viz. IF you haue seene how little able Mr. Morton hath beene to performe 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 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 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. Paulus as select a Writer as Marsilius and equally approoued The third is Guil. Barclaius who yeeldeth vnto Bellarmine this dignifying Title of 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 thus noted 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 He erreth in saying that the Author whom Bellarmine impugneth held that Christ was constrained by necessitie to pay 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 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 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 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 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 He erreth in saying absolutely that Sotus and Couarruvias affirmed that which they spake with condition viz. Ordinariè He 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 He erreth in affirming that Chrysostome expounding that 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 Hee erreth in cyting falsly the place of S. Hierome who saith the plain contrary It grieueth me to see things imputed vnto holy Fathers the contrary whereof they affirme And hee offendeth also in cyting the place of S. Augustine Hee erreth in alleaging the Councell of Colen for that Councell determined nothing thereof but according to the Glosse c. Finally 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 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
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 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 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 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 visible into Inuisible Besides they doe further so professe to deale with 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 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 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 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 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 Appeale made vnto Pope Clement the eight against the factions of the Iesuits speaking of Master Parsons note Patrem Robertum praecipuum c. that is Father Robert Parsons the chiefe Author of these factions And for a man 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 He is the abstract and quintessence of all coggeries and forgeries c. 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
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 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. 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 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 Posseuine call his Reasons rather Coniectures then Arguments And the Sixt Councell noted these eight Bookes to haue beene corrupted by Heretickes as their owne Bishop testifieth The same doeth Cardinall 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 and many others saith Senensis did make doubt of whether they were the Bookes of Dionysius Areopagita Neither durst S. Gregorie saith Caietane himselfe affirme these to be the same Dionysius his Bookes Wherein there was one point of Doctrine Which S. Gregorie would not allow as witnesseth their Iesuite Ribera lest that he might seeme to contradict the sacred Scriptures In briefe 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 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 Who calling these Bookes Apocryphall saith Bellarmine which were set foorth either by Hereticall Authors or else by such as were suspected of Heresie did reiect Hermes as Apocryphall which Author also 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 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 Origen was saith Driedo reprehended of ancient Fathers And in the same regard is hee reiected by Bellarmine euen for holding that All except Christ whether good or euill must bee purged and that all the 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 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 Wherein saith Suarez Origen seemeth to allude vnto his owne errour c. And 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 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 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 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
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Bellarmine his assertion was this King Ozias for exercising the Priestly office was depriued of his kingdome So he This assertion Barckley called False and contrary to the direct historie of the Bible and ancient Interpreters because it 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 The high Priest had power to depriue the King of his kingdome Contrariwise Barckley saith that 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 Because Barckley doth acknowledge a
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 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 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 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 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 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 Uery violent and vnquiet spirit Yea and M. Parsons himselfe also hath wished that 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 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 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 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 Vsed as Subiects and then complaineth that they are not vsed as Subiects Who teacheth that they who are 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 Impertinent Finally who defendeth the booke of Dolman al 's Parsons which hath bene condemned by their owne Priest as most Rebellious against the English State 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 discussed and prooued to a lie not only from Reason but also from the iudgement of Romish Doctors such as were Sepulveda Aquinas Gabriel Biel Scotus Henricus de Gandauo Azorius and Sotus and was neuer iustified for true by any Heathenish man whereof there will be occasion to say much more in the answer to the 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 Suarez condemned by Cumel their Baronius reprooued by their Venetian Doctor their Boucher controlled by Barclay their Gratian corrected by their Archbishop Tarraconensis their 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
dealings of others yet 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 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 obserueth him to follow Gratian in a singular corruption to wit whereas an auncient 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 will appeare to bee most transparant But now in generall their owne 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
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 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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
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 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 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 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 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 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 fortasse in the testimonie of Cusanus when as he could not be ignorant that 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 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 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. BEllarmine cyteth the testimony of 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 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 Thou O Prince of Diuines and chiefe of Bishops hast commaunded mee to write the liues of the Popes whose History is therefore greatly commended by Balbus as being 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 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 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 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 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 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
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. 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 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 spotted with Origenicall impieties The same Palladius who writ the Historia Lausiaca their Cardinall Baronius prooueth both out of S. Hierom and Epiphanius to haue rotted in the contagious heresie of Origen c. which Baronius further 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 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 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 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 Apocrypha writings which is a thing that their Card. Baronius will haue vs obserue 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 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 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 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 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 Posseuine among the workes of Theodoret. The third place is noted to be in 1. Cor. 3. Quiequid interuenit c. Which words as 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Commentaries saith that 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 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 went so farre in his 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 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 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 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 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 and 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 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 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 and 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 Suarez confesseth of the fire in the day of the resurrection Which is saith their Senensis the fire of conflagration in the last day Which is not saith Bellarmine that Purgatory now controuerted And 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 fire wherin we must vndergoe those grieuous punishments for the expiation of the sinnes of our soules and is obiected by 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 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 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 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 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. praeparans ad Missam 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 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 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 Which as he censureth are infected with the errours of the Pelagians 65.
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 cutteth off the words which goe immediately before for thus it standeth in the Booke 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
stronger men 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Frisingensis saith that that Pope Gregory the seuenth was the first who eyther excommunicated or deposed an Emperour Mast.
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 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 in this manner 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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
any man reade the booke and chap of Barclay and he will woonder at the impudencie of this vaunter for he speaketh no one word of gathering Councels or comparison of spirituall 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 intreat him to doe
Carerius his Paduan Doctor whom I propounded as affirmmg that 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 in ciuill causes which words Ciuill causes he putteth in of his owne for Carerius hath them not either in words or sense but teachcth the plaine contrary in all his discourse to wit that 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 confutation of Bellarmine about this point doth produce the iudgement of many scholasticall writers as 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 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 these words In some sort And instead of saying that Clergie-men 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 sort when I expressed the sort to be In temporall things and not in spirituall In
Miximilian 12 Who may not hereby perceiue with what eies M. Parsons looked vpon this so rare and excellent a Diuine as 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 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 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 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 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 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 as by Osiander and Beza Thirdly some Romanists themselues haue acknowledged him in their publike writings for theirs as namely Bartholomeus Neruius and 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 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 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 to whom M. Parsons professeth subiection as a matter necessary to Saluation how can he then abhor his owne sirname His fellow 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 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 whereof I accused him in my former writing to haue corrupted 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 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 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 standeth thus 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 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 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
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 publike triall at the time of the Conuocation and Parlament and the greatest assembly of Protestant Bishops and Doctors and to 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 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 Nusquà m 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 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 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 intending onely to take the leauings of his Romane Aduersary 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 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 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 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 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 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 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
Vasquez quo suprà p. 241. Two notable vntruths Reckon p. 148. Tom. 4. Ano. 392 fine M. Parsons froward Calumniation q Vasq Ies. l 2. de Adorat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 M. Parsons vniust Calumniation * Preamb. p. 63. (1) Pelagiani c. Bellar l a. de Eccles. Misit c. 9. §. Pelagiani (2) Hic proprius c. Valet Ies de mig pecc c. 2. (3) Caluinus c. Idem ib. in princ c. 8. in Tom. 2. disp 6 q. 11. punct 1. Reckon ca. 3. §. 7. pa. 155. a Bellar. loco suprà citato A Calumnious Taxation Reckon ib. b Jnstit l 2. c 1. §. 4. 5. Caluins iudgement c Ibid. §. 7. d Reckon p. 155 e Bellar. l. 1. de bap c. 4. §. quintum Caluines iudgement iustified by Romanists f See Cassander himselfe de baptismo Infantum g 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. h Praef. in libros Vegae i Vega. l. 2. de Iustif. c. 6. § Et probauit Protestants iudgement concerning original sinne iustified by their aduersaries Reck. c. 3. §. 7. pag. 158. Hierom. 2. l. cont Pelag. k Catholique Appeale 1. 5. cap. 22. § 3. Sinnes how veniall and mortall l Apud Vasquem Tom. 1. in 1. Tho. 2 disp 42 c. 1. n. 4. p. 929. m Cath. Appeale quo supra §. 4. n Bellar. l. 1. de Amiss grat c. 4. §. His erroribê° * Preamb. p. 63. 4 Nouatianorum c. Bellar. l. 4. de notis Eccl. c. 9. §. NouatianoruÌ„ 5 Nouatianorum c. Castro l. 12. Haer. 3. Tit. Paenitentia Vega li. 13. de Iustif. c. 2. p. 486. Moldon Ies. in Ioh. 5. 4. 6 Non Negant c. Bellar. l. 3. de Iustif. c. 6. saepe alias 7 Non de c. Bellar. l 1 de 〈◊〉 c 8. §. vt 〈◊〉 Reckon cap 3. §. 8 pag. 160. Bellarmines slaunder Recko quo supra M. Parsons fraudulent dissembling Reckon p. 163. M. Parsons precipitate and rash in diuination a Ctholicke Appeal l. 4. c. 〈◊〉 And to proue that such like Denials doe not make an Hereticke see the Audiani in the same booke Reckon pag. 162. 163. M. Parsons his childish rash obiection of craft b Catho Appeale quo supr Reckon pag. 162. His fond and false coniecture Reckon p. 163. His loose and vniust reprehension * Pream pa. 64. 8 Manicheotum c. Bellar. l. 4. de notis Eccles c. 9. §. Manichaeorum 9 Iohannes Caluinus c. Bellar. l. 1 ae Grat. primi 〈◊〉 c. 1. §. In codem Reckon ca. 3. § 9. pa. 167. Bellarmines flaunder Reckon p. 167. * Reckon ibid. pag. 168. Two Fathers notably abused by M. Parsens and Bellarm. c Aug. Tom 6. de Haeres c. 46. d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dagian e Hier. in Jsaiam Reckon pag. 168. f Maldon Ies. Comment in Luc. 15. ver 13. g See aboue The fathers iudgement concerning free-will h Epist. dedicat ante libros Hilary Reck. pag. 169. His heady taxation i Cath. Appeale l 5 c. 19. k Caluin Instruct aduers. Libert c. 3. l Pererius Jes. in Gen. 11. l. 16. Disp. 17. n. 255 c. * Pream pa. 64. 10 Henr. Bullingerum c. Bellar. praef in contr de Christo. §. HenriceÌ„ Greg. Valent Ics. lib. devnit Triait c. 9. 12 Tertullianus c. Bellar. l. 1. de Cluisto c. 10 §. Respondeo 2. Recko pag. 172. M. Parsons maketh Bellarmine to betray the Catholique cause Reckon p 171. M. Parsons lauish wrangling m As is plaine in the first part of my Apolog. Cath. pag. 149. whence the sentence was transcribed n See in the beginning of Tertul. Basil. An. 1521. Admonitio ad Lectorem de quibusdam Tertulliani dogmatis Reck. p. 173. Three obseruable points M. Parsons ignorance of the iudgement of Tertullian * Preamb. p. 65. 13 Secundum errorem c Bellar. l. 1. de beat Sanct. c. 4. PauloÌ„ post initium 14 Octaus obiectio c. Bellar. l. 1. de Imag c. 8 §. 14. 13. Reckon pag. 164. 165. M. Parsons is ignorant of Beliarmines booke with which he saith he consulted a 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. M. Parsons his answere entangleth Bellarmine in an higher suspition of slander * Luc. 26. 2. Reckon pag. 175. b Caluin aduers. Libertin c. 22. c Bellar. l. 4. de Christo c. 9 §. Si quis d Caluine vpon the text of the penitent thiese e Instit. l. 3. c. 20. §. 20. f Bellar. l. 1 de Eccles. Triumph c. 1. §. Eundem habet Bellarmine depraueth the sentence of Caluine g Instis. que suprà h Bellar. l. 1. de beat sanct c. 5. §. 〈◊〉 Reckon quo suprà p. 174. i Bellar. l. 1. de Eccles. triump c. 1. §. Secundum errorem * See here after l. 1. c. 12. §. 13. M. Parsons partiality * Preamb. p. 65. 15 Bellar. l. 4. de notis Eccles. c. 9. ad finem 16 Quae sententia c. Bellar l. 1 de Euch. c. 1. initio 17 Docet Caluinus c. Bell 〈◊〉 §. Secundò docet 18 Docet Caluinus c. Valent. Ies. Tom. 4. disp 6. 〈◊〉 3. punct 1. §. Item k Reck. cap. 3. §. 12. pag. 181. k Reck. P. 182. lin vlt. Reckon p. 177. Recko pag. 179. M. Parsons silly wrangling l Bellar. l. 4. de notis Eccl. c. 9. l. 1. de Eucharist c. 1. §. edidit c. Reckon p. 179. His fond impertinency Reckon ibid. m Bellar. l. 1. de Eucharist c. 1. M. Parsons Ignorance of the obiected heresie Reckon ibid. His wilfull vntruth M. Parsons aime is eyther false or friuolous Reckon pag. 183. Mr. Parsons vnreasonable exaction * 1. Cor. 12. 17. n Apolog. Cathol part 1. Noto 6. * Preamb. p. 66. Recko c. 3. § 13. pa. 187. a Aug. de doct Christ. l. 2. c. 9. b Lib. 2. depeccat merit remiss ca. 36. c Contra Donatist l. 1. c. 7. Tom. 7. d Bellar. l. 1. de Rom. Pont. c. 23. e Relect. 2. §. 2. num 8. Cusanus l. 3 de Concord c. 2. Reck. pag. 195. g Recko p. 193. h Pag. 194. Mr. Parsons crooked dissimulation i Bellar. lib. 1. de Pont c. 27. §. Secund rat Rome by iust consequence is not the Mother-church Mr. Parsons ignorance Reck. p. 192. Loose and absurd cauils Recko pag. 193. A Simile illustrating Mr. Parsons deceitful peeuishnes k Reckon 194. l Concord Cath. l. 3. c 2. His malignant lust of accusing his Aduesary Popes Epistles forged * Preamb. pa. 67 7 Extat apud c. Bellar. l. 4. de Pont. c. 13. § Extat 8 Being vrged c. 9 Tu Theologorum c. Platina
his aduersary Recko p 43. n. 67 * Ibid. p. 44. n. 69 M. Parsons pertinacy in his errour m Preamb. p. 14. His threefold falsity m Preamb. pa. 15 Reckon pag. 47. * See aboue lib. 1. cap. 1. c. M. Parsons his rash and peremptorie Assertion Reckon pag. 47. num 74. M. Parsons learnedly bewrayeth his want of learning in a Grammaticall quidditie n Barclaius contra Monarchom li. 3. ca. 5. p1 137 Gene. 27. 36. o Pseamb pa. 22 p Mitig. cap. 2. pag. 72. q Preamb. pa. 23 Reckon p. 1. 51. num 82 and p. 1. 263. where he calleth this the eleuenth M. Parsons relenteth somewhat from his former Tenet r Treamb pa. 24 Reckon 〈◊〉 54. Difference betweene Election and Succession s 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. * Rom. 13. Reckon pag. 51. His craftie concealement A Simile t Preamb. u Mitig. pag 77. num 〈◊〉 A Dilemma See aboue Reckon pag. 53. x Quodlib p. 107 and againe pag 310. M. Parsons false and treasonable dealing discouered by his owne fellow y Quodli p. 286. M. Parsons can denie his owne writing a Prcamb p. 27. Reckon pa. 61. M Parsons a plaine falsifier His childish excuse b Frising Chron. lib. 6. cap. 35. c Preamb. quo suprà Reckon p. 64. His absurd reasoning A Simile Reckon p. 64. M. Parsons will needes behead a King whom he accounteth an Hereticke A necessary obseruation concerning Excommunication and Eradication d M. Blackwell exam pag. 41. from Medina in primā secunde p. 513. q. 96 art 4 M. Parsons fully confuted by his fellowes e Ludouic Apolog p. 175. f Aquin secunda secundae q. 11. art 3. * Matth. 18. 17. Reck. p. 64 65 Tolos de rep l. 6. c. 13. n. 20. g Barclay de potestate Papae cap. 40. h Baron Ano. 726. num 26. M. Parsons negligence in Storie i Preamb. p. 29. Reckon pag 66. 67. Espen l. 2 Digress in Ep. ad Timoth * Reckon p. 67. in Espen cap. 6. p. 274. Edit Paris 1561. * Reckon ibid. k Espencaeus in the very same place which M. Parsons hath cyted M. Parsons palpable vntruth l Pag. 273. of his booke aboue cyted Bloody Popes m Espen Comm. in Tit. 3. 1. Digress 10. pa. 513. Paris 1568. n Exam. pag. 54. o Barcla De pot Papae cap. 9. p Apologia P. Pauli §. Videre non pag. 624. q Cusanus Card. Concord Cathel l. 3 c. 41. pag. 812 Reckon pag 67. r Jbid. pag. 275. M. Parsons his militarie Discipline s Quodlib p. 236 His manifold vntruethes Reckon ibid. t Cumel Tom. 3. var. Disp. pag. 131. Col. 1. u Bellarm. l. 1. de Cleric cap. 22. x Espenc Epist. Dedic ad Card. Castil antè Sex Tract a Preamb. p. 〈◊〉 2. Mitigat pag. 279. 281. 284. Reckon cap. 4. §. 11. pag. 265. M. Parsons hath lost his logicke b Reckon ibid. pag 266. c Mitig. p. 284. d Matth. 4. * Preamb. p. 83. Reckon pa. 267. * See aboue * See above e Sepulueda de ration dicendi tellimon cap. 3. pag. 468. f Ibid. cap. 5. pag. 471. S. pulueda condemneth Mast. Parsons Equiuocation for a lie M. Parsons wilfull vntruth M. Parsons second vntruth g Satisfact part 3. p. 82. out of Sepulueda de rat occulta ca. 19. M. Parsons AEquiuocation not ancient h Sepulueda quo suprà in praefat Aquinas i Ibid. cap. 15. Scotus k Ibid. cap. 18. Henricus de Gandauo l Ibid. cap. 19. Gabriel Reckon Ibid. pag. 267. M. Parsons dent falshood m Sepulueda quo supra a Preamb. p. 84. Reckon cap. 4. §. 12. pag. 269. Reck. ibid. p. 269. b Reck. cap. 9. pag. 643. c Preamb. p. 84. M. Parsons vntruth d Mitigat c. 12. n. 3. pag. 484. e Jbidem f Mitigat c. 8. g Reck. pag 100. h Mitigat p. 344 Reck. pag. 270. * Jbidem pag. 270. 271. * Ibid. pag. 271. i Azor Inst. Mor. Tom. 1. l. 11. c. 4. §. Secunda Regula Azorius his meaning An Example k Sepulucdo de rat dicendi testimon cap. 3. Reckon p. 271. 〈◊〉 272. * Encount p. 216 * Preamb. p. 85 l Quinta regula c. Azor. Jes. Jnst. part 1. l. 11. c. 4 in fine cap. M. Parsons AEquiuocation found to be a lie Reckon p. 272. 273. Reckon ibid. A wicked forgery vsed by M. Parsons to shift himselfe from the note of a lie m Azor. part 1. Inst. Moral l. 11. c. 4. §. Quintò M. Parsons vseth a strange and strong delusion to abuse his Reader n Azor. ibid. M. Parsons example of mentall AEquiuocation proued a lie out of Azorius His abuse of his Reader M. Parsons professeth to AEquiuocate with his friends * Preamb. p. 86. o Mod. Answ. cap. 10. Reck. c. 4. §. 13. pag. 276. * Reck. pag. 279. * Reck. p. 276. about the 20. line How desperat ly M. Parsons can falsifie Reck. pag. 276. * Reck. pag. 277. p Miligat cap. 8. pag. 321. and as I repeated it Preamb. pag. 43. M. Parsons witlesse falsity q Reck pag. 278. num 79. His singular fraude Reck. pag. 276. A due suspiciō of craft among the Romanists in altering and corrupting the opinions of their owne Iesuits * See aboue cap. 1. §. 2. 6. * See herafter Cap. 14. §. 1. Reck. pag. 278. 279. His rude cauil r Preamb. p. 86. Dilemma * Preamb. p. 87. f Maldon Ies. Commen in Luc. vlt. vers 28. Reckon cap. 4. §. 14 pag. 283. M. Parsons dissolute and vast rashnesse and ignorance t Tit. Ioh. Maldonatus Obserue the little credite which may be giuen vnto new Romish bookes Reckon pag. 283. 284. Lib. de mend c. 4. lib. con mend ca. 12. Reck. pag. 284. Stratagems not properly lies Reck. pag. 285. M. Parsons friuolous distinction u Act. 5. Reckon pag. 285. 286. a Mitigat Epist. dedic n. 18.19 b Preamb. p. 90. Excellēt fraud in abuse of their owne Authors See a little after num 5. Reckon cap. 5. §. 1. pag. 295. c Mitigat Epist. Dedicat. num 18. 19. Reck. pag. 296. 197. d Index libror. prohibit Tit. Polydor. Virg. Reck. pag. 297. Popes change their Christen names Reck. pag. 300. 302. Iesting * 1. Cor. 7. v. 10. e Preamb. p. 91. 8. f Bellar. in his Correctorio pag. 170. pag. 192. Reck. cap. 5. §. 2 pag. 308. Fond cauillations g Mitigat cap. 2. pag. 79. h Preamb p. 93. in sine His fraudulent concealement of his falshood i Preamb. p. 94. Reck. pag. 313. M. Parsons his admirable craft and falshood Reck. pag. 314. M. Parsons lauish vntruth k Preamb p. 94. l Preamb. pa. 95. Reckon cap. 5. § 3. pag. 321. 322. m Lib. 3. de abdicat Hen. 3. c. 16 pag.
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 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 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 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 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 In whom there are two persons saith Bellarmine in stead of NON c. that is There are not two persons And To haue doubted in stead of NOT doubted To signifie Continencie in stead of NOT to signifie Continency And Twice for NOT Twice And The wall in stead of NOT the wall And It shall bee perpetuall in stead of It shall NOT be perpetuall And Let it be reiected in stead of Let it NOT bee reiected And They might haue obeied in stead of They might NOT haue obeied And 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 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 M. Parsons his description of Equiuocating a flar lie and consequently periurie in an oth 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 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 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 the one is to note heerin M. Parsons his follie and the next 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 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