudi­ced his owne. in his conscience streine the truth? if M. Parsons measure vs by the footings of his owne kinde, who iustifie euill acts, that are done with good intentions, such as were they that called the lies of Indulgences Godly deceits, he [Page 62] is deceiued: he must be contented to enioy the company of his owne fellowes, and not to range into other coasts for triall hereof, because among true Christians Truth will be as much ashamed to be supported with a lie, as an ho­nest Matron will blush to attended vpon with an arrant strumper.

14 As for my selfe, heere I set my hand, and by this my Answer, and in this the inward thought of my heart to wir­nesse (for a testimony betweene vs in that day) that I am perswaded that Mentall Equiuocation (as it is described and professed by M. Parsons, and practised by some of his fel­lowes) is a perfect lie, and that this Syren or Mare-maide, which is halfe woman, and halfe fish, I meane their Mixt proposition, which they will haue to be part in the mouth, and part in the minde, will neuer be prooued out of Cicero, or a­ny Mentall AE­quiuocation cannot possi­bly be proo­ued out of the Testimony of any Heathen. Heathenish Author. Which point I insisted vpon in my Full satisfaction, but haue not receiued from M. Parsous the least shadow of satisfaction heereunto, out of the writing of any Heathen Philosopher, except only the now alleged sen­tences of Cicero, who, according to his owne confession, held a false oath to be lawful, which is more than our AEqui­nocators will seeme to dare to defend; and that which they defend Cicero (if he had heard of it) would haue called, a lie. And so I leaue it.

SECT. II.

The one and twentieth charge. M. PARSONS his Reckoning.

THat you may know that this number of 20. is not precise, Rock. pag. 462. but that many others may be added also, if a man will run ouer my said Treatise, I haue thought good to note moe. One is concerning D. Barkley a Scotish man. The first in that he rela­teth a certaine cholerique speech of the said D. Barkley vsed a­gainst an argumont of D. Boucher, as though it had beene spoken against Bellarmine, whom it concerned not, &c. Which is a wilfull corruption.

The Reuiew.

15 I should be very sory but that M. Parsons might easily obiect more than a score, yea or twenty score accusations of this kinde, wherein in the Reader shall not finde my corrup­tion, but his owne wilfull and slanderous crimination. For he that will but view the place, Full Satisfact. part. 3. P. 7 shall not finde in the tran­slation so much as mention of either Bellarmine or Boucher; but I said onely that your D. Barkley calleth your assertion M. Parsons his fine tricke of fraud. most false: which in the margent I noted to be the assertion of Bellarmine, mentioned not in Barkley, but in the 3. cap. Su­prà, to wit, in the same booke of my Full Satisfaction, as it there plainly appeareth. Notwithstanding, if I had brought in Barkley to confute Bellarmine by name, Barkley himselfe would haue iustified me, who doth expresly and professedly write against See a little heereafter, Bellarmine vpon the very same point, as I shal shew. Shall we leaue their persons, and speake of their As­sertions?

M. PARSONS his Reckoning.

Nor indeed is Bellermines maner of speech contrary to that Reck. pag. 462. 463. which Barkley will haue to be the meaning of the History: for that Barkley doth not so much stand vpon the things in contro­uersie for Priests authority, but vpon the maner of proofe, by the examples alleaged by D. Boucher, of Ieroboam, Ozias, Atha­lia, and some other Princes, in whose punishment God vsed Priests for meanes and instruments. Non ignoro (saith he) ius esse Ecclesiae in Reges & Principes Christianos, nec quale ius sit ignoro, sed id tam alienis argumentis ostendi, prorsus ignoro: imò non ostendi planèscio. I am not ignorant (saith D. Barkley) that the church hath right ouer Christian Kings and Princes, nor am I ignorant what maner of right it is: yet doe I not see how the same may be prooued by such impertinent argu­ments; nay I know rather that it cannot be so prooued. Which words going but very few lines before those that T. M. alleageth, [Page 64] he could not but see and yet left them out, and then beginneth a­gainst vs his English text thus: Your owne Doctour calleth this your assertion most false, and contrary to the direct history of the Bible, to wit, That Ozias was deposed of his kingdome by Aza­rias the high Priest. And this is the first abuse, as to me it see­meth, inexcusable.

The Review.

16 No maruell though you thinke this, or any other thing, inexcusable, that passeth from mee, whilest as you M. Parsons his mahcious falshood. looke vpon it thorow your wonted spectacles of rancor and despight, otherwise you could not haue been so grossy ouer­seene, as to thinke me heerin reprehensible at all, much lesse inexcusable: thereby bew raving our incredible malice, as by comparing the Authors sentences will be most cleere and euident.

17 Full Satisfact. part. 3. pag. 4. Bellarmine his assertion was this: King Ozias, for exercising the Priestly office, was depriued of his kingdome. So he. This assertion Ib. pag. 5. Barckley called False and contrary to the direct historie of the Bible, and ancient Interpreters, because it Bellarmine ful­ly confuted by Barkley. is manifest (saith hee) that Ozias died a King, and that his sonne, during his leprosie, was only Rector. Againe, Bellarmine from the same example of Ozias, collected that Bellar. lib. 5. de Pout. ca. 5. The high Priest had power to depriue the King of his kingdome. Contra­riwise Barckley saith, that Barcl. lib. 5. contrà Monar­cho. cap. 11. It is most false to say that Ozias was depriued of his kingdome by the high Priest; saying and prouing, that it is either great indiscretion, or els impudencie, to affirme it, because it is confuted by most euident Scripture. Can there be a greater contradiction betweene East and West, true and false, than there is betweene East and West, true and false, than there is betweene these two opini­ons of Bellarmine and Barckley?

18 Notwithstanding, in M. Parsons his seeming, Barckley, his oddes is not so great. And why, I pray you, M. Par­sons? Barc. ib. lib. 3. cap. 15. Because Barckley doth acknowledge a maner of right in the Church ouer Kings. What a wilfull intoxication is this? We speake of the power coactiue of deposing of Kings, which [Page 65] Barkley denieth to be iustifiable: M. Parsons opposeth Barkleis confession of a spirituall power of excommunicati­on. Nay, I say yet more: Barkley was so far from agreeing with Bellarmine in this point, that he writ a large Chapter a­gainst him by name, to confute his many rebellious positi­ons made against the authority of Kings; and among others he doth particularly answer this his obiection concerning Oziah, Barcla. de po­testate papae. c. 37. I haue shewen (saith he) that this is most false. And now I leaue this fraud of M. Parsons to be named by him­selfe, presuming that he that he that called my true Allegation Inex­cusable, will not want a proper Epithet best befitting his owne guiltinesse.

SECT. III.

The summe of the two and twentieth charge. M. PARSONS his Reckoning.

THe second is about an authority of S. Ambrose, craftily cut Rock. pag. 463. 464. off from the speech of the said D. Barkley by M. Morton, whereof my accusation in my former Treatise was this, viz. But yet if I would examine ( quoth I) the particular authorities that be alleaged about this matter, though nothing making against vs, as hath beene said, and consider how many false shifts are vsed by T. M. therein, you would say that he were a Doctor indeed in that science, for that a seuer all Treatise will scarse conteine them. I will touch one for example sake. He citeth D. Barkley, bring­ing in the authority of S. Ambrose, that heresisted not by force his Arrian Emperour, when he would take a Church from him for the Arrians: but he setteth not downe what answer his Doctor Barkley doth alleage in the very same place, which is, Allegatur Imperatori licere omnia, &c. It is alleaged, that it is lawfull for the Emperor to doe all things, for that all things are his (and consequently that he may assigne a Church vnto the Arrians.) Whereto I answer (saith S. Ambrose) Trouble not your selfe, O Amb. l. 5. ep. 33. Emperour, nor thinke that you haue Imperiall right ouer those things that are Diuine. Doe not exalt your selfe, but if you will raigne long, be subiect vnto God: for it is written that those [Page 66] things that belong to God, must be giuen to God: and to Caesar onely those things that belong to Caesar. Palaces appertaine to the Emperor, but Churches to the Priest. Theright of defen­ding publike walles is committed to you, but not of sacred things. Thus D. Barkley out of S. Ambrose in the very place cited by T. M. which he thought good wholly to pretermit and cut off, and yet to make a flourish, as though D. Barkley had cited S. Ambrose to prooue that the temporal Prince and Emperour was in no case, nor in any cause spirituall or temporall to be withstood, or resisted. And what will yee say of this maner of dealing? Out of what conscience may it proceed?

The Reuiew.

19 Surely, either my answer proceeded out of a better conscience, than that which M. Parsons bewraieth in this ac­cusation, or else I must confesse it is a blacke and vgly conscience indeed. For the matter in question being this, Full Satisfast. part. 3. pag. 24. Whether it be lawfull for Catholikes to raise tumults against Hereticall Magistrates, euen when they haue force to resist, which is the now generall doctrine of Romish writers (as there appeared) I, for confutation heereof, alleaged Barkley, who writeth thus of S. Ambrose. Barcla. lib. 3. [...] cap. 5. S. Ambrose (saith he) was sufficiently armed both by the power of the people, and souldi­ers, and strengthened by the might of Christ, yet would he not de­fend his Church with violence, no not against the furie of an Heriticall Emperour. The whole question being not of re­sisting by disobedience, which is not obeying a wicked com­mand, but of resisting by violence, by bearing armes against M. Parsons his shamelesse fraud. his person. This causeth me to wonder at the palenesse of M. Parsons his face, who blusheth not to insist in that exam­ple and Author, wherein both he and all his Complices, who like Heralds proclaime Armes and violence against the ma­iesty of Kings, to depose them, are so literally, so largely, Our Romish Aduersaries fally confuted by their owne Barkley. and so really confounded. For thus it followeth in Barkley: Ambrose doth so handle the matter (saith he) that he neither be­traieth Gods cause, nor yet violateth the Maiesty of his Prince: [Page 67] he resisted by not doing that which the wicked King did com­mand: yet be [...] suffering paciently that which was de­creed in the Emperours Edict: Ambrose would not excite any to armes, not because he could not, but because he ought not, as he himselfe did confesse. And in the shutting vp of the point: These haue I therefore written (saith Barkley) to shut vp the mouthes of such, who say that the ancient Church did tollerate euil Princes, because at that time they were not of sufficient power to resist, and abstained onely vntill they might finde strength to resist.

20 Which confession of Barkley may serue for a muzzle for Alan, Rainolds, Coster, Creswell, Bellarmine, Symancha, and my good friend M. Parsons, who doe generally pro­fesse a violent resistance of them, whom they call Hereticall Kings, as soone as they may presume of their owne force. Notwithstanding, M. Parsons his Conscience could dispense with himselfe to perswade vs that nothing in this part of Barkley maketh against them, when as (wherein I dare ap­peale vnto any Reader of what profession soeuer) neither M. Parsons, nor any Iesuit can haue a greater Aduersary in this cause, not onely in that place, but euen throughout that whole booke.

CHAP. V.

Conteining an Answer to the last charge of an heape of Fals­hoods at once.

§. I.

1 THe Ful Satisfact. part. 1. Question was, whether our Aduersaries doe offer greater indignity vnto Kings, than vnto Popes, by their Doctrine of Deposing of Heretikes. The Moderate Answerer held that they Doe not: I went diameter, and af­firmed that They doe offer more preiudice vnto Kings, be­cause [Page 68] they teach that Kings, when they command obedi­ence vnto Doctrines, as Kings, they may become Heretikes, and thereby they are made by them liable vnto the censure of deposing. But for Popes, they resolue otherwise, to wit, That Popes, as Popes, can not be Heretikes: and they vnder­stand, that a Pope then speaketh as a Pope, whensoeuer he determineth any doctrine to be a truth, and propoundeth it to be beleeued of Christians, whether he define so in a Coun­sell, or Gretzorus Ies. Colleq. Ratisb. Sess. 1. Siuè solus aliquid definiat, est eius infallibi­lis authoritas: cùm è Cathe­dra vt Ponti­fex definit, non est erro­ri obnoxius. Alone without a Councell. Whereupon I inferred this mine owne Consequence (as the Characters should haue distinguished) that by this doctrine, A Pope cannot be de­posed; and so their disparity betweene Kings and Popes, is easily euicted.

2 The Antecedent, viz. Popes as Popes cannot be Heretiks, I vndertooke to prooue to be the Romish Tenet, from the con­fession of Bellarmine, Greg. Valentia, Salmeron, Canus, Sta­pleton, and Costerus. And now M. Parsons is desirous to be heard speake, this being his last Charge: He hath rammed his peece full, and shooteth haile-shot, pretending, that in these Allegations, I haue committed Ten Falshoods.

M. PARSONS his Reckoning.

Reckon. p. 467. He citeth other foure or fiue Authors in the Margent, to wit, Greg. Valentia, &c. all which in the very places by him ci­ted are expresly against him. And is not this strange dealing? Let Canus, that goeth in the middest, speake for all the fiue, Who. &c.

The Reuiew.

3 Not so M. Parsons: for albeit I shal not refuse to heare Canus speake, yet is there no reason that he should be there­fore the spokes-man for the rest, because he is in the Middest. You are too prone to imitate the Spirits which were called Uentriloqui, and spake out of the bellies of parties. But both the Rules of Art in discoursing, and the law of Consci­ence in accusing, do challenge you rather to begin at the be­ginning. [Page 69] I may not suffer you to be irregular. I affirmed that it was the Doctrine of your fore-cited Authors, to pro­fesse that Popes, as Popes, cannot be Heretikes. Vpon this Antecedent I built this Consequence, that by the same doctrine it must necessarily follow, that then As'Popes they cannot be deposed for Heresic. What will you M. Parsons, say vnto the Antecedent? What is that which you will now conclude from Canus?

M. PARSONS his Reckoning.

That Popes may be Heretikes, as Popes, and consequently Reck. pag. 467. may be deposed.

The Reuiew.

4 If the foresaid Authors do affirme that Popes, as Popes, may be Heritikes, nay, if they doe not absolutely deny it e­uen in the very same places which I haue alleaged, then let your brand of Impudency sticke fast in my forehead. First, Bellarmine. Bellar. l. 4. de Rom. Pont. c. 2. §. Secunda o­pinio, & §. ex his. The opinion of them (saith he) who say that the Pope, as Pope, may be an Heretike, and teach an Heresie, est o­pinio erronea, & haeresi proxima: that is, Is an erroneous o­pinion, and next vnto Heresie. Yea, he is so far from yeeld­ing to M. Parsons, that in his sixt Chapter he saith: Piè cre­dendum, M. Parsons maruelous ig­norance or peruersnesse, in reporting the iudgement of his owne Authors. &c. that Ibid. cap. 6. It is piously to be beleeued, that the Pope cannot be an Heretike, not onely as he is Pope, but euen as he is a priuate man, by beleeuing obstinately any thing that is contrary vnto faith. And Carer. lib. 1. de Rom. Pont. c. 23. Carerius doth follow Bellarminc verbatim, yea Syllabatim, saying, Opinio est erronea &c. and Piè creden­dum, &c. concluding that A Pope, as Pope, cannot be an He­retike. Seeing then that Bellarmine doth confute M. Par­sons euen in terminis, it is not to be maruelled, that M. Parsons chose rather Canus than Bellarmine, to speake for all the rest.

5 The second is Greg. de Ualentia, who is most perem­tory in this point. Valent. Ies. Anal. l. 8. c. 3. §. Respondeo quid. They that shall say (saith he) that the Pope [Page 70] can according to his publike person (that is, as Pope) erre in faith, in things controuerted in the Church, those men doe most grieuously erre in faith. Salmeron defendeth the same positi­on, calling this the Salmeron. in 2. Gal. Dist. 24. §. Deindè. Singular prerogatiue of the Pope, that as Pope he cannot erre in determining any thing against faith. Sta­pleton walketh in the same path. Stapleton [...] princip. l. 6. c. 1. The Pope (saith he) as a priuate man, may erre, but in discharging his function (that is, as Pope) he cannot erre in the matters of faith. Costerus will not be behinde his fellowes. Costerus En­chirid. cap. 3. §. Fatemur. We doe constantly deny (saith he) that the Popes of Rome can teach (that is, as Popes) others an heresie. Only Canus remaineth, whom M. Parsons would haue to speake for the rest. In good time: for he will not be found differing from the rest. Canus. loc. Theol. lib. 6. c. 7. &. 8. The Pope of Rome saith Ca­nus) cannot erre in defining Controuersies of faith: which is all one as to say, that although the Pope may fall into heresie, as he is a priuate man, yet as he doth prescribe any doctrine to be publikely beleeued in the Church (that is, as Pope) he cannot be an heretike. And thus the Antecedent is cleerely ratified by all the fiue witnesses, whom I alleaged. I proceed now to the Consequence.

The Consequence.

6. The Argument standeth thus: He that can not be an heretike, as Pope, can not as Pope be deposed for an here­sie. But the Pope of Rome (according to the doctrine of the former witnesses) can not be an heretike, as Pope. Ergo, As Pope (according to their principles) he can not be depo­sed for heresie. M. Parsons opposeth heerunto as followeth.

M. PARSONS his Reckoning.

Reckon. pag. 446. The foure witnesses by him mentioned, to wit, Bellarmine, Carerius, Azorius, and Gratian doe expresly holde, that Popes both may fall into heresies, and may also be deposed for the same, by the Church. And their words are guilefully alleged by T. M. as sounding to the contrary, and are spoken of maners only, and not of faith.

The Reuiew.

7 Doth this Assertion, Popes may be heretikes, contra­dict the former, Popes as Popes can not be heretikes? Is not this an excellent fallacie? Good M. Parsons remember your M. Parsons no­tsble guile & falshood. owne rules: A Priest hauing a secrecie, as Priest (that is, in Confession) may not reueale it: but hearing a secret, as not Priest, but as a priuate man (that is, out of Confession) hee An example how Pope as Pope. may sometime lawfully discouer it. Were it not a fond cauill for any to say, that the first, A Priest as Priest may not reueale a secret, is a lie, because the other is a truth. vz. Hearing it as no Priest, he may reueale it? Haue you not yet learned to di­stinguish of the two kinde of persons in the Pope, as well as in a Priest? the one publike, as Pope, the other priuate, as a particular Doctor? Neuerthelesse, although all my dispute was concerning the publike person of the Pope, to proue that by their doctrine the Pope as Pope can not be an heretike, yet shall I be contented to step a little neerer vnto M. Par­sons his apprehension, and to examine what their doctrine is concerning the Pope, as he is a priuate Doctor, especially in these two points: the first is his fault, vz. heresie; the se­cond his punishment, which is, to be deposed. Of the first thus.

Whether Bellarmine hold simply, that any Pope can be an heretike.

§. 11.

8 I leaue the former respect of Pope as Pope, &c. the cleerenesse whereof was such in Bellarm. lib. 4. de Rom. Pont. that itmay I ceme to haue dazled M. Parsons his braines, insomuch that he started backe from that place alleged, and recolled vnto Bellarmine his second Book de Pontifice, seeking theresome matter of obiection against me.

M. PARSONS his Reckoning.

Reckon. pag. 466. Bellarmine confesseth out of Gratian Can. Si Papa. Dist. 40. that an hereticall Pope may be iudged & deposed; and more, [Page 72] that in the 8. generall Councell Sess. 7. Pope Honorius was de­posed Bellar. l. 2. de Pout. c. 30. for heresie.

The Reuiew.

9 Doth then Bellarmine speake this vpon his certaine beleefe, that either a Pope can be an heretike, or els that Ho­norius M. Parsons his cunning. was truly deposedfor heresie? Both which, M. Parsons, as it seemeth, would make vs beleeue. But Bellarmine in the same place saith, that it is Bellar. l. 2. de Pont. c. 30. probable, and easily to be defend­ed (which he before held to be See aboue lit. e. piously beleeued) to wit, that a Pope cannot be an beretike. And elswhere more exactly an­swering vnto an obiection taken out of the foresaid Can. Si Papa, which was this, Bellar. l. 4. de Rom. Pont. cap. 7. Seeing that that and other Canons teach that the Pope cannot be iudged, except he be found to erre infaith; Ergo, the Pope may erre in faith, or otherwise such Canons should be in vaine: hee vseth two answers, but as A strange mysterie. though the sirst were too feeble; Secondly, I say (saith hee) that such Canons doe not meane that a Pope may erre, euen as he is a priuate person, but only that the Pope cannot be iudged. And because it is not altogether certaine, whether the Pope may be an heretike or no, therefore, for more cautelousnesse, they added that clause, Nisi haereticus extiterit, that is, except he be an he­retike. By this it appeareth that Bellarmine will not thinke, that any Pope can be an heretike, either as he is Pope, or as he is a priuate man. Pope [...] iudged an he­retike by a Councell.

10 Concerning Honorius, Bellarmine in the clause of the same sentence, which M. Parsons hath alleaged, held it for probable, that Honorius was not an heretike: in whose defence he bestoweth a large Chapter, wherein he is so bolde as to say, that the foresaid Bellar. l. 4. de Rom Pont. [...] 11. Councell was deceiued, in iudging that Honorius was guiltie of heresie. Could M. Parsons be igno­rant of this?

11 By this time wee may discouer a strange mysterie of A similitude discouering a Romish mysterie. strong delusion, which I shall first shew in a mirror. Camby­ses King of Persia, being so farretransported with vnnaturall lust, as to desire to marrie his owne sister, demanded first of his Councellers, whether such a match were warrantable by [Page 73] the law of the Persians? they return him this answer: There is no Persian law which will allow you such a marriage, but yet we finde (say they) a law which doth licence the K. of Persia to doe what he list. So some Romish Authours like­wise, although they say that a Pope being an beretike may be deposed, yet haue they also taught, that the Pope can not be an heretike: which is all one as to thinke that, as Pope, he may not be iudged an heretike, and if not iudged, then how shall he be deposed? For if hee shall happen to teach an heresie, (seeing that we may not belecue that he can be an heretik) let him teach what he list, he may not be suspected of heresie; if not suspected, then not iudged, or condemned, and then consequently not deposed for heresie, which is our maine Consequence. And for a further confutation I adde as fol­loweth.

That their position, concerning Deposing a Pope, is but a cunning delusion.

§. III.

12 Bellar. l. 2. de Rom. Pont. c. 26. Bellarmine doth consider two capacities in the Pope, the first is in respect of his Temporall Princedome; the other in respect of his Spirituall Pastourship and Popedome. Concerning his Temporall state, Ibidem. The Pope as other Princes (saith Bellarmine) may ackno wledge no superiour in Tempo­rall matters: but in examining the Spirituall Iurisdiction, We say (saith he, answering in the name of the rest) that the Pope can not be iudged vpon earth by any Prince Christian, whe­ther he be Temporall or Ecclesiasticall, no nor yet by all assem­bled together in a generall Councell: meaning, that he can not be deposed Bellar. l. 2. de Conc. c. 18. coàctiuely. Be it that this is spoken in respect of matter of fact, and not offaith, yet when (supposing that a Pope may be an heretike) we shall demand how a Pope may be deposed, what will our Aduersaries answer? For either must the Pope relinquish his Popedome, together with his Temporall Princedome voluntarily, or els by violence: but not voluntarily, because M. Parsons about. Obstinacie (that iron sinew) being [Page 74] a propertie of heresie, the Pope will not voluntarily remoue, A Dilemma. especially, out of so rich a Chaire. Neither may he be re­moued violently and by coactiue force; For what Romish Author will iustifie violence in deposing a Pope by any ex­ample? and yet diuers Alphonsus de Castro. lib. 1. bares. cap. 4. & cap. 2. Popes haue been heretikes, yea euen as Popes.

13 From these premises our Christian Reader may vn­derstand, first the trueth of my former assertion, to wit, that the Romish Doctors beleeue that The Pope, as Pope, can not be an heretike. Secondly, the vanity of M. Parsons his ob­iection, that being heretikes they may be deposed, seeing that they must not beleeue that any Pope can be a pertinacious heretike. Thirdly, the necessitie of my consequence, vz. They that holde that the Pope can not be an heretike, must grant that he can not be deposed for heresie. And lastly, the dispari­tie betweene the state of Kings and Popes, issuing from the former considerations, because thus Kings shall (by this do­ctrine) be deposed for heresie, but Popes may not. And what a [...] and gulfe of difference do they furthermore make betweene these two states, whilest as they iustifie the examples of diuers Popes, in deposing of many Emperours not for heresie, but for other causes, and yet denie that the Pope may be deposed, Carerius lib. de potest. Pont. l. 1. cap. 24. Although he should do any thing pre­iudiciall to the vniuersall state of the Church, as their Carerius taught: or Azor. Ies. Instit. Moral. l. 5 c. 14 § Sed certè. Although (as their Iesuite Azorius spake) hee should neglect Ecclesiasticall Canons, and peruert the lawes of Kings: or Dist. 40. Can. Si Papa. Although (as it is in Gratian) he should carie in­finite multitude of soules headlong with him into hell. And now wee see the height of Papall prerogatiue, and therein the depth of Antichristian tyrannie.

CHAP. VI.

Conteining a briefe Censure vpon a late little Pamphlet, intituled, A PATERNE OF A PROTESTANT; which was written by a namelesse Libeller.

1 IT is now almost foure yeeres since my Booke of Ful Satisfaction was published in answer vnto the Moderate Answerer: in all which time I heard nothing of this fellow, who Endymion -like seemed vnto mee to haue slept a drowsie sleepe; yet now at length hee beginneth to rowze himselfe, and to tell vs his dreame of a Paterne of a Protestant; or as though some man had serued a Latitat vp­on The Pam­phleter his Latitat. him, because he had formerly betraied his Romish cause: Therefore he holding it a shame at least not to saie some­thing, he commeth in clamorously with a scurrilous libell, which the wise Reader will discerne to haue been penned ra­ther for the vexation of his aduersary, than in any hope of the reparation of his broken cause. To whom first I make this answer, viz. that I owe him no answer.

That there is no Answer due vnto this namelesse libeller, euen by the doctrine of the Ro­manists themselues.

§. I.

2 CArdinall Bellarmine Bellar Resp. ad Libellum in scriptum, Res­ponsio Doctoris Theologi ad Epistolom sibi scriptam. &c. in principio. censuring a Venetian Doctor, who printed a booke, without prefixing his name before it, telleth him that The Councell of Trent Sess. 4. doth exact, vpon paine of excommunication, that no bookes concerning Diuine matters be printed without the Authors name, and the Approbationof the Ordinary both set downe in the title page of the booke. But this Libeller doth not affoord vs so much as [Page 76] the least letter of his name, and therefore ought he first to seeke an absolution for his contempt against their Churches order before that he can iustly expect of me an Answer to his calumnious Pamphlet. Againe, the same Cardinall els­where noteth that Bellar. lib. 4. de Rom Pont. c. 13. §. Iohan­nes. Author sinè nomine est sinè authoritate, that is, An Author without a name is without authority: by which reason I am licenced to dismisle this railing and scol­ding libeller, as a man (if yet he be a man and not a woman) of no credit. Neuerthelesse, seeing that this Cypher will stand for a digit and be thought to be some-body, I will an­swer something to him, lest I may seeme to contemne him: yet not much, lest any may thinke that I do greatly respect him; but especially lest that by but repeating his lauish language, and friuolous exceptions, I might abuse both my Readers patience, and mine owne more serious intentions.

Onely I craue his licence, that I may giue him some attri­bute, because otherwise I shal seeme to dispute with the man in the moone. And what can be more proper vnto him than M. Pamphleter or Libeller? Of whom I would first know what esteeme he is off.

The Pamphleter.

I in a booke called the Moderate Answer made an offer of a Pag. 62. publike triall at the time of the Conuocation, and Parlament, and the greatest assembly of Protestant Bishops and Doctors, and to A rare patern of singular ar­rogancy in this Pamphle­ter. them all: And I hope, M. Doctor, that you did not with discre­tion say that my selfe, who made this offer, and was one of them that was assigned to be one of the three Catholike Disputants to performe it against you all, either feared scratcing or biting of you, or your best biting dogges.

The Censure.

3 I crie the man mercy, I tooke him for an infamous and senselesse libeller, but I perceiue by the testimony which he beareth of himselfe, that he is a famous and learned Challen­ger, [Page 77] one assigned among the three Worthies to dispute with all Bishops and Doctors of our profession. But when we would know who this worthy Disputer is, and where we may finde him, his name is Nemo, & his aboad is Nusquàm, who (if we shall not trust him) will neuer deceiue vs. We haue heard of his authority, shall we heare something of his honesty?

The Pamphleter.

Because I will not accuse another in mine owne guiltinesse, I Pag. 16. must trie whether he could obiect any thing against me: He being charged by a Catholike Author to challenge, if he could, any one Catholike Writer offalsification; although I was then fresh in his memory, yet he left me out of his Reply.

The Censure.

4 The Challenge which M. Parsons made was that I should note but any one man of that profession, who might be found guilty of falshoods, by wilful abuse of his Authors. I therefore for my Aduersaries better satisfaction thought to single out Bellarmine, one of the tallest Firre-trees of their A paterne of an absurd dis­putant. Libanon, which so ouershaddowed this Pamphleter that I could not see him; and now the shrub boasts that hee (for­sooth) was therefore freed from all taxation of false dealing. Could this be one of the Three select Disputants, that argueth so absurdly? Before I end this Censure, he will know that it was not the syncerity of his dealing, but the obscurity of his place and person that made me omit him in that Reply: as may appeare both by his present vnconscionable chal­linge of me, and also from his former dissolute and immode­rate Answer vnto the booke of Discouery. In his present Pamphlet he signifieth first what he will not, and then what he will doe. Of the first.

The Pamphleter.

I will omit all things, whereof he hath beene by others admo­nished, Pag. 6. &. pag. 32. intending onely to take the leauings of his Romane Ad­uersary [Page 78] ( meaning, M. Parsons) and not to burden M. Morton with any thing that he chargeth him withall.

The Censure. SECT. II.

5 I thought at the first that the libeller had beene M. Parsons his Page, but now I perceiue he is but his Gleaner, The first fruits of the Pam­phleters fals­shoods. whom indeed he followeth at the very heeles, and sometime (by his leaue) he lurcheth out of his sheaffe: for he begin­neth his charge with manifest falshoods, and flatly contrary to his promise he vrgeth ( Pag. 37. & 38.) my sentence con­cerning the Nature of Heresie, which was obiected by M. Parsons. Secondly ( pag. 14.) of the Not satisfying of his Ob­iections: Thirdly ( pag. 28. 29. 30.) he excepteth against the saying, That all Popish Priests hold that doctrine of Rebelli­on: Fourthly ( Pag 12.) he reprooueth that [...] all which were obiected by M. Parsons, and haue beene already answered in this Reckoning. It is likely that the Pamphleter will deale iustly with me, who thus grossy falsifieth his own absolute promise? We haue heard what he would not doe, (although he doth it.) In the next place let vs see what he intendeth to do although he can not do it, namely, to charge me with falsities; and this indeuoureth to performe both by the testimonies of others, and by his owne demonstrati­ons. Of the first as followeth.

The Pamphleter.

His owne Brethren in religion haue charged him with abuse of Pag. 6. &. pag. 19. &. 13. 14. authorities, which he hath committed in his booke against me, euen the Consenters vnto the booke intituled, A Christian and modest offer of a most indifferent Conference; who giue this censure against him, saying that the matter is pitifully shif­ted off.

The Censure.

6 In the Full Satisfact. pag. 105. my words were these, [Page 79] concerning the Kings Maiesties censure of an Annotation vpon 2. Chro. 15. 16. His Maiestie (said I) being so diuinely il­lumiuated, could not take exception to the note, for any offence thereby giuen, but only in suspicion and iealouzie of some offence, which by some weake ones was taken thereby. This is the point, wherein I dare appeale vnto any Reader to iudge whether either the Libeller could call this a falshood; or that other Offerer of a conference, (whose humor was crossed in that an­swer) call it a pitifull shifting, wherein notwithstanding they noted no falsification. Yet the Pamphleter is not content to His fraudu­lencie. obiect this (such is his rankor) once or twice, but often doth he inculcate it, that thereby he might interest me in his own propertie of wilfull falshood. Beside this testimonie, he in­sisteth vpon demonstrations: some are generall, and others are particular. First of the generall.

The Pamphleter.

I had in my booke 2000 lines, and M. Doctor made shew to Pag. 18. 19. cite my very words, and wholly; yet doth not so much as mention 400. How then could he call it a Full Satisfaction?

The Censure. SECT. III.

7 Pauperis est numerare pecus. What a fond Pamphle­ter His idle and miserable taxation. is this, who reckoneth the number of the lines of his whole booke: it had been well he had as willingly reckoned his lies, who saith vntruly, that I pretended to cite all the words of his booke. No, for I thought it a sin for me to re­port all his lauish, scurril, & brawling terms; or els to repeat all his idle & tedious repetitions, who now (to the end that he might be as fond as he hath been false) would haue his Reader thinke that there can not be a Full Satisfaction giuen to a mans booke, except all the lines thereof be wholly cited. Whereby he can not but condemne his father M. Parsons in his answering of the same Full Satisfaction; but much more [Page 80] his L. Cardinall Bellarmine, who in his Answer vnto his Ma­iesties Apologie did not cite, as I am perswaded, 2000 lines, yea and his owne distressed and distorted answer vnto the little Discouerie of Romish positions. Who would trouble him­selfe with such babisme as this Pamphleter vseth? Passe we from generals, and let vs trie him in some particulars. The first.

The Pamphleter.

The Doctor answered, that enquiring into the Acts which Pag. 10. & 11. are extant concerning the proceedings of King Henrie 8. against Q. Mary, and Q. Elizabeth, he found not any act wherby, after that they had been disabled, they were restored vnto the right of succession: wherein he is confuted by Bish. Barlow, who excu­seth the first disinheriting of them, and sheweth the legitimation of them againe.

The Censure. SECT. IV.

8 In the end of the same booke of Ful Satùfact. in the end of the booke, in a baife sheet of paper, called An Ad­uertisement, &c. Full Satisfaction, I expressed as much my selfe in a particular Aduertisement vnto the Reader in this behalfe, which hath been published now these three yeeres, wherein I satisfied for the integritie both of my cause and conscience: yet not withstanding this their choise Disputer and Moderate Answerer, or rather their immoderate Pamphleter, durst obiect this corrected errour vnto me, which he hath also singled out, and set in the first His profound malice. place, for the most notoriously blacke note of falshood. This kinde of dealing I finde dayly among the Romanists: I might finde more ingenuitie among the Pagans. As for B. Barlow, he doth not so much as point at me.

The Pamphleter.

Enter againe, M. Doctor, and excuse your selfe, if you can, why the very first chapter being intituled, A generall censure of his slanderous Pamphlet, prouing that no argument therein can [Page 81] conclude the Authors intent, is omitted without any memorie at all? Tell me, was this integritie?

The Censure.

9 I now enter, Sir Phamphleter, to your blush, if you be not past shame, giuing you to vnderstand that both your His aparently wilfull false­hood. fourth and last Arguments are mentioned and satisfied ex­presly in the same Full Satisf. part. 2. pag. 97. & 99. As for the rest, they were more generall insinuations, and were af­terwards confuted in the answers vnto other particulars.

The Pamphleter.

At the first beginning he misquoteth the place of my Answer, Pag. 33. citing the second section, where there is no such thing, as he ci­teth of the consequence, Full Satisfact. pag. 1.

The Censure.

10 The quotation is in the margin of the Full Satisfact. pag. 1. and is taken out of the booke of the Moderate Answe­rer His shameles vntruth. cap. 2. §. Wherefore. And if I haue mis-cited him, let my Reader suspect me in his other taxations: but if I haue dealt expresly and directly therein, then may we quote this fel­low for a loose and leaud calumniator.

The Pamphleter.

He citeth me disputing against the naked proposition [All Pag. 33. & 34. Protestants are, in the censure of Catholikes, heretikes and ex­communicate] absolutely concealing of what heretikes we intrea­ted, whether they were denounced, or not denounced.

The Censure.

11 This likewise is a godlesse vntrueth, for to shew what His godlesse vntruth. [Page 82] kinde of Heretike was vnderstood, I spent professedly a whole chapter, vz. Full Satisfact. lib. 1. cap. 4. pag. 5.

The Pamphleter.

He chargeth me to say that [Not any Protestant is iudged by Pag. 35. vs an Heretike] where the restriction [ any] is his owne corrup­tion, and maketh the same particular, which was generall.

The Censure.

12 The Pamphleters words were these: Mod. Answ. cap. 2. §. For first. [ Not one Pro­testant, &c.] marke, Not one, and, Not any: Can this choise Disputer finde any ods betweene these two? I wonder what he meant by this? Must I be at paines to teach a puppie to His babish falsitie. speake English?

The Pamphleter.

He intituled his 2. Chap. ( of Full Satisfact.) thus, [Contei­ning Pag. 35. fiue arguments of the Moderate Answerer]; but why in true dealing conteined it not eight?

The Censure.

13 As though I had answered but fiue of those Argu­ments. If the Libeller had but turned ouer the leafe follow­ing, Notable falshood. he might haue seene ( Full Satisfact. cap. 4. pag. 5.) this Sixt and Seuenth Arguments both directly expressed, and also largely answered, the whole Chapter being spent only in the Confutation of these two Arguments. Could either I haue dealt more iustly with him, or he more falsly with me? Oh, but where is the Eight? Yea marrie, this would be knowen; for in his booke there the Seuenth is the last: ther­fore hee complaineth of his Printer, that set doune the sixt twice. I say, that if his Printer did it wittingly, he was wiser than the Pamphleter, because both they do consonantly im­plie one argument.

The Pamphleter.

And in these citations you further behaue your selfe with Pag. 36. this sincerity, M. D. first, you cite my Answer to be in these words: No man doubting in faith, but onely such as be ob­stinate: No ignorant beleeuer, or deceiued of Heretikes, but he to whom the truth hath beene made knowen: nor onely internally affected, but he that is a manifest Professor is subiect to the censure of excommunication for Heresie. Now sir, I must tell you, that there is not any such proposition in the places you cite from my Answer, as is manifest in my An­swer, &c.

The Censure.

14 What you haue pointed at in the Margent, suffer me to draw into a more particular view. The Propositions of the Pamphleter are contained in the Mèder. Answer. cap. 2. A multiplicity of his vn­truthes. my Citations in the Full Satisfact. cap. 2. His propositions stand thus: Ignorance euen vincible excuseth from heresie: And, The ignorantly-seduced Protestant is not an Heretike, ex­cept, when the truth of the Catholike doctrine is made manifest, he resist: And againe, He is not properly an Heretike, who is de­ceiued of Heretikes, and beleeueth Heretikes. The second, Both sufficient knowledge of truth proposed, and an obstinate per­tinacy in not imbracing it, with such defence of the contrary is re­quired in Heresie. The third, He that desireth to be ignorant of the truth, and so professeth Heresie inignorance (though ther­in he sinne grieuously) yet is he not an Heretike. The fourth A man doubting in his faith is not properly an Heretike. The fift, All Heretikes (as internall) be not subiect to the sensure of ex­communication.

15 And what haue I now abstracted from these, to shew what kind of men are not subiect to the censure of excommuni­cation, in the opinion of the Pamphleter? First, that No man doubting in faith, &c. in his fourth: Secondly, Only such as be [Page 84] obstinate, &c. which is his second: Thirdly, No ignorant be­leeuer, &c. which is his first and third: Fourthly, None deceiued of Heretikes, but he to whom the truth is made knowen; which is also in his first: Fiftly, None onely internally infected, but he that is a manifest Professor, is subiect vnto the censure of excommunication, which agreeth with his fift. And now I leaue the scanning of these to the sight, not (as he saith) of All (for who almost will vouchsafe the sight of such triflings) but of any, who shall cast his eie heereupon, to iudge whe­ther there hath beene in my Citation the least note of Insin­cerity.

The Pamphleter.

My Proposition was onely this, [No Protestant or Heretike Pag. 40. not excommunicate by name lieth subiect vnto any penalty pre­tended,] when as my sincerily dealing Aduersary (as before) ci­teth me to say, that such, are not subiect to any Penaltie at all: which is his corruption, and not my proposition.

The Censure.

16 This will be soone tried, for in the Full Satisf. cap. 4. His quarelous veine of tra­ducing his Aduersary. pag. 5. I deliuered his proposition thus: No Protestant or Heretike, not excommunicate by name, lieth subiect to any penal­ty pretended. What shadow then had this insincerely dealing Libeller thus to traduce me, as though I had falsified in this Citation? Who againe is so dull, as not to vnderstand, that seeing all kinde of outward penalties were implied in those which were pretended, it must needs follow that he that is not subiect vnto the pretended penalties, is not subiect to any at all.

The Pamphleter.

I said that no Protestant in England is excommunicate by Pag. 40. name; which word (In England) for which our Controuersie was, he leaueth out.

The Censure.

17 This is as easily tried as the former: for ( Full Satisf. cap. 4. pag. 5.) I repeated the Pamphleters sentence expresly thus: No Protestant or Heretike not excommunicate by name His palpable falsitie. ( as none in England is) lieth subiect, &c. I locked vp the word, England, within the [...] of a Parenthesis, lest it might not be seene; and yet hee blusheth not to say, that I haue left it out. What shall we iudge of the temper of this fellow, who being in England can not see England?

The Pamphleter.

He ingeminates this sentence, [Protestants are no Heretikes,] Pag. 42. when as I neuer spake or thought any such absolute assertion.

The Censure.

18 We shall need no more but to set downe the words. The obiection in my Discouerie was this: They who by your slanderous doctrine make all Protestants, in your opinion Here­tikes, so odious, as vnworthy of ciuill society, &c. the Pamphle­ter made this answer: Mod. Answ. cap. 2. No learned Catholike so reputeth the Protestants, or any one Protestant in this kingdome. But he saith that this was not to grant absolutely, that no Protestant was His quarrel a­bout his own ambiguitie. an Heretike: Very good, I then perceiue his meaning is, that he granted it not absolutely, but equiuocatingly. Well, let him enioy his arte, for me; I enuie him not, although this be the best facultie that he hath.

The Pamphleter.

You said that our generall assumption was this, that [All Pro­testants Pag. 43. are heretiks & excommunicate;] but must needs grant that this citation is false, because the word, Generall, you know, comprehendeth all, and excludeth none.

The Censure.

19 Good Reader, I pray thee do not laugh at the Pam­phleter, His ignorāce of his cōmon Grammar tules. phleter, nor send him backe to his English Rules, where thou hast red, that There be excepted from this generall Rule as followeth. But this noble Disputant, forsooth, calleth the generall Assumption false, which can admit any exception at all.

20 I should proceed to censure Pag. 34. his difference betweene these words, Heretike and Excommunicate, and Heretike or Excommunicate, and to confute it by their Bulla coena; and g Pag. 49. then to shew how inconsideratly he vpbraideth vs with the sentence of a kinsman of his owne, (as we may guesse by his name, but more by his distemper) euen M. Broughton; be­cause that passionate man did condemne their vulgar transla­tion farre more; and lastly, his loose Argument to proue the Heresie of Arrianisme, out of [...] seeing that Bellarmine h Pag. 52. hath iustified Caluins sense therein; And I thinke that he himselfe hath need to reforme his Argument, lest that he be thought thereby (which is an heresie indeed) to haue diui­ded the Essence and substance of God; and lastly, I should haue repelled his Pag. 53. obiection of Trinus-vnus, whereby, after the naming of the Father, Sonne, & Holy-ghost, I complexiue­ly comprehended the Vnitie in Trinitie, according both to the sense of our Christian Article, and also to the forme vsed by Antiquitie; together with the confutation of some other his dissolute exceptions. But these few are sufficient to pa­terne out this Libeller. Hitherto of his falshoods in his Pamphlet. One word or two of his Moderate Answer.

The Pamphleter.

He did not obiect any falshood vnto me in his Preamble, when Pag. 16. he was charged to note some falsifications in Catholikes.

The Censure.

21 I did not in that little Preamble infist in the Pamphle­ters [Page 87] vntrueths and falshoods, Ergo (by his Logike) I could not proue him to be guiltie of falshood. This is the conse­quence of this famous scholar, who was chosen to be one of the Three (if we beleeue himselfe) who should Dispute a­gainst all Bishops and Doctours of the Protestant side. But if I aske from what topicke place this Argument is fetched, I thinke he will hardly shew any, except it be ab absurdo; be­cause the reason is apparent, why I did not meddle with his falsities, for as then I was to deale only with their Achilles Bellarmine, so that I might well neglect this Gleaner. Be­sides, that I could haue ranged this fellow among the guiltie persons, is as euident by the sixt Chapter of this Encounter, which is spent in repeating the manifolde errours and slan­ders, which this man committed against Protestants, and were so inexcusable, that his Patron M. Parsons, when hee * See aboue cap. 6. §. [...] should haue satisfied for them, suffered them all to stand still vpon this libellers score; whom (wishing vnto him [...]) I leaue fantastically disputing with his owne shadow. And now returne vnto M. Parsons his Reckoning.

CHAP. VII.

Conteining an Answer vnto the seuenth Chapter of M. Parsons, concerning the obiected Omissions, in not defending them, wom he calleth my Clients.

§. I.

1 AFter that M. Parsons had played the part of a Promoter, in calling into question concealed falsities, (as he vntruly termed them) he pro­ceedeth to ransacke the foresaid Omissions; in which his Accusation I finde nothing but preposterous and superfluous heaping vp of the ragges of his olde Wardrobe, called the Mitigation, and all to the end he might make vp a grosse-bellied bocke: wherein he exacteth of me to satisfic for all incommodious speeches, which haue passed from [Page 88] some Protestants, which is a charge that neither I did assume, nor could M. Parsons by his Commission impose it vpon me, who is delighted with the irksome iarre of some hot spirits, that rage against Caluin, especially in the point of Arrianisme.

The summe of M. PARSONS Reckoning in this point, concerning Caluine.

1 produced at that time somewhat largely and particularly Reck. pag. 477. eighteen examples, partly out of the olde, and partly out of the new Testament, maliciously peruerted by Caluine in fauour of Iewes and Arrians, against the trueth and certainty of Christi­an Religion, leauing out twenty more, which Doctour Hunnius doth handle, &c,

The Reuiew.

2 When we do but consider what is the maladie of ad­nerse criminations, that may serue for a part of an Answer, which Bellarmine vseth in like case, Non multùm resert quid irati homines dixerint. For as when the aire is ouercast with clouds, the very Sunne becommeth inuisible vnto mortall men; so passionate affections sometimes send such grosse vapors into the braine, that the hatred to the true Speaker hindreth a man from discerning of the trueth of the speech.

3 And vnto this defect may we partly impute the Ac­cusation M. Caluine in­iuriously abu­sed both by Hunnius & by M. Parsons. which Hunnius, and in him now M. Parsons doe prosecute against Caluine, as though he had in any sort fauo­red Arrianisme, which I iudge to be an intollerable vntrueth, as both the writings and seale of Caluine will perfectly de­motistrate. Than the which what greater euidence can any iustly require? First by his writing; for ( Institut. lib. 1. cap. 13.) he hath published a large and accurate Confutation of that damnable heresie of the Arrians from aboue thirtie te­stimonies Caluine a pro­fessed Aduer­sarie vnto Ar­rianisme. of Scripture, both out of the olde and new Testa­ments. Secondly, (which I call his seale) his publike Act, when he with the whole Senate of Geneua (as Bellarmine [Page 89] confesseth) did burne Michael Seruetus a Spaniard for Arria­nisme. Bellar. lib. 1. de Christ. in praef. §. Primi agminis. How then will they not (shall we thinke) impute many falshoods vnto Caluin against whom they obiect a fauouring of Arrianisme, albeit they were not ignorant that Caluin did both confute the heresie, and (as much as laie in him) burne the Heretike? Could there be any pretence of reason for this Crimination?

The summe of M. PARSONS his Reckoning.

Hunnius saith that M. Caluin hath peruerted mankinde by Reckon. p. 477. his detestable desire of wresting the Scriptures, ouerthrowing the bulwarkes of Christian Religion, which it hath against Iewes and Arrians.

The Reuiew.

4 Lorinus a late Iesuit hath this saying: Ioh. Lorin. Ies. in Act. Apost. cap. 19. pag. 785. §. Perpla­cet. That modest sentence of S. Hierom (saith he) doth please me very much, and agreeth most fitly with my purpose, whereas speaking of that com­mon exposition vpon the Dried bones mentioned in the Prophet Ezechiel, which exposition vnder standeth by those bones the re­surrection: but he thinketh that this agreeth not with the lite­rall sense, but that the Prophet by that aenigmaticall speech did reuiue the hope of that people: Notwithstanding they that inter­pret this place otherwise ( saith S. Hierom) may not be offended with vs, as though we denied the resurrection, for we know that there are found many other much more strong testimonies than these. And when he ( saith S. Hierom) had brought forth some testimonies, he addeth: by which it is manifest ( saith he) that we deny not the resurrection, but onely affirme that these words are not meant of the resurrection, and by the paraeble of the resurre­ction to haue Prophecied of the restitution of the people, which was then in captiuity: Neither shall we presently giue an occasi­on vnto Heretikes if we deny that these words are not vnderstood of the Common resurrection.

[Page 90] 5 Thus far S. Hierom, whose testimony pleaseth their The Argu­ment taken against Caluin confuted. Iesuire, who commendeth it for a modestsentence. Let it not displease M. Parsons that we apply it vnto Caluin, who al­though he doe not admit of some common exposions of Scriptures, which haue beene brought for the confutation of Arrians, and Iewes, because that they being literally ex­pounded, doe not (in his iudgement) directly make against the enemies of Christs Diuinity. Notwithstanding they that interpret those places otherwise ought not to be offended with him, as though he fauoured the opinion of the Iewes & Arri­ans, which he confuteth by many other more strong testimonies of Scriptures, out of both the Testaments. By which it is ma­nifest that he denieth not the Diuinitie of Christ, nor yet pro­perly may be said to haue giuen occasion vnto Heretikes so to doe. And this is as much as any temperate Aduersary can require to be answered generally in his behalfe.

6 How it may please M. Parsons and some others to e­steeme of the learning and iudgement of M. Caluin, we shall The singular estimation which some Romanists gaue concer­ning the iudgement of Caluin. haue lesse cause to regard; seeing that euen his Aduersaries haue not left him altogether destitute of commendations: for their D. Stapleton writing an Antidote against his doctrin doth grant Stapleton. [...] in Anti­dot. in Matth. Caluin in his commentaries to be so diligent an In­terpreter, according to the letter, so morall, so sweet, that euen men Orthodoxall (he meaneth Papists) desire greedily to read him, whom I haue heard sometime wish (saith he) that those things being purged out of him, which are contrary vnto the Church and faith, he might be suffered to come in publike, for so (say they) his Commentaries might be very profitable. If his Aduersaries did not except against him, but as they were his Aduersaries, to wit, so far as he held any thing, which was against their Doctrine, otherwise approouing of his workes as profitable vnto the Church, especially in expounding of Scriptures, what indifferent Reader is there, but will con­ceiue that he, who was generally so exact in interpreting Scriptures, had likewise some measure of light in discerning of the controuerted Articles of religion? Elsewhere we finde Card Bellarmine writing vnto Iustus Baronius, and moouing [Page 91] him to indeuour some Confutation of Caluins Institutions, (after that he had set out the difficulties of such an enterprise, & excused himselfe) vseth this for oue Argument os perswa­sion, Iusius [...] Ep [...] lib. cap. 8. Because others had begun such a worke vnluckily, and had more vnluckily finished their taske. Confessing in effect, that Horantius, and all other Romish Authors, who had formerly writen in Confutation of Caluins Institutions, haue been luck­lesse and successelesse in their labours. Is not this a Testi­mony of great honour vnto Caluin, especially proceeding from Bellarmine so great an Aduersary, both by the worthi­nesse of his place and learning, and also by the aduersnesse of his opinion? Such lucke haue all they who shall haue [...] in respect of mens persons. After Caluin, M. Parsons snar­leth at another person of honour.

SECT. II:

The summe of M. PARSONS his Reckoning. concerning the Lord Cooke.

ALbeit perhaps M. Morton may say, that his meaning was Reck pag. 500. to take in hand the defence of his Client Sir Edw. Cooke, in his other promised Reioynder, and therefore said nothing of him now in this his Preambling Reply: yet hauing now seene him very hardly charged in two seuerall bookes, the one of the Catho­like Diuine in answering to the fifth part of his Reports: the o­ther the Treatise of Mitigation, with the like imputation of vn­true dealing, as are laid against M. Morton himselfe, it seemed that it had been a point of friendship (if not of duety) to haue said somewhat for preuenting and staying, at least, the Readers pre­iudice, as in his Preface he said he did for himselfe, especially for so much as he had seene now, and read all those placcs, which he borrowed out of M. Cooke, to furnish one whole Chapter of his Full Satisfaction, fully answered and confuted by our Catholike Diuine in his foresaid booke, which M. Morton might haue least wise mentioned, among so many other points of lesse impor­tance, which he handleth, if his heart had not serued him to take vpon him the whole Defence.

The Reuiew.

7 M. Parsons may remember what he said in his Pre­face of Mitigation, that diuerse Catholikes did itch to be med­ling with M. Autturney (now Lord chiefe Iustice of the Com­mon Pleas) for the confuting of his fift part of Reports, which M. Parsons himselfe hath now begun to impugne. If I haue not beene so forward to vndertake Replie, it is not that I would be wanting in any part of Dutie, but because I was not infected with M. Parsons his vnseemely disease, to busie my selfe in an vnproper Element, especially in points which concerne so honourable and iudicious a Personage; who would haue exercised his quill in some large Replie, if his Lordship had thought M. Parsons worthy of any other An­swer than the condemnation of a Nihil dicit.

8 Notwithstanding, it will not (I thinke) offend his ho­nour, nor yet greatly please you, M. Parsons, that I, vpon this prouocation, do paint out your vniust Assertions, which you call Demonstrations, against his Reports, especially con­cerning the Histories of two Kings, which now fall vnder mine eie. The first is of K. M. Parsons in his Answ. vnto Sir Edw. Cooke. c. 6. num. 10. p. 151. Alfred, wherein you may be charged with a nimiùm dicit: the second is touching K. Ed­gar, whom you will haue to haue Subordinated his temporall Sword vnto the spirituall iurisdiction of his Prelates, after that maner of Subordination, which you require in Princes M. Parsons eiteth from [...] in Hist. Aug. Sr­cul 9. cap. 5. ex Asserius Me. [...] but in that Asserius set out by M. Comden Fran. cof. 1603. I finde no such speech. at this day. When as it is plaine that King Edgar speaking in that Oration against sturdy Monkes, who did contemne verba, did tell the B B. Veniendum̄ esse ad verbera, that is, That they were to be humbled by Stroakes: and to this end he saith to the Prelates, Vobis istud negotium comitto, I commit that businesse to you; which sheweth that that part of autho­rity, which the King acknowledged to be in the B B. was not by his Submision, but his Commission vnto them. What shall we thinke of the validity of his Ten Demonstrations, see­ing he is so insyncere in these Two, which he specified as the most principall?

[Page 93] As for his exception against mee, for not Defending all those, whom he calleth my Clients, I may iustly answer that although I were worthy of reprehension in this case, yet M. Parsons is the most vnwoorthy man of all other to repre­hend me, because I finde diuerse of his Clients of great name in their church, whom he hath betraied by his silence.

The Omissions of M. Parsons, in not defending his Clients.

§. III.

9 I had no little cause to woonder at the boldnesse of M. Parsons, in calling so clamorously vpon me that I should satisfie for other mens debts, euen in a little Preamble, wher­as he, in publishing a large volume, in answer of my Full Sa­tisfaction, hath passed many whole chapters ouer vntouch­ed, and seeing there many of his own friendes vp to the eares in debt, did like the Iewish Priest and Leuite smoothly passe by without the supply of a farthing for their reliefe. The ex­amples are abundant, I will single out some few.

10 Their Full Satisfact. part. 1. pa. 20. Loduick of Orleance (in his booke, Pag. 48.) was heard rayling vpon the Realme of England, that it is An Isle of men, who eat mans flesh. This M. Parsons read, but M. Parsons his conniuency at the slander against his Country. pretermitted. It will be hard to determine whether heere­by he haue been more iniurious to his friend Loduick, whom he suffereth to lie vnder the arrest of a cursed slander, or to his Natiue Country, which he suffereth to be so ignomini­ously traduced, as though the Inhabitants thereof were no better than Cannibals.

11 Secondly Pag. 12. there was displaied the Cruelty of their Inquisitors by their Agrippa (De vanit. Scient. cap. 69) no­ting The extremi­ty of the in­quisition. them to be so rigid in their examination, as not to allow men Conference, but to answer them onely with fire and fag­got, who maintaine their cause by the word of God.

12 Pag. 64. There also Arnalàus in a Parlament at Paris was heard to accuse the Iesuits to haue been the causes of the great tyrannie which was practised among the poore Indians. Pag. 115. There [Page 94] their owne French Historian noted the crueltie which was vsed in France, telling vs how Twentie thousand Protestants were slaine in one moneth by the furie of the Catholikes. Cruell Inquisitors, ciuell Iesuus, cruell Catholikes (as it is confessed by their owne Authors.) All whom M. Parsons leaueth as desperate debitors wallowing in their owne guilt.

13 Thirdly, Pag. 112. there was vnfolded by their owne Histo­rian the slanderous disposition of some Romanists, who bare false witnesse against Protestants in open Court, assirining Slanders a­gainst Pro­testants. that they in the night season Put out the candles, and euery one tooke a woman at his pleasure; only vpon a perswasion, That such an Accusation is good against an Heretike, be it true, or false. This is a foule matter, and belike M. Parsons his fin­gers were so cleane, that he would not touch it.

14 Fourthly, their common doctrine being this, that a King being an Heretike and excommunicate may be deposed, was proued to be a rebellious doctrine by many arguments, A Confuta­tion of their common se­ditious posi­tions. which M. Parsons would not so much as looke at: and to the same purpose was alleged the confession of their own Ie­suit Pag. 31. Acosta (out of his second booke de Indorum salute, cap. 5.) affirming that after that a King is established in his throne, his power is from God, and the people owe him sub­iection, euen as did the people of Israel vnto Ieroboam (3. Re. 11. & 12.) albeit he was an Apostata from the faith of the true Church. This M. Parsons thought not good to account for, lest this example might haue conuinced him and his fel­lowes of seditious and pernicious doctrine. And there also wee Pag 62. read of the example of the elder Romish Clergie, brought in to condemne the later brood of sedition: but this also had his passe.

15 Fiftly, Ful Satisfact. part. 3. ca. 20. by the testimonie of their Cardinall Tolet ( Instruct. Sacerd. lib. 5. cap. 66.) we were taught that al­though their Priests and others may in their examinations, A Racke con­fessed to be the best re­medie against some Equi uocators. before Magistrates, whom they holde to be incompetent, vse Equiuocation, rather than to reueale any trespasse of an other: yet If they shalbe brought vnto the racke to be tortured, they are no further bound to conceale the trueth. Whereupon [Page 95] it followeth, that in such cases their most competent Iudge will be a racke. M. Parsons saw this Racke; but only saw it: for, in his discourse of Equiuocation, he came not neere it by a mile.

16 Sixtly, Ibid. part. 3. pag. 39. Cardinall Bellarmine did interpret the place of S. Paul, Rom. 13. [ Let euery soule be subiect to the higher powers] to implie the Spirituall power, as well as the Tem­porall: Scripture per­uerted by Bel­larmine. but was confuted by their Espencaeus (in Tit. 3. 1. Digress. pag. 513.) from the iudgement of ancient Fathers, no one allowing that interpretation. The place of a Cardi­nall should haue moued M. Parsons to haue yeelded some piece of an Answer for his dearest friend, if the trueth of the cause would haue so permitted.

17 But how will he answer for others, Ibid part. 1. pag. 43. who leaueth himselfe in the lurch? who together with Carerius, thought that No king is to be acknowledged to be a king, before he be an­ointed. Which Paradox was firmly and freely confuted by A paradox. their Barkley (in lib. 3. cont. Monarchom. cap. 2.) I let passe diuers such particular persons, and chuse rather to obserue his want of dutie, or els of abilitie, in answering for his head­father the Pope.

M. PARSONS his notable Omissiens, in forsaking the necessarie defence of Popes.

§. IV.

18 The Oration of Pope Ib. pag. 75. Xistus Quintus is famous for commending Iacob Clemens, who was the murtherer of Henry 3. King of France; and for that cause was that Pope propounded as the Patron and indeed paterne of all rebelli­ous Doctors. Which doctrine was likewise obiected to the Pope Xistus his oration. Moderate Answerer, but he very moderatly forbare euen to taste or touch it. After him M. Parsons the Mitigator be­held the vgly spectacle, and swallowed this whole Camell. Now at length he commeth in with a new Reckoning, but doth not reckon for this his grandfathers debt. Pag. 77. Boucher also was brought in by Barkley ( lib. 6. contr. Monarchom. c. [Page 96] 28. pag. 536.) commending the act, and reioycing thereat, whom the foresaid Barkley doth therefore condemne (pag. 535. & 539.) of treason, for patronizing that fact, and by do­ctrine perswading men thereunto.

19 There came in also a Pag 91. Canonist, who reported the per­iurie of Pope Gregory 12. whom M. Parsons suffered to die The periurie of a Pope. in debt, neuer opening his mouth to free him either à toto, or à tanto. After this the Full Satisfact. Part. 3. pag. 17. Bull of Pope Paulus 3. against Hen. 8. and another of Pius Quintus against Q. Elizabeth, were heard bellowing out a Fulnesse of Apostolicall authoritie for Sense of Scri­pture peruer­ted by the Popes. the rooting out of Nations, and of Kingdomes, according vnto that of Hier. 1. Behold, I haue appointed thee ouer Nations, to root them vp, and to destroy them. Which Papall exposition of that text was an impudent glosing. M. Parsons can Mitigat. cap. 5. pag. 171. say nothing but that it was spoken by allusion vnto that text of Ieremy, which poore ragge can not possibly couer so great a shame: for the text of Ieremy was expresly cited in their Bulles for confirmation of their authority, by way of inter­pretation, accordingly as their Carerius (lib. 1. depotestate Papae) had done. But it was confuted by the true and pro­per expositions of Lyra, who said that the Prophet Iere­mie did not destroy, but only denounce they should be destroy­ed: By S. Gregorie, who noteth not destruction by fighting, but only by preaching: But especially by S. Bernard (lib. 2. de Consid. ad Eugen.) reprouing the Pope for the abuse of this place, by turning the spirituall and ministertall rooting out of sinners into a Temporall dominion. Heere M. Parsons imi­tated the AEgyptian dogs, Lambunt & fugiunt, they vsed to lap a little at the riuer Nilus, and forth with to run away, and all for feare of a Crocodile. So heere the Mitigatour tooke a bite. but spying Lyra, Gregorie, and Bernard make against the Popes, and perceiuing that his Answer of Allusion was but an Illusion, he speedily tooke his course another way.

20 For further demonstration of the noueltie and impie­tie of the Papall claime in temporall affaires, for the refusing of Emperours, and deposing of Kings from their Soueraign­ty, Full Satisfact. Part. 3. pag. 18. there was produced the example of Christ, who thought [Page 97] his temporall Dominion superfluous for him, as Bellarmine con­fessed: then the example of the Pag. 19. Apostles, who were subiect vnto Heathenish Emperours: after that Pag. 21. the examples of All Christians for the first two hundred yeares, who albeit some­time Antiquity of Subiection of Clergy men vnto Tempo. rall States. they had equall force, yet they professed subiection vnto tem­porall Magistrates, whereby the doctrine of Christians became glorious, as Tolossanus confessed. And vnto these were Pag. 22. vnto Pag. 26. added the answerable Testimonies of Tertullian, Cyprian, Nazian. Athanas. Ambrose, Basil, Gregory. Heere the maine que­stion of Allegeance was handled, and prooued from Anti­quity, heere, if euer, the Pope did need his helpe. But such was the desperatenesse of the cause, that M. Parsons would not come off not with so much as a bare-faced groat, in part of paiment.

Finally, their Ibid. pag. 29. & 31. & 32. Sanders intruded himselfe, 'auouching the Donation of Constantine, wherin all the kingdomes of the Western world were said to haue beene conferred by the Empetour Constantine vpon Pope Syluester, Anno. 300. and The Donati­on of Con­stantine coun­terfeit. vnto him Carerius assented; and all for the magnifying of the Papall iurisdiction in temporall things. Which other of their Doctors did thus far confute, as to grant that The most ancient Histories & Authors of best credit, and such as did pur­posely record the Acts of Constantine, did not make mention of that Donation. So Canus ( loc. Theol. lib. 1. cap. 5.) Which Pope Pius Secundus did count to be a counterfeit Donation: so Balbus lib. de Coronat, seeing that Pope Boniface 9. Anno. 1400. was the first that challenged the Donation of the City of Rome, saith the same Balbus. Adde we heereunto how Pag. 32. Carerius preten­ded that the Emperor must necessarily haue the Popes Con­firmation: which dealing their Lupoldus, and Balbus both Bi­shops, did prooue to be most false. I supposed if his ability had been answerable to his charity, he would not haue suf­fered Iesuits, Priests, and Popes to languish vnder these Ar­rests, yet all this while we heare not of our friend the Mode­rate Answerer. Will M. Parsons neglect him also?

The Omissions of M. Parsons, in neglecting his pe­culiar Client the Moderate Answerer: leauing him in the conuiction of many foule errours and slanders.

§. V.

21 This Moderate Answerer is the man that writ against the booke of Discouery of Romish Positions, and Practises of rebellion, whom therefore M. Parsons hath particularly com­mended for one, who acquitted himselfe learnedly: So that this man might seeme to haue a peculiar interest in M. Par­sons his partonage. Shall we now trie how he is often left in the lurch to shift for himselfe. I may not insist in all points, yet some few I may not omit.

22 The Moderate Answerer answered for his Catholikes in generall, that they taught not Full Satisfact. part. 3. pag. 33. &34. A power simply ouer Kings in temporall affaires, which was prooued to be a singular fals­hood out of their Bozius, and especially out of Carerius, who challenged the Common consent of Canonists, and Diuines to the contrary. Pag. 57. He, vnder the names of two or three Au­thors pretended that their Doctors Defended not violent de­posing of Kings, who are, in their opinion, Heretikes: which is a most prodigall vntruth, and so prooued to be by the te­stimonies of their Moderne Doctors, such as were Rainolds, Parsons, Alen, Coster, Bellarmine, and others. Pag. 66. He propoun­ded a Canon teaching that No Clerks may take armes, neither by their owne, nor by the Popes authority: as though any such Canon were now in force; which was prooued to be a loose ouerlashing by their Rainolds, Alan, and by Pag. 67. Sanders. Pag. 86. He in the name of all Romanists, did teach that they Allow Ma­gistrates, who are Protestants, to be as competent Iudges in all temporall causes, in as ample maner, as if they were of their owne Religion, before whom, iudging according vnto law, they may not equiuocate. Wherein he was contradicted by Rai­nolds, who absolutely denied that Protestants haue any au­thority [Page 99] ouer them; and by Cardinall Allen, and M. Parsons, who taught that Priests may equiuocate before them, because they be Tyrants. In these the Answerer needed M. Parsons, his helpe, but it would not be; belike he iudged that the An­swerer, for modcrating of matters, had erred immoderatly.

23 Furthermore, he was directly noted to haue Ful Satisfect part. 2. pa. 106. slan­dered an Author, as though he had taught Subiects to fight Notoitous slanders. against their Kings; and was confuted by the words of the Author himselfe. There followed his lbid. pa 107. & 109. slanders against Caluin, and Bezu, and confoted from the confessions of them both. He Pag. 114. pursued Beza yet more extremly, to make him Slancer a­gainst Caluin and Bezae. guilty of the death of the Duke of Guize, suborning Pultrot to kill him: wherein he was confuted by the testimony of their owne Historian. He Pag. 120. obiected a Conuenticle held at Cabellion, wherein he said it was decreed by Protestants that All the families of ancient houses, and all ciuil gouernment should be taken out of the World: where he was charged to shew his Authour or else to confesse his slander. These foure grosse slanders are so many debts, & the debter Non est soluendo, had nothing to pay, therefore M. Parsons was loath to meddle with him for the discharge of his Reckoning.

24 He staid not here, but fell afresh vpon Luther, making him Pag. 121. & 123. say that Among Christians there is no Magistrate, no Superiour: which wicked falshood was expressely control­led by the contrary doctrine of Luther, out of his Tom. 1. in Slander a­gainst Luther. Gen. c. 9. where he condemneth the Pope and his Clergy, for shaking off the yoake of temporall gouernment. But not contented with this, he Pag. 126. imposeth againe vpon Luther the cause of the losse of Belgrade, and Rhodes by the hands of the Turke, his entrance vpon Hungary, together with the death of King Lodouick. and Buda conquered, citing for proofe thereof Munster, and Pantaleon, which points were exami­ned, his allegations were prooued falsifications: and the cause of the ruine of Hungary, and of Bohemia, the [...] of Rhodes, together with a thousand such Euils, was attributed vnto the Couetousnesse of the Pope of Rome, by their owne Historians.

25 Lastly, Pag. 127. he maketh Luther to be of the same opinion [Page 100] and practise of Rebellion, with Muntzer: which was proued to be an vgly falshood by their owne Authour Peter Frarer, who confessed that Luther writ against that Muntzer, and his Complices, and exhorted all Christians to persecute those rebellious ones vnto death. Could there be any fouler slanders than these, or more plainly discouered? Notwithstanding this Moderate Answerer hath behaued himselfe thus, yet hath he been said by M. Parsons to haue acquitted himselfe learnedly. But what shall I say; but like Patron, like Client? Thus much for Omissions.

An Answer vnto M. PARSONS eight Chapter: concerning the L. Coke.

§. VI.

26 M. Parsons directeth his eight chapter of his Reckon­ing only vnto my Lord Coke concerning the Reck. pa. 529. Municipall lawes of England, which Argument he himselfe did before prosecute vnder the name os a Catholike Diuine. wherein he seemeth to be so conuersant, as if he had turned his Diuinitie into humane Policie; yet peraduenture so vnskilfully, that the verse of Nauita de ventis &c. may be inuerted vpon him thus; Nauita de terris, de ventis narrat arator. After a long intermission (as he calleth it) of his affaires, by interlacing a Treatise against the Lord Coke, (whereunto he expecteth no Answer from me) hee calleth againe vpon me in his next Chapter.

An Answer vnto M. PARSONS his ninth Chapter, concerning the Fresh lies, as helyingly calleth them, and recapitulateth.

§. VII.

The summe of M. PARSONS his Reckoning.

IN this ninth chapter is layed together another choice number Reck. pag. 625. of new and fresh vntrueths of later date in the last Replie of [Page 101] M. Morton: and albeit those that are to be touched in this chapter haue been, for the most part, handled and discussed be­fore, yet thaet they may be more effectually represented vnto the eye and memorie of the Reader, by putting the principall of them together in a rancke, &c.

The Reuiew.

27 At the sirst reading of this inscription of a new chap­ter of new and fresh lies, I thought that M. Parsons would haue brought in some new charges, which haue not hither­to been mentioned; but by his next words, telling vs that These for the most part haue been handled before, I do perceiue that his fresh criminations are stale, and smell rancke both of [...] (by intituling twelue leaues New and fresh lies) and also His excellent fraud. of plaine falshood, by saying that they haue been handled, but only for the most part: for I see none at all now alleged which he hath not alreadie handled in his former Reckon­ing, but yet with vnwashed hands and heart, as my Answer hath particularly disclosed. And now I make bold to call M. Parsons to a summary account of his owne charges.

A briefe Recapitulation of the manifolde frauds and falsities of M. PARSONS, which haue been discouered in this Reckoning.

28 Vpon the sight of his repetition of falshoods, which he hath vntruly imputed vnto me, I haue been prouoked to requite his iniurious dealing with a summarie recognition and recapitulation of the principall vntrueths, which I haue truely layed vnto his charge, and haue alreadie handled: which now I need not touch, but only point at, according to the marginall Notes of this Encounter.

29 The first booke cap. 2. one falshood, cap. 4. another, cap. 6. two, cap 7. two, cap. 8. two, cap 10. foure, cap. 12. fif­teen; and then many other in one: and after that eleuen more, cap. 13. six, cap. 14. also eleuen. Then in the second [Page 102] booke, cap. 1. many in one; and againe, three more: cap. 2. seuen, cap. 3. foure, cap. 4. two, cap. 5. diuers in obiecting heapes offalshoods; besides his manifold guiles and frauds, and ridiculous vanities, wherewith almost euery page is be­spangled, which might make vp as many moe notes of in­sinceritie, if I would but vse M. Parsons his art of Reckon­ing. But the former kinde, which haue been pointed at, be­ing both so many and so manifest vntrueths, may ferue for M. Parsons his conuiction, for I may well spare the con­fession of their owne Priest, who notifieth M. Parsons how prone he is to forge and falsifie.

CHAP. VIII.

Conteining an Answer vnto M. Parsons his tenth chapter.

§. I.

M. PARSONS his Reckoning.

THe tenth and last Chapter conteineth his new chal­lenges, protestations, and vaunts, wherein hee hath inwrapped himselfe in the bands of further absurdities.

The Reuiew.

1 THe particulars of this last part of your Reckoning are not of any such nature, that they may require any large Discourse. I will therefore be briefe, taking them as I finde them distinguished into matters which more specially concerne me, and your selfe. First of the first.

The summe of M. PARSONS his Reckoning.

He protesteth for his owne sinceritie and diligence in reuiew­ing Reckon. cap. 10. pag. 651. his books, yet is forced to confesse in his owne defence some­time [Page 103] that he did not see the Authour that he citeth himselfe, but receiued it of some others, &c. He hath taken in hand Bellar­mine, to picke out matter out of him, that might seeme to beare some shew of vntrueth, but hath been able to finde no one, as we haue made it plaiue in the third chapter. Thirdly, the Reckon­ing being now made vp, and especially in our last three precedent chapters, he had obiected against him foureteen falshoods, which he chose to answer, but could not: and then twice foureteen, which he willingly pretermitted: and lastly, a number of new lies, vttered in discharge of the former.

The Reuiew.

2 I stand in the same protestation still against all wil­full transgression. And to the first I answer, that I neuer heard before, that the citing of testimonies vpon credit could be named Insinceritie, the examples of which maner of dealing are infinite euen in our Aduersaries themselues: whereof one example doth euen now offer it selfe from Car­dinall Baronius. He (writing of the maner of the martyrdom a Baron. Not. ad Martyrol. Rom. Ian. 12. f. of Zoticus) complained that he was wrong informed by one that writ letters vnto him, Testifying that he had found them in the Acts of Zoticus, but afterwards reading the Acts my selfe (saith Baronius) I fouud no such matter in them. And so like­wise both Bellarmine and Boucher See aboue lib. 1. cap. 1. haue been by their owne friends noted to haue offended in this kinde. Neither yet were the escapes, wherein M. Parsons insisteth, so inexcu­sable on my part, as he would inforce.

3 To the second, I say, that if my Reader will be plea­sed to examine the fatshoods which were See aboue li. 1. per totum. viged against Car­dinall Bellarmine, he shall finde that the obiections are no picked quarrels, but plaine conuictions, as hath been proued, and whereof I shall giue the Reader a Synopsis in the next Chapter.

4 To the third I need say no more but that I haue an­swered those particulars to the full, where the Reader may finde iust cause to abhorre the vilenesse of your calumnious, false and vnconscionable Reckoning.

M. PARSONS his Reckoning.

Fourthly, I shall set downe the words of a stranger, by which Reck pag. 654. it is manifest what stuffe is conteined in his Latine books of Apo­logie: his words are these: Quid Mortoni editionem retar­dârit, &c.

The Reuiew.

5 Heere he hath obiected against me a stranger and Ad­uersarie in Religion to be my Accuser, to preiudice my sin­ceritie; M. Parsons maruellous incircumspe­ction through his greedie humor to ca­lnmniate. neuer regarding that it is as easie for me to returne vpon him, not a Stranger, but his owne countrey-men; nor Aduersaries in profession, but his fellow-souldiers & Priests, who haue bespotted him in their publike writings dedicated vnto the Declaratio motuum & tur­bationum inter Iesuitas & Sa­cerdotes. Ad Clementem Pont. Pope, and The booke of Important considerati­ons; and the book of Quod­libets. others, with more vgly marks of a ly­ing, slanderous, libellious, treacherous, and bloudy behaui­our, than I haue read obiected vnto any man of what profes­sion whomsoeuer, in this latter age. But I am not delighted with fingering other mens vlcers, nor will I vex M. Parsons with repetitions thereof.

6 As for my selfe, as yet I can say no more vnto his Stranger, but that he is a Stranger vnto me, and when I shall be better acquainted with him by his booke, I shall (God willing) answer him, although not acccording to his acer­bitie of words, yet according to the trueth and equitie of the cause; whereby I shall be better occasioned to set abroach in Latine the formerly confessed falshoods of Bellarmine, Baro­nius, Boucher, M. Parsons, and others. But why hath not M. Parsons Englished that Epistle of the Stranger?

M. PARSONS his Reckoning.

I haue thought good not to translate this Epistle into English, Reck. pag. 656. for that there be some words therein more sharpe than I would willingly vse against an Aduersary, whom I seeke rather to paci­fie, and satisfie with reason.

The Reuiew.

7 When Rabshakah came against Iudah, blaspheming God, and vilifying their King, the Elders requested him not 2. Kings. 18. to speake in the vulgar language of the people, but in a strange tongue: but Rabshakah would not yeeld vnto them. M. Parsons will seeme to be more fauourable, he will not English it, why? They are too sharpe. Heere, I confesse, I M. Parsons his praetence of fauor. know not his meaning, why he should spare me in this, who hath shewen himselfe thorowout his Reckoning more sharp and galfull, then any other Aduersary hath beene. Vnto this Stranger he is pleased in his courtesie to adioyne the censure of Gretzer a Dutch Iesuit against me. But if it would haue likewise pleased M. Parsons to haue red the places wherein he taketh exception, and to haue examined them, I durst bide his owne censure betweene me and Gretzer: whose dis­praise I account an honour vnto me, both because I see him with as high contempt vilifie those learned and godly men, with whom I may not make any shadow of comparison.

M. PARSONS his Reckoning.

I cannot let passe to set downe the iudgement of an other lear­ned Reckon. pa. 656 Stranger extant in a printed booke of his in defence of Card. Bellarmine, whom M. Morton chiefely pretendeth to impugne, but so weakely and absurdly as the said learned man giueth a ve­ry Gretzer in de­fens. Bellar. pag. 435. contemptible censure of the whole worke, saying: Hoc opus merito suo inter stulcissima. &c.

The Reuiew.

8 And I cannot but thanke you that you would honour Gretzer his Cocoëthes and [...] salt humor in dispraising his Aducisaries. me with his Contemtible Censure, for so I doe esteeme it, es­pecially knowing the Author to be Iames Gretzer, who is a superlatiue Contemner of all his Aduersaries, whereof some were far more learned than himselfe: Censuring D. Whita­kers [Page 106] thus, Mendax Spiritus; Mendax Confessio; Mendax Hi­storia; mendacia omnia; delirat, non argumentatur. Censuring D. Lubbertus thus: Si quis velit octo mendaciorum millia, fa­cise possit ex eius pagellis colligere, is febriculosâ suâ phantasiâ delirauit. Vix vllum reperi, qui in mendacijs cùm eo comparari queat. Censuring Lamb. Danaeus thus: In toto eius Respon­so nè micaquidem boni, & ingenui, et eruditi Viri; adeò omnia mendacijs et nugamentis horrent. Censuring Franciscus Iu­nius thus: Tu mendacitèr omnia; omnia falsò; omnia imperitè. Censuring AEgidius Hunnius thus: Euidentèr apparet, Hunnius nihil aliudfuit, quam os & lingua sinè mente; Deli­rat. Censuring D r. Reynalds thus: Nihil aliud est quàm mendatiorum quidem minimè pertusus sacculus. Censuring the Phoenix of this age Ioseph Scaliger thus: Potiùs Onologias quàm Chronologias condit: In respect of all these I doe con­fesse my selfe to be worthily contemptible. But yet who knoweth not, that this kinde of censure, without proofe, is but the language of Canaan, meere railing? which this Gret­zer doth not practise onely, but euen also professe. And e­uery one can vnderstand that the dispraise of an Aduer­sary, and the praise of a mans selfe are both but stinking breathes.

9 Heere againe (as before) I could requite M. Parsons with an other kinde of censure, passed vpon him not by his Aduersaries in religion, but by his owne brotherhood, wher­by they make him not contemptible onely but euen the most execrable man of his profession: but Non est crimen proprium nescire alienum. I therefore answer for my selfe, desiring M. Parsons to loooke into Gretzer, and to examine the places wherein he doth insist in Confutation of any thing that I haue written, and iudge betweene vs, and acccordingly to esteeme of Gretzers Censure. In the meane time I shall an­swer vnto the censure which M. Parsons himselfe hath made against me.

M. PARSONS his Reckoning.

Neither will I alleage any thing iniuriously against M. Mor­tons Reck. pag. 659. person, which I doe loue from my heart in the true loue of Christ our Sauiour, wishing his best spirituall good, as mine owne; and doe esteeme him also for the good parts that God hath be­stowed vpon him, though I doe pitty the euill imployment thereof in the cause he defendeth.

The Reuew.

10 You shal not need ( M. Parsons) to do that you haue M. Parsons greatpretence of charity to­wards his Ad­uersary. aboundantly done, which is, To alleage matters iniuriously a­gainst me. Notwithstanding I do imbrace your tender of loue, and shall (I hope) not be ouercome in this contention, by af­fecting your eternall good, euen as mine owne; neither shall I further esteeme of my selfe, than that my imploiment may be for defence of a cause, which I ought to loue a thousand times aboue my selfe. Hactenùs de me. Now I come to you, M. Parsons.

SECT. II.

Concerning the Challenges made against M. PARSONS.

M. PARSONS Reckoning.

Mr. Morton hath lost himselfe through vehemency of Pas­sion Reckon. pa. 659 in this place, where he censureth his Aduersary in fower seuerall challenges, which I haue thought good to set downe together, and not to answer them seuerally, as I did in the former Paragraph, for that indeed there is in them nothing but excesse of intemperate heat in contumelious speech: &c.

The reuew.

11 If M. Parsons would haue confidered either his owne [Page 108] desert, or my behauiour, he would neuer haue complained of contumelious speeches. For neither am I so lauish, but that their owne Apologists, (whom he greatly commendeth) haue allowed me the Title of The Apologie for the Rom. Church, the 2. edition, in the Praef. to the Reader, pag. 10. A man not intemperate, nei­ther yet vsed M. Parsons to be so moderate, but that his owne fellow could note him, from the mouth of Cardinall Alan, to be a man of a Quod lib. pag. 236. Uery violent, and vnquiet spirit. Yea, and M. Parsons himselfe also hath wished that Reck. pa. 669. He had not vsed such asperity of speech against me. Wherefore I passe o­uer personal and offensiue tearmes, which notwithstanding were onely expressed in Latine, and I come to the Materi­all points to trie, whether I haue beene able to performe my chalenge against him or not.

There were foure principall parts of the cha­lenge against M. Parsons.
  • 1. The Discouery of Romish Positions and practises of Rebellion to be iust.
  • 2. His Treatise of Mitigation to be falsly so intituled.
  • 3. His Mentall AEquiuocation to be an Art of lying.
  • 4. The Romanists to support their causes by lying.
The Performance of the first part of the Chalenge.

12. As the presence of light dispelleth darknesse, so Ue­rum est Iudex sui, & obliqui. Seeing now therefore, that after M. Parsons hath made his full Reckoning, and that an­swer hath beene made to all his exceptions, we finde that their former See these points aboue cap. 7. Bulles, and practises of their Popes (such as were Pope Greg. 7. Paulus 3. Sixtus Quintus, Pius Quintus) and that the sentences of their owne Doctors (such as were Card. Bellarmine, Boucher, Carerius, Bozius, Rainolds, Allen, Simancha, Costerus, Sanders, Creswell, Dolman) doe, without exemption, defend a rooting out of all Princes, who shall not subiect themselues vnder the Pope of Rome, whensoe­uer [Page 109] there is a sufficient power to preuaile: Albeit it doth no lesse manifestly appeare, and that by the confession of their owne Authors, that in the time of the old law, the High Priests were subiect vnto Kings; And in the new Testament that Christ, and his immediate Disciples did not affect, or exercise power ouer Kings in Temporall things, and (as for the succeeding Fathers, such as were Tert. Cyprian, Chry­sostom, Athanasius, Ambrose, Leo, Augustine, and Gregory the Great) that they (as it hath beene likewise confessed) did professe their subiection vnto the Emperours of their time, according to the doctrine maintained in our Church. All these Considerations cannot but iustifie the first part of my Chalenge, concerning the Discouery of seditious Romish Po­sitions, and Practises of Rebellion.

The discharge of the second Part.

13 As for the decyphering of the disloyall affection of M. Parsons the former Mitigator, what can be more preg­nant then are his owne clauses, who permitteth a subiection vnto Protestant Kings with a Lib. 1. cap. 3 §. 4. May, and of a Possibility, in­stead of a Must, and Necessity? who also alloweth his Catho­liks to acknowledge their loyalty vnto our king only, so long as they are Ibidem. Vsed as Subiects, and then complaineth that they are not vsed as Subiects? Who teacheth that they who are Cap. 12. §. 13. num. 63. Lawfully Excommunicate by the Pope, & persist obstinate, may not be heads in Christian Communion? who can affoord no more grieuous epithet vnto the horrible plot of the Gunpow­der Treason, than to call it A temerarious fact, notwithstan­ding it were a fact, which both heauen and earth doe detest, and at which hell it selfe (as it were) standeth all agast? who being vrged to answere whether their part would not eradi­cate Protestants, if they had power to execute their will, could finde no better euasion then to say that the question was Cap. 14. §. 5. num. 36. Impertinent? Finally, who defendeth the booke of Dol­man, als. Parsons, which hath bene condemned by their owne Priest, as most Ibid. Sect. 11. num. 61. Rebellious against the English State? [Page 110] How shall not this be held a iust performance of the second part of the Challenge?

The discharge of the third part of the Challenge, against Mentall Equiuocation; as it hath beene described by M. Parsons.

14 The Mentall Equiuocation, which M. Parsons hath propounded, as iustifiable in the iudgement of all Schooles, Chaires, and Vniuersities, is in sundry places of this En­counter largely Especially lib. 1. cap. 4. & ca. 13. & lib. 2. ca. 1. &. 3. &. 4. discussed, and prooued to a lie, not only from Reason, but also from the iudgement of Romish Doctors; such as were These Six lib. 1. c. 13. Sepulveda, Aquinas, Gabriel Biel, Scotus, Henri­cus de Gandauo, Azorius, and Sotus: and was neuer iustified for true by any Lib. 2. cap. 4. Heathenish man; whereof there will be oc­casion to say much more in the answer to the Cap. 9. Appendix fol­lowing; wherein the Reader will finde (I hope) a due satis­faction to this question.

The performance of the last part of the Challenge, to wit, that the great Support of Romanists is by lying Deuises.

15 What would any Reader require, for the due per­formance of this discharge? The dispositions, which their Writers haue to falsifie? Then see aboue their Lib. 1. [...] 1. Suarez con­demned by Cumel; their Ibid. Baronius reprooued by their Ve­netian Doctor; their Ibid. Boucher controlled by Barclay; their Ibid. Gratian corrected by their Archbishop Tarraconensis; their Ibid. Bellarmine condemned by Marsilius, by P. Paulus, and Barclay; and lastly their M. Parsons, and their Moderate Pamphletter confuted in this Encounter.

16 Would he furthemore haue it shewne vnto him, wherein they haue abused the Fathers? hee need but looke backe againe vnto the former Chapters, where Cap. 1 & 9. & 10. Bellarmine is deprehended in that guilt; where their cap. 11. Coccius (whom I [Page 111] was challenged by M. Parsons to examine) is conuicted of aboue 40. transgressions, in producing Fathers in the de­fence of but one doctrine of Purgatory.

17 Doth he desire to vnderstand some thing of their slanders against their Aduersaries? then let him see the 11. which Cap. 8. Bellarm. did iniuriously obiect against Protestants; besides others committed by Cap. 7. Surius, & the Lib. 2. cap. 6. Moderate An­swerer; and M. Parsons, as hath appeared thorow out this whole Encounter; towhich may be added a memorable slan­der about a Yorkshire case, discouered heereafter in the next Chapter in Answer to his Appendix.

18 What shall wee speake of the foundation of some doctrines of theirs by Deceitfull See the Catho­like Appeale. lib. 1. cap. 2. & lib. 3. c. 19. Apparitions of the dead; and the seales of their superstitions, their false Ibidem, l. 3. cap. 17. Miracles? or else false doctrines themselues, like vnto their doctrine of Ibidem, l. 1. cap. 2. §. 20. &c. & lib. 2. c. 15. & l. 4. c. 25. Indulgences, which haue beene confessed by some to be but a kinde of Deceits? To omit their fictitious Ca­non of See aboue in this Encounter, lib. 1. c. 5. Appeales to Rome in spirituall Cases; the more fabu­lous lib. 2. cap. 7. Donation of Constantine, in behalfe of their Temporall power.

19 Peraduenture he desireth to be acquainted with some corruption of bookes, which a man may call the Falsities of Falsities; then let him but remember the complaint, which their owne Marsilius hath made against their practise of Razing something out of the See aboue lib. 1. ca. 1. num. 18. Councels, Canons, and Histo­rians: some experience whereof we haue taken in M. Par­sons his exceptions against Lib. 1. ca. 13. §. 5. Maldonate, Lib. 1. c. 14. Polydore, and Ibid. c. 13. §. 4. E­man. Sa. As for their maner of Mentall Equiuocation, we haue prooued already to be but an artificiall lie: whereof some­thing more remaineth to be spoken now in Answer vnto M. Parsons his Appendix, and as also touching his imagined Yorkshire Case of Equiuocating.

CHAP. IX.

Containing an Answer vnto M. Parsons his Appen­dix, which he hath inscribed thus.

AN Appendix concerning a case of Equiuocation lately Reckon. pa. 671. written out of England, wherein resolutionis demanded about the false Oath of two Ministers: Whether it may be salued by the licence of Equiuocation, or no? Together with a note out of D. King his Sermon, preached at the Court 5. of Nouemb. 1608. so farre foorth as it toucheth Equiuocation.

The Reuew. §. I.

1 At the very entrance into this Appendix I first vnder­stood of the late death of M. Parsons, and shall therefore a little rebate and blunt my style, because I loue not, quasi cùm laruis luctari, to insult too personally vpon the dead. To this purpose I shall omit the ordinary Apostrohe of speak­ing to him in the second person, by challenging him to his face, and shall vse his name onely so farre as both the state, absence, and condition of this cause shall permit or require.

2 This his Appendix comprizeth first a vilde slander a­gainst a Protestant Minister, by pretence of an vgly Equi­uocating Case, supposed to haue beene acted in York-shire: And secondly a transgression (as it may seeme) against the trueth of Christ the Sonne of God, whom (in the Taxation, which he vseth against the Sermon of D r. King) hee feineth to haue patronized and practised that forme of Equiuocati­on, which hee himselfe hath professed and defended in his Bookes. The point of slander, about the Case of York-shire, seemeth to containe three parts of Oratory. 1. An Exordi­um, or Preface: 2. A Narration or declarion of the Case; and lastly a determination and Conclusion thereof.

The Preface, which M. PARSONS vseth for an introduction of the pretended York-shire Case.

Ireceiued, gentle Reader, not long since by a letter of the eight Reckon pa. 671 of Nouember Anno. 1608. from a friend of minc dwelling in the North parts of England, acertaine Aduertisment about a case of Equiuocation fallen out in those parts, wherein my said friende requested my iudgement, whether the same were tollerable, or excusable, or not? And for that it seemed he had some right to vrge me in the matter, in respect of the Trcatise written by me of that argument against M. Morton I thought my selfe the more bound to yeeld him some satisfaction to his demand.

The Reuiew, discouering the forgery of this Case by foure probabilities, taken out of M. PARSONS his Exordium.

3 Because this case is made so notorious, that the re­lation thereof, if it be true, must needes bewray exceeding mischiefe on the side, or else on the other side extreame malice, if it shall appeare to be false: I shall intreate thee ( Good Reader) to obserue and ponder the circumstances of this Preface, which M. Parsons hath commended vnto thee; and to consider, first, Who it is that inquireth whether this pretended Equiuocation be Tollerable, or not? M. Parsons hath tould vs that he is his Friend; and in that (according to his profession) great friend vnto any Protestant. Is it not therefore altogether improbable, that his conscience should be so tenderly scrupulous about that which was his aduersa­ries sinne, and none of his owne?

4 Secondly consider What the doubt and difficulty is, which the Friend of M. Parsons doth desire so earnestly to be decided: The only thing that he would know (poore soule) is, whether when a lawfull Magistrate proceedeth iu­dicially [Page 114] in examination vpon Oath, it may be held Tollera­ble for any to abuse and delude this Iudge by Equiuocating in Oath, or no? But shal we thinke that M. Parsons his friend or any Christian would make question and doubt whether that be Tollerable, which euery conscience of man, yea of the very Pagans, by the onely light and instinct of Nature, can presently condemne as most intollerable? Would he haue vs to thinke that his Friend could be so sottish as to make que­stion about a point so vtterly vnquestionable?

5 Thirdly, Whither now will his Friend trauell for meanes to remoue this great perplexity? We see that he now posteth ouer the Alpes as far as Rome, by his letters, for satisfaction in this case. But what? Is there no balme in Gilead? Is there no sufficient Counsaile in any Iesuit, or secular Priest within England, that can resolue this so silly and sencelesse a doubt? and to vntwine so loose a thred? shall we thinke this probable?

6 Lastly, when all is done, Whome will the good man make choise of in Rome, for the deteiminer of this point? whom, but his friend M. Parsons? and good reason, because Reckon. See aboue. It seemed ( saith M. Parsons) that he had some right to vrge me in this matter, in respect of the Treatise written by me of that matter against M. Morton, and I thought my selfe the more bound to yeeld him some satisfaction to his demand. But how could his Friend be ignorant of M. Parsons his iudgement in such a Case? We may trie this by his last Conclusion. Reckon p. 674. I doe infer ( saith M. Parsons) for resolution of the case, that this was no true, or proper Equiuocation at all, but rather a flat lie. and open perinry; as by that we haue treated before with M. Morton in the second chapter of this booke may appeare more largely: but much more throughout diuers Chapters together in my former Treatiss of Mitigation. Let vs put his former M. Parsons conuicted by his owne mouth. Reason and this Conclusion together, and hence I infer a notable absurditie, viz. that Master Parsons his Friend must bethought to haue sent many hundred miles vnto M. Parsons, to answer a doubt by his letters, which he [Page 115] had largely and sufficiently vnfoulded and assoiled publikely by his booke a yeere before.

7 These fower particular circumstances, viz. 1 Who, 2 What, 3 Whither, 4 and Whom, implying these sower Im­probabilities, the 1. to seeke to be informed in conscience concerning a sinne, that did not concerne him: the 2. about a Case, wherein there could be no doubt: the 3. by delaying time, and consulting farre off, whereas he might haue beene presently resolued at home: and 4. in vrging M. Parsons to satisfie that, which he had satisfied; do all (in my apprehen­sion more then coniecturally tell vs, that this Case was deui­sed either by M. Parsons his friend, or else by himselfe, ta­ther than deriued from the practise of any Protestant. And this will be found to be not onely (as in this Exordium) pro­bable, but euen demonstrable, by examination of the Narra­tion it selfe.

The Narration of the pretended Equiuocating Case of York-shire.

The Case then in offect was this. A certaine Minister in York­shire Reck pag. 672. named Wh. (for I thinke not good to set dewne all the let­ters thereof) dwelling at a towne called Thornley, if I misse not the name.

The Reuiew, shewing the manifold falshoods of this declaration.

8 Vpon the discouery of the falshoods of this Narrati­on, it will easily appeare that M. Parsons had rather cause to blush at the noting of the two first letters of the Ministers name, then the Minister himselfe need to be ashamed, to be named to the full, who is willing to reueale himselfe to bee that Ed. Whitakers, Rector of the Parsonage of Thornhil (for that is the right name of the place) who had a sute with M. C. about the Tithe of a Closse: but how? M. Parsons hath re­lated the Case in the behalse of the Defendant, shall not wee [Page 116] be heard speak for the Plaintiffe? Qui partem alteram audit, parte inaudit â alterâ, ( saith Seneca) iniquus erit, aequum licet iudicauerit: that is; Hee that in iudgement heareth one partie speake, and neglecteth the other, albeit he happen to iudge iustly, yet is he an vniust Iudge. Now then behold we the first vn­trueth of this fabulous deuise.

M. PARSONS his Appendix.

He being married and loaden with many children, and there­upon Reck. ibid. not content with the ordinary Tithes, that were woont to be giuen, and paid in that Parish:

The Reuiew.

9 This is spoken to make the Minister seeme to haue been a man contentious, who notwithstanding dare professe of himselfe, that for Thirtie yeeres space, (for so long hath he beene Rector of that Parsonage) hee troubled not any of his Parishoners for Tithe, except the now questioned. M r C. and that especially for the Tithe of one Closse. From this he passeth to another vntruth.

M. PARSONS his Appendix.

He began to vrge one of his Parishioners to pay him other Pag. 672. Tithes also out of a certaine Closse or Field that was pretended not to haue paied Tithes before to other precedent Incumbents. Whereupon this Minister deuising with himselfe, how he might further his owne cause, resolued vpon this meane, among others, to deale with another Minister, which immediately before had possessed that Benefice, intreating him aswell by request, as by offering him a piece of money (as hither is written) to assist him in this behalfe, by lending him the aid of an oath, that he had receiued Tithes before that time out of that Closse or Field.

The Reuiew.

10 The Playntiffe answereth, that The Minister, which immediately [Page 117] before had possessed that Benefice, was dead, before I was instituted vnto it; being about twenty yeeres, before this action began. Therefore M. Parsons, without a miracle of raising the dead man vnto life, could not make good this part of his accusation. But he goeth onaudaciously, without feare of other pits of errours and falshoods, which are in his way. The third followeth.

M. PARSONS his Appendix.

Whereat though for a time the second Minister did seeme to Reck. ibid. sticke much, saying that he could not doe it with the peace of his conscience; yet afterward it seemeth by the earnest perswasion & inductions of the other Minister, his repugnance of conscience was so mortified, as hee yeelded to the others intreaty; especially for that he tould him him he had so great friendship and acquain­tance with those that must be Iudges and examiners of the cause at Yorke, as he doubted not but their two oathes would caris it away.

The Reuiew.

11 M. Parsons had a great minde to bring some Mini­ster vpon the stage for all spectators to point at him, inso­much that he hath fancied such a man to be that Minister, as was dead and buried twenty yeeres before the beginning of this Sute, as was said. And now the Plaintiffe furthermore answereth, that No Minister was euer vsed in this cause, either as witnesse or as aider, or any way else. But it is knowne what a Priestly Itch M. Parsons had to traduce Ministers: which kinde of dealing might proceed from a Conscience that was mortua, but not mortificata. Although these former falshoods may much preiudice M. Parsons his Report; yet shall I de­sire my Reader to forget these circumstances, and to iudge according to the issue of the Case it selfe, for now we lanch into the maine.

M. PARSONS his Appendix.

To Yorke Assises then they went, where hauing taken their Reckon. p. 673. Oathes, and pleaded the case,

The Reuiew.

12 Then, belike, both the Ministers did Take their Oathes in this Case: but the one did not sweare, neither, in­deed, could he sweare by the law of nature, because he was The Trans­parancy of the forgery. dead; and the other could not sweare by the order of the Common-law of the land, which admitteth none in those Courts to sweare in his owne Cause. Which Circumstance maketh the forgery of this Case to be such a Pellucidum men­dacium, that is, so transparent an vntruth, that a man may see thorow it. But we haue longed all this while to heare the issue of this cause, and what successe it had.

M. PARSONS his Appendix.

At length they found not that successe, which they expected: for Reckon. ibid. that the whole Towne and Parish of Thornley offering them­selues confidently to sweare and depose the contrary in behalfe of the Defendant (to wit, that Tithes were not accustomed to be paied out of that place) the Ministers had sentence giuen against them, with no small note of publike periury.

The Reuiew.

13 The fower former falshoods were notable, but this, as the Master-lie, exceedeth them all: for at the Assises at Yorke, when the Nisi-prius betweene M. Whit. and M. Co: was to be tried, and verduit ready to be giuen M. Co: was Non-sute, and afterwards sought for an other Prohibition, still to hinder the Rectors proceedings. The trueth heereof I haue confirmed not only by M. Whit. his protestation, but [Page 119] also by the most credible testimony as wel of the then Iudge in the Court of Yorke, who kept a note of the passages in this cause, as of a Counsailor at Law, of M. Co: his part, who aduised his Clyent to forbeare that course of prosecu­tion. The wisdome of which his Counsaile was largely ve­rified by the euent. I forbeare to mention a publike Instru­ment vnder seale, which noteth that M. C. sought for a Pro­hibition against M. Whit. after the Assises at Yorke. We may guesse what complection M. Parsons his friend was of, who blushed not to say, that M. Whit. had sentence giuen against him at Yorke. Furtheimore, because M. Parsons hath ad­uentured to talke of Successe, I hould it not inconuenient to adde as followeth.

The memorablenesse of the Suite betweene M. Whit. and M. Co: about the Tithe of that Closse, and the Successe of the whole businesse.

14 It was to be sentenced before the Ordinary at Yorke, but before the sentence was pronounced, M. C. got a Probib. (by Iudge [...]) dat. 8. Feb. An. R R. Eliz. 37. Out of the Kings ben h. And a Consult ( [...]) Dat. 7. May An. Reg. Eliz. 39. Pro­hibition at London, wherein M. Whit. obtained a Consulta­tion, because M. C. had been Non-suit in a former Probib. (lud. Anderson) 30. Ian. An. Eliz. 40. out of the Common-Pleas. And then a Con­sultation Dat. 24 Maij, An. 40. Eliz. Prohibi­tion at Yorke. Neuerthelesse he procured a third Prohth. (lud. Popham) 5. [...] An. Eliz. 40. out of the Kings Bench. And then a Consult a­tion by Iudg. Popham, Dat. 12. Feb An. 41. Eliz. Prohi­bition, & was againe by another Consullation remitted to his Ordinary at Yorke. He stirreth vp to London for a fourth Prohib. (Iud. Anderson) Dat. 23. Ian. An. Eliz. 44. And a Consult. 14. Maij, Anno. Eliz. 44 Prohibition, and after that, a Prohibit. (Iud. Anderson) Dat. 23. Iunij, An. 44. Eliz. & Cō ­sult. Dat. 3. Nouem. An. Eliz. 44. fift and a Prohib. or Supersedeas (Iud. Anders.) Dat. 12. Feb. An. Eliz. 45. And yet was there granted a Consolt. Dat. 27. Maij, Reg. Iac. An. 1. by Iudge Anderson. sixt; which were all frustrated by so many Consultations, because he failed to make dew proofe of his Suggestions, within the times limi­ted by the Statute. After the three last Prohibitions he pro­cured an Iniunction out of the Chauncery against M. Whi: but vpon Information giucn to the Court it was speedily dis­solued. Is not this a strange case, which continuing the space of nine yeeres, was so often tossed like a Tennis-bal between London and Yorke? But in the end the matter was so vexa­tiously [Page 120] caried on M. C. his part, as that he was taxed to pay 300. pounds costs, whereof M. Whit. receiued two hundred pounds, and after that his foresaid Tithes, and hath enioied them euer since. Heere we see not onely one Successe, but The successe of the cause. euen as many successes as there were Consultations, which were six; and as there were pounds, which he got for char­ges, amounting to aboue two hundred pounds; and as the valew of the Tithe is, which he recouered. And now let them laugh that winne: for heerein we see this Prouerbe falsified. Notwithstanding M. Parsons still boasteth and maketh sport in behalfe of his Defendant, and plaieth merily vpon a slan­derous figment, as followeth.

M. PARSONS his Appendix.

One that was a particular friend of M. Wh. demanding the Reck. pag. 673. reason how they could sweare, or rather forsweare in such maner, the thing being knowne to be so notoriously false? He answered, that they in their owne sence did sweare truely (behold then the Case of Equiuocation) and that so they were ready to prooue it, if they had beene vrged by the Iudges therein, to wit, that their meaning in swearing was, that the former Incumbent had recei­ued Tithes out of that Closse or Field, or without that Closse or Field, namely, in other Closses adioyning, though not in the Field. And with this Equiuocation of ( Out) and ( In) they thought themselues cleared, both for deceiuing the Iudges, and their Parishioners.

The Reuiew.

15 This, in his marginall note, he calleth a fraudulent and lying Equiuocation: who, if he be aliue, might be put in minde by a most graue, godly, & famous Treasurer of learn­ing Sir Tho. B. that there was such a iest as this set abroach in M. Parsons his time in Oxford, by one, who merily main­tained that the testimonie, which he alleaged, was out of A­ristotle; that is not credible (said his fellow:) the other [Page 121] brought for his defence, a booke which was not Aristotle, where the alleaged testimonie was extant, and therefore (said the Sophister) is it found out of Aristotle. May we not thinke that M. Parsons hath turned a iest into an earnest, and translated the booke-case into the Close. case?

16 When we remember the diuerse improbabilites in the A Recapitule­tion. Exordium, of a friend busily inquiring about a sinne, which did not concerne him; and questioning about such a Case, which no Christian could doubt of; and sending for resolu­tion to Rome, which might haue beene had at home; and consulting thereabout with M. Parsons by priuate letters, which had been before largely satisfied in his publike books: but especially when we recognize the falsities of the Nar­ration and Declaration it selfe, wherein a Minister is made a witnesse, who was dead twenty yeeres before; and some Minister is obiected, whereas no Minister was any way vsed in that cause; and they are said to haue beene forsworne, who were not, nor could not be sworne; and the sentence is affir­med to passe with him at the Assises, who was so [...] as to become Non-sute, and so to forsake his cause, and in the vp-shot was constrained both to pay the Tithes that were sued for, and to repay the charges of the sute: How can we but thinke that this Equiuocating by out and in, came out of M. Parsons his Equiuocating braine, wherein the Mi­tigation, for defence of a woorse kinde of Equiuocation, by Mentall Reseruation, was formerly ingendred? What remai­neth now, but that we vnderstand what Determination M. Parsons hath passed vpon this forged Case?

The Conclusion and determination of the former Case.

M. PARSONS his Appendix.

Their Conspiracie together, by way of money, corruption, and Reck. pa. 673. 674. bribes, was detestable. Their guilesull deceiuing, their lawfull Iudges, that were competent in the cause, and proceeded iuridi­cally, [Page 122] was abhominable. The scandall giuen to them that knew they sware falsly, was impious. The obligation they had to an­swer The resoluti­on of the case directly vnto the sense and meaning of the said Iudges, was indispensable: all which points are different in a lawfull Equiuo­cation. Whereof I doe inferre, for resolution of the case, that this was no true or proper Equiuocation at all, but rather a flat lie, and open periury.

The Reuiew.

17 Although such a speech (in iudgement) being but a Verball Equiuocation in the inward court of a mans consci­ence, might goe for an indirect truth, as hath been See about. prooued yet in foro fori, and outward court of mans Iudicature, wher­in the secret thoughts of men cannot be discerned, it may be censured for a lie. And whether it be a lie, or not a lie, yet be­ing a deceit and delusion against a Magistrate in an Oath, none can deny but euery such practise is Detestable abhomi­nable, indispensable, and impious both before God and man. And thus far (supposing that the case had beene such) I yeeld vnto M. Parsons his Censure and Conclusion.

18 But now, after the examination of the Third part of his Accusation, I cannot see how M. Parsons could haue cho­sen a more extraordinary and famous case, wherein to betray their owne malice against Ministers, and to make themselues most notoriously infamous, by deuising this Equiuocation of out and in, which may perswade any indifferent Reader to crie out vpon such dealing, and to retort his Retorique vpon our Aduersaries, saying that such their guilefull defa­ming of Protestants is detestable, their obiecting of periury, where there was not so much as an Oath, is abhominablc, their abusing of their Readers credulity is impious; their transgression against their owne Conscience is indispensable; and whatsoeuer lie there is in it is to be attributed not to the supposed Actor, but to the suspected Author and Inuenter thereof.

19 Finally, for asmuch as our Aduersaries will seeme to [Page 123] make such kinde of Equiuocating hateful, it might haue be­come them to haue condemned their owne Mint and Do­ctrine of Equiuocating, before that they had slandered o­thers by false accusation in that, whereof some of themselues stand conuicted, by the the confessions of their owne fel­lowes; as now, by occasion of M. Parsons his Challenge I am vrged to discouer.

A Confutation of M. PARSONS his proofe of Mental Equiuocation taken from the speeches of Christ, in Ioh. 8. vpon an occasion, which he tooke at D. Kings Sermon.

§. II.

M. PARSONS his Appendix, and Challenge.

I would demand of this new Prachant-Minister, that is so Reckon. pa. 675. hoate and vehement in his calumniation, when he, or his can prooue that any one Iesuite in the world amongst so many thou­sands as are extant, hath euer practised, patronised, publi­shed, or perswaded any such Equiuocation as this, which was vsed by the Ministers of Yorkeshire? When would either Master Southwell, or M. Garnet, whom they are wont to accuse for this dostrine, haue taken such an oath for deceiuing of their Neigh­bours, as those Ministers did? Was this out of the infirmity of the flesh, and pusillanimity, or rather out of couetousnesse and iniquity? Was it with the faces of Hierusalem and Iudah, or not rather of Sodome and Gomorrah?

The Reuiew, yeelding confessed Examples of Iesuiticall practize, in lying AEquiuocations.

20 Thus the old man still venteth his choler adust, rag­ing, and reuiling a learned Doctour, whose studies haue soa­red some what aboue M. Parsons his reach: whom if he may [Page 124] tearme a Prachant Minister, then may we venly thinke that there is no Preaching Priest amongst the Romanists. But we leane comparisons. M. Parsons is therefore so bitter against him, because he thought their Eq [...] do carne the faces of Sodome and Gomorrha by paironizing, publishing, and perswading [...] whole world the lawfulnesse of their [...] and [...] who from hencefoorth (said he) may ease the [...] Crete from their [...] insame, which the Apostle [...] vpon them, that the Cretensians are ly­ars, &c. These [...] & M. Parsons calleth hot and vehement calumniations, [...] outcries, idle [...] and flat lies: And in the end exacteth of him an answer vnto his reasons, for the defence of the Art of [...] which are set downe in the Mitigation. In the which challenge who seeth not there is more windy [...] then sober [...] if either he considered the admirable, and indeed (in his kinde) kingly [...] of that our Doctor; or the vn­tempered morter, [...] M. Parsons hath dawbed vp a defence of his mentall Equiuocation, euen by reason of the mixture of absurditie and impietie, whereof they consist? As may be seene especially in his reason taken from the examples of Christ in Scripture. But first he desireth to be satisfied in some I esuiticall examples of like nature.

21 If I should propound the example of their Priest, who being deprchended and conuented before a Magist are, and asked whether he were a Priest or not? Answered no mean­ing, No Priest of Apollo: secondly, whether he had been be­yond the Sea, or no? Answered, No, meaning the Adria­tique Sea; or other such like Delphicall euasions vsed by M. Garnet in his examinations, which were so vgly, that the Examiners were thereby driuen into woonder and horror; M. Parsons or some for him would readily reply that the Ma­gistrats in England are no competent Iudges of their Priests; and that in so great an hazard, as was his libertie, or life, hee might lawfully Equiuocate. But I See aboue, lib. 1. ca. 3. §. 5. haue already prooued. that the authoritie of our Magistrates ouer a Priest is most iust: And it is also without question, that a man is no more [Page 125] priuileged to Equiuocate, in danger of losse of [...] or of life, then of losse of goods; and therefore if M. Parjons could condemne the Equiuocation of out and in for a lie, then this Equiuocation of a Priest Romish, and a Priest [...] may not passe currant for truth.

22 But what need we our owne collection, for the mani­festation of their lesuiticall delusions, seeing that we may be sufficiently enabled hereunto by our [...] We haue often heard of the complaint of a College of Ro­mish Sce aboue, lib. 1. cap. 1. [...] 28. Priests against M. Parsons for his coosenage, and cru­eitie against some English Messengers, which were sent from them vnto the Pope: together with a description of M. Parsons his former disposition, which was To cogge and E­quiuocate at euery word.

23 Besides this, their Quodlibettarian Priest declameth against the lesuits, because of their Quodlib. pag. 32. & 33. Abuse of Equiuocation, making it indeed (saith he) nothing but an Art of lying, cog­ging and foisting, and that without all respect of matter, time, or place; and consequently tending vnto flat Atheisme: So that Examples of Equiuoca­ting Romish Priests. ( saith he) it shall be as hard to conuince them of any errours in matters of faith, as it was to conuince Arius, who subscribing to the Councels decrees, swearing that it was true, as it there was written, (meaning in the paper kept close in his bosome, or sleeue) iust like to the Iesuits Equinocating, or counter­feited periuries. And, for example, hee bringeth in one Ib. pag. 66. Iames Standish a Iesuit [...] who abused the Pope; when be­ing asked of his Holinesse, whether the matter of the setting vp of the [...] in England was done by the consent of all the rest of the Priests in England, or not? answered, (but falsly, for scarce one of the secular Priests in England, in respect of the whole num­ber, knew of it) that, [It was,] reseruing to him [...] this part, vz. [As I presuppose, or presume] as since he hath confessed. And the like practise of Iesuits he there noteth with Ca. Ca­ietane, in offering his Lordship the names of Priests, as consen­ting to that which they did not, and excusing the matter by their secret reseruation, scil. If all would consent Can any pre­sume that they will feare by Equiuocating to abuse their [Page 126] neighbours, who make so bold to collude with their ghostly father, and supreme Pastor, the Pope?

24 By this we finde, that there is, in this point of Equi­uocating, some oddes betweene the honestie of Protestants, and Romanists, seeing that M. Parsons could not produce an example of any one Protestant, who hath so equinocated; except that of Out, and In, which (vpon due examination) appeareth to haue beene either the lying suggestion of his friend, or else the false inuention and forgery of his owne braine. And who is there among all Protestants that euer put pen to paper, to iustifie M. Parsons maner of Mentall Reseruation? But as for our Aduersaries, their profession herein is so rancke, and their practice so rife, that one of their owne brotherhood had cryed out vpon theirlyes and coggeries. Yet this deuellish Doctrine were lesse dangerous, if it did not transforme it selfe into the resemblance of more than an Angell of light, by pretending the example of our Blessed Sauiour Christ, as followeth.

CHAP. X.

Short answers vnto the particular Instances, which M. PARSONS vsed out of 8. chap. of S. Iohn, for colour of their Romish AEquiuocation. And first by way of Introduction.

§. I.

M. PARSONS his Appendix.

IFinde the speeches of our Sauiour so frequent euery Reck. pag. 682. where in this maner of concealing of secrecies, or things not sit to be plainly vttered, by this doubtfull and ambiguous kinde of speech, as in one onely chap­ter of S. Iohns Gospell, I finde Christ to haue vsed the same a­boue Ioao. 1. 7. or 8. times at least setting downe certaine propositions, [Page 127] that of themselues, and as they lie, are in the common Hearers earo false, though true in the speakers meaning, by some Mentall Reseruàtion. Which Reseruation though he vttered not in words yet is necessarily vnderstood: and this is properly AEquiuo­cation in our sense and Doctrine.

The Reuiew, shewing the distinction betweene Ver­ball, and Mentall Equiuocation.

1 It is sit, before we seeke to satisfie others, that first we labour to vnderstand our selues, by setting downe the true differences which are betweene vs. To this end I distinguish of [...] or Amphibology (as they are largely taken) into Verbal, and Mentall.

2 The Verball is (as hath beene said) when any speech hath [...] diuerse ambiguous and doubtfull sences, according to the outward vse of the words in themselues, and not only by the in ward reseruation of the minde: which doubtful­nesse of a speach consisteth sometime in one word, sometime in a whole sentence.

3 An example of the Verball AEquiuocation, or ambigu­ity of speech in one word, may be these: one spying a man of little wit, and perceiuing that he had big and strong legges, said that he was a man of good vnderstanding; wittily chang­ing the more vsuall sence of the word, Vnderstanding, as it sig­nifieth wit and iudgement, into the lesse common accepta­tion thereof, wherein it agreed vnto a mans legges. [...] much different was the answer of a Market-man vnto one, who being desirous to know what prices good horses bare, asked him, Homgce Horses at the faire? Sir (quoth he) some amble, and some trot; merrily playing vpon the verball am­biguity of the word, Go.

4 As there is a Verball Amphibology, and doubtfull sence in particular words, so is there also in the composition of whole sentences, and that in infinite varieties; as it hap­peneth often by the diuerse disposall of the word of a speech. As when the man said that he met this morning a cart full of [Page 128] stones empty: which words, taken according to the common reading, doe yeelde no sence, but that which is sencelesse; but being rightly distinguished, it is the same, as if he had said: I emply, (that is, fasting) this morning met a Gart. Or as an other [...] saying, I saw Paules steeple on horsebacke; meaning, that being on horsebacke, he saw Paules steeple.

5 But of all Tropes, or figures in Rhetorique, there is none that commeth nearer vnto Mentall Reseruation than doe these two; Ironia, and Apiosiopesis: For first in Ironia, or iesting and derision, the meaning, which is conueyed by the words, sometimes is quite contrary vnto the naturall pro­pertie of the words themselues: as may be decerned in that contention, which the Prophet Eliah had with Baals Priests, wherein he is 1. Reg. 18. said to haue mocked the Priests of Baal, say­ing to them, Cry aloud, for he is a God, either he talketh, or pursueth his enemies, or is in his iourney, or else it may be he is a sleepe, and must be waked. But in this there was not Romish Mentall Reseruation, which lurketh wholy in the closet of the speakers brest; but a Uerball ambiguitie, whereof the hearer was capable; to vnderstand that the Prophet now conten­ding against Baal, to proue him to be no God, did meane, by calling him God, and attributing vnto him properties, which cannot agree vnto God (as talking, iourneying, sleeping) but to scorne & deride him, and indeed to call him No God. Like hereunto was the Answer which the Prophet Michaih made vnto Ahab, when he answered him, saying, Ibid. cap. 22. Goc vp to Ramath Gilead, and prosper: which Ironie the King him­selfe perceiued right well; whereby the Prophet (saith In Luc. vlt. [...] 28. Mad­donate) did not [...] him, but sheweth that he was deceiued.

6. The 2. figure, which can best claime any alliance with Mentall Reseruation, is [...] or Reticentia, which M. Parsons bringeth in to patterne their Romish Reseruation. This is such a speech, as is abruprly broken off in the halfe. We haue an example in the 3. of Gen. where God now ca­sting Adam out of Paradise, saith, Vers. 22. But now left, man doe put foorth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eate and liue for euer; Reseruing the rest, but not as inconceiuable [Page 129] vnto the Reader, which in the generalitie was this. I will take an other order with him. For here, by a knowne figure, called Anthropomorphia, God is brought in to speake like a man, when he is in anger and passion: Now the voice of mans extreame passion and perturbation is alwaies abrupt and broken, euen as he is described by the Poet to say; Quos Virg. ego. Which kinde of sentences doe, according to the fashion of mans speech, betoken the intendment of some kinde of reuenge, and cannot any whit countenance the Romish Men­tall [...] which is not all implied in the outward forme of the speech, as we shall presently demonstrate.

That the Scripture alloweth not the Romish Reseruation.

§. 2.

7. S. Augustine (as he is cited by the Iesuit Salmeron Ies. Tom. 1. Pre­legom. 12. Can. 15. ex Aug. Tom. 3. li 1. de Trin. cap. 12. Salmeron) saith that Scriptures, because they speake vnto men, doe vse no kinde of speech, which is not vsuall among men. Whereby I make bold to assume, that there is no speech in Scripture, whether it be proper or figuratiue, but it accordeth vnto the vse of the outward words and the meaning may possibly be apprehended by an intelligent Reader, who can iustly obserue the phrase of speech, and the due circumstances thereof. As for M. Parsons his Mentall Reseruation it is in­apprehensible, because he saith that Mitig. cap. 8. pag. 344. The clause of Reserua­tion may be what it pleaseth a man; and what soeuer he list to frame to himselfe: so that it agree with his minde, in a cause wherein he is not bound to make any direct Answere. For example sake, let vs take this: If a Priest being asked by a Protestant Magistrate vnto whom hee thinketh he is not bound to answere directly whether he be an Anoynted Priest? and shall answere, saying; I am not anoynted Priest, secret­ly referuing this clause in my minde, not Anoynted, on my elbowes, or not Anoynted with Tarre or Oyle de Baye: is not this reseruation meerely Mentall, and no-way implied in the [Page 130] outward speech, but vnsearchable, and altogether degene­rate from the proper or figuratiue vse of mans speech? Can he possibly find vs any colour for this Art of falshood, and coggery, out of the Gospell of truth.

The Examination of places of Scripture, ob­iected by M. PARSONS out of Iohn 8. The first is out of the vcrs. 15.

§. III.

M. PARSONS his Appendix.

The place then which I meane is the 8. chapter of S. Iohns [...] Reck. pa. 683. Gospell, where Christ our Sauiour entring into a large speech with the Iewes, vseth first thesewords, which I haue examined before in my said Treatise of Equiuocation: Ego non iudico quenquam, I doe not iudge any man: which seeming to be con­trary to that other saying of himselfe within a very few lines, in the same Chapter, I haue many things to speake, and iudge of you: and further in the same Gospell three Chapters before; For neither doth my Father iudge any man, but hath giuen to me his Sonne all iudgement: it doth not appeare how the proposition can be true, but by some mentall reseruation in the minde of our Sauiour; which being examined by the ancient Fa­thers what it might be, S. Chrysostom with Leontius Thco­philus, and others doe thinke the said secret meaning or Reserua­tion of our Sauiour to haue beene this: I doe not iudge any man in this my first comming, but doe reserue it for my next at the day of iudgement. Other Fathers gather another, as though he had secretly ment: I doe not iudge any man, as you the Scribes and Pharisees doe, according to the flesh, and outward shew, but in trueth: Yet neither of these Reseruations being vttered, they doe make the speech to be ambiguous and E, quiuocall, as cannot be denied.

The Reuiew.

8 There is no Mentall Reseruation in this speach of Christ, which the outward words themselues doe not imply; for if we vnderstand the sentence, [ I doe iudgeno man] accor­ding to the first exposition, which signifieth that he did not now iudge men, in this life, it is explicable enough by this and other Scriptures: For else where it is plaine that he came in­to the world as a Iesus, to Saue the world, and not as a Iudge, to condemne it. And to this purpose the text saith (as In humc [...] Caie­tane obserueth) Non iudico, not, Non iudicabo, that is, I iudge noman, it saith not, I will iudge no man, so that there is no sha­dow of Repuganancie in this with the other speeches of Christ.

9 Againe if the second exposition be consulted with, concerning the manner of iudgement, it doth not exclude the former; and is also sufficiently apparent by the outward words: for in the words going before, he tould the Pha­risees, saying, You iudge according to the flesh; but I iudge no man, namely ( [...] saith In [...] locum. Maddonate) according to the flesh, whereby Christ distinguisheth his maner of iudge­ment from the Pharisees; because they, as men, iudged Ac­cording to the flesh, that is, (as In [...] Tolet expoundeth) according to external & outward sence: but Christ iudgeth immediatly, without helpe of sence, and is therefore God. We see then that the sense of Christ his speech was intelligible, by vertue of the words themselues: But the sense of the Priest is not so, for if he shall say, I am no Priest, meaning of the old law, is there any wit of man that can diue into the depth of this Reseruation?

The second place, vers. 32. M. PARSONS Appendix.

In the same place he saith to the Iewes: If you perseuere in Reckon. pa. [...] my sayings, you shall truely be my Disciples, and know the [Page 132] truth, and the truth shall free you: Which freedome, or deli­ucrance the lawes vnderstood from temporall bondage: and therefore answered answered him. that they were the seede of Abra­ham, and had neuer beene in bondage to any. Which error of the Iewes proceeded from the ambiguous speech of our Saui­our, reseruing in his minde, and not expressing in his proposition what bondage he meant: for that his reserued meaning indeede was if the bondage of sinne,

The reuiew.

10 There was a Verbal ambiguitie, because there is a dou­ble freedome, the one from corporal bondage, the other from Spirituall, as from sin and hell. The Iewes spake of the one, Christ diuerteth their thoughts to the consideration of the other, and explaineth his owne meaning in the 24. verse; He that sinneth is the seruant of sinne: As if he had said (saith Card. In cum locum. Caietane) Behold what the seruitude is, whereof I speake, &c. Which is a case familiar euen vnto the Pagans themselues (as their Bishop Iansen. Con­cord Euang. eund. locum. Iansenius wellnoteth;) insomuch that Diogines vsed to say that There is no difference betweene Seruants, and vicious Lords, but the vowels and Sillables of their names, except onely this, that seruants doe serue their Lords, and Lords are slaues to their owne vitious affections. This be­ing so conceiuable a sence of these words, freedome, and ser­uitude, euen by the common vse of the outward words them­selues among men, how can it confirme a Mentall Reserua­tion, which is such a Couchant in mens harts, as which by no vse of the outward speech can possibly be decerned; as when a man shall say, I am no Priest; conceiuing in minde this clause, With a Club-foote.

The third place is out of vers. 50. M. PARSONS Appendix.

The like may be obserned in those words; Ego non quaero Reckon pag. 684. gloriam meam, I doe not seeke my glory; and yet doth Christ [Page 133] most iustly seeke his owne glory that is àue vnto him: and so in the verse immediatly going before he [...] this vnto them, Vos inhorâstis me: you haue dishonoured me; and in another place to his Disciples he saith, Vos vocâstis me Mr. & Dom­ne Iohn 13. v. 13. & benè dicitis, sum etenim. You haue called me Master and Lord, and doe well therein, for that I am your Master and Lord indeede. And in another place, Creditis in Deum, & in Iohn 14. v. 1. me credite, You doe beleeue in God, belecue also in me, which is the highest honour he could exact: And consequently there must needes be some Mentall Reseruation in this other speech, when he saith, he seeketh not his owne glory, which the Fathers doe indeuour to seeke out in their Commentaries.

The Reuiew.

11 This is a Verball Equiuocation in the word, Glory, ad­mitting a double sence, one is the Glory of his Office, so in the other places obiected, but in this place it is taken for the glory of Reuenge, as the words which immediatly go before and which follow immediately after doe import: for before it is said, You haue dishonored me, but I seeke not mine owne glo­ry, that is, Vindictae, to take vengeance vpon you As their owne Vpon this place. Authors Tolet, Salmeron, Maldonate, and Iansenius doe ac­knowledge. What then? shall they be therefore vnpuni­shed? No, for it followeth in the same verse There is one (that is, the Father) that seeketh and iudgeth, that is, Reuengeth, saith their Moldonate. How can this Verball Equiuocation, which is exlicable enough by the force of the outward words of the same vers. countenance the vnsearchable depth of their Mentall Reseruation, such as is this; I haue no head, reseruing in my thought, horned like an Oxe.

The fourth place is out of the vers. 51. M. PARSONS his Appendix.

It followeth in the same place? Amen, Amen. I say vnto you Reckon. pa. 684. if any obserue my words, he shall neuer see death: Which the Scribes and Pharisees, (though otherwise learned in their law) Vers. 51. [Page 134] vnderstood of corporall death, and in that sence gaue an instance of Abraham, and the Prophets that were dead, notwithstanding they had obserued the words and commandements of God, and consequently in their sense Christs sentence could not to be true: but our Sauiour had another intention and meaning reserued in his minde, by which reseruation the truth of the sentence was iu­stified, to wit, that they should not die in soule.

The Reuiew.

12 This is a Verball AEquiuocation in the word, Death, which in it selfe doth equally signifie a Temporall, and an Eternall death: but in this place is applied only to the Eter­nal, as may appeare by the Text, He shal not see death inaeter­num, that is, euerlastingly, For these words, in aeternum (saith In hunc [...] Caietane) are added, to distinguish it from the temporal Death: and so also Ibid. doe their Tolet, Maldonate, and Salmeron ex­pound it. By vertue of the which word, Euerlastingly, the foresaid meaning of the speech is made intelligible; And is therefore iniuriously produced for the iustification of his Mentall Reseruatian, which is vncomprehensible, because it lurketh in the bottomlesse pit of mans secret thought, as for example to say; I haue not my Crowne shauen (reseruing in my minde as followeth:) With a paire of Pincers.

The fifth place, Vers. 54. M. PARSONS his Appendix.

It followeth yet further in the same place: If I do glorifie my Reckon pa. 684. 685. selfe (saith Christ) my glory is nothing: Which yet I thinke no man will grant to be true according to the letter, as it lieth. For albeit Christ should set forth his owne glory, yet may it not be said, that this glory published by himselfe is nothing, or vaine. Wherefore some reserued sence must heere also be sought out, which according to the opinion of sundry expositours is that he meant this according to the opinion the Iewes, who esteemed that [Page 135] nothing which came from Christ himselfe. As also a little be­fore in the 5. chap. he vsed the like speech, saying, If I beare witnesse of my selfe, my witnesse is not true. Which sentence I thinke our Ministers themselues will not hold to be true in the sense, which here it beareth: for then should they condemne our Sauiour of falsity, as often as he affirmeth any thing of himselfe: and then must we of necessity run to some reserued sense in Christs meaning, which is the thing that we call Equiuocation, so revi­led by our Ministers.

The Reuiew.

13 Their Iesuit Salmeron. Ies. Tom. 1. Prolegom. 11. Can. 22. Salmeron publisheth this for a Canon, for the direction of euery Reader of Scripture, viz. that som­time. It was the fashion of Christ, in giuing Answers vnto men, to accomodate and apply his speech rather vnto their meanings, than to their words: and for example thereof he produceth the second place which now M. Parsons alleageth, taken out of the 5. chapter of S. Iohn, vers. 31. If I beare witnesse of my selfe, my witnesse is not true: That is (saith he) according to your vnderstanding, who take me to be a meere man. And of the first place, concerning the Glorifying of himselfe, M. Parsons con­fesseth that Christ spake according to the opinion of the lewes; or, as saith Iansen. Con­cord. in eund. locum. Ioh. 8. 54. Iansenius, this sentence is to be vnderstood as others be, as if he had said, If I as a man (according to the opinion which you haue of me) doe glorifie my selfe, my glory were but vaine. which sheweth that in the speech of Christ the Equiuocati­on was only Uerball, in the word, Glorifie, which of it selfe might signifie a iust and diuine glorifving of himselfe, as he was the sonne of God, which was not intended in this place: or else an humaine and worldly [...] of himselfe, after the fashion of men, which he called Vayne. According vnto this Sence he spake, and applied his meaning vnto the mea­ning of the Iewes themselues, as hath beene confessed. Which fashion of Christs applying his speech vnto the vnderstan­ding of the hearer, is so far from iustifying of their Mentall AEquiuocation, that it doth cleerely consute it, because in it [Page 136] there is reserued such a meaning, as neither man, nor Angell doth vnderstand, by any circumstance of speech, as when the Romish Priest answered that he was No Priest, meaning of Apollo or Baall, and such like. Was it not then a strange aduenture of M. Parsons, from a speech spoken and applied to the hearers meaning, to seeke to infer a Mentall Reserua­tion, wherein there is infoulded a meaning, which doth not, nor cannot accord at all vnto the vnderstanding of the I Iea­rer?

The sixt place, Vers. 55. M. PARSONS his Appendix.

Furthermore in the very next verse, talking of almighty God, Reckon. pa. 685. he said to the Iewes, Non cognouistis cum, you doe not know him: which seemeth vntrue in it selfe, for that the Iewes did pro­fesse Vers. 55. to know him, and serue him, aboue all the people in the world. And in the olde Testament it is often said of them, that they, of all other people, did best know God: and therefore some other re­serued meaning must Christ our Sauiour needes haue had, then these externall wordes doe insinuate. Which Reseruation Saint Chrysost. S. Aug. S. Bede. and Theophilact vpon this place doe thinke to haue beene this in Christ his secret meaning, that they did not know God, as they ought to know him, by seruing him as he would and ought to be serued, according to the speech of Saint Paul to Titus Confitentur se nôsce Deum, factis Tit. 1. 16. autem negant, They confesse to know God in words, but doe de­nie him in deedes. So as here also an Equiuocation of speech was vsed by our Sauiour.

The Reuiew.

14 There is a double sence of Not knowing of God, taught openly in Scripture, the one is in respect of the intellectuall part of man, when Gods will is not rightly beleeued, so the Gentiles are often said Psal. Not to haue knowne God, and to haue had No knowledge of his waies; and contrariwise of the Iewes [Page 137] the Scripture saith, Psal. 75. 2. In Iurie is God well knowne. The se­cond sense, of Not knowing God, is in respect of the practi­call and actuall duetie, when he that beleeueth and profes­seth the true and syncere worship of God, doth notwithstan­ding wilfully and rebelliously transgresse his will, in which consideration Saint Iohn saith, He that saith he knoweth God, 1. Epist. 2. and yet keepeth not his Commaundement is a lyar. We see then that this phrase of Not knowing God, hath a double sence, but yet through Verball Equiuocation, and both of them agree with truth: for some of these with whom Christ spake, did not truely and intellectiuely know God, because they knew him not Sub ratione Patris aeterni, as Card. In hunc locum Caietane saith. And concerning the practicall acknowledgement there, Card. In eund. Tolet is direct, saying that Christ speaketh here of a knowledge which doth not onely signifie the act of vnderstanding, but which also comprehendeth the act of the will and affection, in imitation of God; in which regard 1. Reg. 2. the sonnes of Heli the Priest are called the children of Beliall, who know not God: And our Sauiour in the same verse of S. Iohn, saying by an Antithesis and opposition. But I know him, and keepe his Commaundement, doth expound himselfe, and reuealeth his meaning, signifying that They knew not God, because they kept not his Commaundement, as their Card. Ibid. Tolet noteth; and their Bishop Concord ibid. Iansenius saith that this is Apparant: which is vtterly contrary vnto M. Parsons his Mentall Equiuocati­on. As for example, I haue no money (meaning secretly,) to lend it vnto you: this Reseruation, to lend it, is locked vp close, lest it should be reuealed, and cannot naturally be im­plied in those outward words, I haue no money: and hath beene called by the Ies. Azorius a flat See about. lye. Therefore there is as little affinitie betweene Christs sentences, and M. Parsons his Reseruation, as betweene light and darknesse: truth and a lye.

The seuenth place, verse 56. M. PARSONS Appendix.

Againe, in the ensuing verse, which is the 56. Christ said to Reck pag. 685. 686. [Page 138] the Iewes: Your Father Abraham did [...] to see my day, and saw it, and tooke ioy thereby. Which words in the com­mon sence doe seeme to import, that Abraham had liued with Christ, and had seene the day of his birth, and life, and taken great ioy thereby: and so did the Iewes vnderstand his meaning to be, not onely the common people, but the Scribes and Pharisies also, when they said vnto him, Thou hast not yet fifty yeares of age, and hast thou seene Abraham? Wherein notwithstand­ing they were greatly deceiued, for that Christ had another re­serued meaning in his minde, which the holy Fathers doe labour greatly to expound vnto vs, what it was, and in what true sence our Sauiour said that Abraham had seene his day: whose dif­ferent opinions, reasons, and coniectures I will not stand to re­late here; It is sufficient for me to haue shewed, that this was an Equiuocall speech of our Sauiour, whereby the hearers be­ing deceiued, the truth of the speech may onely be defended by a reseruation in the minde of the speaker.

The Reuiew.

15 In this there is another Uerball Equiuocation, in the word See, for some saw the day of Christs being in the world only by Reuelation, as Abraham, and the Patriarks; as Esay, and the Prophets; as Iob, and all the beleeuers before Christ: And some saw the day of his being in the flesh sensibly, as Peter, and the other Apostles; as Mary our Lords Mother, holy Ioseph, Simeon, and other holy men, and women, yea and as Caiphas, and other vnbeleeuing Iewes. That Abra­ham is meant to haue Seene the day of Christs birth spiritu­ally, thorow Reuelation, their Card. [...] cum locum. Tolet will not deny: but the Iewes that scorned him mistooke this sence, and con­ceited only a sensuall Seeing with bodily eies.

16 Who now seeth not M. Parsons his fraud, who calleth that a reserued sence, which was (that I may so say) a sence conserued in the outward words themselues, and sufficiently manifest, if the scornefull Iewes, who were now blinded with malice, had not peruerted them into a sensuall Construction. [Page 139] For what phrase in the old Testament is more familiar and notorious, then to call that Seeing, which is perceiued onely spiritually? for the which cause the Prophets were called 1. Reg. 9. Seers. And shall the misconceit of incredulous hearers make the sence of Christ to be mentally reserued? As for M. Parsons his maner of Reseruation, when a man shall say, I keepe no Priest in mine house, meaning; with any intent to bake him in a Pie, or &c. It is so farre of from a Verball Equiuoca­tion, which may be implyed by the outward words, as that no man without Reuelation from God can comprehend it. But I hasten.

The last place, Verse 58. M. PARSONS Appendix.

And finally in the next verse after this againe Christ vseth Reckon p. 686. 687. a greater Equiuocation than any before, saying vnto them, Amen, Amen, antequàm Abraham fieret, ego sum. Amen, Amen, I say vnto you, that before Abraham was made, I am: which being an earnest speech; and as it were an oath, as else­where we haue noted, the Iewes vnderstood it as it lyeth, that Christ was borne in the flesh before Abraham: and so it seemeth that he should haue meant according to his former speech, when he said that Abraham desired to see his day, and saw it, and reioyced thereat: Which was vnderstood of his incarnation or day in flesh, which Abraham in saith and spirit did see, and re­ioyce. But yet here when he saith that he is before Abraham was made, he must needes meane of his Diuinitie, and in that he was God: which S. Aug. vpon this place doth excellently note to be by the difference of the two words, Abraham fieret, & Ego sum, the one belonging to the creature, saith he, the other to the Crea­tor. So as more then our Equiuocation is vsed by our Sauiour in this one sentence.

The Reuiew.

17 But doth any Author say, that in the word, Sum, as it is here vsed (that is) I am, there is any Equiuocation? for [Page 140] seeing that Christ (as Saint Aug. and Almost all other Au­thors This faith their les. Mal­donate vpon this place. haue noted) did distinguish the Creature, (man) by fie­ret, was made, from the Creator, which was his God-head, by the word, Sum, I am, he did not inferre, but remoue the ambiguitie of that phrase: Nay I adde further; the word, Sum, in this speech of Christ seemed euen vnto these incre­dulous Iewes to be so farre from doubtfulnesse, and so plain­ly to signifie his Deity, that they accounting it to be blasphe­mous, tooke vp Stones to cast at him; which their owne Vpon the same place. Doctors haue also obserued, as Card. Tolet: Because that Exod. 3. (saith he) God said, Sum qui sum, that is, I am, that I am, the Iewes knew that Christ did not onely preferre himselfe before Abraham in respect of time, but also publish himselfe to be God. Which is likewise the obseruation of Ibid. Caietane, saying that because Christ did hereby manifest his Diuinitie, therefore it is added that They tooke vp stones to throw at him. This sence being so euident vnto the hea­rers, sheweth that there was not so much as a Verball Equi­uocation; much lesse M. Parsons his Mentall Reseruation, which the hearer doth not onely not know, but cannot pos­sibly guesse what it is: As for example, if one should say, I am no Priest, reseruing in his minde, As fit to keepe Swine. We see by this time the manifold ridiculous absurdities, which M. Parsons hath inforced in this fond Appendix, whereof notwithstanding he doth not a little boast, as we shall see.

M. PARSONS his Appendix.

And if we lay all these Equiuocall speeches together which Reckon. p. 687. are 8. or 9. at least contained within a peece of one only Chapter of our Sauiours talke with the Iewes, Scribes, and Pharisees, we shall be able to make some guesse, how many might be found tho­rowout the whole new Testament and Bible, if we would examine the same particularly, as we haue done this: and thereby see how tru M. Mortons bold assertion was in his booke of Full Satisfact. That no one iote in all Scripture, no one example in all Ca­tholike Pag. 49. [Page 141] Antiquity could be found for the same. His tearmes also of heathenish, hellish, heinous, and impious Equiuoca­tion, with other infamations of his brother Minister King, may appeare what substantiall ground thay haue.

The Reuiew, shewing the absurdities of M PAR­SONS his Collection.

18 If all the speeches, which M. Parsons inforceth for Instances to patterne and to iustifie his fashion of Equiuoca­ting, may be called Mentall Reseruations, then may we grant that not onely eight, but euen all the sentences, yea and al­most euery word of this, & all other Chapters may be pro­ued to be Mentally Equiuocall. And for demostration sake (because I wil not profane the sacred Scripture with such idle crotchetting) I thinke good to descant a little but vpon any one sentence, which M. Parsons can vtter, and try, if that al­most euery word may not imply a kinde of Reseruation. As for example, suppose M. Parsons should haue deliuered this speech saying, I will as long as I liue go vnto the Church to pray vnto God. Which in the vnderstanding of any man of sence is sensible enough, yet the first particle is I meaning a man, and no woman: the second word will, meaning, with a resolued and not a dissembling will: 3. As long, meaning the length of time, and not the length of body: 4. As I liue, meaning, a life animall in this flesh, and not Angelicall out of the body: 5. Go, meaning, by walking, and not by dance­ing: 6. Vnto the Church, meaning of Catholikes, and not of Heretikes: 7. To pray, meaning, mediately by Saints and not immediately by my selfe, 8. vnto God, meaning, the God of Christians, & not any God of the Pagans. What can be more plainely spoken then the sentence aforesaid, and yet how many meanings suppressed, which may not therfore be cal­led Mentall Reseruations, otherwise M. Parsons might as well infer that he neuer promised any lawful thing vnto any man neuer tooke an oath by any lawfull authority of man, with­out some Mentall reseruation, the vse whereof he himselfe [Page 142] hath iudged in all such cases to be detestable. I shall haue further occasion to vnfould the grosenesle of his Inference more at large by other examples, after that I haue satisfied some other obiections.

SECT. IIII.

An Answer vnto some other places of Scripture, wherein M. PARSONS hath insisted in his booke of Mitigation, for the defence of his Mentall Equiuocation.

19 I doubt how my Reader might censure me, if after the Confutation of M. Parsons his former Instances out of Scripture, I should inquire into his other booke of Miti­gation, to seeke al other examples, to prosecure them, because this would breed tediousnesse: I therfore wil but choose out some of his choisest places, and so hasten to a Conclusion of this Treatise.

The first text, which M. PARSONS vrgeth in his booke of Mittigation, is taken out of Iohn I. verse 2:

M. PARSONS his Mittigation.

We shall begin with an example so cleere, as it shall be like to Mitigat. e. 19. §. 2. p. 359. that of ours in all points, if we change only the names of persons, and conditions of men that spake and heard. As that example of S. Iohn Baptist, who being examincd and demanded by them, that were sent vnto him from the Iewes, whether he were a Pro­phet, or no? he denied it: Propheta es tu? & spondit non: Are you a Prophet, and he answered No, and yet he meant not abso­lutely to deny himselfe to be a Prophet, for that it had beene false both in respect of that his father Zacharias had prophecied of him in his Natiuity, calling him the Prophet of the highest, Luck. 1. as also in respect of Christs testimony, who Matth. 11. [Page 143] called him more than a Prophet, &c. Heere then you see a Pro­position vttered by the Ghost, that of it selfe is ambiguous, and of a doubtfull sense, and according to the ordinary sound and sense of the words vttered, seemethfalse, no lesse then our Prepo­sition, I am no Priest. For as this may be refusted by them that know me to be a Pricst, and as Th. Morton still vrgeth (though fondly) is contrary to my knowledge and conscience, that know my selfe to be a Ptiest, &c.

The Reuiew.

20 Maldou. les. vpon the place [...] these points to the ful. Maldonate the Iesuite (and, as it seemeth M. Parsons out of him) collecteth out of Fathers three diuerse mea­nings of the Iewes in their question: the first was, whether he were that singular Prophet, which they fancied should come together with Christ, and he answered, I am not, which was true according to that their sense. Secondly, some thought that the Iewes meant by their demand to know, whether he were any one of the ancient Prophets, who were long before Christ? And he answered, satisfying them truely according to that their sense, saying, I am not: Thirdly some taught that the Iewes by their Interrogatory thought to know, whether he were any Prophet at all by his proper Osfice? Now Iohn albeit he was a Prophet by Grace and power, because he was sent by God, and did exhert, reprooue, and conuert sinners, yet was he not a Prophet by ordinary Osfice: and applying his Answere to this sence, said, I am not, and that truely, because Iohn did not Prophecis: and thus the answer agreed to that their sence. Obserue, (good Reader against Mitig. p. 361. M. Parsons his Obserua­tion) that the Answer of S. Iohn, who is the speaker, doth accord (by the iudgement of all Authors) vnto the suppo­sed seuerall vnderstandings of the Iewes, and Questionists, who were the heares: Contrariwise Romish Priest be­ing demanded by a Magistrate, whether he be a Priest, re­turneth this Answere, [ I am not a Priest,] onely with this reserued sence, With purpose to tell it vnto you; which deth flatly thwart the intention of the Magistrate, and Questio­nist [Page 144] M. Parsons is like to make a lucklesse end, who is so vn­fortunate in this beginning.

The second place obiected out of Matth. 9. 20. M. PARSONS his Mitigation.

Our Sauiour Christ comming to rayse the Arch-Synagogue Mitig. p. 365. his daughter, found the people in tumult, weeping and lamen­ting for the death, whom he repressed, saying, Recedite, non est enim mortua puella, sed dormit; Depart, for that the maid is not dead, but sleepeth; and yet is it certaine that naturally she was dead, by separation of her soule from her body. So as if this Proposition be taken strictly as it lyeth, without any Men­tall Reseruation by our Sauiour, it cannot be true neither in it selfe, nor in the sense of the hearers, no more than in our propo­sition, I am no priest. The ment all Reseruation in our Sauiour, according to S. Augustines explication and other expositions, was that albeit she was dead in their sight, and vnto hamane power: yet vnto him, and vnto his diuine power and will to raise her againe, she was not dead, but onely a sleepe.

The Reuiew.

21 Christ wrought many among them, wherein he did demonstrate his Diuine power, as among others, in curing the woman which had a Bloody issue, whom he hea­led euen in the way as he came to the house of this Archi­sinagogue. In respect of which his diuine power, euen they that are dead are said to be cut A sleepe, which is a most frequent and ordinary phrase of speech in Scripture. To this purpose their Card. Tolet. in hune locum. Tolet commenting vpon this Scripture, alleadgeth those places out of the old Testament, where they who dyed are said to haue Sleept with their Fathers: And out of the new, 1. Cor. 11. Many fella a sleepe, from the which Metaphor and truth (saith he) the Apostle doth gather an argument of consolation vnto all Christians, teach them [Page 145] not to mourne as men without hope, ignorant of the resurrection 1. Thess. 4. In regard of which his Omnipotent power, whereby this woman was now speedily to be raised, He doth comfort those who now wept, as he spake of Lazarus Iohn 11. saying, Lazarus sleepeth, and I must goe and awake him: But here they, who did deride Christ as though he had vtterly denied that the maid was dead (because they were destitute of the light of faith,) did measure Christs power by their owne. So he Now then the Metaphor of calling Death a Sleepe, being so fa­miliar vnto all the Religious of those daies, the diuine power of Christ being by many miracles made so famous and ma­nifest among them: we may iudge (seeing that the raising of a dead woman to life was no more difficultie then the awa­king her out of a sleepe, which he intended presently to do) that both his denying her to be Dead, and his affirming that she was but a Sleepe were but Verbal amphibologies, which all they might haue vnderstood, who were not Scornefull and incredilous contements of his sayings. But the Priests Equi­uocation, as this; I am no Priest, meaning, as ordained to kill a Calfe, or such like, is so farre beyond the horizen and sight of any mans capacitie, that he may sooner claspe hold of the man in the moone, then by any intimation of words, or circumstance of speech reach vnto such a reser­ued conceit.

The third, fourth, and fifth, places out of Iohn 6.

M. PARSONS his Mittigation.

In the Gospell by S. Iohn, speaking of the eating of his flesh, Mitting. p. 366. 367. If any shall eate of this bread, he shall liue for euer; and yet S. Paul saith to the contrary, 1. Cor. 11. He that eareth and dirnketh vnwoorthily, doth eate or drinke his owne iudge­ment, or condemnation. By which words of S. Paul it is made manifest, that the former words of Christ cannot absoluted be true, without some Ment all Rescruation or restriction his vn­derstanding, [Page 146] for that not all that eat and drinke, but they onely that doe it worthily, haue life euer lasting. Secondly, there is dis­couered what this reseruation was, to wit, Dignè; worthily. And Pag. 367. Ioh. 16. If you aske my Father any thing in my name, he will giue it you, rescruing, if we aske not male, as S. lames ex­poundeth it, Iam. 4. So Mar. 16. He that beleeueth and is bap­tized shall be saued, Reseruing; if he beleeue according to Gods commandement, as Christ expoundeth it, Matth. 28. &c.

The Reuiew.

22 If we had no other scantling of M. Parsons his iudge­ment, then this, we may guesse what was his indiligence in the Study of Diuinity, seeing he could be ignorant of that, which is a most generall Canon and Rule alwaies to be ob­serued in Scripture, and so acknowledged by their Iesuit Salmeron Ies. Tom. 1. Proleg. 15. reg. 31. Pa. 294 Salmeron, to wit; When as any Promisses are propounded, they are so to be vnderstood, that not so much the effect, as the ver­tue and nature of the thing, whereunto the Promise is annexed, be signified thereby: and so are we to interpret that of S. Mark, Marc. vlt. He that beleeueth, and is baptized, shall be saued; (viz. so far as belongeth vnto the nature and faith of Baptisme.) And a­gaine that of Ioh. 6. He that eateth my flesh hath life euerlasting, namely, so much as the nature of faith and the Sacrament doth teach, which hath a vertue of helping forward vnto eternall life, if there be not some thing to hinder the effect, or some condition awanting, which albei: it be not in that place, yet is it expressed else-where, as Ioel 2. where it is said, whosoeuer shall call vpon the name of the Lord shall be saued, wherein there is vnderstood, that the praier be made with a liuely faith, as it is [...] ex­planed. And Matth. 7. it is said, cueryone, that asketh, recei­uet [...] vnderstanding this condition, if he aske those things, which are right and profitable as S. Iames sheweth, Ia. 4. saying, you aske andrecciue not, because you aske amisse, to consume them vpon your Concupiscences. Thus far their Iesuit Salmeren. Was there euer any man so simple, as not to know that in all Acts which are prescribed of God this Dignè, that is, the ne­cessary [Page 147] maner of doing it according to Gods ordinance is vnderstood, although it be not literally expressed? For when the Master of the family giueth his seruants bread and meat, for their food, & saith, Eate this faire will cherish your hearts, will any say that this is not a speech direct enough, but had a reserued sence as namely this, If they did eat it mo­derately, and not in greater bits, then which they could digest, or If they mixed it not with poison, which bread then might prooue their bane. If all such Clauses, which might be sup­posed must be called Reseruations, then is there no speech, but it may containe a thousand Reseruations.

23 The truth is, that whensoeuer there is any good thing commanded, the speech is plaine, direct, and perfect enough although the word, Worthily, be not expressed; because the necessary condition of euery good Act doth ordinarily con­ueigh vnto euery hearer this vnderstanding, that it must be done dignè worthily, or duely; for that bonanon sunt bona, nist benè agantur, that is, There is no good action, which is not well or worthily done: and therefore the word, worthily, or duely, being so naturally, commonly, and necessarily implied in such speeches, it euidently euinceth, that this maketh no­thing for M. Parsons his maner of Reseruation, which is so intricate a fox-hole, as which neither man, nor diuell, who goeth inuisibly, can creepe into. For this speech, [ To kisse the Popes foote, is a ceremony befitting the honour of his per­son,] euery Romanist will thinke to be an Assertion true and plaine enough, without any word, Worthily; albeit to kisse the Popes foote currishly, as the dogge did, that bit him by the toe, were a dishonour vnto him. But M. Parsons his Mentall Reseruation is cleane contrary, and so intricately hanckled, that neither man, nor diuell can finde the right end of the threed, or guesse what can be meant thereby; as when a Priest being demāded, whether he be a Priest, should answere, No, reseruing in his minde, such an one as is chast, or such an one as can hope to be Pope, & any like clause of speech.

24 In like maner might I descant vpon his Mitig. p. 367. Asking and receiuing because in Matth. 7. Aske and you shall [Page 148] haue, the condition whereof is expounded by S. lames, viz. so that we aske not Amisse. Which condition (and the same may be answered concerning others) is so necessarily vnder­stood by euery hearer, that though it be not expressed in outward words, yet is it discernable in the common no­tion and sence of the hearer at the first sound of euery such sentence. As when the Father shall say vnto all his children, Aske me blessing, and I will blesse you; and all shall fall downe vpon their knees, and aske his blessing, yetso, that one a­mong the rest, whilest he is crauing his blessing, should turne his face another way, and play with a dogge; Another should put out his tongue, in scorne and contempt of his fa­ther; a third should aske only to be blessed with some groats in his purse; would that Father vse the forme of blessing to­wards these fondlings, and not first correct them for their rude and vntoward behauiours? or would M. Parsons ex­cuse them, because the Father expressed not the maner of Asking, to wit, that they ought to haue done it dutifully, and decently, as it becommeth children? would he call these kinde of conditions Reseruations, because they were not li­terally deliuered in words, which are as it were, ingrafted in the common sence of euery man, and so generally implied by the ordinary and accustomable acceptance of speech, ac­cording to the vnderstanding of all hearers, except they be as ignorant as Infants, or Idiots? whereas the Reseruation we dispute against, is (as M. Parsons saith) what a man list to frame to himselfe; and consequently may surmount not onely the ordinary capacitie of mortall men, but euen the subtilty of the Angels in heauen: as to say, I am no Priest, meaning, Whose name is Tom Tyler, or Watt Miller, or so foorth in infinitum

The last Instance out of Esay 38. M. PARSONS his Mitigation.

I should vtterly weary my Reader, if I would follow all, or the Mitig. p. 368. [Page 159] greatest part of that which may be said in this behalse, for that alwaies commonly all Prophecies that are [...] and doe threaten punishment, [...] still some secret reseruation, if they repent not: as that of I say to Ezechias: Haec dicit Dominus, dispone domui tuae quia morieris tu, & non viues: This saith our Lord, dispose of thy houshold, for thou shalt dye, and shalt not liue, and yet he liued sifteene yeares after. If therefore the Pro­phet had beene demanded, Shall not Ezechias liue any longer? and he had answered, No, vpon what had fallen the negatiue No? if onely vpon wordes vttered, it had beene false, for he liued longer, but if vpon that together with the Reseruation in the meaning of the holy Ghost it was true. And the like may be said of the prophecie of Ionas, Adhuc quadraginta dies, & Niuiue subuertetur; There remaine but fortie daies, before Niniue shall be destroyed, and so infinite other places. Wherefore in this Tho. Morton was greatly ouer seene, in making of a confident Challenge, as befoer you haue seene,

The Reuiew.

25 I rather thinke the Reader hath beene already wea­ried with multiplicities of such idle and fond Instances, which proue nothing lesse then the point in question, as hath hitherto appeared; and may now, by discussing this last place, be further discouered. It is an ordinary Rule in Diuinitie, acknowledged by their Iesuit Ribera Ies. in Ionam, cap. 3. Num. 27. Ribera, that The threatnings, which God vseth, doe containe in them a secret con­dition, Except they repent. Whereof Saint Chrysost. speaketh thus: If ( saith he) men were not changed, such prophesies would take place; but because men are changed, therefore the prophe­cie, although it be not fulfilled, yet doth it not faile, for that God doth preserue his common-law, which he hath made, to wit, If a Nation shall repent of her sinne, I will also repent of the euill, which I thought to bring vpon it. Still we see that the errour, which hath blind-foulded M. Parsons, is, that he doth not distinguish the Sensum consignatum, à sensu reseruato, that A necessarie distinction. is; sence implyed in the very speech it selfe, by reason of the [Page 150] common and ordinary vse thereof, from the reserued sence, which is such as neither the common acception of words doe conueigh, nor the most intelligent (God onely excep­ted) can possibly conceiue, or apprehend.

26 This point may be thus explained. [...] Stephen Apal. pro He­rodoto, li. 1. [...] 3. An Embassa­dour being sent vnto the Pope from a Prince in Germany, after that he had taken his leaue, & was dismissed of the Pope in these words, [Dic dilecto filio nostro salutem] that is, [Commend me vnto my beloued sonne your Master] he fourthwith (doubting least the Pope had called his Master a bastard) answered all in a sume, My Master (quoth he) is no Priests sonne. The word, Sonne, in the Popes speech signified a spiritual, and not a na­turall son-ship and filiation, as both the person of the spea­ker, and the ordinary vse of that salutation did import, and therefore was a sense implied in the speech, and not reserued onely in the minde, as in their other Priestly Equiuocating is vsually practized, as to say, I am no Priest, (reseruing in minde) as willing to indanger my selfe, by confessing that I am a Priest.

27 This likewise must be obserued, that we are not to call a speech ambiguous, or els reserued, because it is not vn­derstood by the giddy & vndiscreet hearer, as by the former example is manifest, and may be made more conspicuous and euident by this that followeth of a Mother, who chid & rated her daughter for her rude and rurell cariage towards her affienced louer, especially for not thanking him, after that he had drunke vnto her; and therefore her mother, for her better preparation and direction how to behaue herselfe more orderly at their next meeting, spake thus vnto her daughter; Canst thou not say vnto him, (quoth she) the next time he drinketh to thee, [I thanke you] thou great foole: the daughter, silly body, not discerning the true distinction of the points of that speech, did vpon the next occasion of his drinking vnto her, answer, I pledge you, thou great foole. Such like absurd & foolish examples I am, beyond my incli­natiō, forced to produce, that thereby I might better display the folly and absurdity of M. Parsons his defence of Men­tall [Page 151] Reseruation, which he oftentimes foundeth vpon the rot­ten post of the Iewes infatuation, and vpon their mis­construction of the sayings of Christ.

28 Besides these foresaid obiections, M. Parsons in Mitigat. cap. 9. pag. 387. his 9. chap. calleth and challengeth me to make a better Answer concerning an other saying of Christ, wherein he doth tri­umph intolerably.

§. V.

An Answer to an old obiection, which hath beene taken out of that saying of Christ to his Disci­ples; I will not goe to the seast, my time is not yet come, Iohn 7. Vers. 8.

29 MVch adoe haue we had about this text, as well concerning the Reading, as touching the Sence thereof. We must begin with the first.

The summe of M. PARSONS obiection, con­cerning the Reading.

But what doth he accuse vs of, in effect? forsooth that we Mitig. p. 388. haue left the Greeke text, which hath [...] nondùm, not yet, and doe follow your vulgar Latine, which hath onely [...] that is, non not, the difference of which word maketh a maine diner­sitie Ioan. 7. in the matter, if you marke it well, for if the true text be nondùm, I will not yet goe vp, then is there no doubt or diffi­cultie at all of the sence, for that Christ said plainly that he would not goe vp then, and so his going vp afterward had beene no contradiction any way to his former speech of not going vp, as here our Maldonate cited by Morton doth confesse: but on the other side, if the matter were so plaine, by reading nondùm in the Greeke why doe the Fathers labour so much to finde out the secret meaning and reserued sence of our Sauiour in this sentence, and seeming contradiction of his? [...] pag. 389 390. For if that word [Page 152] had beene in all Greeke bookes, and so held for the true text, there had beene no question, or Controuersie, as Expositers confesse: yet to grant with Maldonate, alleadged by Th. Mor­ton, that very many Greeke Copies had so informer times, and haue it at this day, neither doth our vulgar deny or dissemble it; for albeit it haue non, and not nondùm, yet doth it expresly, signifie in the margent, that diuerse Manuscripts haue nondùm, and so doth set it downe for Varia lectio, yea the Rhemes Eng­lish Testament it selfe doth expresse that translation also in the margent, I will not goe vp yet.

The reuiew.

30 I can say no lesse, nor neede I say much more then that which is confessed by Romish Doctors vpon this place: First, their Jesuit Maldonate, Almost enumerable Greeke bookes (saith he) reade [...] (not yet) [...] but especially the Va­ticane Bible, the most ancient and famous of all in the world, and Nonnus, Chrysostome, Euthemius very graue Authors doe both reade it so, and also expound it; and so am I perswa­ded that it is red of Theophylact. And [...] which is the rea­ding of Chrysostome (saith their Card. Tolet) is most legiti­mate. And there is that witnesseth (saith Iansenius) that some ancient Latine Copies hath it Nondùm, that is, not yet. Their Iesuit Sa. making no further question saith, that The Greeke [...] it, I ascend not yet, and the Siriac, I ascend not now. And lastly Card. Caietane correcting the Latine by the Greeke, saith it hath not, instead of not yet. We haue now seene his egregious Cauill.

M. PARSONS his Mitigation.

And doe we contradict this? your very next immedicate Mitig. p. 391. words doe cleare vs from this your calumniation, for it follow­eth in your speech: your Latine text (say you) doth suffici­ently betoken the same sence of the Greeke (not yet) and so doe two of the principall Doctors of your Church, Tolet [Page 153] and Iansenius paraphrase. And is it so? how then are we so blinded with the loue of our Thais, as rather to snatch at any meaning, then take that which is meant? How say you that our Helena, the Latine Translation, is imbraced by vs before the Greeke, if our Latine doe not onely betoken the same sence of the Greeke, as here you confesse, but setteth it downe so as Varia lectio in the margent, as before hath beene shewed; yea and that two of our principall Doctors doe follow the same in their para­phrases? Is not this to accuse and defend, affirme and deny, and to speake contraries with one and the same breath?

The Reuiew.

31 No, their is no contrariety in my Assertions; but this obiection of Contradiction is so vaine, that it may be blowne away with one breath: for in the Greeke text there is a double Nondùm, the first is, I will [not yet] goe vppo, viz. to the feast; the second is the reason hereof, because mine hower is [not yet] fulfilled. The first [ Not yet] which doth demonstratiuely expound the meaning of Christ, is wanting in the Latine; and the second [ Not yet] which doth also proue, but lesse manifestly the same meaning, remaineth in the Latine text; and therefore may it be said to haue in these diuerse respects both fully, and not fully betokened the same sence. Hitherto of words.

The Summe of M. PARSONS his Obiection, concerning the Sence.

M. PARSONS his Mitigation.

If the matter were so plaine by the reading of nondùm in Mitig. pag. 388. the Greeke, why doe the ancient Fathers labour so much to find out the secret meamng, and reserued sence of our Sauiour in this sentence, and seeming contradiction of his? For S. August. and S. Bede after much search, doe thinke his meaning to haue beene, that he would not ascend to that feast with an humaine [Page 154] spirit, to procure any wordly honour, &c. Strabus, and other Expositors doe interpret that he would not goe vp to exhibit his Passion, Eucherius, that he would not ascend on the first day of the feast. Mitigat. 389. Wherefore seeing these and other Fathers doe labour so much to finde out the meaning of Christ in this sentence, it is not like that the matter was so cleare as T. M. would make it, by the clause Nondùm. For if that word had beene in all Greeke bookes, and so held for true text, there had beene no question or Controuersie, as our Expositors confesse.

The Reuiew.

32 How many, how âncient, and how famous Copies, in stead of, I will not goe vp to the feact, haue, I will not yet goe vp to the feast, (whereby the whole doubt is throughly dis­solued?) yea and how true that reading is we haue receiued from the Confessions of their owne Doctors. Why some Fa­thers (and why not then much more Porphyrius, whom M. Parsons obiecteth?) wereignorant of such Coppies, what better reason neede be giuen than that it so chaunced that they had them not?

33 But we are in the second place to inquire, (suppo­sing the Greeke word [...] (which in Latine is Nondùm, and in English not yet, were not in the sentence) whether the same sence may be easily gathered out of the Text, or not: For if the words of the Text it selfe doe sufficiently be­token the meaning of Christ to haue beene, that he thought not to goe vp yet, vz. at that time, then is there no Seeming contradiction in that sentence, and consequently no colour or shadow of any Mentall Reseruation. To this purpose I Full. satis­fact. part. 3. cap. 11. pag. 79. 80. produced the iudgement of Tolet, their late Cardinall, and sometime Iesuit, saying that [ I will not goe vp] doth sig­nifie, I will not goe vp yet; ‘which he proueth from the words that follow immediately in the Text, [ for my time is not yet fulfilled:] That is, (saith Tolet) The time when I ought to goe vp. And accordingly their Bishop Full. satis­fact. ibid. Iansenius The word Not, which is in the Latine, signifieth plainely Not yet, which sence [Page 155] (saith he) is sufficiently shew'n by the words following, vz. [be­cause my time] namely wherein I must goe to the feast, [ is not yet fulfilled,] that is, not yet come:’ And this he calleth the genuous and naturall sence of the place. Which being graun­ted, the sence of Christ, euen according to M. Parsons his iudgement, is sufficiently expressed and not reserued, and consequently here is no footing for his Reseruation. In the third place we are to satisfie for the different opinion of some Fathers.

M. PARSONS his Obiection.

To shew one point of manhood in this his flight, he taketh vp­on Mitig. pa. 339. him to answer one of these six Arguments alleadged against him, which is the fourth, concerning the ancient Fathers that laboured to secke out Christs reserued meaning. You shall see him insinuate two points; first is that the ancient Fathers did suppose that whatsoeuer meaning was in these words, They (the said kinsmen of our Sauiour) did vnderstand them, as well then, to wit, before the Gospell was written, and before the ho­ly Ghost was giuen, as the said Christian Fathers did after­wards by the learning and light which they had by the spirit and tradition of the Church: which proposition if he were put to proue in the presence of learned men, I doubt not but that he would quickly be in a poore and pitifull plight.

The Reuiew.

34 That which I said was onely concerning the sence of this place of Scripture, whereof I affirmed that the Fa­thers thought their expositions, whatsoeuer it was which they iudged to be true) to be as well knowne vnto these dis­ciples of Christ, as to themselues: which M. Parsons ma­keth to be a generall assertion, concerning any other sence of Scripture whatsoeuer. If it may be lawfull for him to deale thus iniuriously, viz. by peruerting a particular Case into a generall, and to cast me into a pit of his owne making, none [Page 156] (I confesse) neede to doubt but my plight must be pittifull: but if my Reader shall consider that he hath cut of the Reason which I then produced, to proue that the Brethren there mentioned did know that it was the meaning of Christ not to deny absolutely but that he intended to goe vp to the feast, viz. Because otherwise they should haue beene scandalized and offended, as to thinke that he had contemned the feast, which, by Gods ordinance were yet aliue, and in force, (as their In locum con. Ianse­nius affirmed, whereunto their trouersum. Tolit doth expresly accord) then may he easily discerne that M. Parsons was herein more spitefull then I was pittifull; But we proceede vnto the chiefe obseruation.

M. PARSONS his Mitigation.

The second thing which by this answer he would haue vs vn­derstand, Mitig. pag. 393. 394. is, that if these brethren, or kinsmen of Christ, did any way conceiue our Sauiours meaning, then was there no re­seruation at all, for that as he saith, our ioyned reseruation is alwaies supposed to be a clause concealed, and not vn­derstoode. But this is a greater foolery then the first, for that there may be areseruation in the speakers minde, though vn­derstoode to some of the hearers. As for example, in our pro­position being demanded, whether I be a Priest, and say, no, re­seruing to my selfe, as often before hath beene declared, that I am no such, or such Priest, as I ought to vtter the same to you, though some of the Examiners should guesse at my reseruation, or know the same certainely, for that otherwise they know I am a Priest, this doth not make that this proposition in it selfe, and in my meaning is not a reserued, or Equiuocall proposition, for that they vnderstand it.

The Reuiew.

35 This is the last and chiefest point of all this Contro­uersie; which if he haue wisely and truly satisfied, then shall I ingeiously confesse, that my whole exception against M. [Page 157] Parsons his Mentall Equiuocation is, indeede, no better then meere foolery. But the truth is, that my exception against his Art of Equiuocating is not because the Mentall Reser­uation, which he teacheth, is not vnderstood of some hea­rers, M. Parsons grosse igno­rance disco­uered in the very state of the question. but because it is so couched, that it cannot be possibly vnderstood of any hearer: for The Clause of Reseruation (saith M. Parsons) may be what a man list to say to himselfe, Now their Priest, who listeth not be apprehended, will list to frame to himselfe such a crotchetiue conceit, which shall goe as inuisible as an Angell of darkenes, by whom it is hat­ched: As for example, to say, I am no Priest, (meaning,) That euer worshipped the Idoll Bell: or, I am no Priest, (mea­ning) whom you loue: or, I am no Priest, (meaning,) That is willing to be hanged: or, I am no Priest, (meaning,) that can tell fortunes: or, I am not a Priest, (meaning,) whose name is Cutbert: or, I am not a Priest, (meaning,) for ought that you shall know. Thus then seeing that the reserued Clause may be according to M. Parsons doctrine, whatsoeuer a man list to fancie, so that it agree with his minde, allthough it be not implyed in the outward words, it is as infinitely variable, and therefore as certainely vnsearchable, as are the fancies and thoughts of men, which onely God can see, iudge, and reuenge.

36 Knowing therefore that the Equiuocations, which haue beene obiected by M. Parsons out of Scriptures, are not properly Mentall, but Verball, because the meanings which he calleth Reseruations, were implied in the words of those sentences, and in the circumstances thereof; but the reseruation, which M. Parsons professeth and we con­demne, is an onely mentall reseruation, which hath no more affinitie in sence with the outward words, than this; I am no Priest, (meaning,) like a Goose that goeth bare-foote; so that he that from the hearing of the first part, which was the outward speech, could haue but coniectured at that re­ferued meaning of a Goose, might passe for a Magnus Apollo I shall referre this first point, concerning the palpabilitie of Romish reseruation vnto the wisedome & iudgement of our [Page 158] Reader, to award the note of foolery vnto whether of vs it shall seeme, in his discretion, more iustly to appertaine The second thing, which I promised to shew, is the im­pietie of the same doctrine.

CHAP. XI.

A discouery of the impietie of their pretences for Men­tall Equiuocation. First prouing it to be a lye.

§. I.

IN the former Sections hath beene vnfolded the grosse absurdities of M. Parsons his proofes (which he presumed to collect out of Scrip­ture) in so copious and perspicuous a maner, as that I might feare the imputation of some folly, for pro­secuting of such fooleries with so great seriousnesse. There­fore now my present indeuour must be to shew his de­fence to be no lesse gracelesse, then it is sencelesse, the impietie whereof becommeth so much the more notorious and execrable, as it durst more boldly seeke refuge at Gods sanctuary euen the holy Scripture, and there to catch hold at the examples of Christ his speeches, as it were at the hornes of the Altar. But I haue done my best to pull it from that hould, by the ioynt helpe of their owne Doctors; and now am I to pursue and to demonstrate the impieties of the foresaid defence, drawing all into these two generall heads. The first is in respect of the cause it selfe, to proue it an Art of lying, and the second is in respect of the Cases, which issue from thence: to shew them to be dangerous and vniust.

M. PARSONS Mitigation.

He saith out of Saint Augustine, that we may not leaue off truth to be lyars, as the Priscillianists did; which appertaineth Mitig. pag. 373. [Page 159] nothing to our purpose: for they indeauored to confirme the law­fulnesse of lying out of the words of Christ, which we doe not; but shew out of Christs speech, when he said Iohn 15. All things whatsoeuer I haue had of my Father, haue I made knowne vnto you,] he did not lye, or falsifie at all, but reserued some­what in his minde not vttered, which ioyned with the words, make the proposition most true. Pag. 372. Meaning by [Whatsoeuer] whatsoeuer he thought conuenient.

The Reuiew, prouing M. PARSONS his Reseruation a lye.

1 Their Card. In Iohn 15. Tolet doth acknowledge the general Rule of interpreting such speeches, to wit, of Interpreting such generall propositions of Scripture, by restraining them vnto the circumstances of things, whereof they are spoken, as of the persons, the time, and the scope, and end of which they are spo­ken: So here, in reuealing all things to his Disciples, it must be vn­derstood, all which might concerne them, as they were now Dis­ciples, and which were necessary for their present State. But the Priestly Reseruation is without all compasse of due circum­stance, being (as M. Parsons saith) whatsoeuer it pleaseth a man to fancie to himselfe, so that it agreeth with his minde. And so this mixt proposition must goe for currant; viz. I am no Priest, (reseruing in minde) for ought that you shall know: where he answereth, as though he would let a man know that he is no Priest, and yet reserueth in his mind, that he will not be knowne, whether he be a Priest, or no: is there any circumstance of time, or place, or person, that can sensibly or reasonably imply any such reserued sence? Cer­tainely nò, more, then if he had answered thus; I am no Priest, (concealing in his minde,) for ought that you know: or, I am not a Priest (meaning secretly,) that wanteth a nose. If M. Parsons, or all the subtilists Equiuocators themselues should hunt by all circumstances that are, to find this reser­seruation of a Nose, I suppose that they could neuer smell it out. Wherefore I now proceede to my purpose.

The proofes to shew the Mentall Reseruation to be a lye, by the iudgement of all kind of Profes­sors: and first by their owne Doctors.

3 We haue often heard what kinde of Mentall Equi­uocation M. Parsons doth patronize, viz. Any mixt pro­position partly deliuered with mouth, and partly conceiued in minde; so that the reserued clause doe agree with my minde, be it what soeuer I please to fancie to my selfe.

4 First this kinde of Equiuocating hath beene condem­ned [...] See aboue lib. I. cap. 13. S 2. ned for a lye by their owne Sepulueda, who produceth, for confirmation of his assertion, most ancient Diuines (as he calleth them) citing by name Aquinas, Scotus, Henricus, and Gabriel.

5 After him approcheth their Iesuit Azorius, & where­as M. Parsons professeth such a Mentall Equiuocation, wherein the speech hath a double sence, not by the signification, or composition of the words themselues, but onely by somereser­uation in the minde; See lib 1. cap. 13. § 3. um. 14. & 24. He (the foresaid Iesuit) proclaimeth that euery vse of words in any sence, which they haue not in themselues, is a lye: And after iumping vpon the same ex­ample of Reseruation, which M. Parsons vsed and vrged for proofe of Mentall Equiuocation, to wit, When I am asked of one, who is no good pay-master, whether I haue so much money, or no, I may answere (though I haue it) No, (with this Reser­uation) to lend it vnto you: this their said Iesuit doth con­trarily See ibid. Sec. 4. call a flat lye.

6 Emanuel See ibid. Sa another Iesuit followed Azor, but yet so haltingly, as though he had had a thorne in his heele, and was afraid to confesse a truth; being but halfe of that opinion. Therefore I omit him, and seeke after See aboue lib. 2. cap. 3. § 1. Sotus, who commeth on more resolutely to the point, cal­ling this speech [ I know not (mixed with this restriction and Reseruation) To tell it you] an arrant lye: And concerning Amphibologies vsed in words, which the outward words them­selues will not beare, he concludeth them to be no-way excu­sable [Page 161] from lyes. Can there be a greater impietie, than to bring Christ his speeches for the authorizing and patroni­zing of such clauses of reseruation, which their owne ap­proued Doctors and professors haue condemned for starke lyes?

Secondly, by Fathers.

7 Among Christians I held S. Augustine most singular, (yet when I name him, limply also S. See Full fatis­fact. P 3. 80. Full satufact. part 3. Pag. 65. out of S. Aug. lib. contra men­dacium cap. 18. Gregorie, and Bar­nard, who follow him in his booke Contra Mendacium:) He supposing some old man To be dangerously sicke, who if he should but heare of the death of his Sonne, were like to ieopard his owne life; ‘yet so it is that his seruant, who knoweth that his sonne is dead, is earnestly demanded to tell him the state where­in his sonne is, whether he be deade, or aliue, what shall the ser­uant answer in this case? he must answer (saith S. Augustine) either that he is a liue, or dead. or else say that he knoweth not: but so say that he liuoth, or knoweth not are both false, and the onely true answere is that his sonne is dead. From this deter­mination of S. Augustine I made bold to collect,’ that if euer S. Augustine had thought Ment all Equiuocation (as namely to say this Your sonne is a liue, Reseruing in minde, for ought that you shall yet know) he would surely haue allowed of it in this Case, especially seeing that thereby he might both haue freed the old Father from dying, and his owne tongue from lying. It were good that we heard P. R. his Answer vnto this

M. PARSONS his Answer.

To this I answer, that this case is not like those, for that here Mitig. pag. 460. 461. is no iust demand, no force, no compulsion, no iniury offered, and consequently no right of vsing such euasion for iust defence, for so much as this is in common conuersation, from which we haue exempted before the vse of Equiuocations, albeit we haue heard also out of the same S. Aug. himselfe, Aliud est mentiri, aliud [Page 162] veritatem celare. It is one thing to lye, and another thing to couer a truth without lying. S. August. speaketh against the first, and so doe we, and consequently this example proueth no­thing.

The Reuiew.

8 O noble Answerer he that See aboue l 1. Cap. 13. num 29 taught the vse of Mentall Reseruation, in Case when a man Asketh whether his friend haue so much money (where there is onely a demand without compulsion,) for feare of getting his displeasure, if he should haue directly denied him that summe; would now seeme not to admit of the like euasion in the Case of a Seruant com­maunded to answer directly concerning the death of his ma­sters Sonne, where there is more then a doubt of shortning his masters life. Who seeth not that M. Parsons if he had returned a direct answer, doth now touch birdlime, wherein the more he struggleth, the more he is intangled, answering nothing to the purpose? For the question is not, whether it be lawfull to Couer a truth, but whether this maner of co­uering it, by Mentall reseruation, be tollerable, or no; which S. Augustines wit gaue him not so much as to dreame of, whose sanctity, doubtlesse, would haue called it craft and impietie; whose definition of a lye is this, Mendacium est falsum dicere, cùm volunt ate fallendi, that is, A lye is to speake a false thing with purpose to deceiue the hearer. I pretermit another memorable Full satisfact. part. 3. pag. 66. example, repeated by S. Aug. of the Bishop Firmius, which See aboue l. 2. cap. 3. num. 6. hath beene alleadged by their So­tus, for the confutation of the foresaid maner of Mentall Re­seruation.

9 In the last end of the booke of Part. 3. pag. 102. Full satisfact. I added to the like purpose an example deliuered by S. Tom. I. de [...]liere septies icta. Hierome, which may be vnto vs a mirror of ancient simplicitie; Of a wife accused by her husband, and tortuted to draw out a confes­sion of guilt: but she lifting vp her eyes to heauen, said, thou Lord Iesu, who searcheth the hart andreines, art witnesse that I doe not deny truth for feare of death, but therefore refuse to [Page 163] lye for feare of sinne. The Iesuits, who haue instructed the adulterous wife, being asked of her husband, to free her­selfe by a Mentall Equiuocation, would they not haue con­demned this woman for want of wit, and haue giuen her other ghostly counsell, teaching her the vse of the same Art, for the auoyding of death, and escaping a lye? May we not guesselby the constancie of this godly woman, & by S. Hie­roms commendations of her, that those times were not prac­tized in this kinde of Alchymie, which abstracteth such a Clause of Reseruation, as surpasseth the vnderstanding of any, but of him who onely is able to search immediately into the thoughts and vnderstandings of men? as when a man saith I haue no money, concealing this Clause in his minde, Which I meane to turne into buttons. The example of this woman may seeme to be more forcible, because M. Parsons in his Treatise of Equiuocation, in answering some other points, buried this in his sober silence.

Thirdly, by Heretikes.

10 We reade in S. Aug. contrà mendacium, ad Consent. paulò post initium. Augustine of the heresie of the Pri­scillianites, who were herein (as he saith) worse then any other Heretikes, because they thought it lawfull for them to dis­semble themselues to be Orthodoxe and true professors and to conceale their owne Religion by lying: and for proofe that it was lawfull to lye, they vsed to alleadge the exam­ple of Patriarkes, Prophets, Apostles, and the speeches of Christ himselfe: Nec se alitèr arbitrantes ( saith S. Aug) ve­racem suam ostendere falsitatem, nisi veritatem dicant men­dacem, that is, They thought that they could not defend their falsitie, vnlesse they taught that truth it selfe was a lyer. Let now our iudicious Reader but thinke with himselfe, seeing that lying was condemned of all other professions, as well Catho­likes, as Heretikes, whether the Priscillianists would haue vsed lying, for the Couert of their hereticall religion, know­ing that the Art of Equiuocating by a mixt proposition, cal­led Mentall Reseruation, is as close and inuisible a conueiance [Page 164] for any thing that a man would hide, as the most diaboli­call lye that man can inuent? As for example, by protesting vnto the hearers, saying, We beleeue no such doctrine, secretly conceining in their mindes, to letyou know of it: or, we be­leeue as you doe, Reseruing this Clause in their minde, But that we doe not beleeue you.

11 We are to adde vnto this the practise of Consentius, and some other erronious ones, who albeit they were faith­full professors, yet, that they might discouer the Priscillia­nists, who for feare did secretly professe the heresie of Pris­cillian, and yet publikely renounced it, holding it lawfull in that case to lye; did Cretizare cùm Cretensibus, and held it lawfull by lying to winde out these lyers; to the which purpose they dislembled themselues to be Priscillianists. These erroneous ones are vehemently cōdemned by S. Contra Men­dar. Au­gustine, as those who Did euill, that good might come thereof. The discouery of Heretikes he calleth good, but to doe it by lying, he tearmeth euill. They saw no other meanes to vn­earth these Cubbes of that Heretike Priscillian, but only by dissembling, and lying; Neuerthelesse S. Aug. pleadeth for syncerity thus, Veritate occidenda mendacia, teaching that lyes are not to be slaine, but by the truth. But ô the wit of our Equiuocators! they would haue corrected S. Augustine, and directed those erroneous, and taught them (if the Case would suffer it) how to dissemble themselues to be Priscilli­anists without lying, and yet with as faire a subtletie, as the most profound lying that can be imagined, and that is, by Mentall Reseruation, as thus; To say that we are Priscillianists, Reseruing in our minds, for ought that you shall know, or, We are Priscilianists, reseruiug in our mindes, Onely in pretence that we may betray you, or such like. Doth not their want of this kind of Euasion tell vs that Consentius, and those other erroneous, although otherwise faithfull Christians, (who did by lying seeke to finde out lyars,) either were ig­norant of this mysterie of Mentall Equiuocation, or els held it to be no better then plaine lying.

12 What shall we say vnto the Arch-heretike Arius? he [Page 165] (as I Full sasufact. part. 3. pag 91' then deliuered out of Socr. l. 1. Hist. Socrates) being compelled by the holy Emperor Constantine to deliuer his Subscription to the Councell of Nice, and to auouch His integritie by an oath, he vsed this Art and sleight; his owne (hereticall) opinion he close­ly kept vnder his left arme; and then swore (laying his hand vpon his lift side) that he so beleeued, as he had written. Here we may obseruethat this execrable Heretike vsed one­ly a Verball Equiuocation, which although it be not an ab­solute lye, (as See about. hath beene shewen) yet could not the vse thereof, in dissembling the true faith, be but most sacrilegi­ous and abhominable: Notwithstanding, he making con­science (as it seemeth) of a lye, rather answered by a Ver­ball ambiguitie, then tolde directly that he beleeued the Ar­ticle of that Councel. We are to marke, that the whole obscu­ritie was in the double sence of the word, Writing, for that he had written one tenor of Confession, which he propoun­ded openly vnto the Councell; and another had he writen, which he kept closely vnder his arme-hole, and by vertue of that Verball Equiuocation he made his euasion. I would but therefore demande why this godlesse and perfidious He­retike should haue taken the paines in inuenting and wri­ting a contrary forme of Subscription, and to keepe it about him, (which by a priuie search might haue been discouered) if it had been knowne in those daies that a Mentall Reserua­tion would haue serued the turne, to auoyde a lye; especially seeingthat by vertue hereof he should not haue needed either to straine his wit for inuention of a Verball Equiuocation, nor stir his hand, forputting it in writing: because he could not haue wanted secret and vnsearchable Reseruati­ons, as his fancies, which may be called Mille Artifices, would haue presented to his thoughts, which are innumerable, a­mong others, this; to haue said to the Councell, I beleeue that, which I haue there writen, (vnderstanding in his mind) That it is false. Here is the mixt proposition, which by M. Parsons learning must be as true now, being partly vttered, and partly reserued, as if it had beene wholy expressed in the outward words, which I haue proued to be an execrable [Page 166] lye, both by See aboue. Reason, and by the See aboue. Confession of their owne Doctors; and now euince the same from the practizes euen of these Heretikes, viz. the Priscillianists, and this Arius, they defending lying, for want of other meanes to hide his heresie, this other vsing onely the dangerous and discoue­rable Verball Equiuocation, for feare of lying: And therefore (if I be not deceiued) doe both beare witnesse that the Iesui­call Art of Mentall Reseruation was either not knowne in those daies, or else knowne to be no better then meere lying.

Fourthly, by Pagans.

13 M. Parsons was earnestly intreated, yea aad challen­ged to produce out of the Schooles of all Pagans and Hea­thens, of what sect soeuer (who were, for number, infinite and, for naturall light, and learning excelling the children of light) that did expresly acknowledge any Truth in his mixt proposition, by a Mentall Reseruation, as for example, thus: If one shall promise to his Keeper, that he will be true prisoner, not to run away, (meaning,) on his head: Seeing M. Parsons (I say) was extremely prouoked to alleadge but one testimonie out of the innumerable Authors that haue written either Ethicks, Logick, or Metaphysicks, who euer iustified this mungrell kinde of proposition, yet could he not instance in any one, excepting onely in See aboue Lib 2. cap. 4. Cicero, who notwithstanding speaketh onely of such a speech, which he himselfe calleth false, and is indeede as false, as is this pro­mise, I will pay you money, meaning secretly, that I will not pay it, which the Romanists themselues will graunt to be a foule lye.

14 How then shall it not be held an impietie, to make Christ a Patrone of that kinde of Reseruation, which when it seemed to be most needefull, yet was not acknowledged for a truth by so worthy and learned Christians, by so great Heretikes, by so innumerable Pagans, and lastly by diuerse learned Romanists themselues? Thus much concerning the Impiety of Mentall Reseruation naturally inherent in it selfe. [Page 167] In the last place we are to point at some accidentall impie­ties, which, by reason of some Cases, and Effects, doe inci­dentally follow thereupon.

SECT. 2.
First of a few Cases.

A further euidence of the Impietie of the doctrine of Mentall Reseruation by the Cases, and some Effects, which incidentally follow vpon it.

M. PARSONS his Appendix.

EXcept they will condemne our Sauiour himselfe of all these Reckon. pa. 687. obiected impieties, they cannot condemne the maner of speech vsed by him, especially in so graue and weighty matters: and if they permit the same in him, then can they not condemne the same, in vs, who haue so good a warrant and president for the same, especially seeing we doe restraine our vse thereof with many limi­tations, as in our Larger Treatise of that matter is set downe, to wit, that it may not be vsed in matters of Religion, where con­fession of our faith is required. Mitig p. 548. Among Cases reserued, Con­fession of faith is expresly, and in the first place excepted.

The reuiew.

15 Often haue I distinguished betweene M. Parsons his Verball, and Mentall Equiuocation, the first is when the words themselues cary in them a double sence, according to the vse of speech; as that saying of Christ (obiected by M. Mitig. p. 347 Parsons) wherein he said vnto the Iewes, Ioh. 2. 19. Dissolue you this Temple, speaking of his body, and I will raise it vp againe in three daies: the ambiguity lieth in the double sence of these words, Dissolue this Temple, which might signifie either the [Page 168] ruinating of the materiall Temple, out of which Christ cast the money-changers, and so the Iewes vnderstood it; or els Christs owne body, metaphorically called a Temple, because the Cal. 2. Deity dwelt in it bodily, and naturally; which was said to be dissolued, because death is a dissolution: and so Christ meant it: which albeit it was not vnderstood of the hearers, yet was it vnderstandible and intelligible; First because the phrase of calling a body a Temple, and of death a Dissolution, was familiar vnto the religious of those times, which there­fore we find to be so ordinarily vsed in See 1. Cor. 3. 16. & 6. & 2. Cor. 6. 16. Pbil. 323. Scripture: insomuch that their Iusuit Maidon [...] this place. Maldonate saith that Christ, in saying, Dis­solue this Temple, vsedwords which agreed better vnto an hu­maine body, than vnto the fabricke of the other temple, becanse 2. Tim. 4. 6. & 2. Cor. 5. 1. to dissolue and to raise againe are more agreeable to the body, when the bond of the Soule of man is burst in sunder, &c. Yea Christ his body (saith Iansen. Con­cord. vpon the place. Iansenius) was more properly a Temple, because the temple was but a figure of his body. And they might haue vnderstood him, if they would, (saith their Cardinall Tolet vpon the place. To­let) because when he said, This Temple, (and not the Temple of God) it is certaine that by the gesture of his hand he did demon­strate his owne body: words are better determinated by outward gestures and signes, than by Scripture. So he. And there is reason for it, for if they could not haue vnderstood it, then had not their Accusation against Christ beene a slaunder, when they laid this saying against him, thus; Matth. 26. This man said, I can destroy the Temple of God, and buildit vp in three daies; For the which these (because of their peruerse sence) are called false witnesses. But the Mentall Equiuocation may haue such a sequestred and reserued a meaning, as by no cir­cumstance of speech can be made intelligible, as this: I am no Priest, meaning, Who can be vnknowne to God. This is that kinde of Mentall Reseruation and euasion which M. Parsons alloweth, concerning which he professeth that it may not be vsed in matters of faith, & yet pretendeth to euince it from Scripture, which is the Rule of our Faith; and from the spee­ches of Christ, the Author of our Faith; and sometimes in such sentences, which concerne Articles of Faith, as in that: [Page 169] See aboue, cap. 10. He that obserueth my word, shall neuer see death, and such like.

16 And here I appeale vnto the indifferencie of any iudici­ous Reader, to iudge, whether M. Parsons be not guiltie of the folly and impiety, which I had laid vnto his charge, by the force of this distinction, of a sence Implied in speeches, & a sence ab­solutely Reserued in the minde: the first kinde I graunt to be, if he will, more then a thousand times vsed in Scripture; but the se­cond of his maner of Reserued could neuer finde any Iota in all Scripture, to countenance so vile a deuice. Which although I haue confuted by many Reasons, yet now I will aduenture to turne his owne weapon vpon him. First thus:

17 If the Reseruation, which he defendeth, be not to be pious­ly and lawfully vsed in matters of faith, then was it an impietie in him, to ground the truth of that doctrin vpō sentences of Scrip­ture, which concerne the doctrine of faith. Secondly thus:

18 If I should passe through all the Articles of our Creed, to search such kind of Reseruations, as M. Parsons did in the spce­ches of Christ, as namely thus, first I, meaning I, a man, & not a woman, 2. Beleeue, meaning truly, and not fainedly; 3. in God, meaning the God of Christians, & not the Idoll of the Pagans; 4. the Father, meaning, by adoption, and not by naturall gene­ration; 5. Almighty, meaning, that can doe whatsoeuer he will, not that will doe whatsoeuer he can; 6. maker of heauen, and earth, meaning, with his word, & not with any hands: so might I passe throughout euery Article of our Christian Creed, to col­lect from euery ioynt, & word therof, all such like vnexpressed meanings, as M. Parsons did from the speeches of Christ.

19 Here I may argue thus: If all such sentences, which ac­cording to the custome and vse imply meanings, which are not expressed, do exemplifie and proue the Romish Mentall Equi­uocation, then is there a Mentall Reseruation in euery Article of our Faith; and so it is vnp ossible but to Equiuocate mentally in the Confession of our Faith. But if these implied sences do differ from the Romish reserued sence, then was it both wicked & ab­surd, to seeke to draw that exorbitant and inapprehensible do­ctrine of Equiuocating, from such sentences of Scripture which are no more Equiuocall, then be the doctrines of our Faith.

20 The second Case is in the examination concerning their [Page 170] Priesthood, where the Priest being asked, Whether he be a Priest, is licensed to answer, according to their daily practize, saying; I am no Priest, with this Reseruation, as purposing to tell it you. Now then, knowing that they hold ordination of Priesthood to be a Sacrament, which impresseth in the soule an indelible Cha­racter, & which herein (as they say) excelleth al other Sacraments, in that it aduanceth a Priest a degree aboue all other Christians; the end whereof they make a reall Offering vp of Christ as a Sa­crifice for the quicke and the dead; I Full Satisfact. part. 3. pag. 92. tooke vpon me to argue, in effect, thus: Seeing euery Christian will hold it to be an impi­etie to Equioucate in denying his Baptisme, therefore may hee iudge it likewise a wickednes for a Priest to Equiuocate in de­nying his Priest-dome. Vnto which I expected an Answer of M. Parsons; but only expected it. From Cases we passe to Effects.

The Impious Effects of the new kind of Romish Mentall Equiuocation. The first effect.

21 The first is, because if this kind of Equiuocating be ad­mitted, mans mouth is stopped for giuing either man, or deuill the lye, because still they may answer, that they did not lye, for that they conceiued a secret vnsearchable Clause of Reseruation in their minde: as when he said vnto Eue, Gen. 3. Though you eat, you shall not die, reseruing secretly (that we may suppose thus much) dye Martyrs, or die Eating, or dye In your beds, or what not? M. Parsons perceiuing the cōsequence, returned an Answer.

M. PARSONS his Mitigation.

This is childish: And is not this goodly stuffe? fil for a booke? Mitigat. p. 456. fit for print? are these suffered to passe without controlement in England? If the Deuill be the Father of lyes, and consequently of them that doe lye, of what kinde will he proue to be to this Minister, that hath beene taken now with so many notorious lyes? &c.

The Reuiew.

22 Thus he runneth on with a personall and vnconscionable Inuectiue against me, euen vnto the end of the Paragraph; not yeelding one Syllable, in Answer to the point of Argument. It may be he would haue said something, if he had not run him­selfe [Page 171] out of breath; or else Aquila non capit muscas, he held it to be too Childish, and vnworthy his Answering: I am rather per­swaded that he perceiued the full force thereof, which must be this, viz. That if this new maner of Mentall Equiuocation may be once got by hart of people, and serue to make a speech true, no man shall haue any neede of a lye, for couert of any guilt, because this Mentall euasion will be both as easie, and as secure as any lye; & consequently he shall be accounted the lyar, that shall giue any other the lye. I suppose my Reader will hold this to be an Argument, yea and peraduenture so forcible, that the prouerbe may be inuerted against M. Parsons, as thus, Musca non capit Aquilas; and therefore made he a shift to controle that, which he could not confute. Which will be apparant by the next point.

The second Effect.

23 Periury being generally held to be a lye in an Oath, it must follow that the same Clause of secret Reseruation, which freeth a man from lying, may deliuer him also from the brand of Periury, and so shall neuer any, who is experienced in this maner of Equioucating, be possibly condemned of periurie, whatsoeuer the words be, that he vttereth with his mouth: And so the witnesses, which were suborned against true Naboth, and against chast Susanna, and against the Iust one, yea and against very Iustice it selfe our Lord Christ, (supposing that they knew the tricke of Equiuocation) could not be absolutely condemned of Periurie; And so all Tribunals must cancell, and extinguish the Title of Periury, in their proceeding against vniust witnesses. This also I Full Satisf. part. 3. pag. 96. held to haue in it some pith of an Argument, but M. Parsons would not so much as mention it; It may be he con­temned it.

The third Effect.

24 Againe Iesuits and other Priests are not all soule, as we may guesse by their doctrine of Equiuocating, which they pro­fesse for the safety & security of their owne bodies, one branch of which doctrine is this: Tolet Ies. & Card. lib. 5. Instruct. Sacer. cap. 66. When any is put vpon the racke, (saith their Cardinall, & sometime Iesuit, among his general instructi­ons, [Page 172] which he giueth vnto Priests) and doth reueale the crime of an other, although he be not examined iustly and according to law, yet herein he doth not sinne, because none is bound vpon so great bo­dily harme to himselfe, to preserue the good name of an other. There­fore (said Full satisfact. Part. 3. Pag. 99. I) when as you make all Protestant Magistrates In­competent, with whom you thinke it lawfull to Equiuocate in your speeches & oathes, when you are questioned about other men, you doe, in effect, teach your Aduersaries to vse that [...] with you, as though the onely competent Examiner of you must be the Rack. This Argument M. Parsons saw, but yet onely saw it; and what maruell? for guilty persons are not wil­ling to come neare to the Rack.

The fourth Effect.

25 This I noted to be the prophanation of an Oath, the end whereof in thus described by the B. Apostle, Heb. 6. 16. Men verily, sweare by him that is greater, (meaning, God) and an Oath for confirmation is among them an end of Strife: shewing that the consecrated End of an Oath is for such a Confirmation, as may make an ende of Contention. But the Manu-script [...] Treatise Mentall all Equiuocation maintained, that a party examined, if he be vrged to sweare that which he ought not, that then he may sweare, but with a secret intention of Equiuocation; and if he be further sweare without all Equiuocation, he may sweare That he doth not Equiuocate, by a third Equiuocation, or Reser­uation; and so on, often as he shall be asked the like question. Here we see allowed Equiuocation vpon Equiuocation, as it were Cogge vpon Cogge; which doctrine once professed is so farre from making an End of Contention, that indeed it maketh it end­lesse, because all men, who are instructed in this Art, being [...] in their own Causes, may, by multiplying his Reseruations, delude his hearer, and leaue him in a perpetuall suspence and doubt, that whatsoeuer the swearer protesteth in outward speech, may through a Mentall Reseruation proue as deceitfull, as was Iudas his All-haile. M. Parsons answereth both to there­lation of the testimonie, and also to the Consequence taken from thence.

M. PARSONS his Mitigation.

I doubt not but T. M. hath egregiously abused, both this and Mitigat. p 479. other places, in the Catholike M. S. Treatise, against which he In answer to the argument taken frō the End of an oath. obiected in the Full Satis­fact. part. 3. pag. 88. writeth, by setting downe cortaine palpable absurdities, which it is impossible should be there, as setteth them downe: Which I must presume of, vntill I finds contrary, by viewing that Treatise it selfe, which I shortly hope for.

The Reuiew.

26 Marke (good Reader) and maruell with me at this mans wit; he will seeme now to grant that it were a palpable absurdity, and impossibilitic. to teach a man sometime to sweare, by mul­tiplying Equiuocation vpon Equiuocation, when he is vrged ther­unto; and therefore will onely be thought to suspect, that I haue abused M. Garnets Treatise, by misreporting his directi­on, which I alleadged most faithfully. And for my iustification herein I appeale vnto M. Parsons himselfe in the same booke of Mitigation, wherein a little before the end ( pag. 553.) he con­fesseth saying; And now at this very Instant commeth to my hands this Catholike Treatise it selfe of Equiuocation before mentioned. So he. And now that it is come to his hands, doth he charge me with abuse of the Author, by misciting the foresaid sentence? no truely, he doth not challenge me for any one falsification, in relating of it, or any other testimony out of that Treatise; which may seeme not to need our Censure, seeing the eyes euen of this great Proctor for Equiuocation can discerne in it palpable absur­dities. Thus much of the Relation of that sentence. Now con­cerning the Consequence taken from thence.

M. PARSONS his Mitigation.

The end of an Oath, which is to put an end of contention, is not hin­dred Mitigat. p 479. by the vse of an Equiuocation, when law permitteth the same.

The Reuiew.

27 Law neuer permitteth any such guilefull Equiuocation in an Oath, as was Full satisfact. part. 3. pag. 87. proued both out of their old Schoole by the testimony of Lombard, but especially of Aquina 2. 2. qu. 69. art. 1. Arg. 2. Aquinas. If a Iudge [Page 174] require any thing ( saith he) which he cannot by order of Law, the party accused is not bound to answer, but either by Appeale, or by some other maner of meanes may deliuer himselfe: But in no case may he tell a lye, or vse falshood, nor any kind of craft or deceit, &c

M. PARSONS his Mitigation.

This is plainly to be vnderstood, when a Iudge is competent, and Mitigat. pag. 478. 479. proceedeth competently, otherwise when he proceedeth not according to the forme of law, &c. And a little after. And in this very place of S. Thomas Aquinas the said Doctors words are, that if a Iudge, though otherwise lawfull, shall require any thing, which by order of law he cannot, the party accused is not bound to answer at all (and much lesse directly to his meaning) but may either by Appeale or by other meanes deliuer himself by euasion, though he may not speake a lye. So S. Thomas. And what wise man doth not see, that this ma­keth quite against Tho. Morton? first, if it be lawfull to the defen­dant not to answer at all euen to a lawfull & competent Iudge, when he proceedeth not according to forme of law, then much lesse is he bound to answer or sweare directly to his intention in that Case; but may vse any lawfull euasion, by doubtfull speech, or otherwise, which is directly against our Aduersaries conclusion: so little doth he dis­cerne when he alleageth authorities flatly against himselfe.

The Reuiew.

28 If this Answer of M. Parsons make not flatly against him, then shall I thinke it no iniury, that hee put me in his vile Rec­koning of falshoods. The Testimonie of Aquinas was produced to proue, that although a man may refuse to sweare, where he seeth great inconuenience; yet whensoeuer he doth sweare, yea although it be before an vnlawfull Magistrate proceeding vn­iustly against vs, (because in our Oath we are to respect rather God, by whom wesweare, then man, vnto whom we sweare) we are bound in conscience to auoyd that Equiuocating trick, for feare of profaning his sacred name. M. Parsons answereth in ge­nerall vnto this foresaid Testimony of T. Aquinas, and the sen­tences of some others, that we are chargeable to auoyd subtlety in swearing, when the lawfull Iudge proceedeth competently, that is, lawfully; when as, indeed, the very words of Thomas, (as both [Page 175] I alleadged them, and as M. Parsons himselfe doth relate them) M Parsons his palpable [...] stand thus: If a Iudge. though otherwise lawfull, shall require any thing, which he cannot by order of law, then &c. That which is not done by order of law, is not done (as euery one knoweth) compe­tently, as M. Parsons answereth, but incompetently.

29 Secondly; for my better warrant, I had the confession of their owne Genesius Sepulueda, who speaking of the same testi­mony of Aquinas, & speaking professedly against their Equiuo­cators maner of Equiuocating, saith; Genesius [...] in Theoph. c. 18. Coula Thomas more plain­ly deny their opinion, who teach that a guilty person may [...] a truo accusation by Art of words? M. Parsons resolueth contrarily. Mitig. p. 478. If a Iudge proceed not lawfully, in exacting an oath, then he that sweareth may sweare to his own, and not to the intention of the Iudge. We may now perceiue, that M. Parsons hath answered Thomas so aduers­ly, as if he ment to haue slowen in his face. I hasten to the last Ef­fect.

The last Effect.

30 If my Reader require a more full satisfaction in this que­stion of Mentall Equiuocation, he shall need but to consult with some former Sections of this Encounter in the first booke, cap. 4. there is the hunting out of this Fox; in the cap. 10. the Confessi­ons of Sepulueda, Azorius, and others: In this second booke and cap. 3. the Confession of Sotus; and cap. 4. the opinion of Cicero; and c. 14. the iudgment of Maldonate: Al these largely discussed.

31 The last Effect is the infamy, which redoundeth vnto the professed Equiuocators, both in their speeches, and in their books: for there is no doubt but M. Parsons and his fellowes, who durst seeke to iustifie their Mentall Equiuocation by Scrip­tures (the writings of the holy Ghost) will not spare to Equiuo­cate in their owne writings, either for the discrediting of their Aduersaries; or for the [...] of their owne deformities; or else for the speedier aduancement of their cause; presuming that al­though they report and professe some things, which in outward words are meerely false; and may by their outward sound helpe forward, to the building vp of the Romish Church, yet that in such cases they ought to mortifie their falshoods of the outward speech with their exorbitant, secret, reserued, & inapprehēsible [Page 176] conceits: And then what credence may such writers expect of their Readers?

32 S. August. writing against some professors of the true re­ligion, & yet in one point so far erroneons, as to thinke that they might dissemble themselues to be heretikes, only to the end that they might, by lying more easily discouer those Heretikes, cal­led Priscilianists, who concealed their heresie by lying, and by pretending that they were Orthodoxe and Catholikes; He reasoneth the matter thus: Aug. contra mendac. cap. 4. Thou wilt say (saith he) that I there­fore lie, that I may catch a lyar, viz. The Priscilianist: Then hee maketh the Priscilianists to answer saying: But how shall I know whether thou do it rather least thou shouldst be catched of me. By & by S. Augustine returneth to the Orthodoxe, Can he perswade a man (saith he) that he will not lie, that he be not catched himselfe, who lieth that he may catch another? Doest thou not perceiue whereunto this euill practise doth lead, to wit, that both they may seeme to be worthily suspected of vs, and we of them, and euery one of each another; and so it shall come to passe, that whilest that our be­liefe is taught by lying, no man shall know whom to beleeue? Which reward of not being beleeued is of all men most due vnto Mentall Equiuocators, such as teach men to say to their friends, I haue no money, meaning, to lend it vnto you; and to their Aduersaries, I am no Priest, meaning, with purpose to tell it vnto you, &c. which spee­ches, when their Cases happen to be truely knowen, to wit, that the one had money, and the other was a Priest, doe carry no­thing else in their outward sound (which onely can be vnder­stood of man) but the euident apparance of a lie, and are indeed, in themselues, (as hath beene both prooued and confessed) no better than flat lies; yet could M. Parsons haue no other reme­dies, whereby to mortifie his manifold vntruthes, which vniust­ly & vnconscionably he did heap vpon me: Notwithstanding, I doe earnestly pray, if he be yet aliue; or if he be dead, I wish that such his Calumniations be neuer laid vnto his charge.

Laus Deo.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.