THE ENCOUNTER AGAINST M. PARSONS, BY A REVIEW OF HIS LAST SOBER RECKONING, And his Exceptions urged in the TREATISE OF HIS MITIGATION.  
Wherein moreover is inserted:  
1. 
A Confession of some Romanists, both concerning the particular Falsifications of principal Romanists, as Namely, BELLARMINE, SVAREZ, and others: As also concerning the General fraud of that Church, in corrupting of Authors.  2. 
A Confutation of Slanders, which BELLARMINE urged against Protestants.  3. 
A Performance of the Challenge, which Mr. PARSONS made, for the Examining of sixty Fathers, cited by COCCIUS for proof of Purgatory; to show thirty one of them to have been either Apocrypha, or corrupted, or wrested,  4. 
A Censure of a late Pamphlet, Entitled, The Pattern of a Protestant, by one once termed the Moderate Answerer.  5. 
An handling of his Question of Mental Equivocation (After his boldness with the L. COOK) upon occasion of the most memorable, and feigned Yorkshire Case of Equivocating; and of his raging against D. KING'S Sermon.   
Published by Authority.  
JOB. 19 2.  
¶ You have reproached me, and are not ashamed; you are fierce against me.  
JOB. 6. 24.  
¶ Teach me and I will hold my tongue; cause me to understand wherein I have erred.  
LONDON  
Printed for john Bill.   

To the High and Mighty Prince, HENRY Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall and Rothsay, Earl of Chester, Knight of the most noble Order of the GARTER, etc.  
I Did think it a matter not altogether unseasonable, (most Mighty Prince) if presently after the solemnisation of your Princely Creaetion with military spectacles (wherein innumerable beholders did, in your rejoicing, congratulate both the happy comfort of your Royal Father, our Gracious Sovereign, and the hopeful joy of this whole land) I likewise should present unto you a kind of military Encounter; which is, although less solemn, yet more serious, because it oppugneth an Adversary unto your Highness, not in a counterfeit show and semblance, but in deed and real practise: one, who laboured to undermine the right both of his majesties possessions, and of your future succession in this land: than whom this Age hath not found any Scribe more prompt and plausible, or yet a more persuasive and powerful enchanter.  
For it is he who once durst exclude, in his Doleman, the Royal line of Henry the seventh from the Crown 
See his book entitled Dolman, part. 2. cap. 5. & cap. 10.  of this Kingdom, and interested the Infanta of Spain in the right thereof; and yet found much credit with some: notwithstanding he, even the same he, no so ner understood of our Kings peaceable and prosperous entrance into this land, and joyful establishment in his Throne, but forthwith changing his Copy, offered to give an assurance, that what soever had been 
See his Treatise of Three Conversions of England, in the Additions upon the news of the succession of the King of Scotland to the Crown of England, num. 8. which Addition was printed, Anno 1603.  written or done by any Catholic, which with some might brcede disgust, was directed only to the end that his Majesty might be a Catholic, before he should be a King. Which two how can they consist? for either must he have in the former abused his Mistress the Infanta, or in the later deluded our Sovereign King james. He likewise in his Mitigation protested and promised loyal subjection in the behalf of all Romanists, and was held a credible Proctor for his Clients; yet since, in this his last Reckoning (bringing in, as it were, a sharp axe to behead Kings of a contrary profession) he proclaimeth that none may be an head in Christian communion who is excommunicate, and notwithstanding herein also he wanted not an applause; So potent a Mercury was he.  
Of him we hear it now daily noised by some that say, Our Adversary M. Parsons is dead: which report may be believed but only in part; for although it be possible that M. Parson's be dead, yet will not our Adversary die, as long as his books, or cause shall live in the hands and hearts of his favourites. As for me, at the first hearing of these news I knew not well whether rather to rejoice, that he was not suffered any longer to delude the simple; or grieve, that he was taken away before that he could see his own errors, which are very foul, and in this Encounter fully discovered: I say no more, so far am I from imitating his spirit, by insulting upon the Ghosts of the dead.  
Concerning yourself (most Noble, and renowned Prince) it is the longing desire of all them, who are like piously affected, as were God's people, when they prayed for the long life both of Nabuchodnosor, and also 
Baruch. 1. 11.  of Balthasar his son; that you would stand upon two guards, the one is Confidence in God, the other is wise and due Providence under God. For God, who was for many years so powerful and glorious, in defending his truth in the weakness of a woman (Q. Elizabeth, the King of Queens) in time of extreme hostility, against a most potent enemy, even when he boasted of his Invincible Navy, & made that godly and thrice noble Deborah to sing of the vast Ocean after the old tune of the River Kishon, to wit, The River Kishon 
jud. 5. 21.  swept them away, even the ancient River, the River Kishon: the same God can preserve you from the practices of The malignant, for the Lord of Hosts is his name.  
Notwithstanding know likewise (worthy and mighty Prince) concerning Providence under God; that it was the voice of the Tempter who said, He shall give his Angels charge over thee, to keep thee, leaving out the 
Luc. 4. 10.  next words, In omnibus vijs tuis, in all thy ways; by which clause were signified the prescribed Rules of God's providence, and use of the means which he hath ordained for man's preservation; the neglect whereof is not Confidence, but Presumption, and, in very deed, that 
* ver. 9  Mitte te deorsùm.  
I need not to say much more, but that there daily soundeth in the ears of our Land and State, the report of two Accidents, which, by the mercy of God, may be as it were, the sound of two warning-pieces, to awake all out of deaf security; the one is the late bar barous and tragical end of that puissant French King; the other, that Acheronticall Powder-plot, the very belch of Belzebub: therefore will your Highness stand attended unto the gracious voices of the Highest, and dispose of your ways accordingly. That which belongeth unto me, I shall never cease to perform, even my humble prayers unto God for his right hand of protection over you, both under, and after the most happy government of our most gracious Sovereign.  
Our Lord jesus preserve you to the glory of his saving grace.  
Your Highnesses in all 〈◊〉 Observance, TH. MORTON.   

To the Christian Reader.  
IF peradventure thou hast not known (good Reader) the book which is inscribed, A sober and quiet Reckoning, wherein M. Parsons hath bespotted his Adversary T. M. with the black marks of Falsifications; I shall now desire thee to take some notice thereof, and to compare it with this Encounter, and then to judge what interest I may have in that saying, 
a Aug.  Qui volens detrahit famae meae, nolens addit mercedi. In the Review of which Reckoning I called to mind a short 
b Lib. Verisimil. Theolog. etc. ex Gilb. Cogn. lib. 1. Narrat.  History of a man, who farmed a custom and tallage, which was taken at a bridge of all such passengers as were either diseased, or else notoriously deformed: So it was that one, that passed over the bridge, who had distortum vultum, was called upon to pay a penny; which the passenger refused to pay: The Toller caps the fellow, and with that perceiveth that he had an other disease on his head, called Alopecia, and therefore he demandeth of the party an other penny; but the travailer resisteth, and struggleth with the Toller, yet being not able to make his part good, is laid along on the ground, where, by some disadvantage, he bewrayed an other disease, which he called the Hernia, and thereupon was charged to pay a third penny: there was no remedy, the custom must be paid.  
In some like sort shall my Reader (in the perusal of this Encounter) find the matter to fall forth between me and M. Parsons, wherein may be observed, that the more he contendeth and struggleth, the more he entangleth himself, and bewrayeth his own divers kinds of defaults. As first, to inveigh against me, as a passionate and intemperate man, whom his own 
c M. Brereley, and his fellow in their book called, The Protestants Apology, etc. the second Edition Praefa. to the Reader. pag. 10.  Apologists have held to be a man not intemperate: and for him to give that censure, whom his own 
d Quodlib. pag. 236.  fellow noted to be a man of a very violent and unquiet spirit; and who himself, confesseth as it were his own intemperancy, by wishing that in his Mitigation he 
e Reck pag. 669  had not used such asperity of speeches against me. This showeth that he had some cause to betake himself to a more sober and quiet Reckoning: wherein, notwithstanding, he dealeth so violently with me, (as my Reader will easily perceive) that he often falsifieth the Title of his book, not only by heaping up more grievous Acerbities, then formerly he had done, but also by setting against me Gretzerus to plow upon my back, who is a stranger and a jesuit, and so profuse and professed a railer, that 
f cum unum tantùm exemplum tuae defensionis (he speaketh unto Gretzer) in Frisiam allatum esset, hocipsum propter nefandam maledicentiam non inveniret emptorem. Lubbertus Replic. lib. 1. cap. 1.  whereas but one of his books was to be sold in West-Friesland, no man would buy it, because of the horrible slanders and railings which are therein. In all which kind of raging tempests, I have learned to cast this Anchor; Non qui patitur, sed qui facit iniuriam, miser est: And so I leave this default of M. Parsons to receive that name, which our Reader shall think to be most properly agreeable thereunto.  
In further examining of him he bewrayed an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both by absurdities in Syllogizing; as concluding of Aretina, in stead of Make; and being earnestly charged therewith, hath not yielded so much as one of his barefaced groats for discharge; And also by certain Grammatical quiddites, whilst as he maketh Verè, being joined with Celsus (as it signifieth a proper name) to be no true Latin; and the translating of Praesidium, Preservation, and not Defence, to be false English; and divers other the like crotchets hath be enforced in this his new Reckoning.  
Thirdly, there appeared a far greater fault, even that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereby he chargeth me with no less than fifty wilful falsehoods; as though he had learned of the Steward in the Gospel to 
g Luc. 16. v. 6.  Sat down and write fifty, whom for that cause his Lord termed wise, but yet unjust, unjust to his Master, and wise for himself. Such unjust wisdom have I found to abound in M. Parsons, who both in his book of Mitigation, and in his new Reckoning objecteth wilful falsehoods so unconscionably, that he himself (as is proved in this 
h The marginal notes will point almost at every one.  Encounter) is entangled in far more than fifty witting (except some had rather I should say witless) untruths.  
Of this kind of dealing I have more cause to complain perhaps, than some others, because I find strange measures offered unto me by my Adversaries. For M. Parsons his bent to traduce me hath been such, as sometime to condemn me for omitting words, which were by me expressly set down; being in one place so violently transported with passiont, as to lay to my charge the word Fortasse, for not translating it, perhaps, although in the very same place I translated and englished it twice, Peradventure; which he could not but see, because once in the same place he repeated it accordingly: But it seemeth that in leveling at me, as at his mark, he was only left-eyed.  
Also (which is a profound step of malignity) he divers times objecteth for wilful falsities the Omissions of such clauses, which, if they had been alleged to the full, might have made much more for the advantage of my cause. This was no more honest dealing then was that of the wife of Putiphar against joseph; He, for fear to bedrawnby her pulling him by the cloak to her unchaste bed, hastened away, and left his Cloak, a pledge and token of his chastity: she, upon his flight, crieth out, and complaineth that he came to abuse her, and for proof she saith, 
i Gen. 9  Behold his garment; turning the same Cloak contrarily into an argument of his villainy, and a Cloak of her own dishonesty.  
Again, whereas upon the finding out of mine own Escapes, I gave my Reader Advertisements thereof in the end of my books, and added Corrections thereunto; there my 
k The Romish Apologists in their second Edition of their Protestants Apology, concerning the testimony of Delrius And their Moderate Answerer in his late pattern of a Protestant, about the legitimation of Q. Mary and Q. Elizabeth.  Adversaries (yet I cannot accuse M. Parsons of this guilt) being directed to my error by mine own Advertisement, do forthwith upbraid me with it, never giving any notice that it hath been corrected. So dealt the enemies of Samson, who first ploughed with his own Heifer, than (which is spoken of the same men) 
l jud. 10. 20.  The Philistimes are upon thee Samson. I pray God that they fall not upon the imprecation, which was extended unto the imprecation, which was extended unto the enemies of David, who not regarding his repentaence for his fault, and the amendment of his life, did point only at his escape, saying, So, so would we have it.  
But yet M. Parsons is in another point no less inexcuseble, whilst (which is his common guise) when four or six, and sometimes nine testimonies of his own Authors are objected against him, for matter of a point in Controversy, he singleth out some one allegation, wherein he laboureth by art to make at least some show and colour of misprision, and then dismisseth all the other witnesses as dumb men, and passeth over the whole cause itself without mention at all; and so divers times Altercando res non dirimitur, sed perimitur. Can this be a tolerable manner of proceeding, in the disquisition of any truth? This is not all, but (especially of late times) when our Adversaries are muzzelled, as it were with the confessions of their own Doctors, objected for the justification of our cause, they (as the Egyptian Dogs are said to lap here and there of the river Nilus, and run their way) do catch and snatch only at pieces, and carp at some allegations, crying out (although never so falsely) against Falsehood, and then behold The Book, forsooth, is answered. In all these proceedings they are, I confess, in their generation, wise, but still unjust Adversaries: And all unjust wisdom (we know) is before God just nothing else, but miserable and damnable folly.  
Fourthly and lastly, by much wrestling we have discovered two other evils, the one is an Hernia, even the disposition of disloyalty in very extraordinary manner bursting out, and betraying diverswhere evident Symptoms thereof: And the other is his Mental Equivocation, which we may call Alopecia; the rather because M. Parsons himself doth take an argument, for justification of it, from the Fox, which, by instinct of nature, can turn and skip forward and backward, to secure himself. Upon which occasion I have in one place entreated my Reader to accompany me in the Hunting of this Fox.  
Howbeit, thou mayest not imagine (good Reader) that this whole Encounter is spent in vying and revying of imputed falsehoods, or in our wrestlings together, and laying one the other in the dust: but here are inserted many other points of better consequence; as first, An answer to their challenge, for 〈◊〉 some Romanists to be 〈◊〉 which is performed by examples in their chiefest Writers, by the confessions and complaints of their own men; together with an acknowledgement of their art in corrupting of books. Secondly, an answer to the slanders which Cardinal Bellarmine fasteneth upon Protestants, by imputing sundry Heresies unto them. Thirdly, an answer to a Challenge made by Mr. Parsons, concerning the Romish abuses of the testimonies of Fathers, for proof of Purgatory, and that by the confession of their own Writers; which is amply discharged, both against the allegations of Bellarmine, and of jodocus Coccius. Fourthly, an answer to a late Pamphlet, entitled A pattern of a Protestant; wherein the Author maketh himself the Pattern of an arrogant, ignorant, intemperate, and unconscionable man. Fiftly, there are divers large Tracts, in confutation of Mental Equivocation; especially in the answer to his Appendix, wherein there is displayed the egregious forgery of an Equivocation, in that memorable Yorkshire case; together with a freeing of the holy Scriptures, the Oracles of truth, from that profanation, which he draweth upon them, by pretending that they patronize this black art. Sixtly, and lastly (to omit many other important co-incidents) their doctrine of Rebellion is handled; In consutation whereof (for this was the cause of all their malignancy against me) I was contented to be condemned for a most false accuser of them, upon condition that they by the events would not justify their former Assertions. But alas, still they set their practises as seals to their Positions.  
Yet as when Bees begin to cast, men use to throw up dust in the air, to hinder their sight, lest they should fly from their homes, and set in some other place, so deal our Adversaries; for whensoever by any not orious practice they become so obnoxious, as to cause their people to suspect their doctrine, and to incls. ne to our Profession: then, for staying of their departure, they in policy cast abroad in the air some forged Reports of some strange Miracles wrought in the honour of their cause; thus the fame of Garncts' Straw was 〈◊〉 to alley the smoke of the Powder-treason; and late the noise of Devils (〈◊〉 it is said) carrying English Ministers away in a Coach, hath been raised to hinder the last sbrill sound of that Royal blood.  
I return to my Encounter against Mr. Parsons his Reckoning, to let thee understand (good Reader) that I have used him more calmly then, (I will not say) my cause (for, alas, Who am I, that I may not be injuried?) but peradventure, than thou wilt think the Cause itself would permit: And especially in the very entrance into the Answer unto his Appendix (when first I heard of any certainty of his death) the point of my Style did begin, in a manner, to die with him; for so I thought it my duty, lest I might seem [Caeco scandalum] to deal too personally against him, who could not answer for himself.  
Secondly, to my own self I say, 
m Aug.  Non est intuendum quam amarum, sed qùam falsum quod audio, & quam verax pro cujus nomine audio.  
Thirdly, to my Adversaries I say, that by their practices in carping at allegations, whilst they sought to put out the candles, they have but topped them, and made them shine more clearly; as may evidently appear by this Encounter. Notwithstanding, whosoever shall intend to Reply unto this, or any other book of mine, let him (if he expect to be answered) not carp at pieces, but proceed soberly and orderly from point to point in the cause; otherwise I must say with the Apostle, 
n Galat. 6. 17.  Let none put me from henceforth unto business.  
Finally to thee (Christian Reader, if thou think thyself a Scholar) I say with S. 
o Hier. l. 3 Proëm in Epist.  jerom; Figas ipse stylum; tria, (ut dicitur) verba coniungas; sudes paululum, experiare temetipsum, & ex labore proprio discas ignoscere laborantibꝰ. And although thou be of another condition, yet for my justification, against M. Parsons (who called me a Falsificator) I say as S. Aug. did in answer to Petilian; 
p Me Petilianus Manichaun esse dicit, loquens de me Conscientia, boc ego judico me non esse, loquens de meâ Conscientiâ: eligite cui credatis.  He saith (saith S. Aug.) that I am a Manichee, speaking of my conscience, & I say I am not so, speaking of mine own conscience, & now choose whom thou wilt believe. Or eye (because the matter is put unto thy proof) I rather say with S. Paul 
q 1. Thess. 5. 21.  Try all things, & keep that which is good: Try this book, and my faithfulness by it, wherein (lest any may be suspected for my defects) I profess to allege no testimony, that is noted in the margin, which I have not perused & examined with mane own eyes. Thus I end, beseeching our Lord jesus to illuminate thee with the spirit of Truth, and to preserve us to the glory of his saving Grace.  
〈◊〉 in Christ Th. Morton   

THE PRINCIPAL CONTENTS OF THIS ENCOUNTER.  

In the first Book.  CAP. 1. 
THe confessed Falsifications of their Icsuite Suarez §. 2. and 〈◊〉 § 3 The errors of Baronius, ilib. Untruths of Boucher, §. 4 Fowl corruptions of Gratian, §. 5. and unjust dealing of Mast. Parsons himself, §. 7.  CAP. 2. 
An examination of the sleeping Soldiers speech, [His Disciples came and stole him away.] by a fourfold conviction, §. 1. An examination of M. Parsons his Syllogism; noting his pitiful poverty in Logic, and his frauds thereabout, §. 2.  CAP. 3. 
The Impossibility of their due subjection, proved by four Arguments. His dissemblances and frauds thereabout. In the end he betrayeth himself, §. 1. to § 5. And jastly, of the Exemption of Priests, §. 5.  CAP. 4. 
The hunting of the Fox, by winding out the subtle trick of M. Parsons his Mental Equivocation: about of the speech of the woman Saphyra; showing thereupon his unjust dealings; his pitiful plunges; and lastly the desperateness ofall his defence  CAP. 5. 
Of Falsities objected unto some Romanists, especially in Popes, about the feigned Canon of Nice, fully handled. P. R. his perverse dealing.  CAP. 6. 
The credit of Gratian impeached by their own Bishop. Mr. Parsons his triple falsehood.  CAP. 7. 
The Contradictions of Romanists, confuting one another about the Council of 〈◊〉 in the point of Images, §. 1. Therein Surius his slanderous falsehood. Their Contradictions about the Council of Francford concerning Images. Mr. Parsons his wilful falsehood, §. 2. Their Contradictions about the Epistle of Epiphanius, concerning Images, and M. Parson his unjust calumniation, §. 3.  CAP. 8. 
Card. Bellarmine's manifold Slanders againstProtestants, as first objecting the heresy of the Pelagians about Original and venial sins. §. 1. Of the Novatians in denying Penance: Mr. Parsons his fraudulent dissemblance, precipitate rashness, fond and false reprehension thereabout §. 2. And of the Manicbees in the question of free-will. M. Parsons abuseth the testimony of S. August. and S. Jerome in this point. His heady taxation, §. 3. Of Arianisme against Bullinger. M. Parsons maketh Bellarm. to betray the Catholic cause, §. 4. Another heresy concerning the Souls going, but not immediately to heaven. M. Parsons his ignorance of Bellarmine's meaning, with whom hesaid he did Consult, §. 5. The heresy of an [Only figure] in the Sacrament of the Eucharist. M. Parsons his unreasonable taxation §. 6  CAP. 9 
Card Bellarmine his corrupt Allegations, § 1. Rome by just consequence not the Mother 〈◊〉 Mr. Parsons his ignorance, his difsembling, his odd Cavil, his deceitfulness, his strange lust to accuse his Adversary, §. 2. The Authority of Platina. M. Parsons his Answer, betraying thereby the authority of all late Romish Writers, §. 3.  CAP. 10. 
Bellarmine his false allegation of Fathers, for proof of Purgatory M. Parsons his dexterity in fraudulent dealing. His other three Falsehoods.  CAP. 11. 
M. Parsons his Challenge against T M. exacting of him an examination of the sixty Fathers (alleged by Coccius, for defence of Purgatory:) to prove that thirty one of them are either Apocrypha, or corrupt, or wrested. The state of the whole Controversy, fet down and prosecuted at large: And the notable and manifold abuses of Coccius revealed.  CAP. 12. 
The Falsehoods, wherewith M. Parsons was charged in the preamble, and his fond and false accounts he maketh. His fourfold falsehood committed against Caluine: one whereof is most perfidious, §. 1. About the latin Clause of Reservation. His notable fraud in answering, containing a brace of untruths. §. 2. Of the [Chair of unlearned Doctors.] M. Parsons his two falsehoods in one § 3. His gross falsehood about Goudman, § 4 His double untruth about Knox and Bucchanan: and an other new falsehood beside §. 5. About the question of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mr. Parsons his confessed error, but yet miserable excuse. His faithless dealing against Caluine. §. 6. His many falsehoods in one § 7. Touching a Transition. His excellent art in confessing a falsehood so, as not confessing it; and the palpabilitytherof §. 8. Concerning the testimony of Holinshed about Wiat. M Parsons concealing his falsehood His other poor shift § 9 About the Text of Esa. 29. His threefold falsity § 10. The Citation of Carerius, whereunto answering, he learnedly bewrayeth want of learning in a Grammatical quiddity. § 11. Dolmans' testimony. M. Parsons his crafty concealment. His does loyalty. His denying his own writing. § 12 The testimony of Frisingensis, concerning Pope Greg. 7. aliâs Hildebrand. M. Parsons, a plain falsifier. His childish excuse. His absurd Reasoning. His treasonable doctrine. His negligence in Story. §. 13. The testimony of Espencaeus, concerning Hildebrand. M. Parsons his palpable untruth. §. 14.  CAP. 13. 
M. Parsons charged with falsities; about the question of Mental Equivocation. His lost logic. §. 1 Sepu'ueda his judgement, touching mental Equivocation. M. Parsons his evident untruths. §. 2. Azorius his judgement concerning Mental Equivocation. The State of the question. M. Parsons his manner of Equivocating sound to be lying His forgery to remove a rub and note of a lie. His strong and strange delusion. He professeth to Equivocate with his friends. § 3. The opinion of Eman. Sà about Mental Reservation. The ob. of leaving out of the word perhaps, in translating [Forte potiori ratione,] being before his eyes repeated: Herein a desperate falsificator. Another as vile a falsity. No certainty, what the opinions of late Romanists are, because of their altering and corrupting of their books. §. 4. observ the like out of the §. 5. and cap. 1. §. 6. and ca 14 §. 1. Maldonate his opinion about Mental Reservation. M. Parsons his dissolute ignorance. His frivolous distinction [of principal and not principal intention to deceive] §. 5.  CAP. 14. 
An answer unto M. Parsons his objected untruths, which he hath (out of the preamb.) called into a new Reckoning. First, concerning Polydore. M. Parsons his notable fraud. Pope's change their Christian names. §. 1. The Pope choked with a fly. M. Parsons his fond cavillations: And fraudulent concealment. The disastrous ends of other Popes. M. Parsons his crafty falsehood, about Pope Anastasius death. §. 2. Bouchers testimony of killing a Tyrant. M. Parsons his nototious falsehood. Another inexcusable falsehood. §. 3. The testimony of Raynolds objected and answered. Mr. Parsons his scurril sport upon a word. His deceit. That the power of a King is immediately from God. §. 4. The testimony of Gratian objected M Parsons confuted by their own Cardinal. § 5. The Gloss objected, and answered The doctrine of killing of Kings. Mr. Parsons by silence, betrayeth his disloyalty. §. 6. Gloss of the Extravagants objected and answered. His frothy Argument, juggling; fraud. A bloody Gloss, § 7. Bellarmin concerning the judgement of Caluine, about 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 M. Parsons his unwise demand, § 8. The text of Esa. 29. [You are blind, etc.] objected and answered. §. 9 Carrerius his [Verè or Verò] ob and answered. M. Parsons in a manner confessing his former slander. His flawed § 10. Dolman his [Damnable Sinner] ob. and answered, § 11. Censure of [All Priests, etc.] ob. and answered, § 12. Otto Frisingensis about Pope Greg. 7. ob. and answered. What manner of gravel M. Parson's casls. §. 13. Fox and Holinshed ob. and answered M. Parsons his falsity His figment. His lustful appetite to wrangle. A memorable example of treacherous Bishops; from the exclamation of Rodulph, § 14.   

In the second Book.  CAP. 1. 
First answering M. Parsons his old objections of Falsehoods out of his Mitigagation. He beginneth with a lavish falsity. §. 1. Vasquez objected and answered, § 2. Azorius ob. and answered. M. Parsons his inordinate jangling about words, § 3. And extreme captiousness, § 4. Tolet ob. and answered. M. Parsons his folly, § 6. Barclay and Bellarm. about the power of [Gathering Synods] ob and answered. M. Parsons his profuse fraud. And gross falsehood. And manifold absurdities, § 7. Salmeron (about the sovereignty of the King over Priests in the old Testament) ob. and answered. M. Parsons his notable falsehood. He is slatly confuted by. Salmeron, § 8.  CAP. 2. 
Carerius (about the same point) ob. and answered. M. Parsons his egregious untruth, § 1. Dolman objected and answered. M Parsons his childish exceptions: And ignorance of his own book, § 2. Once again Carerius ob. and answered. M. Parsons his open falsehood, § 3. Victoria ob. and answered M. Parsons his gross slander, § 4. The Canon of Gratian [Si Papa] ob. and answered. Mr. Parsons his many idle impertinencies. His great ignorance § 5. His Object against Sir Fr. Hastings [about Dominum Deum Papam] answered. M. Parsons his blind insolency, or perfidious hypocrisy, § 6. Pope Leo ob. concerning the Oath of Allegiance, and answered. M. Parsons his choleric answer therein; his promise exacted. His ignorance in constructions, § 7. Sepulueda touching Equivocation. M. Parsons his wilful salshood, § 8.  CAP. 3. 
The opinion of Setus, concerning Mental Equivocation, falsely and grossly abused by M. Parsons. The question there discussed by examples, § 1. Cunerus ob. and answered. M. Parsons his mere cavil, § 2. Cassander ob. and answered M. Parsons his idle, and fond collusion His faithless dealing. The name of Papist odious, and yet glorious among the Romanists. § 5. Royard ob. and answered M. Parsons his excellent falsehood: And after that another notorious falsity, § 4. Again, Cunerus ob. and answered. M. Parsons unconscionably injurious ibid. Sayr ob. and answered. M. Parsons snatcheth at words, and pretermitteth materials, § 5.  CAP. 4. 
Cicero objected in the point of Mental Equivocation. M. Parsons a watie gamester. His misconstruction of Tully. His excellent piece of craft. He preiudiceth his conscience, § 1. Barclay and Boucher ob. and answered M. Parson's fine trick of fraud. His malicious falsehood, § 2. Again, Barclay ob. and answered. M. Parsons his shameless fraud, § 3.  CAP. 5. 
Heaps of untruths objected, and answered, concerning [Pope's being Heretics, as Popes, and therefore Deposed.] M. Parsons his marvelous perverseness in reporting the judgement of his Authors, § 1. His notable guile, and falsehood. His cunning. A Romish mystery, § 2.  CAP. 6. 
Containing a brief Censure of a Pamphlet, entitled [The pattern of a Protestant] who hath made himself a pattern of singular Arrogancy, untruth, ignorance and malice. Add hereunto his slanderous untruths, when he played the Moderate Answerer, cap 7. § 7.  CAP. 7. 
M. Parsons objecteth the omitting of the defence of some Protestants; as of Caluine about Arianisme; which is answered. (the observable testimonies which some Romanists give of Caluine) § 1. And of my L. Cook § 1. and § 6. Omissions of M. Parsons in not defending his Clients: Answer to manifold Slanders, § 3. His not defending the Pope's Clergymen subject to Emperors. Constantine's Donation, § 4. His neglecting the defence of the Moderate Answerer in his notorious Slanders, § 5. An answer to his ob. of fresh lies. Therein his excellent fraud § 7.  CAP. 8. 
His objected Uaunts answered. His Strangers Censure against T. M. requited. His jesuit 〈◊〉 censure justly contemned, § 1 The Challenges made against M. Parsons avouched, and performed, § 2.  CAP. 9 
M. Parsons his Appendix confuted. His most memorable Yorkeshire-Case for Equivocating finely, maliciously, and impudently forged: As is manifestly proved by many uncontrollable convictions, § 1. His fire edge against Doctor King abated, by examples of jesuitical Equivocators, § 2.  CAP. 10. 
A confutation of Mast. Parsons his defence of Mental Reservation, from the speeches of Christ, recorded in the 8. cap. of Saint John, and first distinguishing between Verbal and Mental Equivocation, § 1. That in General the Scripture alloweth not Romish Reservation, § 2. The eight speeches of Christ taken out of the cap 8. Ioh objected, and satisfied, § 3. Scriptures which M. Parsons ob. in his Mitigation, answered; as joh. 1. 21. maith. 9 10. joh. 6. Esa. 〈◊〉. § 4. An old ob. in the Mitigation out of joh. 7. 8. [I will not go upyet,] answered. M. Parsons his gross ignorance touching the state of the question. §. 5.  CAP. 11. 
Against mental Equivocation, proving it to be a lie; by the confessions of their own Doctors; by examples from Fathers, Heretics and Pagans, § 1. Evidences of the impiety of it, by Cases, § 2. and by Effects, ibid. His foul untruth. ibid.    

THE ENCOUNTER AGAINST Mr. PARSONS.  

The first Book.  

CHAP. I. An Introduction to the Reueiw.  

SECT. I.  

1. THis Encounter consisteth of these two parts, the first is a Reueiw of Master Parsons his last Reckoning; the second of such points as concern his Treatise of Mitigation: and the issue of them both will be (God willing) the reasonable performance of my former Challenge.  
2. And because the first part (which is his Reckoning) is spent especially about the charge and discharge of Falsifications, which have been reciprocally objected on both sides, concerning matters of main Consequence; I thought it requisite to Encounter him first in these: and in this Introduction and Entrance to repel his main assault, who hath made falsifying to be a substantial distinctive note of discerning between Protestants, and his Catholic writers; and by some particular Instances to take away the fiery edge of his former presumption, after that we have seen that which followeth.   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning in the behalf of all Romish Writers.  
BEcause this is a matter of great importance, I mean to stay myself 
Reckoning. ca 3. §. 1. pa. 119. 120.  upon this point, and to show that it is indeed a substantial sign distinctive between all Sectaries and us at this time; and that in matters of Controversy, our Writers shall never be found guilty of these kinds of false, iying, and malicious Equivocations, where not only 
P. R his presumption.  untruth is uttered, but it is willingly also uttered, the Writer knowing that he writeth an untruth: which manner of dealing, argueth two points, the one, that such a writer hath no conscience, that uttereth that which God seeth to be false, and falsely meant in his heart; and the other, that his cause hath no ground of substantial truth, which cannot be defended without such wilful lies. In this then, if it please you, insist a while, and let Mr. Morton bring forth in Print, any Catholic Author that wrote against Protestants, since these heresies began, that hath been taken in this impiety: I mean, that hath set down in Print any such falsity as cannot be excused either by ignorance, oversight, negligence, error of Print, translation, diversity of Editions, or the like: but that it must needs be presumed that he knew the untruth, and yet would set it forth; of this kind, I say, let him show me but one example among all Catholic Writers of our time, and I will in my Conscience greatly mistrust and discredit that Author, whether it be an other, or myself: but if he show me two or three in any Writer in this kind, I shall be hardly able ever after to believe him more. And whereas the number and variety of Catholic Writers is so great, as the world seeth, it were no great labour to show it in some, if that spirit doth reign among them, as it doth among Protestant Writers.    

SECT. II.  
The Review; yielding divers examples of Romish Falsificators, even by the judgement of their own Writers; faithfully related. The first party accused is their jesuit Fr: SVAREZ.  

3. MAster Parsons will not esteem any Writers to deserve better the name of Catholic Writers, than the Jesuits: who are, as it were, the natural brethren of his own Order; nor can he account any jesuit a more worthy Writer than is their jesuit Suarez, public Reader in the University of Salamanca, whom their jesuit 
a Possevin Appa. rat. Tit. Fr. Suarez.  Possevine hath Registered among the most famous Authors of these times; nor may he judge any Writing of Suarez, more observable than are those his 
b Varia Opuscula Theologica, approved by the University of omplutum, unde the hands of eight Doctors See the beginning.  works, which have been approved by a whole University.  
4. This jesuit Suarez cometh now to be convinced for a Falsificator, but not by Protestants: because Mr. Parsons hath a Licence and Faculty to call their accusations Ltes and Falsehoods, although they be never so just: therefore must we seek out of the Romish School, some one approved witness, who hath made a privy search into the writings of the foresaid jesuit; and hath also discovered some of his wilful transgressions in alleging of Authors.   

The Accuser is Fr: Cumel.  
5. Our witness shall be 
c Franciscus Cumel, variarum disputationum. etc. 1 ugduni. 1609.  Fr. Cumel, Professor also of Divinity in the I niversitie of Salamanca; 
d See all these Encomia, in the beginning of his work.  commended by Diego Nuncio, and Antonius Soto-Mayor for one, in whose Memory The Church (say they) which is the Spouse of Christ, may congratulate her own good, in that she had so singular, and every way so absolute a Teacher, who in these his last works hath excelled not only other ancient and modern writers, but also himself: unto whose commendation Rob. Bertelot, and A. Priqueu do subscribe: Him hath also Ant. Hereros, Public professor in the 〈◊〉 of Pintia, greatly extolled in his commendatory Epistle, calling this Cumel the very heart of the University wherein he was Professor, whose name was honoured (saith he) by Pope Clement the eight. And yet again is this Doctor further magnified in the Epistle Dedicatory by Fr. IIdefonsus, who reporteth Cumel to have been an admirable man, both for learning and wisdom, Insomuch that Kings did consult with him in their most weighty affairs, and that Scholars, when they desired to have the most hard Questions assoiled, resorted unto him, as unto the Oracle of Apollo.  
6. Let us now hear what this so honourable a witness and Oracle will say, concerning the dealing of the former lesuite, in a matter of high moment, such as is the power of God's effectual Grace in acting man's will unto good: from the efficacy of which Grace of God, the same jesuit (in the opinion of Cumel) did somewhat detract, for the unjust advancement of the power of man's will. It will be my part not to examine or discuss: but only to report the saying of Cumel, which I will do as faithfully, as if the whole cause depended here upon.   

The Accusation itself.  
7. 
e F. Cumel Dispu. Variar. Tom. 3. pag. 126. col. 1.  Saint Hieroms testimony (saith Cumel) Dolosè ciatatur ab Aduersarys (speaking of Molina, Suarez, and some other Romish writers) that is, Is fraudulently cited: And, 
f Pag. 128. col. 2.  Capreolus is cited craftily by them: 
g Pag. 129. col. 1.  I am grieved to see how fraudulently they cite Driedo, urging that which he spoke, by way of argumentation, or objection, for his own judgement, whereas Driedo useth many Arguments to disprove that opinion. But we shall be contented to dismiss Molina and those others, let Cumel and Suarez meet upon the Stage alone, and so shall we be better able to discern the disposition of the party accused.  
8. 
h Ibid. pag. 267. col. 2.  Suarez (saith Cumel) doth not entirely, and faithfully, relate the sentence of Molina: And 
i Pag. 15. col. 1. in margin.  expoundeth Molina, but in a sense contrary to his meaning: 
k Ibid. pag. 137. col. 2. in margin.  Suarez citeth the sentence of Soto, leaping over a part of it, and suppressing those words which made against him. 
l Ib. pa 133. 〈◊〉  I do observe (saith Cumel) that Suarez alleged Driedo, whose sentence and words make plainly against him, as I have showed; so that I cannot tell with what spirit he is cited of Suarez: and much less do I perceive to what end Stapleton is alleged, whose words do more expressly make against them. 
m Ibid. pag. 195. col. 1.  Suarez hath taken out of the testimony of Saint Thomas the word, Praeordination, and put in stead of it, Subordination, and expoundeth S. Thomas sinisterly. 
n Ibid. pag. 124. col. 2.  Suarez produduceth for his proof the testimony of Chrysostome, [Ad Heb. hom. 12. super cap. 7. ubi ait, Nostras non antecedit voluntatates, nè liberum laedatur arbitrium,] cutting of that which went immediately before, and that also which immediately followed: because he perceived that the sense and opinion of Chrysostome did not favour his opinion at all. 
o Ibid. pag. 131. col. 2.  Suarez urgeth Pope Clement in his third Epistle, saying that he hath these words; [Si aliquid esset, quod audientes fidem vel ad credendum, vel ad non credendum determinatret extrà arbitrium eorum, meritum & libertatem tolli.] Which words he hath printed in new and distinct Characters and Letters, as though they were the very words of Pope Clement, when as indeed that most holy Pope never delivered those words, neither are they in that Epistle.  
9 And thus doth Cumel proceed against Suarez, in censuring his falsifications in these and other allegations, wherein Cumel seemeth to discern nothing but wilful frauds in that their jesuit Suarez; whom notwithstanding they magnify for one, 
p Epist. Dedicat. in Tom. 3.  Who, by the judgement of all the most learned men, (as they say) seemeth to have abundantly satisfied Heretics (so they call Protestants) and Catholics, in the doctrine of the Sacraments in the new law.  
10. Seeing now (good Reader) that Fr. Suarez, one of their chief order (which is the order of jesuits,) and the choicest writer which is now living in that Society, in a few Chapters of but one so primarily an authorised Book, concerning one only Controversy, hath committed so many falsities, which their own so much approved Doctor Cumel cannot free from wilful frauds and corruptions; what multitudes of falsehoods shall we think may be found in all the huge and vast Volumes, which he and other jesuits have published, concerning all other questions of Controversy, if that any ingenuous Cumel might be permitted to ransack all their Allegations?  
11. Although this one so singular an Instance, being deprehended by such an Accuser in so many and so notorious falsities, doth sufficiently encounter Mr. PARSONS his demand, who offered to be contented but with one example of any one, who hath committed but three such inexcusable defaults: yet lest that Master PARSONS his modesty may give him leave, & his wit power to answer me according to the Greek Proverb, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is, to turn an unity into a cipher, and to make account that one only example is as good as none at all; therefore have I thought it further more requisite to single out Duo magna lumina, that is, the two great lights of that Church, Cardinal Bellarmine, and Cardinal Baronius, and to show the wonderful Eclipses and spots of falsehood, which their own Doctors have discerned in these two.   

The party accused is Cardinal BELLARMINE, In behalf of whomMaster PARSONS hath challenged me in this Reckoning, viz.  
IF you have seen how little able Mr. Morton hath been to perform 
Reekon. cap. 3. 5. 6. pag. 149. 150  his promise before, for wilful falsities committed by any of our Writers hitherto; much more shall you see now, when leaving the multitude of other Authors, he singleth out Cardinal Bellarmine alone to deal withal: who as he hath written much, so were it not marvel if in so many Books, he should have left some things, whereupon his Adversaries might probably wrangle. But as for wilful untruths, it is so far from his known and confessed integrity, as Mr. Morton could never have made choice of an unfitter match for this point. Nor can it be thought that he chose him, upon hope to find any such advantage in him indeed, but only to honour himself, by contending with such an Adversary, and to cast some clouds, at least in the minds of the simple sort, upon the shining beams of Cardinal Bellarmine's estimation, by objecting the name of wilful falsities unto him. But as when the said clouds are driven away from the air, the force of the Sun is more sensibly felt: So Cardi, Bellarmine's works, being cleared here from Mr. Mortons' calumniations, will be more highly esteemed by every judicious Reader, as not lending any least true advantage unto any impugnation of the Adversary. And this is all the hurt that he is like to receive by this Assault.    

SECT. III.  

The Reviewe.  
12. I Shall desire Mr. Parsons to forbear a while the examination of the exceptions, which I have taken against Cardinal Bellarmine, until we come to discuss that point; when it will appear how feeble a Boreas Mr. Parsons is in dispelling of clouds: and for the present to have so much patience, as to understand, what & how foggy a mist of insincerity, some Authors of their own profession have spied in the writings of this their Bellarmine, whom Mr. Parsons preferreth for sincerity before all others of his side.   

His three Accusers.  
13. The first Accuser is 
r Desensio johannis Marsi'y in favorem 〈◊〉 8. propositiones contmentis, 〈◊〉 scripsit illustrissimus & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bellarminus. 〈◊〉 1606.  joh. Marsilius, who beginneth his defence against Bellarmine, with prayer unto God, and to the blessed Virgin; who mentioneth Bellarmine. with all reverend respect, by the appellation of Most illustrious Lord; who is authorized in this his answer under the public approbation of the State of Venice. The second is 
s 〈◊〉 P. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 An. 1606.  P. Paulus, as select a Writer as Marsilius, and equally approved. The third is Guil. Barclaius, who yieldeth unto Bellarmine this dignifying Title of 
t 〈◊〉 aius de 〈◊〉 Pape Ad Clementem 8. Pontif. cap 37.  Most famous Cardinal and most learned Divine, in that book which he Dedicated to Pope Clement 8. The exceptions that they take against Bellarmine, are concerning one only Controvetsie of his: which is the defence of the Papal power, in censuring of Temporail States.   

Their Accusations.  
14. For his abuse of the testmonies of Schoolmen he is thus noted. 
u 〈◊〉 desens. pag. 280.  He erreth (saith Marsilius speaking of Bellarmine) in expounding Thomas contrary to his meaning, whose Catholic Doctrine, in all matters of Divinity, I do profess. 
a Pag. 285.  He erreth in saying that the Author (whom Bellarmine impugneth) held that Christ was constrained by necessity to pay 
Notable falsifications of Bellar. confessed.  tribute, but the Author affirmeth the contrary, to wit, that Christ as the Son of God, was not bound to pay tribute, yet did it for avoiding of scandal. 
b Pag. 297.  He erreth in denying that Sotus did marvel at the Canonist, (viz. For saying that the Pope is the Lord of the whole world, directly in temporal things.) For Sotus doth expressly name certain Lawyers, or Canonists, and calleth their opinion in this point commentitious, or fabulous, complaining and marveling that Sylvester departed from the judgement of Thomas: yea and the same words of Sotus were read in the first Books of the Lo. Cardinal himself (viz. Bellarmine) which if he will not acknowledge, it skilleth not, for we find in his (viz. Bellarmine's) books six hundred alterations. 
c Pag. 322.  He erreth in saying that Navarre writ, that [The Pope's authority was not merely temporal,] as though he had confessed the Pope's authority to be temporal, and accessorily spiritual; but Navarre never writ this, but held plainly the contrary. 
d pag. 324.  He saith indeed that the Papal power may use natural things, which are instituted by Christ, for supernatur all ends, such as are water in Baptism, and money for Alms: but doth he ever speak of I emporall power? he never so much as dreamt hereof. 
e Ibid.  But it is no rare thing (as we have seen) for his illustrious Lordship, (meaning Bellarmine) to cite Authors for an opinion, whereas they affirm the plain contrary. 
f Pag. 361.  He erreth in saying absolutely, that Sotus and Covarruvias affirmed that which they spoke with condition, viz. Ordinariè. 
g P. Paulus Apolog. pag. 569.  He 
* Bellerminus planè contranum Gersoni tribuit, etc.  abuseth the testimony of Gerson (saith the second Accuser) noting that to have been spoken against the due reverence unto the Pope, whereas contrarily he spoke in favour of the Pope.  
15. Let us pass over their School, and come unto the testimonies of Fathers and Counsels; whereunto the first Accuser (Marsilius) proceedeth, saying of Bellarmine, that 
h Marsil. defence. pag. 222.  He erreth in affirming that Chrysostome (expounding that place of Paul, Rom. 13. Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers) speaketh of power in general (as though he did as well imply spiritual power, as temporal (according as Bellarmine himself doth interpret the text) whereas S. Chrysostome speaketh plainly of Princes and Magistrates. And because he (namely Bellarmine) bringeth no reason for his Answer, it will not be amiss to demonstrate his error by reasons: for that which the Apostle calleth [higher power] Chrysostome interpreteth to be Princes and Magistrates, who make politic laws, and who sustain the burden of the Commonwealth, unto whom the Apostle commandeth men to pay tribute; and, which doth preoccupate all means of evasion, Chrysostome showeth that obedience unto these powers is commanded unto Monks or Priests, yea although he were either Apostle, Prophet, or Evangelist. 
i Pag. 288.  He erreth in citing falsely the place of S. Hierome, who saith the plain contrary: 
k Pag. 289.  It grieveth me to see things imputed unto holy Fathers, the contrary whereof they affirm: 
l Jbid.  And he offendeth also in citing the place of S. Augustine. 
m Pag. 346.  He erreth in alleging the Council of Colen, for that Council determined nothing thereof, but according to the Gloss, etc. Finally, 
n P. Paulus Apol. pag. 602.  See, good Reader (saith their P. Paulus) the cunning of this Author (namely Bellarmine) saying that the fifth Roman Council under Pope Symmachus, did allow, as her own Decree, that sentence of Eunodius [Aliorum hominum causas, etc.] whereas that sentence shall not be any where found to have been specially approved, or so much as named in that Council. And 
o Ib. pag. 606.  He hath added of himself (speaking of a Decree of a Council of Lateran, under Pope Alexander the third) these words, [Quòd nullus sit in terris Papâ Superior,] That is, Because there is none in earth Superior unto 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 faithfulness, in respect of the dealings of others, yet 
p Barcla. de potesta. Papae. c. 37.  It cannot be denied (saith he) but that Bellarmine, by following Sanders and others rashly, hath not a little erred in three points of his defence of the Pope's temporal authority: and thereupon could not But marvel (as he himself saith) that men, who are for their Learning so famous, do so negligently set down their judgements in writing, as though they had not read the Authors 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 errors of Bellarmine, he 
q Ib. cap. 32.  observeth him to follow Gratian in a singular corruption, to wit; whereas an ancient 
r Conc. Agathen. Anno 506. can. 32.  Council decreed Can. 32. [Ne Clericus quemquam praesumat apud secularem judicem, Episcopo non permittente, pulsare] Gratian chose delivereth it thus: Clericum msllus praesumat pulsare, etc.  
17. These few faults are more then enough, to have been discovered by their own Authors, out of one Controversy of their Cardinal Bellarmine. As for other notes of his contradictions, whereof he is convinceable, 
* See hereaster, cap. 8.  I remit them unto their proper place. In the interim seeing that Card. Bellarm. (who, in Mr. Parsons his estimate; is the most Sincere Author of all other Romanists) hath been thus deeply charged by their own Doctors of so much insincerity, our Reader may conceive thereby how little confidence any may yield unto their other less confiderate or conscionable Doctors.  
I proceed, and (because the fellowship which Card. Bellarmine had with Card. Baronius, will not permit them to be divided) I add   

An Accusation made by the foresaid Marsilius, against their Cardinal BARONIUS.  
18. Cardinal Bellarmine advanceth Cardinal Baronius in this manner: 
a Marsil. quo supra, pag. 357.  That most worthy and learned Baronius (saith he) doth demonstrate by most clear evidences, that there was never such 〈◊〉 granted unto Emperors, for the electing of the Pope. 
b Ibid.  But I have answered (saith Marsilius) that Baronius hath no authority in the Question of Immunities: I have heard, that as he hath taken a liberty to mend the Fathers, Canons and Historians, so he will correct the Counsels after his 〈◊〉 and for his own purpose; and to assume unto himself a licence 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 need not to regard the novelties of his illustrious Lordship. Again he saith that 
c Ibid. pag. 300.  The answers of Card. Baronius are not unlike (meaning, unto the answers of Card. Bellarmine) who whilst he cannot find an objected argument, able to be assoiled by History, he saith that these words have been inserted into the books. In brief, 
d Ib. pag. 354.  I will say no more (saith he) of Card. Baronius, but that he is an Historian yet Living, whose works are suspected, where he entreateth of the Immunity (namely, of the Clergy,) who, when he wanteth other support, doth dislike all Historiographers; and when he admitteth any, he singleth out the words 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 book hath been the space of 700. years approved in the Church: but he rejecteth the authority both of this, and of other Writers of his time. Seeing therefore that his Annals (or Chronicles) have not that estimation in the world, as he supposed; and that there is a book which will come forth shortly, entitled, The Errors of Baronius, wherein there are discovered more than twenty several errors, which he hath committed in denying this one most ancient History, concerning Pope john (to wit, john 12. whom the godly Emperor Otho deposed) I shall not need to say more of his authority.  
19 Neither shall I need to add any more to this which hath been said, because our Reckoner Mast. Parsons knoweth (although we should not reckon by the strict rules of proportion, but by the remiss principles of probability only) that if twenty errors may be found in the compass of three sheets of paper, set forth by Baronius, then may we presume that many hundredth untruths do lie lurking within his whole Annals, which contain twelve huge volumes, which, in all probability, may bewray some appearances of unjust dealings.    

SECT. FOUR  

The loose dealing of their jesuit Boucher, by the accusation of Barclaius their own Romish Doctor.  
20. WHereas M. 
a Barc'a. cont. Monarchom. 1. 5. 〈◊〉 6. pag. 360.  Boucher objecteth the testimony of Bodine, to prove that It is lawful for a private man to kill a lawful King, if he shall tyramize over his subjects, M. Barclay answereth, saying, The Author in the 
b Bodm. 1. 2. de Repub. cap. 5.  same Chapter doth plainly contradict you, and the words themselves do openly pronounce, that you have belied his judgement. And after that he made the matter manifest, by alleging the Author at large, he shutteth up the point, saying, What a mischief meaneth this manner of handling Authors? and so proceedeth on to urge him to confess either his wilful falsehood, or else his rashness, in giving credit to other men's Notes. In the next place he chargeth Boucher for alleging the 
c Barcla. 1. 6. c. 20. pag. 490.  Supposititious and bastardly Tracts, which are falsely fathered upon Tho. Aquinas, to wit, the books de Regimine Principis, which although they be vulgarly received as his yet are they fraught with such dotages and fooleries, as if they were written to move laughter, as 
d L. 1. de feud. Tit. 1.  Cuiacius hath said. Finally (not to dive any deeper into this puddle-water of falsities) Barclay is offended with Boucher, for bringing in the sentence of 
e Barcla. 1. 6. c. 24. pag. 510.  Sarisburiensis laymed and corrupted, which (saith Barclay) you must say you have delivered from the relation of others, or else you must needs lose your credit by the crime of forgery.  
21. And now may our Reader judge, whether M. Parsons have not (as I once said) lavishly hazarded the credit of the chief Pillars of the Romish Church, upon a Triple falsity, as it were upon a Trey-trippe, even by the confessions of their own Doctors. Something will be expected to be said concerning Gratian.    

SECT. V.  

The Falsehoods which are confessed to swarm in Gratian, the ancient compiler of the Decrees of Popes, Fathers and Counsels.  
22. AFterwards the zeal, which Mr. Parsons hath, for the defence of the Romish Authors, transported him to justify their Gratian also, especially in one point, wherein notwithstanding his guilt 
* Sec hereaftes ca 5. §. 3. etc.  will appear to be most transparent. But now in general their own 
a Ant. Augustin' Archiepiscopus Tarraconens. de emend. Gratiani. lib. 1. Dialog. 1. pag. 5. Paris. 1607.  Antonius Augustinus, an Archbishop in Spain, hath lately written a book professedly for the purging of Gratian, whose faults he saith are Ità multa, etc. So many that they cannot be declared in one day: many false inscriptions of Authors; ascribing many words unto Gregory, Ambrose, and Augustine: which are nowhere 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 unfold many particular gross, and dangerous untruths of Gratian, the Compiler of the Decrees of Counsels, and Popes, and of the Testimonies of Fathers; a work which for divers hundred years was admitted for the public directory of the Doctors of the Romish Church.  
24. here, here had been a large field of falsities, for Mr. Parsons his pen to gallop in, and to play his Rhetorical curvets, if that his Holy itch, (as he calleth such his desire to be meddling with Protestants) had not moved him, rather to calumniate the manifest truths of his Adversaries, then to acknowledge the Falsifications committed by the Principal Authors of his own side. If peradventure these confessed corruptions in these their particular, but yet public and famous Books, seem not to our Reader sufficient to prove Mr. Parsons his Distinctive Note to be notoriously calumnious, we have further to acquaint him with that which followeth.    

SECT. VI  

A general practice of fraud in the Romish Church according as it is confessed by their own Doctors.  
25. THe general practice of deceit, which now cometh into our view, is of two kinds: the first is their professed abuse of Authors, as is manifest, both by corrupting of their Books, & also by perverting their meanings. For evidence whereof we have, concerning the former, the confession of their forenamed Marsilius. 
a Defence. Marsil. Cont. Bellar. pag. 331. A dangerous Art of corrupting of Authors.  It is a matter known unto all (saith he) that those things which were written in the behalf of Lay Magistrates, have been, and still are razed out of the Counsels, Canons, and Books of other Doctors, yea out of the very Breviaries and Missals: insomuch as it may be feared, lest that in process of time, that unlimited power of the Pope in temporal affairs will be established. So that he that will compare the Books that were written in the year 1530. or 1550. with the writings, at this day, whether they write of Counsels, or of other things be shall easily find where the Vintage is: So that it is a marvel, that after this harvest, we found any clusters of grapes, for the defence of our prince Whereby in tract of time it will come to pass, that none will give credit unto any writings, and that the Church of God will be overthrown. Which I speak (saith he) upon this occasion, which is offered by the Lord Cardinal, as also wishing very earnestly, that books be not depraved: which I say with all humility, and reverence. Marsilius pursueth him further, saying, 
b Ibid. pag. 338.  It need not be marveled why we cannot allege many for this opinion, he showeth 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 happened to the Lord Cardinal (Bellarmine) himself; or else such things are blotted out of their books; or else threats are cast out: insomuch that Sotus could say upon the conclusion of this matter, It becometh a servant to think much, and say little.  
26. Can there be any greater fraudulency than this, or in this fraud, a more pernicious tyranny, against either the living, or the dead, then thus to tie, as it were, cords unto their tongues, and compelling them to speak contrary to their meaning, so far sometimes, as to change 
c Index Belgieus per junium. pag. 17.  visible into Invisible? Besides they do further so profess to deal with 
d Index Belg. apud Pappum. pag. 12.  Ancient Authors, as either to suffer many errors (so they call the opinions, when they are objected against them in dispute) or to extenuate them, or to excuse them, or else by some new devised comment to deny them.  
27. The second kind of deceitfulness hath been, belike, sensible enough at Rome, seeing that their own learned Doctor Espensaeus was forced to complain thereof. 
c Cl. Espencaeus Tract. 6. Epist. dedic. ad card. castil.  When Pope Paulus 4. (saith he) did seriously affirm that he intended to choose me into the order of Cardinals, I do religiously swear, that as often as I thought upon the report of obtaining the red Hat freely (which others hunted after for money, who were repulsed) I give immortal thanks unto God that he suffered not, I will not say, so much good, but so much evil to happen unto me: Quid facerem Romae? mentirinescio. What should I do at Rome? I cannot lie. Now if Rome, which will seem to be the Metropolis of all sanctity, become the Exchange of lying, we may suspect that Mr. Parsons, after his so long residence in that place, may happily have received some taint. This we may try by the confession of his own Romish Authors, after that we have first heard what he will say for himself.    

SECT. VII.  
Mr. PARSONS his protestation of his own Integrity.  

Master PARSONS Reckoning.  
As for falsities, they may proceed of divers causes, and in divers 
Reckon. pag. 215.  degrees, and with sundry circumstances of more or less fault, so that there may be a falsity without a falsehood, where of my meaning is not in this place: but whosoever shall be found in a wilful and witting falsity, or rather falsehood, that is known to be such by the utterer, I do think it to abhor so much from the nature itself of an honest and civil man, as of what Religion so ever he be, he will not commit it once, much less thrice. As for myself, I stand confident, 
Idem pag. 214.  that he will never be able to bring any such fraud against me, much less thrice three.   

The Reveiwe.  
28. Mr. Parsons hath truly expressed the Character of an honest man, to wit, that he doth always abhor all wilful falsehood, and he will needs Canonize himself, and be registered in the Calendar of honest men. But words are but as letters, and deeds as seals: so that if Mr. Parson's protestation be contradicted by his conversation, than his writings (whereof we are to speak in the Chapters following) may be presumed to be no truer than his other actions. And if in his moral behaviour he be a true man, than their twenty and eight Seminary Priests were black Saints, who in their 
a Declaratio 〈◊〉 & turbationum, quae inter jesuitas & Sacerdotes in Anglia ortae sunt. Ad Clementem. 8, Pontificem exhibita à Sacerdotibus.  Appeal made unto Pope Clement the eight, against the factions of the jesuits, speaking of Master Parsons, note, 
b Pag. 23.  Patrem Robertum praecipuum, etc. that is, Father Robert Parsons the chief Author of these factions: And for a man, 
c Pag. 40.  Dissembling to forewarn our Messengers (say they) whom we sent unto your Holiness, that they might escape the hands of them that laid watch to catch them, when notwithstanding he was the principal plotter to have them entrapped; and who, in taking their Examination, appointed a jesuit to write down their Answers, but so, as altering their words at his pleasure.  
29. This, and much more to this effect, was delivered to the Pope against Mr. Parsons, by a grand Inquest of their own Priests, in their joint Appeal unto him, with whom they account it a damnable sin to lie or equivocate. The sum whereof one of their Priests in his Quodlibets hath expressed, saying of Mr. Parsons, that 
d Quodlib p. 236  He is the abstract and quintessence of all coggeries, and forgeries, etc. 
e Quodlib. ibid.  This is that worthy excellent, that lies, dissembles, and equivocates at every word. Notwithstanding I desire the good, Reader, that these imputations which are cast upon him by his own brotherhood, may not any whit prejudice his integrity, but rather to suspect them to be lies, except that they may be reasonably verified by the Reueiw of his Reckoning.  
30. Hitherto wec have heard the censure of their own Doctors, branding Authors of their own order with the black mark of often falsifying; and also displaying the general practice of their Church, in corrupting of Author's sentences, contrary to their meaning. So that this Introduction may serve for a reduction of Mr. Parsons into a more Sober Reckoning, who doth pronounce his brethren to be free from that Malady of falsifying; not so much in confidence (as it may seem) of their fidelity, as for the better palliating of his own guilt, whilst he would be thought religiously, and honestly to detest that vice, which throughout the Reueiw of this Reckoning I shall orderly detect.     

CHAP. II. Consisting of two Inquiries.  

SECT. I.  

The first.  
1. whether Mr. Parsons hath not greatly obscured and abused a place of Scripture, which serveth for an infallible conviction of the jewish infidelity, and for the proof of Christ his resurrection, by defending the probability of that answer, which the 
* Mat. 27.  Soldiers gave, when they said, [Whilst we were asleep, his Disciples came and stole him away.] Which answer 
a Preamb. pag. 3. 4. etc.  Iludged to be fond and senseless, and am therefore called by him unto a new Reckoning. This is a matter of some moment, therefore I neither may, nor will refuse a trial herein. I objected Saint Augustine, etc. The sum of his answer followeth.   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
I Answer, that S. Augustine argued well against the Soldiers by a 
Reckon. cap. 1. §. 1 pag. 7. & 8.  Dilemnta, that if they were asleep, they could not tell by any certainty that Christ his Disciples stole him away, and therefore they did fond to testify the same for certain and true. But Saint Augustine saith not, as you say, that the devise was against common sense, for than it would not have been believed so generally, for so many years after, as even in the time when S. Matthew writ his Gospel: nor could the Priests, Doctors, and principal jews of the Synagogue, which had not only common sense, but worldly wisdom also, either have devised this shift, or have given money to have it published; or would they have suffered the same to have been proposed to the Goveinour Pilate, for contenting him, who being a Roman, and a wise worldly man, would never have hearkened unto it: or admitted the same, if the proposition had been against common sense.— I grant that the Soldiers could not know it for certain, that the Disciples had stolen him away, but by probability only; which probability notwithstanding, was very great, for that his enemies would not have adventured to have done it with so great a danger. Ergo, it is likely that they were Friends, Follower's, Scholars, and Disciples.— I grant that the Priests and Soldiers lied therein, but yet I hold that this lie, was not senseless, nor against common sense.   

The Reveiwe, by a threefold Conviction: the first is from Authority.  
2. Saint 
b Aug. Tom. 10. Hom. 36.  Augustine, by a Dilemma, brought the Soldiers unto one of these extremities, viz. either to say that Christ is risen, and consequently to confess that they were not a sleep; or else (if they would needs be thought to have been a sleep) to grant that they answered they knew not what: which were, we know, very senseless. Saint 
c 〈◊〉 in Mat. 28. Hom. 91. col. 714. Tom. 2.  Chrysostome showeth that the infatuation of the jews herein was great, who, concerning this answer of the Soldiers [He was stolen.] (Which Mr. Parsons calleth Greatly probable) saith that it was falsum, & minime probabile, that is, false, and no way probable. The same Father calleth the Priests, who were the divisers of that answer, Impudent and audacious fellows; whom Mr. Parsons would have esteemed to have been wise and politic. Yea, and I ansenius, their own 
d jansen. Concord. evang. in eum locum.  Bishop, saith that the speech of the Soldiers was Valdè absurdus etc. that is, Very absurd: notwithstanding, that it was believed of most of the jews, the speech being divulged among them, (as Saint Matthew noteth of his time) even unto this day: His reason is, because They, by their own malice, were delivered up into a reprobate sense. Showing that the Evangelist Matthew, did record the general belief, which the jews gave unto the soldiers answer, as a special Argument of their infatuation and senselessness; which Mr. Parsons hath urged to prove that they answered, not without wisdom and policy.   

The second Conuincement.  
3. If we first consider the persons, who said that they were a sleep, Saint Matthew in the former Chapter, doth tell us, that after the burial of Christ, the chief Priests and pharisees came unto Pilate, saying, 
e Mat. 27. vers. 62. etc.  We remember that this Seducer, whilst he was alive, said that after three days, I will rise again; Therefore they desire Pilate to command that the Sepulchre should be kept until the third day, lest perhaps (say they) his Disciples come and steal him away, and tell the people, that he is risen, and so the last error shall be worse than the first. Pilate said, you have a Guard, go guard it as you know, and they departing made the Sepulchre sure with the watch, and sealed the stone. Here we see that the Priests and Pharisees, who accused Christ; the Soldiers also, who apprehended and crucified him, do all conspire together to have a diligent watch kept at Christ his Sepulchre, and that but for three days, lest his Disciples should come and steal him out of the grave, and consequently, the people might be thereby (as they thought) more strongly and dangerously Seduced: yet now, after all their zeal, care, and providence, lest his Disciples should come and steal him away: they date report that His Disciples came and stole him away; could this report seem probable?  
4. Secondly, if we could probably suppose that they were asleep, yet we know that the answer implied two things: the first is a negative proposition, viz. He is not risen: the second is an affirmative, viz. His Disciples came and stole him away. If any in regard of the negative part, had demanded of them, saying, how know you that he is not risen? and heard them answer, saying, We know that he did not rise, because We were asleep; could he judge this Answer to be sensible?  
5. Thirdly, if we consider the affirmative part, His Disciples him away, any might have easily replied, saying, What his Disciples? They were the men, who for fear ran away from him, when they should have saved him from death, would they hazard themselves, for the stealing away his body after that he was dead? Improbable. And add hereunto the reason taken from the wisdom of those worldlings, it will make their Answer incredible, because (as their jansenius hath noted from Scripture) these believers of the Soldiers were now delivered up into blindness; so that whilst they would seem wise, they were found fools. As for example: The Soldiers said they were asleep, & persuaded men, that Christ is not risen; the Disciples of Christa while after professed, that they saw Christ, and preached that he is risen; yet these Scribes, Pharisees, Pilate and others (whom M. Parsons hath renowned with the title of wise, & politic men) did rather believe Soldiers Sleeping, than the Apostles Seeing. And is not this also senseless? Let me add the Collection of their own jesuit Salmeron: 
f Salmeron Jes. Tom. 11. in eum locum Matth.  Who can believe (saith he) that all the men appointed for the watch had beenc asleep? Or how could they discern that the Apostles took away his body, seeing that they were all asleep? By these interrogatories implying that the answer was senseless.   

The third Conuincement of Mr. PARSONS, from his own Contradiction.  
6. We have heard Mast. Parson's arguing, that The Priests, Doctors, and principal jews of the Synagogue were worldly-wise men, and inferring hereupon, that therefore they may not be thought to have devised any fond or Senseless Answer: notwithstanding the same Mast. Parsons saith, that They did fond to testify the same to be certainly true. Which is all one, as if he had said with one breath, it was not possible 
P. R. 〈◊〉 himself,  for these wise men to do senselessly and fond, who notwithstanding did fond and senselessly: Could he justly call this a Sober Reckoning, wherein at the first assay he hath so fond thwarted himself?  
7. Shall we sum up this first part of the Reckoning? When we compare Reasons, there are three objected against his one, which also is such an one, as is contrary to the purpose of the Evangelist: Secondly, when we number authorities, three are produced against none: Thirdly, when we examine Mast. Parsons his own words, concerning the wisdom and fondness of the jewish Priests, we find his confession to undermine his former consequence.  
8. These three Observations will easily prove, that if according unto M. Parsons his poesy of his Reckoning, taken out of Dan. 5. 27. (viz. You are weighed in the balance, and are found to want weight) we be both balanced; he will be found to be at least three drams too light, even in this first point of our Reckoning, and in the most cases following to have little weight at all.  
9 The next 
g Preamb. p. 5.  point of this Reckoning concerneth M. Parsons his falsehood, in not acknowledging the Clause of Reservation to have been set down in Latin: which, for avoiding of tedious repetition, I 
* See hereafter  reserve unto a more proper place.    

SECT. II.  

The second Inquiry.  
10. COncerning a Syllogism, for the which M. Parsons 
a Preamb pag. 7 etc.  hath been charged with intolerable arrogance and ignorance; and now he cometh to reckon for this, but so miserably, that the Reader will pity his perplexity, both in charging me, and in discharging himself. First of the sum of his charge.   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning, by charging his Adversary.  
P. R. (saith T. M.) called that a Syllogism which I named in a more general 
Reckon. pag. 22. & 23.  term a Reason, and not a Syllogism: now there be many forms of Reasons, besides Syllogisms, neither did I indeed intent to make an exact and formal Syllogism, but only such an argument, which by due inference and deduction might prove my Conclusion good. So he. And is not this a strange evasion in him that professeth such skill in Logic? for that the art of Logic, to my knowledge, admitteth but four kinds of reasoning, to wit, Syllogisms, Enthymemes, Inductions, and Examples: but this of Mr. Mortons' can be none of the latter three sorts (as himself, I suppose, will confess) Ergo, it must be the first, which is a Syllogism, and consequently it is a mere shift 
Ibid. pag. 24.  to say here, when he is taken tripping, that he called it not a Syllogism but a Reason:— For there are three distinct propositions, and the first is called the Mayor.   

The Reviewe.  
11. Although there be but four general and ordinary heads of arguing, yet ought you to have remembered that Logicians do acknowledge a kind of Reasoning, which they call a Prosyllogisme, having the premises consisting of superfluous terms, which notwithstanding may serve to make new Inferences, and is neither right Syllogism, Enthymeme, Induction, or Example, albeit all Scholars do hold it to be a tolerable manner of arguing, and yet admitteth a Mayor.  
12. As for my confused manner of reasoning, it should never have been called into question, if that I had either intended to make a perfect Syllogism, or thought to have met with so captious and srivolous an Adversary; who talketh of often Blushing, whereof himself may have a necessary use in his next Answer following, which he maketh in defence of his own Syllogism, wherein he thought to express his best skill. I will be but brief in the examination of his Trifles.  
13. Master Parsons undertook to make up a 
b Mitig. pa. 475.  True form of a Syllogism, and a good form of reasoning, according to the rules of Logic: yet after his great travel he brought forth such a misshapen creature, as he is ashamed of, as we shall prove. But first how will he answer to his absurdities? The sum followeth.   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
IT is sufficient that they (namely the words, Competency of God) be 
Reckon. pag. 28.  necessarily and virtually included and understood by the Hearer. And for the words, Expressly or implicatively, they were necessarily understood in the Mayor proposition.   

The Review.  
14. You dare not (Mr. Parsons) answer your own Sophisters thus, for they would readily reply, saying, Sir, you undertook to make a Syllogism according to the rules of Logic: 〈◊〉 Aristotle, that Oracle of Reasoning, and all Logicians 
Mr. Parsons his pitiful poverty in Logic.  define Syllogizing to be a form of arguing, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. which 〈◊〉 of the parts, which are expressly set down. So that he that will say, that it is a perfect form of a Syllogism, wherein any thing belonging thereunto is but virtually understood, may as well prove that the picture of a man's face, which hath neither eyes nor nose, and say that it wanteth neither eyes nor nose, because any may suppose, that they should be on the face.  
15. But the most capital fault remaineth, which is the changing of the verb [Maketh] competent judges (which is the Mayor proposition) into [Are] competent judges, in the conclusion. I expected that Mr. Parson's should shape us some pecce of an answer to this. Observe (good Reader) what he saith, and thereby thou mayst discern, what a cunning Reckoner I am matched withal.   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning for another error.  
LAstly then, his third and final quarrel against this reformed Syllogism, 
Reckon. pag. 29.  is proposed by him thus: Thirdly (saith he) there should be but one Minus Extremum, which is, [Swear by God;] to which he hath adjoined another, to wit, [expressly or implicatively, etc.]   

The Review.  
16. Lastly and thirdly, M. Parsons? then you will persuade your Reader that this (concerning the words, Expressly, etc.) was the Last quarrel, as you call it, against your Syllogism. This is as egregious a fraud, as he could easily have committed, for in the Preamble, after that I had noted his Three errors, I added a fourth expressly thus: 
c Preamb. p. 10. Mr. Parsons his notorious untruth which any English Reader may perceive.  The fourth (said I) is in the verb & copula [Maketh] which is altered in the Conclusion into [Are;] then the which there cannot be a greater absurdity in Syllogisms. This was (we see) the deepest charge and the most ugly deformity in his Syllogism, which I expressed to the full, and made it palpable by the like example of changing the verb [Maketh] into [Are] thus: 
d Preamb. ibid.  Every man, in framing his own will and Testament [maketh] his own Executor: but P. R. frameth his last will and Testament, Ergo P. R. [is] his own executor. And now Mr. Parsons doth nimbly skip over the fourth and principal part of my challenge. I will not upon this advantage prosecute him with his own terms of Witting fraud, cozenage and gross lying: I am glad to perceive in this his dissembling, that he hath so much grace as to be ashamed of his ignorance. I took upon me to reform Mr. Parsons his Syllogism by one more perfect, which he would gladly reprove. The sum of his answer followeth.   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
IF his own new Rule may take place, that every distinct clause must 
Reckon. pag. 31.  be held for a distinct Terminus, it will not only have two, but four or five termini at least, and so will the Reader find by looking only upon it. And I would prosecute the matter more at large, but I see we have spent too much time about these trifles.   

The Review.  
17. Is this all the Reckoning which you can make, to call a matter in question, & to put us off only with Ifs and Ands, 
M. Parson's free disposition to carp at that he cannot correct  viz. If you would prosecute it at large, etc. Heretofore, wheresoever you thought there was a cause of some reprehension of a Syllogism, you could take the pains to read a Lecture, instructing your Reader in the knowledge of the parts and terms of a Syllogism, setting before him a scurril example fraught with ridiculous scofferie: yet now, after you have been more than ordinarily provoked, to prove your Syllogism legitimate, or else to admit of mine for your better instruction, you reserve the disquistion hereofunto your Reader. I say no more but that you are wise.  
18. And so it might have become you to have been, in not reprehending my Reprehension of your subdivision, which stood 
e Prcam. pa. 11  thus: allying Equivocation, is that which is known to be such unto the speaker, and this is to be subdivided, for it is Either a material lie, which is when the thing spoken is a lie in itself, but not so understood of the speaker. Or, A formal lie, when the speaker doth know it to be falls Here M. Parsons exacteth that I should have said 
f Reckon. p. 37.  A material lying Equivocation, A formal lying Equivocation; and the omission hereof he termeth craft: but he will find out his own folly (I doubt not) after that he hath more soberly considered, that these words, allying Equivocation, being 
His irregular taxation.  subdivided into these members, Material, Formal; the 
g Reckon. p. 35. To equivocate falsely and formally is the worst kind of lying Equivocation. Here lying Equivocation, is the Genus of his Formal, and Mental.  Genus, viz. [A lying Equivocation,] doth necessarily infer the members, and betoken the Material lying Equivocation, as for Example: Every man is either Sober, or Distempered. Will any say that it is a crafty Division, because it was not expressed thus, Every man is either aSober man, or a Distempered man? I pray you (good Master Parsons) give me not such Reckonings, which, when they come to be scanned, must make me be indebted unto you for correcting of your ignorance, even in Trivial points and in plain Dunstable highway.   

The four next charges.  
19 The four next points, wherein M. 
h Reckon. pa. 41. etc.  Parsons hath been charged with falsehood, as first concerning the allegation of the text of Esay; secondly the testimony of Carerius, about Verè and Verò; thirdly, the testimony of Dolman, alias Parsons, about the admitting of a King; fourthly, the testimony of Otto Frisingensis, about Pope Gregory the seventh, alias Hildebrand, are by him repeated afterwards in their more proper places, whether we also 
* See hereafter, cap. 10.  refer them, that we may avoid superfluous repetitions, and find and examine all matters at their own proper homes.     

CHAP. III. About the Question of Rebellion; especially concerning the Title of M. Parson's book of Mitigation.  

SECT. I.  

The Preface of M. PARSONS.  
HE bringeth in a scornful fixion, in stead of sound arguments, 
Reckon. c. 2. p. 76  by feigning a ridiculous conference or Colloquy in a Stage-play between the Mitigator and Moderator: wherein he himself may seem to play the Vice, etc.   

The Reuìew.  
1. In that Colloquy was set down not my fixion, but, that I may so speak, the faction of M. Parsons and his fellow: for both M. Parsons did 
a pream. p. 30.  commend the Moderate Answerer for his learned Answer; and the same Moderate Answerer did condemn all others, as insufficient, who being without the Kingdom of Great Britain, should (as M. Parsons doth) attempt to write of these our English cases: by implication, censuring M. Parsons to be no better than the Daws in the old Comedy, that is, a busy and troublesome body. Such an one as their own Priest hath expressed M. Parsons to be, calling him a 
b Quodlib. p. 21 & 120.  Great Polypragmon: So that he shall not need to seek abroad for a Vice. Well it were if he played that part in jest, and not in earnest, that so he might prove only ridiculous, and not obnoxious also, as we shall presently demonstrate.   

The third Inquirie.  
2. Whether Mr. Parsons did not betray his cause, even by the title of his Mitigation? saying, 
c Pream. p. 34.  It is not possible for his Romish Clients to live in obedience and subjection under his Majesty of Great Britain. This I judged to be a Title marvelously prejudicial unto them, in whose behalf he published his Mitigation. Let us see how soberly M. Parsons will discharge himself.   

Master PARSONS his Reckoning.  
THis Inference is a mere cavilling of a seditious spirit, for that 
Recko. pag. 79.  my writing answereth directly unto the purport of his seditious Book, saying, that it was impossible for Catholic subjects to live quietly in his majesties Kingdom: My answer being then contradictory to Mr. Mortons' assertion, containing so much as was needful to have been said unto his negative; he saying that it was impossible, and I answering that it was not impossible.   

A Reveiwe.  
3. Soberly & quietly, good M. Parsons, & so shall you better remember that which I told you 
d Pream. pa. 35.  before in the preamble, and which you have forgotten: to wit, that howsoever this answer (if it were true) might confront your Adversary T. M. against whom you writ (who said that It is impossible forthem, whom you have inspired, to perform due subjection) yet could it not satisfy the States of our land, to whom you writ, 
Mr. Parsens in Straits.  who seek in a dutiful Allegiance, not a constrained, but a voluntary; nor a suspicious, but a religious possibility of subjection, which always (according to the Oath of Allegiance) inferreth an impossibility of being rebellious: nor can they be contented with your may, but with a must be subject, as than I told you out of the Apostles doctrine, commanding 
* Rom. 13.  Every soul to submit itself unto the powers that be: explained by Saint Augustine: The Apostle saying (saith he) that [It is necessary that we be subject,] lest that any might not perform this in love, but as of constraint, he addeth Not for fear of wrath, but for conscience sake,] that is, not dissemblingly, but dutifully in good conscience, in love of him (that is God) who commandeth subjection: as in another place he commandeth servants to obey their injurious Masters, but not with eyeservice, as only pleasing men, but as pleasing God. If this kind of subjection was challenged of Christians under Paganish Kings and heathenish Masters, how could you but give cause of jealousy unto our kingdom by that your Title, which will promise no more but that [It is not impossible to live in subjection?] In the end, for want of better demonstration of your good intention in that Title, you run to a similitude.   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
ALthough this [It is not Impossible] do contain but in generality, 
Reck. pag. 79. 80.  yet doth it suppose all necessary conditions, that are to be required for performance: As for example, If a Noble woman should resolve to depart from her husband; saying, it is impossible for me and you to live together, the difference of our natures and conditions being considered, and that her husband should answer again, It is not impossible: doth he not answer sufficiently and to the purpose? For he understandeth the other circumstances included, If you bear yourself like a wife, have respect to both our honours, and the like.   

The Reuciwe, manifesting the absurdity of Master PARSONS his Similitude.  
4. Whereas the question is, how a subject should manifest the truth of his loyalty unto his King, Mr. Parsons giveth us a Similitude, how an Husband, who is the Lord, shall make faith of his behaviour unto his wife, who is the subject. This is an absurd elusion rather than an illustration, changing the case, by altering the Sex: For an husband hath a liberty to make his equal conditions, and the term of possibility may become him: but it is otherwise with a wife, who standeth in the obligation of subjection to her husband.  
5. I propounded unto Mr. Parsons a contrary similitude, to wit, 
c Preamb. p. 35.  If a wife, to mitigate her husband's jealousy, occasioned by her loose behaviour, should seek to satisfy him by saying, be contented good husband, it is not impossible for me to become an honest woman hereafter: whether her husband would take this for a just Mitigation. This any one may know to be an agreeable and proportionable Similitude, which Mr. Parsons hath not answered unto; but concealed, that he might more liberally (which by his leave, is a piece of fine craft) call my assertion vain and impertinent: as followeth.   

Mr. PARSONOS Reckoning.  
Vain therefore is the cavillation of Mr. Morton, saying, that there 
Reckon. ibid.  is nothing else proved but a possioilitie.   

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

SECT. II.  
The first Argument of the Impossibility of due subjection.  

The charge against Mr. PARSON'S  
7. HE said that 
f Mitiga. p. 24. n. 22. and Preamb. pag. 37.  Christ together with the commission in spiritual affairs, gave unto Peter's successors a charge and oversight of temporalities in like manner, with authority to proceed against temporal Governors, for defence and preservation of his spiritual charge; whether directly, as commonly Canonists teach, or indirectly, as Divines hold, there is no difference, but in the manner of speech: for in the thing itself, both parties do agree. here is an advancing of a power in temporal affairs over a King, which I thought could no more possibly consist with the Civil Oath of Allegiance in our land, whereby all foreign jurisdiction in such cases is excluded, then can temporal Supremacy, and no Supremacy.   

Mr. PARSON'S Reckoning, for his discharge.  
WHereto I answer, that in belief and Doctrine they cannot 
Reckon. pag. 81.  be reconciled, but in civil life and conversation and practice of due temporal obedience, they may be no less (for any thing touching this point) then if they were all of one Religion, if such makebatess as these would cease to set Sedition.   

The Reveiwe.  
8. I have written nothing for moving, but for removing of Sedition, which the Title of your Mitigation did but only palliate and cloak, as now in your answer you further bewray. They may agree, (say you) although not in Doctrine, yet in conversation. If I shall reply and say, that you will not agree with us in the Doctrine concerning Civil Conversation, Ergo, you will not agree with us in Civil Conversation: can you possibly shape me any sensible answer? For seeing it is your doctrine to excommunicate and root out all Protestants as Heretics, whensoever there is an opportunity to proceed against them by arms or otherwise: Shall any look for Grapes of Thorns, or Figs of Thistles? Can any expect a Civil practice from such uncivil and brutish positions and doctrines?    

SECT. III.  

The second Reason of Impossibility and charge against Master Parsons.  
9 IT was demanded, how far it pleased Mr. Parsons to extend the Papal power in temporal affairs, against such as do contradict his spiritual jurisdiction? He 
g 〈◊〉 p. 83. out of Mitig. pag. 77.  told us that Two Protestant Prmces were excommunicated consured, and molested by the Sea Apostolic, Q. Elizabeth of England, and K. Henry then of Navarre, now of France: the first of these two for the violent change of Religion which she made in the Realm, with deprivations and imprisouments of Catholic Bishops, Prelates, and Clergy, etc. The other, for fear he, coming to the Crown of France in that disposition, wherein he then was presumed to be, should attempt the like change in that great kingdom, etc. These examples (said I) are both plain and pregnant. A Protestant Queen must be deprived for resisting the spiritual jurisdiction of the Pope, and a Protestant King must be also deposed, lest peradventure he may make any resistance. Now, we see, that the same Papal authority is by the laws of Great Britain as expressly excluded; their Religion suppressed, their Clergy exiled, and Protestants Religion (according to former proceedings) continued. All which doth argue as great an Impossibility of dutiful Subjection, as it is for Hindrance and Sufferance; Change, and Continuance of the same Religion, to be matched and married together. Thus then, and now I am ready to take his Reckoning.   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
His two next reasons of Impossibility are so obscurely and intricately set 
Reckon. pag. 82.  set down, as if he understand them himself, it is much, in my opinion: for as for me, I see not, I confess, what inference can be made out of them, though I have purused them over with much attention, more than twice; and the same, I suppose, the common Reader will say, when he hath in like manner considered of them: for they concern only the Excommunication of Q. Elizabeth, and of king Henry the fourth of France, which censure was promulgated by two several Popes of this our age, and consequently the doctrine is dangerous (saith he.) But I have showed now, that more than three times so many Protestant Princes were tolerated by other Popes. How then do these examples infer so general a necessity of disobedience in all Catholic subjects: yea and an impossibility of the contrary, that they can be obedient.   

The Reviewe.  
10. When he hath the matter so fully and plainly laid before his eyes, and is challenged to make an answer, he telleth us that he cannot see. Is this a Sober, and not rather a sorry Reckoning? Notwithstanding it was (I must needs say) 
M. Parsons wisely fainetls himself ignorant.  a point of wisdom in him, neither to see this himself, nor to let it be seen of others, according to that of the Comedian, Non sapis, si sapis; that is, A wise man must sometime not see that which he seeth. In which Art, our Adversaries are not altogether unexperienced, for their own Marsilius noteth this to have been practised by Cardinal Bellarmine, Who, according to his fashion (saith 
h Marsil. Defence. cap 8. §. errat. 7. pag. 380. Dissembledignorance.  Marsilius) feigneth himself to be ignorant of the force of an argument, which he cannot answer. Wherein they play with men, as the Philosopher, of whom we read, when hearing of a riddle, which he could not unfold, and being urged by one that said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is, Lose this Difficulty, lose it; Answered saying, Soft a while, Sir, for were it not great madness in me, if I should seek to lose that, which whilst it is bound doth so greatly vex and torment me?  
11. Thus it fareth with Mr. Parsons: for the reason of this Impossibility was taken not only from the Excommunication of Princes: but from the 
i Preamb. p. 38.  Deposing of them, and so the Reader might have easily discerned, if Mr. Parsons, to enure his pen to deceitfulness, had not craftily concealed that point. This deposing of Kings from their Kingdoms inferred, as I then said, as much an Impossibility as King, and no King. And this consequence divers Romish Doctors 
* Seehereafter.  will readily confess to be most true.  
12. When furthermore we demand of Mr. Parsons (seeing they teach an eradication of Princes, who will stand excommunicate) how it cometh to pass thatsome Protestant Princes have not been molested? He, by way of preoccupation, telleth us that 
Mr. Parsons alloweth of safety of Potestant Kings only by a Toleration.  such Protestant Princes were tolerated-by other Popes. Are not now all Protestant Princes much beholden to Mr. Parsons who alloweth thentheir Crowns only upon the Pope's Toleration? He thought that I was somewhat Obscure in my former reason, but I suppose that his Clients will judge that he hath been too plain in this answer, in saying, that Protestant Princes have been but tolerated by other Popes: to wit, only so long (as others have professed) until they have power to resist: who seeth not this answer to be intolerably treaherous, allowing no better Toleration of such Kings, than kings oftentimes do in tolerating of Rebels, which is Tolerare dones possint tollere. So that, in very deed, the answer which Mr. Parsons offereth, for confutation of the objected Impossibility of due subjection, doth more strongly confirm it.    

SECT. FOUR  

The third Argument of Impossibility. The charge against Mr. PARSONS.  
13. THis was 
k Preamb. p. 38.  taken from the practical Bull of Pius Quintus, in Anathematizing our late Queen, in depriving her of all Regal dignity, in absolving her subjects from their Allegiance; and from Mr. Parson's too tender a touch of that desperate Powder-treason, calling it a Temerarious fact, etc. For both which he is to Reckon.   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
I See not what inference can be made. 
Reckon. pag. 82.    

The Reueiw.  
14. If Mr. Parsons see not, that by dissolving of the Oath of Allegiance, there is excluded all possibility of due subjection, 
Dissembled ignorance.  the fault is to be imputed rather to his will, then to his wit. The Proverb is, that Bleared eyes will not see the sun: And who seeth not that this concealment is guileful? which kind of answering may be called Quiet indeed, but no Reckoning at all.   

The fourth reason of Impossibility: and charge against Master PARSONS.  
15. Whereas, by their Doctrine, it is in the Pope's pleasure, to award his censure of Eradication of Protestant Kings, and of their faithful subjects: it seemed to me to imply an Impossibility of their dutiful subjection. He answered that 
l Mitig. p. 95. 〈◊〉 8  There is nothing in this but a May, which being de futuris contingentibus, all remaineth in uncertainty: which answer I judged to be prodigious.   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
IDoe not deny, nor ever did, that due providence and provision 
Reckon. pag. 85.  ought to be held of future contingents, but my saying is, that it must have due limits, lest it become hurtful, to wit, vain and vexing jealousy.   

The Reveiwe.  
16. It is no rare thing in Mr. Parsons to say and gainsay, according as he findeth the season to fit. Before he made no more of the dangers, which may ensue upon the Pope's malice against Protestants, but as a man would do of his dream, which he never considereth, before it be past. For now that May shall be something: but when they speak of subjection to Protestant Kings, his May is but a meteor, as we shall see.   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
I Say moreover that every May, is not a Must. 
Reckon. pag. 85.    

The Reveiwe.  
17. I believe you, for this your position [Romanists may possibly be obedient subjects,] doth not by your doctrine infer necessarily that they must be obedient, as by ordinary experience hath been too truly seen: but yet your may for the eradicating and rooting out of your opposites doth, by your doctrine, necessarily infer a must, as often as you may find power to perform it, as hath been proved from the 
m Preamb. p. 41.  doctrine of your Card. Bellarmine, saying, that such Protestant Kings must not be suffered to reign: From your Doctor Sanders, saying, They must be rooted out: From your Doctor Bouchier, saying that This must be done by all means possible: and from the Bull of Pope Vrban, practising the same, and saying, Not only Lutheran Kings, but also all their favourers must be destroyed.  
18. All these were in that Reason expressly urged, the Authors cited, and now M. Parsons hath fraudulently concealed, 
Mr. Parsons most strange fraud.  as though this his Answer (viz. May be, doth not infer a Must) had not been so much as thought on before. Here, if ever, it concerned M. Parsons to satisfy; but he dealeth like a close, subtle Merchant, who is loath to acknowledge his debt which he cannot possibly discharge: Is this good Reckoning? Is it not an argument both of a desperate cause, and of a guilty conscience? Notwithstanding, in the end, as though he had cleared the whole Reckoning, and that nothing could be objected against him, he addeth two other pleasant, but yet prodigious conceits.   

The sum of Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
Truly in this point I see not, what probabilities may be in reason, 
Reckon. p. 87.  to persuade his Majesty that his Catholic subjects would not live quietly and confidently under him, if they might be used as Subjects, and have that Princely and Fatherly protection from him, which both laws do allow to freeborn subjects, and they may hope and expect from his benignity, where no personal or actual delict shall have made them unworthy thereof.   

The Review.  
19 If your Catholics (M. Parsons) may be used as Subjects? Let me entreat you for some few minutes of time, to take upon you the face of an ingenuous man, and tell us whether you think them to be used as Subjects, or no? It is likely you are of the same mind you were, when you said that 
n The letter of a Catholic touching the Oath of Allegiance. p. 42.  His majesties mild and sweet respect towards Catholics at his first entrance, was soon by art of their enemies averted, long before the Conspiracy fell out, for that not only all the most cruel Statutes and penal laws made by Q. Elizabeth were renewed and confirmed before this, with addition of others, tending to no less rigour and acerbity, but also the exaction of the same was put in practice with great severity: Nor were men's goods and persons only afflicted, but the lives also of sundry taken away for cause of Religion, before this Powder-Treason fell out. 
o Pag. 43.  But to proceed a little further in the narration of some points of heavy persecution, which ensued soon after his majesties being in England, much before the Powder-treason was attempted. So you go on, reckoning us your Pressures, which you call 
p P. 43. 44 46.  Violence intolerable; New angariation; yea an huge Sea of Molestations and Exagitations. One word more. What, I pray you, do you think of the Powder-men, who lived at liberty in great riot? 
q Mitig. pag. 50  They were half a score young Gentlemen, put in despair by apprehension of public persecution, without demerit of the persecuted. Well then, it is plain that yovacknowledg no Probability of quiet Subjection in your Catholics, to wards his Majesty, further than that they are used 
M. Parsons betrayeth himself in the point of Allegiance.  as Subjects: but (say you) they are vexed with intolerable violence, new angariations, and persecutions, without their demerit. You need say no more, your Reader will easily understand your conclusion, which giveth us a farewell unto all voluntary subjection. Thus we have unmasked M. Parsons, that we might see his bare face.  
20. I willingly omit, as frivolous, his next descant upon a 
r Rec kon. pa. 87  Red-rose. and a White: for albeit there is Now no difference of Titles between the Red-rose, and the White; yet is there odds between loyal subjection, and treasonable Positions and practices, which end in blood as red as any Rose.    

SICT. V.  

An Addition unto the former Impossibilities.  
21. Unto the former Argument I 
r pream p. 42.  added, as an assistant, your professed Covert of Mental Reservation, used by you in your examinations for a cloak of much perfidiousness, which worketh an Impossibility of discovery, and consequently addeth unto the former Impossibilities.   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning, concerning the privilege of Priests and their exemptions.  
THat we may equivocate before incompetent judges, and that 
Reckon. pag. 89.  the Lay-Iudges in England are incompetent to examine Priests, may be as well used for an argument to prove, that Lay-men and Priests cannot live together in Spain and Italy, and other Catholic countries, for that there also Lay-men are incompetent judges in clergymen's causes, and so are Clergymen themselves, if they have no lawful jurisdiction, or proceed not lawfully.   

The Review.  
22 Thus you answer only for justification of your Priests, we see by this the notable prerogative of a Romish Priest, to wit, whensoever he cometh to be examined before a Lay-Magistrate, 
AEquiuocating a Priestly prerogative.  he is privileged to Equivocate, because Lay-Magistrates (according to M. Parson's doctrine) are unto them judges incompetent.  
23. But by what law, M. Parsons, can you plead such an exemption? by Diume law? some of your side have so taught, but your more sober Authors dare confute them, as we read in their Marsilius, to wit, 
s joh. Marsil. Defence. advers. Bellar. c. 3. p. 199 & 200. etc. Exemption of Priests, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  The Exemption of Ecclesiastical persons in temporal and criminal matters, Medina rest. q. 15. a most sound and Catholic Author saith, is not prescribed in any place of Scripture, and concludeth that it is not by Divine law; Covarruvias lib. pract. ca 31. conclus. 2. is of the same opinion who is also a solid, and Catholic Author: Victoria also, and Sotus consent thereunto; and so did formerly (meaning Bellarmine) the L. Cardinal himself. So he. It must therefore follow, that all such Exemption proceeded from human indulgence; and may upon human necessity be altered again: neither is that prerogative universal: therefore it may be that M. Parsons, when he named Spain and Italy, saw some cause to pretermit France.  
24. Howsoever their case may be in other Countries, yet the odds between them and ours is far different, because the Romanist do acknowledge a power spiritual in their Bishops, and account them to be competent judges, both to examine, and also (upon just cause) to deliver their Clerks into the hands of secular Magistrates, and so unto execution, according to the nature of their demerit: but in England they hold both lay and spiritual Governors to be in like cases altogether incompetent; and therefore the Argument of Impossibility is more in England then it can be either in Spain or Italy: yet this was the best shift that Mast. Parson's could make, to confound two cases of England and Spain. which are no less different than England and Spain.     

CHAP. FOUR  
A brief Discourse, concerning Mental Equivocation; proving that M. PARSONS, by one Grant, hath overthrown his defence of Mental Reservation.  

SECT. I.  
1. MAster Parsons, for the justifying of Mental Equivocation, hath borrowed, as he calleth it, a Reason from the example of the 
a Mitigation cap. 9 p. 403.  Faxe, which creature, when he is in danger of hunters, is taught by the instinct of nature to wind and turn, to trip it backward, and forward, and all to deceive the Hunters, and to secure himself: So (saith he) may man use the art of Mental Reservation in some cases.  
2. This being M. Parsons his own example, he may not be offended with me, if I entitle the discussing of this point, The hunting of the Fox, especially knowing that their own Priest hath made bold to write thus against him: 
b Quodlib. p. 288  If you can procure Charles Pagets' book (saith he) against Father Parsons, you shall find the Fox so uncased, and left so naked of all honesty, wisdom, and judgement in these points, etc. But first we will prepare ourselves to the sport.  

Mr. PARSONS, his Reckoning.  
SEe what ostentation and vaunt he used at his first entrance, as 
Reckon. c. 2. §. 11. pag. 91.  though he would do great matters indeed; for thus he beginneth: That P. R. hath flatly overthrown his defence of Mental Equivocation; which is made so evident, as that no wit of man can possibly excuse him. This, you see, is confidently spoken of himself, and his wit: but his Reader will find as great want of wit and discretion in this brag, and in the Medium here chosen to overthrow my whole Treause, as ever perhaps he found in any man, professing wit and learning.   

The Review.  
3. I have seen your Reckoning Master Parsons, wherein with the sweat of your brains, you have forced your wit to defend a desperate cause with no small confidence. In the which cause, there is more need of Grace then of Wit, but I am willing to join issue with you, and to stand unto the trial of any indifferent Reader. Let us begin at a beginning.   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
HE beginneth his Confutation thus: How now would my Reader 
Reckon. p. 92.  hear this noble Equivocator confuted? By Fathers? or by his own Doctors? or by sensible Reasons? This will be no hard matter to perform, as I hope (God willing) to avouch in due time. So he. And this, you see, is no otherwise then if a bare and broken Debtor, having been long called upon to pay his debts, should step forth at length in a vaunt before a multitude, saying to his Creditor, Come Sir, What sort of gold will you be paid in? Will you have it in Spanish Pistolets? Portugal Cruzadoes? French Crowns? Zechnies of Venice? Dallers of Germany? or English Angels? And his Creditor shall answer him, Sir, any kind of coin would content me, although it were but half-faced groats, or single-pences, so I might have it. And that then the other should reply, as M. Morton doth here, Well I hope, God willing, to pay you in time, & so leave him, with less probability of payment then ever before. And were this now substantial dealing for satisfaction of his creditors? And doth not Mr. Morton the very like, that ask here the Reader whether he would have Fathers, Doctors, or Reasons for proof against me, produceth never a one, but saith, that he hopeth to do it in time?   

The Reveiwe.  
4. Take heed, M. Parsons, your Reader will suspect that you will turn a Trapezita and Bancker, for you are so skilful in coin, as though you had served some apprentishippe in the trade: but I fear rather that you will turn a coiner, yet not of money, but of fantastical conceits, for which cause you have been noted by your own fellows for 
d Quodli. p. 236.  The abstract quintessence of all coins and coggeries, one point whereof you have bewrayed even in this your ridiculous figment: For after my demand, 
e Pream. p. 43.  How my Reader would have the Equivocator confuted? Whether by Doctors, or Fathers, or Reasons? I added, that for the present I thought it a more glorious Victory to confute him, (that is, M. Parsons) by his own Assertion. Wherein I dealt with M. Parsons, not as with a 
M. Parsons was justly dealt withal.  Creditor (for alas what credit is there in an Aequivocator?) but as a man would do with a cozener, whom although I might have convinced by witnesses and sound Arguments, yet I thought it sufficient for the present (especially in a Preamble) to confute him, as Christ did the 
* Luc. 19 22.  servus nequam, by the words of his own mouth.  
5. Notwithstanding M. Parsons (a sober Reckoner forsooth) hath called this kind of dealing an 
f Reckon p. 93.  Art of Mountebanks. But, I hope, he will have cause to say I deal not unhonestly with him, when I pay him with his own coin, that is, whilst I confute him with his own Answers, albeit they are sometimes (I confess) more bare than halfe-faced groats.    

SECT. II.  

The state of the Question.  
6. 
g Pream. p. 43.  COncerning the answer of Saphyra in the 
* Act. 5.  Acts of the Apostles, who being demanded by Saint Peter, whether she Sold the land for so much, answered, yea for so much, reserving in her mind (as it was supposed) To give in common, or, To tell it unto you. M. Parsons upon supposal of this her Reservation, answered notwithstanding, that she lied, and that No clause of Reservation could free her speech from a lie. I was right glad to hear our Aequivocator confess thus much, and hereupon have adventured to call his doctrine of Mental Equivocation the Art of lying: And so (I hope) I shall prove it to be, before that we have ended this piece of our Reckoning.   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
BBut first how doth he prove, that she had this meaning of Reservation 
Recko. pag. 97.  in her mind? it is but Mr. Mortons' imagination to ascribe it unto her, for it may more probably be thought, that she had never any such cogitation, to make her speech lawful by Reservation, but absolutely to lie, which is most conform to the text itself of holy Scripture, etc.   

The Review.  
7. This first objection M. Parsons himself knoweth to be an idle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for as much as we were both of us contented to suppose, that this woman did use a Mental Reservation, and also to grant, that (notwithstanding this her Reservation) her speech was a Lie.  
8. The reason why I thought she used a Mental Reservation 
Every one that lieth hath in his mind some crochitive 〈◊〉  in this clause [With purpose to tell it unto you, or such like] is this: because every one, in suppressing a truth, doth thereby purpose not to tell it unto him, whom he would deceive, and therefore cannot choose but retain that clause of Reservation, [To tell it unto you, etc.]  
9 Howsoever, Mast. Parson's could not but understand, that a true argument may be grounded upon a bare supposition, as when the Apostle said, 
* Gal. 1. 8.  If an Angel from heaven shall preach otherwise, then that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed: It would not have become any to repile upon the Apostle, saying, How do you imagine that an Angel from heaven can preach false doctrine? because the foundation of his exhortation was not an Assertion, that an Angel from heaven could preach otherwise, but a supposition, that If, or, Although an Angel from heaven should so do: Wherefore we agreeing in the supposal, to wit, that she used a Mental Reservation, let us see whether our next Reckonings will agree.   

Master PARSONS his Reckoning.  
BUT not to cut him off so short, and put him to a nonplus on the 
Reckon. p. 97. 98  sudden, I am content to do him this pleasure, as to suppose with him that the poor woman might have some such reservation in her mind, as M. Morton imagineth, to wit, that as the Priest saith truly, I am no Priest (with obligation to tell it unto you:) so she might mean, that I have sold it for no more (to acquaint you withal) and then I say, albeit we should admit this supposal, it is denied by us flatly, that these two examples were alike, as now I have declared.   

The Review.  
10. I thank you that you are pleased, not to recall what you have already granted: I hope that you will be furthermore so good, as to declare more plainly, why, albeit the Priest and the Woman used the same kind of Reservation, yet the one may be thought to have spoken a Truth, and the other a Lie?   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
THere was obligation in Saphyra to answer the truth, and in the 
Reck. pag. 98.  Hearer lawful authority to demand it, for that he was lawful judge: but neither of these two things is in the Priest, that is unlawfully examined by the incompetent judge. For that as the said judge is no judge, and consequently hath no authority to demand matters prejudicial to the party examined: so hath the other no obligation to answer directly to his intention or interrogatory. And what hath now Mr. Morton to reply to these so evident and important differences, that make the one answer lawful, the other a lie.   

The Reveiwe.  
11. Then belike I have not understood you all this while.   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
surely it is a pitiful thing to see how he is puzeled in this matter. 
Reckon. quo sup. pag. 98. 99  First he beginneth with the person of the woman, that is, the speaker, that did unlawfully Equivocate unto Saint Peter comparing her to the person of the Priest, that lawfully saith unto an incompetent judge, I am no Priest, and findeth no greater difference between theme: but first, that she is a woman, and he is a man; and than that it is as possible for a Priest to lie, as for a woman to tell truth. But he dissembleth the main difference now mentioned that she had obligation to tell the truth without Equivocation, and he not, which is the substantial difference indeed. Here then is no plain dealing to falter so manifestly in the most principal point that most imported.   

The Reveiwe.  
12. here is no plain dealing indeed, and that will my Reader presently understand: for Mr. Parsons doth charge me with Dissembling of the main difference, to wit, That she had obligation to tell the truth without Equivocation, and he not, this being the very principal point. And yet within the compass of a few leaves following, in this his Reckoning, he contrarily confesseth, videlicet. 
h Reckon p 106. Mr. Parson's falsehood.  He himself (to wit T. M.) doth often here repeat, that I do hold the answer of the Priest to be true, and hers to be false; for that his was made to an incompetent judge, and hers to a competent, so as she was bound to answer directly unto Saint Peter's meaning. here Mr. Parsons confesseth that I repeated and acknowledged this 〈◊〉 difference concerning the Bond, wherewith the woman was tied, and the Priest was not: nay I did further tell him, that whether the judge be competent, or not competent, it altereth not the property of a lie, because that truth, which (in his opinion) is supplied by Mental Reservation, is not suspended upon the understanding of the hearer whatsoever he be (who may conceive or misconceive of the speech) but upon the agreement which the outward speech hath with the mind of the speaker. What answer will he make unto this?   

Mr. PARSON'S Reckoning.  
WHat is this to the purpose? I grant that the truth of my answer, 
Reckon. pa. 100  made unto a judge, dependeth not upon the understanding, conceit, or capacity of the said judge, but upon the meaning of the speaker, which meaning notwithstanding is to be measured by the competency or incompetency of the judge. For if the judge be competent, then is the aunswerer bound to answer to his intention, and to have that meaning in his answer, which the judge hath in his demand: but if he be not competent, than all this obligation ceaseth, and the speaker is free to have what meaning he list in his answer (so that in his own sense it be true.) And this for the reason now touched.   

The Reveiwe.  
13. I know you are not sparing in repetitions, be so courteous as to tell us one thing more, that we may know whether you understand yourself, or no, and then we shall proceed.   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
ALbeit the simple difference of persons themselves, to whom we 
Reckon. pag. 102. & pag. 35.  speak, altereth not the truth or faisitie of our speech: yet some respect or relation in those persons (but especially of being a lawful, or unlawful judge) may and doth alter the same wholly, making the one speech truth, and the other falsity. And thus much for answering the force of Mr. Mortons' second argument.    

SECT. III.  

The Reueiw, confuting the former Paradox, and last refuge, which Mr. Parsons hath, viz. The bond which a man hath to tell a truth to one doth alter that, which is otherwise a truth, into a lie.  
14. THat which you lay down as the sole foundation, to condemn the Woman, & free the Priest from lying, is only the obligation or bond of duty, which she had to speak directly unto her lawful judge, whereas chose he was not bound to deliver a direct answer unto a judge incompetent. So that the Thesis, which you give us, is this, viz: The same speech made unto one, unto whom I am not bound to speak directly, is true, by virtue of mental reservation; which speech being delivered unto an other, unto whom I am bound to answer directly, is a lie, by reason, forsooth, of the obligation, which I have not to deceive him: which doctrine I think to be a new and naughty Paradox void of all ground of truth, or light of antiquity. Now therefore let us follow our Game.   

The first Reason, for the confutation of Mr. Parsons, is taken from the use of Verbal Equivocation.  
15. If such be the virtue of a Bond of duty unto a competent judge, that it can make that outward speech to be a Lie, which (by reason of Mental Equivocation) was a truth, as it was spoken unto a judge incompetent, unto whom I was not bound to make a direct answer: then must there be the like virtue of the same Bond in Verbal Equivocation, to alter the property of the same true speech into a lie, which is impossible.  
16. As for example. In this outward speech [I took away the Pope's Bull,] the word Bull is equivocal, that is, of a double signification, equally betokening the Pope's written Bull, which is his public instrument, under his seal of lead; or his natural Bull, which is an horned beast, feeding in his pastures about Ravenna. It chanceth that the Pope's written Bull, which was publicly fastened upon a pillar, for all the people of Ravenna to take notice of; was by some body rend and taken away: much questioning there is, who this party might be; Sempronius is guilty to himself of this trespass: he is inquired after, concerning the Bull, by a servant of his own house, to whom he is not bound to make a direct answer, saying: Sir, did not you take away the Pope's Bull? meaning the written one. I took not (quoth he) the Pope's Bull, meaning, the fourfooted Bull. This later sense is true, and the speech (yea even in Mr. Parsons his judgement) is likewise true. Afterward the same Sempronius is demanded the same question by a competent Magistrate, unto whom he is bound to answer directly, and yet he maketh the same answer, I took not away the Pope's Bull; in the same sense, as before, understanding the horned Bull. And shall not this same sense have the same truth? Shall it now become a lie? Impossible.  
17. For albeit, that the Obligation and Bond of duty, wherewith a man is tied to answer unto the one directly, though not unto the other, have a force to alter the speech, which was lawful, being spoken unto the incompetent hearer (such as was his servant,) to be unlawful, sinful, and damnable, when it was spoken to a Magistrate, justly examining him, because the examinate is bound in conscience, not to delude the Magistrate, who is the Minister and Official of God in that business: yet this difference of Competent 
A necessary distinction of truth.  and Incompetent, doth not change a true speech into a lie. For there is a double kind of a true speech, the first is direct, the second indirect, as is plain in the former Verbal Equivocation of the Bull, which being understood of the natural Bul, is a truth, because that word Bull in that sense agreed with the understanding of the Speaker, but yet an indirect truth, because it acordeth not unto the intention of the hearer. So that, that which Mr. Parsons calleth the principal difference, consisting in being Bound, or not Bound, is nothing else but the singular fallacy of Mr. Parsons, by confounding of two truths, and by not distinguishing an indirect truth from a lie.  
18. To make this yet more familiar unto my Reader. A boy in the School, who shot at a Hart, which was in the Park of a neighbour Knight, is asked thereof by his schoolfellow, (unto whom he is not tied in any bond of duty, to yield a direct answer) and he answereth, I shot not at the Knight's heart, meaning, the heart which was in the Knight's body: which sense although it be not direct, yet even in the judgement of Mr. Parsons, it is true: the same boy is asked the same question of his Schoolmaster, (who hath charge over him to instruct and correct him, and with whom he is bound to use no collusion) and he answereth; I shot not at the Knight's heart, using the same indirect sense, 〈◊〉 before: Afterward the fact is discovered, the Boy is whipped, and that justly; but why? Not because he spoke less truly unto his Schoolmaster then unto his Schoolefellow, but because he spoke not more directly, when he was challenged thereunto by the bond of duty and obedience.    

SECT. FOUR  

Another Reason, taken from Master PARSONS his Confession concerning the Clause of Reservation.  
19 MAster Parsons is content to repeat my next Reason where I said, That 
* Recko. pa. 105. out of Preamb. pag. 47.  In mental Equivocation P. R. saith, that the Clause of Reservation mixed with the outward speech, maketh but one proposition, which is as true in the mind of the Speaker, as if it were wholly delivered in the outward speech. As for example: I am no Priest, mixed with this clause conceived in mind, To tell it you, is as true, in the judgement of P. R. as if it had been without Reservation fully expressed with the mouth, saying, I am no Priest, to tell it you. Now then, Say P. R. (for I mean to fetter you in your own shackleses) the woman when she said to S. Peter, I have sold it but for so much, if she had reserved in her mind this clause, To give it unto you, either had it been, by virtue of Reservation, a truth, or else (notwithstanding that Reservation) it had been a lie. If the clause of Reservation might have made it a truth, then hath not P. R. said truth in concluding, That no clause of Reservation could sauc it from a lie. If chose the trick of Reservation could not save it from a lie, then doth not the reserved clause, To tell it you, being mixed with the outward speech, I am no Priest, make up one true proposition, and consequently it must be concluded of the Priestly Equivocation, as is here by P. R. confessed of the woman's, viz. that no clause of Reservation can save her speech from a lie. For if she had said unto Saint Peter in plain words, I have sold it but for so much, to give it in common, or such like, this every one knoweth had been a true speech: yet the saying, I sold it for so much, with mental Reservation, reserving in her mind. to give it in common, Or, To tell it unto you, was, notwithstanding this Reservation. even by the judgement of P. R. a flat lie. Thus far Mr. Parsons in repeating my argument, which if he have answered sufficiently, then shall I conceive better of his evil cause.   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning for his own discharge.  
THis is his 〈◊〉 and greatest argument, whereof, as presently you 
Reckon. pa. 106.  shall hear, he vaunteth exceedingly, conquering me first in his margin, writing there, An 〈◊〉 conviction of P. R. and then again, A plain demonstration: To say nothing of the fetters and shackleses in the text itself. And I have thought good to lay forth his whole Discourse, as it lieth together in his book, that hereby you may see with what manner of substance he filleth up Paper, and what sort of shackleses he hath to fetter men withal, which are as strong as the nets of cobwebs: for that in this place his whole Discourse and argument is founded upon a manifest false ground and principle, to wit, upon the mere mistaking, or fond supposition, that the two answers of the Priest and the Woman, viz. I am no Priest, with obligation to tell it unto you, And, I sold it for no more, with obligation to give unto you, are of equal falsity, which we still deny, and he cannot prove: and yet himself doth often here repeat, that I do hold the answer of the Priest to be true, and hers to be false, for that his was made to an incompetent judge, and hers to a competent: so as she was bound to have answered directly unto Saint Peter's meaning. Which being so, what needed all this long obscure speech of Mr. Morton, which might have been spoken in four lines: for I grant that the answers of the Priest and the Woman, do make each of them in themselves, being mixed with your Reservation, a whole perfect proposition, as if they had been uttered without Reservation.   

The Reveiwe.  
20. You are exceeding tedious, M. Parsons, when will you come to the answer of the former argument, which was grounded upon your own Grants? The first was this: that The clause of Reservation, mixed with the outward words, doth make a whole perfect proposition or speech, which agreeing with the mind of the Speaker, is as true (said you) as if it were wholly uttered with the mouth. Now the woman's supposed Mental Equivocation had been a true speech, if it had been wholly uttered with the mouth, thus: [Sir, I sold it but for so much, to deliver in common, etc.] which, being concealed by a Mental Reservation, Mr. Parsons hath called a Lie. Whereupon I have inferred (and that necessarily) that the Mixture of the Clause of Reservation with an Outward speech, doth not of itself make the speech true, and consequently their doctrine of Equivocation, and Mental Reservation is not only a lying Doctrine, but also a Doctrine oflying. By this time we have him in such straits, that he must either deny his answer of Obligation, or else condemn his former position of Reservation: I doubt that Master Parsons will play us some trick or other of his foresaid Schoolmaster Raynard the Fox.   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
IT is evident that the woman's proposition, that shehad sold her land 
Reckon. pa. 107.  for no more, with Obligation to give it unto Saint Peter, or, to be spent in common (this being the true effect and substance of her Answer) was a lie, whether it had been uttered wholly together in plain words, or part in speech, and part in Mental Reservation; and Master Morton doth childishly suppose and affirm, that every one knoweth, that it had been a true speech: for albeit the words of S. Peter in the text of the Acts of the Apostles be, Tell me woman, if you sold it for so much? 
Act. 5.  and her answer was, yea for so much, yet is it evident by the drift and circumstance of the place, that S. Peter's meaning was, whether they sold it for so much, and no more; and therefore if she did equivocate, as M. Morton will have her, her secret meaning must needs be, that she sold it for no more, so as she was bound to utter it, Or, give it unto him, Or bring it to the common purse. All which was false and a lie, in respect both of her vow, to bring the whole to the common purse, and for that S. Peter was her lawful and competent judge, and she obliged thereby to tell him the truth.   

The Review; revealing an intolerable trick of Sophistry, used by M. PARSONS, in perverting the whole State of the Question.  
21. Mark now (good Reader) for we now come to uncouch this creature:) It was supposed that the woman said, I sold it but for so much, reserving in her mind, To give into the common purse, Or, To tell it unto you, that is, but for so much, with any purpose to tell unto you, or, to give in common: which words if they had been delivered with the mouth, had (as every one seeth) been most true. Now Mast. Parsons finding himself driven to an extremity, putteth into her Reservation 
M. Parson's pitiful plunge.  the word, Bond, or, Obligation, as though she had answered thus: I sold it but for so much, with this Reservation, So as bound to tell it unto you, Or, With Obligation to give in common, inserting the word Bound, in her Reservation, which, being delivered with the mouth, maketh a false speech: for she could not say without a lie, that she was not bound to tell S. Peter what she sold it for. And thus Mr. Parsons hath altered the whole subject of the Question, falsely supposing a Reservation, which uttered with the mouth is false; and that wittingly, because he even in this Reckoning, where he repeateth the State of this question, as it was first laid down by me, confesseth , that I spoke of 
* Reckon. p. 105.  A mental Reservation, mixed with the outward speech, which in the judgement of P. R. is as true in the mind of the speaker, as if it were wholly 〈◊〉 in the outward speech. But now, by instancing in that proposition, which is in the outward speech, a flat lie. Thus, as we see, M. Parsons hath changed the point in question, which is the most absurd and base kind of Sophistry that can be used.  
22. This may appear by a like example. Two Disputants are met together, the question to be decided is, Whether it may be lawful to licence Titius to have a Concubine (by Concubine understanding a Woman, who is not his married 
An example.  wife.) After much debating of the question, the Answerer is so miserably plunged, as, for his last Refuge, to say, that he only descended it to be lawful to licence Titius to enjoy a Concubine, to whom he, 
i For thus doth Bellarm. understand the word l. 2. de Conc. c. 8. S. 11. , is married. Would not the hearer abhor or scorn such Sophistry as this, whereby the Question about a woman unmarried, is changed into the Question concerning a married wife?  
23. Yet thus dealeth M. Parsons with me in this present Example: For our question was of a speech, used in mental Reservation, which being uttered with the mouth, is a true speech, as when a man shall say to a competent Magistrate, I know no such thing, with any purpose to tell it unto you: This, I say, is a 
k I am no Priest such as I should be, Or such as I desire to be, Or the like. Mitigat. c. 8. num. 55. p. 344.  true speech, when it is wholly and fully uttered with the mouth: and of this kind of speech is our question propounded, as M. Parsons himself knew right well; yet now hath he turned it, as if he had said thus, I know no such thing, as bound to tell it unto you, which spoken unto a lawful Magistrate, is certainly a lying speech.  
24. If M. Parsons use to change the question in this manner, he may dispute indeed, but like a vain man, who only beateth the air: And if I should follow him in this course, we might well be represented by that Emblem of one man milking an he Goat, and another holding under a siue, resembling 
A simile.  two such Disputers, whereof the one objecteth nothing to the purpose, and the other answereth he knoweth not what.  
25. Although he be now in our hands, yet will we be content to give him more play, and try if he in another course can shift for himself. To this end I will yield so far unto M. Parsons, as to suppose with him that the Reservation which the woman made, was such as he hath now pretended, to wit, [I sold it but for so much] reserving in her mind as bound to tell it unto you and also that No clause of reservation could save this her speech from a lie: All which being granted, yet do I now aver as confidently as before, that this second Position is the overthrow of his whole defence of Mental Reservation, as will now appear.   

A third Reason of Confutation by a Dilemma.  
26. After that M. Parsons had 
l Reckon. p. 113.  confessed such a Reservation 
l Reckon. p. 113.  of the woman, which no clause of a second reservation can save from a lie, and thereupon was challenged to grant, that the manner of a Romish Priests reservation is likewise a lie, and so the trick of Mental Reservation to be but a lying devise: He had no other refuge in the world, but to forge a manner of Reservation of his own, by putting in the word Bound, as if the woman had answered, I sold it but for so much, conceiving in her mind, As bound to tell it unto you. Which speech he calleth a lie, and saith, that no clause of Reservation can save it from a lie.  
27. Now therefore I am to pose M. Parsons, and if he answer this, I shall not call a Mental A quivocatora liar. My question is this: If unto that proposition [I sold it but for so much, as bound to tell it unto you, she had added such clauses as these, saying, I sold it but for so much, as bound to tell it unto you (Saint Peter) meaning, As you are a private man: Or, As bound to tell it unto you, meaning, with any intent to kill you: Or, as bound to tell it unto you, meaning [with any desire to steal a man's cloak: and a thousand such like additions to the former clause of Reservation: My question is, I say, whether every one of these additions do make the supposed speech of the woman true or no? For if the woman's speech standing thus, I sold it but for so much, as bound to tell it unto you (by reserving further in mind) as you are a private man; make not the speech true, then is there not any case of Reservation, which is not a 
The miserable straits of Mr. Parson's defence.  lie, and so farewell all Mental Reservation: but if those clauses being added to her speech, do make the first clause true, then hath Master Parsons deceived us, in saying that her speech was such, Which no clause of Reservation could free from a lie. This being the main and substantial point, indeed, I crave leave to convince M. Parsons by another Argument.   

A fourth Reason, which is taken from his own description of Mental Equivocation.  
28. We will leave the woman's supposed manner of Equivocation, and argue from M. Parsons his description of Mental Equivocation. 
m Mitig c. 8. n. 55. p. 344.  I say (saith M. Parsons) that in Mental Reservation the speech agreeth with the mind of the Speaker, for that I truly and really mean, that I am no Priest, in the sense which I speak it, which may be what pleaseth me, or that which I lust to frame to myself, 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 Equivocating Priest) doth tell us, he may make a Mental Reservation of any thing that pleaseth him, or what he list to frame in his imagination: so that it doth agree with his mind, which is as liberal a grant, as I could require.  
Now then let M. Parsons think with himself that some Priest is called in question before the Pope, by whom he is asked, Whether he kept a Concubine, or no? The Priest although he kept a Concubine, yet answereth the Pope, saying [I have kept no Concubine] reserving in his mind [for the use 
An example.  of your Holiness.] I would be so much beholden unto Master Parsons, as to tell me, whether the Priest lied in his Answer, or no? And so we shall make a short Reckoning.  
29. He hath told us, that all indirect Reservation in a lawful question, and before a competent judge, is a lie: because of an Obligation and Bond, which the party hath to answer directly: he hath said also that whensoever Mental Equivocation is true in the mind, it is as true, being uttered with the mouth. Wherefore if he shall answer, that the Priests Mental Equivocation was no lie, then is he compellable to forsake his last refuge of Bond and Obligation to a competent judge, which he said doth make the speech a lie. But if he answer that the Priest's Reservation in the mind was a lie, which (as is apparent) being fully declared with the mouth, is not a lie, then doth not the mental Clause of Reservation make a true mixed proposition, and consequently his main ground of Mental Equivocation is quite overthrown.  
30. Finally the sum of all this is thus much, that if the same speech, which being uttered fully with the mouth, is true; shall (as it is mixed with Reservation of the mind) be 
The desperateness of Mr. Parson's defence.  judged a lie: then Mental Reservation and the Doctrine thereof is an Art of lying. But if that reservation make the proposition true, than the Bond of speaking directly to a competent judge, cannot make the speech a lie: And so his last Evasion by an Obligation to tell a truth, is a false and lying Assertion. So that if he will but look again to his legs, he shall find the Shackleses of his own Confessions to stick so fast to his heels, as although he be the most nimble heeled of all his Order, yet he shall never be able to shake them off. Thus much may serve for this present, concerning Mental Equivocation. We shall add other convictions in their due and proper places.  
31. In the Interim I am to satisfy for myself, because Mr. 
n Reckon. p. 103.  Parsons objecteth against me a contradiction forsooth, for that I called the woman, unto whom Saint Peter swore, an Examiner incompetent; and yet elsewhere say that the same Maid was competent enough, to hear a true Oath. Upon these two strings of Contradiction (as they may seem to be) he maketh himself Music, by a mere cavillation. For although 
Mr. Parsons Cavil.  that I had expressly named that Maid a Competent judge 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 authority to exact an Oath, and to censure the person: but improperly, for every one that hath liberty only to hear and to understand the truth of an Oath: what can be more familiar? How often doth Mr. Parsons in this Reckoning require his Reader to judge indifferently between us? And yet I suppose that he holdeth not every Reader of his Book to be properly a judge. This distinction is sufficient to break his Fiddle, and to hinder his frivolous descant upon words.     

CHAP. V.  
Of Falsities objected unto some Romanists, and first unto certain Popes, alleging a false Canon, for proof of Appeals unto Rome.  

SECT. I.  
1. MAster Parsons, before he came to the matter, had leisure to make a Preface unto his after Reckoning, thus.  

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
HIs hatred howsoever it was not against this or that particular 
Reck. c. 3. p. 117.  man, or against their persons, yet was it against their cause, and that in such a bloody sort of sycophancy, as included all the persons of that Religion: and therefore in fawning upon two or three in external words and countenance, either in person, or elsewhere, whilst in his chamber he sought by writing his spiteful, infamous, and virulent, lying Books to oppress them all, and cut their throats, this measure was not good, but may be justly called a malicious measure. And yet was this Master Mortons' measure, for so much as no man did ever write so maliciously, to my knowledge, as he; not in so odious argument, and jealous a time.   

The Reviewe.  
2. Master Parsons being thus raging in his Quiet and sober Reckoning, how would he (shall we think) behave himself in his furious and drunken fits, if he should fall into such distempers? As for myself, I can say truly, as in the presence of God, that when I heard the Romish Doctrines crying (in" their general Allarumes against Protestants) Depose, kill, root them out, etc. (as I then fully proved in one paragraphe,) and beside had considered the practised Treasons, Rebellion, Massacres and Invasions, together with that last 
* Novem. 5. 1605.  Powder-furnace, the invention of the bottomless pit; which all of them, as so many blazing comets, presented themselves unto me, I could not forbear but discharge my duty unto God, and my Country, to the Discovery of such mischievous Positions and Practices, not with purpose to incite unto, but to prevent even gulfs and floods of Christian blood; which that hateful doctrine doth destinate unto Protestant States, Wherein I did but only awake men out of security, according to that of the Poet, Vt iugulent homines, 
Horat. lib. 1. epist. 2.  surgunt de nocte Latrones, Vt teipsum serves, non expergisceris? Which being the voice of God in nature, what spirit is that which shall call it a measure malicious?  
3. But who is M. Parsons, that he should thus inveigh against Virulency and Maliciousness? Look upon him (good Reader) as thou maistsee him described by their own Priest, and then tell me what he differeth from an Edomite. 
a Quodlib. p. 238 & pag. 243. & Important Consider. pertotum.  What hath he to do (saith a Priest, speaking of M. Parsons) to ballast his pen with gastfulgoars of English blood? or to embrew a Priestly hand in Princes bowels? O monster! etc. And again, 
b Ibid. pag. 234.  He became with others (namely An. 88) the trumpeter of invasion, 
Mr. Parson's bloody disposition.  blood, cruelty, and destruction. The same Author proceedeth in deciphering M. Parsons his lineaments, bestowing many pages in setting forth his bloody and cruel disposition: yet this is the Sober Reckoner, forsooth, who dare exclaim against Virulency and Maliciousness, calling elsewhere my Discovery of the Romish cruelty a mere Barking. Wherein I am dealt with no otherwise then was a Lawyer in the days of Tully by certain Catilinarian Conspirators, who called him a Barking dog: but he answered, You may not be offended with me, if when I see thieves and murderers, I cannot choose but bark.    

SECT. 11.  

The first Inquirie.  
4. I Have 
* Preamb. p. 51.  said, that I may not deny even this my Adversary his commendation of Modesty, who being ashamed (we may think) of the Romish Frauds and Falsifications of former times, will insist only upon such men's examples, as have professedly written of late against Protestants. It were to be wished that his fellow jesuit Costerus had kept himself within the same precincts: but he maketh a more general challenge, thus; Nemo hactenùs vel Princeps, vel Praesul, vel Scriptor fuit, qui mendacy vel malae fidei Romanos arguerit. That is: Never yet (saith he) Did any Prince, or Prelate, or Writer accuse the Romanists of falsehood. I am hereupon called by Master Parsons to a shrewd Reckoning, the sum whereof is, as followeth.   

Master PARSONS his Reckoning, in charging his Adversary.  
NOw I must demand of the Reader, what he understandeth Mr. 
Recko. pag. 121.  Morton his purpose to be in this place? Is it not to show that Costerus was less modest than I, forasmuch as I said, If in any one Catholic writer of Controversies in our age, there might be found but two or three Examples of wilful lying, I would never trust him more. but that Costerus went further saying, That no Prince, Prelate, or writer had ever hitherio accused any Romanists of falsehood. Is not this Mr. Mortons' plain meaning (think you) as both his words and drifts do show? Yes truly. Which being so, I would ask him why he did clip the Latin words of Costerus, who saith, But neucrthelesse there was no Catholic man bitherto, (to wit, the time assigned, when Bishops of Rome were Saints and Martyrs) whether Prince, Bishop, or Writer etc. Which two words, Nevertkelesse, and Catholic man, demonstrate that Costerus spoke not of Roman Writers, but of Roman Bishops and Popes.   

The Reveiwe, and charge.  
5. The words of Coster are, Nemo Catholicus: and by Romanos, id est, Romans, he meant the Roman Popes, yet spoke 
M. Parson's idle cavilling.  he it indefinitely Romanos, And Coster in the words following descendeth as low as Pope Damasus, who was no Martyr: and the instances, which I gave against Coster, were only about Popes, and taken from the Council of Africa, which consisted of 203 Bishops, among whom Saint Augustine was a principal Actor. All which Catholic Bishops, took exception unto the challenge of three Popes, viz. Sozimus, Boniface, and Celestine, who, upon the false pretence of a Canon, in the name of the Council of Nice, exacted Appeals unto Rome: where it is plain that I instanced in no examples, but only in Roman Popes. If I had urged any exception taken by any, but by those whom they will confess to have been Catholic Bishops; or against any Roman Writers, saving only against Roman Popes, than might he have had just cause to note me of wilful falsehood, both in respect of the word Catholic, and in the word Romans. But seeing that I have not committed any such error, what meant Mr. Parsons to be so violent? It may be that I have offended him, by saying that Coster was less modest than he. I crave pardon for this fault, and hereafter I shall judge otherwise of his immodesty.    

SECT. 111.  

A second Inquirie, concerning the false Canon suggested by those Popes.  
NOw he beginneth with three ancient Popes, Zozimus, 
Reckon p. 125.  Boniface, and Celestine, that lived in the time of S. Augustine, and were much commended by him for holy men, but are accused by Mr. Morton for falsaries, as though they had forged a Canon of the first Council of Nice, in favour of their own supremacy, to prove thereby the lawfulness of Appeals to be made to them, and to their Sea from the Bishops of Africa: which Canon was not found in the ordinary Copies then extant of that Council.   

The sum of Mr PARSONS his Reckoning for their own discharge.  
First of all, howsoever this matter passed, it appertaineth little or nothing 
Reckon. ibid.  at all to our purpose, or to the question now in hand of Modern Catholic Writers, nor doth it prove wilful falsehood in those three ancient Popes, if they cited the Canon of one Council for another of equal authority (as indeed they did:) for that it might be ascribed either to the variety of Copies (when no print was yet extant) or to oversight, forgetfulness, or to some other such defect, rather than to malice and voluntary error.   

The Review.  
6. What a pace do you use to gallop, when you fear that any danger lieth in your way? For you saw in the 
c Pream. p. 51.  Preamble how three Popes, Zozimus, Boniface, and Celestine, at the Council of Carthage in Africa, did claim a right of Appeals unto Rome, by virtue of a Canon of the Council of 
The Council of Africa against Appeals to Rome.  Nice, as they pretended. And when all the ancient Copies of that Council had been diligently sought, it appeared by the testimony of three patriarchs, viz. of Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch, that 
(q) In quibus etc.  That Canon concerning Appeals unto the Bishop of Rome (as their Lindane speaketh) could not be found in those Copies: Or, as the Council itself speaketh, 
(r) Lib. conc. de Acts conc. Carthag. 6.  Istius Concily Affricani seu Carthaginensis ducenti tres Episcopi tribus Papis restiterunt, & Canonem Concily in defensionem primatus sui falsum esse deprehenderunt. And a little after: Concludunt tandem nemini licere ad Romanum Pontificem provocare. That is, Two hundred and three Fathers in the Council of Carthage resisted the three Popes, and found that the Canon of that Council, brought for the defence of their Primacy was false. Therefore in the end they concluded, that it should not be lawful for any of Africa to appeal unto the Bishop of Rome.  
7. Where you perceiving both the authentical Records of ancient Churches, and the divers oppositions of so many Bishops of that Council, convincing the falsehood of that objected Canon, doth this appertain nothing to the purpose trow you?   

The sum of Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning, about the former point, in charging his Adversary.  
BUT now to the former old, idle, worm-eaten objection against 
Reckon. p. 128.  the Pope, for counterfeiting the said Council of Nice, Although it hath been oft answered at large by other writers, yet nothing will serve those men, but still they bring it in again, as though it had never been answered before. Which false dissimulation is here also used by Mr. Morton, who saith not one word of any answer that ever he saw used thereunto.   

The Review.  
8. Would any Sober man ever have used such taxation as this is, to call it a false Dissimulation sometime to propound plain Histories, without particular notice of the Answers, which our Adversaries do use to make? Mast. Parson's could 
M. Parson's double injury, one to his adversary, the other to himself.  not have been more injurious either unto me, or else (to omit all other his fellows) unto himself. For first I professed not a full Treatise, but only a Preamble unto a Treatise; and elsewhere 
d Apologia saith part. 2. l. 3. c. 18. And more exactly in the Catholic appeal, l. 4. c. 8. etc.  I have particularly set down the Answer of your Authors, together with a large reply thereunto. How then could I deserve this reproach? And (that which exceedingly argueth unshamefastness in him) the matter which I alleged out of his own Authors, was no more than that which both he and others will confess to be true, to wit, that the Bishops of Carthage, did renounce that pretended Canon as false.  
9 Secondly, Master Parsons in his Three Conversions, Cap. 2. for the proof of Transubstantiation, etc. did 
M. P. is confuted by himself.  cite within the compass of four leaves the 〈◊〉 of some Fathers, as namely of Ambrose, Cyprian, 〈◊〉 Nissene, Chrysostome, Theodoret, Irenaeus, Augustine, Theophilact, etc. without acknowledgement of the Answers, which 
e Peter Martyr, Zanchius, 〈◊〉 and others, who are cited by Bellarm. upon this Argument.  Protestants have made unto every particular testimony. Will he hereupon suffer Mr. Parsons to fall upon M. Parsons, and to condemn him for a false Dissembler, because he pretermitted the Answers which Protestants have made? So shameless and luckless doth this his Accusation prove. What yet more?   

Master PARSONS his Reckoning.  
THere were divers other Canons made in the Council of Nice, 
Reckon. pag. 131. &. 130.  which are not now extant, and the Canon questioned of, was in the Council of Sardis, which was an Appendix of the Nicene Council, which the Popes did mistake: These things have been discussed by six of our Authors, as Card. Bellarmine, Barenius, etc. whom if Mr. Morton had seen, as I suppose he did, though not perhaps to his contentment, why then, if he meant plainly, as often he protesteth, had he not either mentioned them, or else refuted them, or at least wise told his Reader that there had been such Answers, although not sufficient to overthrow the Objection, etc.   

The Review.  
10. We may reckon unto the worlds end, if that in every asseveration (which is obiter, although plainly used) all Objections 
His perverse dealing.  and Answers of all Authors must be necessarily produced. And to exact this in a Preamble, and, as it were, a preface unto a Treatise (which I called an Encounter) is as disproportionable, 
A Simile.  as was the little City of Myndas, and the great gates thereof, which occasioned the 
f Diog Laert.  Philosopher to cry, Shut your Gates (ye Citizens) lest that your City run out.  
11. But because he hath laid such heavy load of false dissimulation upon me (as though for the terribleness of the Answers, I had been afraid so much as to mention them) I shall desire him to know, that he could not have ghessedmore falsely: for I have already produced his Authors, discussed their Objections from point to point, 
g Catholic appeal. l. c. 8.  where (if he will be pleased to look) he may peradventure satisfy, or at least assuage his earnest appetite; wherein the great objection out of Sanders is likewise answered. I pass on unto the next Taxatiou.     

CHAP. VI  
Of the small credit of their Gratian, and of the far less credit of M. Parsons in his defence, by his multiplication of frauds.  

SECT. I.  

The Charge.  WHat can be said (said 
* Pream. p. 52.  I) for the defence of Gratian, 
a Bellar. l. 2. de Rom. Pont. c. 24. §. tertiò.  Who (as Card. Bellarmine witnesseth) citing a Canon of a Council of Milevet, wherein it was decreed that none should appeal beyond the Sea, did add of himself this exception Except it be unto the Apostolic Sea of Rome; when as that Council, in forbidding Appeals beyond the Sea, did especially intend to forbid Appeals to Rome?  

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
WHereunto I answer, that if they be no better than this, they 
Reckon c. 3. §. 2. pag. 107.  are not worth the alleging, but only to entertain time, and to show your fraud in dealing. For first Gratian did live divers hundred years ago; but we talk of Writers of our time, and of such only is our Question and Controversy: wherein you finding yourself barren would now extend your Commission to all Catholic Writers of all ages past, which is a miserable shift.   

The Reveiwe; noting his idle, but yet peevish opposition.  
2. Thou supposest (gentle Reader) by this taxation, that I had cited Gratian an old Writer in stead of a new; or that I had insisted upon such reproofs of Gratian, and other old 
His crooked affection.  Writers: But I alleged Gratian only, and that only in that one place, adding withal, that 
* Preamb p. 52.  I might allege many such like falsehoods, but the nature of a Preamble (said I) will not suffer me to pursue old forgeries, and P. R. doth challenge me to instance only in new Writers. Therefore it was but a piece of M. Parsons his hateful zeal, to conceal my purpose, and then to call this dealing a miserable shift. The second part of his Reckoning is more rigid.    

SECT. II.  

M. PARSONS his Reckoning, charging his Adversary with shifting.  
SEcondly, there be so many other shifts and tricks, in citing these 
Reckon. 〈◊〉 127.  few words, as do make demonstration that you can city nothing in simplicity of truth, without some wilful corruption, as here where you say it was decreed (in the Council of Milevet) that none should appeal beyond the Sea, you cut off craftily the words before cited of the said Canon, Inferiores Clerici, the inferior Clergymen, as though the prohibition had been for all (aswell Bishops, as Inferior Clergymen) which presently we shall show to be false.   

The Review, revealing the singular fraud, which Master Parsons useth.  
3. I cited not Gratian, but the objection of Caluine out of Bellarmine, and his immediate answer thereunto, where the words, Inferiores Clerici, are not mentioned: and so, to 
M. Parsons other falsehood.  make me a falsifier, M. Parsons hath falsely foisted upon me those two words of Gratian, Inferiores Clerici. judge, good Reader, whether this be a fit man to talk of Simplicity of truth.  
4. Again if the words [Inferiores Clerici] had been cut off, yet could not this necessarily in true sense argue any fraud; as though, where the Inferior Clerks were forbid to appeal unto Rome, it should consequently follow, that the Superior Bishops were upon some occasions necessarily to appeal thither, because (as it is in the body of the Counsels set forth by Surius) the Bishops of Africa in their Epistle, writing unto Celestine Bishop of Rome, and entreating him not to receive into his communion such as had been excommunicated by their Church, argued thus: that 
b Conc. Africa. in Ep. ad Caelest. Surius Tom. 1. Conc. pag. 590. col. 2.  If this were so decreed concerning the Superior Clerks, how much more ought it to be observed concerning Bishops: Which consequence is flat contrary to this of M. Parsons, who still roaveth and raveth about impertinencies, to draw me from the point in question, which is only this, whether Gratian did falsely corrupt the Canon of the Council of Milevet. And now we desire him to reckon for this.   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
THirdly where you say that Gratian did add of himself this exception 
Reckon. P. 127.  to the Canon, you would make your Reader think he had added these words, as the words of the Canon itself, which he did not, but as a commentary or Explication of the Canon in a separate place, and so is now extant, in a distinct letter: and consequently your note in the margin, that Gratian is a falsificator, falls upon yourself, 
Bellar. l. 2. de Pont. c. 24. §. 3.  which do falsify his meaning. For that the most that can be objected to Gratian in this place, is that which Card. Bellarmine saith, he mistook the true meaning and intent of that Canon of Milevet, as though it had been meant of Bishops, as well as of inferior Clergymen, which is far from the proof of wilful false meaning, which may be very probably objected unto M. Morton in this and many other places. For that it cannot be well thought but that he must know that he dealt injuriously and calumniously with Gratian in this place.   

The Reveiwe.  
5. O the wickedness of this man's malice! Could he note me of wilful falsehood, yea or of falsehood at all in this matter? The words of Gratian, (saith M. Parsons) as they are now extant in a distinct Letter, are not added as the words of the Canon, but as a Commentary, etc. Is this it? But I am sure these words of Gratian here spoken of, in his Decretum, printed An. Dom. 1519. at Paris; and another Edition at Lions, Per Hugonem de Porta, Anno. 1548. (which two only I then had by me) are not distinguished in a different letter: which M. Parson's well knew, who therefore opposeth only their new Editions of Gratian (in saying, so it is now extant) which neither freeth their ancient Editions nor Gratian himself from falsehood: and yet with an hard face durst M. Parson's impute unto me herein the note of Falsehood. And not so only, 
M. Parson's falsehood in imputing of falsehood.  but doth furthermore repeat and register this in a peculiar Chapter, among those, which he calleth 
c Reckon. pa. 630  New and fresh lies of M. Morton. How can I expect any conscionable dealing from a man so perversely malignant?  
6. Furthermore I am right sure that the words of Bellarmine are these; 
* See in the place above cited.  Gratian added unto this Canon this exception, viz. [Except perhaps the Appeal be made unto Rome.] Which exception flatly contradicteth the principal purpose of the Canon, which forbade (saith Bellarmme) Appeals beyond the Seas; which Decree the African Bishops made principally, because of Rome. Here, (M. Parsons) your Gratian hath need of your help, for he yet lieth under an arrest of a notorious falsification.   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
THe most that can be objected unto Gratian in this place, is, that he 
Reckon. 〈◊〉 supra.  mistook the true meaning and intent of that Canon of Milevet.   

The Reveiwe.  
7. Let it be so, yet so to mistake it, that when that Decree was principally made to forbid Appeals unto Rome, he should expound it to forbid Appeals, excepting only unto 
Gratians gross crrour.  Rome. If M. Parsons should chance to find such a mistaking in any Protestant, O what an hue and cry would he make?  
8. Neither was this the error of Gratian alone, for Bellarmine (speaking not of your old, but of your new Romish Writers) saith that 
d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Aliqui respondent cum Gratiano, etc. Some there be (saith he) who answer (the objection of Caluine) together with Gratian, etc. Wherefore you may put down this in your Reckoning, as a point confessed by Bellarmine, that Some amongst you have no other shift, in answering, but so to expound a Canon of a Council, as if it allowed that, which principally, purposely, and plainly it did forbid: then the which there cannot be a greater appearance of 〈◊〉  
9 Now that the Reckoning is made up, we may recount the gains which M. Parsons hath gotten, by his defence of Gratian. First he hath falsely put Gratian upon me, in stead of Bellarmine, with an intent to prove me a falsifier. Secondly, to the same end he presenteth a new Edition of Gratian, notwithstanding that he knew that the sentence stood, as I delivered 
Mr. Parsons is thriee guilty of falsehood.  it, in the ancient Copies of Gratian. Thirdly, after all his plea he would clear his Client Gratian from faithlessness, in expounding a Canon of a Council flatly contrary to the purpose of the Council itself. Fourthly, he findeth now Some other of their new Romanists entangled in the same falsehood with Gratian. Fiftly, by labouring to free Gratian from one untruth, he hath occasioned me to 
* See above, c. 1. Sect. 5.  reveal the manifold guilt of Gratian in his false inscriptions, false allegations, and false Additions in such abundance, that (as their Archbishop hath confessed) they cannot be declared in a day. And thus Mast. Parsons (I confess) hath every way gained in falsities.     

CHAP. VII.  
Of the Contradictions among other Romish Authors, one confuting another: first about the Council of Eliberis.  

SECT. I.  
1. THE Question 
a Pream. p. 53.  was, whether the Council of Eliberis did forbid the use of Images in Churches? Protestants say it did: our adversaries oppose against Protestants other expositions, but yet so, that they, are still extremely Adversaries among themselves.  

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning, in discharging his Romish Writers.  
THe state of the question is to prove that these Authors lied voluntarily: 
Reckon. cap. 3. §. 3. pag. 135.  you accuse them that they have different expositions upon the said Canon of the Council of Eliberis, some understanding it one way, some another: but how doth this prove that they erred wilfully? If you prove not this, you prove nothing. And now I would ask you, when divers ancient Fathers in your commentaries upon the holy Scriptures, do set down different expositions of hard places, every one thinking that he goeth nearest to the truth: may you by this condemn them all of wilful falsehood? Are not you ashamed to come forth with these ridiculous proofs?   

The Review, answering his Objection.  
2. Hardly can any absolutely charge another with wilful falsity, because there are so many infirmities in a man (besides the corruption of his will) to draw him into error, as ignorance, negligence, desire of brevity, besides other their objects in reading, such as are faults in print, obscurities of sentences, Independences, and (which is not the least) often transscriptions of sentences of Authors out of one written Notebook into an other, and such like: so that in such cases we are compelled to stand most commonly upon probabilities.  
3. Neither do I take the exception unto their diverse Expositions (to answer your frivolous objection concerning the Fathers) but unto the manner of their Expositions, whereunto some of them were drawn, being (as was 
b Preamb pag. 53. 54.  confessed) oppressed with the force of their adversaries objection: one kind saying that the Synod forbade only an Image made to represent God, which kind of Images (saith another) were not then in use. Secondly others answer that it was because they seemed to the Heathen to commit Idolatry: Which (saith an other) agreeth not with the exposition of the Canon. Thirdly, others affirm the cause to have been, because they did commit Idolatry: Which (say others) is not agreeable. Fourthly they forbade (say some) only Images to be painted on Walls: whereunto others oppose, saying, that This agreeth not with the Canon. Fiftly, Others, as it were, oppressed with the objection, thought it their best refuge to deny the authority of the Council.  
4. Finally, after that twelve several testimonies had been alleged, against which Mr. Parsons (notwithstanding his eagerness) could catch no shadow of exception, he in the end fixeth his teeth upon one, which was the citation of Senensis, as saying, Elibertina Synodus omninò vetuit Imaginum cultum, that is; The Synod of Eliberis did absolutely forbid the worship of Images. And this is called by him an Absolute lie, for thus it pleaseth him to work upon it.   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning, charging his Adversary with falsehood.  
HE maketh the Latin Text of Senensis to speak in like manner, 
Reckon. p. 139.  Omninò vetuit Synodus Elibertina Imaginum cultum: But in him you shall not find the word, Omninò, absolutely, wherein standeth all the force of the matter. And the fraud cannot seem but wilful, nor can it any way stand with the intention of Senensis, who saith and affirmeth only (according to the interpretation which he best alloweth among many other) that the meaning of the Council was this, to forbid the use of Images for a time, lest the new converted Spaniards not being wellinstructed, seeing Images upon the walls, should think there were no difference between them and the Heathen Idols. For avoiding whereof, it seemed good to the Council, for a while, to remove the use of Images, which of itself they held for lawful and pious. This is the opinion of Senensis.   

The Reveiwe, satisfying the former exception, both concerning the words and sense.  
5. [The word, Omninò, is not there,] no truly, nor yet the other words in their order, Whereby you might well know, and now conceive that it was only an error of transcription, which is incident unto any that writeth, when the same words, which were set down by me in the Roman Character, as a general note of Senensis his meaning, are by the Transcriber altered into an Italian Character, whereby they seemed to be the very words of the Author himself. If you will not credit me upon my word, yet be so charitable as see my 
c Catholiq Appeal l. 4. c. 27. §. 2. lit. (m)  book (which was published before I hard of your taxation) where, upon the same occasion, I have cited this testimony of Senensis in the very words as they lie in the Author himself. Ratio cur provinciale Concilium, etc. Unto which citation there can be no exccption taken at all.  
6. We come to the sense. Your jesuit Vasquez a Spaniard, speaking of the interpretation which I gave concerning this Canon, citeth this sentence: 
d Vasques Jes. li. 2. de Adorat. disp. 5. c. 2. n. 120  Seeing that it is forbidden (saith he) by the law of nature to worship Images as God, and the people at that time were prone to Idolatry, the Fathers of that Council thought it a present remedy, if Images were taken from among them, and saith that, Martin of Ayala, and Senensis do embrace this interpretation. The words of Senensis are, that the Fathers of that Council, Thought that they could not otherwise heal the present disease (namely of Idolatry) then by forbidding Images. Which showeth that not only Images representing God, as some answered; as some Images painted upon walls, for fear of contempt by Infidels, as others conceived; nor the forbidding of them to be painted in tables, as some else fancied, but as Senensis saith, There was no other remedy, but to remove them, that is absolutely not to use them.  
7. Albeit, Images were forbid only for that time, whilst the people of Spain was prone to Idolatry: yet when are not people naturally so addicted? I would to God you could excuse your own people, who (to omit ancient times) how prone, nay how much plungèd they have been in Idolatry, your own 
e Polydorus de Invent. rerum. l. 6. cap. 13. printed Ann. 1558. and Cassander Consult. Art. 1.  Authors by their complaints have acknowledged: and what their disposition is at this day, the Image at Loretto, and other such like, if they could speak, would relate to your conviction. It sufficeth, that Images are to be absolutely removed, whensoever there is great danger of Idolatry. And understand by the way, you that object [omninò] so sinisterly; 
* See hereafter chap. 12. § 1.  your own plain and inexcusable bodge in putting in [omnes] unto the sentence of Calnine, flatly contrary to his meaning.    

SECT. II.  

Their next Contradictions about the Council of Francford, concerning the worship of Images.  
8. divers were objected in the Preamble, which required some reasonable Reckoning, but Mr. Parsons turneth all into a seorne.   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
WHat is this to the purpose then, to prove that these Authors 
Reck. c. 3. § 4 p. 141.  did err wittingly against their conscience? Do you not see that still the poor man runneth quite from the purpose, and hath nothing to say to the effect he should say?   

The Reveiwe.  
9 You were loath to express the particulars, lest your Reader might perceive what silly Reckonings you use to make. I am therefore constrained to call them to your remembrance. 
a Preamb. pa 56.  There we heard your 
b Surius prael. in Syn. Francof.  Surius, charging Protestants of so Incredible impudency, and marveling that they 〈◊〉 appear in the presence of any honest man, because they corrupted the Council of Francford, as though it had condemned the second Council of Nice, for decreeing the 
Surius his slanderous falsehocd.  worshipping of Images, when as by the just judgement of God their fraud was made manifest, for they forgot to raze out Constantinople, and to place in the stead thereof the Council of Nice. So far Surius. A man would think, that so deep an accusation as this should not want some colour, and yet behold, The sentence of Surius cannot stand, saith their 
Vasques de Adorat l. 2. cap. 5. num. 225.  jetuite Vasquez, which he proveth (as his own words are) from all Historians. Yet this so impudent a slander against Protestants, when it is objected unto Mr. Parsons, he maketh a quiet Reckoning of it, and passeth it over as nothing to the purpose.  
10. Others have devised other answers, such as were 
d Binius in banc Synod. pa. 429. & Coster. Enchirid. cap. 13.  Alanus Copus, Saunders, Suarez, who say that The Council of Francford did not condemn the second Council of Nice. Notwithstanding the 
e Bellar. l. 2. de Concil. c. 8. and Baron. ut resert. Binius Comm. in Francf. Synod. pag. 391.  Cardinals Bellarmine & Baronius do acknowledge that that Council of Nice was condemned in the Council of Francford. And yet Mr. Parsons will have this also to be to no purpose.  
11. Again, a third sort (to wit, 
f Vt refert Bellar. quo supra.  Platina, Blondus, and Sabellicus) granting that the Synod Francford condemned the Synod, which the greeks call the seventh general one; not for decreeing that Images should be adored: but that they should be removed: which is flat contrary to the words of the Synod of Frankford, as is acknowledged by their jesuit 
g Vasquez. quo suprà.  Vasquez, Quam pro adorandis imaginibus fecerunt, which was made for adoring of Images. Nevertheless Master Parsons will not think this to be any thing to the purpose.  
12. Their last refuge is this, that 
h Bellar. quo suprà. Baronius apud. Binium quo supra  The Synod of Francford was deceived, in thinking that the Synod of Nice decreed any unlawful worship of Images, and so did err in condemning it. Which last answer served me to make a demand, which I am now to reckon for, with Mr. Parsons.   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
ANd Mr. Morten doth fondry insult, when he biddeth his Adversary 
Recko. pag. 142.  P. R. to tell him in good earnest, if the Fathers of the Counsel of Francford, judging that second Council of Nice, confirmed by the Pope, did err in defending the use of Images, did they err in faith or no? Whereunto I answer, etc.   

The Reveiwe.  
13. Soft Sir, whereunto will you answer? I propounded a full Argument, adding that If the Council of Francford did err in faith, in condemning the other of Nice, than your Bellarmine and Baronius have deceived us, who said that it erred but in fact: but if it erred not in faith, when it condemned that Council, which the Pope confirmed for the worship of Images, then to condemn the definition of the Pope, for the worship of Images, is no error of Faith. This your simplicity would not express, but make an abrupt answer, saying, that it was an error of Fact, not of Faith, Let us hear it.   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
THe Fathers of the Council of Francsord erred in Fact, and not in 
Reckon. pag. 142.  Faith, being informed that the Council of Nice, had determined that which it did not, to wit, that divine honour was given unto Images; for if they had been informed of the truth, they would not have contradicted it, as neither if they had known that the Rope had confirmed it, would they have doubted of the authority thereof.   

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

Master PARSONS his Reckoning.  
IT is a witting error in M. Morton to say that they of Francford knew 
Reckon. quo sup.  that the Council of Nice, was confirmed by the Pope. But Mr. Morton would deceive us by craft and subtlety.   

The Reveiwe.  
15. Except that Master Parsons had prostituted his conscience unto injurious dealing, he would never, against his perfect knowledge, have thus accused me of Witting craft and deceit. For first he was not ignorant that Adrian the Pope did confirm the second Council of 
i Synodus Septima (which is called Nicaena secunda) ab Adriano approbata fuit. 〈◊〉 les. l. 2. disp. 7. c. 5. n. 233  Nice, as their jesuit Vasquez did witness. Secondly, he 
k Pream. pa. 58.  saw me further allege out of the same jesuit that The Council of Francford could not be ignorant of the decree of the second Council of Nice, because that the Legates of Pope Adrian were present in that Council, as all Histories do write (saith he) and the subscrptions do demonstrate. These two, viz. that Pope Adrian did confirm the second Council of Nice in the Decree of Images: And then this, The Council of Francford could not be ignorant of the confirmation thereof; being 
M. Parson's wilful false imputation of falsehood.  both put together, do infer that The Council of Francford could not be ignorant that the Pope had confirmed the Decree of the second Council of Nice. How then could he call such proofs (which are taken out of their own Authors, and laid so visibly before his eyes) a witting error, craft, and deceit? whereunto although I shall not answer, as the Archangel did unto the Devil, saying, 
* jud. vers. 9  The Lord rebuke thee; yet must he give me leave to say, God forgive thee: for I pointed directly in my 
* See the place of Vasquez above cited.  Preamble unto this place of Vasquez, which Mr. Parsons subtly concealeth, and according to his wont, faceth out the matter with a false imputation of falsehood: yet lest he might seem to have erred without reason, he useth an Argument.   

M. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
FOr the Caroline Books themselves, even as they are set out by the 
Reckon. pag. 142.  Centuriators, do use that for a principal argument on the behalf of the Council of Francford, to impugn the Nicene Council, for that they supposed that the said Nincene Council was not confirmed by Adrian the Pope, wherein they were deceived by false information, I mean, those of Francford: but Mr. Morton would deceive us by craft and subtlety.   

The Reviewe.  
16. He talketh of craft, telling us of the Caroline Books (mentioned by the Centurists) how they Supposed that the second Council of Nice was not confirmed by Adrian, without quoting the direct place: wherein he hath committed as great a falsehood, as may serve to give him his own true denomination. For if we shall consult with the 
l 〈◊〉 8. cap 8. 〈◊〉 639.  Centurists themselves, they will tell us, that Pope Adrian did rule by his Legates in the second Council of Nice, which he afterward did approve: whereunto the Legates of the Pope do require a subscription, but the Decree goeth against the sentence of Pope Adrian, and concluded that the adoration of Images is wicked, and condemned that Council, which Pope Adrian held to be universal. And more than to that purpose, I do not find. I proceed.    

SECT. III.  

The Contradictory answers of Romish writers, about the Epistle of Epiphanius, against Images.  
17. THe matter 
m Pream. p. 59  is, whether Epiphanius did not condemn the worship of Images? Their contradictory answers are many and memorable.   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
IT is to be noted, as before, that whatsoever difference of opinions 
Reckon. p. 159.  there be, or may be among Catholic Writers of Controversy, about the true meaning of Saint Epiphanius in this place, yet is it nothing at all to Mr. Mortons' purpose, who is bound to prove that they wrote against their own knowledge and conscience, which I suppose were hard to do, for that every man must have been presumed to have written according as his judgement gave him, and consequently that all this, which M. Morton hath so studiously gathered together, is nihi' add rhom bum, nothing to the purpose: and therefore I could not but laugh, when I read his conclusion of this Instance, saying, That if P. R. shall desire 500 (instances) of this kind, I bind myself (saith he) unto him, by a faithful protestation; which I believe, yea if it were 5000. in a weeks warning.   

The Review.  
18. It is well, that your Church is so richly fraught with such Contradictions, which if they seem not unto you very ugly, why did you conceal them? The Epistle of 
a Epiphan. Epist ad Ioh, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Epiphanius is objected by Protestants, wherein he is said to have seen hanging in Church an Image, as it were of Christ, or of some Saint, and to have taken and rend it, as being an abuse contrary unto the authority of holy Scriptures. Will you see what tripping and skipping your Authors make, to free themselves from this objection? One thus; 
b Waldens'. Tom. 〈◊〉 Tit. 19 cap. 157.  Epiphanius did it in a zeal, but not according to knowledge, all for fear of the error of the Anthropomorphites, who sought to have an Image of God; but it is confuted by 
c Lib. 2. de Adorat. disp. 5. c. 3.  Vasquez, as being repugnant unto the text, which nameth the Image of a man. A second thus: 
d Vasq. ibid. c 4.  It was the Image of no Saint, but of a profane man. But the text saith, As it were of Christ, or of some Saint: and therefore this answer is rejected by 
e L. 2. de triumph Eccles. cap. 9  Bellarmine, as less common and true. A 
f Alphons. de Castro Haeres. Tit. Jmago.  third is displeased with Epiphanius, and therefore censureth the fact to be erroneous: but 
g Quo 〈◊〉  Vasquez, upon another conceit, saith, that Epiphanius did well in renting the picture. A 
h Alanus, & Sanderus, ut refert Vasq. quo suprà & 〈◊〉 Enchirid. Cap. 13.  fourth sort betake themselves unto this refuge, saying that The words of that Epistle of Epiphanius are counterfeit: but the cause, why they were glad to make this shift, is made plain by their Vasquez, 
i Vasquez quo suprà, cap. 4.  They, being oppressed (saith he) with the difficulty of the objection, returned this Answer. But what if it be not a counterfeit Epistle? Now cometh their jesuit Valentia in the last rank, saying, 
k Valent. jes.  Yet we answer that the Church is of greater authority than Epiphanius. Very good: but Epiphanius condemned the use of Images, as being contrary unto Scripture, which he spoke according to the judgement of the Church of his time.  
19 These so many, so contradictory and so violent Answers, so really confuting one another, for the avoiding of but one objection, what can they possibly bewray, but distorted wits, especially seeing that it may be presumed of the most, that they were driven thereunto by force, as men oppressed (as some are said to have been) with the difficulty of the O biection?  
20. Notwithstanding, M. Parsons denieth not, but plainly confesseth, that five thousand such like instances of their contradictory Answers may be collected out of the Romish Writers in a week: and these kind of contradictions seem to him to be a matter to be laughed at. Can there be any Sobriety in such a Laughter? or could he have more prejudiced 
Admirable 〈◊〉 of contradictions confessed by M. Parsons, to be amongst their Doctors.  the Romish profession? For if our Adversaries in satisfying of the Arguments of Protestants, in points of this nature, be thus enforced to thwart and contradict one another, what can more bewray the desperateness of their cause? Now followeth the last contradiction about this Question.   

Whether part of the Epistle of Epiphanius were counterfeit?  
21 
* Pream. pa. 60.  Bellarmine, Valentia, Suarez, among other Reasons, to prove it was fictitious, do use these two; one is because, that 
l Bellar. l. 2. de Eccies. triumph. ca 9  Of the Epistle of Epiphanius unto john Bishop of Jerusalem, being almost wholly translated by S. Hierome in his Epistle to Pamachius, hath not in it that part, Cum venissem Anablatha, concerning that Image. This Answer was confuted by their 
m Vasquez jes. l. 2 de Adorat. disp. 5. c. 3. p. 244  Vasquez, who showeth this Reason to be Infirm.  
22. another answer is 
n Pream pa. 61.  used from Senensis, to wit, 
o Senens. bibl. l. 5. Annot. 247.  Because Damascene said that that Epistle was counterfeit. Which is a mere falsity, and so acknowledged by your Vasquez, showing that 
p Vasquez. quo suprà. p. 241.  Damascene spoke not of the Epistle of Epiphanius, written unto john of Jerusalem (which containeth the History of the Image) but of the Epistle which Epiphanius writ unto Theodosius. Where we still see, that their great Doctors have committed two notableuntruths, to prove one, 
Two notable untruths.  viz. The History of the Image to be counterfeit. Now let us see how M. Parsons will reckon hereabout.   

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

The Reviewe.  
23. Whither hasten you so fast, M. Parsons? Let us have one word more, I pray you, before we end this Reckoning: Tell me but with what reason you said, that I have calumniated Bellarmine? That which I objected was the testimony of 
M. Parson's froward Calumniation.  your own jesuit Vasquez, who bestoweth a particular Chapter, in confuting the Objections which are used by Romish Authors, for proof that that part of the Epistle of Epiphanius was supposititious and counterfeit; promising to 
q Vasq jes. l 2. de Adorat. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Show Singulas rationes, etc. That is, That all the Reasons, which some Doctors of late do use, for the disabling of that Epistle, are infirm, and of no validity. Thus we still see Romanists 
M. Parson's unjust Calumniation.  contradicted by themselves; Card. Bellarmine his debt doth hang still on the score undischarged; and so doth Mast. Parsons his calumnious and unjust dealing, in objecting calumniation against me.     

CHAP. VIII.  
Instances against Card. Bellarmine his Slanders, The first whether Caluinists be Pelagian Heretics, in the point of Original sin..  

SECT. I.  

The Charge.  
1. FIRST I 
* Preamb. p. 63.  asked with what conscience Bellarmine could charge Caluine with the Heresy of the 
(1) Pelagiani, etc. Bellar l a. de Eccles. Misit. c. 9 §. Pelagiani  Pelagians, who denied that there was any original sin in Infants, especially being the children of faithful Parents? For as he could not be ignorant that 
(2) Hic proprius etc. Valet jes de mig pecc. c. 2.  This doctrine of denying original sin was (as their own jesuit confesseth) the proper heresy of the Pelagians. And not so only, but saith furthermore that 
(3) Calvinus, etc. Idem. ib. in princ. etc. 8. & in Tom. 2. disp 6 q. 11. punct. 1.  Caluine and all other Protestants are so far from denying original sin, that they do monstrously extend the nature thereof, even unto persons regenerate: so it could not be but he must have understood, that Caluine was a greater Adversary unto the Pelagian, then is any Romanist that can be named. Hereunto M. Parsons answereth.   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
BEllar mine is guilefully abused by M. Morton, in setting down his 
Reckon. ca 3. §. 7. pa. 155.  opinion, as though he had said that Caluine had denied with the Pelagians, that there is any original sin at all in Infants, though less in the children of the faithful, citing his Latin words in the margin perversely thus: Pelagioni doccbant, non esse in hominibus peccatum originale, & praecipue in 〈◊〉 fidelium; idem docent calvinus & Bucerus. The Pelagians did teach, that there was not original sin in men, and especially in the children of the faithful. The same do teach Caluine, and Bucer. Thus he.   

The Review.  
2. Bellarmine his words stand thus: Pelagiani, etc. That is, 
a Bellar. loco suprà citato.  The Pelagians taught two things, First, that there is no original sin, especially in the children of the faithful; and of this first he addeth, Primum, etc. That is, This first opinion Zuinglius, Bucer, and Calume do plainly teach; which words M. Parsons cut off: Bellarmine addeth, that Zuinglius did absolutely deny original sin in every man, but Calvin and Bucer only in the children of the faithful, who are (say they) holy, and saved without baptism. Where we see, that Bellarmine, speaking of these two, the first that There is no original sin; the second, 
A Calumnious Taxation.  that There is no original sin in the children of faithful Parents; doth make both to be the heresy of the Pelagians.   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning  
I Ask T. M. with what conscience could he falsify Bellarmine, in making 
Reckon. ib.  him say that which he did not, for that he saith not absolutely that Caluine denied all original sin in all Infants, but only in the children of the faithful.   

The Review.  
3. Why doth P. R. object this? where have I said that Bellarmine affirmed absolutely, that Calume denied all original sin in all Infants? but I have alleged him pertinently, as I have shown; and do now further aver in the behalf of Caluine, that Bellarmine, by affirming that Caluine did deny original sin in any kind of Infants, whether they be the children of Infidels or Christians, doth slanderously traduce Caluine, to draw him violently into the error of Pelagianisme; which heresy Caluine abhorred and detested as graceless and damnable: which M. Parsons himself might have seen, if he had not looked upon him only with his left eye; as will now perfectly appear.   

Evident proofs that Caluine hath been slandered by Bellarmine; and Protestants are generally freed from Pelagianisme in this point by their own Vega, and that according to the judgement of the Council of Trent.  
4. Bellarmine hath delivered his judgement upon Caluine, saying that Caluine denied original sin in the children of the faithful: which I take to be an unconscionable Slander.  
5. For first 
b Jnstit. l 2. c 1. §. 4. &. 5.  Caluine spendeth four Sections in confutation of this doctrine, proving that every child of Adam is borne in original sin, from the example of David, saying, that he was borne in iniquity, and conceived in sin: and as if 
Calvin's judgement.  he had sought to stop the mouth of all Slanderers, he expressly confuteth the Pelagians doctrine, even in this very point, Quod autem, etc. That is, 
c Ibid. §. 7.  But that the cavilling Pelagians do say (saith he) that it is not likely, that children should draw any corruption from godly Parents, from whom they do rather receuse purity, it is easily confuted, for they (that is, the children) do not descend from their spiritual, but from their carnal generation. Wherefore as Saint Augustine saith, whether the Parents be guilty, and in the state of Infidelity, or being in the faith, be absolved, both of them beget no free children, but guilty. Furthermore in that they partake of the parents sanctity, it is the special blessing of God, which doth not hinder but that the universal course of mankind goeth before, for guilt is from nature, but sanctification proceedeth from spiritual grace. Wherein we see, that there is as much difference between the Pelagians and Caluine, as there is between nature and Grace.  
6. Secondly, to consult with his Accusers: although that Bellarmine and Valentia (but not 
d Reckon. p. 155  In the very same place by me alleged, as M. Parsons pretendeth, but about three leaves after) do object the former heresy, Denying original sin in the children of faithful Parents: yet do they not allege any such words out of all his works. The only reason, which Bellarmine hath, is, Because he saith that the children of faithful parents are sanctified and saved without baptism: but Bellarmine elsewhere, reckoning up the opinion of some of his own Doctors, concerning some children unbaptized, saith thus; 
e Bellar. l. 1. de bap c. 4. §. quintum.  Cajetan, Gabriel, Gerson, Catharine, and some other Catholics say, that it is contrary to the mercy of God, that all children, which die without Baptism should perish. Among others who were of the same opinion, are reckoned Tilmannus, Sigebergensis, 
Calvin's judgement justified by Romanists.  Tho, Elisius, and 
f See Cassander himself, de baptismo Infantum.  Cassander, all affirming that although Infants want Baptismo aquae, that is, the out ward baptisine by water, yet, through the mercy of God, they are baptised Baptismo flaminis, that is, with the baptism of the spirit of sanctification; and consequently with Caluine do confess that the children of the faithful, dying before baptism, are sanctified and saved. Notwithstanding all this, Bellarmine noteth Caluine for a Pelagian Heretic, and termeth his own Doctors Catholics, which is a direct argument of a distorted and corrupt affection.  
7. The second Accuser 
g Valent. lib. de pecc. orig. c. 7. in princip. unto the end of the Chapter, & Tom. 2 de pecc. orig. disp. 6. q. 12. punct. 1. §. 4.  Valentia cometh nearer to the point, when (speaking of Protestants Kemnitius, Melancthon, Caluine, and all others) he saith: Qui omnes, etc. Who all every where, although they differ in word, yet they agree with a joint consent, affirming that original sin is an hereditary corruption and pravity of nature, which maketh us. guilty of the eternal warth of God, and is the fountain of all wickedness in men. Which manner of speech may be applied to the judgement of Illyricus, only differing from him, in that he teacheth the hereditary corruption to be form substantial, but these others do teach, that original sin is contained only in the defect of absolute perfection and justice, which ought to be in man. And much more to this effect, as to confess that Caluine placed Original sin principally in the Defect of perfect righteousness in our first conception, which defect is properly a sin; and the Sinner to be damned; which sin he holdeth to be Remitted in baptism, not that it is not, but that it is not imputed. So that in the children of the faithful Parents, in respect of their natural original, wherein there is a Defect of perfect righteousness, they are sinful and cursed; yet, through the covenant of Grace, they are the children of Adoption. If this be not sufficient, our next witness will make all clear.  
8. Vega, a Doctor greatly commended by the jesuit 
h Praef. in libros Vegae.  Canisius, and a principal Actor in the Council of Trent, doth, in expounding the meaning of that Council, yield unto us this his ingenuous and judicious confession; 
i Vega. l. 2. de justif. c. 6. § Et probavit. Protestant's judgement concerning original sin, justified by their adversaries.  The Protestants (speaking of all that he had read, (and his reading of Caluine he showeth almost in every Chapter) do teach in their Confessions, Apologies, and other books, the doctrine of original sin, constantly and consonantly with us: but they, who were condemned at the Council of Trent, were Pelagians, Armenians, Albanenses, who denied original sin. Do you hear this, M. Parsons? Caluine and Bucer are accused by Bellarmine for dissenting from your Church, by denying original sin in the children of faithful Parents. here your Vega telleth you, in effect, that it is a mere slander: for speaking of Protestants, without exception, he saith that They do consonantly agree with your Church in this question of original sin, and that even according to the meaning of the Council of Trent. How then may your Cardinal be thought to have dealt honestly or conscionably with Caluine? But they have decreed to draw Caluine within the compass of 〈◊〉 and to this purpose they proceed to another Question.   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning, concealing Venial Sins.  
WHereas Card. Bellarmine did charge Caluine and Oaluinists with 
Reck. c. 3. §. 7. pag. 158.  two principal errors of the Pelagians, the one, that which now hath been handled, Of denying Original Sin in children and Infants of the faithful; and the second, Of the denying of the difference of mortal and venial sins, and holding that by every least sin we lose our justice, and consequently that all sin is mortal, Bellarmine citing for the same the testimony of S. Hierome, who ascribeth 
Hierom. 2. l. cont. Pelag.  that for Heresy unto the Pelagians. And whereas in like manner he proveth the same heresy not only to be held by Luther and Melancthon but also by Caluine in divers parts of his works, as 1. 2. Instit. c. 8. §. 85. & 1. 3. c. 4. §. 28. etc. M Morton taking upon him to clear Caluine in the former charge about original sin, though so unluckily as you have heard, saith never a word against this second, about the distinction of venial and mortal sins, whereby it is evident in all probability, that he admitted that for true, and consequently yielded secretly that Calvin sts do agree with the Pelagians in this heresy, though he storm sharply against 〈◊〉 as you have heard, for charging Caluine with any point of Pelagianisme at all. And this fraud or frailty he committeth commonly in all the rest of the Heresies objected, denying the one weakly, and by his silence granting the other, as now by experience you shall find.   

The Reveiwe.  
10. Which by experience yourself shall find to have been both unsoberly and unluckily objected by yourself: for in my last 
k Catholic Appeal. 1. 5. cap. 22. § 3.  Book of Catholic Appeal, both this and the rest of the Heresies objected by Bellarmine, have been proved to be very slanderous. Concerning this particular, The sum of my answer is this: First, There appeareth no such words in Saint Hierome,: nor doth Saint Augustine in his Catalogue of Heresies: nor yet the Romish Authors Castro, Prateolus, Lindane, or others, in their discussing of Heresies, observe any such heresies in the Pelagians.  
11. Secondly, sins are said to be Venial in two respects, 
Sins, how venial and mortal.  either in their own nature, or else by God's grace and indulgence. In nature all sins are mortal, albeit not all equal. By God's mercy, (who doth not deal with his regenerate according to his exact justice) many kind of infirmities may be called Venial. In which respect only, your Roffensis is 
l Apud Vasquem Tom. 1. in 1. Tho. 2 disp. 42 c. 1. n. 4. p. 929.  noted to have judged of them accordingly, call them Venial, but not in their nature; but only through the mercy of God, who doth not impute them unto damnation. And what the impossibility of contrary doctrine is, hath been likewise 
m Cath. Appeal quo supra. §. 4.  manifested at large. Neither doth Gerson or Almain accord unto your common opinion, as 
n Bellar. l. 1. de Amiss. great. c. 4. §. His erroribus.  Bellarmme himself doth confess. The cause of Caluine standing thus upright, the slander which is cast upon him, will prove no Venial sin.    

SECT. II.  
The second slander used by Card. Bellarmine.  

The Charge, concerning the Heresy of the Novatians, in denying Penance.  
12. 
* Preamb. p. 63.  BEllarmine Maketh Protestant's guilty of the Heresy of 
4 Novatianorum, etc. Bellar. l. 4. de notis Eccl. c. 9 §. Novatianorun.  The Novatians, in taking from the Church all power of reconciling men unto God, but by Baptism, whereby he meaneth no Sacrament, but Baptism. When as his own Author's note that 
5 Novatianorum, etc. Castro. l. 12. Haer. 3. Tit. Paenitentia Vega li. 13. de justif. c. 2. p. 486. Moldon. jes. in joh. 5. 4.  The Heresy of the Novatians was this, viz. to deny any man, who should sin after Baptism, all hope of remission of sins, although he should repent. Yea and also Bellarmine himself, in behalf of Protestants, confesseth elsewhere, that 
6 Non Negant, etc. Bellar. l. 3. de justif. c. 6. & saepe alias.  They require repentance and faith in Christians, that they may be justified and obtain Remission of sins. Neither doth he note any difference between us and the Romanists, 
7 Non de etc. Bellar. l 1 de 〈◊〉 c 8. §. ut 〈◊〉  about repentance, as it is a conversion unto God with detestation of sin, or as it consisteth in outward signs of sorrow, weeping, confession, and outward chastisements; yea and almost all of them allow an outward rite of absolution. But the only controversy between us is, Whether Penance be properly a Sacrament.  
here I am called to a severe account, the brief whereof followeth.   

The sum of Mr PARSONS his Reckoning.  
Here he will make a difference between Card. Bellarmine and 
Reckon. cap 3. §. 8 pag. 160.  other Authors about the Heresy of the Novatians: but all is full of fraud. His drift is to argue Bellarmine of falsity, for affirming that Protestants of our days do join with the old Heretics, the Novatians, in taking from the Church All power of reconciling men unto God, for these are Bellarmine's words, and to contradict Bellarmine he citeth the words of Alphonsus de Castro, saying that the heresy, etc. But these are not contrary: for the Novatians taught both points, principally that there was no power in the Church to reconcile them, who fell after baptism, especially into grievous sins, as testifieth Cyprian, Saint Ambrose, and others; and this first part was against the keys of the Church and power to remit sins, and herein all Authors do agree. But the second part of this error went further, as some do gather out of the ancient Fathers, as testifieth Suarez (although others be of a contrary opinion) which was to deny furthermore, besides the Sacrament, all virtue of Penance whatsoever, whether private or Sacramental. Bellarmine doth not ascribe unto Protestants the denial of private repentance, either inward, or outward, by sorrow and tears, but their denial of Penance, as it is a Sacrament. And for M. Morton to infer that forasmuch as Alphonsus de Castro saith, that the Navatians did deny all power of Penance, therefore Bellarmine said not truly, that they denied the Sacramental use thereof, is a most absurd manner of reasoning, called à disparatis, for both may be true, the one excludeth not the other.   

The Reveiwe.  
13. If I shall give you leave to make my Reasonings, it is not unlikely but I may have them absurd: you must therefore suffer me to make mine own account, which I will bring into the true form of reasoning thus:  
Whosoever doth hold the heresy of the Novatians, in the denial of remission of sins, doth (according to the judgement of Alphonsus de Castro) deny That there is any hope in any man, sinning after Baptism, to obtain remission of sin, although he shall repent: But Protestants (as Card. Bellarmine consesleth) do not deny all hope of remission of sins, committed after Baptism, if sinners repent. Ergo, the Protestants hold not the Doctrine of Novatians.  
14. Is not this conclusion established in the Mayor by Castro, and in the Minor, by Bellarmine, which in the conclusion is fully contradictory unto his former assertion, where he said, Protestants hold the Heresy of the Novatians? Neither is the argument taken à disparat is, but à contradicentibus, and standeth thus: Novatians deny all hope of remission of sins committed after Baptism, and Protestants confess some hope of remission of sins committed after Baptism. This reasoning, I hope cannot be called absurd.  
15. Nevertheless (passing over this private Penance, as it is a virtue which every man must use, for the obtaining of Remission of sins) let us proceed unto a second consideration of it, as it is a power of reconciliation by virtue of the Keys of the Church. Concerning this, Protestants are confessed to admit a power of absolution in the Church, after Baptism, and Almost all of them (saith Bellarmine) do allow an outward rite thereof: for the reconciliation, in respect of notorious sinners, which the Novatians did deny. But as for the form of this Reconciliation, as whether it be a Sacrament, or no, it was never called into question, or censured to be the heresy of the Novatians. Therefore Bellarmine by devising a new heresy, which he calleth Novatianisme, that 
Bellarmine's slander.  he might draw Protestant's into the guilt of an heresy, hath committed a gross and inexcusable slander. And if Mr. Parsons shall answer this, I shall be contented to wear his badges, and terms of disgrace.   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
Protestant's are not accused by Bellarmine, for denying all Penance 
Recko. quo supra.  in general, but for denying a Sacramental Penance.   

The Reveiwe.  
16. If you had spoken in Bellarmine's Dialect, you would not have said the Denial of Sacramental Penance, but the Denying of Penance to be a Sacrament. Now I showed out of your own Authors Castro, Vega, Maldonate, that they, in censuring the error of the Novatians, did never note this to be the Novatians heresy, viz. [The denial of Penance to be a Sacrament.] Neither could you, M. Parsons, prove this out 
M. Parson's fraudulent dissembling.  of any one of them, albeit you have given your diligence to find it out. And this I take to be a sufficient conviction: for although the denying of All power of Penance doth imply a denial of All Sacramental power, yet because the former was an heresy, it doth not follow that the latter must be also heretical. For the Sadduces denying the Resurrection of men's bodies, which is an heresy, of heresy, do consequently deny, that in the Resurrection men's bodies shall have their paradise upon earth, which was the opinion of some: yet the denying of this is no heresy, nay it is an heresy not to deny it. After that M. Parsons had thus bemudded the water, he sought to catch an Eel, which is no sooner taken, but slippeth from him, because he, like one of the wise men of old, took her by the tail. Shall we see how?   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
LEt us see briefly how many false tricks he useth in this place. The 
Reckon. p. 163.  first of all may be, that whereas Card Bellarmine, to prove that our modern Protestants do symbolise and agree with the old Novatian heresies, allegeth two particular Instances; first, in denying the power of the Church to remit sins, by the Sacrament of Penance: secondly, in denying the use of holy Chrism, in the Sacrament of confirmation: M. Morton having nothing to say to the second, replieth only to the first by an Equivocation, as you have heard. And yet if the second only be true, Bellarmine is justified in noting Protestants of Novatianisme; and therefore to deny the one, and dissemble the other must needs proceed of witting fraud, granting that which is chiefly in Controversy; to wit, that Protestants do hold in somewhat Novatianisme.   

The Reveiwe.  
18. That which in my Preamble was, for brevity sake, 
M. Parson's precipitate and rash in divination.  remitted to a further Treatise, no man of discretion would conclude to be therefore omitted craftily, as though it could not be justly confuted. Yet such is the intemperate &, indeed, unfortunate peremptoriness of M. Parsons, for I have 
a Ctholicke Appeal. l. 4. c. 〈◊〉 And to prove that such like Denials do not make an Heretic, see the Audianis in the same book.  elsewhere noted, that Bellarmine, even in this second point, hath committed an injury not only against Caluine, but even against the Novatians themselves; where this, & the rest of the heresies, which are objected, are handled at large. Whereby the discreet Reader will perceive, that there was as little fraud in my omission, as there is much folly in Mr. Parsons his Inference and Collection.   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning, and charge of falsity.  
THe second fraud is, that when Bellarm. saith, that this was the principal 
Reckon. pag. 162. 163.  error of the Novatians, the word [principal] importing that they had other errors beside, is craftily cut off by M. Morton.   

The Reviewe and discharge.  
19 True it is that Bellarmine did note two errors in the Novatians, the one was principal, and the other was of less importance; I, for brevity sake, proved Card. Bellarmine a Slanderer in the principal, and M. Parsons is offended with 
M. Parsons his childish & rash objection of craft.  me, that I have spared his reputation in the less principal; and calleth it a point of craftiness to omit the examination of that in a Preamble, which I have discussed 
b Catho. Appeal. quo supr.  elsewhere in a full Treatise. So loose and luckless a man is M. Parson's continually in his imputation of craft.   

M. PARSONS his Reckoning, and charge of falsity.  
WHere Bellarmine said, that There is no power in the Church to reconcile 
Reckon. pag. 162.  men unto God, but only by baptism: These last words also, [but only by baptism] were by Mr. Morton, and by the same art shifted out of the Text, for that they have relation to the Priests of the Church, to whom it appertaineth by public and ordinary office to baptise: and in this the Protestants are accused by Bellarmine to concur with them in denial of Penance, as it is a Sacrament.   

The Review, and discharge.  
20. M. Parsons his palate is so distempered, that it turneth every thing that it tasteth into craft, which unto me seemeth to be an argument of his self-guiltiness in points of craftiness. I alleged the sentence thus: Novatians deny all hope of remission of sin after Baptism. This was sufficient for the acknowledgement of a power in Baptism for remission of sin. How could he call this a Shifting? hath he any reason for it? Yes he hath one, I pray you mark it (good Reader) 
His fond and false conjecture.  for it is pretty: The words were shuffled out of the text (saith he) for that they have relation unto the Priests of the Church, to whom it appertaineth by public and ordinary office to baptise. He might as well have said, that I did it in envy unto our own Protestant Ministers, unto whom I held The public office of baptizing to appertain. Such is the exceeding impotency of this professed Caviller.   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning, and charge of falsity.  
THirdly, he doth bring in guilefully the foresaid testimony of Castro, 
Reckon. p. 163.  Vega, and Maldonate, as contrary to Bellarmine, whereas they speak of another thing, to wit, of Penance in another sense.   

The Review, and discharge.  
21. Castro, Vega, and Maldonate did indeed speak of 
His loose and unjust reprehension.  Penance and Absolution in another sense than Bellarmine did: for they never judged it to be an Heresy of the Novatians, to Deny Penance to be a Sacrament. Neither was there ever any ancient Father or Romish Writer, whom Mast. Parsons could produce, who so conceived of the Novatian Heresy, as Bellarmine hath done, who rather than Protestant's should not be Novatian Heretics, hath feigned a new Heresy, which was never imputed to the Novatians: which is, I must needs say, a craft and fraud intolerable.  
22. The fourth traducement hath been answered before, and the last is more childish than any of the rest, which is the alleging of Luther truly in that sense, which I have already justified to be most true.    

SECT. III.  

The third charge against Bellarmine, for his Slander against Caluine, in the Question of Free-will.  
22 
* Pream. pa. 64.  THE 
8 Manicheotum, etc. Bellar. l. 4. de notis Eccles. c. 9 §. Manichaeorum.  Manichees (said he) did condemn the nature of men, depriving them of Free-will, and ascribing the original and beginning of sin unto the nature of man, and not unto his Free-will: yet hath he observed that 
9 johannes Calvinus, etc. Bellar. l. 1 ae Grat. primi 〈◊〉 c. 1. §. In codem.  Caluine teacheth, that man in his first creaticn had Free-will, whereby in his integrity he might, if he would, have attained unto eternal life.  
This contradiction in this point is no more than this, to charge Caluine with that which he did not believe. Is not this singular falsehood? And yet behold a more notable than this.   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning, and charge of folly.  
Whereunto I answer, if it be more notable in folly then this, or 
Reckon. ca 3. § 9 pa. 167.  else in fraud; it is notabler indeed. For to accuse a man to hold that which he holdeth not, is no contradiction, but 〈◊〉 false accusation, nor always falsehood, for it might have been error. And this for the folly.   

The Review.  
23. Wisely, forsooth, M. Parsons; Bellarmine is supposed to have written knowingly what was the opinion of the Manichees concerning Free-will, and as knowingly, to have acknowledged the contrary opinion of Caluine: and yet notwithstanding did he ascribe unto Caluine that opinion of the Manichees. Can this but imply a contradiction? But you say, this might have been by him not in falsehood, but upon error. so any thing, wherein you have charged me with falsehood, might have proceeded only from error. Is not this a rare 
Bellarmine's flaunder.  point of wisdom, so to excuse and free Bellarmine from falsehood, as that your own Accusations of falsehood shall be of no force? Where is the Folly now? But now to the fraud.   

M. PARSONS his Reckoning, and charge of fraud.  
CAluine granting free will to have been in man before the fall, 
Reckon. p. 167.  and lost after the first sin of Adam, may concur with the Manichees in this, that after the fall of Adam, as now we live, we have free-will, and so doth Card. Bellarm. take him, and prove out of his works, This than is an egregious fraud, and chiefly to delude in this place his Reader with ambiguity of different times. 
* Reckon. ibid. pag. 168.  The Manichees taught that man after Adam's fall had no free-will, as both S. Hierome and S. Augustine do testify in the sentence of Mr. Morton here set down (though craftily he covered their names) and Bellarmine proveth Caluine to hold the same, out of his own words and works. What answereth M. Morton? Caluine (saith he) is confessed by Bellarmine to grant free will in man before the shall of Adam in his first creation. Yea but the question is after the fall.   

The Reviewe, demonstrating the Slander.  
24. What is this? Do those Fathers speak os Free-will after Adam's fall? Either M. Parson's understandeth not Bellarmine, or else Bellarmine understood not those Fathers, sor I am 
Two Fathers notably abused by M. Parsens and Bellarm.  sure they spoke of the Manichees denying free-will in man's first creation: First S. Augustine writing of this heresy of the Manichees, who taught that there were two first causes of man's nature: God, the Author of the good part, and an evil Spirit Author of the evil part of man's nature: and so 
c Aug. Tom 6. de Haeres. c. 46.  Peccatorum originem non libero arbitrio voluntatis, sed substantiae tribuunt gentis adversae: quam dogmatizantes esse hominibus mixtam, omnem carnem non Dei, sed malae mentis perhibent esse opificium etc. That is: They ascribed the original cause of sin not unto the free-will of man but to the substance of an aducrse and contrary Nation, which they taught to be mixed in man, telling us, that all flesh is not the workmanship of God, but of an evil Ghost. Heat is a manifest mention of the nature of man in his first workmanship, and an exposition of the 〈◊〉 of the Manichees, ascribing the beginning of Evil, not unto the free-will of the created nature, but unto the eternal evil Creator, which was the Author of that evil.  
25. So likewise Saint Hierome in the place alleged. 
d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dagian.  It was (saith he) the Doctrine of the Manichees, to condemn the nature of man, to take away free-will, and also the help of God. What he furthermore meaneth by condemning the nature of man, wherein they acknowledge no free-will, he showeth, where he condemneth the Manichees, for saying that 
e Hier. in Jsaiam  There was two created natures of man, one of the children of perdition, the other of the good ones. But if, as they say, the children of perdition were of most wicked nature, how is it said that that is found, which first was lost, how is the prodigal child said to have been lost, except first he had been in some safe estate? All this concerneth Free-will in the first creation. If you did not see this, Mr. Parsons, when you imputed Fraud unto me, you have erred: if you did see thus much, and yet would besprincle me with note of Fraud, than you cannot avoid the shame of a calumniator under any pretence of error: but I must pardon you, for this is but a piece of your occupation. Which that it may be more evident, you proceed.   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
ANother fraud, though somewhat less perhaps then the former, 
Reckon. pag. 168.  was, that in setting down the charge of Bellarmine against Caluine, he recounteth the same as in Bellarmine's own words, which are the words of S. Hierome and S. Augustine. And why, think you, did Mr. Morton conceal these two Fathers names? the causes are evident, first lest the denial of Free-will, defended by Protestants, should be pronounced Heresy by two so grave Fathers: the second for that it would have marred his sleight of thinking that there was meant Free-will, in respect of the first nature of man.   

The Reveiwe, confuting M. Parsons and his fellows, by the confessed sentences of Fathers.  
26. Bellarmine alleging the former sentence out of the Fathers, to wit, The Manichees condemned the nature of man, denying freedom of will, did add of his own; which was the Doctrine of Caluine. The former I granted for a truth, according to their proper sense: but Bellarmine his application of that heresy unto Caluine, I cordemned (and that justly) for a slander. All the Inivirie which I did, was not unto Bellarmine, or unto you, M. Parsons, but unto my own cause, to wit, even because I did not allege the sentence in the names of those Fathers, whereby the lavishness of the slander might have been made more manifest, as from the Testimonies of those Fathers hath been already proved.  
27. And for a more perfect conviction both of Mr. Parsons, and his Client, it will not be impertinent to set down the confession of their own jesuit Maldonate, 
f Maldon. jes. Comment. in Luc. 15. ver. 13.  Many Fathers (saith he) by the substance, which the Prodigal child lost (Luc. 15.) did understand Free-will, as Saint Augustine, Bede (he might have added Saint 
g See above.  Hierome) Euthimius, and Saint Bernard. So Maldonate, who disliking these speeches, feigneth an exposition of his own: but the sentences of these Fathers 
The father's judgement concerning free-will.  do grant a loss of free-will, by Adam's fall. And how ordinary is that sentence of Saint Augustine: Man, by abusing his Free-will, lost both it, and himself? yea and the Schoolmen thought (saith 
h Epist. dedicat. ante libros Hilary.  Erasmus) that Saint Augustine in some places yielded too little unto man's Free-will. Now let any judge whether of us two is the man of Fraud. But I must not escape thus.   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning, and fourth charge of Fraud.  
WHereas Card. Bellarmine doth allege two points, wherein 
Reck. pag. 169.  the Protestants of our time, but especially Caluine, do con cur with the Manichean Heresy; the one, that which hath been said of the denying of Free-will, the other in reprehending and condemning Abraham, Samson, Sara, Rebecca, etc. and other Saints of the old Testaments, as Saint Augustine testifieth, that the Manicheans did; and Bellarmine showeth that Caluine doth hold the very same, proved by multiplicity of places quoted out of his works: M. Morton passeth over with silence this latter proof as unanswerable, yet will have us think that Bellarmine did injure Caluine, in noting him with the Manichean Heresy: which is as much as if a man having two writings to show for a suit in Law, the Attorney of the Adverse part should suppress the one, which is most plain and evident, and cavil about the other.   

The Reveiwe.  
28, This is pretty (Mr. Parsons) but yet I must needs say, 
His heady taxation.  it is both witless and luckless: for be it known unto you that I could not think that second objection of Bellarmine unanswerable, which I have already 
i Cath. Appeal, l 5 c. 19  answered, and proved to be as wicked a slander as any of the rest: I may not deny your palate a taste of that answer.  
29. First I proved out of your own Doctors, that the Heresy of the Manichees, was not the noting of the Idolatry of Abraham, etc. Secondly, that to say with Caluine, that 
k Calvin. Instruct advers. Libert. c. 3.  Abraham had once been an Idolater, is no Heresy, but a truth, and by your jesuit 
l Pererius Jes. in Gen. 11. l. 16. Disp. 17. n. 255, etc.  Pererius confessed to have been justified by many Romish Doctors, & other Authors, such as Genebrard, Masius, yea and by jewish Rabbins, and Philo: afterward by Lindane out of Suidas and Saint Augustine. To which of all these dare you (who are so bold with Caluine) ascribe the note of the forenamed heresy of the Manichees? Therefore it cannot be, but that this your Holy itch, (as you have named it) doth proceed from a malignant humour.    

SECT. FOUR  

The fourth slander used by Bellarmine. The charge.  
30. 
* Pream. pa. 64.  He accused Bullinger of 
10 Henr. Bullingerum, etc. Bellar. praef. in contr. de Christo. §. Henricem. & Greg. Valent Ics. lib. deunit. & Triait. c. 9  Arianisme,  because of this sentence, [Tres sunt non statu, sed gradu, etc. Notwithstanding'he knew that this was the very sentence of Tertullian. And is therefore elsewhere expounded as orthodoxal and justifiable by 
12 Tertullianus etc. Bellar. l. 1. de Cluisto. c. 10 §. Respondeo 2.  himself.  

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning, and charge of abuse.  
MAster Morton doth offer him (that is, Bellarmine) great abuse, for 
Recko. pag. 172.  he never alloweth any where of the whole sentence, as it standeth in the Book against Praxea, but only of the first two words, Non statu, 〈◊〉; saying; that per gradum: he understandoth ordinem personarum.   

The Review.  
31. The Antitrinitarian Heretics objected, for proof of their error, the whole sentence of Tertullian, which is this; Tres sunt non statu, sed gradu; non substantia, sed forma; non potestate, sed specie differentes. And now Mr. Parsons telleth us, that Bellarmine cutting off the latter part of the sentence, answered only the first two words, Non statu, sed gradu: so that when Mr. Parson's would free Bellarmine from a slander, he doth in effect accuse him of singular fraud, in cutting oft the chief part of the sentence of Tertullian, as though it 
M. Parsons maketh Bellarmine to betray the Catholic cause.  had been unanswerable, and so (as much as that testimony of Tertullian could work) betrayed the Catholic cause unto the Arians. Whensoever I happened to cut off any sentence, although altogether impertinent, Mr. Parsons pursueth me as vehemently, as he would do a man that had cut a purse: here hath he taken his Lord Cardinal Bellarmine cutting off that part of the Sentence, which did most principally concern the cause, and yet doth he profess himself an Advocate in his behalf. Surely, this proveth that Mr. Parsons was nothing less than Sober (for spitefulness is a kind of drunkenness) when he made this Reckoning, who, that hec might charge me with abusing of Bellarmine, hath himself so far abused Bellarmine, as to make him a fraudulent Abuser of Tertullian.   

Master PARSONS his Reckoning, and second charge of Fraud.  
MAster Morton bringeth in Valentia in his Margin, approving, or at 
Reckon. p 171.  leastwise, not improving the same sentence of Tertullian thus: Sic scribit Tertul. Tres sunt non statu sed gradu, non substantiâ sed formâ, non potestate sed specie. This is a Fraud, for Tertullian is not so much as named by him in the place alleged, but Bullinger is reprehended for using the same sentence, Tressunt, etc. Which Mr. Morton would have his Reader think he had allowed.   

The Reviewe, and discharge.  
32. Here is only a Marginal note, not insisted upon in 
M. Parson's lavish wrangling.  the Text, so much as by name, nor any inference to be justly made out of it, but intimating only that Valentia knew that this was the Sentence of Tertullian, which probably he did: So that in this there is no occasion or just suspicion of fraud: And now the only error was the 
m As is plain in the first part of my Apolog. Cath. pag. 149. whence the sentence was transcribed.  misplacing of a marginal quotation. For the senteuce, which I alleged was thus Verbatim set down in the 
n See in the beginning of Tertul. Basil. An. 1521. Admonitio ad Lectorem, de quibusdam Tertulliani dogmatis  Author of the Preface unto Tertullian: Sic scribit Tertullianus adversus Praxeam, Tres sunt non statu sed gradu; non substantiâ, sed formâ; non potestate, sed specie differentes. Which being observed, may acquit me not only of fraud, but even of any fault, except that which will happen sometime to the most vigilant Writers. Let us return to Bellarmine.   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
BEllarmine expounded the first words of Tertullian, saying Per gradum 
Reck. p. 173.  intelligit ordinem personarum: Tertullian in this place by Degree understood only the order of persons, and not a different degree of perfection: But the whole sentence of Tertullian he never defended nor admitted, but held it rather for erroneous in Tertullian, and heretical in Bullinger: And now, you see what notable advantage M. Morton hath gotten out of this his so notable objection.   

The Reveiwe.  
33. If I had gotten no advantage before, yet now have I gained much by this Reckoning: the first is this, that Bellarmine, whom I was to prove a falsificator, may be convicted of falsehood by your confession, for to cut off a necessary part of a sentence of Tertullian, where the whole was objected, doth argue fraud in the highest degree. Secondly I find in your Answer, that which may be observed in many of your fellows, that Protestants are condemned by you for Heretics 
Three observable points.  sometimes, when they speak the very language of ancient Fathers. Thirdly I discern in you, Mr. Parsons, either ignorance not to understand, or malice not to acknowledge the truth of this doctrine of Tertullian, which hath been thus 
M. Parson's ignorance of the judgement of Tertullian.  cleared by the Author of the Admonition, concerning the opinions of Tertullian, prefixed before his works, expounding the forenamed sentence, Tres sunt, etc. thus; Tertullian (saith he) calleth that a State, which the Schoolmen call the substance: that he calleth a Degree, which they call Notion: that he nameth a form, which they term properties: & he taketh that to be Species, or kind, which they note to be the manner of being. Will not now M. Parsons blush to perceive his malady detected, whilst that he chose that Tertullian should be rather condemned, then that (as I may so say) his son Bullinger a Protestant should not be condemned? Here is malice.    

SECT. V.  

The fifth slander used by Bellarmine.  
34. 
* Preamb. p. 65.  BEllarmine said of Protestants (said I) that 
13 Secundum errorem, etc. Bellar. l. 1. de beat. Sanct. c. 4. Paulon post initium.  They teach that the souls of faithful men departing this life, do not go directly unto heaven. In another place he together with his fellow jesuit, hath publicly recorded that it is a common 
14 Octaus obiectio, etc. Bellar. l. 1. de Imag. c. 8 §. 14. 13.  Objection of Protestants proving from Scriptures, against the doctrine of Purgatory, that the souls of the faithful presently after death, go directly unto heaven.  
Hereunto Master Parsons doth answer.  
Octava ob. & Gregor. de Valent. de Purge c. 8. & Rhemists Annot. in Apoc.   

Mr PARSONS his Reckoning.  
I Have consulted with Bellarmine, at leastwise with his book, and he 
Reckon. pag. 164. 165.  answereth that the word, Protestants, twice here repoated, is not found in him in the place by you cited: for that he ascribeth not this heresy unto all Protestants in general, but only unto three in particular of our time, viz. Luther. Cornelius Agrippa, and John Caluine. So as M. Morton hath made him to tax all Protestants, and to say, They do teach, etc. Whereas he taxeth only three particular men Neither have I yet read any other that defendeth the same.   

The Reveiwe.  
35 Neither did I say that Bellarmine did accuse All Protestants, as you infer, but only Protestants, as you confess. In whom then is the fraud? But you say he noted Caluine and Luther by name. As though in them he did not often condemn Protestants in general, although not in universal. And because you say you have consulted with Bellarmine, or with his book; I must tell you, that either your outward or inward sight hath deceived you, for if you shall, for your better 
M. Parsons is ignorant of Beliarmines' book, with which he saith, he consulted  information, consult again with the 4. cap. of the same book, §. Primus, you shall find these words: At secundùm errorem Caluinistarum, non ad Deum ibant (namely, the Martyrs,) sed ad inferos, aut ad alium locum extra coelum. That is, According to the error of the Caluinists, the Martyrs went not unto God, but unto some other place without heaven. Do you not see that Calumists are here generally charged with this error? And in the margin I said Caluinists. After that you have examined this, it may be you will confess that by your former Consultation you made no Sober Reckoning.  
36. Furthermore, I never read (say you) of any other, but the abovenamed Luther, Agrippa (who was no 
a See his book Devanit Scient. cap. 6. ve. sus finem, where he calleth the Protestants Heretics. And, as some note, was commended by Pope Leo the tenth, l 1. Ep. 38. See the book of Pope loan, pag. 104.  Protestant) and Caluine that defended the same: and yet your Bellarmine hath not feared to charge not only Caluine, but also Caluinists, for defending this doctrine. Dost thou not see (good Reader) what an unhappy Proctor M. Parsons is become in Bellarmine's behalf, who will seem to have consulted in this 
M. Parsons his answer entangleth Bellarmine in an higher suspicion of slander.  point with Card. Bellarmine, and yet yieldeth no better satisfaction, then that which may be a confutation both of him and of his book? If the Card. should know this, it may be M. Parson's should hear that 
* Luc. 26. 2.  non eris ultrà villicus: and be presently put out of this office of Reckoning. Let us come nearer unto Bellarm. his accusation of Caluine.   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
CAluine chiefly maintained this error, saying that the Saints do 
Reckon. pag. 175.  expect without in a certain Porch or Entry, until the consummation of the world: From whence Bellarmine infcrreth that, The Saints by Calvin's doctrine, are shut out of Heaven.   

The Review, discovering the manifold frauds used by Bellarmine, and the integrity of Caluine in this Article of entrance into Heaven.  
37. This I say and aver to be an ungodly and unconscionable slander, and so may you know, if you will have the patience but to hear either the accused, or the accuser speak: first Caluine, who is the party accused, delivereth unto us, as part of his Creed, saying, Credimus quòd, etc. 
b Calvin. advers. Libertin. c. 22.  We believe that which Paul speaks, viz When our earthly house is destroyed, we shall have a permanent house In Heaven; therefore do we desire to flit out of this life, that we may be with the Lord, and enjoy all good things. For if the souls of the faithful, as soon as they are out of this body, do live with God, and enjoy the happiness of that Kingdom, yet the perfect felicity (whereby Calvin meaneth that which is the consummation of blessedness both in body and soul, which cannot be until the general Resurrection) God hath referred until the second coming of Christ. What better Comment would any require of one Article of faith, concerning the direct passage of souls into the real Kingdom of God in heaven? Thus much the accused party for himself.  
38. But what if Bellarmine, who is his Accuser, shall also free him from excluding the souls of Saints out of Heaven? Si quis petat, etc. 
c Bellar. l. 4. de Christo c. 9 §. Si quis.  If any (saith Bellarmine) do ask Caluine where the souls of the just were, before the coming of Christ? he answereth that they were in Heaven, although they saw not God, nor shall see him till the day of judgement. By which Bellarm might know he meant the perfect sight of God both in soul and body (as he himself expoundeth Irenaeus, Lib. I. de beat. c. 4. §. Quod ergo) until the day of judgement. Here is a plain confession, that Caluine taught a local presence of the souls of the faithful, who, before Christ's coming, entered into Heaven: And would he then exclude the faithful of the new Testament from the same hope? No; for Caluine himself reasoneth thus: Quod si Latroni, etc. 
d Caluine upon the text of the penitent these.  If the thief upon the Cross had entrance into heaven, much more will Christ, now, after he hath conquered death, put out his hand out of his Throne to apprehend us, & to gather us into the fellowship of life, seeing he received the thief into his bosom, and did not abandon him into purgatory. Who seeth not now the wilful Slander, which Bellarmine hath committed against Caluine?  
39 Furthermore that his malice herein may better appear, we shall find that first he depraveth the sentences of Caluine notoriously, by wresting his obscure sentences, rather than by acknowledging his most plain conclusions.  
40. Secondly, by perverting the testimony alleged out of Caluine: for whereas Caluine said: 
e Instit. l. 3. c. 20. §. 20.  Christus solus ingressus est Sanctuarium, Christ only entered into the Sanctuary of heaven; distinguishing the Sanctuary of heaven from the Atrium; Bellarmine 
f Bellar. l. 1: de Eccles. Triumph. c. 1. §. Eundem habet.  maketh his conclusion to have been, Christum solum esse in caelo, that is, Christ only to be in heaven, as though there were not in heaven (as Christ speaketh) many Mansions; and that he, who is not in the chief place of heaven, were therefore excluded out of heaven. This is another falsehood.  
41. Thirdly Caluine speaketh of a porch of Heaven, by allusion 
Bellarmine depraveth the sentence of Caluine.  unto the people of the old law (who stood in the Porch, whilst only the high Priest went into the Sanctuary to offer for the people) and saith, that so 
g Instis. que suprà.  Christ our high Priest is only entered into the Sanctuary of Heaven, that he may offer up the vows of the people, which stand in the Porch a far off; meaning the people of the militant Church in this life, of whom he said, Sic membrorum omnium adhuc in terra laborantium unus Mediator Christus, That is, Christ is the only Mediator for his members, which travel in this earth. And now to change the Atrium of Saints in this world, into the Atrium of Saints in glory, is to turn earth into heaven, which is another injury.  
42. Lastly, if we shall suppose that Caluine by Atrium, had meant the place of souls departed, and had said that the souls departed could not enter into the Sanctuary, yet Bellarmine knowing other plain and justifiable sentences of Caluine, might have afforded his obscure places as favourable an exposition, as he allowed S. Bernard, who taught an Atrium also, to wit, 
h Bellar. l. 1. de beat. sanct. c. 5. §. 〈◊〉  Dicit quidem Bernardus, etc. Bernard indeed saith, that the Saints shall not see God before the resurrection, and until then to remain in Atrio, That is, in the Porch: Whereby he meant not (saith Bellarmine) to deny the simple vision of God, but that perfect vision which shall be both in body and soul after the resurrection. Here again we may discern a malignancy in our Romish Writers, who when they find Fathers and Protestants agreeing in the same terms (as before was observed in the testimony of Tertullian) yet do they justify the sayings of the Fathers as holy truths, and reject the sentences of Protestants as damnable heresies.   

The same slander fastened by Bellarm. upon Luther.  
I Have consulted with Bellarmine, at least with his book, and he ascribeth 
Reckon. quo suprà p. 174.  this heresy unto Caluine and Luther, etc.   

The Reveiwe.  
43. He doth so indeed: 
i Bellar. l. 1. de Eccles. trump c. 1. §. Secundum errorem.  Luther (saith Bellarmine) held the same error in his Lectures upon Genesis, as Fredericus Staphylus doth city him. Who accuseth Luther? Bellarmine, a professed Reader against him: but by what witness? even by Staphylus, a Romanist, and a professed Railer against Luther: Lastly, from what place? From his Lectures upon Gen. where I can find nothing for defence of that error, but much for the confutation thereof. For Praelect. in Gen. cap. 25. where (after that he had affirmed, that the souls of the just after death, do not go either into Hell, or into Purgatory, but into peace) he saith justos omnes, etc. That is: That all the just, when they depart out of this life, do go to Christ, and are received into his bosom, even into Paradise; which Paradise he there calleth Heaven. Therefore the former accusation doubtless, came not from heaven.  
44. It may please the Reader to observe, that whereas I 
* See here after, l. 1. c. 12. §. 13.  happended to produce the testimony of Tolossanus, a Romish Author, citing Frising ensis against the violent and turbulent practises of later Popes, M. Parsons held it to be a fraudulent injury to allege the Relater Tolossanus, and not Frisingensis, 
M. Parson's partiality.  who was the Author himself. But now M. Parsons in this place, seeth Bellarmine citing Staphylus, the professed enemy of Luther, by whose testimony Luther is noted of Heresy, and yet he thinketh that Bellarmine hath done honestly. Here is good Reckoning.   

The sixth slander used by Cardinal Bellarmine against Caluine.  
45. 
* Preamb. p. 65.  Bellarmine challengeth 
15 Bellar. l. 4. de notis Eccles. c. 9 ad finem.  Calnine for as he calleth it) an ancient Heresy alleged by Theodoret, affirming that there is only a figure of Christ's body in the Eucharist. And yet in another place affirming, both 
16 Quae sententia. etc. Bellar. l. 1 de Euch. c. 1. initio.  That that opinion is not ancient, nor yet now to be found in Theodoret; and also that 
17 Docet Calvinus etc. Bell 〈◊〉 §. Secundò docet  The foresaid doctrine of Caluine doth teach, that in the Eucharist there is to be exhibited unto the faithful, not only a figure of Christ's body, but also the body and blood itself, by which meat souls are nourished unto eternal life. Or, as another jesuit testifieth for Caluine, 
18 Docet calvinus, etc. Valent. jes. Tom. 4. disp. 6. 〈◊〉 3. punct. 1. §. Item.  That our souls communicate with the body of Christ substantially. Here is no more odds in this Accusation, then ancient and not ancient; heresy and not heresy.   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
THE objected contradiction in this place is, that Bellarmine confesseth 
k Reck. cap. 3. §. 12. pag. 181.  Caluine to hold, that together with the Sacrament of the Eucharist, God doth exhibit unto the faithful not only a sign of Christ's body, but also the body and blood itself, yea and as Valentia addeth further, that aCluine confesseth that our souls do communicate with the body of Christ substantially. Whereunto I answer, true it is, that in words all Cuine doth affirm as much in some parts of his works, but denieth it again in others, and thereupon do both Bellarmine and Valentia convince him of most eiudent and palpable contradictions in this matter. Which proveth no contradiction in Bellarmine, but in Caluine himself.   

The Reveiwe.  
46. So do you pursue many testimonies of Caluine to no purpose, for there is a real eating of Christ's body spiritually, and not only bodily: all the question is, whether in the Sacrament we receive only a Sign of Christ, and not the very body itself: So said those ancient Heretics, and so Caluine is traduced by Ballarmine to have affirmed. This matter would be better examined. A Syllogism would set all strait.  
Maior. No man admitting more than a Sign of Christ's body to be received in the Eucharist, doth concur with the ancient Heretics, mentioned by Theodoret, who defended receiving only of the sign of Christ's body:  
Minor. But Caluine, by the confession of Bellarmine and others, taught, that we receive in the Eucharist more than a sign of Christ his body:  
Ergo, Caluine taught not that ancient Heresy mentioned by Theodoret.  
47. The Mayor will not be denied: the Minor is this, that Calume taught that we receive more than a sign, even a Seal also, as M. 
k Reck. P. 182. lin. ult.  Parsons noteth; by virtue where of Caluine saith, that We receive the very body and blood of Christ, as Bellarmine himself confesseth: not only Sacramentally, but (as Valentia witnesseth) Substantially communicating in our soul with the body of Christ. So that in the conclusion (which is contradictory unto Bellarmine his assertion) we see in Bellarmine a manifest contradiction. Neither shall Master Parsons with all the art he hath, avoid this, until he can show some place in Caluine, wherein it is said, that We receive only a sign of Christ's body in the Eucharist, and not his body: which neither he, nor any of his Disciples shall ever be able to perform.  
48. A second contradiction is as plain, wherein, as he would charge Caluine with an Ancient Heresy mentioned by Theodoret, and yet saith, Ne glorientur Caluinistae suam sententiam esse valde antiquam, That is, Lest the Caluinists might boast that their opinion is very ancient (towit, as were the days of Theodoret,) &c: so doth he hereby confess that it was not so ancient. But so ancient, and not so ancient, make a contradiction. And yet whilst I do accuse others, I am called to a coràm myself.   

M. PARSONS his Reckoning, and charge of fraud.  
Mr. Morton hath commonly alleged no instance of fraud in his 
Reckon. p. 177.  adversary, but with some fraud in himself, and none perhaps with more, then in this sixth and last objection in that kind, concerning the testimony of Theodoret for real presence, for that here be so many foul faults and wilful corruptions, as truly if after so many admonishments I should use the same, it would make me ashamed to look any man in the face.   

The Review.  
49. I am right glad to hear that M. Parsons hath a face, which can possibly be ashamed. For I shall put his face to the trial, even in these his objected falsities. What is the first?   

Master PARSONS his Reckoning.  
HE mentioneth Caluine to be challenged by Bellarmine for his beresie, 
Recko. pag. 179.  leaving out Zuinglius, who is equally challenged with Caluine. This is one trick.   

The Review.  
50. When Card. Bellarmine, in slandering two parties, did contradict himself in his Accusation of one, was it not sufficient 
M. Parson's silly wrangling.  to prove, that he had wilfully transgressed his conscience from the apparent contradiction in that one, except it were proved that he did contrary himself in his accusing of them both? Would any Sober brain note this for a Trick of fraud? Nevertheless 
l Bellar. l. 4. de notis Eccl. c. 9 & l. 1. de Eucharist. c. 1. §. edidit. etc.  seeing that the doctrine of Caluine and Zuinglius were (according to Bellarmine his opinion) in this point both one, will M. Parson's deny that in Caluine, Zuinglius is absolved?   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
THen he omitteth wholly the mention of the seventh general 
Reckon. p. 179.  Council, which so long ago confuted the same heresy. And this is another trick.   

The Review.  
51. It did indeed confute that old Heresy, whereof Caluine 
His fond impertinency.  (by the judgement of Bellarmine) was not guilty: and therefore this is a point of your own idle trickishnesse, to put this Council into your Reckoning. What yet more?   

M. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
furthermore he concealeth in like manner the name and authority 
Reckon. ibid.  of old S. Ignatius, who in his time (which was immediately after the Apostles) held the denying of the Real presence to be an heresy: and this is a third trick.   

The Review.  
52. Bellarmine himself hath 
m Bellar. l. 1. de Eucharist. c. 1.  said, that the contention in the days of Ignatius, concerned rather the incarnation of Christ, than the Sacrament of the Eucharist. And yet hath M. Parsons the power to face out the matter, as though the omission 
M. Parson's Ignorance of the objected heresy.  of the name of Ignatius were a fraudulent Trick. Know furthermore that the Heretics spoken of, held that Christ had not a natural, but a fantastical body; and that therefore in the Eucharist his body could not be exhibited in a figure, but only a fantastical body: and so made the Eucharist, a figure of a figure.   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
WHereas Card. Bellarmine saith, Quae sententia, etc. Which sentence 
Reckon. ibid.  is cited by Theodoret in his Dialogue out of the Epistle of Ignatius ad Smyrnenses where now it is not to be found, meaning that it is not found in the Epistle of Jgnatius, M. Morton saith that it is not found in Theodoret; and upon this falsity of his own, will needs frame a contradiction in Bellarmine.   

The Reveiwe.  
53. From these words [Where now it is not to be fiund in Theodoret] I did not draw any note of contradiction against Bellarmine, this is Mr. Parsons his wilful untruth, as the Reader will judge. But yet say, I pray you, (Mr. Parsons) if I had so censured Bellarmine, whether had it been a greater fault in him, to have abused the Dialogue of Theodoret, or Epistle of 
His wilful untruth.  Ignatius?  
54. I know you will be muttering within yourself, saying thus: If I shall answer, that the corruption of Theodoret is worse, then will T. M. note me of gross ignorance, because Ignatius was S. john's Scholar, and therefore far more ancient and worthy then Theodoret. But if I say that it had been a greater offence to corrupt Ignatius, then will T. M. 
M. Parson's aim is either false or frivolous.  reply, that I show myself malicious in condemning him of wilful falsehood, for charging Bellarmine with a less offence, (that is, the corrupting of Theodoret) when as he might rather have challenged Bellarmine for a greater fault, even the abusing of the Epistle of Ignatius. The last Accusation was false, this is frivolous, both malicious. When will he end this part of his Reckoning?   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
BEfore I enter into this other Examen, there occurreth unto me 
Reckon. pag. 183.  a consideration worthy to be pondered by the Reader, which is, that all these six objections made against Card. Bellarmine for imputing old heresies unto Protestants, are taken out of his fourth book of the notes of the Church, cap. 9 where he chargeth the Protestants of his time with twenty several condemned old heresies, yet M. Morton thought good to set upon fix: Which M. Morton picking out only a few, and leaving all the rest as not excusable, and underhand by his silence granteth that they are held by Protestants. Which how markable a point it is, I leave to the Reader to judge.   

The Review.  
55. Good Reader, know that Mr. Parsons hath required thy judgement, in a matter which he holdeth worthy consideration, and ponderous. His consequence is this: M. Morton 
Mr. Parson's unreasonable exaction.  hath chosen only six Objections of Heresy (which he calleth Slanders) of twenty: Ergo, by his silence he doth in effect acknowledge the rest fourteen Heresies, to have been justly objected against Protestants. Now I also desire thy further consideration, to judge, whether this Reckoning of his be either sensible or conscionable.  
56. For first, the Treatise was only a Preamble unto a Treatise, and as it were the foot to the body of this book, yet doth M. Parsons exact, that I should have either set down all the rest of the slanderous accusations, which Bellarmine hath used against Protestants, or else to confess them to be no slanders. But hath not the Apostle demanded from reason, that if 
* 1. Cor. 12. 17.  All the body were an eye, then where should be the hearing? So say I, if all had been a Preamble, to what end had been an offer of a large Encounter? Would any think Mr. Parsons to be in his sober wits, if when he seeth the picture of his Father's face only, he should thereby conclude that his Father was all face, and no body? And yet doth he quarrel with me for not setting down all things in the Preamble, and as it were the Preface of this Encounter.  
57 Secondly, it is also an unconscionable, or at least an inconsiderate Consideration, which Master Parsons urgeth: For even all those other Fourteen, and divers more heresies, objected by Bellarmine, against the Protestants, have been by me particularly examined discussed, and proved to have been so many inexcusable slanders, even in that Book of 
n Apolog. Cathol. part. 1. Noto. 6.  Apology, whereof Master Parsons himself hath taken particular notice: but more fully and exactly in my lass Catholic Appeal, the fifth Book whereof is spent in the confutation of these and otherslaunders, which our Romish Adversaries have falsely objected against Caluine, and other Protestants. Thus we see that his Ponderous Consideration, being put into the balance, is found to weigh no more than doth a vain and fantastical conceit.     

CHAP. IX.  
Concerning three other corrupted Allegations of Cardinal Bellarmine.  

SECT. I.  

The charge concerning Saint Cyprian in the point of Tradition.  
1. 
* Preamb. p. 66.  SAint Cyprian stood upon written Tradition: Bellarmine said that he did it in defending an error, Therefore no marvel (saith he) though Cyprian erred in so reasonning; for the which cause Saint Augustine doth worthily refute him. In which place S. Augustine seemeth to be so far from confuting him, for reasoning so, that he saith: That which Cyprian warneth us, to run unto the fountain, that is unto the Traditions of the Apostles, from thence to derive a Conduct to our times, that is chiefly and doubtless to be performed.   

The sum of Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
THis was no good form of arguing in him, but in this necessity, 
Recko. c. 3. § 13. pa. 187.  for defending this error: for first Saint Augustine doth of purpose refute the same, and Saint Cyprian doth elsewhere yield and allow the unwritten Traditions: I grant that S. Cyprian saith (as Saint Augustine also doth) that when any Tradition or Doctrine can be clearly showed out of Scripture, Optimum est, It is questionless the best way of all: But when there is no Scripture for proof of it, than (saith S Augustine) Consuetudo illa, etc. that is, The custom which was opposed against Cyprian, must be believed to have proceeded from the Apostles, as many things else, which the Universal Church doth hold, and therefore are well believed to have been commanded by the Apostles, albeit they are not found written.   

The Reveiwe.  
2. What Saint Augustine's judgement was concerning the sufficiency of Scripture, as it is defended by the Protestants, he hath often unfolded, saying that 
a Aug. de doct. Christ. l. 2. c. 9  Amongst all things which are contained plainly in Scripture, all those things may be found, which concern faith and manners of life. And again, 
b Lib. 2. depeccat. merit. & remiss. ca 36.  Whensoever there is a case of greatest difficulty, and we have no clear proofs of Scriptures for our conclusions, so long must man's presumption keep silence. And even of this question of not rebaptizing, he doth refute it out of Scriptures 
c Contra Donatist. l. 1. c. 7. Tom. 7.  By (as he speaketh) certain proofs, (and not by conjectures, as Bellarmine calleth them) before the definition of a Council. And here also although Bellarmine be in part justifiable, yet look unto the sentence of Cyprian, and you shall find his reasoning negatively from Scripture (which is condemned by Bellarmine) to be justified by Saint Augustine, although it be there applied by him affirmatively.    

SECT. II.  
The second exception against Bellarmine.  

The charge concerning S. Peter's Ordination.  
3. THe sum of the exception standeth thus, Bellarmine defended that, 
d Bellar. l. 1. de Rom. Pont. c. 23.  Saint Peter only was ordained a Bishop by Christ, and that the other Apostles were ordained Bishops by Saint Peter: and endeavoured to prove this out of the testimonies of Anacletus, Clemens Alex. Eusebius, Cyprian, Leo, Augustine. But these Fahers (saith their 
e Relect. 2. §. 2. num. 8.  Victoria) do not intend that which the Authors of this opinion do pretend. As for other writings which are attributed unto Clement, and Pope Anacletus, which are both many and great, they are (saith their Cardinal Cusanus) 
Cusanus l. 3 de Concord. c. 2.  Apocrypha, wherein they, who extol the Roman Sea (which is worthy of allpraise) do above that which is convenient or meet, either wholly or partly rely, We are now to Reckon, first for the matter itself, and then for the manner of deliverance of it in my Preamble.   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
ALl this which Mr. Morton all adgeth here, if it were granted, as 
Reck. pag. 195.  it lieth, containeth nothing but two different opinions, between learned men in a disputable question. Whether Christ did immediately, and by himself, consecreate all or some of his Apostles Bishops, or one only with authority to consecrate the rest? Turrecremata and Bellarmine do hold the one for more probable, but Victoria, Cusanus, and some other do allow rather the other. What wilful falsehood is there in this? Or is it not singular folly to call it by that name?   

The Reveiwe.  
4. If all this were granted Mr. Parsons? Then I can tell you, you must either renounce the judgement of Bellarmine, or else recant your own Reckoning: you have granted first that 
g Recko. p. 193.  Bellarmine did prove out of Turrecremata, that Christ did make only Saint Peter Bishop, with authority to consecrate the rest: Secondly, that 
h Pag. 194.  Victoria thinketh the contrary opinion to be more probable, and answereth the argument of Turrecremata, saying, that the Fathers cited for the same; Reverà non significant id, quod Authores huius sententiae volunt, That is, That in truth they do not signify so much, as the authority 
Mr. Parson's crooked dissimulation.  (Mr. Parsons should have said Authors) of this opinion would have them: Lastly, that Cardinal Cusanus here cited, doth to the like effect, answer the same arguments.  
5. In all these confessed points consisteth the main matter of my former exception: Notwithstanding this evidence, Mr. Parsons saith, If it were granted, etc. What trick shall we call this? Yet thus much being granted, mark Master Parsons, what will follow hereupon, viz. that the Church of Rome hath lost her supposed Motherhood: For 
i Bellar. lib. 1. de Pont c. 27. §. second rat.  Bellarmine presuming that all ancients held the Church of Rome to be the Mother-church, addeth in these words, Quod non videtur, etc. that is, Which seemeth not to be true (saith he) except 
Rome by just consequence is not the Mother-church.  in that sense, because Peter, who was the Bishop of Rome, had ordained all other Apostles Bishops, either by himself, or by others. See this, and blush at your ignorance, Bellarmine reasoneth thus: Except Peter did ordain the rest of the Apostles Bishops, your Church of Rome cannot be truly called the Mother-church: but that Peter ordained the rest of the Apostles Bishops, Mr. Parsons doth hold it to be a matter disputable: their Cusanus thinketh it to be improbable, their Victoria concludeth 
Mr. Parson's ignorance.  pro certo, that Certamly Peter did not ordain them Bishops. The conclusion will follow of it own accord, which is this, viz. It is therefore but Disputable, or Improbable, yea an Incredible doctrine to say, that the Church of Rome is the Mother-church. When Mr. Parson's shall consider this, I think he will repent him of this Reckoning.  
6. May I be furthermore so bold with Mr. Parsons, as to demand: why he did translate [Authores eius sent entiae, that is, The Authors of this opinion] into The authority of this opinion? I say, what authority had he for these tricks, for of his purpose we will make no question: For he was loath that the opinion of Bellarmine should be held by any certainly 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 clear, for their conviction, M. Parsons (according to his old guise) diverteth his Readers eye from the matter unto the manner of delivery, & first thus.   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
HE allegeth the sentence thus: that Saint Peter was the only 
Reck. p. 192.  Bishop, and that the other Apostles took their Orders from him. Where he should have said, Peter was ordained Bishop alone by Christ, he changeth Episcopal Consecration, into holy Orders.   

The Reveiwe.  
7. Seeing that Peter only is said to have been ordained 
Loose and absurd cavils.  Bishop, who can imagine any ordainer but Christ? And the question being only of ordaining a Bishop, how can the word Holy orders betoken any other orders, but those which are Episcopal, that is, the Orders of Bishops? Except Mr. Parsons transgress so much, as to deny the orders of Bishops to be Holy: which showeth the exception, here used by M. Parsons, to be but an arrant quarrel.   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
WHereas he saith, that Bellarmine laboureth to evince from the 
Recko. pag. 193.  testimonies of Anacletus, Clemens Alex. etc. the proof of this prerogative; he abuseth him egregiously, for that Bellarmine doth allege this opinion, that Christ having all his Apostles Priests, did make only S. Peter Bishop, with authority to consecrate the rest, as the opinion of Turrecremata, alleging divers manifest reasons and proofs for the same.   

The Reviewe.  
8. Bellarmine contended to grace the Pope in Peter, and Peter with many prerogatives above the other Apostles; The two and twentieth is this above mentioned, viz. Peter alone was ordained Bishop by Christ, and the other Apostles by Peter. This Bellarmine holdeth to have been Saint Peter's prerogative, and then goeth about to defend it: but how he is contented to reason from Cardinal Turrecremata, alleging and allowing the same arguments and testimonies of Fathers as his own, and in the end making the same conclusion which Turrecremata did, All this Mr. Parsons cannot deny, and yet behold forsooth an Egregious abuse of Bellarmine; but why? because Bellarmine doth allege the reasons of Turrecremata. As if Mr. Parsons seeing some dissolute Rusfian, 
A Simile, illustrating Mr. Parson's deceitful peevishness.  borrowing a sword of an other, wherewith he doth wilfully kill a man, forthwith to be apprehended, and in due time condemned and executed, should run upon the judge, and revile him, saying, he did not the murder, for he borrowed the sword: So it is, Bellarmine did borrow the reasons of Turrecremata: but did use them and apply them for the proof of his own conclusion, which by other Romish Doctors hath been condemned as false.  
9 Therefore in this so senseless an accusation, the bent of Mr. Parson's malice doth show itself, who furthermore urgeth the leaving out of the word 
k Reckon. 194.  [fortasse] in the testimony of Cusanus, when as he could not be ignorant that 
l Concord. Cath. l. 3. c 2.  Cusanus doth immediately after prove them to be Apocrypha and counterfeit Epistles, which are attributed unto Anacletus and Clemens. For first, There is no mention (saith he) of them 
His malignant lust of accusing his Aduesary.  in any writings of antiquity. Secondly, The Epistles themselves being but applied unto the times of those Saints (namely of Anacletus and Clemens) they do bewray themselves: meaning that they are Apocrypha. Thirdly by their Contents; among others this, that The writer of the Epistle of Clemens, 
Pope's Epistles forged.  feigneth Clemens to have written this Epistle unto james Bishop of jerusalem, after the death of Peter, whereas it is manifest (saith Cusanus) that james suffered Martyrdom eight years before the death of Saint Peter. So that you cannot be so much, offended with me, for leaving out one word, as I am offended with myself, for omitting the large proofs of Cusanus, which do make the matter without all Peradventure.    

SECT. III.  

The third Exception against Bellarmine, concerning Platina.  
10. 
* Preamb. pa. 67  BEllarmine citeth the testimony of 
7 Extat. apud, etc. Bellar. l. 4. de Pont. c. 13. § Extat.  Platina for the commendation of Pope Hildebrand: and in another place finding Platina objected in the question of Confession, answereth for disabling of the Author, saying, that 
8 Being urged, etc.  Platina had no public authority to pen the lives of the Popes from public records: which is notably false, Platina himself in his Epistle Dedicatory to the Pope, writing thus: 
9 Tu Theologorum, etc. Platina praef. operis.  Thou (O Prince of Divines, and chief of Bishops) hast commanded me to write the lives of the Popes: whose History is therefore greatly commended by Balbus as being 
10 Que Platina, etc. Balbus de coronat. §. Post mortem.  True, and taken out of public Monuments.   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning, and charge of fraud.  
CAluine citing Platina thus: Eorum Annales dicunt. etc. Bellarm. answereth 
Reck. cap 3. §. 15. pag. 197.  that neither Platina did write those lives of the Popes by public authority, nor out of public Records: and addeth immediately, which M. Morton hath fraudulently cut off, Vt Annales nostri dici possint, That they may be called our Annals.   

The Reveiwe.  
11. As though the denying that Platina had written them by public authority, did not effectually enough deny them to be annal nostri, that is, such Annals, or Histories, whereby you will be tried. This is the point, speak somewhat to the purpose, for your Client expecteth your excuse.   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
ANd albeit Platina saith in the Preface of his History unto the 
Reckon. pag. 198.  Pope Sixtus the fourth, who lived somewhat above 100 years past, that he had commanded him to write the Pope's lives, yet this proveth not that his collection is an authentical 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 avoucheth.   

The Reveiwe.  
12. Master Parsons, let me forewarn you, that this Answer be not heard of at Rome, even for your clients sake, if not for your own. May not Rome call any writing of men 
Mr. P. by his answer hath betrayed the authority of almost all Romish Writers.  Nostra, that is, Ours, except they be Exactly true; and which the Reader is bound so to accept of? By this answer you are compellable to grant that you have no Histories at all in your Church, which you may justly acknowledge: for how shall you be able to call any Authors, either annal nostri, or Pontifices nostri, or, Patres nostri, or, jesuitae nostri, if in all things contained in their books, there must be necessarily required an Exact Truth? But M. Parsons was forced to answer somewhat.  
13. The point in question is, why Caluine might not as well object the testimony of Platina against some Romish assertions, as Bellarmine might do for their defence; and whether his rejecting of Platina, as an Author not rightly authorized, were either reasonable, or conscionable? But now hear what M. Parsons doth judge of Platina.   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
THe censure of Bellarmine is true and prudent, concurring with the 
Reckon. p. 196.  judgement of divers learned men of our time, especially of Onuphrius Panuinus, who writing observations upon the history of Platina, doth offentimes note the said History concerning Pope's lives, of divers defects, both in Chronologie of times, & truth of matters set down by him. And I doubt not but whosoever shall have read the work of Onuphrius and of Balbus here cited in commendation of Platina, will greatly prefer the judgement of the first before the latter in matters of History.   

The Reveiwe.  
14. Must then Onuphrius be suffered to crowd out Platina, who is but a Commentator upon Platina? Or shall Onuphrius 
The authority of Platina.  be the Historian, whom you will acknowledge for authentical, and whom you presume to be so Exact, that he may not be rejected? How is it then that your 
m Baron. Anno. 44 num. 54. de Simone Mago. & Anno 253. n. 2. & Ano. 337 n. 73. & Anno 1001. n. 9 & Ao 1071 n. 15.  Baronius and Onuphrius can no better agree? If Balbus his commendations of Platina bear no credit with you, I will try how Barklaius may prevail: he speaking of Platina, saith, 
n Barkl. de potestate Papae. c. 39  Huic ego authori, etc. I will rather credit this Author Platina herein, than any other Historians, although they be more ancient, because he writ his History at the command of Sixtus quartus, and of other Popes. Here Barcklavis preferreth Platina before others, because of the Pope's authority, M. Parsons notwithstanding the Pope's authority preferreth Onuphrius: not that M. Parsons is less Papal, but because he is more partial whensoever any witness doth contradict his conceit.     

CHAP. X.  
Concerning Card. Bellarmine his false Allegations, for proof of Purgatory, in discussing whereof, the doctrine of Purgatory is discovered.  

SECT. I.  

The first charge, concerning his cytation of Ambrose.  
1. 
* Preamb. p. 68  WHereas he professeth to bring in 
12 Lib. 1. de Purge cap 6. §. Deinde.  Apertissima loca, that is, Most evident places out of the Fathers, for proof of Purgatory-fire already described, he produceth such testimonies, which by his own consequence do not concern the questioned Purgatory: as first alleging 
13 Jbidem, l. 2 de Purg. cap. 1. § Ambrose.  Ambrose upon the Psal. 118. Serm. 20. and yet Ambrose in that Psal. 118. saith, All must pass thorough those flames, whether john or Peter, only Christ, who is justice itself, shall avoid them. Of the which place of Ambrose, Bellarmine saith, 
14 Bellar. ibid. §. Add.  Ambrose understandeth not the fire of Purgatory, but the fire of God's judgement.   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
BEllarmine in the first place of Ambrose, saying, See Ambrose upon ps.. 
Reckon. c. 3. §. 16 pag. 202  118. Serm. 20. signifieth, that that Father hath something more for proving Purgatory: and in his second book citing the same Sermon of Ambrose upon the place of Genesis, [God hath placed a sword of fire, etc.] saith that it is rather to be understood of the proving fire of God's judgements. What contradiction is this? May there not be different sentences and senses in the same Sermon?   

The Reviewe.  
2. Yes, there may, but when as in examination of that Sermon of Saint Ambrose, yourself cannot find any place, which speaketh of any fire, but that of God's severe judgement, which Bellarmine hath said is not the fire of Purgatoric, you thereby confirm that which I have said, that Bellarmine cited Ambrose in a sense different from his meaning.    

SECT. II.  

The second charge, concerning his cytation of Hilary.  
3. 
* Preamb. p. 68  BEllarmine cited 
(15) Lib. 1. de Purge c. 6. §. Hilarius.  Hilary in Psal, 118. upon these words [Concupivit anima, etc.] We (saith Hilary) must undergo that indefatigable fire, in the which we must pass through the grievous punishments of purging of souls, This he Reckoned among his most plain places, for proof of Purgatory-fire: and notwithstanding elsewhere alleging the same text, saith of the Comment of Hilary, that 
16 Lib. 2. de Purge c 1. §. Idem videtur:  Hilary doth therein insinuate, that the blessed Virgin ought to have passed thorough the same fire, adding a little after, that 
17 Jbid. §. Add.  He (that is Hilary) therein by Purgatory, understood not the fire of Purgatory.   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
WHereunto is answered, that both are contained in that 
Reckon. p. 203.  Discourse of Hilary, both the proving fire of God's judgements after death, and the purging fire of God's justice.   

The Review.  
4. You should have answered for the same place of Hilary which was objected: otherwise if you shall labour to prove that Bellarmine meant, that both these fires were understood in that one place, where he himself confesseth that the fire of Purgatory is not understood, this would be as hapless a work, as if you had sought by contradicting Bellarmine, to free Bellarmine from contradiction.    

SECT. III.  

The charge of many false Allegations together.  
5. 
* Preamb. p. 69.  YEt again, among his 
17 Bellar. l. 1. de Purg. c. 6 §. Deindè sunt.  manifest places for Purgatory, he allegeth 
18 Vt Origenes hom. 6. in Exod. Saluus fit, si quid fortè plumbi habent admixtum: etc.  Origen, 
19 Basilius in Isa. 9 Quod depascatur & devoret ignis Purgatorius: etc.  Basil, 
20 Lactantius l. 7. c. 21 Perstring entur inge, atq, comburentur: etc.  Lactantius, 
21 Hieronymus in fine Comment in Isa. Quorum opera in igne probanda. etc.  Hierome, 
22 〈◊〉 Psal. 36 Non exuremur, tamen uremur, etc. HaecomniaBellar. l. 1. de Purg. c. 6.  Ambrose: all which are acknowledged expressly by 
23 Origenes dixit, Omnes homines, except Christo, aliquo modo urendos esse igne conflagrationis divini iudicy. Et Hilarius unà cum Ambrosio Originem secutus est. Eòdem pertivere videntur quae Basitius annotavit: Adeandem opinionem apparet allusisse Hieronimum; & long ante Hieronimum quoque, Lactantium. Sixtus Senens. Bibl. l. 5. Annot. 171. Lactanti is l. 7 c. 21 Perstringentur, inquit, etc. Loquitur de iis, qui in resurrectione sunt igni tradendi. Suares les. in part 3. Thom. q. 59 art. 6. Disp. 57 sect. 1.  Sixtus Senensis, from the evidence of the contexts, to have spoken only of the fire of the day of judgement, and consequently, as Bellarmine hath taught us, Not of the fire of Purgatory.   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
I Would demand of M. Morton, why we should ascribe more unto the 
Recko. pag. 205.  judgement of Senensis in censuring these places of the Fathers, then unto other learned, that think the contrary: They are all acknowledged (saith M. Morton) expressly by Sixtus Senensis from the evidence of their contexts to have spoken only of the fire of the day of judgement, and consequently not of Purgatory. This is now properly to help a Die indeed: for that Senensis doth not talk of any such evidence of the contexts, but speaketh rather doubtfully, and by conjecture, saying of Origen, that his opinion (that both good and bad should be purged by fire) is confuted by S. Augustine in his books the Ciust. Dei, but yet for excusing the same from error he saith; Tu vide an Origenis verba interpretari queant de igne ultime conflagrationis. Do thou (Reader) consider whether the words of Origen may be interpreted of the fire of the last conflagration, or not; so as he did not expressly acknowledge from the evidence of the contexts, (as M Mortons' shifting and lying words are) that these authorities must needs be understood of the last combustion of the world, but rather leaveth it as uncertain to be considered by the Reader.   

The Review.  
6. I said indeed that Senensis by the evidence of contexts acknowledged the testimonies alleged, to have spoken of the fire of the day of judgement, and consequently (according unto Bellarmine's doctrine) not of the fire of Purgatory. This you call Shifting, Lying, and helpint the Die; but the perfect Cogger will presently appear. For first I alleged divers testimonies, which might have licenced me in a generality to say by the evidence of contexts, seeing that M. Parson's could take exception but only to one.  
7. And the truth is, that I cited Senensis his Biblioth. l. 5. Annot. 171. who writeth thus: Ambrose seemeth to agree with Origen, who saith that all (Christ only excepted) must be tried, and, in a sort, burnt in the fire of the conflagration of God's judgement: Where Senensis expressly affirmeth, what his judgement is concerning the sentence of Origen. To confure this 
M. Parson's fingular dexterity in falsehood.  M. Parsons fetcheth a skip out of Senensis, Annot. 171. backward unto his Annot. 170. where Senesis saith of Origen, Vide an. etc. O confuter! Origen spoke of a fire thorough which Apostles, Martyrs, and every one, Except Christ, must pass. So that this could not be the Romish Purgatory-fire, for neither Senensis, nor any Romanist durst ever say, that Saints and Martyrs did ever take their voyage unto heaven by hell. Thus than the [Vide] of Senensis bringeth no doubt in the cause, for it is still plain by the contexts, that by it is not meant your Purgatory-fire.  
8. Finally, to Mr. Parsons (demanding why I should ascribe more unto the judgement of Senensis then unto Bellarmine?) I answer, because Bellarmine did write in his heat of altercation, but Senensis in the calm of contemplation. By which distinction, Senensis himself discerneth between the more and less justifiable sentences of holy Fathers. Albeit indeed I do yield to Senensis, especially because of the evidence of his proof.    

SECT. FOUR  

The next Charge against Bellarmine.  
9 
* Preamb. pa. 69  IT follweth in the Preamble. Lastly, he professeth to confirm the Doctrine of Purgatory 
25 Purgatorium ex Patribus Graecis & Latinis probamus. Bellar. l 1. de Purg. c. 6.  out of most of the Greek and Latin Fathers: And an other jesuit saith more largely 
26 Omnes veteres Graeci Patres agnoverunt Purgatorium, & Scriptis suis luculentissimè prodiderunt. Salmeron jes. Comm. in 1. Cor. 15. disp. 15. in fine.  Of all the Greek Fathers, which is an Assertion as false as peremptory, even by the confession of their own Bishop, saying, that 
27 Legat qui vesit Graecorum veterum Commentarios, & nullum quantum opinor, aut rarissimum de Purgatorio sermonem inveniet: Sed neq, Latinisimul omnes huius rei veritatem conceperunt. Roffens. Art. 18. advers. Lutherum.  There is very rare mention of Purgatory in the Greek Fathers; and that the Latin Fathers did not all at first apprehend the doctrine thereof.   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
THis is understood by him as well of the name of Purgatory, not 
Reckon. pag. 207.  then so much in use, as that the most Ancient writers, next after the Apostles time, when many things were not discussed so exactly (as in process of time they were) did not so clearly handle that matter: Nemo iam, dubitat orthodoxus (saith he) an Purgatorum sit, de quo tamen apud priscos illos nulla, vel quam rarissima fiebat mentio. No rightly 
Art. 18. con. Luth.  believing Christian doth now doubt, whether there be Purgatory, or no, Of which notwithstanding there was none, or very rare mention made among those Ancient Fathers. Whereof he giveth divers reasons, and indeed the same may be said of sundry important other Articles of Catholic Religion: For so much as in the first Primitive Church, when the said Fathers were under Persecution, and occupied in other weighty affairs against Heretics and Persecutors, they had not time, nor occasion to discuss many things, which the holy Ghost did afterward make more clear to the Church by success of time: And yet doth not B. Fisher say, that there was no knowledge of this Article of Purgatory, in the very first Fathers; but only his meaning was, that the name, nature, and circumstance thereof was not so well discussed, and consequently the thing more seldom mentioned by them, than afterward by the subsequent writers. And he after proveth it out of many Greek and Latin Fathers, and out of Scriptures.   

The Reveiwe.  
10. Their Bishop Roffensis confesseth, that among the Greek Fathers, there is Rarissima mentio, that is; Most rare mention of Purgatory. M. Parsons translateth Rarissima, very rare, which is but a trick of a nibler. Again, M. Parson's will have us to understand Rosfensis so, as though he had only meant that, The name, nature, and circumstances were not so well discussed or mentioned by ancient Grecians. But Roffensis speaking of Purgatory itself, saith that, 
a Roffen. Art. 18. cont. Luther.  Aliquandiù incognitum fuit,— & serò cognitum universae Ecclesiae, etc. This is the confession of their own Bishop Roffensis: That is, Purgatory was for a while unknown, and not, till of late, known to the universal Church. With what assurance can the Romanists call the Doctrine Catholic, that is, Universal, 
Romish Purgatory no Catholic Do. ctrine  which was not known universally in the Primitive Church of Christ? Yet hath Rome adopted this Article of Purgatory, and suffered this Creeper to come into her new 
b Bulla juramenti annexa Conc. Trid.  Creed, under the title of a doctrine necessary to salvation. But more of this hereafter.    

SECT. V.  

The next Charge.  
11. 
* Preamb. pag. 69. 70.  IF any shall but observe in this one Controversy, the number of witnesses brought in for confirmation of this their new Article, in the name of Ancient Fathers, which are (by the confession of our Adversaries) merely counterfeit, as Clemens his Constitutions, Clemens his Epistles, Athanas. in question. Eusebius Emissenus, josephus Bengorion, Hieron. in Proverb. August. ad fratres in Eremo, the Liturgies of S. james, and others: All which, as they are urged for proof of Purgatory, so are they rejected by their own men (I desire to be challenged for proof hereof) as Forged, or Corrupted, or Apocrypha, etc.   

M. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
HE cannot be trusted in any thing he saith: For these are not so 
Reck. pag. 210.  much as named by Bellarmine (except only the two fitst in a word or two) much less are they brought in for principal Authors in the Catalogue of Ancient Fathers, whose Authorities he setteth down for proof of Purgatory. So as this is one deceitful untruth, to make his Reader believe, that these are our chief Authors, whereas Bellarmine besides these, doth allege twenty, viz. Ten of the Greek Church, and as many of the Latin.   

The Review.  
13. But if this Answer of M. Parson's be fraught with gross untruths, what faith shall any man give unto him? First, I named not Bellarmine in that place, but spoke in general of the ordinary practice of our Adversaries, in alleging corrupt and counterfeit writers. Secondly, I called not the 
M. Parson's triple falsehood.  foresaid Authors either chief, or principal, as M. Parsons pretendeth. And lastly, in saying that Bellarmine nameth but the two first of the foresaid Writers, viz. Clemens his Constitutions and Athanasius, is a notable falsehood: for Bellarmine allegeth 
c Bellar. lib. 1. de Purg. c. 6. §. Euseh Emiss.  Eusebius Emissenus, 
d Ibid. c. 7. §: Tertia ratio.  josephus Bengorion, and 
e Ibidem cap. 5. § Accedant.  S. james his Liturgy. So that I know not what M. Parsons meant by his denying of this, except happily he laid some wager of falsifying, and meant to win it.   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning, and Charge against his Adversary.  
SEcondly it is an other manifest untruth, to say that our Doctors do confess all these Authors to be merely counterfeit. 
f Recko. pa. 211  For albeit some of them be excepted against, or called in question by some Writers, whether they be the true works of the Authors, whose names they bear, or not, and thereof all reputed Apocryphal, that is, hidden or 〈◊〉 Yet it followeth not that they are merely counterfeit, for that they may be ancient works, and not to be contemned, though not of those Authors.   

The Reveiwe.  
14. M. Parsons is so transported with passion, that he hath forgotten the last clause, which I used concerning these Authors, to wit, that they are either forged, or corrupted, or Apocrypha; and so Apocrypha, as being sometime not Obscure only, but even to be contemned. Whereof in these and others, I shall give him such a taste, before we end our Reckoning, as may, I think, soon set his teeth on edge.    

SECT. VI  

The last Charge.  
15. 
* Preamb. p. 70.  IF he shall furthermore mark (said I) how true Fathers and Scriptures are instanced in, for proof of the same Article, whereof (when I speak of Fathers) most of them; (when I speak of Canonical Scriptures) all of them are found, by the judgement of their own Doctors, to be tortured, wrested, and forced, as it were, to say that which they never meant, etc.   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
THis now, whether it be not such a wilful and witting Lie, as before 
Reckon. pa. 211  I described for a formal malicious Lie, such as the Writer did know to be a Lie, when he wrote it, I am content to remit myself unto any judicious and civil Protestant in the world. For if our own Catholic Doctors do find this in their own judgement, how do they believe Purgatory to be true? Why do they not change their opinion, and become Protestants? Can M. Morlon answer any thing unto this lewd and wilful absurdity, and did he not know that he lied when he writ this?   

The Review.  
16. What meaneth our Quiet Reckoner to revel so turbulently? 
M. Parson's unquiet Reckoning.  Will he needs falsify his own title? The Assertion which I made, and which he calleth a Formal malicious Lie, is put unto the trial in the next Chapter, where it will be avouched to be an observable, just, and incontrollable truth. The reason, which he opposed, I shall now confute in this Section, and compel him to repent his loose terms, by an instance, which will manifestly discover a Romish malady.  
17. The Doctrine of Indulgences hath been of late put into their Roman Creed in their Council of Trent, by the Bull of Pope Paulus the fourth. This their Doctors will believe, albeit they confess, concerning Indulgences, that 
g Roffens. Art. 18  There is not found any express sentence, either in Scriptures, or in the writings of Ancient fathers; and that in the beginning of 
Indulgences, being their novelty  the Primitiuc Church there was no use of them, nor yet did they come in use, until the fear of a fiery Purgatory had brought them out. Who, while they plead for Indulgences, do it in this manner, viz. 
h Alfonsus' lib. 8. adverl. Haeres. Tit. Indulgenti. e.  Indulgences are not therefore to be contemned, because the use of them seemeth to have been but of late in the Church, for many things are known by posterity, which the ancient writers were ignorant of. Which we take to be a kind of crack in their cause, especially seeing that, for want of better light of Antiquity, they are glad to collect an Antiquity of them from the Stations used anciently at Rome. Now what 
Stations.  were these Stations? Their Onuphrius doth tell you. 
i Onuph. in Platinam, interp. vocum Ecclesiast.  The word (saith he) cometh of Stando, standing, because the people in their solemn convents did stand: For the ancient Bishops of Rome upon some set days, especially in Lent and Holidays, did go unto divers Churches of Rome, where a Sermon was made unto the people there standing, and saying Prayers, they did afterward communicate with the Clergy and people of Rome in the Divine Sacraments. In all which, there is no sent of Romish Indulgences.  
18. Again, we find them observe, that 
k Agrippa de vanit. Scient. cap. 61.  Pope Boniface the eight (about the year 1300.) was the first who extended Indulgences unto Purgatory: Which is the Indulgence whereupon we dispute. Besides, they tell us, that the invisible spiritual Treasury of the Merits of Holy men, is the 
l Bellar. l. 1. de Indulg. c. 2. in the Argument of the Chapter.  Foundation of Indulgences: Notwithstanding, Maironis and Durand, two of your principal Schoolmen even of later times, 
m As Bellarm. confesseth, ibid.  Doubted of the truth of such a Treasury. And lastly, that some, whom they call Catholics, judged no otherwise of these kind of Indulgences, then of 
n Greg. Valent. jes. de Indulg. c. 2.  Godly deceits. here we see more than a glimpse of that light, which we profess, acknowledged by your own Doctors. I must hereupon make bold to demand of Mr. Parsons, why their Doctors, having so great an appearance of the novelty of this Article, did notwithstanding still yield unto the practice of their Church? When he shall answer this, then may he easily satisfy himself, concerning his last demand.   

Master PARSONS his Reckoning.  
BEllarmine hath alleged ten several testimonies out of the Scriptures 
Recko. pag. 213.  of the old Testament (with the expositions of the ancient Fathers upon them) which are confessed by Procestants to be Canonical, excepting the Maccabees, and Toby which were notwithstanding Canonical in S. Augustine's time, by the third Council of Carthage, in which himself was present. And out of the new Testament he allegeth five other places, with the expositions in like manner of the Fathers upon them, that understood them to mean of Purgatory. And will our own Doctors say that these fifteen places are all tortured and forced against their meaning? and all the Father's expositions violated against their own judgement? If our Doctors will say so, they must be M. Mortons' Doctors, and not ours.   

The Reviewe.  
19 It is a thing superfluous, Actum agere. This which I say of the principal places of Canonical Scriptures, wherein your Doctors do most insist, I have proved 
o Cath. Appeal. l. 1. c 2. §. 1?.  also, from the mere literal Expositions of your own Doctors to be enforced 
And as for the objection from the Council of Carthage, it is satisfied, ibid. l. 4. c. 18. §. 1.  beyond compass, and want not a supply of like Answers unto other Scriptures, which have been omitted. But I shall not need to insist upon places of Scripture, the rather because I am not so greatly provoked by M. Parson's hereunto, who hath reserved his main violence for the trial of Fathers.  
20. Yet notwithstanding, one confession of Bellarmine may not be so easily let pass, which hath not been mentioned in my Appeal, to wit, 
p Bellar. l. 1 de Purg. c. 4. §. Est igitur.  cum nusquam in Scriptures fiat mentio ignis, ubi apertè de Purgatorio agitur, nihil dubium est, qum Cyprianus ad hunc locum respexerit. That is, Seeing that in no place of Scripture, where Purgatory is plainly handled, any mention is made of fire, it is not to be doubted, but that S. Cyprian had respect unto this place of Scripture, to wit, 1. Cor. 3. where it is written, He shall be saved as it were by fire: Which is a sufficient confession, that there is not in any place of Scripture any mention of fire, wherein there is any plain proof of Purgatory, except in these fore-cyted words of 1. Cor. 3. And can he say that this only place is plain for Purgatory 
No place of scripture wherein fire can plainly 〈◊〉 Purgatory fire.  fire? By no means: for Bellarmine confesseth hereof, that ancient Expositors do not agree in the interpretation of fire in this place: Some understand by fire the Tribulations of this life, some the eternal torments, some the fire of the last day, and some the Purgatory fire. How shall our adversaries presume of any plain place of Scripture for proof of Purgatory-fire, seeing that this their only plain place is thus obscured and perplexed with four different Interpretations?     

CHAP. XI.  
The earnest challenge which M Parsons hath made, that I should disannul the allegations of the testimonies of those Fathers, whom jodocus Coccius hath cited for proof of the Romish Purgatory.  

SECT. 1.  

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
COccius produceth upon the point of threescore Authors, 
Reckon. p. 218.  within the compass of the first six hundred years, that confirm the common faith of that Church in those days, to have held Purgatory, and 〈◊〉 for the dead, for Catholic doctrine, and for the practice also of praying for the souls departed. TO WHAT END DO YOU SAY THIS M. PARSONS? 
* Reckon. p. 212  To the end that T. M may have somewhat to do, I do earnestly challenge him herein, requiring at his hands, that of the first 60. mentioned by Coccius within the first 600. years, he do really and sincerely 〈◊〉 31. at least, which is the major part, to be so tortured, and so granted by the judgement of our Writers; or else he faileth wholly in his cause.   

The Reveiwe.  
2. There is none, I think, but will hold it a point of wisdom in M. Parsons, to set me rather to combat with Coccius, then to suffer me to Encounter himself, by manifesting his own singular falsifications; which notwithstanding, by his leave, I must perform, before we end our Reckoning. In the mean time, I willingly yield unto his present challenge, wishing that I had him in a good Obligation by oath, that he will as willingly accord unto the evidence of those things, which shall be revealed. And now I enter the Lists.  That the testimonies of Fathers, and other Antiquities, alleged by 
a Coccius Thesaur. Tom. 2. l. 7. Art. 5.  Coccius, for defence of Romish Purgatory, are, for the most part, either out of books falsely fathered, and unwarrantable; or else, out of true testimonies falsely applied. The trial of both which dependeth upon certain general Observations.  

The two first.  
3. For my more plain and expedite discharge of this Challenge, I shall request the Reader to pass along with me, in reviewing some confessed Observations, which will make 
Counterfeit, Apocrypha, corrupted, wrested.  clearly for the conviction of Coccius, whereunto the particular testimonies must have a necessary relation; which may be thus distinguished: The first Observation is, that the Authors and testimonies which shall be confessed to be either forged, or corrupted with heresies, or else Apocrypha, may not be thought to be of sufficient credit.  
4. The second Observation may be taken out of their jesuit Suarez, where he saith, that 
b Suarez 〈◊〉 Tom. 2. in Thom. q. 59 art. 6. sect. 1. disp. 57 §. Veruntamen.  They that think that the souls of men are not judged in death, nor that they receive either pain, or reward, but are reserved in secret receptacles unto the univer salliudgement, they do consequently acknowledge, non purgarjs, i. e. That men are not purged before the general resurrection and judgement: whereupon it must follow, that they are to be purged in the day of the Conflagration, etc. but to say 
The opinion of receptacles ofsoules: without both heaven and hell.  that some souls of the just are not purged, until they be united with the body, and so receive purgation in the fire of conflagration, both in their bodies and souls; although it do not contradict the principles of our Faith, yet is it utterly false and erroneous. So Suarez. His Consequence is plain: They that taught secret receptacles of souls void of pain or of reward, until the day of the general resurrection, do deny the Romish doctrine of Purgatory torment, before the last day; but divers Fathers (by our adversaries confessions) taught such kind of Receptacles of souls of all the faithful, as namely, 
c Lactant. l. 7. Inst. cap. 1. as Suarez noteth, ibid. q. 54. art. 4. sect 3. §. Quarto loco.  Lactantius, so saith Suarez: And 
d Scnens. bibl. 1. 6. Annol. 345. & Renatius Laurentius Annot. in Tcrt. de Testimonio anima pa. 519. saith, Omnes fere antiqui in ea ferè sententia erant, ut putarent animos iusiorum non esse omnino beatos ante resurrectionem.  Senensis, where he relateth the sentences of divers Fathers, who seem to have inclined to the same opinion, after that he had excused some by name, he leaveth Irenaeus, justine Martyr, Tertullian, Clemens Romanus, Origen, Lactantius, Theodoretus, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Euthymius unto the discretion of his Reader, thus far to excuse them, if he cannot acquit them, because in their days the Church had not defined any thing, concerning that Article. Which is, by Suarez his consequence, to grant that, in that ancient time, Romish Purgatory was no Catholic doctrine of faith.   

The third Observation is concerning the divers significations of the word Fire.  
5 We are furthermore necessarily to consider the confessed 
divers acceptions of the word Fire.  differences of the word Fire, used in the testimonies of Fathers; as first by Fire understanding the 
e Ribera jes. in Mala. 3. nu. 18.  Holy Ghost, which purifieth and purgeth the soul from sin: And of this Bellarmine confesseth, that it 
f Bellar. l. 1. de Purg.  Doth not signify that Purgatory fire, which is now controverted: Or secondly, signifying the 
g Idem l. 1. de Purge c. 1. §. Quarta.  Tribulations of this life, whereof he likewise confesseth, that It maketh not for the now questioned Purgatory. Or, 〈◊〉 betokening The severe judgement of God (even after death) by only trying and examining the actions which men have committed in this life: which (as our 
h Bellar ibid. c. 4 §. Superest.  Adversaries accordingly confess) doth not concern the question of Purgatory fire, which they hold to be not only an Intellectual fire of trying and examining, but also of tormenting and purging, because the Trying and examining judgement is in regard of the works, by judging them unprofitable, but the purging and tormenting fire doth seize only upon the Workers. Or, Fourthly, noting fire of conflagèration in the day of Doom, when all the world shall be on a flame: which, as Bellarmine acknowledgeth, is not that Purgatory fire, which he in the name of their Church undertook to defend, because, as some think, all metals, as well Gold and Silver, as Wood and Siubble, that is, as well the godly Saint, as the less sanctified, must pass thorough the fire of conflagration: Or, Lastly, specifying the fire of Hell of the damned, which is eternal, as it is only a Tormenting fire, but not purging: for the purging fire (saith 
i Bellar. l. 2. de Purg. c 6 §. Octava est.  Bellarmine) is temporal, and not eternal.  
6. If then Coccius shall be found to abuse the testimonies of Fathers so notoriously, as to mistake the fire of the Holy Ghost (which purgeth the soul by sanctification) in stead of the fire of vexation: or the fire of Tribulation (which is in this life) in stead of fire after death: or the fire of God's judgement (which is only in the examination of works) in stead of the fire of torment: or the fire of conflagration (which is only in the last day) in stead of fire presently after death: or the fire of the damned in Hell (which is eternal) in stead of the fire which is temporal: then, I suppose, Mast. Parson's will be ashamed of his choice, in making Coccius his Champion in this cause of Purgatory.   

The fourth Observation, in removing our adversaries Objection, taken from Prayers, Sacrifice, and Oblations for the dead.  
7. The general and most popular Argument, wherewith our adversaries use to underprop the ruinous structure of their Purgatory, is this, that 
k Bellar. L. 1. de Purg. c. 11. § De quarto.  The Fathers (saith Bellarmine) prayed for the dead, Ergo, they believed Purgatory: and from this he saith, that Purgatory is evidently collected; wherein M. Parsons is peremptory, saying, that 
l Reckon. 218.  To pray for the souls departed doth necessarily suppose Purgatory: and this seemeth to be the scope of Occius in most of his allegations, wherein 
Sacrifice, Prayer & Oblation  nothing will be found more frequent for the proof of their Purgatory, then only the offering prayers, Oblations, and Sacrifice for the dead.  
8. For consutation of our adversaries Consequence, it will be sufficient to appeal unto our adversaries confessions, who do readily grant that Prayers, Sacrifices, Commemorations and Oblations have been used for the dead, without all respect of their Purgatory torment: as first in regard of the souls of the Damned, whom 
m Bellar. l. 2. de Purg. c. 6  Bellarmine denieth to be in Purgatory, and there is good reason thereof, because the fire of the hell of the damned is a fire of Satispassion only, and not of Expiation. And yet not withstanding we read that some Ancients prayed for the damned ones (especially such as died in the profession of Christian faith) whether it were for their absolute deliverance out of hell, which was the error of 
n See hereafter Sixtus Senens. bibl. l. 6 Annot. 47. § In his  Origen, or else, as some 
* Ibidem, citeth some Doctors who thus thought.  others 
o Suarez. Jes. Tom. 4 in Them. disp. 47. §. 1.  have done for the mitigation of their torment, which, even in the opinion of our 
* Senensis quo suprà.  Adversaries, is rejected as erroneous: so that from prayers made for the damned, to conclude that there is a Purgatory fire of them who are to be saved, is, by M. Parson's leave, but a wide and wild consequence, and an abuse of such testimonies, because in case of bearing witness, both a condemned opinion and a condemned person are equally incompetent.  
9 The second state of souls departed is of the Saints in Blessedness, who are not in Purgatory, and yet have some Fathers offered both Sacrifice and Prayers for them: for of Sacrifice Bellarmine confess th': 
p Bellar. 12. de Purg. c 18. §. Ad primum.  Sacrifice (saith he) was offered for Saints: but how? Not (saith he) that we may ask any thing for them, but that we may give thanks to God for the glory, which he confirred upon them. And this prayer was found in their Romish Missal, to wit, Grant O Lord, we beseech thee, that this Prayer may profit the Soul of blessed Leo. Bellarmine will have us to understand that these kind of requests were 
q Jbidem, §. PraetereaSccundo & deinceps, § Add tertio.  Possibly for the glorifying of the bodies of the Saints (albeit the Prayer is said to be for his soul) in the day of Resurrection.  
10. This confession likewise strangleth Bellarmine's evidence, and M. Parsons his Consequence, except they will judge it no impiety to think, and that necessarily, that Pope Leo and other glorious Saints, are tormented in Purgatory. Furthermore, 
t Cassander con. full. Art. 24. See more fully confessed hereafter. n. 55.  It was an usual custom (as saith Cassander) that oblations were made for Martyrs, when as thanksgiving was used for them, and when the mystical action, wherein Christ his body is presented, there was mention made of them, as it appeareth out of Cyprian and Augustine, and as it is expressed in the Greek Liturgy, saying that the unbloody 
* Cultus incruentus.  worship is offered for the Virgin Mary, and for the Apostles, and Martyrs. And all the good, which their Suarez will acknowledge to accrue unto the blessed Saints by our 
s Suarez Tom. 4. in Thom. disp 48 § 4 nu. 10.  Oblations and Sacrifices (which are, saith he, our giving of thanks for them) is not any degree of essential glory, but only an extrinsical, such as they knowing our Prayers do retoyce thereat. By this also Master Parsons his necessary consequence (concluding from offering of Prayers and Sacrifice for the dead, a Purgatory torment of them) is found to be a notable falsehood, and delusion, by confounding Prayers of thanksgiving, with Prayers of supplication; and the state of the Blessed with the condition of men tormented, and in effect heaven with hell.  
11. The third respect of souls, mentioned by the Fathers, is when the Soul entereth either into the Examination of God's severe judgement, or else through the flame of the conflagration of fire in the last day, through which all Souls must pass with their bodies: In both which respects, we hear some Father's praying for the dead depàrted, albeit neither of these conditions do imply the Romish Purgatory, as Bellarmine 
t See above num. 5.  hath confessed.  
12. If therefore Coccius shall be found to cite, for defence of their imagined Purgatory, Prayers made for the damned, in stead of Prayers for the Godly; or made for the Blessed, to prove that men are Tormented; or Sacrifices and Prayers of Commemoration and Thanksgiving, in stead of Prayers of Deprecation; or Supplications for the perfect consummation of happiness, in the eternal rest of both body and soul, in stead of Prayers for redemption out of an hellish Prison, and other such like incongruities and abuses; Then must M. Parson's wish that he had made some other challenge. And now I betake myself unto the particular Examination of his. Allegations: First of Liturgies, and then of Fathers.    

SECT. 11.  
Coccius his Allegations of ancient Liturgies, for proof of Romish Purgatory, abused.  

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
COccius allegeth ten Liturgies, as that of jerusalem, Rome, etc. All 
Reckon. pa. 218.  which were in use in the Churches of the Christian Countries, above the space of a thousand years agone, in all which there is Prayer for souls departed: All which do necessarily infer Purgatory.   

The Review.  
13. This Consequence for Purgatory we have 
* See above, num. 7.  proved to be so drowsy, that it may seem to need a Purgatory fire to purge it, which may be further confuted by the same Liturgies. But first seeing Cardinal Bellarmine, in answering unto an objection taken out of the Liturgy of Jerusalem, passing under the name of Saint james, (which Liturgy Coccius rangeth in the forefront of his battle) could say that 
a Bellarm lib. 4. de. 〈◊〉 cap. 13. 〈◊〉 obstat.  All things which are contained in the Liturgy of Saint james, and others, are not taken from the example and precept of Christ, for it is manifest (saith he) that many things have been added by others; They may be as justly excluded by us, with an Eare-marke of Apocrypha: Which were no hard matter to evince by many reasons, if M. Parsons his Challenge would suffer me to use that weapon, and not force me (as he hath done) to insist upon the Collections from the confessed principles of the Romanists.  
14. Notwithstanding, to admit for the present these Liturgies alleged by Coccius, I will begin at the last, the Liturgy of the Armenians, because it may best explain the rest. In it we read thus: Give eternal peace, O Lord, unto all that before us have departed in the Faith of Christ, the Holy Fathers, patriarchs, Apostles, Prophets, Martyrs, etc. Pray ye unto the Lord for the Souls that rest in peace. Here is a Prayer we see, for Peace upon souls, even Apostles, Martyrs, etc. whom it proveth to be in Peace: Which cannot signify any thing, but the desire of the consummation of blessedness in their bodies and souls, at the day of the general Resurrection; And plainly demonstrateth, that M. Parsons his former consequence, which from the Prayer concluded a Purgatory punishment, is marvelously false, because in this Liturgy we hear of Prayers for the peace of Apostles and Martyrs, whom no Christian heart can fancy to be in Purgatory Torment. The Liturgy of Alexandria, attributed to Saint Mark, and praying for Requiem, that is, Arrest for the Souls of Fathers, and Brethren, who are a sleep in Christ; being mindful of our Ancestors, Fathers, patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, etc. may seem to admit the former Exposition. So likewise the Liturgy of Constantinople, ascribed unto Saint Chrysostome, carrieth this tenor: Be mindful, O Lord, of thy servants, who have sinned, and pardon them, for there is none but they have sinned, excepting thee, O Lord, who canst give rest to them that sleep. The Liturgy of AEthiopia is for all that rest in a true faith: Of Cappadocia, for all that sleep in the hope of the Resurrection unto eternal life: Of Rome, Give place of refreshing for all that rest in Christ; and so we may think of the rest. Yet may not any conclude upon these Prayers, that All Souls, that are departed in the faith of Christ, were therefore in Purgatory.  
15. Will Coccius (trow we) be more circumspect in citing the Fathers? I must try this; and because M. Parsons hath begun to Reckon up ten Liturgies, I will bring in the Fathers also by Decades, or ten, and see, whether I can satisfy M. Parsons in his exacted number of thirty and one.    

SECT. 111.  

The Greek Fathers abused by Coccius, for proof of Romish Purgatory.  
THE FIRST DECAD.  
16. THe first Father, whom Coccius produceth, is Clemens Epist. 1. Quotidiana, etc. 
a Senens. Bibl. li. 2. Tit. Clemens  Which Epistle Card. Turrecremata rejected, as being doubtful, saith their Sixtus Senensis, adding from himself, that It is not possible that Clemens should have written this Epistle unto S. james, etc. And 
b Bellar. l. 3. de bonis operib. c. 11 § Caeterum non.  Bellarmine noting the same error in the fifth Epistle of this Clemens, calleth the Author fictitius Clemens, that is, A forged Clemens. Where was the brains of M. Parsons, when he set me a work to prove some of these witnesses to be, as I called them, Knights of the Post, seeing that this Clemens, (as he might have well known) is dubbed such a Knight by their own Doctors, and yet this Clemens happeneth to be the chief of this Inquest.  
17. The second witness is Clemens his Constitut. lib. 8. cap. 41. Oremus, etc. who may pass for an Author of the same Knighthood, for although their jesuit Turrian, laboured to free these Books from exception: Yet doth the jesuit 
c Possevin Jes. Apparat. Tit. Clemens.  Possevine, call his Reasons rather Conjectures than Arguments: And the 
d Episc August. de 〈◊〉 Gratiani Dialog. 6. pag. 47.  sixth Council noted these eight Books to have been corrupted by Heretics, as their own Bishop testifieth: The same doth Cardinal 
e Baron. Anno 102 num. 9 & An. 32. num. 18. & 19  Baronius affirm, and in answering an objection taken out of these Books, calleth his answer Honestum confugium.  
18. The third Author is Dionysius Areopagita, Hierarch. cap. 7. part. 2. Posteà, etc. Which Books Cardinal Cajetan, and many others (saith 
f Senensis Biblie. l. 6. 〈◊〉 229.  Senensis) did make doubt of, whether they were the Books of Dionysius Areopagita. 
g Cardin. Caiet. in Act. 17.  Neither durst S. Gregory (saith Caietane himself) affirm these to be the same Dionysius his Books; Wherein there was one point of Doctrine, 
h Ribera Jes. in Heb 1. num. 99  Which S. Gregory would not allow (as witnesseth their jesuit Ribera) lest that he might seem to contradict the sacred Scriptures. In brief, 
i Erasmus Annot. in Act. 17.  Guilielmus Grocinus, Divinity Reader in S. Paul's, reading Lectures out of these Books, before the end of his Lectures, concluded that they were not the proper works of that Dionysius. Therefore may we dismiss him as a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Although, if we shall allow him for a legitimate Author, we shall not lose, but gain by the Reckoning: for Dionysius showeth that such Prayers (although made for the remission of the sins of the dead) were rather protestations, that their sins were now forgiven, than Supplications for their forgiveness: where he will have every Christian to hope confidently, that after his death, he shall not change this life for a worse 
k Hierarch. Eccles. § Haec quidem.  estate.  
19 The fourth is Hermes, Visione 3. De triumph, etc. who presseth in to bear witness, albeit their own ancient Pope Gelasius, hath taken sufficient exception against him, 
l Bellar. l. 1. de verb Dei. c. 20. §. Vox igitur.  Who calling these Books Apocryphal (saith Bellarmine) which were set forth either by Heretical Authors, or else by such as were suspected of Heresy, 
m Ibid. §. Nec minus.  did reject Hermes as Apocryphal: which Author also 
n Baron. 〈◊〉 159. num. 56.  Prosper rejected and judged to be of no authority. And is not this enough to deserve such a Knightship?  
20. Origen is the fifth, who followeth Hermes at the heels, whose name 〈◊〉 it be famous, yet 
o Senens. Bibl. li. 6. Tit. Origenes §. Caeterum.  His works (saith Senensis) were corrupted with innumerable heresies, by the fraud of ancient Heretics, who sought to broach their impious Doctrines, under the favour and grace of the name of Origen: which writings, if in any thing they seem to lose credit, then especially where he entreateth of the State of Souls departed: in which respect, 
p Driedo lib. 4. de varijs dogmat. c. 1. fol. 109.  Origen was (saith Driedo) reprehended of ancient Fathers; And in the same regard is he rejected by Bellarmine, even for holding that, 
q Bellar. l. 2. de Purg. cap. 1. §. Primus, & §. Secundus.  All (except Christ) whether good or evil, must be purged; and that all the wicked, yea the devils shall in the end be saved, viz. after that for a long time, they have suffered the extreme pains of Hell. Notwithstanding, if we should admit Origen for a competent witness, yet his testimonies do not reach home unto the Romish Purgatory. The first, Hom. 14. in Leuit. Some sins 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 every one that passeth out of this life, needeth a purification (meaning by fire) for I dare say that none can be clean, as the Scripture speaketh. The third in Psal. 38. He talketh of cauldrons 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: etc. I answer, that the Answer, which their own 
r Senens. bibl. l. 5. Annot. 171 & Annot. 230.  Senensis giveth unto other places of Origen, may satisfy these which are now objected (for the Tenure of all is alike) vide Origen in Ps. 36. All men (Christ only excepted) must pass thorough the fire of conflagration. And again, In Psal. 118. All men must be tried by fire, whether it be john the Evangelist, or others. And yet again, in Higher hom. 31. All that have sinned after Baptism must be purged by the fire of conflagration 
s Suarez jes. Tom 2. in Thom qu. 59 Art 6 〈◊〉 1. §. Tertia sententia.  Wherein (saith Suarez) Origen seemeth to allude unto his own error, etc. And 
t Bellar. l. 2. de Purg. c. 1.  Bellarmine lighting upon these words of Origen in Luc. 14. After the resurrection every soul must suffer a purging fire, saith, that These words of Origen will not admit any commodious exposition. Still we see that the fire which Origen speaketh of, being that fire of conflagration in the last day, is not the Romish Purgatory.  
21. Eusebius 
* Coccius calleth him Alexandrinus Presbyter, Turrian, Episcopus: but Baronius numbering up the 〈◊〉 of that See, never mentions any such B. The truth is, they know not what to make him.  Alexandrinus marcheth next after Origen whom Photius Patriarch of Constantinople, and their own Authors Trithemius, Possevinus, and others have left out of their Catalogues. But that we may feign a dumb man to speak, what will he say for their Purgatory fire? He talketh of a song of a general Requies pro defunctis, namely, that which hath been given to blessed Saints; but these come not into that fire as 
* See above, sect. 1. n. 4.  hath been confessed.  
22. The Council of Nice Can. 65. Arabico, is the seventh witness. Who will not reverence the name of so famous a Council? But in what Canon shall we see any mention of the fire of Purgatory? In Can. 65. But what language? For it is not in the Greek, or Latin Counsels: In the Arabic, saith Coccius. But when came these Arabic Canons into the public light? Not (for aught that I can find) until 1500. years after Christ, which afterwards their jesuit Turrian published to the world: But what credit are they of? 
u Card. Baron. Anno 325. n. 180  Because our Elders (saith Baronius) seem to have been ignorant of these Canons, at what time the authority of them had been most necessary, as namely when the Controversy of Africa was on foot, (meaning that solemn rejecting of Appeals unto Rome) I leave these to be discussed rather by some others. This confession of their Cardinal layeth a shrewd suspicion of forgery upon them: And their Bishop 
* Augustinus Episcopus Tarraconensis de Emend. Grat. Dial. 20.  Tarraconensis, speaking to the same point, saith, that the jesuit Turrian could not persuade him, that these are the true Canons of the Council of Nice. We see the zeal that Coccius hath for this Article, who leaving the ordinary Canons of Nice, runneth into Arabia to seek for some spark to kindle a Purgatory fire: And yet, when all is done, there is nothing in that Canon but Fiat Oratio pro eo, which proveth no more the fire of Purgatory, then that the 
* See above, sect. 1. n. 7.  Blessed souls are purged in that fire.  
24. Eusebius Caesariensis, vitae Constant. l. 4. cap. 60. & cap. 71. [Prayers are made for the soul of the Emperor Constantine,] is the eight witness: This is the testimony which Coccius useth for proof of Romish Purgatory; as though Eusebius and the faithful of those times had thought, that the Soul of that godly Emperor could be then detained in torment of Purgatory fire, before it could ascend into blessedness. But 
y Coccius Tom. 1. l. 5. Art. 2. citing Euseb. Caesor. out of his lib. 1. cap. 1. de vita Con. stant.  Coccius himself elsewhere doth both know and acknowledge the confession of Eusebius, concerning the soul of Constantine, to wit, When as I think (saith Eusebius) how that his most blessed soul doth enjoy life with God, and that he is honourably invested in immortality of the blessed world, I am surprised with an amazement, and cannot speak. And again, Coccius in the same place addeth a second testimony of the same Eusebius, out of Lib. 3. de vita Constant. cap. 45. where it is said of the same Constantine, that His soul being now dissolved from the bands of this flesh, is assumed unto immortality, and an Angelical nature, and unto our Saviour Christ jesus. Which testimony of Eusebius Coccius bringeth in to prove, that The souls of holy men, after their departure out of this life go directly into heaven. Mark now, good Reader, the distorted wit of this Coccius, who in one place instanceth in the Soul of Constantine, to show that souls are detained in a Purgatory torment, before they can ascend unto blessedness: and yet in another place, singleth out the example of the Soul of the same Constantine, to prove by the testimony of the same Eusebius also, that the Souls of holy men are not kept in places of anguish and affliction after their death, but are presently Assumed into the kingdom of happiness: I wish Mr. Parsons to look unto his Coccius, whom he hath chosen to be the witness of all these witnesses, and let him tell us whether such kind of dealers, deserve not to be nailed to the post.  
25. The ninth witness must be Athanas. Quaest 34. which, in the judgement of their Sixtus 
a Senens. Biblioth l 4. Tit. Athanasius.  Senensis, Seemeth not to be the book of Athanasius, but is, as their jesuit 
b Possevin Appar. Tit. Athanasius.  Possevin confesseth, a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is, Falsely inscribed Athanasius. Coccius, belike, was in doubt that this feigned witness would be in danger to lose his 〈◊〉 and therefore he sought to corroborate his sentence with another testimony of Athanasius, cited by Damascen.  
26. The tenth witness is Damascen. Serm. De defunctis, citing Athanasius out of his books, De is qui fide dormierunt: but this witness also is one of the Post, concerning whom Bellarmine saith, that 
c Bellar l. 2. de Purg. c. 8. §. Contra hoc, & §. Prima quia.  It may be easily proved to be none of the books of Damascen. Here again we see what little credit is to be given unto Coccius in impannelling his jury, who will have a forged book of Damascen to confirm a forged book of Athanasius, and all to defend a forged Purgatory, which may well become both Coccius to do, and M. Parsons to approve.   

Greek Fathers abused by Coccius, for defence of Romish Purgatory.  
THE SECOND DECADE.  
27. The first witness following after Athanasius, is Basil. cap. 4. in Esaiam, Qui abluit, etc. where he telleth us of a Reserved trial and examination, which shall be made by fire in the life to come: whereinto Flagitia, that is, Criminal sins must enter, such as a man doth purposely commit, which must be punished with the fire of judgement. And again, In cap. 6. There is a purifying fire. And yet again, In cap. 9 There is an expurgation, according to that of the Apostle [He shall be saved, yet as it were by fire.] All these testimonies are of the same stamp, therefore that answer, which their own 
a Senens. Bibliot: l. 5. Annot. 171. Suarez Tom. 2. in Thom. q. 59 art 6. disp. 57 sect. 1. §. Ex hac. doth expound these places, De divine igne, and not of Purgatory-fire  Senensis giveth unto two places, may satisfy for all three, viz. The speech of Basil in Esa. 4. upon these words [He shall purge Jerusalem in the spirit of judgement, and in the spirit of heat, etc.] where he saith, that this is referred unto that trial and examination, which shall be in the world to come, etc. as also his speech upon Esa. 9 saying, that the Prophet showeth that earthly things must be delivered igni punitivo, that is, unto the punishing fire for the good of the soul, etc. These speeches do seem (saith Senensis) to imply that which the former sentences did, (to 
b See above, sect 1. num. 4.  wit, the sentences of Lactanctius, and Origen) viz. the fire of conflagration, which shall be in the last day, which, by the confession of Bellarmine doth nor make for Romish Purgatory.  
28. The second is, Ephraem Orat. adversus superbiam. Dost thou consider the fire (saith he) which we must pass thorough? What fire, trow we, is this he showeth? in 1. Cor. 3. The day of the Lord will declare every man's work, which day shall be revealed by fire. This fire is so plainly the fire of conflagration in the last day of judgement (and consequently not the Romish Purgatory-fire) that 
c Bellar. l. 1. de Purg. c. 4 §. Tertiò quia Grecus.  Bellarmine discussing the meaning of that Scripture 1. Cor. 3. The day of the Lord shall be revealed by fire] saith that Omnes veteres, etc. that is, All the ancient Writers seem to understand by this the day of their last judgement, and their opinion (saith he) herein seemeth unto me most true. Then may we say that Coccius his inference from that fire of the last judgement, to prove a fire of Purgatory, before that day of judgement, is most false. The second place of Ephraem, Paraenet. 49. is of the same stamp; only, Transitus per ignem. The last testimony is out of Ephraem his Testament: but read Trithemius de Illust. Scriptoribus, and especially the jesuit Possevin, 
Possevin. jes. Apparat. Tit. Ephraem.  who reckoning almost an hundred tractates of Ephraem, did omit his Testament.  
29. Cyrill of Jerusalem entereth in the second place of this scene, who in Cateches. 5. mystag. saith, that Prayer is offered in the dreadful Sacrifice for the help of Souls: which he illustrateth by a similitude of making Supplication for one that is cast into exile, by the displeasure of a King: which showeth the State of souls in exile, not in a fiery Furnace; & in paenâ damni, and not Sensus; it is the not fruition of blessedness, but yet not the sense of Torment, and therefore concerneth not the Romish Purgatory, as may appear by the 
e See above, sect. 1. n. 4.  second confessed Observation.  
30. Greg. Nazianzen is the fourth of this rank, who Orat. 10. in Laudem fratris defuncti, Prayeth God to receive the soul of his brother Caesarius. This is the only testimony, which Coccius produceth out of Nazianzen: upon this kind of prayer, by M. Parsons and Coccius his conclusion, we are to believe that Nazianzen thought, that the Soul of that Caesarius might then have been in Purgatory torment, and not in heavenly blessedness: But alas for the crookedness of contentious spirits! for 
f Coccius Thesaur. Tom. 1. l. 5. Art. 2.  Coccius himself useth the very same Orat. 10. of Nazian. in Laudem fratris Caesary defuncti, which is, in praise of his brother Caesarius then departed, to prove a quite contrary conclusion, to wit, that the Souls of the faithful, after they be departed, do go immediately into heaven: Albeit the words of Nazianzen be in manner of prayer, thus: But thou, O divine and sacred man, I wish thee to penetrate the beauens, and to rest in the bosom of Abraham, to behold the Qxire of Angels, and the glory of the blessed Saints, etc. Not that he doubted of his present blessedness, for in the same Orat. he saith thus: Credo, etc. I believe that every generous soul is precious in God's sight, and, as soon as it departeth out of the body, goeth presently unto the Lord, and receiveth blessedness. Even as he doth in his next Oration, which he made in the commendation of his sister Gorgonia, then dead: Equidem non dubito, etc. I doubt not (faith he) but that thou now enjoyest the Choir of Angels, and the contemplation of the blessed Trinity, etc. Which was the so undoubted doctrine of Nazianzen, concerning the souls of all the godly, who depart in the faith of Christ, that Nilus the Greek Bishop doth use a sentence of Nazianzen, for the confutation of Romish Purgatory, viz, Nazian. Serm. de Pasch. speaking of the state after this life, saith (saith 
g Nilus' Episcopus Thessaly. de purge. igne.  Nilus) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. c. That there is no Purgation.  
31. The fifth is, Gregory Nissen. in Orat. Quòdnon sit dolendum ob eorum obitum, qui in fide decesserunt; And li. de animâ, & resurrect. he maketh mention of Purgatory fire after this life etc. This witness reacheth beyond the Romish Purgatory, and further than the Romanists themselves will allow: for if a Greek Bishop may be thought fit to understand what was the judgement of Greg. Nissene, concerning the state of the dead, then let us listen unto Nilus, 
h Nilus' quo suprà.  who telleth us that Greg. Nissen seemed to favour that opinion, which defended 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is, a Redint egration, which sinners (meaning the damned) shall find after the end of their punishment, and calleth that punishment a Purgatory furnace: therefore we answer (saith Nilus) that those were the pernicious Comments of certain Heretics, who accorded unto Orlgen, and did to that end abuse that singular light of the Church (viz. Greg. Nissene) to make him seem to be a Patron of their opinion. Secondly we say (saith Nilus) that although that holy man (Greg. Nissene) did hold that opinion, which being questionable in his time, was afterward condemned by a Council, yet he is not to be followed in his error; which error was condemned in 
i See Origen rejected by the Romanists above § 3. n. 21  Origen. And that his books are not free from such like corruptions, it is herein very credible, because that 
k Niceph. Calixtus l. 11. c. 19  Nicephorus, speaking of his Book De anima, suspecteth that Certain Heretics had infused some Origenicall opinions into it. Seeing then that either the witness Nissene himself was in the error of Origen; or else his Books were infected therewith; An erroneous witness, may not be admitted for a competent Author of truth. For if the blind lead the blind, beware the Ditch. That next place, which they take out of Damascene, we 
l See above num. 26.  have seen already nailed unto the post for forged stuff.  
32. Timotheus Alexandrinus, cometh in for a sixth witness, in his Resp. Interrog. 14. Oblatio non est facienda super eum, qui sibi mortem intulerit: But such sentences do not infer Purgatory, as 
m See above, sect. 1. num. 7.  hath been proved. The Books themselves of Responsa, and Interrog. here cited by Coccius; are not admitted by their jesuit 
n Apparat. Tit. Timo. Alexan.  Possevine, who bringeth in Gennadius to report, that this Timotheus was condemned by the Council of Chalcedon, and to have been exiled for an Heretic; What dealing is this of our Adversaries, to object him, whom they themselves do reject?  
33. Epiphanius approacheth in seventh place to yield his testimony, who saith nothing but Prodesse orationes mortuis, which (as 
o See above, sect. 1. num. 7.  hath been proved) contain not in them any spark of tormenting fire. Besides, it may concern our Adversaries to examine this witness more strictly, lest whilst they labour to draw from him their pretended truth, they draw upon themselves an error condemned by the practice of the Church (which is to pray for the mitigation of the pain of the damned, with whom we have no communion) because 
p Epiph. Epist. ad Joh. Hieros.  Epiphanius, albeit he accounted Origen after his death an Heretic, and an enemy of the Church, by whose doctrine some were made meat for the Devil, yet did he pray that 
q Epiphan. lib. Anchorat. p. 347  God would pardon him.  
34. Chrysostome, being the eight witness, is hailed in by the heels to speak nothing to the purpose: For either his speeches may signify only Prayer for the dead, which doth not necessarily infer any Purgatory torment; or Prayer for them who are in joy, which confuteth Purgatory; or else Prayer for them, who died in their sins, in the state of damnation, which is far beyond Romish Purgatory; and which kind of Prayer our Adversaries themselves do think to be transgressions, rather than devotions. These we shall show by examining the several particulars in order.  
35. The first, Hom. 6. de Sacerdotio. cap. 4. He speaketh of Prayers, for the sins of all both quick and dead. Whereas (according to our former Observations) Prayer for remission of sins may have divers respects, besides the deliverance out of the torment of Purgatory fire immediately after death, as namely, remission from Poena damni only; or from the judgement of Examination, which is not of purgation; or if of sense, yet of that which is the Fire of conflagration in the body at the last day, and not presently and lingeringly after death.  
36. The second, Hom. 32. Why dost thou entreat the Priests to pray for the dead? I know thou wilt answer, that thou dost so, that he may obtain rest, and find the judge merciful unto him. But if Coccius hadhad the leisure to have stepped but one foot further to the words next following, he should have seen Chrysostome confute his Inserence, As thus: Dost thou therefore weep and cry? Dost thou not see how contrary thou art to thyself? For seeing thou thinkest that the Soul departed is gone into flourishing and delightful Meadows, Why dost thou raise up such tempests, meaning, of tears? Will M. Parson's judge that this place can prove a Purgatory torment? Will he erect a fiery Furnace upon flourishing meadows?  
37. In the rest of the testimonies we may observe that which Senensis observed in Hom. 33. in Matth. 
r Senensis Biblio. lib. 6. Annot. 47.  Chrysostome (saith he) may seem to have 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 doth more than seem to have been of that opinion, as the places themselves, which Coccius hath pointed at, do easily bewray: For Hom. 16. in joh. The party, whom Alms 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 transgress in malice, therefore he saith: His malice is cut off by death, but the just is placed in safety, and freed from future fear. And Hom. 21. in Act. Apost. Wishing to Diminish the punishment of the dead, he describeth such a dead party, as spent the most part of his life vainly, serving sin and the devil.  
38. In Hom. 41. in 1. Cor. There is, we confess, the approbation of Prayer for souls, that they may receive some comfort: But what kind of Souls they be, the place doth manifest, where Chrysostome divideth them only into two Orders, Them who lived well in this life, and them who lived 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 hindered, lest he should multiply sins. Like as is more plainly manifested in the next place, In Epist. ad Philipp. Serm. 3. Moral. Where he telleth us, that much profit redoundeth unto the dead by our Prayers for sinners departed: But will you know what colour these Sinners were of, verily as black as Murrians, for they were such, in Chrysostome his estimate, Who dying in the abundance of riches, which in their life time they never used for the comfort of their souls. And the last place, Hom. 69. ad Pop. Antioch. doth not differ from the rest. I ask therefore, with what conscience do our Adversaries cite these testimonies, which (because they are erroneous) they themselves will not justify and embrace.  
39 Palladius Hist. Lausiac. cap. 40. Possesseth the ninth place, but (as if Pallidus were his name) being afraid to be known; and no marvel, seeing that their jesuit Possevine doubteth not to say of him, that he was 
s Possevin. Apparat. Tit. Palladius.  spotted with Origenicall impieties. The same Palladius (who writ the Historia Lausiaca) their Cardinal Baronius 
t Baron. An. 388. num. 103. & 107  proveth, both out of S. Hierom, and Epiphanius, to have rotten in the contagious heresy of Origen, etc. which Baronius further 
u Anno 400. num. 61.  collecteth out of that Historia Lausiaca, which are the Books of Palladius, which Coccius here produceth for proof of their Purgatory. Which may disable the credit of Coccius, who in impannelling the jury, could make no better choice.  
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 pain after death, excepting that which is paena immortalis; That is, eternal: But our Adversaries dream not of any other Purgatory pain, but that which is 
x See above. sect. 1. num. 5.  Temporal: And thus much of these ten witnesses. I refer unto the judgement of my Reader, to discern, whether they be not either counterfeit, or Apocryphal, or corrupt, or else violently urged beyond their proper aim.   

Witnesses among the Greek Fathers, abused by Coccius, for defence of Romish Purgatory.  
THE LAST DECADE.  
41. Atticus Patriarcha Constantinop. Epist. ad Cyrillum Alexand. Here is a solemn Preface, what will this first witness say? There is mention to be made of Bishops departed, etc. at the time of the Communion, on the mystical Table. But we 
a See above, sect. 1. num. 7. and more fully hereafter, nu. 47. and 48.  have observed from our Adversaries, that Commemoration doth not infer any Supplication, nor yet Supplication any tormenting purgation.  
42. johannes Cassianus, Collat. 2. cap. 5. is called upon by Coccius to speak for Purgatory: But he may not be admitted into the number of witnesses, because he hath long since been impeached of falsehood by Pope Gelasius, who reckoneth this Book among the 
b Gratian. Dist. 15.  Apocrypha writings, which is a thing that their Card. Baronius will have us observe: 
c Baron. Anno. 433 num. 30.  See (saith he) the censure of Gelasius, wherein the same works of Cassianus (speaking of the Collations here mentioned by Coccius) are rejected, as being no way Catholic. Yet are not Coccius, and his assistant M. Parsons, ashamed to shake this Knight by the hand, and to make him one of their choice witnesses.  
43. In the third place, Socrates steppeth forward, in his Lib. 7. Hist. cap. 25. to tell us how 
* See this largely confuted hereafter by their own confessions. num. 47. and num 48.  that In solemn Prayers there was mention made of Bishops after their departure. But I demand of M. Parsons, how often he hath heard mention made of the names of Holy men and women departed out of this life at S. Paul's Cross, and elsewhere by our Preachers of England, in their Prayers of thanksgiving for their former grace, and present joy; and not as of requests to free them from any Purgatory torment? Yet so it is, Socrates must serve their turn to fill up a number.  
44. But what shall we say to Theodoret? He first (Lib. 5. Hist. cap. 36.) recordeth the Act of Theodosius, who prayeth to God to pardon the injuries, which his Parents had committed of ignorance. We read that Isaac said unto Abraham, 
* Gene. 32. 7.  Father, behold the fire and the wood, but where is the Lamb for the burnt offering? I may invert the speech and say, here is the Sacrifice of Prayer, but where is the fire, for we have already 
d See above, sect 1. num. 7.  proved, that Prayer for remission doth not necessarily infer any Purgatory torment. The second place alleged out of Theodoret is Hist. Sanct. Patrum de jacobo Nisibita: But this is not found in their 
e Possevin. jes. Apparat. Tit. Theodoretus.  Possevine, among the works of Theodoret. The third place is noted to be in 1. Cor. 3. Quiequid interuenit, etc. Which words (as 
f Coccius, in the place objected  Coccius himself confesseth) being cited by Aquinas (for Purgatory) are not now found either in the Greek or Latin Copies of Theodoret. May we not then judge them worthy the post? No doubtless saith Coccius; for Mark (for he will give us a reason) the words were razed out (saith he) by some Greekishenes, who misliked Purgatory. If this were sensible, than the Latins likewise misliked Purgatory, for the Sentence (saith Coccius) is not now found in the Latin Translations of Theodoret: So that M. Parsons is to make his choice, whether he will confess that one sentence of Theodoret to be forged, for proof of Purgatory, or else both the Greek and Latin Churches, to have been false Registers of the Books of Theodoret.  
45. The fifth Author is Basilius Seleucius, Conc. de Exsuscit. Lazari, speaking of Sacrifice offered for those, who offended God in many things; using the same strain of speech as Chrysostome 
g See above, §. 3. num. 37.  had done, by extending Prayer unto the souls of grievous and mortal offenders. Which doctrine the stomach of the Purgatorians will in no wise digest.  
46. What will become of the testimony of their sixth witness, 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 judgement to be Examined by the fire of judgement, etc. But their Cardinal Bellarmine 
h See above, sect. 1. num. 5.  hath told us already that this fire doth differ from the fire of Purgatory: For the fire of judgement is but a Trying and examining fire; and that fire of Purgatory is a purging and tormenting fire.  
47. But now let every man give room, for two Emperors do approach, and seem to offer their testimonies for Purgatory: The first is, justinus Imp. Epist. ad Hormisdam, who saith; That we may not contemn all the memories of the dead, That is: The Commemorations of their names, as their Cardinal 
i Baronius Anno 520. num. 53. & 54. making the subject of the Letters of Justinus, and of Justinianus the same: Now num. 34. he showeth the cause, as I have related.  Baronius teacheth, showing that hereby was meant the tolerating of the mention of the names of some in the Catalogue of orthodoxal Bishops, who died in the schism of Acatius. Now if Commemorations of Bishops and Saints departed, do necessarily conclude them to be in Purgatory fire, then 
k See above sect. 1. num. 4. and sect. 2. num. 13.  how shall we celebrate the names of patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, Martyrs, yea and of the glorious vessel of Grace, the Virgin Marie, to praise God that they are in rest and blessedness? What injury will not these Purgatorians do unto other Authors, who dare offer such violence unto the sentence of so great an Emperor?  
48. The nex Emperor is justinianus, Novella de Monachis. He is also without due reverence thrust in, and urged to speak nothing to the purpose, saying only 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 far as he can, yet shall he not possibly make Memorials of the dead, reach so far as the Purgatory fire, for the afflicting of their souls as hath been shown, and will be 
* See in the Section following.  hereafter more apparent.  
49. Procopius Gazeus, Ad cap. 6. Esaiae is the ninth Author, upon whom M. Parsons must serve a Latitat, before he will appear: For their Sixtus Senensis, speaking of these Commentaries, saith that 
l Sixtus Senens. Biblioth. lib. 4.  They have not as yet been turned into Latin, but are kept in the Venetian Library. And when he is suffered to speak the best that he can, it is no more but this, that There is a celestial place of Purgation of men's souls, even by the Seraphins. This celestial and heavenly Purgatory must needs be spiritual, by the force of the Holy Ghost, and not by any hellish torment; but differeth as much from the real fire, which is our adversaries furnace, as doth Heaven from Hell.  
50. The tenth and last man of their Greek witnesses is johannes Climachus, (who lived about the year 580.) Gradu. 4. de Insomnijs. All that the testimony hath, is but the Celebration of service for the sleeping of one's soul: which doth make no more for Purgatory, then to pray that the soul of him that sleepeth may, in the end, be joined with the body, and made partaker of the consummation of bliss.  
51. Because M. Parsons in his Challenge hath allotted unto me but the compass of six hundred years, I will not transgress, to proceed in discovering many base counterfeits and corrupt Authors, whom Coccius hath brought to serve his stage. I now desire the Christian Reader to ponder and apply the Observations and Grants of our Romish Adversaries, noted 
m See above, fect. 1. num. 4.  above in the first Section, & to apply the allegations of Coccius unto them, and (seeing that M. Parsons did earnestly desire that I should demonstrate the abuse of one and thirty Fathers, whether Greek or Latin, within the compass of six hundred years after Christ) to try whether I have not satisfied him already, even in the Greek Authors, for besides the ten Greek Liturgies, we have found Greek 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, animadversions, and observations of our Adversaries themselves, appear to be either foisted, or corrupted, or discredited, or wrested, to prove that which cannot be evinced from them, which we may so much the rather suspect, because that their own Bishop 
n Roffensis, Art. 〈◊〉 S. Cor. 〈◊〉  Roffensis went so far in his time, as to confess that There was none or very rare mention of Purgatory in the Greek Fathers; and that the doctrine thereof was hardly known in those times: and more absolutely their 
o Invent. l. 8. c. 1.  Polydore Virgil granting that It was not acknowledged by the Grecians unto this day. Which showeth that their Salmeron and Coccius, in alleging more than all the Greek Fathers, for proof of that doctrine, have done this with a Greekish (according to the Proverb) with a deceivable faith. Thus much of the Greek Fathers.    

SECT. FOUR  

The testimonies delivered in the name of the Latin Fathers, abused by Coccius, for proof of Purgatory.  
52. THis book groweth big and corpulent; if I should deal as particularly in the Latin, as I have done in the Greek Testimonies, I might complain of an— Amphora exit: therefore will I insist only upon those allegations, which may be best satisfied from the principles of our Adversaries, and leave the rest, remitting my Reader to the Confutations which other Protestants have yielded unto them.  
53. Tertullian is made the Captain of this band, whom 
a See above, 〈◊〉 7.  some of our Adversaries have noted to have held, that the souls are in sequestered receptacles, wherein they neither receive pain, nor their reward of blessedness; which doctrine (in the judgement of their jesuit Suarez) doth consequently gainsay the doctrine of Purgatory fire. And this answer in general, might satisfy their particular objections out of Tertullian; notwithstanding we shall examine these.  
54. The first is, De testimony animae, adversus Gentes, cap. 4. Thou prayest for the bones and ashes of the dead, that they may have 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 allege that, and other opinions of the Heathen, was not to approve them, but to prove out of them that there is an Immortality of the soul, even as he doth from another absurd opinion of theirs, in calling wicked men devils, and thereby confessing that there is a Devil, and consequently a Tormenter, and therefore also a Day of judgement. Concerning the truth of this answer, my Reader may consult with their own Renatus Laurentius in his Argument, and Annotations upon this book.  
55. The second, Tert. de corona militis, ca 3. We make Oblations for the dead; and (this part Coccius hath cut off) for their birthdays. Must Oblations for the dead once a year necessarily imply a Purgatory torment? or will our adversaries allow the whole testimony of Tertullian? Neither of both: for their 
b Renatus Laurent. Annot. in Tert. l. ad Martyrs. Oblations and Commemorations.  Renatus answering unto 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 deceived, signifieth the commemorations, and remembrance of them according to the custom of those times, which was, after the repeating of the Creed, to give up the names of godly men departed, in a scroll, to lay it on the Altar there, to be recited not without some praise and commendations of their virtues, which shined in them, whilst they were alive. What can be more plain 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 yearly celebrations of their Birth-dates, Was (as both 
c Rhenanus Arg. in Tert. de corona.  Rhenanus and 
d Renatus upon the place itself.  Rhenatus acknowledged) an Heathenish custom, and for a time only by indulgence tolerated in the Church, but afterwards condemned by the Council of Nice.  
56. The third, De anima, cap. ult. speaking of a little offence, which (as the uttermost farthing) must be paid in that morà resurrectionis, That is, in the time of the delay of the Resurrection: Coccius should have considered that Tertullian is reckoned by their 
e Senens. bibl. l. 6 Annot. ult. &. l. 5 Annot. 233. & Ribera. jes. in Apoc. 20. ver. 4.  own Doctors among the erroneous Chiliasts, who held that the Saints should live a Thousand years in this world in all spiritual delights, at what time men should rise (as Ribera expoundeth them) according to their merits, some sooner than others. Therefore if we take [Mora resurrectionis,] in the last day, for lingering and delay in the time of their resurrection, this, we see, is twelve score wide of Romish Purgatory.  
57 The fourth, De Monogamia, cap. 11. & De caestitate cap. 11. are books which both 
f Pammelius & Rhenanus in Tert.  Pammelius and 
g Possevin jes. Apparat.  Possevine confess to have been written when he was a Montanist, even against the Church. And the testimonies themselves talking but of Prayers and Oblations, and refreshing, will not carry level to the scope that Coccius aimeth at, as by many examples we have proved.  
58. The next Author, concerning whom I may have some direction from our Aduersaties, is Zeno Veronensis, in whose testimony, In Serm. de Resurrect. there is no mention either of Fire or of Purgatory. And the book itself is of so small credit, that their Notaries of ancient writings, viz. Trithemius, Senensis, Possevine, Baronius, and others, do not so much as vouchsafe this Author the naming.  
59 The third is Lactantius, lib. 7. Instit. cap. 21. Perstringentur, etc. That is, God will examine the just with fire, and the sins of men shall be burned. Which testimony also Bellarmine urgeth to prove their Purgatory fire after death, not considering that Lactantius speaketh (as their jesuit 
h Suar. jes. Tom. 2. in Thom. q. 59 Disp. 57 sect. 1. §. Tertia sententia.  Suarez confesseth) of the fire in the day of the resurrection; Which is (saith their 
i Senens bibl. l. 5. Annot. 171.  Senensis) the fire of conflagration in the last day; Which is not (saith 
* Bellar. see above.  Bellarmine) that Purgatory, now controverted. And 
k Suarez. Tom. 2 in Thom. disp. 57 sect. 1. § Veruntamen.  Suarez doth furthermore call this a false erroneous opinion, to think that there shall be some just men in the day of the resurrection, who being not perfectly purged of their sins, must be joined to their bodies, and so purged with fire in their bodies and souls, before that they can be blessed.  
60. Hilarius Pictaviensis in Psal. 59 where he speaketh of purging of sins with fire, alluding unto that of 1. Cor. 3. of many That shall be saved, as it were by fire, according as elsewhere, In Psal. 118. upon those words [My soul hath desired thy judgements] We (saith he) must pass thorough that indefatigable fire, wherein we must undergo those grievous punishments, for the expiation of the sins of our souls, and is objected by 
l Bellar. l. 1. de Purg. c. 6. ad finem.  Bellarmine for confirmation of Romish Purgatory: notwithstanding the same Bellarmine repeating the same place of Hilary in Psal. 118. upon the same text, [My soul hath desired thy judgements, etc. where Hilary saith, that All (except Christ) yea, the Virgin Mary must pass thorough the fire, 
m Bellar. l. 2. de Purg. c. 1. §. Add.  showeth that Hilary seemeth not to mean the Purgatory fire, but the fire of God's judgement, thorough which indeed all Saints must pass. And their 
n Senens. bibl. l. 5 Annot. 171. §. Hilarius unà.  Senensis will have us understand that herein Hilarius followed the opinion of Origen, who taught that all, except Christ, must pass thorough the fire of conflagration at the last day: which opinion 
o Bellar. quo. sup. §. Hec sententia.  Bellarmine condemneth for a manifest error.  
61. S. Ambrose his worthiness moved Coccius to be plentiful in alleging divers testimonies out of him: but (if I be not much deceived) very unfortunately. The first place is his Orat. de exitu vitae Theodosy, praying thus: Thou Lord give perfect rest unto thy servant Theodosius, let his soul come where it may not feel the sense of death. What then? did Ambrose think that the soul of this godly Emperor was now in a Purgatory fire? This is indeed, Coccius his aim, and M. Parsons his consequence, but behold (good Reader) the vertigo of these men, for in the beginning of that Oration Ambrose professeth publicly of Theodosius, that He hath not lost his Kingdom, but changed it, being assumed into the Tabernacles of Christ: which testimony destroyeth Purgatory. 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 
p Salmeron lib. 1 in part. 3. Comment Epist. Pauli, disp. 6 §. Est ergo.  jesuit Salmeron confesseth) To pray for their speedy resurrection.  
62. A second place is Epist. 8. ad Faustinum, wherein there is only Prayer for the soul departed: which breath (as we have heard) is not strong enough to kindle a Purgatory fire.  
63. We descend unto a third testimony, which is Orat. 1. praeparans ad Missam: 
q Epist Erasmi ad Lectorem, initio Tom. 4 operum Ambrosijs. And albeit he seem commendable unto Erasmus, yet not knowing what age he was off, he can challenge no place here.  which I judge (saith Erasmus) to be none of the Writings of Ambrose: and therefore we may dismiss it for a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nevertheless the testimony itself cannot evince the Romish Purgatory, as may appear by comparing it with the 
* See above, num. 5.  third observation.  
64. The last place is the Author of the Comments upon S. Paul's Epistles, which pass under the name of Ambrose, teaching that A man must suffer a purging fire, lest that he be tormented in the fire eternal: but he telleth not what purging fire he meaneth, whether the fire of the spirit, 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 
r Senens. bibl. l. 5. Annot. 171.  Senensis) by all which the Romish Purgatory is excluded. And although Coccius could fashion his own meaning out of that place, yet may it be as lawful for us to answer in this case, according unto the judgement of their jesuit Salmeron, who proveth those Comments by many Arguments to be none of S. Ambroses': 
s Salmeron jes. Comment in Epi. Pauli in genere disp. 19 p. 61, 62. etc.  Which (as he censureth) are infected with the errors of the Pelagians.  
65. Prudentius in Hamert. in his verses prayeth that A light kind of fire may burn him, and not the eternal: which he might do, understanding other fire, besides the Romish Purgatory. But the same Prudentius in his verses saith, that the damned Ghosts have sometimes paenarum sub styge ferias, That is, play-days and remissions from the pains of hell: therefore could Bellarmine say no less, but that 
t Bellarm. lib. 2. de Purge cap. 18. § Ad quintum.  Prudentius did herein play the Poet. And so say we, Terms of Poesy do not always besit the Virgin theology.  
66. Hierome cap. 66. in Esa. As we believe all torments of them, that deny God to be eternal, so do we think that the sentence of the judge, will be moderate and mixed with clemency against the ungodly Christians, whose works must be purged with fire. And again, In Cap. 7. Micheae: The soul, after that it hath endured torments, and is delivered out of darkness, upon the payment of the last farthing, I shall see the justice of the Lord. S. Hierome upon those words of the Prophet Amos, cap. 3. [Behold he will call fire unto judgement, and will devour the depth, and also eat up a part,] Saith thus (saith 
t Senens. bibl. l. 5 Annot. 171.  Senensis:) The fire doth devour all kind of sins, as wood Stubble, Hay, and afterward doth eat up part] that is, it seizeth upon the Saints, who are the peculiar people of God, for it is time that judgement begin at God's house: if any man's work burn, he shall have a loss, but he himself shall be safe, yet so as by fire: when as we shall all be in sin, and stand before the truth of judgement, God will have mercy upon us, and raise us in the time of resurrection. Which Sentence Senensis expoundeth of the fire of Conflagration: and other purgation of fire, than this, we find not in S. Hierome.  
67. The other place is out of Hierom in cap. 1. Nahum. He indeed compareth Temporal punishment with eternal, but they are the temporal in this life, such as the punishment of the man who gathered sticks (for this is one example) and not of the Romish Temporal punishment in Purgatory.  
68 Ruffinus Ad Psal. 37. who lived Anno 390. and is alleged out of a Comment upon the Psalms, which (for aught that doth appear in their own 
u Somti' Epist. before Ruffinus upon the Psalms.  Sonnius, or by their jesuit 
x Possevin Jes. Apparat.  Possevine) came not into public Print, before the year 1570. which may serve for a note of an Apocrypha book.  
69. The next Allegation of Coccius, which may be controlled by our adversaries confessions, is out of Paulinus Nolanus his Epist. 18. & Epist. 19 We demand some evidence for the antiquity of these Epistles, Card. 
y Baron. Ano. 431. num. 198.  Baronius answereth, that They were preserved by the industry of S. Amandus a Bishop: But what appearance have they for this? The Epistle (saith he) of Paulinus written unto Amandus: But how shall we know this? This (saith he) is in the Vatican Index, and hath not as yet been put in Print: That is, as we may lawfully interpret it, these Epistles ascribed unto Paulinus, are but Apocryphal. That which is further drawn out of the Paraphrasis of Paulinus, in Psal. 1. speaketh of The fire which trieth the work, which Bellarmine hath distinguished from his Purgatory fire, because this Trieth the worker.  
70. Pope Sixtus De malis doctoribus & operibus fidei (which Coccius calleth Sixtus tertius: but Possevine showeth to have been Sixtus secundus) Our apparitor Coccius calleth into the Court to bear witness for Purgatory: but he no sooner appeareth: but their jesuit 
z Possevin jes. Apparat. Tit. Sixtus second.  Possevine doth pull off his Vizard, and findeth him to be a counterfeit, lurking under the name of that holy Pope. There were (saith Possevine) three volumes of Pelagians, written in the name of Pope Sixtus, the second of them was De malis Doctoribus & operibus fidei, which Baronius observeth to be fraught with Pelagianisme, whereof Lindane hath complained. And thus we see also Coccius unmasked in his allegation of Pope Sixtus, for still he abuseth his Reader with the Aequiuocating names of false Authors. But what else may we expect from Aequivocators?  
71. Sedulius upon 1. Cor. 3. saith that S. Paul did compare the examination of judgement unto fire, because it shall be proved in the Purgatory fire of judgement. But if we ask their Suarez how we may call Examination a fire, 
a Suarez Jes. Tom. 2. in Thom. disp. 57 sect. 1. §. Circa primum.  he will inform us that it is so to be understood as is that of Dan. 7. [A stood of fire went out at his mouth] which was the judgement of God, and signifieth nothing but that sentence which Christ shall pronounce, which like a fercible fire shall separate and discern the wicked from the good. If then this signify nothing but the sentence, how can it argue any Purgatory punishment?  
72. Caesarius Arelatensis, upon 1. Cor. 3. viz. He shall be safe, yet as it were by fire, distinguisheth between the 
b Which word is in Caesarius, in the Edition set forth by Bigne in biblioth S. Patrum, Tom. 7.  perpetua paena, and paena Purgatoria. And although he talk of Purgatory punishments, by tribulations in this life, yet that which is here mentioned, is a Purgatory-fire after death; but when? not until the last day of Resurrection; which as it doth not disprove, so it doth not prove the Romish Purgatory fire, as hath been confessed. That he meant the Fire of the day of the Last Resurrection, it is not denied by 
c Suarez jesuita Tom. 2 disp 57 sect 1. §. Tertia sententia, & §. Veruntamen  Suarez, by whom he is reprehended as Erroneous for holding, that Some souls, which are not sufficiently purged before the resurrection, shall in that day be purged with that fire. Not to stand-upon the disabling of this witness, to prove him Apocryphal.  
73. It were but expense of time to prosecute other Allegations, which Coccius hath pyled up as Billits, to use for the making their pretended Romish Purgatory fire to burn more bright, wherein there is only either praying for their peace, as in Arnobius lib. 4. contrà Gentes, or only Oblations or Prayers for the dead, as that of Bacchiarius, De recip. Lapsis; and Victor Vticens'. de persecutione Vandalica; and Martinus Bracarensis, de Graecorum Synodis, cap. 69. and Conc. Carthag. cap. 79. or the public remembrances, commemorations, and Memorials of some in their public prayers, in testimony of the faith of those servants of God, and thankfulness unto God, as Conc. Carthag. 3. cap. 29. and Conc. Vasens. cap. 2. and Conc Valentinum Hispaniae, cap. 4. All which in an orthodoxal sense have been applied (as we have seen) unto Martyrs and other Saints of blessedness, who are many thousand miles separated from all breath and sent of that fiery furnace of their Purgatory: which their Coccius, according to his common error aimeth at, who will not be found excusable in his last two witnesses.  
74. The second Council of Arles, cap. 15. decreeing that The Oblations of the dead should be received, except they were known to have murdered themselves. Concerning these kind of Oblations, we read in more ancient Canons, as Can. 3. & 4. of the Apostles, wherein it was ordained, as 
d Binius Annot. in eos Canon's.  Binius expoundeth them, that No Oblations should be received of the Church from any departed, except they had in their lifetime professed the Catholic faith, and lived a godly life. And in the Council 
e Apud Binium part. 1. col. 〈◊〉 60.  Vasatense, 1. cap. 1. it was decreed, that Whosoever did withdraw from the Church the oblations of the dead, they should be separated from the Church as Infidels. In these we see Oblations of the dead, which they by their Wills and Testaments left to the Church, to be bestowed in charitable uses, which Coccius allegeth for proof of Oblations for the dead, to infer that loose and dissolute Consequence for the state of such souls in a fiery Purgatory. And are not the holy and glorious Saints much beholden unto Coccius, who from their Oblations of Charity must likewise conclude, that they are in affliction and torment?  
75. Primasius is the last witness, whom I find within the precincts of the first six hundred years, and he lib. 5. in Apoc. 19 speaking of Martyrs, saith of them (as of others) that The souls of the godly, who are departed, are not now separated from the Church, which is the Kingdom of Christ: otherwise (saith Primasius) we should not at the Altar have a remembrance of them in the communion of the Lords Body. Now all the Romanists do, together with us, profess to the glory of God's grace, that Martyrs and holy Saints are in the Tabernacles of rest and blessedness, where there is no Tears, but all joyful songs of hallelujah: whom notwithstanding we believe to be joined with us by a spiritual Communion, we praising God for their holiness in their lifetime, and for their happiness after death, as they likewise in general do pray and praise God for the Elect. Therefore it cannot be, but M. Parsons himself will be offended with his Apparitor Coccius, who useth no other sentence out of Primasius, to prove that some souls are in the fire of Purgatory, saving that whereby it must necessarily follow, that Martyrs and the Inhabitants of Paradise are in misery.  
76. Thus have I (as I hope) abundantly performed my Task, offering unto Mr. Parsons, our fierce Challenger, his choice of above fifty Testimonies in all, to take out one and thirty Instances of abuses of Fathers, used for the proof of their Purgatory: To the satisfying of his Earnest Appetite from the confessed Observations, Principles, and Conclusions of our adversaries themselves: and yet I did not examine all the sixty. This Combat being ended, I return to my Encountor with M. Parsons.     

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

SECT. I.  
1. HE hath been deeply charged with gross untruethes, and yet doth insert himself in the Catalogue of sincere writers.  

M. PARSONS his Reckoning, and profession of sincerity.  
I Say for myself, if he have found thrice three palpable falsities, 
Reckon. pa. 214.  such as cannot be excused by any oversight, and error, but such as must needs be judged malicious and wittingly untrue, I do not desire any pardon or relaxation from my first promise, that I be never credited more; yea if it be but thrice, which is the measure that I offered unto others. Hitherto we have seen no one alleged and proved: and truly I do confess, that if I did persuade myself, or doubt that M. Morton or any other could prove any such one untruth uttered by me, I should be much troubled in Conscience therewith: But for that I am sure I never had such meaning, I stand very confident, that he will never be able to bring any one example, and much less thrice three.   

The Reveiwe.  
2. If that M. Parsons be an honest man, than his fellow Priest hath played no honest man's part, who hath branded him in the forehead, with singular marks of 
a Quodlib. pag. 236. See above  Forgeries and Lies. Nevertheless, I stand not upon his Conscience, but contend by due proof to lay open his foul spots of falsifications, formerly objected against him in my Preamble, which in this Reckoning he laboureth to wash off, with like success as the Aethiopian doth his blackness, As we shall see.   

A Charge against M. Parsons of Rashness.  
3. In the Preamble, I said that I would not urge him with 
Preamb. pag. 71.  his own contradiction, who in his Preface to his Reader saith, He knoweth not the name of T. M. and yet in his Epistle Dedicatory unto both the Universities, which is set before the Preface, he mentioned the name of Tho. Morton at the full; which is a note of rasnnesse.   

The sum of M. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
But what if this be no contradiction at all, and M. Morton did know 
Reckon. pag. 227  it to be so? First the Dedicatory Epistle of every work is wont to be the last thing that is written, or Printed, which M. Morton will not deny. Secondly, I do expressly signify in my said Epistle Dedicatory, that the said Epistle was written after the Preface and Treatise thereof, etc. Thirdly, to convince him indeed and most apparently of witting and willing fraud in this point, I must tell the Reader, I did in the place here cited of the third Chapter of my Treatise, set down clearly and perspicuously when, and by what occasion I came to understand, whom the two Letters T. M. did signify, which before I understood not. 
* Reckon. pa. 229  And now let the Reader judge between us, whether it be likely that M. Morton knew my Dedicatory Epistle, wherein I take notice of his Name, were written after the common Preface, and first two Chapters of the Treatise, or no; and so let him consider of his idle objection.   

The Reviewe.  
4. Albeit the matter be of no moment, yet seeing that M. Parsons is so vehemently urgent, I shall entreat the indifferent Reader to do him justice, after that I shall be vouchsafed to speak. I observe in all this defence, that there is an Epistle Dedicatory (wherein the name, Tho. Morton, is mentioned) which giveth notice of a large common Epistle (wherein M. Parsons said that he knew not the name) prefixed before a Treatise; and in the third Chapter of that Treatise, the occasion is expressed of knowing the name; often telling us that the Dedicatory Epistle was written after the common Preface, saying furthermore that he was 
b Mitig. cap 3. pag. 89.  Forced by sickness, to lay aside that which he had written; and hence inferreth, that in the Preface he said truly that he knew not that name. In all 
M. Parson's inconsiderate taxation.  which his Answer he hath forgot the principal verb, viz. [Printed:] For if the Preface, wherein he saith he knew not the name; were, as he also saith, laid aside in his writing Papers, and not Printed till afcerwards he knew the Name at full, then ought he to have Corrected the Preface (because now he knew the name) before it were committed to the Press: Otherwise, that part of the Preface, to wit, [As yet I know not his name,] although it were true in his papers when he writ it, yet must it needs be a Lie in Print, and a special Argument of great rashness. And Rashness being the fault which I imputed unto M. Parsons, he was too inconsiderate to put this in his Reckoning, for one of the falsehoods which were objected against him.  
5. Nevertheless, lest that I might disturb the Order of M. Parsons his Reckoning, I thought good to fill up this his first place, with a perfect falsehood indeed of his own (not yet mentioned) which is such as may persuade any man of Conscience, that M. Parsons his Conscience hath taken such a leak, as is able to drown his soul, except he repent, which I will unfold in the next Paragraphe.   

A four fold falsehood committed by M. Parsons against M. Caluine, in the end of his last third Chapter.  
Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
FInally, john Caluine himself, treating of this matter, confesseth that 
Reckon. cap. 3. pag. 219.  the use of Prayer for the dead (which supposeth Purgatory) was practised in the Primitive Church above one thousand three hundred years agone: Ante mill & trecentos Annos (saith he) usu receptum 
Calvin. lib. 3. Instit. ca 5. §. 10  fuit, ut precationes fierent pro defunctis: It was received in use above a thousand three hundred years past, that Prayers should be made for the souls of them that were departed. And a little after: 
* Reckon. pa. 220  where john Caluine in the former place cited, after his confession of the received use of Prayer before one thousand three hundred years, saith, Sed omnes, 
Calu. ubi supra.  fateor, in errorem abrepti suerun: But all of them, I confess, were carried away with error.   

The Reveiwe.  
6. M. Parsons hath singled out of all the books of Mr. Caluine this one place, which he presenteth to his Reader for a spectacle of contempt used by M. Caluine against ancient Fathers, and hath laid this down, as it were, for the upshot of his whole Reckoning of that his third Chapter. But see (I beseech thee, good Reader) what a knot of falsities he hath tied together in this one accusation. First, these words Ante mill annos, etc. are propounded only as an Objection of Romish Doctors, thus: cum ergo obijciunt adversary ante mill & trecentos annos etc. That is, Whereas my Adversaries (saith Caluine) do object unto me, that prayers for the dead were wont 
M. Parson's perfidious forgery  to be used in the Church a thousand, three hundred years since: Secondly, when he cometh to answer, he saith, Ipsiverò veteres, etc. But those ancients were carried away with error: Where M. Parsons, to make M. Calvin's answer more odious, put in Omnes veteres, that is, All ancient Fathers erred therein, as though Caluine had condemned them All in this point.  
7. Thirdly, Caluine a little after in the same Section, yieldeth a fuller answer, saying: Verum nè glorientur Aduersaris nostri, quasi veterem Ecclesiam erroris sui sociam habeant, etc. But least that our Adversaries (iaith Caluine) may boast, as though they had the ancient Church a companion in their error, I say that there is a great difference between them, for those ancients used a memory of the dead, lest that they might seem to have altogether neglected them, but yet did also confess, that they did not doubt of the State of the dead: As for Purgatory (saith Calvin) they held it to be an uncertain thing. Besides, we might easily produce divers testimonies of ancient Fathers, whereby the use of those prayers is manifestly confuted. Thus far Mr. Caluine; signifying that he was not destitute of the judgement of Antiquity, for the oppugning of the doctrine which was objected against him: which part of the answer Mr. Parsons hath wholly concealed.  
8. Lastly, Caluine (saith M. Parsons) confesseth that the use of Prayer for the dead (which supposeth Purgatory) was practised, etc. Never taking notice that Caluine denieth that consequence, holding that Prayer for the dead doth not infer Purgatory.  
9 Is not here as great a manifestation of witting malice, and falsehood (for aught that can appear to any Reader) as an Adversary could possibly use? First to allege Calvin's 
A quadruplicitie of M. Parson's falsehoods.  objection, in that sense wherein it was objected, as if it had been his Assertion: Secondly, by cogging a Die in deed, in foisting in the word All: Thirdly, by concealing Calvin's more absolute answer: And lastly by implying a consequence, which is by Caluine plainly confuted. What will now become of M. Parsons his Confidence of his own sincerity, who boasteth that there cannot be brought against him any one example of such a falsity, much less thrice three, seeing that here are at least three gross falsehoods in this one? we further enter upon the falsehoods wherewith he was charged in the Preamble.    

SECT. II.  

The second Charge of the Clause of Reservation.  
10. HOw could M. Parsons, without some Equivocating 
Preamb. pag. 5. & pag. 72. " fraud, affirm that the Clause of Reservation was not set down by me in Latin, except only once, seeing that it was expressed in Latin above twenty times?   

The sum of M. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
THe truth is, that my meaning was according to the meaning of 
Reckon. pag. 14.  M. Mortons' assertion, promising that he would always so set down the clause of Reservation in Latin, that the simple Reader should not understand it, no more then simple men could understand Aristotle's Philosophy; in which manner I found it put down, but once indeed throughout the whole Book, to wit, in the place before mentioned, that is to say, wholly in Latin, for thus he writeth, coming to the said clause of Reservation: Loquar enim Latinè, nè Jdiotae ansam sibi arripiant nequitèr 〈◊〉 [ut quis 〈◊〉 illud detegere.] 〈◊〉 words he Englisheth not, and consequently might be some veil to the ignorant, not to understand him. But in all other places, though he put in oftentimes, I know not this, or that, Vt tibi dicam, ut tibi revelem, etc. Yet doth he so utter in English all the rest of the cases professed, as the simpliest man may understand the same, and consequently I hold them for uttered in English, and not in Latin.   

The Review of the former Reckoning.  
11. The only shadow of excuse, which M. Parsons hath, for covert of his former untruth (when he said that The clause of Reservation was set down in Latin but once, notwithstanding it be found in Latin above one and twenty times) is to point at one place, which he saith is only and wholly in Latin, thus: Loquar enim, etc. But here he craftily 
M. Parsons his notable fraud  cutteth off the words, which go immediately before, for thus it standeth in the Book. 
c Full Satisf. Part. 3. pag 48.  A Catholic being asked, whether a Priest be in such a place, may, notwithstanding his perfect knowledge to the contrary, answer, [He is not there, ut (loquar enim Latinè, nè I diotae ansam sibi arripiant nequitèr mentiendi) quis teneatur illud det egere.] Where it is as apparent that the mental Equivocation in this place (for the Parenthesis is no part of the sentence) being this, [He is not there] Vt quis teneatur detegere, cannot be said to be wholly in Latin, more than [I am no Priest,] Vt tibirevelem; Or, [I am no Priest,] Vt tibi dicam: Which M. Parsons doth know to have been twenty times repeated in that Treatise.  
12. Wherefore by this Reckoning I am justly occasioned to charge M. Parsons with two untruths, the first for his former saying, that The clause of Reservation was put down in 
A brace of untruths.  Latin but once: The second is for now excusing it. by instancing in one place, as though it were put down wholly in Latin, where not withstanding the first part of the mental Equivocation is as much in English; and the latter part (being the clause of Reservation) no more Latin, then are the twenty other examples of mental Equivocation, which I did particularly recount. And thus we see that which we may readily observe in his other answers, to wit, how fruitful falsehood is, for still one untruth doth engender another. Hath M. Parsons no more to say for himself?   

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

The Review.  
13. Then belike, he would be thought to have wronged me in jest: but who knoweth not that even jesters have as 
His ridiculous evasion.  well teeth in their heads, as revilers? Solomon doth characterize such like fellows: 
d Pro. 16. 17.  As he that feigneth himself mad casteth firebrands, arrows, and mortal things: so dealeth the deceitful man with his friend, and saith, Am not I in jest? As for Mast. Parsons he hath entitled himself an Adversary, and as all men know, he useth to jest uncharitably enough.    

SECT. III.  

The third charge against M. Parsons, concerning the Moderate Answerer.  
14. WHere I said particularly of one of your Doctors, 
Preamb. p. 72.  surnamed the Moderate Answerer, that He setteth himself in the chair of the unlearned Doctors, reprehended by the Apostle, etc. because of his shallow Answers, which he made with an If, etc.  Mr. Parsons in all snuff and fume rageth against me, as though I had said that All Romish Doctors were unlearned. 
This I called a falsehood.   

The sum of Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
I Remit my Reader, for trial of this, unto the ponderation of the text 
Reckon cap. 4. §. 3. pag. 233.  itself of his said Epistle [To our deceived Brethren] and to his inferring words applied to our Priests, in calling them an erring Priesthood. And here I demand of M. Morton in sincerity, whether he did mean of our Doctors in general, or no?   

The Review.  
15. And I answer in as good sincerity, that I meant no more to persuade that All the Romish Doctors were Unlearned, then that they were All learned. But is not this subtly done of M. Parsons, by ask to seem to doubt of that, which a very Child might have understood, by a plain distinction; of one ignorant Priest, which was the Moderate answerer. 
Mr. P. subtle and crafty interrogatory.  But the High Priests of the jews, did not ignorantly but unconscionably, and wilfully delude the people, saying that Christ was stolen out of the grave, unto whom that miserable people performed blind obedience. As for that Title of Seduced Brethrens, it can make no good consequence to prove that I thought Seducers to be unlearned; no more than if M. Parsons would say, that because Eve a silly woman was Seduced by the Devil, therefore the Devil, who deceived her, was no subtle seducer. Seeing therefore that M. Parsons (after so clear a conviction of his error (which any English Reader may perceive) doth still persist in answering, that he committed 
c Reckon. p. 234. Two of his falsehoods in one.  No error at all, but gave a true explanation of my meaning, he, by this denial of one falsehood, hath made up two.    

SECT. FOUR  

The fourth charge about Goodman.  
16. COncerning the seditious doctrine of Goodman, I answered, 
Full satisfact. part. 2 cap. 3. & Preamb. p. 73.  that If I should justify him, my heart should condemn myself, and furthermore called his seditious positions Wicked and false: yet did M. Parsons inform his Reader that I did particularly justify Goodman.   

The sum of Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
MY words were these, that he (T. M.) taketh upon him more fond 
Reckon. cap. 4. §. 4. pag. 235.  in the second part of his Reply, to make a public justification of all Protestants for rebelling against their Princes in any Country whatsoever, but more particularly in England, and therein doth he justify Cranmer, Ridley, and others, that conspired against Q. Mary: Kuoxe, Buchanan, Goodman, in Scotland, as his justification is a more condemnation of them, then if he had said nothing at al. Which I spoke, because he said [If I shall justify Goodman, although the examples of your Priests might excuse him, yet my heart should condemn myself.]   

The Reveiwe.  
17. I thought M. Parsons had been a professed Divine, 
M. Parson's dissembling his understanding of a trivial phrase of speech to cloak his gross falsehood.  and had read in Scripture that the Prophet doth upbraid jerusalem and Israel, saying that they did justify Sodom by their iniquities, that is, (must M. Parsons say, if we admit of his own Comment) God doth commend Sodom for her iniquities, because the Scripture saith, that other wicked Cities do justify Sodom: whereas every trivial Scholar, and almost vulgar man, who hath been exercised in the Scriptures, knoweth that it is spoken only by a Comparison of two ungodly people together, wherein jerusalem is brought-in to justify the other, yet not so, as to acquit Sodom of sin, but even to aggravate the ungodliness of Jerusalem, as which exceeded Sodom in her wickedness. Thus, said I, Although your Priests by their Examples (namely, of more bloody positions) might justify Goodman, (as being less seditious than they are themselves;) yet if I should not condemn Goodman, my heart should condemn myself. What can be more plain to express my purpose in condemning Goodman, whom notwithstanding M. Parsons, to his no small shame, did say I justified? Therefore this untruth also must still remain upon his score with the rest.    

SECT. V.  

The fifth charge against Mr. Parsons about Knox and Buchanan.  
18. Mr. Parsons hath likewise signified unto the Reader, that I justified these also, albeit I 
f Full satisfact. part. 2. cap. 4.  judged their doctrine Seditious, and worthily condemned by a Parliament in Scotland.   

The sum of Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning  
WHereunto I answer, first by the very words of his defence 
Reckon. cap. 4. §. 5. p. 240. & Preamb. p. 74.  in the former objection, set down about Goodman, he seeketh to clear all other, saying;  If I should justify this Goodman (though your examples might excuse him) yet my heart should condemn myself: But what do you profess to prove? All Protestants teach positions rebellious: prove it: Here is Goodman, etc. By the example of all the rest, I answer, there is but one. 
By which answer it is evident he cleareth all the rest. Nor do I find that M. Morton did use these words which he now doth, [Their Seditious doctrine was condemned in Scotland:] Nay, as I noted before, by saying that one Goodman had held positions seditions, he thought to justify and clear both these two.   

The Reviewe.  
19 I marvel by what privilege M. Parsons is emboldened thus to face out a matter so manifestly false, as the meanest English Reader may see. For concerning Knox and Buchanan, I said that 
g Full satisfact, part. 2. cap. 4.  An Act of Parliament calld-in the books of Buchanan, censuring all such contempts and Innovations, Adding that, you may not call that the doctrine of the Church of Scotland, which the general current of the Church and 
M. Parson's outfacing of truth.  State did condemn in public Parliament, such is the seditious doctrine of resisting and deposing of Kings. But yet thus it became M. Parsons to cover his former faithless dealing 
His double untruth.  with a shameless denial, which (lest it should not be manifest enough) he maketh more visible by a palpable untruth: and yet again.   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
NAy, as I noted before, by saying that only one Goodman had held 
Reckon. ib. p. 241.  positions seditious, he thought to justify and clear both these two, and all other their companions from just reprehension. Whereby you see how idle an objection against me this is of wilful falsehood.   

The Reveiwe.  
20. Be pleased (good Reader) to look upon the place itself, and if M. Parsons have dealt sincerely in this point of Reckoning, then discharge him in all the rest. I writ thus concerning Goodman: 
h Full satisfact. part. 2. p. 103.  Here is one Goodman who in his public book doth maintain them. I have no other means to avoid these straits, which you object by the example of one, to conclude All Protestants rebellious, then by example of all the rest, to answer there is but one. Particularly entreating of the examples of English Protestants, whom the Moderate Answerer 
A newfalshood of M. Parsons, in defence of an old.  had objected, and spending the whole third Chapter for the justifying of the English Writers, excepting Goodman, whom I there held worthy of condemnation.  
21. After, in the fourth Chapter, entitled [The objections against the Church of Scotland] I answered (as is aforesaid) for the condemning of Knox and Buchanan: whereas there is not so much as any intimation of these two in the other place: Was there ever man so distortedly squinteyed, who could look Northward and southward in one moment, as M. Parsons hath done, who could not distinguish the speech, which particularly concerned England, from that which was applied only unto Scotland. He held it sufficient, if I could show but Three plain falsehoods for his conviction, here we find in this one charge Three, which are not of the least size.    

SECT. VI  

The sixth charge against M. Parsons, touching Mast. Campian.  
22. THe testimony of M. Campian was 
i Full satisfact. part. 1. p. 20. & Preamb p. 75.  brought to accuse M. Caluine; concerning his doctrine of calling Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and censuring it to be monstrous: Unto the which crimination used by M. Campian,  and by six other Romish Doctors against Caluine, I opposed the judgement of Card. Bellarmine, 
who justifieth the sense of Caluine, as being Catholic: yet did Mr. Parsons so relate the matter, by changing Campian into Bellarmine, as though I had foolishly brought in Bellarmine to be contrary to himself: This I took to be a witting falsehood.   

The sum of Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
BEcause upon the word [your jesuit] M. Morton placed the letter (r) 
Reckon. p. 243.  for reference in the margin unto Campian, and upon the next Author put down the letter (t) upon the quotation of Bellarmine to the same effect, rescuing the opinion of Caluine and Beza; the letters being very small, the one was taken for the other, and the name of Bellarmine set down in the text, in stead of Campian: the difference importing nothing at all, yet doth M. Morton make a great matter of it, as though it had been done of malice, when as for me to change voluntarily these two names, Cuibono?   

The Review.  
23. Here M. Parsons confesseth his error, but saith that he did it not voluntarily, or upon an evil intent But alas the good man's meaning bewrayeth itself, by the manner of his own Accusation, wherein he spared not to note me for a 
k Mitig. cap. 6. n. 53. &. 54. p. 230.  Shifter, by intending to deceive the Reader: Nevertheless perceiving his own ungracious shift discovered, he will have me to take it for a reasonable part of a Reckoning, to answer, 
M. Parsons confessed error.  Cui bono? that is, What good would it have been for me (saith he) to have done this willingly? When as he should rather have asked, Cui malo? that is, To whom he might work a mischief hereby; especially seeing that he doth bewray almost in every page, that it is his cordial good to traduce me, and 
His miserable excuse.  make me odious, as if I were (God forgive him) the vilest shifter and falsificator that hath been heard of. And yet the poor man thinketh to be excused by the littleness of the superior letters (r. and t.) who 
* See hereafter, §. 11.  notwithstanding was himself so Eagle-eyed, in discerning in verò, and verè, the two little vowels, ò, and è.   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning, concerning CALVINES' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
But now for the thing itself, albeit Bellarmine in the place here 
Reckon. pag. 243. & 244.  quoted do show, that, according to the Exposition of Josias Simlerus a Caluinist, the words of John Caluine, in a certain sense may have a true meaning, yet simply and absolutely doth he condemn the same as Heretical, saying, Caluinum existime, quoad modum loquendi, sine dubio errasse. I do think without doubt, that Caluine did err in 
Bellarm. l. 2 de Christo. ca 69.  his manner of speech. (A little after the relation of the sentence of the Book) Whereby it appeareth that Bellarmine, neither is contrary to himself, neither to Fa. Campian, and other Catholic writers before mentioned: for that all of them do agree, that the manner of Calvin's speech is heretical, dangerous, and to be avoided, though in some strained sense it may pass.   

The Reviewe.  
24. Heresy (as Mr. Parson knoweth) consisteth not in words, but in sense: for these words of Scripture, 
* job. 14. 28.  My Father is greater than I, are used both by Catholics and Heretics; but by Catholics in a true, by Heretics in a false sense. Now where I produced Romish Authors, condemning the foresaid sentence of Caluine (concerning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) judging the sense thereof Heretical, etc. and opposed Bellarmine against them, justifying the sense of Caluine as Catholic: 
M. Parson's faithless dealing against Caluine.  M. Parsons endeavoureth to reconcile his Romish Authors, as though they all agreed to condemn Calvin's manner of speech, and to allow his sense. I should marvel that Mr. Parsons durst seek to delude his Reader with so open falsehoods, but that his disposition is now habited by use.  
25. For the accusations of the Romish writers against Caluine, were 
a Full satisfact. part. 1. cap. 7.  thus specified by me. First 
b Rat. 8.  Campian, calling the Doctrine of Caluine portentum: Next, their 
c Annot. in joh. I. 1.  Rhemish translators, calling it Blasphemy: After 
d Lib. 3. de Notis verbi Dei.  Possevinus, calling it Atheism: Then 
e Stapleton. Prompt. ser. 3. post. Dom. 〈◊〉  Stapleton, calling it a wicked Heresy, which Fevardentius (saith he) doth not ably refute. And can these agree with the judgement of Cardinal Bellarmine, who justifieth the sense of Caluine to be Catholic? And for M. Parsons his further conviction, I shall desire my Reader but only to hear the words of Bellarmine himself in the 
f Bellar. 1. 2. de Christ. ca 19  place alleged. Genebrard (saith he) and Lindanus, and Canisius, (all Roman Authors) did attribute unto Caluine this Heresy: Nevethelesse, when I do examine the matter (saith Bellarmine) and do diligently ponder the sentence of Caluine, I dare not pronounce that he was in this error.  
26. Do you not hear Genebrard, Lindanus, and Canisius, pronouncing Caluine an Heretic for that opinion, for which Bellarmine saith, that he himself durst not condemn Caluine? How then could M. Parson's say truly, that these writers do agree? Herein he offereth no small injury unto Bellarmine, whom whilst he would reconcile unto others, he maketh to be an Adversary to himself, as though Bellarmine had condemned Caluine in that, wherein he justified him, according to the Index of his Book: 
* Tom. 3. Edit. Lugduni, Anno 1596.  calvini sent entia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 explicatur, & defenditur, That is: The sentence of Caluine concerning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is explained and defended. But especially he wrongeth his own conscience, by an inexcusable falsehood.    

SECT. VII.  

The seventh Charge.  
27. M. Parsons in his 
g Mitig. cap. 4. num. 14. & Treamb. pag 76.  Mitigation brought me in as Confessing, in effect, all that my Adversary the moderate Answerer had objected against Protestants: when as chose there was scarce any thing 
h See full satisfaPart. 2.  objected (excepting the above named examples of Goodman, Knox, Buchanan, and Muntzer,) which I did not particularly confute. These and almost every particular instance I then prosecuted, oftentimes by the confessions of their own Doctors, whom M. Parsons in his Answer durst not so much as touch by any  mention. And could such like confutations be, In effect, a confessing of all? 
This seemed unto me to be a large and lavish falsehood. Let us see what account Mr. Parson's will make for this.   

The sum of M. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
ALthough he used all possible Art that he could to answer, yet 
Reckon. pa. 247. 248.  are his Answers such, where he doth answer (for to sundry chief points he saith nothing at all) as do easily show that in substance he confesseth all, and cannot deny what is objected; and where he seeketh to deny any thing, there he entangleth himself more, then if flatly he confessed the same. And in proof hereof, I spend a dozen leaves at least, in refuting all his Answers, proving that they yield not a full, but a faint satisfaction.   

The Reveiwe.  
28. This you have now affirmed, and that in Print, even in Roman letters. But I appeal unto any Reader understanding English to judge hereof, what 
i Full satisfact. Part. 2.  I have done in confutation of the moderate Answerer, the particular instances 
k Mitig pag. 112 where his Discourse of 12. leaves beginneth.  there objected do fully manifest, which concerned either England, France, Geneva, Germany, yea, or the loss of Rhodes, and part of Hungary, which (according to the report of their own Histories) befell thorough the couctousnesse of Pope Adrian. Secondly, what Mr. Parsons hath not Answered in his Dozen leaves of his Mitigation, unto the second 
His many falsehoods in one.  part of the Full satisfaction, consisting of twelve Chapters, will be as evident: Wherein any may observe the divers Arguments then used, for the defence of Protestants, which Mr. Parsons passed over without Answer; the Summarie points whereof are these.  
29. 
l Full satisfact. Part. 2. p. 97. 98.  First the general Doctrine of Protestants, by (as Bellarmine confesseth) expounding the place of Saint Paul, Rom. 13. to signify that the Pope, and all Ecclesiastical persons, aught to be subject unto Princes. 
m Ibid. pag. 99  Secondly, that the English Protestants (by the confession of the jesuit Salmeron,) Do acknowledge a Sovereignty of Kings in cases Ecclesiastical. Thirdly, the express Doctrine of 
n Jbid. pag. 108.  Caluine, and of 
o Jbid. pag. 109.  Beza, advancing the Authority of Kings. Fourthly, the justifying of the Protestants in 
p Jbid. pag. 111.  France, from the testimonies of Romish Historians. Fiftly, (to omit some other proofs) acquitting 
q Ibid. pag. 121. & 123.  Luther, by his own express Doctrine, and by other evidences, confuting the 
r Ibid. pag. 127.  slarders, which the moderate Answer cast upon him, which M. Parsons nimbly skipped over, in favour of his shins; playing the very Mermaid, a woman above water, talking largely, and promising a confutation of all points, but when he cometh to the principals,— Atrum desinit in piscem, as mute as a Fish, as might be manifested by many examples. In the 
Simile.  mean time we may reckon this his last Assertion, in the number of his gravida mendacia, because this one falsehood is big with many other falsehoods in the belly thereof.    

SECT. VIII.  

The eight Charge, concerning a Transition, ask [have you ought to say to their practice?]  
30. I 
a Mitigat. cap. 4. pag. 131.  Was accused by M. Parsons, to have dissembled the practices of Caluine and Beza, which were objected by the moderate Answerer, and to have used this Interrogation, [Have you any thing to say to their practice?] in an hypocritical dissemblance, as though nothing had been objected against them, to the end that I might pass them over, and answer nothing at all:  
b Preamb. pa. 77  Albeit it be most evident by the place itself, that I used that Interrogation by way of a Transition only, 
to the end that I might more emphatically and effectually, both note and confute the objections against Caluine and Beza, which immediately I also performed. Therefore M. Parsons in accusing me of Dissimulation and hypocrisy, did me no little injury, and now cometh halting in with a strange manner of Reckoning.   

The sum of M. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
I Am so equal and easy to be entreated in this matter, or rather so 
Reckon. cap. 4. §. 8 pag. 2 q 8.  indulgent, as I am content to accept of his interpretation, professing sincerely notwithstanding, that I understood him in another meaning, when I wrote my Book, the words themselves leading me thereunto: Howsoever it be, there can be no least matter of malice framed against me. True it is, he endeavoureth both before and after to Answer unto divers proofs of seditious practices, objected by his Adversaries against Caluine and Beza.   

The Reveiwe.  
31. In this part of his Reckoning I shall desire my Reader to observe these two points: M. Parsons his manner of Confession, and protestation, for they are remarkable. He confesseth now that in that place I Endeavoured both before and after, to Answer unto the seditious practices objected a-against Caluine and Beza, and yet accused me in his 
c Mitigat. cap. 4. pag. 131.  Mitigation, for concealing the whole matter, rating and reviling me, and calling my Satisfaction in this point Hypocrisy and Dissimulation, so far forth as to make me a man not to be true stead hereafter. But why? for concealing and dissembling forsooth such objections against Caluine and Beza, which now, upon better consideration, he confesseth I did not dissemble, but expressly mentioned, and also endeavoured to answer them.  
32. Thou seest then (Christian Reader) how vile and heinous 
The excellent Art of M. Parsons, in confesing his witting falsehood so, as though he would not confess it.  an opprobry M. Parsons laid upon me, even of [Not to be trusted hereafter;] and upon how frivolous and false a pretence, according as he hath here plainly confessed. I call the Confession plain, because he granteth I did not conceal them.  
33. Notwithstanding, mark I beseech thee, in what manner he conveyeth this his Confession, which he beginneth thus: I am so equal and easy to be entreated, or rather so indulgent, as I am content to accept of his interpretation, etc. See now, after that he had been charged with egregious impudency, by his false imputation of Hypocrisy & Dissimulation, and being at length ashamed of his own discovered nakedness, although he cannot deny his error, yet doth he not cast away all the fig-leaves of covert, and although he cannot but yield, yet will he seem so to yield, as only upon an Entreaty, forsooth, which indeed he doth upon a Charge and Challenge; and to be only content to do that, which he doth by constraint; and to have condescended only in the way of Indulgence, which he doth thorough the evidence of his own guiltiness. I suppose that Theophrastus did never show a more lively Character and Picture of any vice, then is this Character of a smooth and subtle Reckoner, which is exemplified in this confession of M. Parsons, who so acknowledgeth his most manifest error, as if he did not, or would not acknowledge it, which maketh me to hold his Protestation to be less credible.  
34. His Protestation is, that He then understood the matter otherwise; that is to say, otherwise than he doth now in his more Sober Reckoning: which doubtless (if he had been then truly Sober) he could not have understood otherwise, as may 
The palpability of M. Parson's falsehood, against which he doth now protest.  be made evident by a like example of a Lawyer pleading in this manner: The debt which your Client challengeth of the defendant, is of two sorts, the one is upon Bills, the other upon Bonds; I have answered unto all that you can challenge by virtue of Bills, what have you to say to the Bonds? The Bonds, you say, were made upon due considerations, and before divers competent witnesses: whereunto I answer, that the considerations are unlawful, and the witnesses are insufficient, and (that which will discover the invalidity of the Bonds most) they are razed and interlined. Thus the Pleader for the defendant. Presently starteth up a Lawyer for the contrary part, and desireth to be heard for the Plaintiff. My Lord (saith he to the judge) the last Pleader concerning the debts challenged by virtue of Bonds, hath said thus: What have you to say for the Bonds? as though nothing had been said thereunto: Did we not allege that there were fair instruments, that there were due considerations, that there were sufficient witnesses, etc. What a notorious dissimulation and Hypocrisy was it then in him, to conceal our alleadgements? Or how can your Lordship suffer such a one to plead in your presence? His Adversary standeth up, and replieth, saying, Your Lordship seeth the impudency of this fellow, for I have both mentioned the Bonds, the witnesses and considerations; and have particularly answered and disabled these his objections. In the end the perverse wrangling Lawyer perceiving his own folly, maketh the same Apology for himself, which M. Parsons hath done. Well, I am so equal and easy to be entreated in this matter, or rather indulgent, as I am contented to yield unto your interpretation; protesting sincerely, that I understood you in another meaning. Would not such a protestation, joined with such a confession, move either laughter or indignation? Such is the case between me and M. Parsons in every degree, and yet will he be thought to have dealt sincerely.    

SECT. IX.  

The ninth Charge, touching the testimony of Holinshed.  
35. WHereas I 
d Full satisfact. part. 2. pag. 102. & Preamb. 80. etc.  related only Holinshed, to prove that there was not any Scruple of Religion objected" against Wyatt in the Oration of Q. Mary: 
e Mitig. p. 128.  M. Parsons, to prove me a falsificator, leaving the Author Holinshed, put" in his place M. Fox, and concludeth against me, that The Minister lieth openly. He now bestirreth himself in this case.   

The sum of Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
THough the History of Holinshed doth relate the pretence of Wyatt 
Reckon. pa. 252.  to have been against the Queen's marriage, concealing and dissembling the point of Religion in that place (which elsewhere he confesseth, as after shall be seen) yet John Fox, a more ancient and authentical Historiographer than he, doth plainly set down, that together with the pretence of marriage, the cause of Religion was also pretended, etc. And it cannot be presumed, but that M. Morton had seen and read this, yet durst affirm, that there was no mention of Religion at all in Wiat's pretence: Which is the first lie.   

The Reveiwe.  
36. Do you see the falsehood of this Reckoner? he is charged to have put upon me the testimony of M. Fox, as though I had cited it contrary to his meaning, which I did not indeed so much as mention: And now at length perceiving his own fraud to be laid open, whereunto he cannot answer one word, he doth only endeavour to bring me into his own predicament of falsifying by another trick, so, as if in reckoning 
M. Parsons not able to deny his former falsehood, doth conceal it.  he meant to play some stoppage of debt. But I asked M. Parsons why he did so faithlesly and maliciously change Holinshed into Fox? he answereth just nothing: This is Soberly and quietly Reckoned. Thus much for my charge against him. Let us hear what he hath now against me.   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
AND the same M. Fox also showeth, that in the Oration of Q. 
Reckon. p. 252.  Marry, that their pretence of marriage seemed to be but a Spanish Cloak, to cover their pretended purpose against Religion. And this testimony of M. Fox must needs have been known to M. Morton, and consequently here is a second lie.   

The Review.  
37. Holinshed is a professed Historian, and writ a large and determinate Story of all memorable things, which were done in the days of Q. Marry, and other Kings of England after her reign: but the subject and matter of the Acts and Monuments written by M. Fox, is the passions and Martyrdoms of the faithful, both of ancient and latter times, not only in England, but also in other Countries; as for other matters of History, he relateth them but obiter, not professedly, nor yet so copiously, as Holinshed hath done. Wherefore it is as great indiscretion in M. Parsons to challenge me to neglect 
His indiscretion.  Holinshed, and in a point of History to take my Certificate from M. Fox, whom then I had not; presuming that I must needs have seen and read that sentence in him, to draw me thereby into suspicion of a wilful falsehood: wherein he hath given us the perfect length of his own foot, because mala 
His precipitate jealousy.  mens, malus animus, that is, according to the English Proverb, As a man useth himself, so he museth and judgeth of others. For could any but a self-guilty mind censure another so peremptorily, that he must needs have seen a book, which might have been wanting, and was not (as I have showed) so needful to be seen? But I leave this to M. Parson's more sober consideration: wherein it may be, he will be contented to think that he hath done me an injury. What yet more?   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
Whereas he saith that no Minister of the Gospel was brought 
Reckon cap. 4. § 9 pag. 253.  in question, as a Commotioner in that cause, it is both false in itself, and cautelously set down, for it being notorious that all Protestants in England did concur in the rebellion of the D. of Northumberland, who can doubt but that in the second also of Wyatt they had their hearts there, although not so fully their hands. And that Cranmer and Ridley with others, were not brought into public judgement for trial, the same Master Saunders yieldeth a reason, for that Q Mary being a zealous Catholic would have them rather called in question for heresy, which is treason against God, then for conspiracy or commotion, which was a treason against her person.   

The Reveiwe.  
38. In the 
f Part. 2. p. 101.  Full Satisfaction you have been answered, concerning Mr. Cranmer, Ridley, and others, that they could not be challenged of any crime of treason, 
g Full satisfact. ibid.  where of you might not aswell make the State parties, which accorded unto the testament of K. Edward 6. in the behalf of Lady jane, as their own Historian 
h Thuan. Tom. 1. 1. 9 An. 1553. pag. 954.  Thuanus doth report: what better reason can there be for their discharge, then is this confession, to wit, that they were not called in question of Treason in the days of Q. Mary? As for the Answer made by Saunders, it is nothing but his unseasonable figment: For where was it ever heard, that any State put a man to death for heresy, whom they might cut off for treason? For although 
M. Sanders odd evasion, about Heresy and Treason.  heresy be a more heinous crime, yet the Heretic recanting is received again into favour: but a Traitor notwithstanding his repentance, is to give satisfaction of the law, by suffering death. The Church dealeth as a Mother, the law as a judge. Neither can the former Answer consist with Christian policy: for if a man be both a Traitor and an Heretic, it would be less prejudicial unto Religion, to execute him for Treason, then for his opinion, because even the ashes of but one burnt for an Heretic, doth breed some worms of like nature. Finally, common wit and understanding of a man will teach him, that whosoever is both guilty of heresy and Treason, he should be accused and convicted of them both, that by the heinousness of his Treason, his Heresy might seem 
M. Parson's poor shift.  more odious. By this we see unto what poor and miserable shift M. Parsons is brought, which he knew he must either have used, or else have marred his whole Reckoning.  
39 He furthermore addeth, that he hath since 
i Reckon. ibid.  took the pains to search Holinshed more diligently, and hath found that he doth more expressly affirm, that the Commons and many of the Nobility conspired to raise war both for the marriage, and for the cause of Religion. He may the more easily excuse me, if I did not so readily meet with that, which cost him so diligent pains to find out; which I had less cause to inquire into, seeing that in the large Oration of Q. Mary against Sir Thomas Wyatt, reported by Holinshed, there is no such scruple, concerning Religion, to be found, which is all that I undertook then to avouch. For as for Wiat's intention, how good soever it might seem to be, I did not justify it, because (as I then said) Lawful things must be performed by lawful means: signifying that his taking up of arms against the Queen, could not be warranted by presumption of any good intent. We proceed to our other accounts: of the Three charges next following M. Parsons giveth us a brief note.   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
IN sign that M. Mortons' matter now groweth barren, in objecting of 
Reckon. cap. 4. §. 10. pag. 260.  wilful falsities against me, he beginneth to huddle up divers of them together, but of so small moment, and so fully answered, and confuted before, as it is evident he seeketh but some show of number to help himself for some ostentation.   

The Reveiwe.  
40. It was not barrenness, but the briefness of a Preamble, which occasioned me to remit other your falsities unto a further discovery, as before we end our Reckoning, will abundantly appear. For this present we are now to recall those charges, which you have handled in your first Chapter, which I promised (for one more orderly passaage) to reduce unto their proper places, and therefore I now begin with the Answer unto the next charge.    

SECT. X.  

The tenth charge, concerning the text of Esay 29.  
41. I Set down for the poesy of my Preamble, the text of Esay, 29. 9 Ye are blind, and make others blind. This 
k Preamb. p. 23. etc.  M. Parson's so canvased, as intimating (as I said) that I had forged a Text of Scripture; and that the words were by me " falsely alleged, which I proved in him to be a slanderous and unconscionable taxation. He is to Reckon unto me for this also.   

The sum of Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning, concerning a Text of Scripture.  
I Do not say that he hath forged a Text, but that the sentence of his 
Reckon. p. 43.  Poesy against Catholics, pretended to be taken out of this place of Esay, 29. 9 is falsely alleged, corrupted and mangled, the same not being found there either in words or sense.   

The Review, noting Mr. Parsons his apparent falsehood.  
42. What call you forgery M. Parsons? Is not the corrupting 
M. Parson forgeth an excuse apparently false.  of a Writ, so that it be not the same either in word or sense, plain forgery? or can there be any greater than is the corruption of holy writ? Therefore the action which you laid, is an action of forgery. But whom did you note to be the corrupter? your own words are these: 
l Mitig. pa: 88 and in his Rec. kon. pa. 42.  I cannot well pretermit, for ending of this Chapter, one little note more of rare singularity in this man (namely, T. M.) above others, which I scarce ever have observed in any one of his fellows, and this it is, that the very first words of Scripture, illeadged by him in the first page of his book, for the poesy of his Pamphlet, are falsely alleged, corrupted, and mangled, though they contain but one only verse of Esay the Prophet: and then may you imagine what liberty he will take to himself afterward, throughout his whole Discourse. Adding much more bitterness of Calumniation. But this is sufficient to show, that I have been thus bedawbed with his vile and false imputations of rare singularity above all my fellows, and that for falsifying and corrupting a Text of Scripture: And yet doth not this honest man blush to tell us that he had not accused me of forging a Text of Scripture; nor is he ashamed to note me of rare singularity above all my fellows: for alleging this translation of the Text, which standeth so in our English Bible, common unto me, with all my fellows. This last point calleth for a better Reckoning.   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
Neither did I see, or look for the English translation. 
Reckon. quo suprà.    

The Review.  
43. Doth this dealing agree with that property of an honest man, whom you would seem to be, Not to look the common English translation, which might have freed me 
Mr. P. bend to slander his adversary.  from the slander of so rare singularity in corrupting a Text, if yet there had been in it any corruption? As this doth but a little lessen your fraud, so doth it much aggravate your malice, which was bend to make me obnoxious above all my fellows. I have not done with you yet, for we must Reckon for a third falsehood of yours, where you affirm that the sense of the Text is so notoriously corrupted.   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning, concerning the sense of the Text.  
I Said that the 9 verse of Esay 29. is falsely alleged, corrupted and mangled, 
Recko. p 43. n. 67  the same being not found there, either in words or sense. 
* Ibid. p. 44. n. 69  And now, for your convincement in this place, I mean to stand upon the original Texts themselves, and the verse by you alleged, to see whether your poesy against us may be framed thereof. First then the Hebrew hath it thus, as both Pagninus, Vatablus, and others do set it down: Be astonished and wonder, shut up your eyes, and let them be shut, be ye drunk, but not with wine, do you recle, but not with Sisera. Or otherwise: They have shouted and cried, are drunk, but not with wine. And the Greek Septuagint thus: Doc you faint, etc.   

The Reveiwe.  
44. Belike M. Parsons being angric with himself, for his 
M. Parson's pertinacy in his error.  former boldness with the Hebrew Text, meant now to redouble his own disgrace upon himself, by saying that Pagnine, Vat ablus, and others (who follow the Hebrew) have not anything agreeable to our English Translation, [Ye are blind and make men blind,] either in word or sense. For he could not but remember, that I 
m Preamb. p. 14.  alleged, for defence of the English, the words of Pagnine, printed Anno 1528. reading the same verse thus: Excaecati sunt, & alios excaecaverunt, that is, They are blind, and have blinded others. I cited also their own Doctor Hector Pintus upon the same verse, who showeth that in the Hebrew it is read thus: Your Priests shall be blind, and make others blind: Besides Vatablus himself, who readeth the Text thus: Be ye astonished and wonder, Oblinite vobismetipsis oculos, that is, Daub up your eyes. And in his Annotations upon the same words, he paraphraseth thus; They have blinded themselves, and made others blind. So that (for we are to deal only with the Hebrew text, which differeth not in sense either from the Greek or Latinc) our English is hereby sufficiently confirmed.  
45. Therefore M. Parsons in the upshot of this Reckoning is become chargeable for three falsehoods; the first is his former false accusation, in challenging me of corrupting a Text of Scripture: the second is his now-denying that he meant to note me for forging a Text: the third, by urging the English 
His threefold falsity.  Translation, as being altogether different from the Hebrew in sense, which, by the judgement of their own Hebritians, is very consonant. And thus our Conscionable Reckoner forsooth, who would seem not to be guilty of Three falsehoods throughout all his books, is often displayed to be guilty of Three in one Section.    

SECT. XI.  

The eleventh Charge, concerning Carerius.  
46. whether M. Parsons did justly 
m Preamb. pa. 15  charge me with altering of the Title of a Book of Carerius de" Potestate Rom. Pontificis; and with changing of verè into vere?   

The sum of M. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
NOw M. Morton will clear himself, and produceth to this purpose 
Reckon. pag. 47.  an other Edition, Printed at Colen, that hath these points as he citeth them. Which Edition, though I have not seen, nor heard off before, yet do I think it meet to give credit unto his affirmation, nor will I do him that injury as to doubt thereof, especially for so much as he saith that he hath showed the same to many friends of his, naming also the year and form in which it was Printed, all which being granted, and that in this latter Colen Impression, the Addition of 〈◊〉 Haereticos, etc. may have been added, which was not in mine, yet doth this infer nothing against me, nor my charity.   

The Reviewe.  
47. Except M. Parsons first prove himself to be of better credit, then either I have reason to presume of, or his own fellow 
* See above, lib. 1. cap. 1. etc.  Priest will acknowledge, who hath charged him with loose Equivocating, lying, and cogging, I shall not greatly desire his credence. It may be, that he hath seen some Colen Edition, clearing me of his former imputation of 
M. Parsons his rash and peremptory Assertion.  falsehood, and that afterwards he believed his own eyes, and became ashamed of his former rash presumption, to say so omnisciently that, There is but one Edition of Carerius, and thereupon hath he been moved to use more sobriety in censuring of Titles and terms. But what will he say further unto the matter itself?   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning, for a Grammatical quiddity.  
But now for the second point objected of verè, for verò, though M. Morton 
Reckon. pag. 47. num. 74.  do allege in like manner for his excuse, the authority or rather the error of his Colen Edition, yet cannot he so easily discharge himself thereof, for that the very contexture of speech must needs argue to his conscience, that it should be verò and not vere, for that otherwise their should have been no apt sense, nor any coniunctive Particle, to connect the testimony of Celsus Mancinus to the former. The great letter C. also in the beginning of Celsus (if this be not in like manner altered in M. Mortons' Edition from the original) must needs have showed unto him, that it was no Noun adjective, but a proper name of a man, and consequently must be joined with verè, and not with verè.   

The Review.  
48. Good M. Parsons, if I should say I were ashamed of your ignorance, you would say that I spoke it in choler: Therefore I will but only propound unto you your error, and then will you (I think) be ashamed of yourself. You have said that Celsus being no Noun adjective, but a proper name of a man, could not be joined with verè. But I do contrarily affirm that there is no proper name, which doth both betoken a man's person, and also signify some property 
M. Parsons learnedly bewrayeth his want of learning in a Grammatical quiddity.  and quality agreeable unto that name, but it may be used both Substantively and Adiectively with verè, as Celsus was, which was the proper name of Mancinus, and Adiectively signifieth Lofty.  
49. For you know that Pius signifieth godly, and it was the name of many of your Popes: If I should say of your Pope Pius Secundus, iam audiamus Pontificem verè Pium, would you say that I had offended against my Grammar? Nay, is not every such citation a singular elegancy of speech? Lend your ear (amongst infinite examples of this kind) to your own Doctor Barkley, who speaking of S. Ambrose, 
n Barclaius contra Monarchom. li. 3. ca 5. p1. 137  saith; O Dominum Antistitem verè Ambrosium, cuius ex dictis 〈◊〉 tanquam ex sacro quodam penario, tam suavem capimus Ambrosiam, That is: O that Prelate, truly Ambrose, from whose writings and works, as out of an holy Storehouse, we may take the sweet Ambrosia of evangelical truth, so he. M. Parsons, I think, will not compare with Barkley in Grammar learning, and though he should, it would be but according to the proverb, Sus Mineruam. This word, jacob, which signifieth a supplanter, was the proper name of a Patriarch, the younger Son of Isaac, unto whom his brother Esau spoke, saying: Was he not truly called jacob, for he hath supplanted me twice? I now demand, if Esau had said unto him, behold one truly jacob, would M. Parsons his learning, 
Gene. 27. 36.  licence him to condemn that speech of incongruity? Although I have M. Parson's now at this advantage, yet will I not (in requital of his own scurrility, about the Syllogism) send him unto the School again to learn his Grammar, but rather hold it sufficient to have thus admonished him hereof.    

SECT. XII.  

The twelfth Charge, concerning Doleman, alias Parsons.  
50. THe inquiry is, 
o Pseamb. pa. 22  whether Doleman, alias Parsons held it to be a damnable sin for any of his Catholics to suffer any Protestant Prince to succeed in the Crown. This is your own case, M. Parsons, and it will therefore concern you much to make up a strait Reckoning, if you will free your intention from Treason. Your Answer in your 
p Mitig. cap. 2. pag. 72.  Mitigation was this. Is there any word peculiar of a Protestant Prince, or of his successor? Nay, doth not the text speak plainly of making a King where none is, etc. How then can this malicious cavilling Minister, etc. This you spoke in your less temperate mood: but since I have 
q Preamb. pa. 23  told you thatthe material subject of that Book, was the Succession to the Crown of England, after the decease of Queen ELIZABETH, where you spoke expressly of an Heir apparent, and in particular and by name took exception against our now Gracious Sovereign King JAMES, to debar him from the inheritance of Great Britain: I must expect of you a more solemn account.   

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

The Reveiwe.  
51. Mr. Parsons in his Mitigation would not be known to have meant any more than of making a King by Election: Now he is brought to confess that he understood it (although 
M. Parsons relenteth somewhat from his former Tenet.  less Principally) of Succession also. Which I confess is a more Sober Reckoning. Now yet whereas there is as good a right for an heir to succeed in the Crown, as there is for a King to possess it, M. Parson's reason of not making or admitting the right heir apparent (who, by the laws of England, is King immediately after his Predecessor hath yielded up his last breath) did necessarily infer, that he meant indeed by not making to mar a King, which I proved by a Syllcgisme, which did sufficiently manifest his meaning. viz.  

r Treamb. pa. 24  Maior. Every man is a damnable Sinner, who admitteth any to the Crown, whom he thinketh faulty in Religion:  
Minor. But every Romish Catholic, (in the opinion of Mast. Parsons) thinketh all Protestant Princes faulty in Religion:  
Ergo. Every Romish Catholic, who admitteth a Protestant to succeed in the Crown, is (in the opinion of M. Parsons) a damnable Sinner.  
Let us, if you please, Reckon likewise for this.   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
ALl this Syllogism, I say, is as well verified of Protestants as Catholics, 
Reckon. 〈◊〉. 54.  and consequently the force of this Argument, concludeth nothing at all against us, more than against himself and his. For as for the Mayor proposition, no Protestant of sense, I think, but will grant, that it is a damnable sin to admit any Prince, if it lie in his hand to prefer or hinder, whom he thinketh to be faulty in Religion, for that otherwise we must say that Protestants have no Conscience concerning Religion, if they will advance wittingly any one, that will in their opinion destroy the same. And then I make the Minor, But every true Protestant thinketh Romish Catholics faulty in Religion: Ergo, every true Protestant that admitteth a Catholic Prince to succeed in the Crown, is a damnable sinner. And then what shall we say of the Dolphin of France, when he cometh to years to succeed in that Crown, after the death of the king his Father? Will the Protestants receive him, or no?   

The Reveiwe.  
52. The Mayor was indeed propounded generally, but according to the evident scope of that book of Dolman, it was intended only against Protestants: for their Dolman (alias Mr. Parsons) himself, being of the Roman Religion, did profess it to be a damnaben sin to admit of King james, and so of other Protestant Princes, notwithstanding the right of their inheritance, to succeed in the Crown, which is all that I have affirmed of Dolman, for the which notwithstanding he hath made so loud and a lewd clamour, saying How is this fellow to be trusted in these his Assertions, etc. But yet now granteth in effect my former Assertion.  
53. True it is, that in electing a King a man is bound in conscience to use his liberty for the good of religion: but religion 
Difference between Election and Succession.  itself teacheth us that in admitting a Successor, (who according to the laws of that Kingdom hath a right unto the Crown) the liberty of election ceaseth, and the necessity of admittance (by the doctrine of Protestants) is laid upon us, be the party never so adverse unto us in faith; as it appeared in their admittance of the now King of France, even when he revolted from their Religion, whom the Romanists would not admit, whilst that he was a Protcstant in profession. And this difference of comparison, between Protestants and Romanistes, will continue until the Romanistes have taken out this Lesson of Primitive and Catholic Doctrine, to wit; Diversity of Religion doth not change the natural right of Inheritance, which Rule prevailed in the mostpure times, (as Barkley their own 
s Barckley in two Books, the one Contra Monarchomakos The second, De potestate Pa. p. e, handleth this at full, and concludeth expressly against the Doctrine of the Jesuits. See also the confession of others, Full satisfact. part. 3. cap. 8 etc.  Doctor prooneth) even when Christians were winnowed and purged with persecution, at what time the Apostle exhorted them, saying, 
* Rom. 13.  Let every Soul be Subject unto the higher powers. And Even then (saith your Cunerus,) when the Martyrs, by reason of their multitude, were able to conspire against their Persecutors, yet chose they rather to suffer for the obedience and honour, which they were commanded to perform unto Kings, then to resist, if it happened that they could not save themselves by flying. This was the true victory of Christians. There is one thing more which you will have me Reckon for.   

M. PARSON'S Reckoning, in Charging his Adversary.  
ANd to prove this to be an exaggeration, That all Priests do utterly 
Reckon. pag. 51.  〈◊〉 the Succession in all Protestant Princes, I alleged contrary examples in all the Protestant Princes, that ever succeeded in England since the beginning of the world, who are known to be but three in number, King Edward, Queen Elizabeth, and King james, who were admitted both by Priests and Lay-men: Ergo, all Priests do not utterly abolish all Succession, in all Protestant Princes, etc. And consequently, some moderation must be granted on our side, against this odious exaggeration.   

A Reviewe, showing how M. Parsons is fettered in his own Assertions.  
54. Is this an honest kind of Reckoning, to tell what you alleged and to conceal what I replied? namely, that it is a silly sophistry for you, in a question of right, to oppose for 
His crafty concealment.  your discharge only a matter of fact, which is no better reasoning then to say that certain Robbers were honest and quiet Subjects, because they suffered three stronger men 
A Simile.  than themselves to pass securely on the way: For you know M. Parsons, that your not resisting, where you want force, is done with that reservation (as your Doctors 
t Preamb.  have taught) Vntiil there be sufficient fierce to resist. Otherwise tell me, I pray you, when you object that three Protestant Princes were admitted peaceably, How is it (which you could not deny) that 
u Mitig. pag 77. num. 〈◊〉  Henry King of Navarre was resisted, lest that coming to the Crown of France in that disposition, wherein he was presumed to be, (namely a Protestant) he should attempt the change of Religion in that great Kingdom? 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 having and not having of Power to resist? Therefore in this Reckoning you have been wisely crafty, by concealing an Objection, which you could not satisfy.  
55. I doubt I shall but trouble you in ask you another Question, but you must pardon me, for the cause itself doth challenge thus much. The three Protestant Princes, who were (as you say) so peaceably admitted to the Crown, were they admitted voluntarily on your part, or no? If they were admitted voluntarily, than (by your own former Doctrine, M. 
A Dilemma.  Parsons) all your Catholics were damnable sinners, who admitted any to the Crown, whom they thought to be of a faulty Religion: If they were not voluntarily admitted, then are you 
See above.  a fraudulent Aequivocator, in answering that They were admitted peaceably, (reserving, as it may seem, in your mind) because our Catholics had no power to resist. We draw to a conclusion.   

M. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
WHerefore to come to knit up this Reckoning briefly with 
Reckon. pag. 53.  M. Morton, we see first that he hath not been able exactly to verify any one of his two former propositions out of his own Syllogism, concerning Dolemans Assertion, but that he hath used exaggeration and calumniation in them both, and that whatsoever he hath urged never so boldly to incite his Majesty against us, may with much more reason and force of argument, be retorted against himself and his.   

The Review, confuting M. Parsons, from the judgement of his fellow Priest.  
56. I have been earnestly and sharply censured by M. Parsons as one false, calumnious, and malicious, because I noted his book, 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 plead for his Dolman, and now again forbeareth not to revive the justification of that book in this his new Reckoning; Albeit he could not be ignorant of the judgement, which one Romish Priest with the consent of many more had passed upon him: 
x Quodlib. p. 107 and again, pag 310.  Parsons his books (saith he) were seditious, as his Philopater, speaking most rebelliously against her Majesty, and the whole State and Nobles of this land; his Dolman intituling most traitorously the Spanish Infanta to the 
M. Parson's false and treasonable dealing, discovered by his own fellow.  English Crown. Thus we see his will was extremely Traitorous.  
57 The same Author doth furthermore display a fine piece of witt-craft, which M. Parsons useth to practise. 
y Quodli. p. 286.  In the most of Father Parsons seditious books, which he hath published, (saith the same Priest) he hath either concealed his name, or given them such a name, as pleased him to devise: and one of his said books being set out by him under the name of M. Dolman: Now that many exceptions are taken against it, he (Goodman) was 
M. Parson's can deny his own writing.  not the Author of it, his name is not Dolman, and gladly would he shift and wash his hands of it, but all the water betwixt this and Rome will not serve his turn so to do, although by the common opinion of the jesuits, he may by lying and Equivocating make a fair show. So their Priest. And now I ofter the matter to our indifferent Readers to judge, whether Mr. Parsons, being thus blazoned by their own Priest, as a man notably Seditious (even in their book called Dolman) and a lying Equivocator, may be thought to have been either in answering and qualifying of the objected rebellious position, a just Mitigator; or else in this book a conscionable Reckoner in charging me with falsehood.    

SECT. XIII.  

The thirteenth charge, against Mr. Parsons; concerning Pope Gregory 7. alias Hildebrand, the first Pope that deposed an Emperor, from the testimony of Otto Frisingensis.  
58. I 
a Prcamb. p. 27.  Said in the Text that Gregory the seventh was the first Pope, who dcprived any Emperor of his regiment, as saith your Otto Frisingensis: Adding in the Margin, Vt refirt Tolossanus, that is, According as he is alleged by Tolossanus. Mr. Parson's supposing that the testimony of Otto Frisingensis is alleged contrary to his meaning,  
noteth me for the falsificator, whereas not I, but their own Romish Doctor Tolossanus was the reporter of the testimony of Frisingensis. I would only know whether it were not a malicious trick in M. Parsons to charge me with the error (if yet it were an error) of my Author Tolossanus?   

The sum of Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning, in the discharge of himself.  
IN the English Text, which was written for the deceiving of the Englishcommon 
Reckon. pa. 61.  reader, was nothing laid at all of Tolossan ', but thus in disgrace of Pope Gregory the seventh. I read and read again (saith your Otto Prisingensis) and I find that Pope Gregory the seventh called Hildebrand in the year 1060. was the first Pope that ever deprived any Emperor of his Regiment. Only in the margin he setteth down in Latin the words of Frisingensis, with citing the book and Chapter, and then addeth, Ut 〈◊〉 Tolossanus lib. 26.   

The Reveiwe.  
59 That is to say in plain English, that not I, but Tolossanus 
M Parsons, a plain falsifier.  cited Frisingensis contrary to his meaning: And so is Mr. Parsons found to have 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 error, but to say that the reported Author Frisingensis was in the text, to deceive the English Reader, and that Tolossanus the reporter was set down in Latin in the margin: which any man of Sobriety would be ashamed to allege, for were not Frisingensis and Tolossanus both Latin Authors, and therefore indifferently 
His childish excuse.  known and unknown to the English Reader? How then can this excuse Mr. Parson's fraudulency, for he understood that these Latin words, which were set down in the margin, viz. Vtrefert Tolossanus, do signify (being Englished) As Tolossanus reporteth: so that the very childishness of this excuse of his false dealing, doth more fully bewray both his folly and falsehood.  
60. As for me, I could not think it necessary to seek for Frisingensis, when I had at hand so good a Reporter, as is their own Doctor Tolossanus: and yet when all is said, 
b Frising Chron. lib. 6. cap. 35.  Frisingensis saith, that that Pope Gregory the seventh was the first who either excommunicated or deposed an Emperor.   

Mast. Parson's charge against me, about the same matter.  
61. In the second part I am chargeable to answer Mast. Parsons, who asketh, that seeing Tolossanus said that Gregory the seventh was the first who excommunicated, and deprived an Emperor of his Regiment, why I alleged the word Deprived only, and left out Excommunicated? I readily 
c Preamb. quo suprà.  answered that it was because the question (Satisfact. 3. c. 11.) was only concerning Emperors and kings, who had been deposed from their governments by Popes, and not, who had been excommunicated: And for so answering am called to a new Reckoning.   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
YEa Sat, think you to escape so? and yet know that deposition of Princes is an effect of Excommunication, and can never happen 
Reckon. p. 64.  by Ecclesiastical authority, but where Excommunication is gone before?   

The Reveiwe.  
62. Yes Sir, I may lawfully answer So. For although Excommunication go before deposition and Eradication, yet was 
His absurd reasoning.  it lawful for me to entreat of Deposition, without mentioning any precedent Excommunication. For if being asked how 
A Simile.  many thieves were hanged at Tyburn the last week, I had truly answered five; forthwith some captious Constable should quarrel with me, saying, Yea Sir, dare you say so? will you tell us that any were hanged, without mentioning that first they were condemned, for condemnation goeth before execution? Even so childishly hath Mast. Parson's cavilled in earnest, who still holdeth on his pace.   

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

A Review, discovering the rebellious humour of Mr. Parsons.  
63. If Mastr. Parsons had not asked me in earnest, I might have taken him to have been but in jest: but now by this his 
M. Parson's will needs behead a King, whom he accounteth an Heretic.  serious demand, our Christian Reader will easily perceive, that he hath cast Divinity in a new mould: for a King, by his doctrine, cannot be Excommunicated, but forthwith he must as it were be be-headed, and removed from his Kingdom: we now have found out the whole portraiture of M. Parson's body by his finger, which writeth and teachethth; at A King persisting 
A necessary observation, concerning Excommunication and Eradication.  in Excommunication may be no more a King among Christians. No King, or Queen, or Prince, or Counsellor, or judge, or Magistrate, being excommunicate, may, by Mast. Parson's censure, have any communion among Christians, but must be rooted out. Behold our Romish Mitigator! Behold our Sober Reckoner! Doth not this smell strongly of fire and Gunpowder, whensoever opportunity shall serve for the performance of such their exploits?  
64. But to answer directly to the question, moved by M. Parsons, not from his own doubt, but for his Readers delusion; because otherwise he could not be ignorant, that their Archpriest M. Blackwell had answered that point to the full, 
d M. Blackwell exam. pag. 41. from Medina in primam second p. 513. q. 96 art. 4 M. Parsons fully confuted by his fellows.  showing first out of Soto, from Medina, that Excommunication is not a privation of any proper good, which the transgresser doth possess, but of the common good, which he was to receme from the Church, as namely, the spiritual communion with them, and the participation of Sacraments.  
65. Secondly he allegeth Ludovicus Richeome, a jesuit, saying that 
e Ludovic. Apolog. p. 175.  Excommunication is not thundered against Princes, that they should be removed out of their Dominions, or that the rains should be loosed unto subjects, or they be freed from the Oath of fidelity.  
66. Thirdly, he adjoineth the testimony of Aquinas, saying 
f Aquin secunda secundae. q. 11. art. 3.  Aliud est Excommunicatio, & aliud Eradicatio; Which, (saith M. Bl.) is set down in the Canon law of an Epistle of Pope Urban, thus: Liquidò, etc. that is, It doth plainly appear that Excommunication is one thing, and eradication is another, for he which is excommunicate, as the Apostle saith, to this end is excommunicated, that his soul may be saved in the day of the Lord, for Excommunication is a correction and no extirpation.  
67. Finally, the holy Scripture, speaking of the Excommunicate, saith: 
* Matth. 18. 17.  Let him be unto thee as a Publican and an Ethnic. I demand then, was there no Magistracy acknowledged in Ethnics, by Christians in the days of the Emperor julian the Apostata? or shall not Christian children or wives acknowledge natural duty unto their Parents and husbands, as unto their Heads, if they being excommunicate, shall prove contumacious? Grace doth not extinguish nature, but perfect it. And this may briefly serve for an Answer unto your irrelegious and rebellious demand, which hath been exactly confuted by your own Doctors.   

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

The Reveiwe.  
68 Tolossanus in another book reporteth this, and Zonaras testifieth this, Ergo, (by Mr. Parsons his consequence) it must be True: which argueth his own inconsideration and rashness, because first the matter is not so true, but that their own 
g Barclay de potestate Papae cap. 40.  Barkley durst judge it incredible: and secondly their witness Zonaras seemeth to their 
h Baron Ano. 726. num. 26. M. Parson's negligence in Story.  Baronius to be so insufficient, in reporting the behaviour of this Pope Gregory towards the Emperor Leo, that he rejecteth him as a man Ignorant of the affairs of the Latin Church; and one, who in Malice against the Church of Rome, doth object that the Pope was the cause of the rent of the Empire in the West. Thus far Card. Baronius: which showeth how little we are to regard M. Parsons his judgement, who respecteth not so much how rightly, as how readily he may shape us an Answer. And that Gregory the seventh called Hildebrand, was the first Pope, who set the Emperors at such defiance, it will now further appear.    

SECT. XIIII.  

An Inquiry into the judgement of Espencaeus, concerning the case of Pope Hildebrand.  
69. THE last point, 
i Preamb. p. 29.  which is to be inquired into, is, whether the Author Espencaeus did not accord unto the same judgement concerning Gregory the seventh (who, to yield unto M. Parson's computation, was Pope about the year 1066.) to think that he was the first Pope that did depose an Emperor.   

The sum of Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning, objecting fraud unto his Adversary.  
ESpencaeus here is handled injuriously and fraudulently, for that 
Reckon. pag 66. & 67. Espen. l. 2 Digress in Ep. ad Timoth  these words against the Pope, are not the words of Espencaeus himself, but related of him out of an angry and paffionate Epistle, written by certain Schismatical Priests of Liege, that were commanded by Pope Paschalis to be chastised by Robert Earl of Flanders, for their rebellious behaviour, in the year 1102. which Priests, together with Henry the Schismatical Bishop, wrote a passionate invective against this act and Commission of Pope Paschalis, inveighing against Pope Hildebrand (who was not long before deceased) for the like 
* Reckon. p. 67. & in Espen. cap. 6. p. 274. Edit. Paris 1561.  cause, All which M. Morton concealeth, and citeth the words of Espencaeus himself. Your Bshop Espen. (saith he) 〈◊〉 of Hildebrand, etc. which he could not but know to be false, if he read the book and place by himself cited, for that Espen. doth not only in the beginning of his citation use this sentence, Extat in secundo Tomo Conciliorum Edit. Colon. Cleri Leodiensis ad Pascalem 2. Quaerimonia; There is extant in the second Tome of Counsels, a complaint of the clergy of Liege to Pope 〈◊〉 2. But in the end also of all his speech, which containeth a long Discourse, he concludeth thus, Hactenus Leodiensium & verba & sensa, etc. And presently for himself saith, that he will not meddle with the Controversy of fight between Popes and Emperors. 
* Reckon. ibid.  Now for M. Morton to come and avouch this as affirmed by Espencaeus, whereas he must needs know that he saith it not, but relateth it only out of others. without approving the same, is to add prevarication unto prevarication, and never to make an end of wilful lying.   

The Reveiwe.  
70. Let me entreat your patience, Mr. Parsons, but to hear my answer, and then I doubt not but you will wax more calm and sober, and consequently a far fitter Reckonner, to see more clearly, whether of us is the true liar.  
71. You have said that Espencaeus did but only relate it, and not approve of it. You may not now fetch skips as you use to do, to escape from your own sayings: Hear now the words of 
k Espencaeus in the very same place, which M. Parsons hath cited. M. Parson's palpable untruth.  Espencaeus: He, speaking of the same Epistle of the Clergymen of Liege, beginneth thus: Querimonia gravitatis & subiectionis plena, that is, A complaint (saith Espencaeus) full of gravity and of subjection. Neither could you be ignorant of these words, for they go immediately before the words which you have mentioned out of Espencaeus. Hath he then only related it (good Sir,) hath he not also commended it?  
72. Espencaeus proceedeth to show the cause of the displeasure of Pope Paschalis against them. Quòd, etc. That is, Because they were obedient unto their Bishop Henry, who stuck unto the Emperor. In the end, I forbear (saith Espencaeus) to use any discourse about the temporal contentions, which fell between the Popedom and the State imperial from that time, (Mark, I pray you, when) even after a thousand and an hundred years after Christ. He meant therefore to note his beginning of the Papali turbulence to have been at that time. May not now M. Parsons perceive how bold he hath been with himself, to affirm that Espencaeus did not approve the Epistle of those Priests, but seemed rather to hold them Schismatical? And how to this end he quoted the Author, book, digression, page, place, and time of impression, as though he had studied to set himself upon a public Stage of reproach for his open losing? Which that my Reader may know to be spoken of me in true sobriety, I propound further unto him the express judgement of the same Espencaeus out of two places of his works.  
73. The first place is in the 
l Pag. 273. of his book above cited.  page going immediately before, where comparing the more ancient times of the Church with the latter, concerning the Clergies disposition to warfare in their own persons, saith thus: Et tales 〈◊〉 fuerunt in 〈◊〉 Deipopulo Sacerdotum inermium & pacificorum erga seculi Dominos fideles & infideles, mites & barbaros victoria nonminus gloriosae quam incruentae, etc. i. e. such indeed were the victories of unarmed and peaceable Priests among both sort of people (namely of the old and new Testament) towards their temporal Lords, whether they were faithful, or Infidels, gentle or barbarous: Which their victories were no less glorious, then unbloody: Namely, achieved by tears and Prayers: But what afterward? Quibus, etc. For after that lawless necessity had exercised not only the mind, but also the hand of the Clearg ie to fight, it came to pass that they, with time (which corrupteth all 
Bloody Popes.  things) did play their part, as soon as they had adjoined unto ministerial places secular signiories, and that some less peaceable Vicars of our Lord God, did wage War not only against the Barbarous, but even against the Princes of the same blood, sometime of the same Country, yea and of the same faith, giving examples full of infinite scandals, and no way warrantable by any Scriptures or Canons. And then beginning at the year 770. when Adrian and other Pope's raised War against the Sarracens and Lombard's, he descended unto Pope Urban the second, Who although he would not judge them to be murderers, (speaking of Ecclesiastical men) who had killed certain Excommunicate persons, yet did he enjoin them Penance. And at length he fasteneth upon the foresaid Epistle of the Priests of Liege unto Paschale the second, condemning the practice of Hildebr and, alias, Gregory the seventh, which Epistle he commended, as we have heard. He hath compared former unarmed Bishops, with the Soldierly Romish Popes of aftertimes, and judgeth the ancient sort peaceable, and the other to have carried themselves after an heathenish and slanderous manner.  
74. Therefore (M. Parsons) when you say that Espencaeus did only relate the passion of other men against Pope Gregory: Good Sir (to return your own Rhetoric upon you) will you stand unto this? Is it true? Is this sincere, seeing that Espencaeus both condemneth all such bloody Prelates, and approveth of the Epistle of those Priests against Gregory himself? Is this good dealing? Nay is it not altogether perfidious?  
75. Elsewhere the same Author Espencaeus expresseth his judgement more fully, concerning this point of Subjection, saying that 
m Espen. Comm. in Tit. 3. 1. Digress. 10. pa. 513. Paris. 1568.  The Apostle doth teach all the faithful to be subject unto the powers, saying, [Let every soul be subject, etc.] that is, as Chrysostome speaketh, Whether Prophet, or Apostle, or Bishop, let him be subject: And accordingly doth Euthymius, Theod. Theoph. and other Greek Fathers teach: And Saint Bernard doth collect as much out of the same sentence, [Let every soul, etc.] When, writing unto the Archbishop of Sans, he saith; Be you subject also, he that offereth to exempt you, doth offer to tempt and deceive you. Thus far Espencaeus.   

The former Assertion, concerning Gregory the seventh, confirmed by the testimonte of their own Archpriest, and others.  
76. 
n Exam. pag. 54.  M. Blackwel your late Archpriest, alleged to the same purpose Bish. Vincentius (who received his testimony from Sigebert, Anno 1088.) saying (with relation unto Gregory the seventh, and to him who succeeded next but one, to wit, Vrbanus.) Vt pace, etc. That is, That I may speak it (saith he) with the favour of all good men, Haec sola novit as, nè dicam haeresis; That is, This mere novelty, that I say not Heresy, was not as yet sprung in the world, that the Priests of him, who saith unto the King [Apostata,] and who maketh the Hypocrite to Reign for the sins of the people, should teach Subjects that they owe no subjection unto wicked Kings, that albeit they have taken an Oath of fidelity unto such an one, yet they are not bound in Allegiance unto him, and that such as should take part against their Kings, may not be said to be perjured: So he. 
o Barcla. De pot. Papae. cap. 9  Barkley out of Otto Frisingensis defendeth that, There is not found any example of deposing an Emperor of his State in any age, before Gregory the seventh. Which made their late Pope 
p Apologia. P. Pauli. §. Videre non. pag. 624.  Paulus, to acknowledge no violence used by any Pope, until A thousand years after Christ. At what time There were not wanting some (saith Cardinal 
q Cusanus Card. Concord. Cathel. l. 3 c. 41. pag. 812  Cusanus) yea, even among the Cardinals, besides a Council at Rome, who defended Henry the Emperor from the Excommunication of Hildebrand.  
77. I forbear to urge the Epistles of the Priests of Liege, which M. Parsons calleth a Passionate invective against Pope Paschalis; Lest it might drive the old man into passion. Albeit, whosoever shall Read that Epistle, he shall find the commendation of Espencaeus to be most true, who calleth it A complaint full of gravity, etc. He might further have added, and of Religious piety. But Mr. Parsons hath not yet done with Espencaeus.   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
YEt Espencaeus proveth by sundry examples out of Scriptures, Fathers, 
Reckon pag 67.  and Counsels, that in some cases it is lawful for Priests to use Temporal Arms also.   

The Reveiwe.  
78. It is true, and amongst others, he 
r Jbid. pag. 275.  produceth the example of Dudechine, a Priest, who went to War against the Turk, with Conrade the third, and of Turpinus Bishop of Rheims, who warred under Charles the Great, and of Delbodus, who took Arms against the Sarracens under Henry the Emperor. All these, in their Wars, stood with their Emperors, none is found to have carried Arms against their Emperors: Therefore this observation, which M. Parsons 
M. Parsons his military Discipline.  useth, seemeth very idle, except it be to bewray his own disposition (whom their 
s Quodlib. p. 236  Priest hath noted to be of A furious, choleric, and passionate humour) in desiring, like a tall Soldier, the use of a jack and a Spear.  
79. By this Reckoning it appeareth, that M. Parsons is become a fowerfold Debtor, First, unto the State, by his Treasonable Doctrine, in teaching an eradication of Princes Excommunicate: 
His manifold untruethes.  Secondly to himself, by a wilful falsifying of the judgement of Espencaeus: Thirdly unto me, by foisting upon me the related Historian Frisingensis, instead of the Relator Tolossanus, with a malicious purpose to prove me a falsifier: Lastly, to the cause itself, in not acknowledging the novelty of their new Doctrine of Deposing of Kings and Emperors.   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning, in censuring of Espencaeus.  
Claudius' Espencaeus was a Parisian Doctor, and a Writer of small 
Reckon. ibid.  account, whom he calleth a Bishop, but I never heard of his Bishopric.   

The 〈◊〉 showing the Eclipse of M. Parsons his judgement in this censure.  
80. Mr. Parsons is fallen forth with Espencaeus, and good reason, for he saw right well that Espencaeus doth, in effect, call the Doctrine of M. Parsons and his fellows, Rebellious: and therefore now must he be esteemed A writer, but of small account. Wherein our Reader may observe, what small account any man is to make of M. Parsons his judgement, who Reading Espencaeus, doth so greatly debase him, especially seeing that their own learned Authors have afforded him a better approbation: For Espencaeus is called by Medina (saith 
t Cumel. Tom. 3. var. Disp. pag. 131. Col. 1.  Cumel) A most learned man; whom Cardinal 
u Bellarm. l. 1. de Cleric. cap. 22.  Bellarmine himself useth to allege among your Doctors of account. And 
x Espenc. Epist. Dedic. ad Card. Castil. antè Sex Tract.  Espencaeus himself can further assure us, with a protestation of truth, that when he was in possibility to be chosen a Cardinal, he thanked God that he miss it, concluding with this Epiphonema; Quid Romae faciam, mentirinescio? That is, What shall I do at Rome, seeing I cannot lie? Do you hear this, M. Parsons? We know where your dwelling is, and your Book showeth you in every Page to be truly Romish: So hard a thing it is for you to tell a perfect truth. The last Charge will require a Chapter of itself.     

CHAP. XIII.  
Containing the last charge of falsity against M. Parsons, about the judgement of Romish Writers, concerning Mental Equivocation; containing a large Discourse hercof from their doctrine.  

SECT. I.  

First in general.  
1. Must. Parsons his falsity 
a Preamb. p. 〈◊〉 2. & Mitigat. pag. 279. & 281. & 284.  was the imputing unto me an acknowledgement of the Universal use of Mental Equivocation in the space of four hundred years.   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
FIrst, I said no more in my Treatise, than that Mr. Morton had manifestly set down, that for these last 400. years he granted the lawfulness 
Reckon. cap. 4. §. 11. pag. 265.  of Equivocation to have been taught in our Schools. And consult (saith he) with the ancient Logicians from the beginning of the world, till within the compass os these last 400. years, and less, that ever any Logician did allow your mixed proposition, partly mental, and partly verbal, and I will etc. Out of which exception, for these last 400 years, it is evidently deduced, that he granteth the use of such mixed propositions (which are properly Equivocations) whereof the one part is uttered, the other reserved in mind, as before hath been declated. And thereof I inferred further by evident consequence, and sequel of reason (though he specified not the same) that for so much as our Catholic Schools were then over all Christendom, and none publicly known or in use but they, (for those three hundred, or at least these four) it must needs follow that the same doctrine, during that time, was generally received in the said Schools, Universities, etc.   

The Review.  
2. Here is new Logic, which Mast. Parsons hath sent us from Rome over the Alps, to wit, Mental Equivocation was not used before the last 400. years, Ergo, In the last 400. years 
M. Parsons hath lost his logic  it was used Universally in all Universities, Chairs, Schools; by all Divines, Casuists, etc. This he calleth an cuident deducement; he should rather have said an impotent Seducement, for so it is; and all one as to reason thus: the Moon was not this year in the Eclipse, before the last month, Ergo, it was in the Eclipse every week, every day, & every hour of the last month, which is most ridiculous. Ex nihilo nihil fit (M. Parsons) none can ever deduce an affirmative conclusion from a negative proposition, be then ashamed of your Evidence. And so may you be likewise of your next shift, in telling us that you did not seem to persuade your Reader 
b Reckon ibid. pag 266.  Expressly and by name that I granted the general use of Mental equivocation in All Schools, Chairs, Universities, Tribunals, and the like, for these 400. years, but only by Consequence. For what can be more expressly assumed than was this, where you said, 
c Mitig. p. 284.  Seeing it hath been admitted (say you) so long time in Christendom, as our adversaries do confess, and that it hath been received so universally and generally both by Prelates and people: and if it have been so publicly taught by all learned men, and contradicted by none, (This was an Antecedent, and not a consequence, for that followeth in the next words:) it ought to be a great argument to discreet men, that it hath some ground of truth? Neither is it sufficient to infer a matter by Consequence, for the devil made a consequence when he said, 
d Matth. 4.  If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: but this was a lying consequence. And what froth, rather than force M. Parson's consequence hath, I have already showed. In the next place we are to discuss the Authors, who seem to except against M. Parsons his art of Aequiuocating.    

SECT. II.  

The first Instance of the charge, from their Doctor Sepulueda, against their Mental Equivocation.  
2. GEnesius 
* Preamb. p. 83.  Sepulueda made against you: what say you to him?   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
Mr. Morton findeth out but one Author that contradicteth the 
Reckon. pa. 267.  same Equivocation in all the time by him appointed, even Genesius Sepulueda, and that only in some particular cases, though granting and defending it in others.   

The Review.  
3. Here are but two things you will have us to observe: one is, that Sepulueda alloweth The same your mental Equivocation in some cases; the other is, that this Author was found to be but one: in both which I spy a litter of manifest falsities. For first, what is the Mental Equivocation which you defend? tell us; 
* See above.  It is a mixed proposition (say you) partly uttered with my mouth, as I am no Priest,] and partly reserved in my mind, as in this clause, [To tell it unto you.] But what if this clause be such (for this is the chiefest point of this whole dispute) as that it will not agree with the outward words in the common interpretation, and use of speech, as thus; I am no Priest, reserving in your mind, as bound to drive a Cart? The first part uttered with the mouth, [I am no Priest,] cannot possibly, in the common apprehension of man, signify or imply this clause which followeth [As bound to drive a Cart.] Do you think then that such a clause (for I shall need to ask no more) which is not comprehensible by the outward words, doth therefore make the outward speech true, because it is true in the mind of the speaker? 
* See above  Yes (say you) for that I truly mean that I am no Priest in the sense which I speak it, which may be what pleaseth me. This being the very Besis and foundation of your doctrine of Mental equivocation, I now make bold to aver, that every such speech, in the judgement of Sepulueda, is a lie.  
4. For so he censureth every such kind of reserved clause, where the 
e Sepulueda de ration. dicendi tellimon. cap. 3. pag. 468.  objection is made concerning one, who is called in question by a judge to bewray another man's secrecy, which he ought not to reveal, and shall answer thus, [I know nothing of it,] keeping this reservation in mind, [As bound to tell it unto you.] Here we find a mixed proposition, part in word, and part in mind; secondly, here the judge is incompetent, demanding that which the party is not bound to reveal; thirdly, here your Clause of Reservation is the same, wherein you principally insist: so that if this be not lawful, you must necessarily fail in your former defence. Come we now to our Author Sepulueda. Unto this objection of Philetus and lover of himself, he opposeth his own judgement in the name of Theophilus, that is, A lover of God, saying, 
f Ibid. cap. 5. pag. 471.  If you Philet us be prepared to answer so, than you tell me in brief that you are prepared to perjure yourself. Hercunto Philet us replieth: I do not lie, seeing that the reserved Clause, viz. [That I 
S. pulueda condemneth Mast. Parson's Equivocation for a lie.  ought to tell it unto you, agreeth with my mind. Then Theophilus returneth upon him, saying: Who taught you to trifle so finely? Who did first show you such a lurking hole for perjury? And in the end concludeth, concerning the former equivocation: That the speech is a lie, because the signification thereof doth dissent from that which lieth secret in the mind: for thou sayest (saith he) that [thou knowest nothing at all thereof] and every one that heareth thee, doth so understand thee, notwithstanding thou art guilty to thyself, that thou dost know it, although with purpose not to reveal it.  
5. All this you saw, M. Parsons, and therein could not but perceive that Sepulueda hath flatly contradicted your Mental Equivocation, notwithstanding have you dared to say that 
M. Parson's wilful untruth.  he doth defend the same in some cases. What shall any man think of you, when you talk of rectitude of conscience? Certainly this pretence is nothing but a Pharisaical cleansing, as it were, of the outside of the cup: for when we look within it, there is nothing but foul cobwebs of falsehoods and folly.  
6. Although the examination of the former observation doth argue a distorted mind in you, yet in the second you do excel yourself, where you say that I find but One Author 
M. Parsons second untruth.  Sepulueda contradicting your Acquivocation, especially knowing that if this Sepulueda, than I do not bring him in alone, seeing that he goeth accompanied with all those Authors, upon whom the same Sepulueda doth ground his former conclusion: which I signified unto you in my 
g Satisfact part. 3. p. 82. out of Sepulueda de rat. occulta ca 19  Full Satisfaction, out of the words of Sepulueda, saying; But that you may know (saith he) how long it is since that Comment of Divines did prevail for the excuse of a lie, in bearing false witness in another man's case, I think you can find none before Gabriel, who durst publicly defend it, That is, the trick of Reservation, 
M. Parson's equivocation not ancient.  for he speaketh of it. He telleth us furthermore, concerning the same Equivocation, that he found it 
h Sepulueda quo suprà in praefat. Aquinas.  Defended by some public Readers in Spain, albeit (saith he) it is condemned by the most ancient and principal Divines: 
i Ibid. cap. 15. Scotus.  Amongst whom I reckon Aquinas. As for Scotus, he acknowledgeth this denial of Secrecy (namely Equivocatingly) to be a sin, only he made doubt whether it be mortal, or venial. And 
k Ibid. cap. 18. Henricus de Gandavo.  Henricus de Gandavo, a most learned man, saith, that in such a case it is lawful for the Examinate not to answer the judge at all, but to deny the secrecy, to answer falsely, and by art of words to lie (calling Equivocation a lie) he holdeth it unlawful. 
l Ibid. cap. 19 Gabriel.  Gabriel himself denieth that he can escape the guilt of, at least an officious lie, and therefore a sin, who useth that artificial manner of denying with the mind: his reason is, because his words are taken according to the common understanding, in the which sense they are not true. Which sentence of Gabriel being true in such a speech without an oath, how much more true is it, if it be used in anoath? for by an oath an officious lie becometh pernicious, because of the neglect of the reverence of God, who is witness unto a man's oath. Thus far Sepulueda.  
7. Whence we understand the fraudulent dealing, whereunto Mr. Parsons accustometh himself, who informed his Reader, that I could find but only Sepulueda contradicting their Equivocation in all the time appointed, and yet all these were within the compass of four hundred years: Aquinas living about the year 1210. Scotus Anno 1300. Biel Anno 1462. Henricus de Gandavo Anno 1293. Mr. Parsons hath yet one note more which he would have observed. I would pray my Reader not to deny him his best attention.   

M. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
NOte, by the way, the lavish immodesty of M. Morton, citing that 
Reckon. Ibid. pag. 267.  learned Doctor Gabriel Biel, out of Genesius 〈◊〉 by the contemptuous title of Lewd Sophister: Whereas Sepulueda, styleth him in the same place, Theologum Doctissimum, a most learned Divine.   

The Review.  
8. Then, belike, I have made Sepulueda call Gabriel a lewd Sophister: will you be so good as but to look once again unto the place, which is in the Preamble, pag. 83. 
M. Parson's dent falsehood.  and I doubt not but you will find out your own error, or rather recognise your notable falsehood. For I named not Gabriel a lewd Sophister in citing the testimony of Sepulueda, but some eight lines after I made bold to censure him so of myself, which any one, who is not wittingly captious, will plainly discern. What then must we note you for, M. Parsons, for noting this by the way, but a man that was by the way when you made that note.  
9 If you further ask me a reason of so censuring Gabriel, I shall tell you, he attributeth unto the power of nature so much, as doth detract from the power of the spirit of God's grace. If this reason be not sufficient, take an other, viz. Although Gabriel held that the Equivocation above mentioned is a lie, and consequently a sin: yet I think 
m Sepulueda quo supra.  none before Gabriel Biel (saith Sepulueda) durst affirm that a lie, in bearing false witness in an other man's behalf, is excusable. Be he therefore as learned as you will, yet might he be said to play the part of a Sophister, who excused a lie, which none did ever before him.    

SECT. III.  
The second instance, against Mental Equivocation, is from the judgement of the jesuit Azorius in his Instit. Moral. part. 1. lib. 11. c. 4. §. Meatamen. And upon occasion hereof, the Doctrine of Equivocation is more exactly examined. First we propound the state of this Question, as it is defined and defended by M. Parsons.  

The Charge of T. M. against M. Parsons.  
10. THe second 
a Preamb. p. 84.  falsity of P. R. is his affirming that Mental Equivocation (for hereupon we only dispute) hath been universally received of all Universities and people in Christendom,  
and not contradicted by any. The first witness convincing this Mitigation of falsehood, is Azorius, etc.   

M. PARSONS his Reckoning, and Charge against his Adversary.  
THe opinion of Azorius is falsely objected by M. Morton, as making 
Reckon. cap. 4. §. 12. pag. 269.  for him, whereas it maketh wholly against him.   

The Reviewe.  
11. Here is a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a main gulf of difference between our two judgements. I affirm that Azorius doth condemn the equivocation, which M. Parsons hath defended: M. Parsons saith that Azor hath been falsely objected, and that he maketh wholly against me. Upon this point hath M. Parsons divers times raised up his most clamorous invectives against me, in this his book of Reckoning: will it please thee (gentle Reader) now to audit our accounts?   

First, we are to set down the state of the Question.  
M. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
But now let us see notwithstanding further what Azorius saith against 
Reck. ibid. p. 269.  Equivocation in general, for to this effect he is brought in, in this place, as though he held that all Equivocation were to be rejected as lying: for proof whereof he citeth two places out of the self same leaf and page of Azorius.   

The Reviewe.  
12. All equivocation, M. Parsons? thus you say, and therefore put this in the number of my new and fresh lies (as you call them) saying, 
b Reck. cap. 9 pag. 643.  Here followeth a notable conviction of falsehood against him, for alleging 
c Preamb. p. 84.  Pa. 84. of his Preamble the jesuit Azorius, as condemning all use of equivocation, etc. And yet you know that before the propounding of the testimonies of Azorius, and other jesuits, in the very same page of the Preamble, I restrained our whole dispute unto Mental equivocation 
M. Parson's untruth.  only; for hereupon only (said I) we dispute: which word, only, was repeated in the Preamble more than seven times; And yet can you with a wide mouth say, (without exception) that I would have Azorius to speak against All Equivocation. Are you not like to make a good end of your Reckoning, who have thus falsified in the beginning?  
13. In all disputes it is necessary we know the point in question: we contend therefore about Mental equivocation only. It is in the second place as necessary to know,   

What is the mental Equivocation, which M. Parsons doth defend.  
14. 
d Mitigat. c. 12. n. 3. pag. 484.  True Equivocation (saith M. Parsons) may be either verbal, or mental: Verbal is that, when word or speech hath either naturally, or by peculiar custom of particular language two or more significations.  
This is truly and plainly said of the Verbal Equivocation, tell us as distinctly what the Mental is. 
e Jbidem.  Mental Equivocation is,  when any speech hath or may have a double sense, not by any double signification or composition of the words themselves, but only by some reservation of mind in the speaker, whereby his meaning is made different from that sense, which the words that are uttered, do bear or yield without that Reservation. 
Do not now forget, I pray you (M. Parsons) that you distinguish Mental Equivocation from Verbal, by this note, to wit, that the double sense, which is in the Mental Equivocation, is not in the words themselves, but only by some reservation in the mind of the speaker, which meaning is different from that sense, which the words uttered do bear: very well, we shall afterwards try whether Azorius do justify this manner of Equivocation or no.  
15. In the next place, seeing that the outward speech, and the inward mental Reservation are so different, we demand whether you think the same kind of Mental Equivocation to be true or no? 
f Mitigat. c. 8.  These words of a Priest [I am no Priest] mixed with this reservation [To tell it unto you] or such like, agreeing with the mind of the speaker, is as true as if the whole proposition were uttered with the mouth without reservation, thus; I am no Priest, to tell it unto you. We must remember this also, in discussing the judgement of Azorius, to know whether he did allow that every such speech, which being uttered wholly in the mouth, and agreeing with the mind of the speaker, be likewise true, when it is half reserved in the mind of the speaker in the same sense: for if it be not equally true, than your mixture cannot qualify the outward speech, to make it a perfect truth.  
16. Lastly, what kind of Reservation will you allow, and before whom? 
g Reck. pag 100  So that the party, to whom the answer is made, be not a competent judge, the speaker is free to have what meaning he list, so that it be true in his own sense. 
h Mitigat. p. 344  Although it agree not with the Hearers under standing; as [I am no Priest] reserving in my mind, [such as I should be] or such like, whatsoever it pleaseth me. So he. This last assertion I must nail unto the hinder part of your head, that you may remember it: Therefore, if it please you, let this be the Reservation in the mind, [with purpose to tell it unto you,] and let us try whether Azorius will condemn this kind of Reservation for a lie or no, even when it is used before a judge incompetent. Now cometh in the combat: I will be first the party defendant, and answer your charge.   

The sum of Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning, and charge against his Adversary.  
Mr. Morton skipping over four rules Azorius useth, for they make 
Reck. pag. 270.  expressly against him, runneth only to the fifth and last, whereof he saith, that it bitteth the nail on the head. And is it so, Sr.? what say you then to the precedent four? why say you nothing to them? what part of the nail do they hit, if the last only strike the head? 
* Jbidem. pag. 270. & 271.  In the first he resouleth that a Priest may AEquiuocate, and say he knoweth nothing, when he is demaunded any point about Confession. In the second he resolveth that whensoever any man is demanded by an incompetent judge, even in an oath, whether he hath committed this, or that sin, he may by equivocation deny the same even in an oath. 
* Ibid. pag. 271.  As if a man be wrongfully compelled by a judge to swear to pay a sum of money to his Adversary, he may swear, though he have no intention to perform it, as being against law having this Reservation in his mind, that he will pay so much as by law he is bound. And other three or four such cases are there in the explanation of this Rule.   

The Reveiwe.  
17. Azorius never useth the name of equivocation: and in his explanation of his first and second rule, doth fully abandon M. Parsons his doctrine of Reservation, thus: 
i Azor Inst. Mor. Tom. 1. l. 11. c. 4. §. Secunda Regula.  Ratio utriusque Regulae, etc. that is: The reason of both these Rules (saith Azorius) is not that which some do yield, saying that it is lawful, when we swear, to take the words in our sense, which we feign unto ourselves, and not in the sense, which the hearers do understand. Yet is this the reason which M. Parsons hath 
Azorius his meaning.  laid downe, for the defence of his Mental Reservation before a judge incompetent, saying. I may feign what I list, although not agreeing with the understanding of the hearer. But Azorius allegeth a reason against this infatuation. Because (saith he) whensoever the words are of a doubtful signification, and we are asked any thing against the law, then is it lawful for us to take them in that sense which we like, albeit the hearers do take them in an other sense. Which doth again confute M. Parsons his doctrine: for he defendeth an amphibology of speech, which may have a double sense only by the reservation in the mind of the speaker, which sense is different from the words of the mouth. But Azorius admitteth not any ambiguous or doubtful sense, which is not incident unto the outward words themselves, and whereof the hearer is not by some outward circumstance of speech, capable and apprehensible.  
18. This may be made plain by comparing examples together. A judge is acquainted with a man's cause, which he 
An Example.  is to determine; the party, whose cause it is, cometh to the judge for advife: Now it is known that a judge is not to give counsel in any case, wherein he is to execute the office of a judge: yet the party being instant and urgent, saying, Sir, do you not know how I shall free myself in this cause; the judge answereth, Friend, I know nothing of this matter: meaning, that howsoever, as he is a Lawyer, he know his cause, yet now, as a judge, he is not to acknowledge it: And this double sense is in the speech itself, and, by circumstance of the person, may possibly be apprehended by any discreet hearer: and is to be called a Verbal equivocation, according unto the former definition, which M. Parsons himself hath delivered; and not a Mental.  
19 Such like is the example, which Azorius hath offered concerning a Priest, who knoweth some secret revealed unto him in private Confession, as he is a Priest, and therefore as a Priest is bound in conscience and by his calling, not to reveal any such secrecy (except the concealment may be perniciously damnifiable unto persons, and States, as some of them do hold): In such a case Azorius saith, that he may answer, I know not, because he knoweth it not but as a Priest, which is, that he knoweth it not, to reveal it: but why? by virtue of an Only reservation mental? (so hath Mr. Parsons defined): No, but because, as Azorius saith, The words themselves, according to their ufe, have this ambiguous signification in themselves: so that it is not now to be called absolutely Mental, but a verbal Ambiguity.  
20. Sepulueda hath made the case verycleare, showing that it is allowed by the 
k Sepulucdo de rat. dicendi testimon. cap. 3.  common consent of Christians, that a Priest, who knoweth the crime of any, as he is a Priest, that is in confession, may not disclose it: then his answer, in saying I know not, doth issue from the common interpretation of the words themselves, to signify, that he is not to take knowledge of any such matter, to tell it unto any: which interpretation issueth from the outward circumstance of his calling, because he is a Priest. So that still the odds between M. Parsons and Azorius is thus much: M. Parsons speaketh of an Equivocation, or ambiguity of speech, which consisteth not in the outward words: but Azorius judgeth contrarily, as we have heard, and M. Parson's shall better see, to his no small rebuke, before the end of our Reckoning. After this Azorius addeth a third rule.   

The sum of M. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
BY the third rule he proveth the like in other cases, as when injury 
Reckon. p. 271. 〈◊〉 272.  is offered, to use ambiguous words, and to take them in our sense, as far as the words will bear: as the wife being asked of her husband, whether she be an adulteress: and of a man fallen into the hands of thieves, etc. and in the case of a man demanded whether he came from a place suspected to have had the plague, etc.   

The Reveiwe.  
21. Azorius explaineth himself in this third Rule, as in the former, saying, that We may use words ambiguous, taking them in our sense, which the words themselves will yield; and not (as M. Parsons holdeth) in whatsoever sense we list, whereunto our mind shall agree: which meaning sometime is such, as the devil himself cannot by any circumstance of the speech possibly understand. Such as this is: where a man demanded of his friend, whether he hath any money, to answer no, referuing in his mind, To lend it unto you: which although it be a true proposition, being delivered with the mouth, yet spoken half in the mouth, and half reserved in the mind, doth not make a true proposition, but is a very lie, as Azorius 
* Encount. p. 216  hereafter will tell us; even because the outward words cannot by any congruity of speech import that same Clause, To lend it unto you. And if this shall appear in Azorius, it willbe no hard thing for our Reader to discern, whether of us doth perform a true Reckoning.  
22. Notwithstanding, I speak not this to justify all the examples which Azorius giveth; but I insist in his general rule, which is, that the Outward speech do carry in it a double sense: for we must measure the examples by the rule, and not the rule by examples, and so interpret Azorius his examples, that he thereby do not contradict himself.  
23. The fourth rule concludeth directly, that in the case, when no injury is offered unto us, we may not use any speech; but in a sense which is understood of the Hearer. This rule challengeth plain dealing, without any Equivocating at all. And now descend we unto the last rule, which I said did hit the nail on the head, which M. Parsons laughed at; but it will in earnest hit him on the head, albeit he do use all the wit in his head to avoid it.   

Acharge against M. Parsons.  
24. The first rule of Azorius (
* Preamb. p. 85  said I) is this: 
l Quinta regula, etc.  If the words we use are not according to their common signification among men, ambiguous or doubt full, and have only one sense, 
Azor. Jes. Jnst. part. 1. l. 11. c. 4, in fine cap.  We ought to use them in that sense, which they have in themselves: neither is it lawful for us, although we be examined against right and justice, to detort or turn our speech, by our inward conceit of mind, because it is not lawful for us to lie: but he doth lie, who understandeth his speeches otherwise then they do signify in themselves. The difference between our Mitigator and this jesuit is no more than this: first P. R. defendeth an Equivocation, which is, when the speech hath no double sense in the outward words themselves, but only in 
M. Parson's equivocation found to be a lie.  some secret reservation in the mind of the speaker. But Azorius saith, that we ought not to use any sense of speech. which is not in the words themselves, but only in the inward thought of him that speaketh. Secondly P. R. maintaineth, that his mental Reservation is a truth: but Azorius concludeth, that it is a lie. And can there be a greater contradiction between M. Parsons and Azorius than this is?  
I pray thee, good Reader, let us hear M. Parsons his defence, and so shall we easily discern his spirit, and conjure it.   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning, for his discharge.  
You see that Azorius forbiddeth only, that words, which have 
Reckon. p. 272. 273.  but one only natural sense and signification, and are not ambiguous, or of divers sense, should be used by the speaker in any other signification, then naturally, or by common use among men they do yield: As for example, if one that had an Horse, and not an Ox, should be demanded whether he had any Horse, he should say, No, meaning that he had no Ox, for that he conceived an Ox for an Horse; this were not lawful, saith Azor, in the use of words, because the word Horse hath but one proper meaning amongst men, and cannot signify an Ox: and consequently cannot be so taken, but by a lie. But if the word Horse had a doubtful or double signification, signifying as well an Ox as an Horse, then might a man use the amphibology of the word, to avoid any injury offered him by an incompetent judge, as Azor himself determineth. Who would think then that a 
Reckon. ibid.  man of common sense, or of any mean modesty, and care of his credit would have alleged Azor so confidently against his Adversary, as M. Morton doth? and that which is most ridiculous, so to insult against him, as he doth against me here, saying, P. R. maintaineth that his mental Reservation is a truth, but Azorius concludeth that it is a lie. And can there be any greater contradiction than this? etc.   

The Reveiwe.  
25. Often have I called the indifferent Reader to audit 
A wicked forgery used by M. Parsons, to shift himself from the note of a lie.  our Reckoning, but in this so strange a knack of Sophistry, I would make bold to appeal unto the Priests and Professors of equivocation, to judge of Mr. Parsons his practice in this point. The words of Azorius are these: When the words are not of any doubtful signification, but have but one only sense, we must use them in that sense, which they yield: (his reason) because he doth lie, who taketh them in another sense than they signify: Which M. Parsons expoundeth by an example of one, that hath an Horse and not an Ox, and being demanded whether he have an Horse, he should say no, meaning, that he hath no Ox.  
26. But Azorius doth not make any mention of an Horse or an Ox, or of any such examples, which being uttered wholly with the mouth, do make no true sense. For this outward speech used without mental reservation, viz. I have no Horse, meaning, I have no Ox, is doubtless a lying mixture. But Azorius useth only such examples, which being delivered outwardly with the mouth have a true sense; and yet being used with a mixture of reservation, are in his judgement, a lie. I must crave patience of thee (Christian Reader) to suffer me to enlarge myself in discussing the judgement of Azorius, because M. Parsons his fraud will be more notoriously apparent, and his defence of Mental Equivocation receive (as I may so say) a deadly wound.  
27. Azorius beginneth his dispute thus: 
m Azor. part. 1. Inst. Moral. l. 11. c. 4. §. Quintò.  Some (saith he) speaking of the same Romish Doctors) propound this general rule, and say, that it is no lie, although the words (which a man useth in his promise by an oath) be not of an ambiguous 
M. Parsons useth a strange and strong delusion to abuse his Reader.  and doubtful signification, but that the speech is made true in our secret understanding. This is the state of the question, which Azorius intendeth to determine by his five rules aforesaid, namely concerning a Speech, which some Romish Doctors do hold to be true in the secret understanding. But there was never man of any sober understanding, who could fancy that to be true in the secret understanding of man, which M. Parsons hath propounded, viz. I have no Horse, meaning no Ox, which is M. Parsons his proper devise.  
28. Secondly, the example which immediately followeth in that place of Azorius, and was used by the Patrons of Equivocation, for the manifesting of their meaning, is this: 
n Azor. ibid.  As for example (say they) if thou require any sum of money of me, and I having so much money, shall answer [I have it not] reserving in my mind [To lend it unto thee,] although they say (saith Azorius) that this outward speech hath no ambiguous sense, but that I therem do absolutely signify, that [I have it not] yet I conceive in my mind [I have it not to lend:] Therefore, say they, I do say the truth, and do not sin by perjury. This is the immediate example, which is set down to pattern the former question, concerning an Ambiguous speech by mental Reservation; which Azorius is about to decide, and to tell us whether this kind of Reservation be a lie, or no. Can there be any affinity between this example, and M. Parsons his Horse and Ox?  
29. Thirdly (which amplifieth his conviction more fully sons) Mr. Parsons doth jump both in doctrine and example with those Romish Patrons of mental Reservation, whom Azorius in this place doth professedly confute. Of Mr. Parsons his doctrine we have often heard: Now let us us behold his example set down in his Mitigat. cap. 9 pag. 403. num. 80. where it pleased him iocantly to pose me thus: I would ask 
M. Parson's example of mental equivocation, proved a lie out of Azorius.  Tho. Morton this case, that if a man in England, whose favour he much desireth and esteemeth, and yet he would be loath to lend money, for that he knew him to spend much, and not to hold payment of his debts to be necessary to salvation; If this great man demand of him, whether he had five hundred pound to lend him, and supposing that he had them, but loath to lend, or lose them, what would he do or answer in this case, if there were no other means, but either to confess that he hath them, and thereby lose them by lending, or deny that he hath them, and thereby incur a lie, and damn his soul? Hath the God of nature left no lawful manner of evasion by reason and force of wit in such an encumbrance? He that hath given unto the Hare & Fox sharpness of sense, by leaps, turnings, & windings, by going back the same trace they came, to deceive dogs? I doubt not but that Tho. Morton would answer the Nobleman, he had them not, though they lay in his Chest, understanding by force of equivocation [That he had them not to lend, Or, not so as he could spare] Or, some other like reservation, which we say that without a lie he might use.  
30. We see yet that M. Parsons doth conspire together with those other Aequivocators, of whom Azorius spoke both in the position and example. Now if Azorius call both their former conclusion, and this very same example a lie, than I think I may lawfully ask M. Parsons, what kind of creature he himself may be judged to be, who doubting of Azorius his sincere judgement, hath foisted in this alien, and fond example of an Horse and an Ox.  
31. Azorius therefore, after he had repeated those Doctor's reasons, whereby they sought to confirm their own position, he saith, Meo tamen judicio, etc. But in my judgement, they extend that Rule further than is meet, for there can be nothing so false, which cannot be freed from all lying, if we keep any thing, as we list, concealed in our mind: for by this means whatsoever a man shall demand of us, we may answer by denying that we have it, yea though we have it, understanding in our mind [That we may give it,] What soever we shall do, What soever we shall see, What soever we shall think or purpose, we may by this means deny, that we have either done, or seen, or thought, or purposed it; namely in this sense, [That I may tell you.] Therefore I think otherwise, which I will specify in certain Rules. Thus far Azorius.  
32. By this it is manifest, that taking the same example of denying that I have it, with reservation, [To lend or to give it,] Azorius matcheth it with the vilest kind of lying, saying that, if this kind of speech be true, there is nothing so false, which may not be freed from a lie. And in the end, (concerning the same objection) he answereth by the fifth Rule, saying, (as we have heard) That if the words, which we use, be not ambiguous in their own signification, and common use of men, we must use them in that sense which they yield; neither is it lawful for us, although we be asked against right and equity, to wrest any thing into a different sense, by the inward conceit of our mind, for it is not lawful for us to lie; but he lieth, who taketh words otherwise then they signify in themselves. Such as he judgeth M. Parsons his speech concerning not lending of money, to be; M. Parsons calleth the Speech qualified by only mental Reservation a truth; Azorius contrarily calling this speech a flat lie. So that this being the true, real, direct, and professed resolution, determination, 
His abuse of his Reader.  and conclusion of their jesuit Azorius, M. Parson's must needs be thought to have wilfully injured this Author, and also to have abused his too credulous Reader, whom by this his own fiction of an Horse and an Ox, he purposed to make as wise as an Ass.  
33. And now I cease to marvel why M. Parsons propounded for his Schoolmaster the nature of the Fox, by using windings, turnings, & skippings forward and backward, seeing he hath showed himself so excellent a proficient in that art: only this is to be wondered at, that seeing the Fox doth use this 
M. Parsons professeth to AEquiuocate with his friends.  guile only in flying from Dogs, which are mortal enemies unto him, M. Parsons professeth the practice of his craft in the case of lending money to his friends and favourites. We proceed to the next witness against Mental Reservation.    

SECT. FOUR  

The next witness against Mental Equivocation, is the jesuit Emanuel Sa: concerning whom it was my Charge against M. Parsons.  
34. MY Adversary the Moderate Answerer (
* Preamb. p. 86.  (said I) to qualify the hatefulness of the Equivocating Sect, did tell us that 
o Mod. Answ. cap. 10.  A jesuit famous amongst the Casuists, Emanuel Sà, in his Aphorisms, writeth of this matter in these words: Quidam dicunt, etc. Some there be who say, that he who is not bound to answer unto the intention of the examiner, may answer by reservation of some thing in his mind, to wit, [That it is not so, viz. that I must tell it unto you] although others do not admit this manner of answering, and peradventure upon better reason than the former. Whereby it is manifest (saith that Moderate Answerer) that all Catholics do not allow of Equivocation. Thus far that Answerer: confessing hereby that divers Catholic Authors have contradicted this Equivocating forgery, which P. R. hath avouched no Catholic writer did ever contradict.   

The sum of Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning, charging his Adversary with falsehood: First concerning a word.  
LEt the Reader stand attended, for that Mr. Morton may not escape, 
Reck. c. 4. §. 13. pag. 276.  until he have satisfied somewhat. 
* Reck. pag. 279.  Mr. Morton hath here committed many falsehoods both against Emanuel Sa, against the Moderate Answerer, and against myself Against Eman. Sa: thus 
* Reck. p. 276. about the 20. line.  Sa addeth unto his sentence, forte potiori ratione non admittunt, that is, Perhaps this latter opinion is the better. Which word (perhaps) Mr. Morton craftily lest out.   

The Review.  
35. I beseech thee (good Reader) stand attended, and do M. Parson's right and justice, and let not me escape until I have satisfied. Thou hast heard, the first Accusation is of craft, for omitting the word, perhaps, in translating the sentence of the jesuit Sà, viz. fortè potiore ratione; which M. Parsons hath (I must needs say) truly rendered into English thus, [Perhaps with better reason:] I likewise confess, that in my translation of those words, I used not the word, perhaps, for 
How desperate lie M. Parson's can falsify.  I rendered them thus, [Peradventure with better reason:] which translation I expressly then set down both in my book of Full Satisfact. Part. 1, cap. 27. pag. 86. and in my last Preamb. pag. 86. about the 24. lin. which M. Parson's also hath alleged in his margin, where it is Englished thus, Although others do not admit this manner of answering, and [peradventure] with better reason. Which M. Parsons himself was not ignorant of, for in the 275. page of this his Reckoning, about the 30. line, he acknowledgeth that I delivered the words thus: Others do admit this reason, and that [peradventure] with better reason. If it shall please any reader, who can but spell English, to examine these places, he shall find them so as I have now alleged. How then can M. Parson's escape the accusation of a crafty and malicious accuser? will he say that in translation perhaps, and, peradventure, are different, and not sinonimically and significantly the same? So may he deserve to be reckoned among the wise men of Gotham, who could not see wood for trees, or to shake the fellow by the hand, who said that pepper is hot in operation, but cold in working. I should call this manner of dealing of M. Parson's monstrous, but that it is ordinary, as we have proved, and will now further manifest.   

M. PARSONS his Reckoning, and second Charge against his Adversary.  
THat which Emanuel Sa spoke of a particular case before a judge 
Reck. pag. 276.  incompetent, he taketh universally against all equivocation. without exception. 
* Reck. pag. 277.  Which Mr. Morton could not choose but know to be a fraud, for that in the next lines Eman. Sa doth resolve two other cases, wherein a man may AEquiuocate.   

The Review.  
36. Here he saith that I have taken Sà as speaking universally against all equivocation, and yet knew that our whole dispute is by us both restrained 
p Miligat. cap. 8. pag. 321. and as I repeated it. Preamb. pag. 43. M. Parson's witless falsity.  only unto mental equivocation: which is evident by the very place, (Preamb. pag. 86) mentioning expressly Mental equivocation. Therefore this accusation of excepting against all equivocation, is a witting (except he had not have me rather call it a witless) falsity. Secondly, I delivered that sentence of Sà out of the testimony of my Adversary the Moderate Answerer, as M. Parsons himself knoweth and 
q Reck pag. 278. num. 79.  confesseth: if therefore there were an error, why doth M. Parsons let his own companion escape, and run upon me for his debt, who never undertook 
His singular fraud.  to be surety for so loose a fellow as that man is, to promise for him that he would not deal falsely? His reason is, because I could not (saith he) but know this to be a fraud. If it were a fraud, more shame for the Moderator: but if it be no fraud, what shame will it be for our sober Reckoner: who even in saying that I could not but have read Sà, bewrayeth his lavish presumption, because probably I might have rested upon so plain and sufficient a testimony of that my Adversary.  
37. Notwithstanding, I may not deny but that I did read Sà in the place cited Tit. de mendacio, where the case is thus put: If a man demand the whole debt, whereas thou owest him only a part, thou mayst deny that thou owest him, viz. so much as he demandeth. Weigh the sense of the words themselves; and the ambiguity, and we shall easily discern that that which they call Equivocation, is not only in the secret reservation of the mind, but sufficiently implied in the outward speech itself, so that the hearer may collect out of the words the secret sense, and so it is a verbal Equivocation, and not Mental. Nay, when one asketh the whole debt, and I deny that I owe it him, who is there almost but will understand that in that speech is signified, that] owe not that whole debt which is demanded? Neither doth the judgement of Sà in other cases differ from the former opinion of Azorius, by whom the Mental Equivocation, as it is described by M. Parsons hath been condemned for a lie: Only Sà delivereth his judgement with a fortè, or, peradventure, (I cry you mercy M. Parsons, I should have said, perhaps) and Azorius doth resolvedly show that your doctrine of Equivocation is concluded in a lying case. But I demand whether M. Parsons will stand to the judgement of their jesuit Sà, or no?   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
Indeed in the last edition of his book at Rome, An. 1607. his whole 
Reck. pag. 276.  last sentence was left out, as though he had changed his opinion.   

The Review.  
38. Or rather that your booke-gelders' have changed his writings, according unto your new professed occupation, in 
A due suspicion of craft among the Romanists in altering and corrupting the opinions of their own jesuits.  corrupting of your own Authors, whensoever they chance to say any thing which soundeth prejudicial to your cause: which caused your own Doctor to complain; and that not without some indignation, that none can be suffered to write freely among you, but forthwith, as it happened 
* See above cap. 1. §. 2. & 6.  (saith he) unto Card. Bellarmine himself, he is compelled to recant it; or else such things are blotted out of their books, etc. Which bookish massacre being so generally practised, God knoweth how fatal it may prove. The like to that of Sà will probably befall one day unto your jesuit Azorius, who holdeth the same with Sà, yet (without all perhaps) determinately: and so the books being changed, it must happen in process of time, that these allegations, which we now use out of him, will be noted for lying slanders, even as I have been already dealt withal by M. Parsons, about the testimony of 
* See hereafter Cap. 14. §. 1.  Polydore, when he charged me with falsehood in citing him out of his old Editions, which they themselves have professedly and publicly altered, and indeed corrupted. Can such dealing stand with terms of common honesty? But M. Parson's will lay some accusations against me, for he hath vowed that I may not escape.   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
HE citeth the foresaid authority of Eman. Sa, alleged out of his 
Reck. pag. 278. & 279.  Moderate Answerer for a shadow, dissembling that he had looked upon the Author: but could not do this handsomely enough, for he doth egregiously abuse his foresaid adversary, by making him seem to deduce out of that particular case an absolute denial of all Equivocation, making him to conclude thus, that all Catholics do not allow of Equivocation. But Mr. Morton let me pose you here: Is it true that your Adversary said so far, and no further to the purpose in hand? Or is it not rather true that you cut him off, and would not suffer him to say any further? for your Adversary did fully clear the matter, if you would have suffered him to tellon his tale, for these are his words: [Whereby it is manifest that all Catholics do not allow of Equivocation, where he is not bound to answer the judge or Examiner proceeding unjustly, and not according to law and equity.] Whereby is evident that he alleged not Sà, as denying all Equivocation, but in particular cases, where he that is demanded is not bound to make answer.   

The Reveiwe.  
39 The Moderate Answerer saith that Sà allowed not Equivocation, etc. and I reported no more: for if my Reader can find that I added All Equivocation, then will I be contented with the adjunct of a detestable liar. What else? I cut off, 
His rude cavil.  forsooth the Answerers' tale, not telling that be meant of such cases, wherein a man is bound to answer, Grave crimen: this his meaning was sufficiently expressed in the very question itself, as I alleged it, standing thus: 
r Preamb. p. 86.  Some there be that say that he who is not bound to answer, etc. Here the case was manifested to hold only, Where the party is not bound to answer, in which cases M. Parsons doth justify Mental Reservation: but Eman. Sâ telleth us, that some Romish Doctors do not admit this doctrine, and perhaps (saith he) with better reason. We shall need no more, for now I have our Raynard in the straits; what are the cases (Mast. Parsons, for I mean to pose you) wherein you would have your Eman. Sâ seem to admit of a mental Reservation? Either must they be when the party is bound to answer unto a competent and lawful judge, which kind of mental Reservation, you have held to be unlawful, 
Dilemma.  and a lie: Or else it must be understood in case that the party is not bound to answer unto the judge, because the judge is incompetent; and in this case Eman. Sà (as you know) doth not allow of your Mental Reservation. Therefore as I did not conceal the case you speak of, so have you no cause to have it revealed, because it maketh fully against you, who defend a Reservation, when a man is not bound to answer, as before an incompetent judge. Now therefore, after you have gained attention of your Reader, consider what arrearages come upon you by this Reckoning: first your falsehood, in taxing the omission of the word perhaps: Secondly in objecting the word All: thirdly, imputing a concealment of the Case: and lastly, the loss of your cause, by the judgement of Sà, and together with him by the judgement of Some other Romish Writers.    

SECT. V.  
The next witness against M Parsons his described mental Equivocation, is the jesuit Maldonate.  

The Charge against M. Parsons.  
39 MAldonate (
* Preamb. p. 87.  said I) a principal jesuit and Casuist resolveth thus: 
f Maldon. jes. comen. in Luc. ult. vers. 28.  Whosoever doth endeavour by feigning to deceive another, although he intent to signify something else, yet doubtless he lieth. Mr. Parsons How will satisfy for this?   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning against his Adversary.  
HE styleth Maldonate a Casuist, who is never known to have read or written of Cases in his life, but Scholastical Divinity he 
Reckon. cap. 4. §. 14 pag. 283.  professed many years in Paris, and left very learned Commentaries upon all the four Evangelists, though the Roman Index 〈◊〉 Anno 1607. do mention, that certain cases of conscience published by another, and Printed at Lions, Anno 1604. were falsely ascribed to him.   

The Reveiwe.  
40. Rather will M. Parson's play small play then sit out: and now the Gamester thinketh that he hath taken a blot; for Maldonate, forsooth was no Casuist. If this be an error, then mark (good Reader) what guides have misled me: First (a Casuist being one who discusseth cases of conscience) the very Title of the book Anno 1605. in the name of Maldonate 
M. Parson's dissolute and vast rashness and ignorance  is this: A brief Sum, containing most difficult Questions of Cases of conscience, necessary for every Priest, when he heareth confessions. Which book was set forth Permissu Superiorum, that is, By permission of the Superiors. Secondly, in the Epistle Dedicatory the same Maldonate is, by name, commended by the Collector of these cases (a Friar) in these words: When I sought for a man, who had explicated the difficulty of some cases of conscience, I could find none among the most learned, who had performed this better then Maldonate: which argueth that he was to be esteemed a most singular Casuist. Lastly, your own jesuit 
t Tit. joh. Maldonatus.  Ribadineira in his Catalogue of jesuiticall-authors, An. 1608. expressly recounteth among the works of Maldonate, the foresaid Summa Casuum Conscientiae.  
41. Will Mr. Parson's charity give him leave to say that your Friar Martin, and the other Superiors who suffered it to pass, and your jesuit Ribadinèira also were herein Gross deceivers? Then indeed must I confess, that I have been grossly deceived. But seeing that he knew that Maldonate was thus esteemed of by these Romanists, his charity towards 
Observe the little credit which may be given unto new Romish books.  his own friends might have a little assuaged his malice against me, whilst that he chargeth me by the Grossness of other men's deserts. And we may furthermore observe what little credit is to be given unto their Romish books, which come under the name of their Writers, seeing that the books of Jesuits are falsely inscribed. Let us leave titles, and examine the truth of the matter itself.   

M. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
DOth Maldonate say any thing in this sentence, that is not conform to our common doctrine of Equivocation? No truly: for we grant that whosoever doth endeavour by feigning to deceive 
Reckon. pag. 283. 284.  another, doth lie. Insomuch that it agreeth well with the definition of a lie, set down in St. Aug. Mendacium est falsa vocis significatio cum intention 
Lib. de mend. c. 4. & lib. con. mend. ca 12.  fallendi: A lie is a false signification of speech, with intention to deceive: which two clauses of the definition of a lie, I do prove and demonstrate for divers leaves together in the 8. Chapter of my former Treatise, that they cannot agree with the nature of Equivocation, and by consequence that Equivocation is no lie. Not the first clause, a false signisication of speech, which is when the speech doth differ from the meaning and sense.   

The Reviewe.  
42. Lest that Maldonate might seem to make against you, you answer not directly to these words, Although he intent not to signify aliquid praetereà, that is, Something else, which indefinitely signifieth something Else, whatsoever it be. Now apply your last example unto this Rule. If your friend demand of you to lend him some money, which you know that you have in your Chest, yet you are provided to answer, I have it not, meaning, to lend it: This your Azorius called a plain lie, and this is it which Maldonate doth intend, who in this exception against any Reservation, which is only mental, doth imply all, saying, [Although he feign to himself something else.] Let us see whether your second devise will stared you in any stead.   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
NOt the second of intention to deceive: for that the first and principal 
Reck. pag. 284.  intention of him that is forced for some just cause to Equivocate (for otherwise he may not use it,) is to deliver himself from that injury which is offered him, and not to deceive the judge or hearer, though consequently that do follow. And this I prove to be so clear, as that by this are justified all Stratagems in war, which are indeed nothing but Equivocations in fact, that otherwise should be unlawful and sinful.   

The Reveiwe.  
43. What have we to do with Stratagems of war? for only actions (which is when there is no word or promise going before, which may be contradicted by their own actions) 
Stratagems not properly lies.  in themselves, do neither affirm nor deny: We speak of the speech of man, which doth either affirm something, or deny something: and a lie, or truth (we know) doth properly consist in affirmation or negation. Draw nearer to the Question.   

M. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
NOt the second clause (of intention to deceive) contained in S Augustine's 
Reck. pag. 285.  definition of a lie, doth in no case truly enter into Equivocation. For that he which useth lawful Equivocation, hath not his first and principal end to deceive the hearer, but to avoid the hurt, which he is subject unto, if he did not Equivocate; albeit thereby it followeth that the other be deceived, which is without all fault of him which speaketh doubtfully. Which I do demonstrate by many examples out of the Scriptures and Fathers; whereby it is evident that this permission of others to be deceived by our speech, when we do in effect but conceal a truth, is lawful, and used by Saints, yea God himself, and consequently can be no lie.   

The Review.  
44. You shall never be able to prove your Mental Equivocation, which you have described, from Scriptures or Fathers. And here you have no way to avoid the second part of S. Augustine's definition, which is, an Intention to deceive another, but by distinguishing of the intention, as principal, and 
M. Parson's frivolous distinction.  less principal; because his principal end is to avoid hurt, his less principal is to deceive: yet we see that when man doth intend to Equivocate, that he may avoid lying, he doth, for avoiding hurt, intent to deceive. And if this were a good answer, what sin is there almost, which M. Parsons might not justify by this distinction? The thief, whilst he robbeth a man of his money, doth not principally intend to rob, because his principal end is to enrich himself: For if he were not moved by the desire and hope of gain, he would never commit robbery. So likewise he that deceiveth any by lying: As for example, the damnable couple in the 
u Act. 5.  Acts, who lied in denying the just price of their sale of the land before S. Peter. If any should doubt, whether in that speech to lie or to gain something to themselves were their more principal end; it may be easily discerned by this, because they did not seek advantage that they mught lie, but they did lie for their advantage: What can M. Parsons say now? (for I must pose him) Will he answer that by such lying a man doth not lie, because his principal end is not to lie? Then will it follow that a man lieth not, when he lieth. Or did he lie notwithstanding that his less principal end was to lie, or deceive? Then doth not his distinction help you, for freeing his mental Equivocation from a lie. As yet Maldonate is against him, and this M. Parsons saw in his Mitigation, otherwise why did he skip over this place, where it was particularly objected against him.   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning, in charging his Adversary.  
HOw did I willingly pretermit to answer him, when as he said 
Reckon. pag. 285. 286.  nothing against me, but with me, and for me, as I do show by divers distinct numbers, citing him also numb 75. pag. 399. and this very place here quoted by Mr Morton, together with another of Toletus to the same effect? What meaneth, I say, Mr. Morton to deal so unsincerely in such sort as every child may see his fraud? And if any man will doubt, whether Maldonate did defend Equivocation in such cases as we do, wherein somewhat is reserved in the mind of the speaker, more than is specified in the words, let him read him in his Commentaries upon the Gospels, in the places that contain such reservations.   

The Reveiwe.  
45. I have dealt most sincerely: for that, which I charged you with, was only the above cited testimony of Maldonate, which you (as I said, and you cannot deny) did pretermit, as a timorous weakling doth willingly pass by his overmatch: yet now to scrape some acquaintance with him, leaving his positive rule, you are glad to seek into his Explications of Scriptures, wherein you may see for your purpose; what? even the man in the moon. But of this hereafter.     

CHAP. XIIII.  
Containing those objected untruths, whereof I cleared myself in the Preamble; which M. Parsons doth examine again, and call into his new Reckoning. First, in the testimony of Polydore.  

SECT. I.  

My former discharge.  
1. I Made bold to cite Polydore, to show that Popes of later times had their names changed by Antiphrasis, that is, a contrariety, as being uncivil to be called Vrbanus, etc. Upon this M. Parsons grew very violent, saying, The Minister hath neither simplicity nor truth, but a 
a Mitigat. Epist. dedic. n. 18.19  lost conscience, by calumniations fraught with deceitfulness and malice, laying this observation upon Polydore, and citing no place.   

The Charge against M. Parsons.  
2. Since that I 
b Preamb. p. 90. Excellent fraud in abuse of their own Authors See a little after. num. 5.  have both cited the direct words, and alleged the place, which his fellows have put out of their new Editions, and yet since hath M. Parsons 〈◊〉 charged me with not citing of that, which, lest it should be cited, they themselves have blotted out of the book: and now he reckoneth both for the Author, and for the testimony itself.   

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

The Reviewe.  
3. Had you not Polydore by you, M. Parsons? we shall try ths by your answer in your Mitigation. 
c Mitigat. Epist. Dedicat. num. 18. &. 19  Let the judicious Readeriudge (say you) whether the Author thereof be a Minister of simple truth; Polydore saith only that sometime Popes, as other Princes, have had names, which have been different and contrary to their nature. Is this the tenure of an answerer, who saw not Polydore; to say that Polydore saith only, etc. But it may be M. Parsons, although he cannot free himself from fraud, will escape the guilt of a lie by Equivocation, saying that he saw not Polydore, meaning, with his heels: otherwise to charge me with so infamous a falsehood, in alleging Polydore, when as yet he himself had not Polydore by him; doth in effect tell us that M. Parsons, in answering, is sometime by himself. What further concerning the book.   

Mr. PARSON'S Reckoning.  
ALbeit the words, which he saith he hath cited out of Polydor. de 
Reck. pag. 296. 197.  Jnuent. lib. 4. cap. 10. be not in any of our books now commonly extant, yet he saith that they are in the Edition of Basil An. 1570. and that two years after by Pope pius Quintus the Index Expurgatorius did put out these words: but he telleth not what Index it was, for I have one containing both the Flemish and Spanish Index, Printed at Basil An. 1544. wherein this observation is not found, which M. Morton saith was Printed Anno 1570. which was 26. years after. Whereof must needs be inferred, that either M. Morton dealeth not sincerely with us in this matter (which yet I will not be so unfreindly as to suspect) or that his Edition of 1570. (which hitherto I cannot see) hath received this addition about the Pope's changing of their names after the foresaid Edition of 1544.   

The Reveiwe.  
4. Can M. Parsons possibly not suppose me to be insincere in this point, who hath challenged me for so egregious a falsificator in so many passages? either is he more credulous than he ought to be, or else am I more credible than he hath deciphered me to be. Howsoever, I have little reason to credit any of his Reckonings: and even in this very place he is intolerable, for the books of Polydore which have not that sentence in them have (as he knoweth) been much purged; as their own book, which is entitled, Index librorum prohibitorum, that is, The Catalogue of books which have been prohibited, doth expressly show, telling us that, 
d Index libror. prohibit. Tit. Polydor. Virg.  The book of Polydore, De Inuentoribus Rerum, is permitted, which was purged by the command of Pope Greg. 13. in the year 1576. How could he then but suspect, that such a sentence as this was blotted out?  
5. Again, I cited in the margin the Index Belgicus, which was printed Lugduni An. 1586. (( pag. 195.) wherein these words, Extraà iocum, etc. and nine lines following are commanded to be blotted out. Which every one that will may find in the ancient books of Polydore, and yet (as M. Parsons confesseth) is not in your new Editions: which showeth that their new devise of purging of books hath licenced them to belie the old.   

M. PARSON'S charging his Adversary.  
But let us hear the words themselves, which M. Morton setteth 
Reck. pag. 297.  down as found in his Tolydore: Primus honos, etc. This is the first honour given to the Bishop of Rome after his creation (saith he) that if his name be not fair, he may change the same: as for example (which yet be not spoken but in jest) if before perhaps he had been an evil doer, he may be called Bonifacius, that is a good doer; if he had been fearful, then may he be called Leo, a Lion; if rustical, then Vrbanus, or civil, etc. and the first Author or beginner of this custom is said to have been Pope Sergius 2. whose name having been before Os porci, which signifieth the mouth of an hog, it was permitted unto him (saith the supposed Polydore) for the avoiding the obseenitie of his former name, to change the same. These two things, that the first occasion of changing names should have been from Pope Sergius 2. hath no substance at all, Platina delivereth it upon report, 〈◊〉 confuteth it. Besides it is to be noted that Os porci is a surname of a family, which no Pope is wont to change, but only his Christian or proper name, as of late when Hippolytus Aldobrandinus was called Clemens 8. he changed not the name of Aldobrandinus, but of Hippolytus.   

The Reviewe.  
6. Well, I am content to leave your Authors in their conflict. Can you show us a reason, why he that will change his 
Pope's change their Christian names.  Christian name, will not also change his natural name or surname? Saul jewish was changed into Paul Christian; Peter never left his name which Christ gave him. Now for the Pope to reject his name which he received in Baptism as a token of his Christendom, this seemeth to be a profane mystery.   

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

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

SECT. II.  

His second charge against his Adversary, about the pope that was choked with a fly.  
THe 
e Preamb. p. 91. 8.  mistaking of the name of the Emperor Henry 2. in stead of Frederick 1. who was excommunicated by Pope Adrian; which M. Parsons will have to proceed from maliciousness.   

My discharge.  
9 The only question was whether Pope Adrian, who excommunicated the Emperor, was choked with a fly, or no, this was the main; but whether he excommunicated H. or F. is but on the by, in respect of the scope of our dispute. Cardinal 
f Bellar. in his Correctorio. pag. 170. & pag. 192.  Bellarmine erred often, in citing of Authors, and hath lately corrected those escapes, as alleging Ambrose, in stead of Augustine; Cyprian in stead of Cyril; Innocentius in stead of Clemens; and in such like errors their Gratian doth superabound: And yet may we not judge so uncharitably, as to impute these faults unto perfidiousness.   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
IF Mr. Morton had not seen, nor read Nauclerus (as he saith) how 
Reck. cap. 5. §. 2 pag. 308.  did he presume to set down his Latin words so precisely, as his Reader could have no probable cause to doubt, but that they were his own proper words? Was not this crafty perfidiousd aling? This answer of Mr. Morton doth more entangle him in falsehood.   

The Review.  
10. Did ever sober man make such a question? how can one set down precisely the words of an Author, which he himself hath not read? Any child can answer, that this may easily be 
Fond cavillations.  done, by reciting the sentence out of a writer, who hath collected it out of the Author himself, which is usual in all that write. If I should ask M. Parsons this, did you never deliver any testimony from an other man's writing, which was true? he would say that this is but a fond question, and yet it is cozen german to his own, nor is it much unlike unto his next taxation for setting down, out of Nauclerus, Many Italian writers, in stead of, so many Italian writers as he could see; as though all the writers which Nauclerus could see; were more than many.   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
So to conclude this Account, etc.   

The Reviewe, showing how M Parsons hath slipped over a piece of a former Charge, wherein he was accused of an evident falsehood.  
11. I do not marvel why M. Parsons maketh so great haste to conclude, before he have satisfied the Reckoning; leaving a piece of debt on the score seeing that he had just nothing to pay. For as he cannot but remember that he said that 
g Mitigat. cap. 2. pag. 79.  Nauclerus rejecteth this story as false, and confuteth it by all Writers, especially of Italy: so may he not forget what 
h Preamb p. 93. in sine.  I answered him from Nauclerus his own words, viz. that he doth not reject it as false, but was brought by differences of story of Adrians' fly, to doubt whether side rather to choose or believe. Thus was M. Parsons his censure of Nauclerus 
His fraudulent concealment of his falsehood  his judgement, confuted out of the words of Nauclerus himself. This his fraud he passed over without mention: belike he either esteemeth of so petty a fraud, as of a fly, and therefore neglected it; or else he feared that if he should mention it, it would prove like Pope Adrians' fly, to choke him, because he was not able to swallow it down.    

SECT. III.  

The disastrous ends of some Popes.  
12. Example's hereof I 
i Preamb. p. 94.  related out of Vrspergensis: among others, the example of Pope Anastasius, reported by your own Doctors (said I) to have been struck with the hand of God, and so to have perished. Citing for witnesses Platina, Supplementum Chron. Liber Pontificalis, and Turrecremata. M. Parsons readily swalloweth all the first three Camels, and straineth a Gnat, to wit, the testimony of thelast author Turrecremata.   

M. PARSONS his Reckoning, and Charge against his Adversary.  
IT followeth in your Narration out of some of our Doctors as you 
Reck. pag. 313.  say; Bene legitur Anastasium Divino nutu percussum interijsse It is read that Anastasius the Pope was strooken with the hand of God and perished: you cite for it joh. de Turrecrem. lib. de summa Eccles. de Anast asio. Which citation is so set down, as I persuade myself that in his next reply he will have this evasion, to say that he saw not the work himself: for there are four books of Turrecrem. de summa Ecclesiae, and one only hath more than an hundred Chapters, yet doth Mr. Morton neither specify Book nor Chapter; which always, you must imagine hath some mystery. Turrecremata lib. 2. Summae Eccles. cap. 103. spoke only by way of answering certain objections of them that brought in the example of Anastasius, etc.   

The Reveiwe.  
13. My Reader will be so indifferent as to observe the place and words of Turrecremata lib. 2. Eccles. cap. 103. Item nec facit ad propositum, etc. Neither (saith he) doth it make any thing for the purpose, which some adversaries say of Anastasius (out of the Cap. Anastasius, Dist. 19 & in Glossa) because although we read there that some honest men departed from Anastasius, for that he had communicated with Photius and Acatius, yet do we not read that he was condemned by the whole Church; but, Benè legitur quòd fuerit divino judicio percussus, & ità à Deo depositus, that is: It is well said that he was struck with God's judgement, and so deposed by God; meaning, by a sudden death, accordingly as it is in the Gloss, whereunto he hath relation. Which is not spoken by Turrecremata as we see, only by way of answering an objection as M. Parsons pretendeth, but very asseverantly: And therefore our Reader may discern in M. Parsons a mystery, and the iniquity 
M. Parsons his admirable craft and falsehood.  and falsehood thereof. So little cause had I to conceal the right Chapter, which M. Parsons (lest the truth might be acknowledged) did, asit may seem, wittingly overpass, only that he might guilfully latch me within the suspicion of fraud and deceit.   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
I Must advertise the Reader, that the whole current of other Writers 
Reck. pag. 314.  do deny this matter about the inclination of Pope Anastusius to recall Acatius, affirming that the said Acatius was dead divers years before Anastasius was Pope, as do 〈◊〉 Niceph. Calixtus, Euagrius, Anastasius Bibliothecari is Liberatus, Gelasius, and others: all which, or most are named in the first part of the Decree of Gratian, which is cited also by M. Morton, and so if he looked upon it, he abuseth us greatly in dissembling the matter: and if he did not, why doth he eyre it?   

The Review.  
14. And I do earnestly entreat our Reader to mark M. Parson's Advertisement, and he will perhaps wonder at his importunate desire, to have the witness of Gratian produced; for thus we read in Gratian, Dist. 19 Cap. Anastasius: Anastasius the second, a Roman by birth, lived (saith he) in the days of 
M. Parson's lavish untruth.  K. Theodoricus, at what time many of the Clergy separated themselves from his Communion, because he without a Council of Bishops and Priests, and Clergy of the Catholic Church did communicate with Photius, who had communicated with Acatius; and because he meant secretly to call back Acatius, he was strucken with the hand of God. That is (saith the Gloss) whilst he rid on an Ass, his bowels burst out, and he ignominiously fell down. Had you any reason to ask why I pretermitted these testimonies? And yet furthermore where it is objected, that Acatius was dead before Anastasius was Pope, this is answered in the Gloss upon the Chap. going before, beginning thus: Secundum, etc. He (namely Anastasius) would call again Acatius after he was dead, that prayers might be made fir him in the Church. By this time you see the unluckiness of your importunity, requiring an Answer to that which was answered by your own Gloss about the same place of Gratian. Which if you saw, then have you (to use your own words) abused your Reader greatly in dissembling the matter. If you saw it not, then Why did you cite the book which preventeth your Answer, and causeth you to repent of your rash imputation of dissemblance?  
15. Again, Other examples of like nature were 
k Preamb p. 94.  cited, as that of Pope john 10. who, by the practice of an infamous and lewd woman, was thrust into Peter's chair, and afterward by the unchaste daughter Theodora choked with a Pillow: and of john 12. who when he was in dalliance with another man's Wife, was strucken in the temples of his head by a Devil: and of Pope Urbane, by a nickname called Turban, who (saith Urspergensis) rebelled against the Emperor, troubled the Church, and was struck by the hand of God.  
These cytations have been right, and your answer is by opposing other Historians, who commended these Pope's lives, unto Historians, who condemned them; and all is to teach your Reader to dance in a round.    

SECT. III.  

The third Objection, concerning the testimony of Boucher.  
16. COncerning 
l Preamb. pa. 95.  Boucher a Romish Doctor, who held it lawful for a private man to kill a Tyrant in the case of public enmity, either against the Church, or the Commonwealth, which I judged to be a rebellious position, I must now answer according to my charge.   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning, and charge against his Adversary.  
But it is granted by Doctor Boucher (saith M. Morton) that when the 
Reckon. cap. 5. § 3. pag. 321. 322.  Commonwealth hath condemned and declared any Tyrant for a public enemy, he may be slain by a private man. Whereunto I answer, that then he is no private man, for that he doth it by a public authority of the Commonwealth, as doth the executioner that cutteth off a Nobleman's head, by order and authority of the public Magistrate: so as in this M. Mortons' distinction serveth him to no purpose, for that neither for private, or public injuries can a private man, as a private man, that is to say, by private authority kill any Prince, though he were a Tyrant, for any cause either private or public whatsoever So as in this principal charge M. Morton remaineth wholly convicted, as you see.   

The Reveiwe.  
17. Boucher calleth him a private man: Take the case as M. Parsons hath propounded it, that a private man, after the public sentence of the Commonwealth, is no private man, but a public and just executioner: by the same rule he must imply, that when the Pope (whom they make Supreme in such cases) hath excommunicated a King, and commanded Arms against him, than every man may use Marshal-law, and justly murder that King. What is this but to put into the hands of men dags, and knives, and poisons for execution of their hateful designs? But we return unto Doctor Bouchier. 
m Lib. 3. de abdicat. Hen. 3. c. 16 pag. 267.  The case may be so urgent (saith he) that the public judgement need not be expected, because where the crime is notorious, it is sufficiently condemned without further judgement. And he bringeth in the place of Deut. 13. Thou shalt presently slay them, even before the public judgement of the Church published. By this I convince M. Parsons of notorious falsehood, 
M. Parson's notorious falsehood.  who defended that Boucher did not allow the kill of any King, but after the public judgement of the Commonwealth. Here we see a case, wherein jack Straw and Wat Tyler, and every Rascal is armed for this purpose: even before public judgement. The answer which M. Parsons will give us in this his Sober Reckoning, is worth our attention.   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
DOctor Bouchier in his fourth book hath a whole Chapter to 
Reck. pag 322.  prove that in some urgent cause the matter may be prevented, as when the thing is so notorious, instant and perilous, as the said public judgement cannot be expected: then for subjects to use poená privativa, to withdraw their obedience, and only to defend themselves; and not positiuá, that is, the positive punishment of actual Rebellion, or 〈◊〉 offensive: So as considering what here is in the Question, he (that is, T. M.) must needs be condemned of a Nihil dicit, or a falsum dicit.   

The Reveiwe.  
18. jucundè dictum, & iocularitèr. M. Parsons is a jolly but yet a juggling fellow: for although D. 
n Bouchier de justa abdic. l. 4. c. 2.  Bouchier doth use the distinction of privative and positive punishment, yet in the 
o Ibid. c. 3. p. 354  next Chapter he showeth that The judgement of the Church may be prevented, by the notoriousness of the crime: but how prevented? 
M. Parson's excusable falsehood.  by only a privative punishment, or only by arms, for defence? No, he is not contented with a Buckler of defence, but he putteth a sword in men's hands for to kill even before judgement, saying that they are taught out of Deut. 13. Statim interficere, Presently to kill; adding the examples of Phinoes' killing the Israelite, Num. 25. and of Mattathias killing the King's Captains, 1. Machab. 2. Next he seeketh to establish the Act of killing by a Canon, That he who falleth into a crime, which is condemned by the Canon, may without further judgement be held condemned by the sentence of the Canon. Thus far of the proceeding by Ecclesiastical censure.  
19 In the 
p Cap. 4. p. 358.  fourth Chapter he entereth the same question concerning execution before public judgement. Shall we think (saith he) that secular men in their proceedings in judgement ought to be more religious, or cautelous, than the Ecclesiastical, as that they ought to expect that public judgement (as Politicians teach) before that they may set upon a Tyrant by arms? Immediately to prove that they ought not to expect any public judgement, he saith that in such a case If public judgement may not be had, the safet ie of the Commonwealth is to be sought by other means whatsoever, even as against an armed thief. And if any, whom he calleth Tyrants, shall happen to be slain in such insurrections, Who (saith he) will deny, but they are justly slain? In the fifth Chapter he giveth an instance in Henr. 3. King of France, who was murdered by jacob Clement a Friar: which fact Bouchier in the cap. 23. of the same book doth highly commend as meritorious. Is here M. Parsons, either falsum or nihil? Is it nothing to arm Subjects against Kings, before public judgement? Is it nothing so to arm them, as, if they kill such Kings, to hold the fact lawful and meritorious? If there had been any tincture of truth in you, you could not have objected falsity unto me against so many and so plain instances and examples.  
20. I call them plain, because Bouchier is challenged by your own Doctor Barclaius, even for the same matter: 
q Barcl. l. 5. contra Monarchom c. 6. p 361.  Thou teachest (saith Barclay unto Bouchier) there, that it is lawful to kill Henry the third, King of France. It had been therefore safer for M. Parsons his conscience, to have answered Nihil, then to have answered Falsum, that he is convicted by the judgement of their own Barclay: which is likewise the censure of their own Priest in the 
r Quodl. p. 296.  Quodlibets, saying, that In the Treatises de tusta Abdic. Henr. 3. they affirm that it is lawful to kill a Tyram, for so they termed that King, although there be neither sentence of Church, nor Kingdom against him. The case thus standing, we may think that Mr. Parsons his guiltiness concerning the matter, did drive his pen awry to wrangle 〈◊〉 about words.   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
THe adding these words (which I say by common consent) is an accessary 
Reck. pag. 323.  untruth, for excuse whereof he runneth to other Chapters, wherein he saith that Bouchier avoucheth, Mirum esse in affirmando consensum, that there is a wonderful consent in allowing this doctrine. But these are other matters upon other occasions, etc.   

The Review.  
21. If this was spoken of other matters, which were impertinent, why did you not name them? I suspect you have found some reason: for, indeed, in his third book and cap. 15. his position is this, viz. That it is lawful to kill a Tyrant; which (saith he) it is marvelous what a great consent it hath not only of profane, but even of our own Authors. Which is the very ground and basis of all his former conclusions. And could you, M. Parsons, with any truth, signify that this was upon other impertinent matters?    

SECT. FOUR  

The fourth testimony of M. Raynolds.  
22. THe testimony of M. Raynolds, and the censure thereof M. Parsons calleth again into question so rigidly and scornfully, as if both his wit and malice had conspired together, by virulency and scurrility, to make the matter incomparably odious; telling us that at the hearing of the word Suggestion 
a Reckon. cap. 5. §. 4. pag. 326.  he imagined, and that (as he saith) truly, that I would have confessed the Devil to have been my Suggester: wherein the jovial and jocular old man meant only to make himself and his Reader sport, and intended in this play, as it 
M. Parson's unseemly scurrility.  were, not to be without a Devil and a vice; the first only to be imagined, but the other to be acted by himself, and all this to provoke unto laughter. But the Greek Proverb, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is, The old-wife danceth, is verified in him: for our Reader may easily perceive how little this first part of M. Parsons his play doth become him, if he shall but consider how Pope Alexander the third, 
b Decret. l 1. de Rescript. Tit. 3. cap. 5. Prauâ insinuatione suggestum, etc.  acknowledged himself to be subject to wrong Suggestions and Informations: And that their own secular 
c Import. Consider. pag. 8.  Priests have no other way, to excuse the violent proceeding of their Pope Pius Quintus against the Q. of England, then by telling us that he was stirred up by wrong Suggestions. Would it now become M. Parsons, who is a Romish Priest, by the strength of his imagination to think and that Truly (as he saith) that these Popes would confess hereupon, that they received sometimes their intelligences, Insinuations and Suggestions from the Devil? Or would not any Priest at the first hearing of this asseveration of M. Parson's saying, Truly, etc. acknowledge that in this first word he had committed a Truly?  
23. Afterwards he himself offereth (by I know not what suggestion) to spell two dumb Characters, bewraying thereby his personal malice; especially considering that the common letters in themselves might as easily represent Robert Cowbucke, as any other, in the which name M. Parsons himself was presented to Pope Clement the eighth, by the 
d P. Robertus Personus, alias Cowbuccus, jesuita praecipuus etc. Declarat. motuum & perturb. inter. jesuitas & Sacerdotes. pag 23.  Declaration of more than twenty Priests: Yet after his trifling hereabout he cometh to debate the matter itself.   

Mr. PARSON'S Reckoning.  
Hear, Ipray you, his last shift: Though not the place alleged (saith 
Reckon. pag. 331. & 332.  he) yet the scope of M. Rainolds his whole book doth convince him of rebellious doctrine, as will more plainly appear in the Encounter. Mark now whither he is fled. He confesseth that in the place alleged by Mr. Raynolds (whereabout only stands our Controversy) his drift was not to abase, but to exalt Prince's authority, and confequently he must grant that he abused him in that crimination. But he saith that the scope of his book is otherwise, which he deferreth to prove, until he make his larger Encounter, which I suppose, will require a large time.   

The Reviewe.  
24. I rather suppose that you will think this Encounter came too soon, when you shall perceive how you are charged hereby with manifold abuses, both of loose lying, and also of close and injurious dissembling, of which kind you have given us a present example. For whereas (in my 
e Pag. 102.  Preamble) I added a reason, why M. Raynolds might have been presumed to have Abased the State of Kings, to wit, because in his Chapternext following he teacheth, that Subjects may depose them; and albeit Saint Peter taught Subjection unto Nero a pagan and Savage Tyrant, yet M. Raynolds holding it to be naturam generosiorem, that is, a more generous and noble disposition to kill Tyrants, among whom he reckoned K. Henry the eight: I hereupon inferred, that the scope of M. Raynolds his book was to profess a doctrine rebellious: notwithstanding all which, M. Parsons conveyeth the matter, 
M Parsons exceeding craft and deceit.  so cunningly and craftily, as though I had deferred all proof until a Large Encounter should come forth. Therefore I may more than imagine, that this his Dissimulation was suggested unto him by no good spirit.  
25. Thus much of my Accuser, for now I enter upon the Accusation itself, by performance of a more perfect discharge: to which purpose I shall desire Mr. Parsons, that we may both betake ourselves unto our second thoughts, to consider more exactly the doctrine of Mr. Raynolds; so we shall discern the censure which was given upon that Author, how that notwithstanding his commendation of secular government, he meant to abase the authority which is due unto a King, as may be evidently evinced by just proofs. I shall but only desire M. Parsons to understand my Answer, and then he shall need to require no more for this piece of his Reckoning.   

A proof of M. Raynolds his abasement of the Royalty of Kings, both out of his own doctrine, and out of the confessions of his own Doctors.  
26. M. Raynolds his doctrine, in that place alleged, is plainly this: that in choosing any State of Government, whether it be 
f Reynolds in Rossaeo, p. 18.  Monarchical, or Aristocratical, or democratical; The consent of all people is the voice of nature: and that every such Election, by the consent of the people, is Approved by God; for although terren principality (saith he) be called by the Apostle (1. Pet. 2.) An human creature, because it is conferred upon certain persons, by the suffrages & voices of the people; notwithstanding because that same election of Princes doth issue from nature, which God hath created, and from reason which is infused into man, therefore doth another Apostle plainly pronounce, saying (Rom. 13.) That there is no power but from God, and that he that resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God.  
27. This is the sentence which in outward show (as I confessed) doth establish the dignity of Kings: but when we expound M. Raynolds by himself, he will appear not to have intended their due advancement: for in the very same Chapter he 
g Pag. 10. M. Raynolds sentence of detraction from Regal authority.  saith; when the People have created a King, the Majesty of the King doth depend upon the will of the Commonwealth, which ordained him: Insomuch as that 
h Pag. 85.  They may depose their Kings: and for example he produceth 
i Pag. 539.  Henry of Navarre, the now King of France, whom whilst he was a Protestant M. Raynolds held to be an Heretic, and worthy to be Excommunicated by the Pope; and consequently to be Deposed by the French Catholics. Do we not now see 
The Evidence.  plainly what kind of Creature M. Raynolds his King must be, viz. such an one who shall not have predominant power absolutely in himself, but dependantly of the people, by whom he may be created, and uncreated, as if the power were formally still in the people, and but only instrumentally in the King. Can any deny but such a King fancied by M. Rainolds is but a slavish creature; and that in his pretence of commending the power of a King he intended closely to diminish and depress his authority?  
28. Lest perhaps any may doubt of this collection, I shall 
A confirmation from their own Doctors.  in the next place corroborate it by the ingenuous and evident confession of their own Doctors; their Doctor 
k 〈◊〉 cont. Monarch. lib 3. cap. 3.  Barclay (writing against these kind of positions, and (as 
l The Author of the Book entitled, verisimilia Theologica, juridica, etc. pag. 155.  one observeth) against this their Rossaeus, alias Reinolds, hath bestowed a whole book upon this argument, proving especially that 
m Barcla. quo supra.  A King, although he be constituted by the people, yet being once constituted, he hath afterwards power to rule the people, and not to be subject unto them. 
n Jbid. lib. 4.  Who (saith Barclaius) although he be unworthy of his Kingdom, in respect of the Majesty of God, upon whom the Kingdom doth depend; yet in respect of the subjects he is always superior, as long as he is a King. And again he else where addeth that 
* Lib. 4. cap. 4.  Kings, who are lawfully constituted, albeit they fall to be cruel, yet are they above all laws and judgements of man, and cannot be hurt of any, without public miury and treason. And answering unto this argument of Boucher (which is the same which Master Reinolds urgeth) to wit; The Commonwealth, which is the same as the people, (which made the King) is superior to the King, and the public authority doth remain in them. This reason (saith he) I have proved many ways in many places to be lying and false. His principal argument, to confute it, is that which their own Marsilius hath lately urged against Bellarmine: 
o Marsil defence. cont. Bellarm. pag. 212.  If (saith he) there remain a power in the people to depose Princes, than Princes are no Princes, but subjects. Now let M. Parsons gather his five wits into one Senate, and answer, whether this confession do not plainly discover, that the intendiment of M. Reinolds was to make a King a Subject, which is as sensible an abasement of a King, as can be imagined.  
29. Although this may suffice both to repress M. Parsons his insolency, who insulteth so deformedly upon the former allegation, and also to reprove my negligence, who deferred this Answer and Discharge, until the publishing of this Encounter, yet will I not forbear to enlarge myself in this argument, and by a further answer unto his next objection, to evince the foresaid vile estimate, which M. Reinolds had concerning the State of Kings and all Temporal Estates.   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
But what saith he for his (own) defence? Upon this presumption, 
Reck. pag. 328.  if true (saith he) that Mr. Reinolds had spoken this to the debasement of Kings, it could be no falsehood in me to add the particle [but,] especially being acquainted with the doctrine of Cardinal Bellarmine, who that he might disable the authority of a King, in comparison of the dignity of a Pope, doth defend that Kings being chosen by men, are not immediately created by God: and yet the Pope, being elected by Cardinals, bathe his authority immediately from God. 
* Reck. pag. 329.  Whereunto I answer, that well he might say so, for that Christ both God and Man did institute in particular and immediarely the supreme authority of S. Peter, and his Successors, when he gave to him, and by him to them the keys of heaven: but he instituted not the authority of Kings immediately, but left by each people to be governed by what sort of government they liked best, albeit where that form of government, or of any other (as of Dukes, Commonwealths, or the like) was once lawfully introduced, he commanded due obedience to be performed thereunto. And although the Popes be chosen by Cardinals, who are men, yet is not their office, power, or authority chosen by, or appointed by those men, as in Kings, but immediately is of God, so as this hole will not serve M. Mortons' turn for his excuse.   

The Review.  
30. I say with our Saviour Christ that the Foxes have holes, and so hath M. Parsons, 
p Mitigat. p. 403.  who hath taken an example from the instinct of nature in the Fox, for justifying his Mental Equivocation; whose difference between the Popes and Prince's authority from God, by Bellarmine his distinction of mediately and immediately, hath been proved of late by their 
M. Parsons and Bellarmine's sophistry.  own Marsilius to be a mere sophistical fallacy, and indeed no better than a Fox-hole, into which they do creep, who seek by such a distinction, to diminish the Regal power, in respect of the Papal. I shall need only to collect the sum of the confutation, because I presume, our Reader will not like too long Reckoning. 
q Marsil. 〈◊〉 cont. Bellar. c. 3. pag. 201.  Navarrus, a most sound Catholic (saith Marsilius) holdeth that the power Laique is immediately from God, infusing in people a natural instinct to have a government: And of governments established, The Apostle 
Power of a King immediately from God.  S. Paul saith (Rom. 13.) that the powers which be, are of God. Seeing also that the lay Prince can make laws, which do bind his subjects consciences to observe them, therefore is their authority not of man, but of God; whereupon the Apostle. addeth, [He that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God;] and although the manner of obtaining a Kingdom be from man, (This proveth M. Rainolds contrary estimate of a 
A necessary distinction between Title and Power.  King to have been but base) yet the authority and power is immediately from God. A similitude whereof we have in the generation of every man, for although it be necessary that the bodily Organs, instruments, and other natural dispositions be first perfected, before the soul is infused, yet will not any therefore deny, that God doth immediately infuse the reasonable soul of a man into his body. As for his illustrious Lordship (meaning Cardinal Bellarmine:) he erreth, first by not distinguishing between 
Bellarmine confuted by Marfilius.  the Title of authority, and the authority itself, (An evident conviction both of Bellarmine and M. Rainolds.) For the title unto an authority is not without the means of man, but the authority itself is immediately from God, as hath been expressed by the former similitude. Secondly, he erreth in saying that all, which dwellwithin the Prince's territories, are not immediately from God Subjects unto him, and yet all Christians are immediately subject unto the Pope; for as the Prince is not a Prince without either right of his birth, or by election, etc. So the Pope is not Pope but by the election of Cardinals. Thirdly, he erreth in saying that when the Prince dieth, the authority remaineth in the commonwealth; especially, where as the succession is by election; but when the Pope dieth the power Papal remaineth not in the Cardinals, who are to make an election, nor in the Church; But the Doctors of the famous College of the Sorbonists in Paris do defend the contrary. Fourthly, he erreth in making this difference between Prince and Pope, to wit, that the Title of the Prince is but mediately, and the Title of the Pope is immediately from God; if by the Title, he understand the manner of obtaining the authority, he erreth: for both the manner of the one, and of the other are equally human, neither will the Conclavists themselves suffer me to be convinced of a lie in this point. Thus far their own Marsilius.  
31. As for Bellarmine his imagination, who thinketh that in the vacancy of the See of Rome, by the death of the Pope, the keys or supreme authority, is neither in the Council, nor in the Cardinals, but in the hands of Christ, it is no better than a dream, wherein he saw the keys, as it were, flying up into heaven. For when the See was often void of a Pope (as their Historians record) the space of three or four years, and sometime also for 
r Card. Cusan. Concord. Cathol. lib. 3. c. 41. Post Marcellinum Papatum vacâsse septem annis.  Seven, or 
s Sunt qui scribunt, post mortem Nicolai primi Sedem vacâsse annis octo mensibus septem. Platina in vita Nicolai primi.  Eight years together, as some have thought, dare any Romanists conceit, that their Church was all that while destitute of the keys of spiritual jurisdiction?  
32. Finally, because M. Parsons playeth the flesh-fly, delighting himself with sucking of but seeming corruptions, I must direct him unto the examples of his own friends above mentioned, to wit, Suarez, Bellarmine, Baronius, Boucher, Gratian, etc. in whom their own Doctors have spied divers ulcerous putrefactions of true and notorious falsifications, by 
* See above. cap. 1.  alleging authors flat contrary to their meanings; with which loathsome matters his corrupt appetite may satiate itself. One example of this kind, offereth itself out of Bellarmine, which I may not let pass: whom P. Paulus hath confuted for abusing a sentence of Gerson, by so inverting the sense thereof, as 
t P. Paulus Apolog. pro Gersone cont. Bellar. pag. 569. Bellarmine's apparent & confessed falsehood  that which Gerson said in favour of the authority of the Roman See, the Author (meaning Bellarmine) changing the words, doth interpret as spoken in contempt. Is this to dispute, (saith P. Paulus) or to deceive? I know not what the Author, (to wit, Bellarmine,) can answer. And when M. Parsons hath considered this, let him tell us in good earnest whether he will stand unto his own 
u Reck. pag. 328.  Rule of Penance, against any one who shall be found guilty of so notorious a falsehood, that he never be trusted hereafter? I forbear to mention his own falsifications, because he exacteth an example of any one, who hath the degree of Prelacy in their Church.    

SECT. V.  

The fifth charge: concerning the testimony out of Gratian, for paying of debts.  
33. TO show that, by their doctrine, they will plead freedom from paying of debts unto such persons, whom they shall excommunicate, the Gloss of a Canon was alleged by R. S. and mistaken; but yet only in part, for their jesuit Tolet 
a Preamb. p. 105  expoundeth that Canon, and an other of nonpayment of debts, which are made by promise. And now M. Parsons beginneth to play his prizes, and to have about with two at once.   

M. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
WE may see how poor men in substance our Ministers are, who 
Reck. pag. 335.  double thus.   

The Reveiwe.  
34. Hath R. S. mistaken this one place? and hath never any Romish Priest been found so culpable, as to mistake an objection for the resolution? We 
b See above. Cap. 1.  have heard the complaint, which their own Doctor Cumel made against certain Romish writers, such as were the jesuit Suarez, and others, saying, 
Romists overtaken in the guilt, which they impute to others.  I am grieved to see how falsely they allege Driedo, urging that, which he spoke by way of argumentation, or objection, for his own judgement. And M. Parsons himself, who is the accuser, must necessarily run upon his own blade of reproach, who 
c See above. Cap. 12. §. 8.  called an Interrogation, made for the more sensible introduction of the matter, a crafty and hypocritical silence and dissimulation.   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
Mr. Stock allegeth the Canon itself, making his Inference thus: 
Reck. p. 339. 340  This is the decree, which in general carricth as much, or more as is set down. 〈◊〉 that he saith, that it carrieth as much in general: but generalities are not sufficient to avouch particulars. This Canon doth prohibit obedience to be exhibited to excommunicate persons, until they do conform themselves: it speaketh nothing of debts; how shall we try it? first by the words themselves, wherein there is no mention at all of debts: and for that cause it is probable that Mr. Stock was ashamed to English them, as M. Morton before to recite them Secondly, by the Commentary, or Gloss, whose words are plain, Licèt excommunicatio tollat obligationem, quoad fidelitatem, non tamen quoad alios contractus: albeit excommunication do take away obligation of fidelity, or subjection towards the person excommunicated, yet not in other contracts: so as if I do owe to an excommunicate person, money, I am bound to pay him. Thus doth the Gloss expound the Canon, and the scabbard doth agree with the sword, and both of them do hurt Mr. Morton, and M. Stock, though never so good fencers in a bad cause.   

The Reveiwe.  
35. Although we two should seem too weak for this M. Parsons, who maketh himself greater than an Hercules: yet it may be we shall overmatch him, when we adjoin unto our small force the help of their own Card. Tolet, who citing these two Canons, to wit, Nos Sanctorum, and Canon juratos saith 
d Tolet. Instruct. Sacerd l. 1. c. 13. §. Sixtus. M. Parsons confuted by their Card. Tollet.  These Canons do proceed concerning debts, yet not debts which are real (meaning, by Bill, or Bond) but debts contracteà by promise. This exposition of their own Cardinal, and sometime jesuit, doth not only ward M. Parsons his blow, but also driveth it to his own pate, by controlling the audaciousness of his answer, wherein he denied that there is signified any nonpayment of debts in this Canon.   

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

The Reviewe.  
36. Well then, their Card. Tolet, and Roman Glossers have held it lawful for men to withhold their debts contracted only by promise (which may pass without witness) from persons excommunicate. But why only these kind of debts made only by promise? Is there, in respect of God, 
The mystery of non payment of debts made by promise.  more justice in a man's letters, then in his words? in his hand, then in his tongue? in his specialties by bills and bonds, then in his obligation by promise? no, but it is rather, as it may seem, because the Creditor hath not so good cuidence before men, to claim his debt by word, as he hath by writing; wherefore the Romish Canon savoureth rather of human craft, then of good conscience; and is far unworthy the title of Nos Sanctorum. But let us proceed.    

SECT. VI  
The sixth charge taken by M. Parsons against R. S. about another Canon.  

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
WE must call him (namely R. S.) back again for citing the 
Reck. pag. 374.  Gloss apud Gratianum, that is, in the Decrees collected by Gratian, which is not there, but in the Decretals of Pope Greg 9 gathered by Raymundus Barcionensis. And the 〈◊〉 of that Gloss was Bernardus de Buttono.   

The Review.  
37. This exception, taken from the difference of Glosses upon the Pope's Decrees, which were gathered by Gratian; and between the Gloss upon the Pope's Decretals, whose Author was Bernardus de Buttono, is not worth a button: seeing the argument, which was used by Mr. S. consisted not upon the authority which the Collectors, or Glossers had in themselves, but from the common approbation, which they received in the Roman Church. The matter, which principally was to be insisted upon, followeth in the next Inquiry.   

An Inquiry by a logical Rack.  
38. Whereas the Canon of killing of Heretics is mentioned among the Pope's Decretals, authorized by Pope Gregory the ninth in my Preamble, I demanded of M. Parsons 
Pope's Canon; of killing of Heretics.  in this manner: 
e Pream. p. 107.  If Romish ones applying this Canon (of niurthering their kindred, etc.) against Protestants, when the Pope shall judicially denounce them Heretics, whether it may be called a Massacre, or no? I have now my Mitigator upon a Logic rack; either he must say, that it is no bloody massacre, but Catholic justice: and then what shall his 
A Dilemma.  Reader think of his Mitigation otherwise then of judas his lips in kissing, and yet betraying his Master? and if he hold it an excerable mischief, then how shall he justify the application of this Canon, when the Pope shall extend it against Protestants? He cannot answer directly, but he must manifest himself either a Traitor to his Country, or a prevaricator to his cause. 
f Pream. p. 108.  Yet consider how zealous P. R. is in authorizing that Canon: to what end can this be, but that Protestants, being in their opinion Heretics, may have all the penalties, which are awarded against Heretics, executed upon them (as Boucher and others defend before or at least (as P. R. holdeth) after denunciation of sentence? And consequently Protestant's may be by these Romish ones, without exception of sexes or kindred, or friendship, as it was by execution in the cruel Massacre in 
g See Thuanus hist. lib. 52.  France, and by intention in the powder-treason, utterly consumed at once. Do not these demands require a plain, full, and satisfiable account? yet now mark, and marvel at his answer.   

M. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
WHereunto I answer, that the demand is foolish, and not 
Reck. pag 349.  worthy the answering at all: for that the like odious demands may be made about the execution of all criminal laws. And it is a token that M. Morton is at a nonplus, when he seeketh to entertain time in these impertinencies.   

The Reveiwe.  
39 At a Nonplus Mr. Parsons? surely if I were not so then, yet may I now be, but never for want of Argument in this case, but by reason of astonishment to see such an Answer as this is, whereby any Reader (who hath any apprehension of a consequence) may see and grope, and sensibly feel the beating of your rebellious pulse. For whereas the book of the Discovery of Romish positions and practices for rebellion, was written only to manifest in how desperate a State all Protestant Kings stood in, whensoever the Romish power might prevail against them: and your Answer hereunto in your book of Mitigation, intended wholly to mitigate the bitterness of the objected positions, and to assuage the jealousy of the State, by pretending a possibility (but yet only a possibility) of a peaceable conversation in this Kingdom. Yet now, where a demand is made, whether it be not the full intendment and resolution of all Romish Professors, to execute your Canon of Killing Heretics upon Protestants, whensoever 
M. Parsons his ungodly silence betrayeth his whole pretence of their loyalty in the States of Protestants.  an expected possibility of effectuating such an exploit, shall be offered: and when hereby being urged and importuned to give us a plain and direct Answer, even as you will be thought not to have justified either the Massacring of Protestants in France; or that late barbarous, or rather Traitorous and hellish Powder-treason in England; yet now we can have no other Answer for our satisfaction, but to say that the Demand is foolish, odious, and impertinent.  
40. This Reckoning is able (I confess) at the first to drive a man unto a nonplus, thorough an amazement to hear so prodigious an Answer: Yet so, that therein he may see sufficient matter (if there were none other argument in all the book) to prove M. Parsons (when he taketh upon him the name of a Mitigator, and Sober Reckoner) to be no better than the deceitful Apothecary, who writ Apium upon a box of Opium: And what is this his concealment else, but a kind of confession, justifying the former book of Discovery; the scope whereof was only this, to prove the Romish doctrine to be a profession of Conspiracy in Protestant Kingdoms?  
41. This matter may be illustrated by a similitude, viz. M. Parsons 
A Similitude.  and some other are to travel together, and their way lieth thorough a desert, much haunted with thieves; the honest man is desirous of M. Parsons his fellowship in that travel, swearing unto him that for his part he will be true unto him, and hazard his life in resisting all violence, that shall be offered against them in the journey, and exacteth of M. Parsons the like promise, saying: Sir, will you swear to be true unto me likewise, or if your heart will not serve you to fight, will you promise not to betray me? and than he should hear M. Parson's answer only by calling that demand odious, foolish and impertinent, might he not justly suspect that he had met with a treacherous companion, and forthwith desire his less Acquaintance?  
42. So likewise the whole Controversy, which M. Parsons and I have taken in hand to debate, is only this, whether the Romanists will by Oath profess so full a league of friendly and Christian conversation with Protestants in their Kingdoms, as to defend each other from foreign invasions, and to appease and suppress to their power, all intestine seditions and rebellions against the public 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 us no better satisfaction, than (as we have heard) to call the Demand odious, foolish and impertinent.  
43. By this time we have a reasonable understanding of M. Parsons his Answer, who hearing us as it were questioning, and demanding of him, saying: Sir, whether will you kill us, if you had us in your power, or no? thought it was not for his purpose to answer no, for than must he condemn their Romish positions and practices, which have sounded out so many alarums of war and bloodshed; neither durst he say yea, for than he must recant his former book of Mitigation, and cancel the sum of this his present Reckoning, which doth make, at least, some semblance of a peaceable conversation; and therefore he thought it a point of wisdom to call it foolish, as though he would teach us to be as wise as doves,, whilst he and his Complices may remain as innocent as Serpents. Here M. Parson's may be served indeed with a Nihil dicit, but such an one, which containeth in it an Omnia dicit, for it is all one as a confession of all the former charges of seditious doctrine, which I have objected against them.  
44. I should pass on to that which followeth, but that I may not deny M. Parsons the due commendation of his wit, who finding himself plunged with the former Demand concerning their real shedding and spilling of blood, doth call this objection impertinent, and presently diverteth his Reader to a verbal and idle contention about the difference of these two phrases Shedding and Spilling (which may be used promiscuously:) as though his question about words were pertinent, and my Demand about deeds were Impertinent.  
45. I added in the 
h Preamb. p. 108.  Preamble that M. Parsons affirmed the aforesaid Canon to have been in the Council of Carthage, where (said I) there is no such thing to be found: and hereupon am called to a further examination.   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
IT is most apparent, and may be invincibly proved against him: for 
Reck. pag. 351.  first the Canon itself beginneth thus: Si quis Episcopus, etc.   

The Review.  
46. Our question was about Shedding of blood, which was objected as out of their Gloss. 
i Preamb p. 106.  This Gloss (said M. Parsons) or Commentary of the Canon law, is upon a Canon beginning, Si quis, etc. which Canon is taken out of the Council of Carthage: where indeed there is mention of Disinheriting of children, 
His extravagancie.  but no word at all concerning Shedding of blood: accordingly as I then intended to prove, as may well appear.    

SECT. VII.  

The seventh Charge.  
47. NOw cometh in the citation of the Extravag. in a general implying the Gloss, whereunto I have 
k Pream. p. 111.  answered that 
l Greg. 13. ad futuram rei memoriam, etc.  Gregory the thirteenth hath ratified the foresaid Gloss and Annotations, with privilege and authority, equivalent and answerable to the authority of the Decretals, and Extravagants themselves. Now followeth the brief of   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
THis is a shameless assertion, to say that the Glosses and Annotations 
Reckon. cap. 5. § 7 pag. 355.  have been equally warranted by Pope Gregory, as are the Constitutions. Pope Greg 13 prefixed an Epistle before the Decretals of Gratian with this title, Ad futuram rei memoriam, wherein he giveth licence to Paulus Constabilis Magister sacri palaty to reviewe the same, and to print it exactly, according to the Roman example. From whence M Morton would infer, that he commanded them to be printed without corruption, therefore he made them equal.   

The Reveiwe.  
48. The former Decree of Greg. 13. standeth thus, concerning Decrees, and Glosses, the Sextum, Clementines, and Extravagants; Which we commend (saith Pope Greg.) unto our beloved son, to be reviewed and allowed: And a little after: Which 
The authority of the Romish Gloss upon the Decrees, and Decretals, etc.  we command to be printed and published that the body of the Canon law may be faithfully and incorruptly printed, according to the Copy which is printed at Rome, for the better help of all faithful Christians whomsoever. In this Constitution here is mention of Decrees, Glosses, Sextum, Clementines, and Extravagants, where we see that Glosses do possess the second place: And was the Pope thus religious to provide for All faithful Christians, lest any of them might possibly be poisoned with a corrupt Text, and would he not have the like care that the Gloss should be perfect, which being false (according to the Proverb) doth corrupt the Text.  
49. In the same Constitution Greg. saith, as followeth: We provide that this body of the law may pass purged, sound, and safe, that it may not be lawful for any man to add any thing, or change it, or join any interpretation unto it: Thereby forbidding only new Interpretations, for the old Glosses and Interpretations do stand still warranted jointly with the Text and body of the Canons. If therefore the Pope thought those Glosses mentioned in the Constitution to be corrupt, why did he authorize them? if he judged them to be perfect, how did he not authorize them? And who can conceive any inequality in the Pope's approbation of these things, seeing that both Decrees and Glosses, etc. are without any note of difference warranted in the same Constitution at the same time, Anno 1580. by the same power of Pope Gregory 13. and to the same end for the help of faithful Christians.  
50. Nevertheless it is an hard thing (I confess) for any man to understand precisely when, and how the thing is plenarily and fully authorized by the Pope's Decree, for in their last Council of 
m Sess. 4.  Trent it was decreed, that there should be One authentical vulgar Edition of the Bible, which none might presume to reject: yet that which was called then [The vulgar Edition] hath since that time been twice diversly corrected: 
The dubious authority of their vulgar Romish Translation of the Bible.  once by Pope Sixtus Quintus, and after by Pope Clement the eight, even with contradictory approbations. Neither seemeth it unto their own jesuits to be so perfect, but that they dare reprehend it: their jesuit 
n Mald. jes. in Matth. 6. 5.  Maldonate, saying of one place that It is to be corrected by the Greek; the jesuit 
o Ribera jes. in Heb. 4. 2.  Ribera affirming of another place, that It ought to be according to the Greek; their jesuit 
p Salmeron jes. 〈◊〉 jac. 5. 16.  Salmeron affirming of another place, that Without doubt this word were better left out: besides the divers other corrupt pieces of that Translation, which, by the confession of some other Romish Doctors, have occasioned corruption in doctrine, as 
q Catholic appeal, Lib. 4. cap. 18. §. 3.  elsewhere hath been discovered. But M. Parsons is ready to pose me.   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
IF Queen Elizabeth did approve the Printing of the English new Testament with Bczaes' notes, did she thereby equal the said notes with the Text of the Testament itself? Who would reason so, or who would go about to abuse his Reader and himself, that had care of conscience or credit?   

The Reveiwe.  
51. This Simile is dissimile, and an unlikely comparison, for our Adversaries know right well, that we do not attribute unto either King or Queen that infallibility of judgement, 
M. Parsons his frothy argument.  which they do unto the Pope; so that the disproportion of this comparison appeareth herein, because we discern between Scriptures and the Annotations, (by whomsoever they be approved) as between the word of God, and Man's opinion. But the Romanists, who hold the judgement of the Pope in all things, which he shall publicly decree for the good of all Christians, to be divinely true, must therefore entertain with equal faith the Decretals and Glosses, because they have been reviewed and approved with the same authority. I hasten to hear my next Charge.   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
HE was charged with adding the words of Apostata Princes, not 
Reck. pag. 357.  found at all in the Gloss, yet may the matter in the Gloss be extended unto them. He also cut off the last words of the sentence, Nisi 〈◊〉 What need these nibbling?   

The Reveiwe.  
52. Nay rather what need these jugglings, which M. 
M. Parson's false juggling.  Parsons useth, who knowing that the words of Apostata Princess were not my Additions, but the 
r Satisfact. part. 3 pag. 34.  Objection of M. Parsons own fellow, the nameless Author of the Apology of the English Catholics, cap. 5. as I did 
s Preamb. p. 111.  show him, and he could not deny: yet doth he wilfully run upon the same strain, a note beyond true sobriety, especially seeing that he also confesseth that in true sense the Gloss did extend unto Apostata Princes.  
53. In the 
t Preamb. pag. 111. 112.  same place I furthermore justified the relating of testimonies of Authors, according to their sense, without 
His notable fraud.  the precise repetition of their words, by the example of their own Pope in his alleging of Scripture Deut. 13. but M. Parsons (which is fraud indeed) hath peremptorily condemned me, without confutation, yea or so much as mention of that answer.  
54. Finally, I was so far from injurying the Gloss, in hope of any advantage, that now (considering the perverseness of my Adversary) I cannot but be offended with myself for losing my best advantage, in not expressing the 
u In Extravag. comm. lib. 1. de Maior. & Obed. cap. 1.  Gloss to the full, because the words following will sufficiently manifest the Gloss to be (which was the matter intended) both sacrilegious and rebellious. As jesus by his nature all right (saith the Gloss) might enter into judgement, and pronounce the sentence of deposing an Emperor, or any other 
A false and bloody Gloss in the Extravagants.  person, so also may his Vicar, meaning the Pope. Which assertion is so grossly false, that their own late and learned Doctors do greatly abhor it, as hereafter will fully appear.    

SECT. VIII.  

The eight Inquiry.  
55. CAmpian, Genebrard, Canisius, and divers other Romish Doctors with main force fell upon Calvin, and laid unto his charge no less than impiety, heresy, and blasphemy, because of his opinion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bellarmine, howsoever he condemned the phrase, did notwithstanding justify the meaning of Calvin, and judged it to be Catholic. Which I 
a Preamb p. 112  produced to the just reproof of their malice, who have so unconscionably traduced the doctrine of Calvin.   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
I Handled this matter before: albeit Bellarmine teach, that in some 
Reck. pag 358.  sense it may be truly said that Christ is God of himself, yet absolutely doth he condemn the speech of Calvin herein. 
* Reck. ibidem. pag. 363.  Seeing Bellarmine condemned Calvin, quoad modum loquendi, in his manner of speech, which he proveth Heretical by four sorts of arguments; Why had not M. Morton so much as mentioned this condemnation by Bellarmine, seeing it imported the matter so mightily? Which is sufficient to argue the faulty mind of the corrupter.   

The Reviewe.  
56. Surely M. Parsons is a mighty Questionist: Calvin called Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bellarmine condemned the phrase of Calum, but justified his meaning against some Romish Doctors, who had wickedly imputed Heresy and Blasphemy unto 
M. Parsons his unwise demand. Calvin his judgement justified by Bellarmine.  to Calvin's judgement: And M. Parsons asketh why I mentioned not Bellarmine's condemnation of the phrase, as well as his justification of the meaning? I answer, I was to deal with the kernel, and left the shell for him to exercise his teeth withal; and knowing that Heresy consisteth not in the word, but in the sense (as I have 
b See above. cap. 12. n. 27.  proved) I omitted the contention about that word: which notwithstanding might have been justified, against Bellarmine, by the equivalent 
c Danaeus Resp. ad Bellar. contro. 2. lib. 20. cap. 19  phrases of ancient Father's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and such like, which argue M. Calvin's adversaries to be but mighty wranglers, as hath been more amply proved 
* See above.  heretofore, where M. Parsons is found to be the corrupter not of Authors words, but of their confessed meanings in this point: who being unable to oppose any material thing against me, riotteth about the omission of Hoc errore, This error, albeit the question were only of This error, and none other: and then for saying Illos, for, Illum, although I was licenced thereunto by Bellarmine himself, who joined both Calvin, and two other Protestants, as namely Beza and Simlerus, together, whose judgement in the same point he did likewise approve. So that a man would imagine, that M. Parsons was scarce either hic, or ille, when, for want of matter of exception, he reeled upon illos and hoc.    

SECT. IX.  

The ninth Charge.  
THis is about the 
d See this above. cap. 12.  Text of the Prophet Esay Chap. 29. vers. 9 They are blind and make others blind.   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
I Noted him only for false alleging, corrupting, and mangling this 
Reck pag. 364.  place: the Reader will see my reason, by looking upon the Text: And how little he hath been able to say for himself, in justification of his fancy, may be seen in the Chapters before mentioned, and so we pass to an other, as trifling as this.   

The Review.  
57 M. Parsons noted me (as he saith) for false alleging, corrupting, and mangling that text of Scripture, and hath shown himself thereby a notorious malicious man, as I 
e See above. cap. 12. num. 41.  have fully evicted: showing first that I corrupted not the Text, but alleged it as it is found in our common English translation. Secondly, proving that the same translation is justifiable both in words and sense. And whereas M. Parsons in his Mitigation did vehemently pursue me, saying, 
f Mitigat. p. 88  I cannot easily pretermit, etc. Now in this Reckoning he is willing partly to pretermit his own error, calling the matter a trifling, as he useth to do, when he is deprehended in a voluntary deceit.    

SECT. X.  

The tenth Charge.  
THis is 
g See this above. cap. 12. num. 47.  touching two words of some affinity, verò, and verè: whereof we have discussed before.   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
THis is also a Colewort twice already sodden, whereof I spoke but a 
Reck. cap. 5. §. 10. pag. 365.  word or two in my Treatise of Mitigation, censuring it for a trifle: and now M. Morton hath so stretched out the matter, for that he may seem to have some little patronage for his error, by the later error of an other print.   

The Review.  
58. Now since that M. Parsons hath seen, by the last Preamble, his own rash, vile, and slanderous accusation detected, he can be contented that his Reader may thinkje, that he censured me for that pretended abuse only in a word, or 
M. Parson's former grievous slander partly confessed and thoroughly discovered.  two, that is, not rigorously, but remissly, as a man of sobriety would do any Trifling matter: but I, who tasted his gall cannot so easily forget the bitterness of his invective; who made his exclamation against me thus: 
h Mitigat. p. 234  And where is now the assurance of his upright conscience protested in his Epistle Dedicatory? Where is his simplicity in Christ jesus? where is his naked innocence? can this be ignorance? can this be done but of a guilty conscience? what may we believe of all that he saith, when he seeth himself entangled with such foolish treachery? Thus far M. Parsons. And couldst thou conceive otherwise (good Reader) by this hue and cry, but that I had been guilty at least of some perjury or sacrilege, or blasphemy, notwithstanding now he confesseth that it is but a trifling matter, and is willing to think that it was urged against me upon a false surmise? Here we see that his trisling coleworts were first sodden in vinegar and gall, even in the bitterness of his maliciousness, but now he is content to mingle oil with it, being in part ashamed of his former cookery.  
59 Nevertheless, whereas M. Parsons hath not prosecuted any one taxation against me, either in his former book of Mitigation, or in this his new Reckoning with more variety and virulency of words, than he hath done this his Trifling, rash, and lying slander, every word piercing to the very soul, saying, Where is his conscience? where is his simplicity in Christ jesus? where his innocency? here is his guiltiness, and 
M. Parson's exquisite fraudulency in covering his falsehood.  here his treachery: yet now shameth not to say (as though he had not greatly urged that point against me) that he passed over the matter in a word, or two. Much like as one, who after he had pierced a man into his brains, and stabbed him at the very heart with many a mortal wound, should excuse himself, saying, I gave him but a Trifling blow, or two.    

SECT. XI.  

The eleventh Charge.  
60. COncerning the doctrine of Doleman, holding it a damnable sin for any Romanist to admit a Protestant Prince unto the Crown. Which I have answered, and (as I hope) satisfied: but yet M. Parsons hath found out some other odd ends to be reckoned for.   

Mr. PAROSNS his Reckoning.  
I Deny that either the true words or sense of Doleman was related by 
Reck. cap. 5. §. 11. pag 366.  him, and consequently he cannot be excused from a witting falsehood.   

The Review.  
61. Who is this that accuseth me? M. Parsons: in whose behalf? in the behalf of Doleman, alias, M. Parsons: for what? for accusing Mr. Parsons to have held it a damnable sin for any of his Catholics to admit any Protestant unto the Crown of England: which notwithstanding was proved 
M. Parsons defendeth that book which hath been accounted rebellious by their own Priest.  by the force of a Syllogism, concluding thus, Ergo Dolman, alias, M. Parsons held it a damnable sin for any Romish Professor to admit a Protestant to the Crown. But since that M. Parsons took a surfeit of his own foolish Syllogism, the consequence of Syllogisms could not well relish in his mouth. Secondly this sense is so evident, that their own Priests have called that book entitled Dolman, a 
i Important Consider. in the Epist. Dedicat. And see the like confessed above.  Traitorous, Seditious and most infamous book against the English State, which is so evident, that whosoever shall but read that book, may see that if M Parsons his own conscience could be heard speak, we should need neither the confession of their own Priests, nor the consequence of M. Parsons to make up the conclusion.    

SECT. XII.  
The twelfth Charge.  

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
THis imputation was about false dealing on M. Mortons' behalf, in 
Reck. cap. 5. §. 12. pag. 367.  setting down in general, that All Popish Priests do abolish the succession of all Protestant Princes, upon the pretence of prerogative in Pope and people. Wherein he is convinced of divers falsehoods, handled before by us, in the first Chapter.   

The Reviewe.  
62. I answer, that if I have been justly convicted, nay if I have not been injuriously traduced by M. Parsons in this matter, then shall I subject myself unto him, as worthy to be condemned in all. We both remit ourselves unto our 
k See above.  former Reckoning about this point.    

SECT. XIII.  

The thirteenth Charge.  
63. IT concerneth the testimony of Otto Frisingensis against Gregory the seventh,   

M. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
WHich was alleged quite contrary to the words and meaning 
Reck. c. 5. P. 367.  of the Author Frisingensis, so that he was enforced to lay the fault partly upon Doctor Tolossanus, partly to abuse the testimony of Claudius Espencaeus, and to make him say and aver that which he doth not, but relateth out of others. And in no one imputation hitherto was he more graveled then in this, as the Reader may see by turning unto the place itself.   

The Revicwe.  
64. I have much cause to thank M. Parsons for this so plain dealing, in saying that I have not been graveled hitherto in any one imputation more than in this: because hereby our Reader may more easily conceive of Mr. Parsons his former Imputations, and thereby conjecture of them that follow, how sick and feeble they are, by my answer unto this: wherein I 
What kind of Graveller M. Parsons is.  shall show what kind of Gravel Mr. Parsons useth to cast in my way; for if in this point I stand not clear, then let our Reader hold me guilty of all the other Imputations, wherewith M. Parsons hath besmeered me.  
65. The sum of the Answer, which I 
l See above, cap 12. Sect. 13.  have delivered at large, is this: First that I cited truly the testimony of Tolossanus, whom only I pointed out in the marginal note, to be the Author of that testimony, neither hath M. Parsons excepted against it. Secondly, that M. Parsons, with fine fraud concealed my Allegation, that thereby his imputation of falsehood might carry the better pretence; and now since the discovery of his craft and malignancy therein, he findeth no better evasion then to say, that my marginal cytation was not in English, as though that would be any excuse for Mr. Parsons, who understandeth Latin: Thirdly, that Cl. Espensaeus doth expressly approve the Epistle of the Priests of Liege, wherein Pope Gregory the seventh, aliâs Hildebrand is noted and reproved, as being the first Pope who perturbed the Imperial States of Christendom, by presumption of deposing the Emperor from his dignity: Lastly, that M. Parsons in this his new Reckoning, in saying that Espensaeus did not approve that Epistle, hath committed an irrecoverable untruth, which will be unto his conscience, as gravel would be to his mouth, until he spit it out by true repentance.    

SECT. XIIII.  

The fourteenth Charge.  
65. THe crimination, which Mr. Parsons urged against me was this: 
m Mitig. ca 6. n. 37. pag. 215.  His words (saith he) are these: Pope Hildebrand (saith our Chronographer) was excommunicate of the Bishops of Italy, for that he had defamed the Apostolic Sea with Simony, and other capital crimes; and then citeth for proof hereof, Lambertus Schaffnaburg. Anno 1077. As if this our Chronographer had related this as a thing of truth, and not rather as slanderous objection, cast out by his Adversaries, that followed the part of Henry the Emperor.   

The discharge.  
66. My discharge 
n Preamb. p 120 Lambertus Scassnaburg. hist. 〈◊〉 An. 1077. 〈◊〉 sin.  was taken from the words of Shaffnaburgensis, Which are these: After that the fame had gone thorowut Italy, that K. Henry had set foot within the coasts, All the Bishops of Italy did flock unto him, congratulating his coming, because he came with a resolute courage to depose the Pope (to wit, Gregory 7.) Afterward he showeth their reasons: That they feared not the Pope's excommunication, whom all the Bishops of Italy for just cause had excommunicated, who had by violence obtained the Sea Apostolic by Symoniac all heresy, had defiled the same by murders and adulteries, and other capital crimes.  
67. Thus the Bishops of Italy (by the testimony of Shaffnaburgensis) behaved themselves against Hildebrand, and this was the only matter, which I proposed as worthy of proof: for as I then said, 
o Preamb p. 120.  The point now in question is, whether this Author Lambertus Schaffnaburg. did think that those Bishops of Italy had condemned this Pope Gregory (for whether they did it justly or unjustly, is the second question) for such crimes, or no? I have affirmed that Schaffnaburg. was of this opinion: but P. R. denieth it, calling my assertion impudent impiety. Let us be judged by the evidence of the Author himself. Which is a plain conviction of M. Parsons his slanderous dealing, who now struggleth to free himself from this blot, but (alas!) as a bird in the lime, to his further intanglement.   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
WHereunto I answer, that this is not the point in question, 
Reckon. cap. 5. pag. 376.  whether Lambertus did think, that they had excommunicated him, or no? Neither did we ever join issue thereupon, as doth appear in my charge before set down: though Lambertus is not found any where to affirm that they did excommunicate him, but only relateth that some of his enemies in their fury, rage, and passion did object such things against him: but the true question is, whether Lambertus supposing such a thing had been done, were of opinion, that it was justly or injustly, rightly or wrongfully done, for otherwise he should impertinently be brought in for the condemnation of Pope Gregory: for so much as if he had been wrongfully and injuriously so condemned, it would have been more for his praise, as by the examples of S. Athanas. S. Chrysoft. and other holy men so condemned by multitudes of either bad, or deceived Bishops, may appear.   

The Review.  
68 Doth M. Parsons know what he saith? hath not a Reader liberty to justify any thing by the acts of men, testified 
His mere quarreling.  by an Historian, albeit the same Historian do in his judgement condemn them? We read of certain Princes who accused Daniel, for transgressing the King's commandment, in praying thrice a day unto God, and not only unto King Darius (according as the King had enjoined:) had it not been lawful for the godly jews of those times, to have collected 
Dan. 6.  from the report of those Princes, concerning Daniel, that he was a devout man, in praying unto God? Would M. Parsons, if he had lived in those days, have said that this observation had been deceitful, because the enemies of Daniel, who were the Reporters, disliked that act of Daniel, and did therefore accuse him to the King?  
69. M. Parsons himself is pleased sometimes to make use of the relations of M. Fox, and Holinshed, when they record any matter, which may serve his purpose, never regarding whether they that report such things do also reprove them. But of all other men, the late Romish Apologists are they, with whom this kind of practice is most frequent and familiar, who repeat many testimonies of Authors favouring your cause, but out of the relation of Protestant Writers; notwithstandiug the same Protestants in the same places, do expressly reprove and refute the alleged Testimonies. Wherefore if M. Parsons will make good this part of his Reckoning, then must he allow us a new Index Expurg. for the canceling of the principal arguments of their late Catholic Apology.  
70. When will M. Parson's vain vein of cavilling be spent, that we may come unto the point? which is, whether the Bishops of Italy did oppose themselves against Pope Gregory the seventh, as hath been said, for (by your leave M. Parsons) this was the issue; for the argument which I used in confutation of your rebellious doctrine, was taken from the authority of the Italian Bishops (according to the confession of your Historian Lambert Schaffnaburg.) withstanding the Pope's rebellious practice; and not upon the opinion of the Reporter, in censuring the opposition of those Bishops.   

M. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
But he mentioneth All the Bishops of Italy; the word, A l, is frandulently 
Reck. pag 374.  urged by him, as you will see. so that scarcely he dealeth sincerely in any thing:   

The Reveiwe.  
71. If I have not dealt sincerely in this word All, then will I confess that I have been guilty of insincere dealing in all the rest: I hope M. Parson's will be so good, as to acquit me in his charge following.   

M. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
ALbeit these words be in Lambertus, Certalim ad cum omnes Italiae 
Reck. pag. 374.  Episcopi & Comites confluebant, All Bishops and Earls of Italy did flock unto him yet that they were certain Italian Bishops and Eatles that dwelled about the Alps, is evident by the narration itself: for the very next precedent words, left out by M. Morton, are, Superatis asper. rupib. iam intra Italiae fines consistere, certatim ad cum omnes Italiae Episcopi. After that it was understood that the Emperor had overcome the high rocks, and was within the borders of Italy, all the Italian Bishops and Earls flocked unto him. And what sort of Bishops these were, he expoundeth within a few lines after, saying, Qui se iampridem ab Ecclesiasticâ communione suspenderat: they hated Pope Gregory, as him that had suspended them from Ecclesiastical Communion And a little after setting down the clause of suspension, especially of Clergy men, to have been of them whom Pope Gregory had forbid marriage, to wit, some of Lombardie about the Alps: and though Lambert call them Italiae Episcopos, that is, the Bishops of Italy, yet doth he not mean all the Bishops of Italy.   

The Review.  
72. I grant that the word Al useth to be taken in Authors in a double signification, to wit, either betokening a Generality, that is, All for the most part; or an Universality, that is, every one, as every scholar knoweth. M. Parson's will persuade his Reader, that I used and urged the word All in the larger extent: now if this may be evidently proved to be M. Parsons both adverse and perverse exception against me, I suppose our Reader hereby will discern, that if his charity and his truth be put in true balances, they will weigh both alike, just 
M. Parson's miserable fraud and falsity.  nothing at all. For I was so far from arguing from the word All, either universally, or generally, that in reasoning from that testimony I left out the word, All, and said indefinitely, The Bishops of Italy. And this M. Parsons himself was not ignorant off, who reporteth my words in his Mitigation, thus, 
p Mitigat. p. 215.  Gregory was excommunicate by the Bishops of Italy: And (although I could not, in repeating the testimony of Lambert, but sometimes use his word, All,) yet in my inference and conclusion I pretermitted the word, All, and was contented to say, The Bishops of Italy did excommunicate the Pope. Hactenùs de me, nunc de re.  
73. The Comment which M. Parsons maketh upon Lambert, by restraining the words, All the Bishops of Italy, unto 
His fabulous figment.  the Clergy men, who were married, as though all the Bishops of Italy, there spoken of, had been married, is his own false and fabulous figment. The case stood much alike, as if our future Historiographers, in setting down the story of the first coming of our dread Sovereign King james into England, should say thus: And when that his Majesty was arrived at Berwick, and after approached towards Newarke upon Trent, the Nobles of the land went to meet him for to congratulate his, and, in him, their own joy. I think that the Reader would hold it to be a fond comment to collect hereupon, that by Nobles of the land, were therefore meant only the Northerens Lords, because the meeting spoken off was beyond Trent. I am almost weary with pursuing M. Parsons, he is so extravagant, but yet I may not give him over, for than I know he would insult in his slanderous vain, as followeth.   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
Mr. Morton corrupteth the Text of Lambert, by putting in Quia, for, 
Reck. pag. 378.  Qui, and saying that the Bishops of Italy did excommunicate the Pope [Quia] because he had defiled the Apostolic See by Simony and other crimes, (as though that had been a cause) in stead of Qui, that is, who had defiled the Apostolic See.   

The Review.  
74. What a lustful appetite hath M. Parsons to slander his adversaries? For if I should say that the judges of England do condemn Romish Priests [Qui] that is, Who are found 
M. Parson's lustful appetite to wrangle.  guilty of treason, hath it any other sense then this; The judges of England do condemn Romish Priests, [Quia] that is, Because they are guilty of treason? And that it is so in Lambert, I desire no other evidence than the very words of the Author himself, where he saith that the Pope expostulating the matter, said that the Emperor and his favourites had accused him of attaining unto the Sea Apostolic, by simonical heresy, and defiled his life with other crimes. Now than whether Simony and other crimes were objected for a, Quia, and cause of excommunicating him, let any Reader judge; and consequently whether M. Parsons his charge of corruption, proceeded not from his own corrupt affection. Howsoever, this I dare say, that the alteration of Quià was not voluntary, but accidental, even as contrarily it happened unto the Latin Romish translation in Matth. 6. v. 5. Qui amant, for, Quià amant: as their own jesuit 
q Maldonat. jes. upon the Text.  Maldonate doth confess.   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
Mr. Morton allegeth Abbas Urspergensis as writing that Gregory 
Reck. pag. 384.  was an usurper of the See, and intruded by fraud, etc. but urspergensis related that such words were uttered, against Pope Gregory, by the enemies of the Pope, by the commandment of Henry in a form of a Council or Synod of thirty Bishops of Brixia: but that urspergensis did affirm any thing of it or approve the same, is not found, but rather the quite contrary: for in the very same place and page, he showeth how these things were contradicted by Anselmus Bishop of Luca then living, a man (saith he) most excellent, learned, and fearing God, etc. So Urspergensis.   

The Reveiwe.  
75. What estimate Urspergensis had of the Papal claim, especially over Kings, M. Parsons his own conscience can tell, who hath 
r Mitigat. cap. 2. num 46. pag. 80.  called Vrspergensis a Schismatical writer, because of his opposition against the Pope's usurped jurisdiction at that time, even as now he likewise judgeth these thirty Bishops to have been Schismatical, which condemned Pope Gregory the seventh for his like usurpation. Whether therefore Vrspergensis meant to yield rather unto the Decree of those thirty Bishops, or unto the single testimony of Anselmus, I remit it unto M. Parsons his second consideration to judge off, after that he hath observed that, which followeth a little after in the same Author Vrspergensis, where he writeth concerning Rodulph Duke of Burgundy (
s Vrsperg. quo suprà.  whom Pope Gregory the seventh, as Sigebert writeth, caused to proclaim himself Emperor, and to take arms against the Emperor Henry the fourth) that the same Rodulph in a battle against the true Emperor, having his right hand cut off, and looking 
A memorable example of treasonable practice by Bishops.  upon it, spoke unto the Bishops who were by him, and with a sigh said; Behold my hand wherewith I plighted my faith to Henry my Lord; behold I leave both the Kingdom and this present life; see you unto it, who have made me ascend unto his throne, whether you have led me the right way, who have followed your admonitions. Afterwards he telleth us of the emperors going to Rome, and of the Romans yielding unto him, and abdicating Pope Gregory, because he refused to appear before the Emperor: and in the end, In a Synod at Mentz all the rebellious Bishops were judged to be deposed. How will M. Parsons like this?   

M. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
HE telleth us that Severinus Binius confesseth, that Bishops in a 
Reck. pag. 385.  Council at Worms declared Gregory the seventh to be deposed; and an other at Papia to have excommunicated him, and an other at Brixia to have deposed him. How can M Morton cite Binius contrary to his own judgement, who calleth these Counsels Conciliabula, that is, factious and schismatical conspiracies?   

The Reveiwe.  
76. I cited Binius, but not contrary to his meaning: This is M. Parson's deceitfulness: for in the margin I expressed 
His deceitful opposition.  his meaning to the full in these words, Although Binius (said 
t Preamb. p. 121.  I) called these Counsels Conciliabula; that which was to be evicted from Binius, was his acknowledgement that such and so many Assemblies of Bishops (which carried the general name of Counsels) had condemned Pope Gregory. As for the censure of Binius, a late Romish Doctor of this present age, and a professed Proctor and Advocate for that See, it ought to carry no more weight in this cause, then may the censure which Doctor 
u Stapleton Doctr. princip. lib. 13. cap. 15. pag. 547.  Stapleton useth against the Council of Basill, when he calleth it Conciliabulum Schismaticum, according unto our adversaries guise of rejecting all other Counsels, as oft as they conclude any thing against the pretended authority of the Pope. As for the authority of the four Counsels against Pope Gregory, we may be better directed by Sigebert and Benno, and other Historiographers, who lived in or about those times of Gregory, and justified those Counsels.      

THE SECOND BOOK OF ENCOUNTER, against M. Parsons, Answering his Reckoning of old Falsehoods, which were objected in his Book of Mitigation: and are again by him repeated in his sixth Chapter of his new Reckoning.  

CHAP. I.  
Containing an Answer unto his first eight charges.  

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
THe sixth Chapter containeth a Recapitulation 
Reckon. cap. 6. pag. 392.  of many manifest untruths, wherewith M. Morton being charged, did willingly pretermit to answer them in his last Reply, and thereby left a suspicion that he could not answer them.   

The Review.  
SECT. I.  
1. SUspicious men are malicious, if the Proverb say true, which M. Parsons (I fear) doth now verify, who knowing that I was in hand with an 
a The Protestants Apology for etc.  other book, which was of greater moment than are all his libellious Treatises, if they were bundelled up in one, doth notwithstanding importune me to turn, as it were, a porch into a palace, and make a Preamble a full Encounter: yet a word more of the Preamble.  

M. PERSONS his Reckoning.  
In his Preamble, he hath chosen out both the fewest Accusations, 
Reckon pa. 392  and the weakest of all the rest, although he professed to single out such as were most vehemently pressed and urged: I thought good therefore to set down other untruths laid against him in my Treatise (of Mitigation) which he hath concealed. Let us run over them, if you please.   

The Review.  
2 With a good will, Master Parsons, but first I would try whether I did single out the Weakest accusations, and such as were not so vehemently pressed. A brief Recapitulation would make a clear Reckoning for the accusations which you then urged, although falsely, yet fiercely thus. In the first, This is (said you) a malicious lie of a lost conscience. In the 
M. Parsons beginneth this second part of his Reckoning with a lavish falsehood.  second, thus: Is not this perfidious dealing, and open treachery? In the third, He hath no conscience at all in cozening. In the rest we hear of nothing but of Egregious abusing of testimonies: of Many frauds in one quotation: of Many false tricks of a crafty Minister, of Rare singularity, and the like scarce ever observed in corrupting a text of Scripture: of a manifest lie and cozenage: and of Where is his sincerity in Christ jesus: of foolish treachery. In the eleventh; How can the malicious lying Minister expect to be trusted hereafter. In the next, Consider how falsely and calumniously this makebate doth reason. In the thirteenth, Can any thing be morefraudulently alleged. In the last, It is a fraud and impudence, or rather impudent impiety; will ever any Reader credit him hereafter? These and other such like Emblems and flowers of M. Parsons his Rheterique may give our Reader a scent and sense of his extreme Vehemency, which is strong & rank, & Prove that I singled not out his weakest Objections, as he falsely pretendeth, and as scquel of this discourse will make more manifest.    

SECT. II.  

M. PARSONS his Reckoning and sum of his first charge.  
FOr proof that heresy may be without obstinacy, he citeth in 
Reckon cap. 6. pag. 393.  his margin Vasquez jesuit, whose words are, Malitia huius peccati in intellectu, non in voluntate perficitur, that is, The malice of the sin of heresy is perfected in the understanding. Which our Minister understanding not, hath fond slandered the learned man Vasquez, by making him patronize his absurd doctrine, whereas Vasquez doth expressly establish the contrary, defining heresy to be an error in faith with obstinacy.   

The Review.  
3 I 
b Full Satisf. part. 1. pag. 3. M. Parson's fraud.  alleged nothing out of Vasquez, but his ownesentence, viz. Malitia. etc. Heresy is consummated and perfected in the understanding; and knowing that the formal perfection of every thing giveth the Denomination unto the subject, I did infer not as his (for this indeed had been an injury) but as mine own consequence, viz. that we may conclude of Heresy, as it is an error in the mind, without respect of Obstinacy, which is a perverseness in the will. Which liberty of arguing, from an adversaries proposition, against his conclusion, is granted unto any, by the law of all schools, especially whensoever the proposition, and conclusion may seem to be repugnant. As for example 
c Bellar. Ricog. operum. pa. 81.  Bellarmine, in defence of Transubstantiation, saith that the counersion of the bread into the body of Christ, is not wrought by production of the body of Christ out of the bread, but by Adduction of the body unto the bread: Some Romish Authors apprehending this position of Adduction, did plainly conclude against Bellermine his conclusion, saying that so it shall not be a Transubstantiation, but a Transtocation. Playing upon his Antecedent by their own consequence. Thus much for my conscience.  
4 Concerning the cause I have no way offended, but in distinguishing of Heresy, in respect of a double Court, Poli & for'rs, that is, of Inward before God, and outward in respect of the Church. And the whole controversy then between us being about the outward appearance of an Heretic, I hold, in that respect, Obstinacy to be the property of an Heretic; which is, for the cause itself, as much as any Romanist would require. If therefore this first point have in it (as M. Parsons saith) more difficulty than many others, laid together, then may we prognosticate that M. Parson's will be in others manifoldly absurd, for in this first he seeketh nothing but a knot in a rush.    

SECT. III.  

The sum of M. PARSONS second charge in Reckoning.  
To make us odious by severe censuring of heretics, he bringeth 
Reckon. pa. 398.  out of Azorius this sentence: If a man doubt of his faith willingly, he is certainly an heretic: but by our Ministers leave Azor addeth more, He that doubteth willingly, and pertinacitèr, that is, obstinately, he is thereby an heretic. So we see the most substantial word [obstinately] to be craftily conveyed away, etc.   

The Review.  
5 M. Parsons knoweth right well that I needed not to omit this word, pertinacitèr, to make his Professors odious, who multiplied other far more odious positions than this, such as were the accounting of every one an obstinate heretic, that maint eineth anything contrary to the Church of Rome: together with their Bulla coena upon Maundie-Thursday, cursing and excommunicating all heretics (among whom they reckon Protestants) jointly with all their Favourites or 
His inordinate jangling about words.  Commenders of their behaviours, which, for the odiousness of them, he cunningly pretermittcd, and yet noteth me of craft, for the omission of pertinacitèr. As though the defending of an untruth wittingly and willingly did not emphatically enough imply that it was done obstinately, according to the saving of our Saviour Christ, in condemning the obstinacy of the Jews, notwithstanding he did say no more but How oft would I have gathered you, etc. but you would not? Finally, because I am willing to satisfy M. Parsons to the full, if he be offended for want of pertinacitèr, let him put in his Reckoning pertinacissimè, if he will, it shall not displease me.    

SECT. IV.  

The sum of the third charge of M. PARSON'S Reckoning.  
THe case was, whether a man coming from Coventrie, 
Reckon. pa. 399.  which is held to be infected with the plague, which the man himself dwelling in a part of the city, which is not infected, and is asked at the gate of London, whether he came from Coventrie, the Keeper intending to ask him concerning a place infected, whether he may answer No? The Questioner saith he may, M. Morton saith No, and citeth Azorius, as though he had said of this case, Nihil tàm falsum, etc. where he saith that we may not feign words of ourselves in an oath without circumstances, etc. But Azorius in his third Rule; speaking of this case of a place thought to be infected, and is not, resolveth that such an answer is lawful.   

The Review.  
6 M. Parson's can not deny, but after that Azorius had propounded divers objections concerning Equivocating clauses, whereof that of this Case was one, he doth apply unto them two kind of answers. The first is a general, in the words that I did allege, Nihil tàm falsum, etc. telling us that We may not feign, etc. Wherein I then insisted, and so 
The odds between M. Parsons and Azorius concerning Equivocation.  much the rather, because I saw there is the foundation of M. Parson's Defence of Equivocation overthrown, where Azorius calleth it a lie for a man, when he is demanded whether he have any money, and having it shall answer, I have it not, reserving in his mind, to give it unto you; which kind of Equivocation M. Parsons holdeth for a truth, as you have heard. But let us take the Resolution of Azorius, as it is delivered in his third Rule, and his reason of the approbation of that case, doth confute M. Parson's ground of Equivocating: for Azor restraineth a man's speech unto the use of words which are ambiguous in a sense, which the words themselves will bear. But M. Parsons alloweth such a speech of words, which have no ambiguity in themselves, but according to that sense, whatsoever it be, that the speaker shall conceive in his mind, so that by mixtion it may make a true proposition: as for example, I have no money, meaning, to lend it unto you, which Azorius, as I have often said, condemneth for a lie.   

M. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
The sentence, which he allegeth truly in the margin, [si ab aliquo 
Reckon. pa. 402.  loco pest minimè infecto, etc.] This he translateth falsely into English thus: [If he come from a place which is infected,] which altereth the whole case.   

The Review.  
7 I durst almost swear that M. Parsons is not persuaded 
His extreme captiousness.  that I either would, or did falsify in this place, for the English being this: Azor answering, (concerning the place infected with the plague) said, etc. which thus spoken, by the way of parenthesis, could not be false, because, as the case was propounded, the place was called infected, uz. according to the opinion of the Demander: and it was also called not infected, in the judgement of the speaker, and therefore by either of them might have been indifferently used, especially by the way of pareuthesis. And that I would not so far transgtesse, the Margin may bear me witness, wherein Azorius own express words are set down.  
8 But such and so great good will M. Parsons doth bear me, that he had rather produce me for a falsificator, than acknowledge the truth of the thing, or (if it had been 
Escapes in Bellarmine's books, wherein the particle NON is wanting.  an error) to judge it an escape of the pen, or of the print. Therefore am I urged to present him with a number of confessed escapes of Bellarmine, which abound in his sentences, even by omissions of that kind, against which Master Parsons now doth so lavishly inveigh. As for example, 
d Bellar. Recog. lastly printed. pag. 127.  In whom there are two persons (saith Bellarmine) in stead of NON. etc. that is, There are not two persons. And 
e Pag. 144.  To have doubted, in stead of, NOT doubted. 
f Pag. 153.  To signify Continency, in stead of, NOT to signify Continency. And 
g Pag. 159.  Twice, for, NOT Twice. And 
h Pag. 162.  The wall, in stead of, NOT the wall. And, 
i Pag. 178.  It shall be perpetual, in stead of, It shall NOT be perpetual. And, 
k Pag. 185.  Let it be rejected, in stead of, Let it NOT be rejected. And 
l Pag. 186.  They might have obeyed, in stead of, They might NOT have obeyed. And, 
m Pag. 188.  If our heart shall condemn us, in stead of, If it shall NOT condemn us: And (not to labour upon trifles) many such like erroneous omissions of the Negative NON. Which seen, I doubt not but M. Parson's will now play Ployden, and grant that such errors may accidentally happen without falsifying and juggling.    

SECT. V.  

The sum of M. PARSONS his fourth charge.  
HE would prove out of Azorius that Equivocating in an 
Reckon. pa. 403  oath is perjury, when as Azorius putteth down many examples, wherein the swearer may take an oath in his own sense, though false in the sense of him that exacteth the oath.   

The Review.  
9 The divers examples, which you name, have been already discussed, but there is one example, which proveth M. Parsons his description of Equivocating a flar lie, and consequently perjury in an oath 
* See above, lib. 1. c. 4.  One may in equivocating (said M. Parsons) reserve in his mind what it pleaseth him, so that the clause reserved do agree with his mind. If this be true, then may this Equivocation go for currant, viz. I have no money (reserving in my mind, although I know that I have money) to give it, for it agreeth with the mind; and is notwithstanding condemned by 
* See above, Ib:  Azorius for a perfect lie. Therefore wheresoever the outward words do not carry that ambiguity of sense, wherein they are used (for of this kind only we do dispute) it is, in Azorius his judgement, to be reckoned for a lie. Yea, and so must the examples of 〈◊〉 be also, if they do not accord with his own Rule. It might therefore have become M. Parsons to have spared his bitter Invective against me, until he have first reconciled himself with Azorius.    

SECT. VI  

M. PARSONS his fifth charge. The sum of his Reckoning.  
HIs next falsehood is, in that he would prove out of Tollet, 
Reckon. pa. 407.  that affected ignorance doth not excuse one, but doth rather argue him to be an heretic. Now all that be learned know that affected ignorance is the most culpable; but Tollet sasth that Ignorantia crassa etc., that is, Gross ignorance doth not exeuse aman from heresy, which is different from affected ignorance: for the grossly ignorant is when one careth not to be informed, but affected ignorance is when one doth purposely fly to be informed. So that besides his impertinency, here is discovered his impundencie. This was then my conviction against him, and was not this worthy of some consideration in his Answer?   

The Review.  
10 Yes verily; for it is worthy a double consideration, 
His folly.  the one is, to note herein M. Parsons his folly, and the next his malice. The first, that he who hath so often bewrayed his own gross ignorance, both in ordinary Grammar learning and in Logic, even then, when he made most ostentation of his skill: should now note it for a point of impudency to fail in distinguishing such subtleties of their school, as are, Not to care to inform a man's self, and, To fly to be informed.  
11 But that he should stamp upon this also the title of 
His malice.  falsehood, it argueth that he doth look upon his adversaries writings with an oculus nequam: for if any will ask M. Parsons, whether Affected, or Gross ignorance be worse; he will answer (as he hath done) that the Affected ignorance is most culpable. Now then, in as much as I said not that the Romanists meant to draw Protestants into the sentence and condemnation of Heresy, and consequently into their extreme Censures, and vengeance against them for Gross ignorance, which is the less fault, but for Affected ignorance, which M. Parsons calleth The most culpable (albeit the word, Gross as he showeth did allow me to aggravate their malice against us) with what mind could he call this difference a falsehood, whereof the matter itself freeth me so clearly? For as I have been but too favourable to our Adversaries, in lessening their malice, so have I not been unfaithful to the cause, for M. Parson's will not deny this to be their doctrine, that Affected ignorance in matters of faith doth argue a man to be an heretic. Thus much for his Gross wrangling. From Card. Tollet he proceedeth unto Card. Bellarmine, and doth object Barclay by the way. I will first take this rub out of the way.    

SECT. VII.  
The sixth charge about the authority of calling Counsels.  

M. PARSON'S Reckoning.  
LEt any man read the book and chap, of Barclay, and he 
Reckon. pa. 410.  will wonder at the impudency of this vaunter: for he speaketh no one word of gathering Counsels, or comparison of spiritual 
Barkl. lib. 6. advers. Monarch. c. 26.  authority between the Pope and Emperor, concerning their gathering of Counsels or Synods, but of a quite different subject, of taking arms by subjects against their lawful temporal Princes. And what will our Minister then answer to this manifest calumniation so apparently convinced out of Doctor Barcley.   

The Review.  
12 The Minister will answer, that M. Parsons was scarce sober, when he called either my allegation a calumniation, or his answer a conviction: for in that place (of Full Satisfact. 
M. Parsons his prosu. e fraud.  part. 3. chap. 10. pag. 27.) I did not produce the testimony of Barkley for the point of Gathering of Counsels, but for the general matter of Temporal subjection due unto Emperors by all persons. Which Argument Barkley prosecuteth at large in the place alleged, being lib. 6. cap. 26. pag. 521. confuring the common answer, which is used by the Romanists, which is this; that Although Christ, and john Baptist, and other Apostles did not teach that wicked Kings ought to be removed in the first plantation of the Church among Infidels, yet afterwards this was the doctrine, when Kings should become nursing Fathers. Their own Barkley in the sentence which was alleged confuteth that thus: This aught to be unto us (saith he) a weighty argument to know that neither any of the holy Fathers, or any orthodoxal Writer, for the space of a full thousand years and more (although the Church did abound with troops of armed soldiers, and the number of tyrants was great) is red to have taught any such thing either in word or writing. Adding, concerning the times of Emperors, which professed Christ, although heretically: Why did not then those excellent Pastors and Fathers excite the people against Valens, Valentinian the younger, Heraclius, and other wicked Princes?  
13 Who yet again in his late book, Depotestate Pontificis, writing professedly against Bellarmine (by whom the Pope is held to have a supreme power Indirectly in temporal causes) doth cap. 34. argue thus: The Pope hath not now greater power over temporal Princes than he had before he was a temporal Prince: but before he was a temporal Prince he had no temporal authority any way over Kings, therefore now he hath no such power any way over them. This Confession of their Barkley must needs choke the Romish usurpation. By which my Reader may observe the impotency (I forbear to quit him with his own word of impudency) of this calumniation, and his notable falsehood, in dissembling the opinion of Barkley. Now we come to Card. Bellarmine.   

M. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
He useth here afar greater immodesty, or rather perfidy, 
Reck. pag. 413.  in mine opinion.   

The Review.  
14 These are fearful terms: Will you stand to them? Let us then try your exceptions which concern first words, and then matter; but first let us examine the materials, the sum whereof followeth.   

The sum of M. PARSON'S Reckoning.  
The drift of Bellarmine is wholly against M. Mortons' assertion, 
Reck. ibid.  for that he denieth that even the Emperor had any spiritual authority for calling of Counsels, but only that they could not well in those days be made without them, and that for four several causes. The first: because the old Imperial laws made by the Gentiles were then in use, whereby all great meetings of people were forbidden, for fear of sedition, except by the emperors knowledge and licence. The second, because the Emperors being then Lords of the whole world, the Counsels could not be made in any city, without their leave. The third, for that the Counsels being made in those days by public charges and contributions of cities, and especially of Christian Emperors themselves, it was necessary to have their consent and approbation in so public an action. And the fourth and last cause, for that in those days, albeit the Bishop of Rome were head in spiritual matters over the Emperors themselves, yet in temporal affairs he did subject himself unto them, as having no temporal state of his own, and therefore acknowledging them to be temporal Lords, he did make supplication unto them, to command Synods to be gathered by their authority and licence. But since those times (saith Bellarmine) Omnes iste causae mutatae sunt All those causes were changed, The Pope himself being now a temporal all Lord also, as other Kings and Princes are, which was brought to pass (saith he) by God's providence, that he might have more freedom and liberty to exercise his Pastorship.   

The Review.  
15 This relation of M. Parsons is very true, and my drift was only to show how that Popes were anciently subject in temporal matters, which is Beauties flat assertion: wherein then have I abused his meaning?   

M. PARSON'S Reckoning.  
Let us consider the variety of sleights and shifts, which this 
Reckon. ibid.  our Minister hathused, first having said that general Counsels were not gathered without the emperors cost, he addeth presently of his own [and with their consent,] which is not in the Latin.   

The Review.  
16 I will not trouble M. Parsons his patience with any 
M Parsons gross falsehood.  quittance of like language, although I am often provoked thereunto by his rigid and unconscionable taxations, whereof this must needs be one. For the Latin words of Bellarm. are these: 
n Bellar. lib. 1. de Cont. c. 13. §. Habemus ergo.  Non poterant aliquid facere invito Imperatore, that is, They (viz. the Popes) could do nothing without the emperors consent. Yet this devout old man feareth not to say that I added these words of mine own, albeit he himself confesseth the necessity that then was to have the emperors consent. This is my kind Reckoner. But let him proceed.   

M. PARSONS his Reckoning. 
Reckon. ibid.   
Then he cutteth off the cause of the Pope's subjecting themselves in those days, touching the temporality, which was, because they had no temporal state of their own.   

The Review.  
17 I always thought it lawful for me to make use of an Adversaries confessed conclusion, such as this is (Pope's were 
Plain ' jangling about words.  formerly subject unto Emperors) without the expressing of his causes, especially seeing that the causes (whatsoever they were) are likewise confessed to have been since changed. Was little David to blame for cutting off Goliath his head, with Goliahs' his own sword, because he did not first tell what metal was in it, and who was the maker thereof? Ridiculous. And as fond is his next exception.   

M. PARSON'S Reckoning.  
Bellarmine said that Popes made supplication to the Emperors, 
Reckon. ibid.  to command Synods to be gathered, which T. M. translateth that they [would gather] Synods; as though Bellarmine did affirm that Empersrs had right to do it.   

The Review.  
18 As though Emperors may not be said to do that, which they commanded to be done: josuah commanded the Tribes of Israel to be assembled, and yet it is 
o josh. 24. 1. M. Parson's manifold absurdities.  written that He assembled the Tribes of Israel. Or as though the Emperors had not right to do that which the Pope did by Supplication entreat him to do. This were to reach the Pope 
The power of gathering of Synods.  a box on the ear. Or as though Bellarmine did absolutely deny that Emperors had any right to gather Counsels, who saith that it cannot be denied but that 
p Tortus aliâs Bellarminus, in Resp. ad 〈◊〉 pag. 144.  In Concilies generalibus indicendis, etc. that is, That the Emperor had some authority in appointing of general Counsels, and that sometimes They were gathered by Emperors. Or as though Bellarmine: (in denying that the Emperor hath chief power herein) might not be confuted by a Doctor of the same chair, Card. 
q Card. Cusanus Concord: Cath. lib. 2. cap. 25.  Cusanus confessing in express terms that The first eight general Counsels were gathered by Emperors; but the Bishop of Rome (like as did other patriarchs) received the sacred command to wit of the Emperors) to come unto the Synods. Thus doth M. Parsons his impotent calumniation vanish into a fancy which (if he should spy in an other) he would call a frenzy.   

M. PARSON'S Reckoning.  
Then where Bellarmine saith, Omnes istae causae etc. All 
Reckon. pag. 414.  these causes were changed, he fraudulently cut off the particle, [istae, These] which includeth areference unto these four causes, as though all causes and matters were now changed.   

The Review.  
19 If I would be as captious as M. Parsons useth to be, I could tell him he must go to the school again to learn to 
M. Parsons his carping vein.  English Istae: which signifieth Those and not These: but I will not imitate him in trifling. To the matter: There were but four causes which Bellarmine did, or could note for the Change of the Pope's Subjection, and every one of Those, he saith, were changed; doth he not therefore say that All causes were changed? If M. Parsons shall say that his horse is lame of his four feet, and hear some by slander confirm 
A similitude.  it, saying, that indeed his horse is lame of All his feet, he would not (I suppose) thereupon call him a fraudulent fellow, seeing that All the feet his horse hath are but four, for I will not imagine that Master Parsons his horse is a monster? I will now cease to insist any longer upon these his foolish wranglings.  
20 The cause standeth thus: we see that Popes then anciently 
A strange change in papal presumptions.  acknowledged Subjection unto Kings in a main point, which is, authority of Commanding a Council to be gathered: but now (as it is confessed) the case is changed. Then Christian Emperors were humbly entreated to lend their help: now they are imperiously commanded. Then they obeyed them in Temporal affairs: since they challenge authority to Depose them, which as their Barckley maintaineth is contrary unto the disposition & the Doctrine of the Christian Church, both in, and long after Times of the Apostles. From Bellarmine he holdeth it not amiss to pass to the jesuit Salmeron.    

SECT. VIII.  

The sum of the seventh charge of M. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
Master Morton will needs shake Salmeron by the sleeve, 
Reckon. page 415.  and show him a trick of his art, telling us that he allowed that the King was supreme in [spiritual] affairs and ordering Priests: citing Salmeron for proof hereof; which is not ably false, for Salmeron proveth the quite contrary.   

The Review.  
21 here I am constrained to shake M. Parsons by the 
M. Parson's notable falsehood.  sleeve, and tell him in his ear that he hath played me a feat of that art, which he calleth not ably false; by opposing unto me the sentence of Salmeron, concerning the authority of the Kings of the old Testament In spiritual affairs, and again, in spiritual matters: seeing that the title of that Question, concerning the authority of Kings over Priests, was in the very 
r Full Satisfact. part. 3. pag. 2.  place now objected expressly, and noted only to be In civil causes, and not in spiritual affairs. Is not this indeed a notable falsehood? But he will still be like himself.   

M. PARSON'S Reckoning.  
Summarily thus: Whereas Salmeron said by supposition, 
Reckon. ibid.  ubiid evenisset, If it had happened that Kings had prescribed some things unto Priests, it had been no marvel, for so much as the Synagogue was earthly: which supposition the Minister left out, that he might more cunningly shift and avoid it.   

The Review.  
22 I will not contend with M. Parsons about the words, ubi id evenisset, to examine whether it signify, by way of supposition, If it had happened; or without supposition, Whereas it had happened, seeing it may indifferently carry both senses. The question is, whether Salmeron (whom M. Parsons commendeth for a learned man, who hath writ many volumes, and was one of the first ten of the order of the jesuits) did suppose only, and not affirm that Kings in the old law had supreme authority over Priests, or no? Who can better decide this contention than Salmeron himself? First look to the same place, and he saith in the words following; 
f Salmeron. jes. Part. 3. Disp. 12 in epist. Pauli in genere. §. Sed contrà.  Itaq cum populus etc. Seeing that the people of God doth consist of a body and of a soul, the carnal part in the old Testament had the chiefdome, and was so appointed for signification of spiritual things. A little after, speaking of the old Testament; The law (saith he) is abolished, and the subjection of 
Whether the Prince or the Priest was supreme in the law of Moses.  Priests unto Kings. These terms exceed the degree of supposition.  
23 But howsoever Salmeron may seem to reel, and stagger in that place, both by Supposing, and by affirming; by doubting, and yet by concluding, notwithstanding if M. Parsons had had a desire to know the resolute, & determinate judgement of Salmernon in this point, he might have easily understood this express sentence of Salmeron. 
t Salmeron. jes. Tom. 12. Tract. 63. pag. 428. §. Sed nunc.  Nunc omissâ. etc. That is, Now omitting the spiritual power (saith he) in the law of nature, or in the law of Moses, which was less in the 
M. Parsons flatly confuted by Salmeron.  old Testament, than is the Regal and Kingly, and therefore the high Priests were subject unto Kings, as also among the Gentiles etc. Let M. Parsons ponder this sentence, and he shall find that this his learned man Salmeron, one of the first ten of M. Parsons his order, doth confute many score of jesuits, who since have held the contrary; This also showeth how absurdly ignorant M. Parsons is of the judgement of Salmeron. I am almost tired with his verbosities, and verbal skirmishes, and therefore having obtained the cause, I pass over his canvas of the word Synagoga, and the other of Populus Dei, and proceed unto the Materials.     

CHAP. II.  
Containing an Answer unto other eight charges.  

SECT. I.  

The sum of the eight charge of M. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
OUt of Salmeron, and Carerius patched together he 
Reckon. pag. 420.  maketh this Romish pretence, that the old Testament was a figure of the new in Christ, & that therefore the spiritual power (as Popedom) must be the chief, or substantive etc. and answereth, calling this rather babish Grammar, than sound Divinity, and saith that the earthly elements were figures of the spiritual and he avenly things in the eternal and celestial Jerusalem: Will he therefore conclude by sound Divinity, that it was not a figure of things upon earth, which should be fulfilled in the new Testament? Was not Manna a figure of the Eucharist, and Circumcision a sign of our Baptism? And Saint Paul. 1. Cor. 9 applieth that of Deut. 25. Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the Ox, that laboureth, unto Preachers maintenance of the new Testament. and 1. Cor. 10. All these things happened unto them in figures.   

The Review.  
1 I answer, that some of these Instances were ceremonial, 
Ceremonies of the old law how figures of the new.  and some examples of Gods extraordinary punishments. For the first, I deny not, but that Circumcision, Manna, and the Rock were types, and had analogy with the Sacraments, which are antitypa, and both conspire together in one Christ, as the archetypon of all, and therefore both are spiritual: for the which cause the Apostle showeth of the Israelites that they in their Elements 
a 1. Cor. 10.  Eat the same spiritual meat, and drank the same spiritual drink, meaning Christ; which was, as S. Augustine expoundeth it, The same which we do, namely Christ.  
2 The second, concerning the Ox, had the same moral equity in the old law, for the maintenance of the Priests & Levites, as it hath now in the Gospel for the Preachers. And as touching the third, we may say that the diverse miraculous judgements of God in former time upon Fornicators, Murmurers, and Idolaters in Israel, are figures unto the after-Christian world, that if we find not the like visible vengeances. yet are we taught to make true consequences from them, to wit; that if we dwell securely in like sins, although we feel not the like outward plagues, yet we shall be sure to be tormented in the end, because the God, who hath been just visibly, will be everlastingly just, to punish transgressions and sins.  
3 In the next place he exaggerateth this difference of translation, to wit, The old Testament is a figure of the new in Christ, in stead of this (as M. Parson's will have it) The earthly kingdom (of the jews) was a shadow of the spiritual government, that was in the Church of Christ. Both which are no more disferent, in effect, than figure and shadow, for M. Parsons confesseth that the proposition is true, that The old Testament was a figure of the new in Christ. The next exception is of some importance.   

M. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
There followeth in the Consequent or second proposition (that 
Reckon. pag. 422.  therefore in the new the popedom is the substantive) which is no less corruptly inferred in our name; than was the Antecedent affirmed: for that we do not infer, nor yet the Author Carerius in the said second Prop. or Consequence by him alleged, that forsomuch as the old Testment is a figure of the new, therefore in the new the Pope's spiritual authority is the substantive etc. For that this were a weak inference, as every man seeth. Nay Carerius maketh no inference at all in this place by him alleged, but only useth that similitude which before you have heard, of the Sunstantive and adjective.   

The Review.  
4 What is this? doth not Carerius make that Inference 
M. Parsons his egregions untruth.  M. Parsons? yea and doth he not make any inference thereof at all? Thus you have written, but with what conscience? For Carerius propounding this position, by way of objection, viz. 
b Carerius depotestate Rom. Pont. lib. 2. in 〈◊〉 & cap.  The Pope hath not, by the law of God, any temporal power, nor can he command secular Princes; a ground of which position was this, That one and the same person cannot be both a Politic and Ecclesiastical: this foundation he labe laboureth to confute by many examples of the old. Testament, from the which he concludeth thus: Hinc inlege, etc. Hence (we see) that in the old law the Kingdom was the Substantive, and the Priesthood the adjective: but in the new law of the Gospel Priesthood is the Substantive, and the kingdom is the adjective. Which is brought in to prove, that the power Politic, as the adjective, & the Power Ecclesiastical, as the Substantive may be both in one man. And is not this an Inference? And thereby further intimating, that as in the old the Temporal was the Substantive, that is, the superior; so under the Gospel the Ecclesiastical is the Substantive, and superior. And is not this That inference which I speak of; And finally the special drift of that book of 
c Carerius lib. 2. de potestat. Pont. c. 9 p. 127.  Carerius is nothing else but to establish a Monarchical power of the Pope both spiritual, and temporal throughout the world.    

SECT. II.  

The ninth charge of M. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
THere followeth against Dolman a like sleight.   

The Review.  
5 Dare Dolman yet again show his face? 
d Quod lib pa. 152. & 288.  Which book M. Parsons made (saith their Priest) and is a seditious book, most treacherously entitling the Infanta of Spain to the English crown. Could M. Parson's so often countenance this Trojan horse except he had meant to play the part of a Sinonicall dissembling Mitigator? But to the point.   

The sum of M. PARSON'S charge.  
He alleged Dolman to say, that the Commonwealth hath 
Reckon. pa. 424.  authority to choose a King, and to limit him laws at their pleasure. Which if it were truly alleged, yet is there not here any mention of people, or Democratical state, but only of the Commonwealth, which includeth both the Nobility and people. Secondly Dolman speaketh not of choosing a form of government, 
Dolman. part. 1. pag. 13.  be it democratical or other, but speaketh (as by his words we see) of a power of a Commonwealth that is devoid of any certain government, to choose them what form of government they like, with limitations they think most expedient.   

The Review.  
6 Upon this his conceit he complaineth of Falsehoods both in alleging the words of the Author, which are not in him, and also in inferring from them, which the words themselves will not 
M. Parsons his childish exceptions.  bear. First of the words. Dolman said, The Commonwealth hath power to choose her government, I said, To change her King. If she can change her Government, may not she alter her Governor? And Dolman saith in the margin of the same place, that The Commonwealth limiteth the governors authority. And is not a King a Governor?  
7 Concerning the sense M. Parsons seemeth to persuade us that Dolman (that is, M. Parsons himself) did allow unto 
M. Parson's wilful ignorance in his own books.  a Commonwealth only a power to choose a government, and not to depose a Governor. Is he not like to bewray his ignorance in reading other men's books, who is thus unskilful in his own? For in his Dolman we read, that 
e Dolman. lib. 1. c. 3. P. 32.  The Commonwealth hath authority not only to put back a new Inheritor upon lawful considerations, but also to dispossess them that have been lawfully put into possession. And again, 
f Pag. 38.  The Commonwealth (saith he) may cut off their heads, if they infect the rest. here M. Parsons playeth the nimble Barber, and can teach people to pol the heads of Kings. It is no marvel why his own fellow exclaimed against this book, calling it Treacherous, as though he had sentenced the Author to be worthy to have his head shaven for his doctrine. As for the word, democratical, which M. Parsons misliketh, I would but ask whether every Commonwealth were not included, where Commonwealth in general was expressed? After this he returneth unto Carerius his Paduan Doctor, whom I propounded as affirmmg that 
g Full satisf. part. 3. pag. 2.  The high Priest of though old Testament was Suprema in civil causes.    

SECT. III.  

The sum of the tenth charge, of M. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
HE maketh Carerius say, that The high Priest was Supreme 
Reckon. p. 426.  in civil causes, which words, Civil causes, he putteth in of 
Lib. 2. de potestate Rom. Pont. c. 18.  his own: for Carerius hath them not either in words, or sense, but teachcth the plain contrary in all his discourse, to wit, that he meaneth, in matters belonging unto religion and Priest hood, and not of temporal Principality, or civil causes, as this Minister doth beve him: Neither could Carerius mean so, except he should be contrary to himself, and therefore that clause was perfidiously thrust in by the Minister, etc.   

The Review.  
8 Except M. Parsons had a dispensation to traduce his Adversary by wilful untruths, I would not think that he could deal thus unconscionably: the matter is, whether Carerius named, or meant that the Priests of the old law had a superiority over Kings in Civil matters. M. Parsons denieth it, I have affirmed it, and shall now demonstrate it out of Carerius. 
M. Parsons his egregicus and open falsehood.  And because M. Parsons calleth to witness All the discourse of Carerius, I shall crave so much leave of my Reader, as to suffer me to passefrom the fountain down the river of this discourse.  
9 Carerius in his book ca 9 layeth down this position, that 
h Carerius lib. 2. de postate Rom. Pont. cap. 9  The Pope hath by divine law most full power throughout the world, Tùm in rebus Ecclesiasticis, tùm in Politicis, that is, both in Ecclesiastical and Civil things. And concludeth the Chapter in the same terms of Both in Ecclesiastical and Civil things. And this is the express and direct subject of that discourse, which he laboureth to prove (professedly against Ballarmine) from Canonists, from Decrees of Popes, from Reasons, until he come to the 13. chap. concluding therein, as before, that The Pope hath power over the whole world in Ecclesiastical and Civil matters. 
i Carerius lib. 2. cap. 18.  He pursueth the same point unto the 18. chap. wherein we now insist, where he seeketh to remove an Objection, which was made against his former conclusion of the Pope's authority in Ecclesiastical and Civil matters. The objection is this 
k Ib. num. 13.  The Kings of ludah did depose the Priests, Ergo, The Emperor may depose the Pope. Mark now (good Reader) the answers of Carerius. His first is, that In the old Testment the jurisdiction Ecclesiastical and Civil were both one, and was goverued by the King, who had power over Priests to put them to death. This, you will say, is contrary to my assertion; it is true, I confess it: but now hear his last answer in the same Chapter. There (as though he would recant the former, and be contrary to himself) he thus affirmeth. I say (saith he) that even in the old Testment the high Priest was above the King, which I prove out of Num. 27, where it is said that at the word of the high Priest josuah the Prince and all the people was to go in and out. The objection being concerning both Ecclesiastical and Civil power of the high Priest, and that the King might put him to death (a civil censure): The answer being of the Princes and people's going in and out (civil acts): and the whole scope being about Ecclesiastical and civil matters, M. Parson's must, to his own shame, necessarily acknowledge that I have not been contrary unto Carerius, but Carerius hath been contrary to himself. To this Paduan Doctor M. Parsons joineth a Dominican.    

SECT. IV.  

The sum of the eleventh charge of M. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
VIctoria (saith M. Morton) saith that Priests, besides that 
Reckon. pa. 428. Victoria Relect. 1. de potestate 〈◊〉 §. 7. and not the 4. as it is alleged by M. Parsons.  they are Ministers of the Church, they are likewise members of the Commonwealth, and a King is aswell a King of the Clergy, as of the Laity, therefore the Clergy is subject in temporal things, for such a matter is not ruled by any power spiritual. Aplaine demonstration. So he. And so I say, it is a plain demonstration, but of M. Mortons' falsehood and abusing the Reader, to make him believe that Victoria favoured him in this matter of the exemption of Priests, whereas in the very place here cited Victoria saith that Ecclesiasticiiure exempti sunt, that is, Eccelesiastical men are by law exempted and freed from the civil power, so as they may not be convented before a secular judge either in criminal, or civil causes.   

The Review.  
10 I have called my proof, taken out of Victoria, a plain demonstration, to confute the now pretended Romish exemption of Priests, which M. Parsons calleth a plain demonstration of my falsehood, as though I had abused the sentence 
M. Parsons his gross slander.  and sense of Victoria: wherein if M. Parsons have dealt justly, then think (good Reader) that he can not do me an injury. I shall easily acquit myself both by the evidence of the place of Victoria, and by the confession of their own Doctor, in his like exposition of Victoria. First, the text standeth thus: 
l Victor. Relect. 1. § 7. Prop. 4.  The persons of Clergymen (saith Victoria) are not altogether, nor in all things exempted from the civil power, neither by human, nor by divine laws. And after, in 
The excemption of Priests.  the Prop. 8. If the liberty of Clergymen (saith he) were to the manifest destruction of a Commonwealth, so that Ecclesiastical persons should riotously work the slaughter of Laics, and the Pope would not remedy it, then secular Princes might provide for the good of their Laics, notwithstanding the privilege of the Clergy.  
11 This is so contrary unto the claim that the now Pope hath made of a power to exempt Ecclesiastical persons, notwithstanding the contrary opposition of Magistrates, that their own Doctor (in his 
m Defensio Marfilij adverse. Bellar. c. 3. §. Prima prop.  confutation of Bellarmine about this point) doth produce the judgement of many scholastical writers, as 
n Ibidem, §. Pro tutela.  namely, Medina, Covarrwias', Sotus, Victoria; unto whom (which is our second point) he adjoineth himself; who, although he say it is lawful to exempt the Clergy; yet doth he not defend an absolute necessity. And thus the Argument proveth to be a Demonstration of M. Parsons his ignorance. Another Demonstration of his idleness he will give himself in his next Addition: the sum whereof followeth.   

M. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
We shall further find so many monstrous corruptions, intermissions, 
Reckon. p. 1. 429.  and geldings, as is a shame to behold: for whereas Victoria saith that Clergymen aliquo modo subjiciuntur Regi, that is, in some sort are subject to the King, he leaveth out these words, In some sort: And instead of saying that Clergymen, for so much as appertaineth unto temporal affairs, are not governed by Ecclesiastical power, he saith: that the Clergy is subject to civil authority in temporal things, for such matter is not ruled by any spiritual power: whereby he would have his Reader to imagine, that no spiritual power may have authority to govern temporal matters.   

The Review.  
12 I did effectually enough translate the words, In some 
His vein of contentiousness.  sort, when I expressed the sort to be In temporal things, and not in spiritual. In the second place, if the other two translations be compared, I think the Reader shall find that as much may be collected out of M. Parsons his translation as out of mine; which maketh me partly to take up the Orator's complaint, who was afraid to deliver an Oration to the vulgar people, Because (saith he) they will not understand the meaning; or to the learned, for they will understand more than is meant. I may reckon M. Parsons among the learned sort, for sure I am that I intended not any such persuasion. From private Doctors he thinketh good to pass unto an Archbishop and Martyr, Boniface.    

SECT. V.  

The sum of the twelfth charge of M. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
THe Canon, as it is alleged by M. Morton, is this, [though 
Reckon. pa. 432.  a Pope should carry many people with him into hell, no man may presume to say, Why do you so?] I marvel with what conscience, or if not conscience, with what forehead at least, these men can write things, which they know, or may know to be merely false and forged? Is not this a sign of obstinate wilfulness, and that neither God nor truth is sought for by them, but only to maintain a faction, with what sleight and falsehood soever.   

The Review.  
13 What is that whereof M. Parsons his head is so full, that he should require a forehead in his Adversaries? here is a Parturiunt montes, we shall see many ridiculous mice by and by. The first followeth.   

M. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
M. Morton citeth the Canon of Gratian, Si Papa, in the 
Reckon. pag. 432.  name of Pope Boniface, in stead of Boniface a Martyr, who was never Pope, but a virtuous learned Englishman, who lived 850. years agone, and was Archbishop of Mentz in Germany. Which escape; besides the ignorance, tasteth also of much profane malice and impiety.   

The Review.  
14 Can there be any thing spoken in prejudice of any Pope, which will not prove unsavoury in M. Parsons his palate? If I have erred in mistaking the Inscription of Gratian, you might the more easily pardon me, knowing that Gratian himself is charged by your own 
o Epist. Taracon. De emend. Grat. Dial. 1. pag. 5.  Bishop for applying false inscriptions to the testimonies which he allegeth. But let us take him for that Boniface the Martyr, and not Boniface the Pope, yet hath this Canon been always allowed by many Popes: and what difference of judgement can there be in an Author, and in an authorizer of any work? Neither may any hold it an Impiety, to except against the saying of 
The Martyrs have been men of imperfection.  some Martyrs, for divers Martyrs have not been without the tincture of some errors, otherwise S. Cyprian should not have held until this day the title of a Saint. Victorinus erred in the question concerning the state of souls, and is therefore taxed by Cardinal Bellarmine, who saith that 
p Bellar. l. 1. de beat. Sanct. c. 5. §. His add.  Victorinus was a Martyr, yet (as S. Hierom saith) he wanted learning. How will this answer of S. Hierom, and Cardinal Bellarmine relish with M. Parsons: must both these also be noted of Impiety? See the next.   

M. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
The Sum. He showeth from the Canon, that the Pope is 
Reckon. ibid.  not to be reprehended, etc. but concealeth that the same Canon pronounceth damnation upon such a negligent Pope: and that such a one is to suffer eternal punishments.   

The Review.  
15 I was only to prove what prerogative was ascribed unto the Pope in this life which was, Non iudicandus, nisi à fide devius: it concerned me not to tell that a wicked Pope must be judged and condemned after this life, whereof none can doubt, but an Atheist. Yet more.   

M. PARSON'S Reckoning.  
In repeating the Canon thus: [No mortal man shall, or may 
Reckon. ibid.  presume to reprehend him] there he endeth; in which short there are many frauds; for first he leaveth out, istîc, here in this life: then praesumit, doth presume, he translateth, may presume: and lastly he leaveth out the reason, because the Pope is not to be judged.   

The Review.  
16 That is to say, I would not imitate M. Parsons in idle 
M. Parsons many idle impertinences.  and impertinent superfluities: for he that saith, No mortal man may presume to reprehend a Pope, must needs understand in this life, except M. Parsons have some divine power and commission to send a Mortal man (for in heaven there is not any reprehensible) to reprehend some Pope in hell. Thus much of the first fraud.  
17 The second is as childish: for the sentence is, as M. Parsons calleth it, a Canon; and the property of a Canon is directory, prescribing what may, or may not be done; and the next words explain the meaning, The Pope must not be judged. This showeth M. Parsons his folly. The third is yet more frivolous, for the assertion being nought, the reason cannot be good, which is this: The Pope cannot be judged, which conclusion hath been condemned by their council of Constance, and of Basil, both which held that Popes are subject unto the judgement of a Council even for manners. These former exceptions, were but little mouses: now the great one leapeth out.   

M. PARSONS his Reckoning, summarily.  
But the greatest corruption, which most importeth the simple 
Reckon. pag. 435.  Reader, is this, that he translateth the former sentence thus: Though he should carry many people into hell, yet no mortal creature may presume to say, Why do you so? But in the Latin, neither in the Canon itself is there any such interrogation at all, as why do you so? And therefore I may ask T. M. why do you lie so? Or why do you corrupt your Author so? Or why do you translate in English, for the abusing of your Reader, that which neither yourself do set down in your Latin text, nor in the Canon itself, by you cited, hath it at all? Is not this wilful and malicious fraud? Wherein when you shall answer me directly and sincerely, it shall be a great discharge of your credit with those, who in the mean space will justly hold you for a Deceiver. I find the same objected by Sir Francis Hastings and afterward by Matthew Sutcliffe, but I find the same confuted at large by the Warnwoord. 
Pag. 432.    

The Review.  
18 And I must tell M. Parsons, that seeing the Canon 
M. Parsons his wild retorique.  doth not allow Any mortal man to reprehend a Pope in this life, except he deflect from the faith; consequently it will not permit a man to say, in way of reproof, Why do you so? As every Barber, Baker and trivial man knoweth, by the common phrase of speech: and therefore I may well echo against M. Parsons, and say, Why do you trifle so? Why do you riot so? Why do you rage so?  
19 But it may seem that M. Parsons is thus earnest, because 
His zeal for the Pope without knowledge.  he thinketh it would be no small stain to their Pope, if he should be known either to say, or to allow any to teach that None may reprehend the Pope, saying, Why do you so? Oh fie! this is more than ever M. Parsons heard of. I would therefore entreat this our great. Doctor to turn his eye unto the Gloss upon the Extravagants, where it is said, in the behalf of Pope's dispensation, 
q Extravag. de Concess. Tit. 4. cap. 2.  Nec est qui audeat dicere, Domine, cur it à facis? that is, Neither is there any, that dare say, Why dost thou so? Where (as though this point 
M. Parsons his gross ignorance, or else peevish malice.  were worthy the sight of all passengers) there standeth in the Margin as it were a finger pointing unto it, saying, Let no man say to the Pope, Domine cur it à facis? My Lord, why do you so? Therefore must I ask you once again, Why deal you so rashly, in writing you know not what? or, in objecting malice in such a matter, why do you reproach me so maliciously?  
20 Furthermore, because I find M. Parson's making mention of Sir Francis Hastings, and of his own book of Warnwoord, I must furthermore be so saucy as to pull him once again by the sleeve, and ask him by way of digression whether he be not the man that denied that this salutation, [Dominus Deus Papa] is found in the Gloss of some Canonist?    

SECT. VI  

M. PARSONS his Warnwoord, against Sir Francis Hastings his Wast-woord, concerning, Dominus Deus Papa.  
SIr Francis Hastings saith that the Canonists say roundly 
Warnwoord, Enc. 1. cap. 2. Pag. 30. num. 10.  in the Gloss, Dominus noster Deus Papa, Our Lord God the Pope: but if it were so, why doth not Sir Francis either roundly or squarely quote us the text? Sure it is, that I cannot find it, though I have much sought for it; and hard it is to believe that any such text may be found. But yet here to help out S. F. with some part of his credit, and for very compassion I will add a conjecture of a friend of his, how he might chance to have been deceived about Dominus Deus noster Papa, if he cite it upon his own reading, for that perhaps he might find it written thus, D. noster D. Papa, both D. D. signifying a double Dominus, which some cavilling Heretic espying, & judging it inconvenient to repeat Dominus twice, would needs enforce the second D. to be set for Deus. This my conjecture is confirmed somewhat by the similitude of a like fond chance, whereof I have heard as happened in the Subscription of an English letter, written from certain Mariners to the Lord Admiral in these words: To the right honourable, our good L. the L. Admiral, which second L. a simple fellow interpreted to signify the Lady Admiral, saying that the first L. signifying the Lord himself, the second L. must needs signify also his Lady. If I miss in this conjecture or comparison, S. F. is cause thereof, that cited not the text, thereby to clear all matters, and to deliver both us of this doubt, and himself of new suspicion of imposture.   

The Review.  
21 I like you well, M. Parsons howsoever the matter go, you can make yourself mirth with your own fancies 
M. Parson's blind insollency, or else perfidious Hypocrisy.  and conjectures, as though there were no such thing as Sir Francis alleged out of their Romish Gloss, when as yet there can be nothing more apparent, for in the Extravagant at the word significâsti, Tit. 14. cap. 4. the Gloss saith plainly in the very same words, Dominum Deum nostrum Papam, that is, Our Lord God the Pope, even, as it is set out by their best approved edition of the Extravagants. But so it pleased M. Parson's rather to bewray his own ignorance of the common Romish Gloss, than to lose his jest of Lord, and Lady, although it be but a silly one God wot: for what man could be so simple and indeed stupid as to think there could be any congruity of speech in such a superscription as he hath feigned, viz: To the right honourable our good Lord, the Lady Admiral; wherein, as it were, by a strange metamorphosis, the sex is changed, a Lord, being turned into a Lady? What then shall we think of M. Parsons his wit, who hath so unjustly imputed unto Sir Francis a suspicion of Imposture? If he sported thus in dissemblance, he must be judged to have been malicious; if in ignorance, hath he not been ridiculous? I return to our Reckoning; wherein from Boniface an Archbishop he passeth to a Pope Leo.    


SECT. VII.  
The thirteenth charge, concerning the Oath of Allegence. The sum of M. PARSON'S Reckoning.  
POpe Leo (saith M. Morton) writing unto a true Cntholike 
Reck. pag 436. 437.  Emperor said, You may not be ignorant that your Princely power is given unto you not only in worldly regiment, but also in spiritual, for the preservation of the Church. As if he had said, not only in causes temporal, but also in spiritual, so far as it belongeth to the outward preservation, not to the personal administration of them; And this is the substance of our English Oath. And further neither do our Kings of England challenge, nor subjects condescend unto. In which words you see two things are contained: first what authority S. Leo the Pope above 1100. years agone ascribed unto Leo the Emperor in matters spiritual & ecclesiastical. The second, by this man's assertion, that neither our Kings of England challenge, nor do the subjects condescend unto any more in the Oath of supremacy, that is proposed unto them. Which if it be so, I see no cause why all English Catholics may not take the same in like manner, so far forth as S. Leo alloweth spiritual authority to the Emperor of his time. Wherefore it hehooveth that the Reader stand attended to the deciding of this question: for if this be true, which here M. Morton avoucheth our Controversy about the Supremacy is at an end. 
* Reckon. pag. 439.  hereupon I urged him very earnestly, that this assertion might be maintained, saying, among other things: Me thinks such public doctrine should not be so publicly printed and set forth, without public allowance and intention to perform and make it good. If this be really meant, we may easily be accorded: if not, then will the Reader see what credit may be given to any things they publish, notwithstanding this book cometh forth with this special commendation, of published by authority, etc. Which words in my judgement, should have moved M. Morton to leave somewhat to the matter in this his Answer, and not to have passed it over so stily, as though never mention had been made thereof. But every man will guess at the cause, and so we shall expect it at some other time.   

The Review.  
22 I will take no longer Time than this present, and upon the issue hereof will I appeal unto the Reader, to judge according to the just appearance of truth. That which I thenaverred hath been since published in print by one of far more exact judgement, than that I may be worthy to say, that he hath published the same. And this passed under the approbation and privilege of our gracious King, who is the Lex loquens, and can best interpret the sense of the Oath. 
r The Reverend B shop of Chichester in Tortura Torti, pag. 380.  We yield (saith this reverend Prelate) nothing to our King, which belongeth unto Priestly function, neither doth the King affect it: he justly challengeth, and we acknowledge due unto him those acts which appertain unto outward policy, for the care of religion, which is, according to the law of God, to be both keeper, and protector of the tables of the law of God, by punishing of blasp hemous idolatrous, and false Prophets, in restoring religion unto her ancient purity, governing all kind of persons (within his Kingdom) aswell Ecclesiastical as Laics, yea even unto the deposing of a Priest upon his demerit. This is as plain a profession, and with as good Authority, and from as worthy a pen, as the 
M. Parsons his promise challenged.  State, which made the Oath, could perform.  
23 What say you now, M. Parsons? Will you, as you said, Accord unto this Oath? Then must you renounce the Breves of your Pope: if you will not Accord, then are you, 
Pope Leo subject unto the Emperor.  in these offers, but wretched Aequivocators. And the rather, because 
s Card. Cusanus Concord. Cathol. li. 2. c. 20.  Pope Leo (as your Car. Causanus observeth) submitted himself unto all the punishments, which were contained in the laws of the Emperor Martianus. Upon which consideration the same Cardinal made bold to complain of after-popes', 
Pope's degenerate.  who have degenerated from the humility of their Ancients. In his next exception there is nothing but verbality, that is, a lavish trifling about words.   

M. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
These words, Debes incunctantèr advertere, he translateth, 
Reckon. pa. 437  Thou may not be ignorant, he should have Englished it thus: Thou ought resolute ely to consider.   

The Review.  
24. By M. Parsons his Grammar, Incunctantèr, is, resolutely. I think the Boys of his College will correct this, and tell him that, Incunctantèr, is, without delay. There is no 
M. Parsons his ignorance both in Latin and in English constrution.  reason we should expect true Latine-Grammar of him, who faileth so absurdly even in his English Grammar: for Resolutely to consider is a phrase (I think) which an English ear will hardly endure. It had been better thus, To consider resolutely, and yet this is absurd: for our English is, To resolve considerately, and not, To consider resolutely; because in this the cart draweth the horse.  
25 I am ashamed of these impertinencies, whereunto I am constrained by Master Parsons, who delighteth so much in frivolousnesse, that 
t Reckon. pag. 438.  he reproveth me for translating the word, Praesidium Ecclesiae, preservation of the Church, and must have it, forsooth, Englished, Defence of the Church, as though defence were not preservation, and preservation 
M. Parsons his ridiculous exception against translation.  Defence. It seemeth that M. Parsons meaneth to claim some kindred with that wise Asynonomist, who once said, that Pepper is hot in operation, but cold in working: and to shake hands with that miserable comforter, who used 
A similitude.  no other reason to comfort a young scholar, that had been expulsed out of the College, than to tell him that he was but Expelled only, and not expulsed.    

SECT. VIII.  

The fourteenth charge, in the point of Equivocation, out of Sepulueda. M. PARSON'S Reckoning.  
BUt what saith this Doctor Genesuis Sepulueda? He will 
Reckon. pa. 440.  tell you (saith Master Morton) that this sense (of this text of Scripture) which you conceal is not only contrary to the sentence of all Fathers, but also against all common sense. And is this possible? Will Sepulucda deny all those Fathers, alleged by me before for our interprotation, to be Fathers? Will he say, that their exposition is contrary to all common sense? doth not Genesius himself in the very chapter here cited allege both S. Hierom, and S. Augustine for this interprotation, and alloweth the same? What shameless dealing then is this of our Minister, to charge Genesius with such folly or impiety, which he never thought off? For Genesius denieth not either the sense or interpretation of the place, and much less saith, That it is contrary to the sentence of the Fathers, and least of all, to commonsense: but denieth only the application thereof for use and practise to certain cases, wherein he admitteth not Equivocation. etc.   

The Review.  
26 The 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 part. 3. pag. 5.  Text of Scripture is Mare. 13. 32. Of that day and hour knoweth no man, no not the some himself etc. Sepulueda alloweth the interpretation which the Fathers give hereof, but not in the sense which the Equivocators do urge, and therefore he admonisheth his Reader to take heed lest 
M. Parson's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by his 〈◊〉 presumption.  that upon this interpretation there be brought in a doctrine of Equivocation, which in his former chapter he did condemn for a lie, as I 
* See above lib. 1. c. 13. num. 5.  have proved at large. Therefore the falsehood is of M. Parsons his part, who will not distinguish the interpretation which Sepulueda admitteth, from that Equivocating sense, which he abhorreth. After this M. Parsons returneth to his word-bate.   

M. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
Secondly be maketh Sepulueda discredit the Fathers, which 
Reckon. p. 441.  he himself allegeth, Englishing ancient Fathers, for, ancient Schoolmen; and addeth, consensum, of his own, leaving out, hominum, to make it sound common sense.   

The Review.  
27 If there had been in M. Parsons any sense of common 
M Parsons wilful falsehood.  shamefastness, he could not have said, that I made Sepulueda discredit the Fathers: for Sepulueda said, I will tell you (Equivocators) that the sense, which you conceit, is contrary to the sentence of Ancients. Was this to discredit the Fathers, nay was it not greatly for their credit to profess simplicity, and to condemn your Equivocating subtlety? And such like is his next Cavil: for 
x Setulueda Tract. de 〈◊〉 etc. pag. 469.  Sepulueda doth as expressly name these ancient Fathers, Hierome, Augustine, Basil, as well as he did the ancient School Doctors. 
His other untruth.      

CHAP. III.  
Containing an Answer to the next five charges.  

SECT. I.  
The sum of the xv. charge, in the point of Equivocation.  

M. PARSON'S Reckoning.  
He quoteth Sotus, but all is treachery, falsehood, 
Reck. pag. 442.  and lying in this Impugner of Equivocation, for first by subtle Doctor all understand Scotus, and not Sotus.   

The Review.  
1 I Called your Sotus the subtle Doctor: you say that this epithet belonged unto Scotus. I have heard that two Gentlemen, the one English, the other Scotish, met together, the one sitting on the one side of the table, and the other 
A Similitude.  on the other side. And when the English man asked, Quid interest Scotum & Sotum? What therewas between a Scot and a Sot? The Table, quoth the Scot There was wit in this. But if we ask M. Parsons what odds there is between their Scotus the Franciscan Friar, and Sotus the Dominican? he will answer us, Subtlety. Is not this a great 
His vain vaunt.  piece of learning for M. Parsons to vaunt of? And yet, if we may believe Sotus, even Scotus also will condemn your manner of Equivocating for a lie.   

M. PARSONS his Reckoning, & sum of his charge in the point of Equivocation.  
He will never be able to show out of Sotus, that all Equivocators 
Reck. pag. 444.  are liars; this assertion is an incredible impudency, because Sotus saith, that in some cases it is lawful to equivocate, 
〈◊〉 lib. de legend. secretis, nu. 3. q. 3. conclus. 4.  as where he teacheth a man, that is asked unjustly, to answer, Nescio, Qui iure intelligitur, Nescio, ut dicam, aut Nescio eo modo, quo iure debeam dicere, etc. 
* Reck. pa. 445.  This wrote I in my former book, and having convinced so evident falsifications, as here have been laid down, quite contrary to the meaning and sense of the Author alleged, I marvel that some little place had not been allowed for somepiece of Answer to this also among the rest. But belike M. Morton was not ready.   

The Review.  
2 I was as ready then, as now, to tell you that herein you play a kind of Scotus and subtle Sophister with me, wilfully abusing both your own knowledge, and your Readers ignorance, by not acknowledging the principal point in question, which was not against Verbal, but only against that Mental Equivocation, which hath been described by yourself to be lawful, whensoever the speaker shall reserve any thing in his mind, which according to his understanding doth agree with the outward words of his mouth, be the clause of reservation whatsoever it pleaseth him to imagine; As to say, I am no Priest, meaning, with purpose to tell it you. All such kind of mixed propositions you in your Treatise of Mitigation do absolutely defend: Which (I say again & again) is by Sotus rejected as mere lying; which I shall easily prove out of Sotus his positions and examples, from the same book wherein you have insisted.  
3 If we would know what kind of Equivocation Sotus will allow, let us consult with him in his positions. First, 
a Sotus de legend. Secret. memb. 1. q. 3. concl. 1. pag. 295.  He that is injuriously examined may use all kind of Amphibologies, or doubtful speeches, so as they may be understood in some usual sense without a lie. He admitteth not Equivocating in any sense, which is not by the use signified in the outward speech itself: and of this kind is (in his judgement) the 
Sotus falsely and grossly abused by M. Parsons.  word, Nescio, in the cause before mentioned, whereof Sotus saith, 
b Ibid. conclus. 2. pag. 299.  Words do carry that signification which the people apprehend; and Christian people, when they hear a Priest (who is asked whether he know such a man's sin) answer, Se nihil scire, do understand his meaning to be, that he knoweth it not extrà confessionem: which maketh a verbal Equivocation, or amphibology, the knowing of a Priest being of two sorts, In confession, and Extrà confessionem. So that the man which is asked, whether he knoweth that which he heard only by relation from another, may (in the opinion of Sotus) answer 
c Ibid. pa. 300  NESCIO, because a man properly knoweth that which he comprehendeth by strong reason. And this amphibology is verbal, for Nescio hath a double sense in itself, according to the understanding of men, properly signifying that which I do certainly not know; and unproperly that which I know but uncertainly, and by report: And thus, saith Sotus, 
d Ibid. pa. 301.  the Priest may answer, NESCIO, because he had it but by relation of the party confitent, who might (peradventure) have lied. 
e Ibid. Conclus. 4. pag. 304.  Except the matter be manifest, and so he proceedeth to approve 
f Ibid. pa. 307.  Nescio, in such a case to signify, by the intendment of the law, Non scire, ut dicam, or, ut debeam dicere. To conclude, 
e Ibid. Conclus. 4. pag. 304.  Sotus never alloweth any other Equivocal sense, which is wholly enfolded in the clause of Reservation, but that only which the outward speech itself may (in his opinion) carry in the common use, according to the apprehension of the discreet hearer: which, in the opinion of Sotus, is a verbal Equivocation. And this matter may be demonstrated by his examples.  
4 First, 
g Ibid. Conclus. 4. pag 314.  If a Tyrant ask a Priest, whether Peter killed john, which the Priest knew in confession. whether he may answer, He killed him not, reserving, That I may tell you, Sotus 
Sotus his examples.  resolveth that this answer cannot free the Priest from a lie: for (saith Sotus) It were a most foolish exposition to say, 
M. Persons falsehood in not acknowledging the judgement of Sotus by whom his equivocation is proved a stark lie.  Non occidit, Vt dicam, because facta ordinom immediatum non habent ad hoc, quod est, Dicere. Let us compare our new Aequivocators with Sotus. M. Parsons admitteth any Reservation, which being mixed with the outward speech, maketh a true proposition, as, I am no Priest, conceiving in my mind, To tell it: which differeth not from that of Sotus, He murdered him not, reserving, That I may tell it you: which Sotus cannot excuse from a lie. A second example. When a party is Unjustly, demanded, concerning a fact which he had committed, Whether he may answer, Non a concerning a fact which he had committed, Whether he may answer, Nonfeci, I did it not: Scotus (saith 
h Sotus ibid. Conclus. 5.  Sotus inclineth to the negative part, And I (saith Sotus) cannot be persuaded that it is lawful to answer, Non feci, neither can I perceive, how it can be excused from alley: for if any way this might be, then especially by understanding in his mind, Vt dicam, That I may tell you. But this sense were most violent: for the fact hath not any such order to the speech. Yet doth this mixed speech make a true proposition, which uttered in part with the mouth (in the judgement of Sotus) cannot be excused from a lie: and consequently M. Parsons his art of AEquiuocating is an art of stark lying. 
Another example.   
5 An other example: we have often heard of the story of S. Francis his sleeves, which for the time we will suppose to be true: He, when a malefactor was pursued by ossicers, being asked whether he saw the malefactor pass by, or no? Answered, Non transivit hàc, that is, He passed not this 
S Francis his lying sleeve.  way, (meaning, as Sotus readeth it, per sinum, as others, per manicas) through his sleeve: This example our Aequivocators use to urge, to the end that they may cover their lying device with S. Francis his sleeve: but if we believe Sotus, that sleeve is too short to hide so long a lie: for 
i Ibid. p. 318.  This device (saith he) will not content me, because although he that is unjustly asked a question, be not bound to answer unto the intention of the demandant, yet is he bound to hide a secrecy in such words, which are true in a sense which is received either among the people, or else among wise and discreet men. here Sotus judgeth a Mental Reservation, agreeing with the mind of the speaker, to be no better than a lie, even because the outward speech will not carry the secret sense, in the understanding of discreet hearers. Which is the whole and only point, which in my dispute against the Romish equivocation I undertook to prove. And lest that any might think that their AEquiuocating device were any way sanctified by touch, as it were, of S. Frances his sleeve, Sotus opposeth against that a contrary example out of S. Augustine, as followeth.  
6 An other example. 
k Ibid.  S. Augustine reporteth another example: There was a Bishop (saith he) whose name was Firm, 
Another example out of S. Augustine.  but himself was firmer in his resolution, who hiding a man that was pursued by officers, and being asked, who it was, answered only thus: I may neither lie, nor yet betray the party: and thereupon he himself was carried to be tortured, who suffered torment, yet through his patience he obtained favour of the Emperor for the deliverance of the man that had fled unto him. This being by Sotus opposed unto the former example of S. Francis doth teach us that he would not allow our Aequivocatours pretence, who would have readily answered that question by saying, Nobody, meaning, To tell it unto you: and S. Augustine his Firmus in these days would be hissed out of their schools for a simple and witless fellow even as our AEquinocatours would (if they had lived in these days) been driven out of Christendom for graceless montbankes. But hear what followeth.  
7 An other example. Before he delivereth this example, 
Another example, confuting Romish Aequivocators.  he propoundeth a Conclusion, which is principally to be observed. In the case of a man who is wrongfully questioned about a most secret fault, 
l Ibid. 〈◊〉 7 P. 319.  If (saith Sotus) he cannot find words, whereby, through an Equivocation, which is in the common use of men, he may cover his fault without a lie, he ought rather to die than lie. Still we find, that whatsoever the equivocation be, it ought to be such as consisteth in the common use of the words themselves. And therefore where the question is, concerning a guilty person, who killed Peter and is examined thereabout, Whether he may answer, I have not killed him, conceiving in his mind another man of the same name Peter, being one whom indeed he killed not: Such an answer (saith Sotus) cannot be without a lie, because according to the received use of all men, an affirmation and negation in proper names are so taken for the same man, as if this only had been thereby signified, viz. for that Peter, of whom the question was asked. How then shall their AEquiuocating Priest avoid the guilt of a lie, who being asked, whether he were a Priest, Answered, No, meaning, A Priest of Apollo, the heathenish God. And being demanded whether he were ever beyond the Sea, answered, No, meaning, the Adriatic Sea. We see that here also their Sotus meeths with their Aequivocator, to prove him alier.  
8 The last example. 
m Ibid. pa. 322  But what shall the guilty miserable 
The last example to the same purpose.  woman do, when her husband shall constrain her by violence to confess whether she had committed Adultery, or no, and she cannot find any amphibology, to hide herself in? I answer (saith he) That the iniquities of men are more than that we can prevent them: therefore in such a case it is better to die, than to transgress by lying. This had been but a fond Resolution, if he had thought that Nescio, ut dicam, would have served the turn, which to free the speech from a lie, notwithstanding is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the profession, and practise of our Equivocators, and whereby it is most easy to prevent all guiles of the most subtle Interrogatories. In brief; in the shutting up of this Treatise he granteth that Words which have not a true sense, according to the signification, which is received into common use, cannot be excused from a lie. Which conclusion, with all these premises, I leave as a Glass unto M. Parsons, and other Professors of Mental Equivocation, to look their faces in, and at their leisure to tell me what they see. From the Spanish Doctor Sotus, he goeth to a Flemish Doctor Cunerus.    

SECT. II.  

The sum of the sixteeneth charge of M. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
CVnerus is no less injuriously alleged than the former: for 
Reckon. pag. 444. 445. Cunerus de office Princ. cap. 13.  Cunerus saying, In religione concordiae sola est ratio ut omnes, etc. that is, This in religion is the only way of concord, that all men with apious mind do wholly conceive and practise that which is taught in the Catholic Church of Rome: Master Morton translateth; This is the only true religion, which is taught in the Church of Rome. What dealing is this? etc.   

The Review.  
9 Any man may perceive what kind of fish M. Parsons 
M Parsons a mere Carper.  is, who can thus carp at words, perversely concealing the plain intention of the Author Cunerus: he intending to prove the Hollanders to be Rebels against the K. of Spain, who were 
n Cunerus. pag. 131.  not possibly to except concord, except first they would consent in one Religion, and that there is no true religion but that of the Church of Rome, Whereunto (saith 
o Cunerus, pag. 133.  Cunerus) a Christian Prince is sworn to be a defender of the faith, namely of that Romish, and therefore he will have that King, as Sara, to cast out Agar and her son, so to remove out of Holland all of the contrary profession of Religion. If then he allowing no possibility of Concord, without consent in religion; and no Religion, but that which is Romish, doth he not evidently say that the Romish is the only Religion? I am vexed with M. Parsons his vanities, and desire something material. Peradventure we shall find it in the next instance.    

SECT. III.  

The seventeenth charge. M. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
NOw we come to another abuse pertaining to two menindifferently, 
Reckon. pa. 446.  to wit, Cassander a German Schoolmaster, and Bellarmine a Cardinal: but we shall ascribe it rather to the German for this present, for that we have had diverse examples about Cardinali Bellarmine before.   

The Review.  
10 Shall I attribute this omitting of my Abuse of Bellarmine 
M. Parson's idle and fond collusion.  unto M. Parsons his remissness, or rather to his barrenness, and indeed fondness? who offereth to Reckon for an abuse of Bellarmine, and yet will not tell what it is. Wherein M. Parsons abuseth Bellarmine (in my opinion) bringing him upon his stage, to no other end than (as Cato went into the Senate) to carry him out again. But what of Cassander? I would hear first something of the man, and then of the matter.   

The sum of M. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
Finding myself weary with prosecuting the labyrinth of his intricate 
Reck. pag. 448.  juggling tricks, I will draw to an end, adding only one example more in this place. First to pretermit that he goeth about to deceive his Reader by the opinion of gravity, and learning in George Cassander of Bruges, who was but a Grammarian in his days: and that he was a Catholic, who is consured for an Heretic primae classis in the Index of prohibited books: and not only for heresies of his time, but also Quòd dicit Spiritum S. minus advocandum, & adorandum esse. etc.   

The Review.  
11 It were good you knew how to make an end, and better it had been for you in your reputation, that you had 
His shameless falsity.  not begun at all with this taxation of Cassander, it is so notoriously shameless: for (I beseech you M. Parsons) what great cause have you to contemn a Grammarian, how 
Cassander his estimation.  much less to say that Cassander was but a Grammarian? As though he had been unworthy of any better esteem, whom 
p See Cassander his book De Consult. printed at Colen, 1577. where are the letters of the Emperor Ferdiand, and Miximilian  both the Emperor Ferdinand, and Maximilian King of the Romans sent for (about the time of the Council of Trent) and made singular choice of him, before any other Doctor, with whom they might consult, concerning the weightiest points of controversy in Religion, and in that respect was he commended by the Emperor for a man of singular learning, and godliness, and entitled, Theologus, that is, a Divine: and by Maximilian he was extolled for a man godly, learned, and discreet, & benè versatus in sacris literis, that is, One very conversant in holy Scriptures, of whom we have need, saith Miximilian.  
12 Who may not hereby perceive with what eyes M. Parsons looked upon this so rare and excellent a Divine (as 
His envious detraction against Cassander.  the testimonies of those Prince, and his own writing show) in whom notwithstanding he can see nothing but a Grammarian? Which savoureth of an envious detractiòn, even as his next exception doth taste of vanity, in alleging their Index Expurgatorius as though it were evidence enough to prove one no Catholic. Those that have red that Index 
Their Index Expurgatorius.  know that it often purgeth out of Authors more good blood, than gross humours. And whether any such words be in Cassander, concerning, the holy Ghost, or in what sense he speaketh them, I have not yet observed: this is plain, that his whole works do magnify the Deity of the holy Ghost, and also do enlarge man's duty in the worship of the blessed spirit of Grace.  
13 Afterwards M. Parsons anatomizeth, as it were, the whole text of Cassander, cavilling about unnecessary, and impertinent terms: for the scope of all was to show that Protestants (in the opinion of Cassander) were hold to be Uera membra Christi, that is, The true members of Christ; and that Princes were to seek to establish a peace of religion between, them, and the Romanists. To what end then are M. Parsons his other skirmishes? where with he beateth the air? Only onething excepted, which concerneth Cassander, to know what profession he was of, seeing M. Parsons can not abide his Acquaintance, as will further appear,   

M. PARSONS his Reckoning. The sum.  
Thirdly he doth most notably cog, in thrusting in the word, 
Reck. pag. 450. & 451.  à nobis, meaning thereby to make Cassander seem a Catholic, and to speak in the behalf of Catholics. And then he translateth Catholics, Papists, as though Cassander, if he were a Catholic, would call us Papists.   

The Review.  
14 By M. Parsons his censure Cassander is not to be called a Catholic, nor yet may Catholics be called Papists. First of Cassander. That my Reader may know that 
M Parsons his faithless dealing with Cassander.  I was as far from coggery, as M. Parsons is from true modesty in his denials: I shall but desire him to observe that Cassander in the same book of Consult. Art. 7. in defence of the Romance Church, 
q Canssand. Cansult. Art. 7.  saith; Verum, nil tam grave in Pontifices NOSTROS dicipotest, quod non in Saccrdotes judaici populi conveniat; that is, Nothing (saith he) can be spoken against OUR Popes, which might not aswell be objected against the Priests of the jews. Thus he inserteth himself in the number of ‛ Papists. Secondly, he was held to be a Papist of Protestants, as by 
r Osiander in his Papa non Papa, epist. ad lectorem  Osiander, and 
s As Netuius confesseth in his defence of Cassander.  Beza. Thirdly, some Romanists themselves have acknowledged him in their public writings for theirs, as namely, 
t In his defence of Cassander.  Bartholomeus Neruius, and 
u Thuanus hist. part. 3. Anno. 1572. pag. 107.  Thuanus, who reporteth of him, that he was the instrument to draw Baldwine unto the Roman religion. Notwithstanding as Mable of Windsor, that thought that there is no other part of the world which she saw not within the compass of her Horizon, so M. Parsons cannot discern a Catholic except he be within the circumference of his own seditious doctrines: in brief, this denial that Cassander was a professed Romanist, is an inexcusable falsehood.  
15 If M. Parsons be disposed to see a notable coggery indeed, he need but turn back again to a 
* See above lib. 1. c. 12. num. 6.  testimony of his own cited out of Calvin, where to make Calvin an Adversary unto all the ancient Fathers, in the point of prayer for the dead, M. Parsons himself hath foisted in the word [Omnes] All, of his own, against the express meaning and resolution of M. Calvin, in that very place. This is properly Coggery to foist in a word which agreeth not unto the truth of the matter; whereof we have 
* See above. lib. 1. cap. 1.  seen divers examples in Suares, Bellarmine, and Gratian.  
16 Howsoever it giveth us some cause of admiration, that M. Parsons is ashamed of the name of a Papist, seeing that the word [Papists] cometh of Papa, that is, The Pope, 
The name of Papist held both as glorious and odious among the Romanists.  to whom M. Parsons professeth subjection, as a matter necessary to Salvation; how can he then abhor his own surname? His fellow 
x Anast. Coche. let Palastrit. hovoris etc. p. 9 & 6.  Cochelet is more zealous in the defence of that title, We are Papists (saith he) and confess it and glory in that name. And Doctor 
y Stapleton Doctr. prine. li. 4. c. 2. ad fincm.  Staplet on maketh Papists and Catholics to be Synonmies. But why do we busy 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 join diverse together, 
Reckon. pag. 452.  whereof I accused him in my former writing to have corrupted two Authors jointly, Royard a Friar, and Cunerus a Bishop.   

The Review.  
17 Be not offended if that which you deliver in gross, Two together, I utter by retale, yet so, as to keep your own order, which is to let your Friar Usher your Bishop.   

M. PARSONS his Reckonig.  
It is not credible to him, that hath not compared the books 
Reck. pag. 453.  themselves, how he hath abused divers 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 Friars and learned catholics do hold, so long as he containeth himself within the nature of a King: for that otherwise (which is the question in controversy) Royard himself saith, Parendum ei non esse, That he is not to be obeyed. But this is not to be 
Dominic 23. post. pentecost. Con. 2.  judged by the people and their mutiny, as Protestant Doctors do teach.   

The Review.  
18 This M. Parsons hath brought in for a choice example, among 〈◊〉 of (as he saith) an incredible abuse of my Authors: therefore I desire my Reader to esteem of those divers others, by this, wherein he doth particularly, insist, and it will prove M. Parsons to be an incredible Accuser: for the sentence of Royard 
a Full satisfact. part. 1. p. 30.  standeth thus: 
b 〈◊〉 Serm. 2. in dom. 23. post. Peutecost.  Although there be in the people a freedom of election, yet, after they have chosen a King, they have no power to remove the yoke, but stand in necessity of subjection. M. Parsons hath surveyed the sentence, and can not take any exception to the citation of it, wherein he saw that Friar Royard preached unto the peoplea Necessity of subjection, so far, as Not to remove the King, whom they have once chosen. Which conclusion, as M. Parsons knoweth, doth condemn the now positions of their jesuits, and especially M. Parsons his Dolman proving them indeed to be no better than rebellious. How will M. Parson's avoid so plain a witness of their own Friar? Mark, I pray thee, Christian Reader, (for this trick he fetcheth out of the bortome 
M. Parson's egregious falsehood, misciting the judgement of Royard.  of his budget) by a false repetition of the sentence, as if it had been thus: That a King, when he is made by the people, can not be deposed by them again at their pleasure: whereby he turneth Royards' necessity of subjection of the people, and their not having any power to remove the yoke, into not removing him only at their pleasure. Is this good dealing? but the necessity of his cause did constrain him to this shift, because there was no other means to make this 
c Royard. serm. 1. Dom. 1. Aduentus.  Friar and himself friends and professors of the same doctrine, but only by abusing the sentence of Royard, and making it not to be the same.  
19 His next guile and cunning is, by enquiring into another Tome of Royard, to find out (if he might) some sentence 
M. Parsons next wilful & notorious falsity.  to counterpoise the former: which pains needed not, if he could have shifted himself honestly of the former, without notorious fraud. But at length, after much fishing, all that he hath catched is but this poor gudgeon. A King, saith Royard, must not be obeyed, when he commandeth any thing contrary unto godliness, which (saith M. Parsons) is the controversy: which is his godless falsity, for look the place in my Full Satisfact. part. 1. pag. 31. the controversy, there set down, was not whether people are bound to obey the unlawful command of their Kings, but whether they have power to depose them. The Apostles being commanded, not to preach the Gospel, answered, 
d Royard. dom. 23. post Pentecost. serm. 2.  Whether it be better to obey God or man, judge you: yet did they not teach the people to reject such Commanders, and to hold them for no Magistrates. And Royard in this place, now cited by M. Parsons, insisteth in the fact of S. Ambrose, who obeyed not the Emperor, but reprehended him; but yet did not Ambrose teachmen to depose him. I would propound an argument to M. Parsons, but I doubt he will stumble upon it, and fall & break his forehead. It should be this: If the Popeshould command him any thing, which is directly against God's commandment, would M. Parson's obey him? He would not, for than he should make the Pope his God: but in not 
A Dilemma.  obeying him, would he seek to depose him? He would not; for he hath taught, that for wickedness of manners the Pope may not be judged by any. Whereupon it followeth, that these two, viz. the not obeying, and the deposing of Kings, are not the same controversies.  
20 Therefore may I easily allege against M. Parsons the saying which a Philosopher used against a fond Disputer; 
e A. Gellius. A similitude.  Hic homo sinè controversia doctus est; This man without controversy is very learned, for in controverting he showeth no learning or very little. To conclude, M. Parsons hath showed us two singular knacks of legerdemain; the one is, the wilful perverting of the testimony of Royard, changing a necessity of not removing the yoke, into not removing at their pleàsure; which are two contrary senses: the second, by changing the state of the Controversy, to wit, the Deposing of a King's person into Disobeying the King's unjust command. We leave the Friar, and draw near the Bishop.   

The sum of the charge. M. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
He citeth Cunerus, though brokenly, testisying that it lieth not 
Reck. pag. 453. Full Satisfact. part. 1. pa. 30. Cunerus lib. 〈◊〉 office Princ. c. 5.  in the people's hand to reject their Prince at their pleasure: But Cunerus saith nothing against usbut against the Rebels of Flanders, & altogether for us, who notwithstanding this exact obedience, which we require of subjects to their lawful Princes, hath aspeciall Chapter expressly proving that in some causes the Commonwealth and the Church have authority to restrain and remove them. What falsehood is this, to allege Authority flatly against their meaning? doth this become a Minister of simple truth? is this for a man, who so much abhorreth equivocation? So I said to M. Morton at that time, when I expected he would return some answer to my demand: The like I do repeat again now, and will attend what may come from him hereafter.   

The Review.  
21 I am sorry that I have been so long in your debt, and therefore now upon the second sight of your Reckoning I hope to make all straight by an answer which will be, I doubt, less acceptable unto you, in giving you to understand that you are, M. Parsons, in this Reckoning, a most unconscionable person, in imputing unto me matter of falsehood herein. For the doctrine which I 
f Full Satisfact. part. 1. pag. 29.  there sought to refel, was the opinion of your jesuit 
g Sameron in epi. Pauli in 〈◊〉 disp. 12. §. I am de.  Salmeron. If a Catholic King (saith Salmeron) shall fall to be an Heretic, or an Apostate, reason willeth that among Catholic people he be removed from the government of the Commonwealth: but why? Because the power was first in the people, then in the King, and is derived from 
M. Parsons is unconscionably iniutious.  the King to the people. This reason I confuted by the testimonies out of your own Doctors, the first was Royard, who said, that the people had not any power to remove the yoke: the second testimony was out of Cunerus, which standeth thus: 
h Cunerus lib. de office Prnic. 6. 5  Some say that the authority of Princes dependeth upon the courtesy of the people, as thinking, that they, who gave consent to choose a King, have power likewise to depose him. But (proving this from Scriptures) wheresoever a King is established by the consent of the Kingdom, this ordinance is of God, and the people must obey. Which flatly contradicteth the former Conclusion of Salmeron. And further than this I did not meddle with the opinion of Cunerus. Therefore in this charge you have played either the Equivocator, or the flat (aposiopesis;) or both.  
22 Furthermore, to satisfy your expectation to the full, if I had stepped a degree further in alleging Cunerus, your own Barckley would even out of Cunerus have justified my Conclusion: for he (under standing, by people, 
i Barcl. lib. 5. contrà Monarcho. c. 12. p. 385.  All them who are associated together under one civil law, in one commonwealth, of what kind, age, wisdom, dignity, soever they be) doth prove out of Cuncerus, 
k Lib. 3 c. 12.  That the King hath not his authority only from the consent and covenant made between the people and the King, but from the ordinance of God: and that he 
Observe a necessary doctrine, and forcible enough to confowd the rebelleously affected.  that resisteth this authority, doth violate the constitution of God. And (out of his 7. Chapter) That the Scripture every where witnesseth, that albeit Kings do sin, yet may they not be resisted with arms, or violence, but are to be judged of him, who is greater than all Kings, which is that wisdom and truth, which crieth, Hear, o Kings, and understand. etc. Which he illustrateth by an example of joas, an idolatrous King of judah, who most cruelly put the Prophet Zachary to death, and was slain by the hands of his own servants in his bedchamber: who after that fact were justly slain by Amaziah the King and next Successor unto joas in the Kingdom of judah. It will therefore stand M. Parsons upon (if he affect truth) to compare this of Barckley and their Cunerus together and try how he can reconcile either Barckley with Cunerus or else Cunerus with himself. M. Parsons his next passage is unto our Countryman Sayer.    

SECT. V.  

The sum of the nineteenth M. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
OUt of Sayer he allegeth this sentence: An obstinate Heretic 
Reckon. pa. 454. 455.  is he that is presumed to be, as he that is manifest: but Sayer speaketh not of heresy, but only of him, who may be excommunicated by a judge, for contumacy, in not 
Sayer. lib. 1. 〈◊〉 consc. c. 9  appearing; which is a different thing from obstinacy or pertinacy, and this whether he be an Heretic or Catholic. And he defineth contumacy to be nothing else but a certain disobedience, whereby he is not obeyed that sitteth in judgement: and putting down two sorts of contumacies, either manifest, or by presumption; manifest, if a man being cited doth refuse openly to appear or obey the judge: by Presumption, when he is presumed to be contumacious, and so may excommunication, if it be a spiritual court, proceed against him, as if contumacy were manifest. Is Master Morton so simple in Divinity, as not to discern between Contumax, and Pertinax, whereof the one is a disobediency towards Superiors, the other is a tenacity of opinion, as hath been defined?   

The Review.  
23 If M. Parson's would be so equal, as to allow me that, which he in his own defence hath alleged and pretended for himself, which is, the excuse of lapse of memory concerning terms, then can I not be inexcusable herein, because at that time I could not see the book of Sayer. And although every Pertinax be not a Contumax, yet every Contumax is Pertinax. If I had dealt with Sayer, as their jesuit Suarez is confessed to have done with a testimony of Aquinas, when in stead of 
* See above lib. 1. cap. 1. Sect. 1.  pre-ordination he put in Subordination, which are flat contrary, then might it well have become M. Parsons to call it (according to this Reckoning) The most faithless deceit, and corruption that ever any honest man put to paper against an Adversary. For this change of terms doth fully contradict the Author's meaning, which he did, because the word of Aquinas would have overthrown his whole cause.  
24 But if we take the testimony of Sayer, which M. Parsons 
M. Parsons maliciously snatcheth at words and shadows, and wittingly loseth the substantial matter.  will acknowledge to be truly his, it will sufficiently prove the principal matter, which I then intended, which was especially to know in what case Protestant's may be thought to stand, by the principles of Sayr, and whether they may not lie under the Romish excommunication, and so be made liable to their cruel censures, before any public and parsonal praemonition by name. Shall we hear Sayer discoursing upon the nature of excommunication? 
l Sayer de casib. consc. lib. 1. ca 12. §. Primò siuè.  There is an excommunication (saith he) of man, and an other of law: in excommunication by man the party inobedient must first be admonished; 
The doctrine of Sayer is prejudicial unto the State of Protestants.  but in excommunication by the law it is sufficient that the admonition be general, which is made of him, who is the Author of the law, whereupon it happeneth, that he who offendeth against the admonition of the law, doth thereby fall presently into excommunication. 
m Ibidem, §. Quartus est.  There are certain cases, wherein the personal citation and admonition is not necessary, to wit, when it is not given against any particular person, but generally, which is when it is given for future offences, such as are all the censures which are given by law, for that the law doth always admonish, lest that any commit a crime which it forbiddeth: in which case there is not any other admonition necessary. Again, 
n Ibil. §. Primus est.  When a man hath been often moved to repentance, seeing that now his contumacy is manifest, he may without any further admonition be excommunicated. Let then these rules be but applied against Protestants, whom they call Heretics, and what shall we need more for the knowledge of Sayr his judgement concerning the cause itself? M. Parson's would rather have pondered the matter, than canvased words, if he had not been stronger in raging than in reasoning.     

CHAP. FOUR  
Containing an Answer to other three charges.  

§. I.  
The twentieth charge, concerning the point of Equivocation, according the judgement of Cicero.  

M. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
FRom Christians and Countrymen he passeth to 
Reck. pag. 457.  Heathens, and committeth such notorious falsehoods against one of them, even then, and there where he speaketh of faithful dealing, against perfidiousness, as may tustly make any man admire, what he did suppose his judicious Reader would think of him, when he should see the fraud disclosed.   

The Review.  
1 I doubt that you will play the part of some Heathen rather than of a Christian, before you dispatch this piece of Reckoning. The Story was thus delivered. 
* Reck. pa. 457.  There was a man (saith Master Morton) who together with nine other prisoners being dismissed out of the prison of Carthage, upon his oath, that he within a prefixed time should return again: as soon as he was out of prison, he returned, as though he haed forgotten something, and by and by departeth home to Rome, where he stayed beyond the time appointed, and answered that he was freed from his oath. But see now the opinion of his own Countryman Cicero, concerning this Equivocation of return. This was not well done (saith Tully) for that craft in an oath doth not lessen, but make the perjury more heinous. Wherefore the grave Senators of Rome sent this cozening mate back again to the prison of Hannibal, their enemy, from whom he had escaped. etc. This example of sincerity in that Heathenish Rome I objected against the now Christian Rome, to confute the ordinary doctrine and practice of Equivocating. The exceptions, which M. Parsons taketh, are partly for the method, partly for the meaning of Cicero.   

M. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
Mark then the deportment of this man in this one point, and 
Reckon. pa. 458.  if you knew him not before, learn to know him by this. First then I would have some Grammar-scholar, that studieth Tully's offices, to turn to the places here quoted, and comparing them with that which this Minister setteth down in English, consider how they hang together, and how he picketh out one sentence in one place, and another in another, and leapeth forth and back to make some coherence of speech, contrary to the Author's order, sense, and method, as is ridiculous to behold, and fit for the cozening mate, of whom he talketh in his text.   

The Review.  
2 I did think that M. Parson's could not have so soon forgot his gross absurdity in syllogizing, which I commended unto the examination of his Scholars, & whereof he hath been so much ashamed, as that being charged for changing the Copula, which in the Mayor was [Maketh] the judges competent, into [Are] competent judges in the conclusion, 
M. Parsons playeth both fond and falsely upon a wrong string.  which was the great blot and loss of his whole game. Therefore I presumed that he would be wary, in calling young Scholars any more to witness between us. The place is known in Tully his office lib. 3. it beginneth at, Sic decem. etc. and endeth at, Ad Hannibalem ducerentur: If I have misreported the substance of the Story, or made any excursion out of the due compass thereof, then let his Scholar-boys (for I desire not to trouble men with these triflings) hold me worthy of his taxation. As for the calling of the place Carthage, which Tully nameth Castra, quorum erant potiti Poeni, that is, The camp, which the Carthaginians did hold, and wherein the man was kept prisoner, it cannot help or hinder the point of Equivocating. Now come we to the matter.   

M. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
The most notorious cousinages, that he poruerteth all Cicero 
Reck. pag. 459.  his meaning, words, sense, and discourse in this matter, alleging them quite contrary to himself, as before you have heard him do many other Authors, so he belieth and corrupteth them all, both divine and profane. And if in this one point he can deliver himself from Punicafides, I will say he, playeth the man indeed.   

The Review.  
3 If I shall free myself from the note of cozenage, than 
M. Parsons is a wary Gamester.  all that M. Parson's will allow me in the conquest is only the reputation of a man: this is an excellent gamester, he will cast at me, and adventure nothing himself. But, good M. Parsons, if you will say that I have played the man, when I have freed myself from this slander of cozenage, what will you give me leave to call you, if the cozenage shall fall upon yourself? May I not think, that you play the part not of man, but of that animal the fox, which you propounded unto your Equivocators, as a natural example for their imitations? Let the wager be but indifferent, and I shall not refuse the Trial, whereunto I proceed.   

M. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
First, I say that if they swore absolutely to return again, if 
Reck. Ibid.  they obtained not their suit, they were bound truly and sincerely to perform the same. And secondly, that they being now justly by law of arms prisoners of Hannibal, they were bound to swear sincerely to his intention, and not to any other reserved meaning of their own, as in the former Chapter hath been declared.   

The Review.  
4 Very good, they were Prisoners by the law of arms, 
A comparison between Heathenish and sum Romish prisoners.  and might not therefore violate their oath: some of yours who have been prisoners by the law of the land, according to the law of nature in cases of mere treason, sometime (notwithstanding their oaths unto their keepers to be true prisoners) have made use of their heels and after their escape have found entertainment and security in the now Rome. Neither may you answer, that such men swore not absolutely, but equivocatingly, for so (you know) did that faithless prisoner, whom the Senate therefore sent back again in a vengeance unto Hannibal. All this while we hear nothing of Mental Reservation.   

M. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
This very doctrine also teacheth Cicero by light of nature, in 
Reckon. pa. 459. 460.  these words perfidiously cut off, and left out by this Minister in the very same place, out of which he taketh the rest. Est 〈◊〉 (saith he) ius etiam bellicum, fidésque iurisiurandi saepe hosti servanda: quod enim ità iuratum est, ut mens couciperet fieri oportere, id seruandum est: quod alitèr id si non feceris, nulium periurium est. There is also a law of arms (saith he) and a faith in our swearing to be observed often times, even unto our enemy. For that which is so sworn by us, as our mind doth conceive that it must be done, this is to be observed: but if it be otherwise sworn, that is no perjury, if he perform it 〈◊〉 Behold here the very same distinction, which Catholic Divines put down of swearing according to the intention and understanding of the swearer, or of him, to whom it is sworn: and that the former is, that bindeth and maketh perjury, if it be not performed, and not always the second, to wit, when any violence or force is used.   

The Review.  
5 Behold here a strange and strong delusion: M. Parsons collecteth from those words, [That which is sworn, as 
M. Parsons his misconstruction of Tully's offices.  our mind doth conceive that it must be done, that is to be observed: but if it be otherwise sworn, that is no perjury, if he perform it not,] that Cicero did understand some reserved clause conceived in the mind mixed with the outward speech, to make up one full proposition, such as is their Priestly Equivocation, I am no Priest, conceiving inwardly, with purpose to tell it unto you: which kind of mixture never came unto the fantasy of Cicero, or yet of any heathen Writer. But his meaning may be easily explained, thus: That which is sworn as our mind conceiveth, must be done: that is, when we swear unto any, to whom we conceive that we owe faithfulness, albeit they be even our hostile enemies, unto whom (as he speaketh in the words immediately going before) there is a faithfulness due, according by the common law of arms, That oath is to be observed, and may not be broken: but if we swear otherwise, that is, unto them unto whom we think that there is no fidelity due, such as are Pirates, that oath, although it be not performed, yet is it not perjury, that is, in the exterior Court of men, because Pirates, and such perfidious kind of men (of whom he speaketh in the next words) who are transgressors of the law of Nations, have no authority to judge it perjury.  
6 If this exposition, concerning the outward Court of man, do not satisfy M. Parsons, I shall not refuse to join issue upon the inward Court of the mind and conscience. And the proposition of Sin aliter in Tully truly resolved standeth thus: If I swear any thing, thinking in my mind that I ought not to do it, this is no perjury, although I shall not perform it. If our Equivocators will allow this proposition, then must they say that no man can be perjured in swearing any thing, which he thinketh to be unlawful; but this is incredible: If they will condemn it, then must they 
A Dilemma.  also condemn M. Parsons for a profane man, who esteemeth of this impious doctrine, as of a Catholic truth, especially seeing they can not find their clause of Mental reservation in all this: for when a man sweareth with his mouth, saying, This I will give thee, and in his mind shall conceive, yet I will not give thee this, because I ought not; these are two diverse, and partly contradictory propositions, and make not a mixed proposition, which is the only point that the Equivocators do defend. This will be more manifest by the example following.   

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
Which Cicero doth express in the very next immediate words, 
Reck. pag. 460.  by the self same example, that Azor used before: Si praedonibus pactum pro capite precium non attuleris, nulla fraus est: nè si iuratus id non feceris, etc. If thou should not pay the price or ransom unto public thieves, which was agreed between you for saving of your life, it is no deceit, no though you had sworn to perform it, etc.   

The Review.  
7 methinks I do perceive an (etc.) there: Yea M. Parsons? can you play the gelder so openly, to cut off the words which follow, and are of so great importance? to wit 
M. Parsons his excellent piece of craft, in cutting off words of Cicero, which are of most importance.  these; Nam Pirata non est ex perduellium numero definitus, sed communis hostis omnium: cum hoc nec fides esse debet, nec iusiurandum common. That is, For a Pirate is not to be reckoned in the number of enemies (meaning such, with whom we ought to keep fidelity, for Perduelles in this place is no more than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) but is the common enemy of all, with whom there ought not to be common faith, or oath. This verifieth my former exposition, concerning the outward Court of man, supposing that the meaning of Cicero is, that seeing thieves and Robbers are outlaws, the oath which shall not be kept with them can not be perjury, and so censured by any law ofman: for when there is no Ius, which is to be violated, there can be no periurium. And in all this there is no note of our Equivocators mixed clause of Reservation, which the sequel will more fully explain.   

M. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
It followeth in Cicero: Non enim falsum jurare peierare est, 
Reckon. pa. 460. 461.  sed si ex animi tui sententia iuraveris, sicut verbis concipitur more nostro, id non facere, periurium est: scitè enim Euripides, juravi linguâ, mentem iniuratam gero. That is: It is no perjury to swear false, (in any sort whatsoever) but if you swear a thing which you determine in your mind, and do utter it in words according to the common custom of speech, and do not perform it, this is perjury: for well and fitly to the purpose saith the Poet Euripides, I have sworn with my tongue, but my mind hath not sworn. So he. And consider now, I pray you, the punica fides of our Minister against our Roman faith. He saith that Cicero and other Heathenish Romans shall rise up against us at the day of judgement, for that they condemn all reservation or doubtful sense in an oath, and do condemn it for perjury: where as Cicero affirmeth, that there is neither perjury nor fraud therein. And the same Philosopher alloweth the very same example of swearing, with a reserved intention, to a public thief without either meaning or obligation to perform it.   

The Review.  
8 This is soon said by you of Cicero, and may as easily 
Cicero can not patronize M. Parson's Equivocating, except M. Parsons do profess and justify a lie.  be confuted out of Cicero, who held that the oath, which he spoke of, is false, and also that notwithstanding the falsity thereof, it was lawful to use it against thieves, who are lawlessemen: which piece of Philosophy our Christianity did never allow.  
9 For proof that Cicero thought that to be lawful, which Christians call a lie, we need not the conjectures of your Sotus, who saith, with a peradventure, that 
a Sotus de tegend. secret. membr. 3. q 3.  It was the opinion of some Philosophers, that it is lawful to lie, for the avoiding of some grievous evil, which they called a merciful lie, whereof there is mention in Plato Tom. 3. de Repub. and in Cicero pro Q. Ligario. Of Plato there can be no difficulty, for he allowed Physicians to lie unto their Patients, to the end that by cordial words they might better revive them.  
10 As for the knowledge of Cicero his judgement in this case, Cicero himself will suffice in this present place: for 
The proof.  first (as we have heard him say) It is not perjury to swear false, thereby confessing that that oath, although made unto a Pirate or thief is false, because the promise unto the thief was to give him something, but his intention was not to give him any thing; Can there be a greater falsehood in speech? Yet he calleth this no perjury, because this being done to thieves, who live under no law of men, there is no law of man that will in that case condemn a man of perjury. But if chose the like oath should be made unto men, who lived under a common law, Cicero calleth it perjury, because in this case words are conceived more nostro, that is, according unto human fashion of speech, which amongst civil men in the outward Court exacteth a performance, and not to do this is periuric. I would but demand of M. Parsons, If one of his Equivocators should make such an oath to a thief, which he meaneth not to perform, whether therein he swear false, or no? If he shall say, No; then is he condemned by Cicero, who saith that it was falsum jurare, that is, to swear a false thing. If he say yea, then is not that true which they swear, and consequently (how soever it stand in the outward court of man) it being false, it must be in itself, and in the in ward court of our conscience a flat perjury.  
11. The second Argument issueth out of his application of the verse of Euripedes, alleged by M. Parsons; I have 
Cicero his plain lying is brought in by M. Parsons to the countenancing of his AEquiuocating  sworn with my tongue, but my mind hath not sworn. So he, saith M. Parsons, whence he collecteth thus: Cicero affirmeth that there is in such an oath neither fraud nor perjury. So he; thereby to confirm the art of Mentivole all Reservation in an oath; which is as absurd a collection, as could have been made, for the oath, signified in this verse, we see a swearing with the tongue, and a not swearing with the mind, that is, the tongue is divided and distracted from the mind; the tongue promising and saying [I will give thee this] the mind denying and gainsaying thus [I will not give thee this,] which in Christianity cannot but be a main lie, according unto the vulgar description used by S. Augustine, 
b Aug. supra.  Mentiri est contrà mentem ire: It is a lie, to go against the mind.  
12 Shall we compare the Equivocatours art in this? In Cicero's oath we see two propositions, the one is in the mouth, and affirmative, I will do this; the other is in the mind and negative, I will not do this; and in both there is a flat contradiction between the tongue and the mind, which is downright lying. But the Equivocators are refined falsificators, for that they may avoid the infamy of a lie, which must needs be in two contradictory propositions, they have invented a trick, to put two propositions in one, as thus, the mouth saying, I will give thee it (which he inteudeth not to give, and supplieth in his mind) but only in conceit, or such a like clause, which he shall fancy to himself. If therefore the Equivocatours will defend Cicero his reservation, then must they profess flat lying, affirming with their mouth, that which they deny in their mind. But if they will maintain only their mixed proposition by Mental Reservation, they must seek another Parron for it than Cicero, who never fancied any such conceit. Notwithstanding Cicero is thus far more righteous than the men of this generation, for he admitted no use of his manner of falsehood, but against thieves, Pirates, and such as were perfidious even unto human society, living without the law of Nations: But our Equivotors can profess and practise their art of delusion among Christians, yea and (as M. Parsons hath taught us) in deceiving our dear friends. We pass now on to M. Parsons his Conclusion: for that which he objecteth out of Azorius is but a twice or thrice sodden colwoort.   

M. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
Truly when I read it over together with many other points 
Reck. pag 461.  before mentioned, and do cousider how weighty matter of accusation they do contain, and how much I do insist upon them, to make the deformity thereof appear in the Readers eyes, 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 errors, so far as such they may be called: or rather of his witting fraud, to beguile his Reader, which were the best and truest form of answer, if almighty God would give 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 think it lawful perhaps to strain truth, for helping such a cause as his is) yet I cannot but marvel, that he would pass over with silence all these graver matters, and betake himself to slighter things in this his last Answer.   

The Review.  
13 What sound conscience can M. Parson's have in himself, who judgeth that any man can think he may lawfully 
M. Parsons, by censuring other men's consciences, hath prejudiced his own.  in his conscience strain the truth? if M. Parsons measure us by the footings of his own kind, who justify evil acts, that are done with good intentions, such as were they that called the lies of Indulgences Godly deceits, he is deceived: he must be contented to enjoy the company of his own fellows, and not to range into other coasts for trial 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 upon with an arrant strumpet.  
14 As for myself, here I set my hand, and by this my Answer, and in this the inward thought of my heart to wirnesse (for a testimony between us in that day) that I am persuaded that Mental Equivocation (as it is described and professed by M. Parsons, and practised by some of his fellows) is a perfect lie, and that this Siren or Mermaid, which is half woman, and half fish, I mean their Mixed proposition, which they will have to be part in the mouth, and part in the mind, will never be proved out of Cicero, or any 
Mental equivocation cannot possibly be proved out of the Testimony of any Heathen.  Heathenish Author. Which point I insisted upon in my Full satisfaction, but have not received from M. Parsous the least shadow of satisfaction hereunto, out of the writing of any Heathen Philosopher, except only the now alleged sentences of Cicero, who, according to his own confession, held a false oath to be lawful, which is more than our AEquinocators will seem to dare to defend; and that which they defend Cicero (if he had heard of it) would have called, a lie. And so I leave it.    

SECT. II.  

The one and twentieth charge. M. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
THat you may know that this number of 20. is not precise, 
Rock. pag. 462.  but that many others may be added also, if a man will run over my said Treatise, I have thought good to note more. One is concerning D. Barkley a Scotish man. The first in that he relateth a certain choleric speech of the said D. Barkley used against an argumont of D. Boucher, as though it had been spoken against Bellarmine, whom it concerned not, etc. Which is a wilful corruption.   

The Review.  
15 I should be very sorry but that M. Parson's might easily object more than a score, yea or twenty score accusations of this kind, wherein in the Reader shall not find my corruption, but his own wilful and slanderous crimination. For he that will but view the place, 
c Full Satisfact. part. 3. P. 7  shall not find in the translation so much as mention of either Bellarmine or Boucher; but I said only that your D. Barkley calleth your assertion 
M. Parsons his fine trick of fraud.  most false: which in the margin I noted to be the assertion of Bellarmine, mentioned not in Barkley, but in the 3. cap. Suprà, to wit, in the same book of my Full Satisfaction, as it there plainly appeareth. Notwithstanding, if I had brought in Barkley to confute Bellarmine by name, Barkley himself would have justified me, who doth expressly and professedly write against 
* See a little hereafter,  Bellarmine upon the very same point, as I shall show. Shall we leave their persons, and speak of their Assertions?   

M. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
Nor indeed is Bellermines manner of speech contrary to that 
Reck. pag. 462. 463.  which Barkley will have to be the meaning of the History: for that Barkley doth not so much stand upon the things in controversy for Priest's authority, but upon the manner of proof, by the examples alleged by D. Boucher, of jeroboam, Ozias, Athalia, and some other Princes, in whose punishment God used Priests for means 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 over Christian Kings and Princes, nor am I ignorant what manner of right it is: yet do I not see how the same may be proved by such impertinent arguments; nay I know rather that it cannot be so proved. Which words going but very few lines before those that T. M. allegeth, he could not but see and yet left them out, and then beginneth against us his English text thus: Your own Doctor calleth this your assertion most false, and contrary to the direct history of the Bible, to wit, That Ozias was deposed of his kingdom by Azarias the high Priest. And this is the first abuse, as to me it seemeth, inexcusable.   

The Review.  
16 No marvel though you think this, or any other thing, inexcusable, that passeth from me, whilst as you 
M. Parsons his mahcious falsehood.  look upon it thorough your wont spectacles of rancour and despite, otherwise you could not have been so grossy overseen, as to think me herein reprehensible at all, much less inexcusable: thereby bew raving our incredible malice, as by comparing the Author's sentences will be most clear and evident.  
17 
d Full Satisfact. part. 3. pag. 4.  Bellarmine his assertion was this: King Ozias, for exercising the Priestly office, was deprived of his kingdom. So he. This assertion 
e Ib. pag. 5.  Barckley called False and contrary to the direct history of the Bible, and ancient Interpreters, because it 
Bellarmine fully confuted by Barkley.  is manifest (saith he) that Ozias died a King, and that his son, during his leprosy, was only Rector. Again, Bellarmine from the same example of Ozias, collected that 
f Bellar. lib. 5. de Pout. ca 5.  The high Priest had power to deprive the King of his kingdom. chose Barckley saith, that 
g Barcl. lib. 5. contrà Monarcho. cap. 11.  It is most false to say that Ozias was deprived of his kingdom by the high Priest; saying and proving, that it is either great indiscretion, or else impudency, to affirm it, because it is confuted by most evident Scripture. Can there be a greater contradiction between East and West, true and false, than there is between East and West, true and false, than there is between these two opinions of Bellarmine and Barckley?  
18 Notwithstanding, in M. Parsons his seeming, Barckley, his odds is not so great. And why, I pray you, M. Parsons? 
h Barc. ib. lib. 3. cap. 15.  Because Barckley doth acknowledge a manner of right in the Church over Kings. What a wilful intoxication is this? We speak of the power coactive of deposing of Kings, which Barkley denieth to be justifiable: M. Parsons opposeth Barkleis' confession of a spiritual power of excommunication. Nay, I say yet more: Barkley was so far from agreeing with Bellarmine in this point, that he writ a large Chapter against him by name, to confute his many rebellious positions made against the authority of Kings; and among others he doth particularly answer this his objection concerning Oziah, 
i Barcla. de potestate papae. c. 37.  I have shown (saith he) that this is most false. And now I leave this fraud of M. Parsons to be named by himself, presuming that he that he that called my true Allegation Inexcusable, will not want a proper Epithet best befitting his own guiltiness.    

SECT. III.  

The sum of the two and twentieth charge. M. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
THe second is about an authority of S. Ambrose, craftily cut 
Rock. pag. 463. 464.  off from the speech of the said D. Barkley by M. Morton, whereof my accusation in my former Treatise was this, viz. But yet if I would examine (quoth I) the particular authorities that be alleged about this matter, though nothing making against us, as hath been said, and consider how many false shifts are used by T. M. therein, you would say that he were a Doctor indeed in that science, for that a sever all Treatise will scarce contain them. I will touch one for example sake. He citeth D. Barkley, bringing in the authority of S. Ambrose, that heresisted not by force his Arrian Emperor, when he would take a Church from him for the Arrians: but he setteth not down what answer his Doctor Barkley doth allege in the very same place, which is, Allegatur Imperatori licere omnia, etc. It is alleged, that it is lawful for the Emperor to do all things, for that all things are his (and consequently that he may assign a Church unto the Arrians.) Whereto I answer (saith S. Ambrose) Trouble not yourself, O 
Amb. l. 5. ep. 33.  Emperor, nor think that you have Imperial right over those things that are Divine. Do not exalt yourself, but if you will reign long, be subject unto God: for it is written that those things that belong to God, must be given to God: and to Caesar only those things that belong to Caesar. Palaces appertain to the Emperor, but Churches to the Priest. Theright of defending public walls is committed to you, but not of sacred things. Thus D. Barkley out of S. Ambrose in the very place cited by T. M. which he thought good wholly to pretermit and cut off, and yet to make a flourish, as though D. Barkley had cited S. Ambrose to prove that the temporal Prince and Emperor was in no case, nor in any cause spiritual or temporal to be withstood, or resisted. And what will ye say of this manner of dealing? Out of what conscience may it proceed?   

The Review.  
19 Surely, either my answer proceeded out of a better conscience, than that which M. Parsons bewrayeth in this accusation, or else I must confess it is a black and ugly conscience indeed. For the matter in question being this, 
k Full Satisfast. part. 3. pag. 24.  Whether it be lawful for Catholics to raise tumults against Heretical Magistrates, even when they have force to resist, which is the now general doctrine of Romish writers (as there appeared) I, for confutation hereof, alleged Barkley, who writeth thus of S. Ambrose. 
l Barcla. lib. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cap. 5.  S. Ambrose (saith he) was sufficiently armed both by the power of the people, and soldiers, and strengthened by the might of Christ, yet would he not defend his Church with violence, no not against the fury of an Heretical Emperor. The whole question being not of resisting by disobedience, which is not obeying a wicked command, but of resisting by violence, by bearing arms against 
M. Parsons his shameless fraud.  his person. This causeth me to wonder at the paleness of M. Parsons his face, who blusheth not to insist in that example and Author, wherein both he and all his Complices, who like Heralds proclaim Arms and violence against the majesty of Kings, to depose them, are so literally, so largely, 
Our Romish Adversaries fally confuted by their own Barkley.  and so really confounded. For thus it followeth in Barkley: Ambrose doth so handle the matter (saith he) that he neither betrayeth God's cause, nor yet violateth the Majesty of his Prince: he resisted by not doing that which the wicked King did command: yet be 〈◊〉 suffering patiently that which was decreed in the emperors Edict: Ambrose would not excite any to arms, not because he could not, but because he ought not, as he himself did confess. And in the shutting up of the point: These have I therefore written (saith Barkley) to shut up the mouths of such, who say that the ancient Church did tolerate evil Princes, because at that time they were not of sufficient power to resist, and abstained only until they might find strength to resist.  
20 Which confession of Barkley may serve for a muzzle for Alan, Rainolds, Coster, Creswell, Bellarmine, Symancha, and my good friend M. Parsons, who do generally profess a violent resistance of them, whom they call Heretical Kings, as soon as they may presume of their own force. Notwithstanding, M. Parsons his Conscience could dispense with himself to persuade us that nothing in this part of Barkley maketh against them, when as (wherein I dare appeal unto any Reader of what profession soever) neither M. Parsons, nor any jesuit can have a greater Adversary in this cause, not only in that place, but even throughout that whole book.     

CHAP. V.  
Containing an Answer to the last charge of an heap of Falsehoods at once.  

§. I.  
1 THe 
a Full Satisfact. part. 1.  Question was, whether our Adversaries do offer greater indignity unto Kings, than unto Popes, by their Doctrine of Deposing of Heretics. The Moderate Answerer held that they Do not: I went diameter, and affirmed that They do offer more prejudice unto Kings, because they teach that Kings, when they command obedience unto Doctrines, as Kings, they may become Heretics, and thereby they are made by them liable unto the censure of deposing. But for Popes, they resolve otherwise, to wit, That Popes, as Popes, can not be Heretics: and they understand, that a Pope then speaketh as a Pope, whensoever he determineth any doctrine to be a truth, and propoundeth it to be believed of Christians, whether he define so in a Counsel, or 
b Gretzorus jes. Colleq. Ratisb. Sess. 1. Siuè solus aliquid definiat, est eius infallibilis authoritas: cum è Cathedra ut Pontifex definite, non est errori obnoxius.  Alone without a Council. Whereupon I inferred this mine own Consequence (as the Characters should have distinguished) that by this doctrine, A Pope cannot be deposed; and so their disparity between Kings and Popes, is easily evicted.  
2 The Antecedent, viz. Popes as Popes cannot be Heretics, I undertook to prove to be the Romish Tenet, from the confession of Bellarmine, Greg. Valentia, Salmeron, Canus, Stapleton, and Costerus. And now M. Parsons is desirous to be heard speak, this being his last Charge: He hath rammed his piece full, and shooteth haile-shot, pretending, that in these Allegations, I have committed Ten Falsehoods.  

M. PARSONS his Reckoning.  

c Reckon. p. 467.  He citeth other four or five Authors in the Margin, to wit, Greg. Valentia, etc. all which in the very places by him cited are expressly against him. And is not this strange dealing? Let Canus, that goeth in the midst, speak for all the five, Who. etc.   

The Review.  
3 Not so M. Parsons: for albeit I shall not refuse to hear Canus speak, yet is there no reason that he should be therefore the spokesman for the rest, because he is in the Midst. You are too prone to imitate the Spirits which were called Uentriloqui, and spoke out of the bellies of parties. But both the Rules of Art in discoursing, and the law of Conscience in accusing, do challenge you rather to begin at the beginning. I may not suffer you to be irregular. I affirmed that it was the Doctrine of your forecited Authors, to profess that Popes, as Popes, cannot be Heretics. Upon this Antecedent I built this Consequence, that by the same doctrine it must necessarily follow, that then As'Popes they cannot be deposed for Heresic. What will you M. Parsons, say unto the Antecedent? What is that which you will now conclude from Canus?   

M. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
That Popes may be Heretics, as Popes, and consequently 
Reck. pag. 467.  may be deposed.   

The Review.  
4 If the foresaid Authors do affirm that Popes, as Popes, may be Heretics, nay, if they do not absolutely deny it even in the very same places which I have alleged, then let your brand of Impudence stick fast in my forehead. First, Bellarmine. 
d Bellar. l. 4. de Rom. Pont. c. 2. §. Secunda opinio, & §. ex his.  The opinion of them (saith he) who say that the Pope, as Pope, may be an Heretic, and teach an Heresy, est opinio erronea, & haeresi proxima: that is, Is an erroneous opinion, and next unto Heresy. Yea, he is so far from yielding to M. Parsons, that in his sixth Chapter he saith: Piè credendum, 
M. Parson's marvelous ignorance or perverseness, in reporting the judgement of his own Authors.  etc. that 
e Ibid. cap. 6.  It is piously to be believed, that the Pope cannot be an Heretic, not only as he is Pope, but even as he is a private man, by believing obstinately any thing that is contrary unto faith. And 
f Carer. lib. 1. de Rom. Pont. c. 23.  Carerius doth follow Bellarminc verbatim, yea Syllabatim, saying, Opinio est erronea etc. and Piè credendum, etc. concluding that A Pope, as Pope, cannot be an Heretic. Seeing then that Bellarmine doth confute M. Parson's even in terminis, it is not to be marveled, that M. Parsons chose rather Canus than Bellarmine, to speak for all the rest.  
5 The second is Greg. de Valentia, who is most peremptory in this point. 
g Valent. jes. Anal. l. 8. c. 3. §. Respondeo quid.  They that shall say (saith he) that the Pope can according to his public person (that is, as Pope) err in faith, in things controverted in the Church, those men do most grievously err in faith. Salmeron defendeth the same position, calling this the 
h Salmeron. in 2. Gal. Dist. 24. §. Deindè.  Singular prerogative of the Pope, that as Pope he cannot err in determining any thing against faith. Stapleton walketh in the same path. 
i Stapleton 〈◊〉 princip. l. 6. c. 1.  The Pope (saith he) as a private man, may err, but in discharging his function (that is, as Pope) he cannot err in the matters of faith. Costerus will not be behind his fellows. 
k Costerus Enchirid. cap. 3. §. Fatemur.  We do constantly deny (saith he) that the Popes of Rome can teach (that is, as Popes) others an heresy. Only Canus remaineth, whom M. Parsons would have to speak for the rest. In good time: for he will not be found differing from the rest. 
l Canus. loc. Theol. lib. 6. c. 7. &. 8.  The Pope of Rome saith Canus) cannot err in defining Controversies of faith: which is all one as to say, that although the Pope may fall into heresy, as he is a private man, yet as he doth prescribe any doctrine to be publicly believed in the Church (that is, as Pope) he cannot be an heretic. And thus the Antecedent is clearly ratified by all the five witnesses, whom I alleged. I proceed now to the Consequence.   

The Consequence.  
6. The Argument standeth thus: He that can not be an heretic, as Pope, can not as Pope be deposed for an heresy. But the Pope of Rome (according to the doctrine of the former witnesses) can not be an heretic, as Pope. Ergo, As Pope (according to their principles) he can not be deposed for heresy. M. Parsons opposeth hereunto as followeth.   

M. PARSONS his Reckoning.  

m Reckon. pag. 446.  The four witnesses by him mentioned, to wit, Bellarmine, Carerius, Azorius, and Gratian do expressly hold, that Popes both may fall into heresies, and may also be deposed for the same, by the Church. And their words are guilefully alleged by T. M. as sounding to the contrary, and are spoken of manners only, and not of faith.   

The Review.  
7 Doth this Assertion, Popes may be heretics, contradict the former, Popes as Popes can not be heretics? Is not this an excellent fallacy? Good M. Parsons remember your 
M. Parson's notsble guile & falsehood.  own rules: A Priest having a secrecy, as Priest (that is, in Confession) may not reveal it: but hearing a secret, as not Priest, but as a private man (that is, out of Confession) he 
An example how Pope as Pope.  may sometime lawfully discover it. Were it not a fond cavil for any to say, that the first, A Priest as Priest may not reveal a secret, is a lie, because the other is a truth. uz. Hearing it as no Priest, he may reveal it? Have you not yet learned to distinguish of the two kind of persons in the Pope, as well as in a Priest? the one public, as Pope, the other private, as a particular Doctor? Nevertheless, although all my dispute was concerning the public person of the Pope, to prove that by their doctrine the Pope as Pope can not be an heretic, yet shall I be contented to step a little nearer unto M. Parsons his apprehension, and to examine what their doctrine is concerning the Pope, as he is a private Doctor, especially in these two points: the first is his fault, uz. heresy; the second his punishment, which is, to be deposed. Of the first thus.    

Whether Bellarmine hold simply, that any Pope can be an heretic.  
§. 11.  
8 I leave the former respect of Pope as Pope, etc. the clearness whereof was such in Bellarm. lib. 4. de Rom. Pont. that itmay I ceme to have dazzled M. Parsons his brains, insomuch that he started back from that place alleged, and recolled unto Bellarmine his second Book de Pontifice, seeking theresome matter of objection against me.  

M. PARSONS his Reckoning.  

n Reckon. pag. 466.  Bellarmine confesseth out of Gratian Can. Simo Papa. Dist. 40. that an heretical Pope may be judged & deposed; and more, that in the 8. general Council Sess. 7. Pope Honorius was deposed 
Bellar. l. 2. de Pout. c. 30.  for heresy.   

The Review.  
9 Doth then Bellarmine speak this upon his certain belief, that either a Pope can be an heretic, or else that Honorius 
M. Parsons his cunning.  was truly deposedfor heresy? Both which, M. Parsons, as it seemeth, would make us believe. But Bellarmine in the same place saith, that it is 
o Bellar. l. 2. de Pont. c. 30.  probable, and easily to be defended (which he before held to be 
* See above lit. e.  piously believed) to wit, that a Pope cannot be an beretike. And elsewhere more exactly answering unto an objection taken out of the foresaid Can. Simo Papa, which was this, 
p Bellar. l. 4. de Rom. Pont. cap. 7.  Seeing that that and other Canons teach that the Pope cannot be judged, except he be found to err infaith; Ergo, the Pope may err in faith, or otherwise such Canons should be in vain: he useth two answers, but as 
A strange mystery.  though the first were too feeble; Secondly, I say (saith he) that such Canons do not mean that a Pope may err, even as he is a private person, but only that the Pope cannot be judged. And because it is not altogether certain, whether the Pope may be an heretic or no, therefore, for more cautelousness, they added that clause, Nisi haereticus extiterit, that is, except he be an heretic. By this it appeareth that Bellarmine will not think, that any Pope can be an heretic, either as he is Pope, or as he is a private man. 
Pope 〈◊〉 judged an heretic by a Council.   
10 Concerning Honorius, Bellarmine in the clause of the same sentence, which M. Parsons hath alleged, held it for probable, that Honorius was not an heretic: in whose defence he bestoweth a large Chapter, wherein he is so bold as to say, that the foresaid 
q Bellar. l. 4. de Rome Pont. 〈◊〉 11.  Council was deceived, in judging that Honorius was guilty of heresy. Could M. Parson's be ignorant of this?  
11 By this time we may discover a strange mystery of 
A similitude discovering a Romish mystery.  strong delusion, which I shall first show in a mirror. Cambyses King of Persia, being so farretransported with unnatural lust, as to desire to marry his own sister, demanded first of his counsellors, whether such a match were warrantable by the law of the Persians? they return him this answer: There is no Persian law which will allow you such a marriage, but yet we find (say they) a law which doth licence the K. of Persia to do what he list. So some Romish Authors likewise, although they say that a Pope being an beretike may be deposed, yet have they also taught, that the Pope can not be an heretic: which is all one as to think that, as Pope, he may not be judged an heretic, and if not judged, then how shall he be deposed? For if he shall happen to teach an heresy, (seeing that we may not believe that he can be an heretic) let him teach what he list, he may not be suspected of heresy; if not suspected, than not judged, or condemned, and then consequently not deposed for heresy, which is our main Consequence. And for a further confutation I add as followeth.    

That their position, concerning Deposing a Pope, is but a cunning delusion.  
§. III.  
12 
r Bellar. l. 2. de Rom. Pont. c. 26.  Bellarmine doth consider two capacities in the Pope, the first is in respect of his Temporal Princedom; the other in respect of his Spiritual Pastourship and Popedom. Concerning his Temporal state, 
* Ibidem.  The Pope as other Princes (saith Bellarmine) may ackno wledge no superior in Temporal matters: but in examining the Spiritual jurisdiction, We say (saith he, answering in the name of the rest) that the Pope can not be judged upon earth by any Prince Christian, whether he be Temporal or Ecclesiastical, no nor yet by all assembled together in a general Council: meaning, that he can not be deposed 
s Bellar. l. 2. de Conc. c. 18.  coàctively. Be it that this is spoken in respect of matter of fact, and not offaith, yet when (supposing that a Pope may be an heretic) we shall demand how a Pope may be deposed, what will our adversaries answer? For either must the Pope relinquish his Popedom, together with his Temporal Princedom voluntarily, or else by violence: but not voluntarily, because 
t M. Parsons about.  Obstinacy (that iron sinew) being a property of heresy, the Pope will not voluntarily remove, 
A Dilemma.  especially, out of so rich a Chair. Neither may he be removed violently and by coactive force; For what Romish Author will justify violence in deposing a Pope by any example? and yet divers 
u Alphonsus de Castro. lib. 1. bars. cap. 4. & cap. 2.  Popes have been heretics, yea even as Popes.  
13 From these premises our Christian Reader may understand, first the truth of my former assertion, to wit, that the Romish Doctors believe that The Pope, as Pope, can not be an heretic. Secondly, the vanity of M. Parsons his objection, that being heretics they may be deposed, seeing that they must not believe that any Pope can be a pertinacious heretic. Thirdly, the necessity of my consequence, uz. They that hold that the Pope can not be an heretic, must grant that he can not be deposed for heresy. And lastly, the disparity between the state of Kings and Popes, issuing from the former considerations, because thus Kings shall (by this doctrine) be deposed for heresy, but Popes may not. And what a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and gulf of difference do they furthermore make between these two states, whilst as they justify the examples of divers Popes, in deposing of many Emperors not for heresy, but for other causes, and yet deny that the Pope may be deposed, 
x Carerius lib. de potest. Pont. l. 1. cap. 24.  Although he should do any thing prejudicial to the universal state of the Church, as their Carerius taught: or 
y Azor. jes. Instit. Moral. l. 5 c. 14 § Sed certè.  Although (as their jesuit Azorius spoke) he should neglect Ecclesiastical Canons, and pervert the laws of Kings: or 
z Dist. 40. Can. Si Papa.  Although (as it is in Gratian) he should carry infinite multitude of souls headlong with him into hell. And now we see the height of Papal prerogative, and therein the depth of Antichristian tyranny.    

CHAP. VI  
Containing a brief Censure upon a late little Pamphlet, entitled, A PATTERN OF A PROTESTANT; which was written by a nameless Libeler.  
1 IT is now almost four years since my Book of Full Satisfaction was published in answer unto the Moderate Answerer: in all which time I heard nothing of this fellow, who Endymion- like seemed unto me to have slept a drowsy sleep; yet now at length he beginneth to rouse himself, and to tell us his dream of a Pattern of a Protestant; or as though some man had served a Latitat upon 
The Pamphleter his Latitat.  him, because he had formerly betrayed his Romish cause: Therefore he holding it a shame at least not to say something, he cometh in clamorously with a scurrilous libel, which the wise Reader will discern to have been penned rather for the vexation of his adversary, than in any hope of the reparation of his broken cause. To whom first I make this answer, viz. that I owe him no answer.  

That there is no Answer due unto this nameless libeler, even by the doctrine of the Romanists themselves.  
§. I.  
2 Cardinal Bellarmine 
a Bellar Resp. ad Libellum in scriptum, Responsio Doctoris Theologi ad Epistolom sibi scriptam. etc. in principio.  censuring a Venetian Doctor, who printed a book, without prefixing his name before it, telleth him that The Council of Trent Sess. 4. doth exact, upon pain of excommunication, that no books concerning Divine matters be printed without the Author's name, and the Approbationof the Ordinary both set down in the title page of the book. But this Libeler doth not afford us so much as the least letter of his name, and therefore ought he first to seek an absolution for his contempt against their Church's order before that he can justly expect of me an Answer to his calumnious Pamphlet. Again, the same Cardinal elsewhere noteth that 
b Bellar. lib. 4. de Rome Pont. c. 13. §. johannes.  Author sinè nomine est sinè authoritate, that is, An Author without a name is without authority: by which reason I am licensed to dismisle this railing and scolding libeler, as a man (if yet he be a man and not a woman) of no credit. Nevertheless, seeing that this cipher will stand for a digit and be thought to be somebody, I will answer something to him, lest I may seem to contemn him: yet not much, lest any may think that I do greatly respect him; but especially lest that by but repeating his lavish language, and frivolous exceptions, I might abuse both my Readers patience, and mine own more serious intentions.  
Only I crave his licence, that I may give him some attribute, because otherwise I shall seem to dispute with the man in the moon. And what can be more proper unto him than M. Pamphleter or Libeler? Of whom I would first know what esteem he is off.  

The Pamphleter.  
I in a book called the Moderate Answer made an offer of a 
Pag. 62.  public trial at the time of the Convocation, and Parliament, and the greatest assembly of Protestant Bishops and Doctors, and to 
A rare pattern of singular arrogancy in this Pamphleter.  them all: And I hope, M. Doctor, that you did not with discretion say that myself, who made this offer, and was one of them that was assigned to be one of the three Catholic Disputants to perform it against you all, either feared scratcing or biting of you, or your best biting dogs.   

The Censure.  
3 I cry the man mercy, I took him for an infamous and senseless libeler, but I perceive by the testimony which he beareth of himself, 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 find him, his name is Nemo, & his abode is Nusquàm, who (if we shall not trust him) will never deceive us. We have heard of his authority, shall we hear something of his honesty?   

The Pamphleter.  
Because I will not accuse another in mine own guiltiness, I 
Pag. 16.  must try whether he could object any thing against me: He being charged by a Catholic Author to challenge, if he could, any one Catholic 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 falsehoods, by wilful abuse of his Authors. I therefore for my adversaries better satisfaction thought to single out Bellarmine, one of the tallest fir-tree of their 
A pattern of an absurd disputant.  Libanon, which so ouershaddowed this Pamphleter that I could not see him; and now the shrub boasts that he (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 sincerity of his dealing, but the obscurity of his place and person that made me omit him in that Reply: as may appear both by his present unconscionable challenge of me, and also from his former dissolute and immoderate Answer unto the book of Discovery. In his present Pamphlet he signifieth first what he will not, and then what he will do. Of the first.   

The Pamphleter.  
I will omit all things, whereof he hath been by others admonished, 
Pag. 6. &. pag. 32.  intending only to take the leavings of his Roman Adversary (meaning, M. Parsons) and not to burden M. Morton with any thing that he chargeth him withal.    

The Censure. SECT. II.  
5 I thought at the first that the libeler had been M. Parsons his Page, but now I perceive he is but his Gleaner, 
The first fruits of the Pamphleteers falsshoods.  whom indeed he followeth at the very heels, and sometime (by his leave) he lurcheth out of his sheaf: for he beginneth his charge with manifest falsehoods, and flatly contrary to his promise he urgeth (Pag. 37. & 38.) my sentence concerning the Nature of Heresy, which was objected by M. Parsons. Secondly (pag. 14.) of the Not satisfying of his Objections: Thirdly (pag. 28. 29. 30.) he excepteth against the saying, That all Popish Priests hold that doctrine of Rebellion: Fourthly (Pag 12.) he reproveth that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all which were objected by M. Parsons, and have been already answered in this Reckoning. It is likely that the Pamphleter will deal justly with me, who thus grossy falsifieth his own absolute promise? We have heard what he would not do, (although he doth it.) In the next place let us see what he intendeth to do although he can not do it, namely, to charge me with falsities; and this endeavoureth to perform both by the testimonies of others, and by his own demonstrations. Of the first as followeth.  

The Pamphleter.  
His own Brethren in religion have charged him with abuse of 
Pag. 6. &. pag. 19 &. 13. 14.  authorities, which he hath committed in his book against me, even the Consenters unto the book entitled, A Christian and modest offer of a most indifferent Conference; who give 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 King's majesties censure of an Annotation upon 2. Chro. 15. 16. His Majesty (said I) being so divinely illumivated, could not take exception to the note, for any offence thereby given, but only in suspicion and iealouzie of some offence, which by some weak ones was taken thereby. This is the point, wherein I dare appeal unto any Reader to judge whether either the Libeler could call this a falsehood; or that other Offerer of a conference, (whose humour was crossed in that answer) call it a pitiful shifting, wherein notwithstanding they noted no falsification. Yet the Pamphleter is not content to 
His fraudulency.  object this (such is his rancour) once or twice, but often doth he inculcate it, that thereby he might interest me in his own property of wilful falsehood. Beside this testimony, he insisteth upon demonstrations: some are general, and others are particular. First of the general.   

The Pamphleter.  
I had in my book 2000 lines, and M. Doctor made show to 
Pag. 18. 19  cite my very words, and wholly; yet doth not so much as mention 400. How then could he call it a Full Satisfaction?    

The Censure. SECT. III.  
7 Pauperis est numerare pecus. What a fond Pamphleter 
His idle and miserable taxation.  is this, who reckoneth the number of the lines of his whole book: it had been well he had as willingly reckoned his lies, who saith untruly, that I pretended to cite all the words of his book. No, for I thought it a sin for me to report all his lavish, scurril, & brawling terms; or else to repeat all his idle & tedious repetitions, who now (to the end that he might be as fond as he hath been false) would have his Reader think that there can not be a Full Satisfaction given to a man's book, except all the lines thereof be wholly cited. Whereby he can not but condemn his father M. Parsons in his answering of the same Full Satisfaction; but much more his L. Cardinal Bellarmine, who in his Answer unto his majesties Apology did not cite, as I am persuaded, 2000 lines, yea and his own distressed and distorted answer unto the little Discovery of Romish positions. Who would trouble himself with such babisme as this Pamphleter useth? Pass we from generals, and let us try him in some particulars. The first.  

The Pamphleter.  
The Doctor answered, that inquiring into the Acts which 
Pag. 10. & 11.  are extant concerning the proceedings of King Henry 8. against Q. Mary, and Q. Elizabeth, he found not any act whereby, after that they had been disabled, they were restored unto the right of succession: wherein he is confuted by Bish. Barlow, who excuseth the first disinheriting of them, and showeth the legitimation of them again.    

The Censure. SECT. IV.  
8 In the end of the same book of 
e Full Satùfact. in the end of the book, in a baife sheet of paper, called An Advertisement, etc.  Full Satisfaction, I expressed as much myself in a particular Advertisement unto the Reader in this behalf, which hath been published now these three years, wherein I satisfied for the integrity both of my cause and conscience: yet not withstanding this their choice Disputer and Moderate Answerer, or rather their immoderate Pamphleter, durst object this corrected error unto me, which he hath also singled out, and set in the first 
His profound malice.  place, for the most notoriously black note of falsehood. This kind of dealing I find daily among the Romanists: I might find more ingenuity among the Pagans. As for B. Barlow, he doth not so much as point at me.  

The Pamphleter.  
Enter again, M. Doctor, and excuse yourself, if you can, why the very first chapter being entitled, A general censure of his slanderous Pamphlet, proving that no argument therein can conclude the Author's intent, is omitted without any memory at all? Tell me, was this integrity?   

The Censure.  
9 I now enter, Sir Phamphleter, to your blush, if you be not past shame, giving you to understand that both your 
His aparently wilful falsehood.  fourth and last Arguments are mentioned and satisfied expressly in the same Full Satisf. part. 2. pag. 97. & 99 As for the rest, they were more general insinuations, and were afterwards confuted in the answers unto other particulars.   

The Pamphleter.  
At the first beginning he misquoteth the place of my Answer, 
Pag. 33.  citing the second section, where there is no such thing, as he citeth of the consequence, Full Satisfact. pag. 1.   

The Censure.  
10 The quotation is in the margin of the Full Satisfact. pag. 1. and is taken out of the book of the Moderate Answerer 
His shameless untruth.  cap. 2. §. Wherefore. And if I have mis-cited him, let my Reader suspect me in his other taxations: but if I have dealt expressly and directly therein, then may we quote this fellow for a loose and lewd calumniator.   

The Pamphleter.  
He citeth me disputing against the naked proposition [All 
Pag. 33. & 34.  Protestants are, in the censure of Catholics, heretics and excommunicate] absolutely concealing of what heretics we entreated, whether they were denounced, or not denounced.   

The Censure.  
11 This likewise is a godless untruth, for to show what 
His godless untruth.  kind of Heretic was understood, I spent professedly a whole chapter, uz. Full Satisfact. lib. 1. cap. 4. pag. 5.   

The Pamphleter.  
He chargeth me to say that [Not any Protestant is judged by 
Pag. 35.  us an Heretic] where the restriction [any] is his own corruption, and maketh the same particular, which was general.   

The Censure.  
12 The Pamphleteers words were these: 
a Mod. Answ. cap. 2. §. For first.  [Not one Protestant, etc.] mark, Not one, and, Not any: Can this choice Disputer find any odds between these two? I wonder what he meant by this? Must I be at pains to teach a puppy to 
His babish falsity.  speak English?   

The Pamphleter.  
He entitled his 2. Chap. (of Full Satisfact.) thus, [Containing 
Pag. 35.  five arguments of the Moderate Answerer]; but why in true dealing contained it not eight?   

The Censure.  
13 As though I had answered but five of those Arguments. If the Libeler had but turned over the leaf following, 
Notable falsehood.  he might have seen (Full Satisfact. cap. 4. pag. 5.) this sixth and Seventh Arguments both directly expressed, and also largely answered, the whole Chapter being spent only in the Confutation of these two Arguments. Could either I have dealt more justly with him, or he more falsely with me? Oh, but where is the Eight? Yea marry, this would be known; for in his book there the Seventh is the last: therefore he complaineth of his Printer, that set down the sixth twice. I say, that if his Printer did it wittingly, he was wiser than the Pamphleter, because both they do consonantly imply one argument.   

The Pamphleter.  
And in these citations you further behave yourself with 
Pag. 36.  this sincerity, M. D. first, you cite my Answer to be in these words: No man doubting in faith, but only such as be obstinate: No ignorant believer, or deceived of Heretics, but he to whom the truth hath been made known: nor only internally affected, but he that is a manifest Professor is subject to the censure of excommunication for Heresy. Now sir, I must tell you, that there is not any such proposition in the places you cite from my Answer, as is manifest in my Answer, etc.   

The Censure.  
14 What you have pointed at in the Margin, suffer me to draw into a more particular view. The Propositions of the Pamphleter are contained in the Mèder. Answer. cap. 2. 
A multiplicity of his untruths.  my Citations in the Full Satisfact. cap. 2. His propositions stand thus: Ignorance even vincible excuseth from heresy: And, The ignorantly-seduced Protestant is not an Heretic, except, when the truth of the Catholic doctrine is made manifest, he resist: And again, He is not properly an Heretic, who is deceived of Heretics, and believeth Heretics. The second, Both sufficient knowledge of truth proposed, and an obstinate pertinacy in not embracing it, with such defence of the contrary is required in Heresy. The third, He that desireth to be ignorant of the truth, and so professeth Heresy inignorance (though therein he sin grievously) yet is he not an Heretic. The fourth A man doubting in his faith is not properly an Heretic. The fifth, All Heretics (as internal) be not subject to the censure of excommunication.  
15 And what have I now abstracted from these, to show what kind of men are not subject to the censure of excommunication, in the opinion of the Pamphleter? First, that No man doubting in faith, etc. in his fourth: Secondly, Only such as be obstinate, etc. which is his second: Thirdly, No ignorant believer, etc. which is his first and third: Fourthly, None deceived of Heretics, but he to whom the truth is made known; which is also in his first: Fiftly, None only internally infected, but he that is a manifest Professor, is subject unto the censure of excommunication, which agreeth with his fifth. And now I leave the scanning of these to the sight, not (as he saith) of All (for who almost will vouchsafe the sight of such triflings) but of any, who shall cast his eye hereupon, to judge whether there hath been in my Citation the least note of Insincerity.   

The Pamphleter.  
My Proposition was only this, [No Protestant or Heretic 
Pag. 40.  not excommunicate by name lieth subject unto any penalty pretended,] when as my sincerily dealing Adversary (as before) citeth me to say, that such, are not subject to any Penalty at all: which is his corruption, and not my proposition.   

The Censure.  
16 This will be soon tried, for in the Full Satisf. cap. 4. 
His quarelous vein of traducing his Adversary.  pag. 5. I delivered his proposition thus: No Protestant or Heretic, not excommunicate by name, lieth subject to any penalty pretended. What shadow then had this insincerely dealing Libeler thus to traduce me, as though I had falsified in this Citation? Who again is so dull, as not to understand, that seeing all kind of outward penalties were implied in those which were pretended, it must needs follow that he that is not subject unto the pretended penalties, is not subject to any at all.   

The Pamphleter.  
I said that no Protestant in England is excommunicate by 
Pag. 40.  name; which word (In England) for which our Controversy was, he leaveth out.   

The Censure.  
17 This is as easily tried as the former: for (Full Satisf. cap. 4. pag. 5.) I repeated the Pamphleteers sentence expressly thus: No Protestant or Heretic not excommunicate by name 
His palpable falsity.  (as none in England is) lieth subject, etc. I locked up the word, England, within the 〈◊〉 of a Parenthesis, lest it might not be seen; and yet he blusheth not to say, that I have left it out. What shall we judge of the temper of this fellow, who being in England can not see England?   

The Pamphleter.  
He ingeminates this sentence, [Protestant's are no Heretics,] 
Pag. 42.  when as I never spoke or thought any such absolute assertion.   

The Censure.  
18 We shall need no more but to set down the words. The objection in my Discovery was this: They who by your slanderous doctrine make all Protestants, in your opinion Heretics, so odious, as unworthy of civil society, etc. the Pamphleter made this answer: 
e Mod. Answ. cap. 2.  No learned Catholic so reputeth the Protestants, or any one Protestant in this kingdom. But he saith that this was not to grant absolutely, that no Protestant was 
His quarrel about his own ambiguity.  an Heretic: Very good, I then perceive his meaning is, that he granted it not absolutely, but equivocatingly. Well, let him enjoy his art, for me; I envy him not, although this be the best faculty that he hath.   

The Pamphleter.  
You said that our general assumption was this, that [All Protestants 
Pag. 43.  are heretics & excommunicate;] but must needs grant that this citation is false, because the word, General, you know, comprehendeth all, and excludeth none.   

The Censure.  
19 Good Reader, I pray thee do not laugh at the Pamphleter, 
His ignorance of his common Grammar tules.  phleter, nor send him back to his English Rules, where thou hast red, that There be excepted from this general Rule as followeth. But this noble Disputant, forsooth, calleth the general Assumption false, which can admit any exception at all.  
20 I should proceed to censure 
f Pag. 34.  his difference between these words, Heretic and Excommunicate, and Heretic or Excommunicate, and to confute it by their Bulla coena; and 
g Pag. 49.  then to show how inconsiderately he upbraideth us with the sentence of a kinsman of his own, (as we may guess by his name, but more by his distemper) even M. Broughton; because that passionate man did condemn their vulgar translation far more; and lastly, his loose Argument to prove the Heresy of arianism, out of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seeing that Bellarmine 
h Pag. 52.  hath justified Calvin's sense therein; And I think that he himself hath need to reform his Argument, lest that he be thought thereby (which is an heresy indeed) to have divided the Essence and substance of God; and lastly, I should have repelled his 
i Pag. 53.  objection of Trinus-unus, whereby, after the naming of the Father, Son, & Holy-ghost, I complexively comprehended the Unity in Trinity, according both to the sense of our Christian Article, and also to the form used by Antiquity; together with the confutation of some other his dissolute exceptions. But these few are sufficient to pattern out this Libeler. Hitherto of his falsehoods in his Pamphlet. One word or two of his Moderate Answer.   

The Pamphleter.  
He did not object any falsehood unto me in his Preamble, when 
Pag. 16.  he was charged to note some falsifications in Catholics.   

The Censure.  
21 I did not in that little Preamble infist in the Pamphleteers untruths and falsehoods, Ergo (by his Logic) I could not prove him to be guilty of falsehood. This is the consequence of this famous scholar, who was chosen to be one of the Three (if we believe himself) who should Dispute against all Bishops and Doctors of the Protestant side. But if I ask from what topicke place this Argument is fetched, I think he will hardly show any, except it be ab absurdo; because the reason is apparent, why I did not meddle with his falsities, for as then I was to deal only with their Achilles Bellarmine, so that I might well neglect this Gleaner. Besides, that I could have ranged this fellow among the guilty persons, is as evident by the sixth Chapter of this Encounter, which is spent in repeating the manifold errors and slanders, which this man committed against Protestants, and were so inexcusable, that his Patron M. Parsons, when he 
* See above cap. 6. §. 〈◊〉  should have satisfied for them, suffered them all to stand still upon this libelers score; whom (wishing unto him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) I leave fantastically disputing with his own shadow. And now return unto M. Parsons his Reckoning.     

CHAP. VII.  
Containing an Answer unto the seventh Chapter of M. Parsons, concerning the objected Omissions, in not defending them, woman he calleth my Clients.  

§. I.  
1 AFter that M. Parsons had played the part of a Promoter, in calling into question concealed falsities, (as he untruly termed them) he proceedeth to ransack the foresaid Omissions; in which his Accusation I find nothing but preposterous and superfluous heaping up of the rags of his old Wardrobe, called the Mitigation, and all to the end he might make up a grosse-bellied bocke: wherein he exacteth of me to satisfic for all incommodious speeches, which have passed from some Protestants, which is a charge that neither I did assume, nor could M. Parsons by his Commission impose it upon me, who is delighted with the irksome jar of some hot spirits, that rage against Calvin, especially in the point of arianism.  

The sum of M. PARSON'S Reckoning in this point, concerning Caluine.  
1 produced at that time somewhat largely and particularly 
Reck. pag. 477.  eighteen examples, partly out of the old, and partly out of the new Testament, maliciously perverted by Caluine in favour of jews and Arrians, against the truth and certainty of Christian Religion, leaving out twenty more, which Doctor Hunnius doth handle, etc.,   

The Review.  
2 When we do but consider what is the malady of adnerse criminations, that may serve for a part of an Answer, which Bellarmine useth in like case, Non multùm resert quid irati homines dixerint. For as when the air is overcast with clouds, the very Sun becometh invisible unto mortal men; so passionate affections sometimes send such gross vapours into the brain, that the hatred to the true Speaker hindereth a man from discerning of the truth of the speech.  
3 And unto this defect may we partly impute the Accusation 
M. Caluine injuriously abused both by Hunnius & by M. Parsons.  which Hunnius, and in him now M. Parsons do prosecute against Caluine, as though he had in any sort favoured arianism, which I judge to be an intolerable untruth, as both the writings and seal of Caluine will perfectly demotistrate. Than the which what greater evidence can any justly require? First by his writing; for (Institut. lib. 1. cap. 13.) he hath published a large and accurate Confutation of that damnable heresy of the Arrians from above thirty testimonies 
Caluine a professed Adversary unto arianism.  of Scripture, both out of the old and new Testaments. Secondly, (which I call his seal) his public Act, when he with the whole Senate of Geneva (as Bellarmine confesseth) did burn Michael servetus a Spaniard for arianism. 
Bellar. lib. 1. de Christ. in praef. §. Primi agminis.  How then will they not (shall we think) impute many falsehoods unto Calvin against whom they object a favouring of arianism, albeit they were not ignorant that Calvin did both confute the heresy, and (as much as lay in him) burn the Heretic? Could there be any pretence of reason for this Crimination?   

The sum of M. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
Hunnius saith that M. Calvin hath perverted mankind by 
Reckon. p. 477.  his detestable desire of wresting the Scriptures, overthrowing the bulwarks of Christian Religion, which it hath against jews and Arrians.   

The Review.  
4 Lorinus a late jesuit hath this saying: 
b joh. Lorin. jes. in Act. Apost. cap. 19 pag. 785. §. Perplacet.  That modest sentence of S. Hierom (saith he) doth please me very much, and agreeth most fitly with my purpose, whereas speaking of that common exposition upon the Dried bones mentioned in the Prophet Ezechiel, which exposition under standeth by those bones the resurrection: but he thinketh that this agreeth not with the literal sense, but that the Prophet by that enigmatical speech did revive the hope of that people: Notwithstanding they that interpret this place otherwise (saith S. Hierom) may not be offended with us, as though we denied the resurrection, for we know that there are found many other much more strong testimonies than these. And when he (saith S. Hierom) had brought forth some testimonies, he addeth: by which it is manifest (saith he) that we deny not the resurrection, but only affirm that these words are not meant of the resurrection, and by the paraeble of the resurrection to have Prophesied of the restitution of the people, which was then in captivity: Neither shall we presently give an occasion unto Heretics if we deny that these words are not understood of the Common resurrection.  
5 Thus far S. Hierom, whose testimony pleaseth their 
The Argument taken against Calvin confuted.  jesuire, who commendeth it for a modestsentence. Let it not displease M. Parsons that we apply it unto Calvin, who although he do not admit of some common exposions of Scriptures, which have been brought for the confutation of Arrians, and jews, because that they being literally expounded, do not (in his judgement) directly make against the enemies of Christ's Divinity. Notwithstanding they that interpret those places otherwise ought not to be offended with him, as though he favoured the opinion of the jews & Arrians, which he confuteth by many other more strong testimonies of Scriptures, out of both the Testaments. By which it is manifest that he denieth not the Divinity of Christ, nor yet properly may be said to have given occasion unto Heretics so to do. And this is as much as any temperate Adversary can require to be answered generally in his behalf.  
6 How it may please M. Parsons and some others to esteem of the learning and judgement of M. Calvin, we shall 
The singular estimation which some Romanists gave concerning the judgement of Calvin.  have less cause to regard; seeing that even his Adversaries have not left him altogether destitute of commendations: for their D. Stapleton writing an Antidote against his doctrine doth grant 
c Stapleton. 〈◊〉 in Antidote. in Matth.  Calvin in his commentaries to be so diligent an Interpreter, according to the letter, so moral, so sweet, that even men Orthodoxal (he meaneth Papists) desire greedily to read him, whom I have heard sometime wish (saith he) that those things being purged out of him, which are contrary unto the Church and faith, he might be suffered to come in public, for so (say they) his Commentaries might be very profitable. If his Adversaries did not except against him, but as they were his Adversaries, to wit, so far as he held any thing, which was against their Doctrine, otherwise approving of his works as profitable unto the Church, especially in expounding of Scriptures, what indifferent Reader is there, but will conceive that he, who was generally so exact in interpreting Scriptures, had likewise some measure of light in discerning of the controverted Articles of religion? Elsewhere we find Card Bellarmine writing unto justus Baronius, and moving him to endeavour some Confutation of Calvin's Institutions, (after that he had set out the difficulties of such an enterprise, & excused himself) useth this for one Argument os persuasion, 
d jusius 〈◊〉 Ep 〈◊〉 lib. cap. 8.  Because others had begun such a work unluckily, and had more unluckily finished their task. Confessing in effect, that Horantius, and all other Romish Authors, who had formerly written in Confutation of Calvin's Institutions, have been luckless and successless in their labours. Is not this a Testimony of great honour unto Calvin, especially proceeding from Bellarmine so great an Adversary, both by the worthiness of his place and learning, and also by the adversnesse of his opinion? Such luck have all they who shall have 〈◊〉 in respect of men's persons. After Calvin, M. Parsons snarleth at another person of honour.    

SECT. TWO:  

The sum of M. PARSONS his Reckoning. concerning the Lord Cook.  
ALbeit perhaps M. Morton may say, that his meaning was 
Reck pag. 500  to take in hand the defence of his Client Sir Edw. Cook, in his other promised Rejoinder, and therefore said nothing of him now in this his Preambling Reply: yet having now seen him very hardly charged in two several books, the one of the Catholic Divine in answering to the fifth part of his Reports: the other the Treatise of Mitigation, with the like imputation of untrue dealing, as are laid against M. Morton himself, it seemed that it had been a point of friendship (if not of duty) to have said somewhat for preventing and staying, at least, the Readers prejudice, as in his Preface he said he did for himself, especially for so much as he had seen now, and read all those placcs, which he borrowed out of M. Cook, to furnish one whole Chapter of his Full Satisfaction, fully answered and confuted by our Catholic Divine in his foresaid book, which M. Morton might have least wise mentioned, among so many other points of less importance, which he handleth, if his heart had not served him to take upon him the whole Defence.   

The Review.  
7 M. Parson's may remember what he said in his Preface of Mitigation, that diverse Catholics did itch to be meddling with M. Autturney (now Lord chief justice of the Common Pleas) for the confuting of his fifth part of Reports, which M. Parsons himself hath now begun to impugn. If I have not been so forward to undertake Reply, it is not that I would be wanting in any part of Duty, but because I was not infected with M. Parsons his unseemly disease, to busy myself in an unproper Element, especially in points which concern so honourable and judicious a parsonage; who would have exercised his quill in some large Reply, if his Lordship had thought M. Parson's worthy of any other Answer than the condemnation of a Nihil dicit.  
8 Notwithstanding, it will not (I think) offend his honour, nor yet greatly please you, M. Parsons, that I, upon this provocation, do paint out your unjust Assertions, which you call Demonstrations, against his Reports, especially concerning the Histories of two Kings, which now fall under mine eye. The first is of K. 
c M. Parsons in his Answ. unto Sir Edw. Cook. c. 6. num. 10. p. 151.  Alfred, wherein you may be charged with a nimiùm dicit: the second is touching K. Edgar, whom you will have to have Subordinated his temporal Sword unto the spiritual jurisdiction of his Prelates, after that manner of Subordination, which you require in Princes 
M. Parsons eiteth from 〈◊〉 in Hist. Aug. Srcul 9 cap. 5. ex Asserius Me. 〈◊〉 but in that Asserius set out by M. Comden Fran. cof. 1603. I find no such speech.  at this day. When as it is plain that King Edgar speaking in that Oration against sturdy Monks, who did contemn verba, did tell the B B. Veniendum esse ad verbera, that is, That they were to be humbled by Strokes: and to this end he saith to the Prelates, Vobis istud negotium comitto, I commit that business to you; which showeth that that part of authority, which the King acknowledged to be in the B B. was not by his Submission, but his Commission unto them. What shall we think of the validity of his Ten Demonstrations, seeing he is so insyncere in these Two, which he specified as the most principal?  
As for his exception against me, for not Defending all those, whom he calleth my Clients, I may justly answer that although I were worthy of reprehension in this case, yet M. Parsons is the most unworthy man of all other to reprehend me, because I find diverse of his Clients of great name in their church, whom he hath betrayed by his silence.    

The Omissions of M. Parsons, in not defending his Clients.  
§. III.  
9 I had no little cause to wonder at the boldness of M. Parsons, in calling so clamorously upon me that I should satisfy for other men's debts, even in a little Preamble, whereas he, in publishing a large volume, in answer of my Full Satisfaction, hath passed many whole chapters over untouched, and seeing there many of his own friends up to the ears in debt, did like the jewish Priest and Levite smoothly pass by without the supply of a farthing for their relief. The examples are abundant, I will single out some few.  
10 Their 
a Full Satisfact. part. 1. pa. 20.  Loduick of Orleans (in his book, Pag. 48.) was heard railing upon the Realm of England, that it is An Isle of men, who eat man's flesh. This M. Parson's read, but 
M. Parsons his connivency at the slander against his Country.  pretermitted. It will be hard to determine whether hereby he have been more injurious to his friend Loduick, whom he suffereth to lie under the arrest of a cursed slander, or to his Native Country, which he suffereth to be so ignominiously traduced, as though the Inhabitants thereof were no better than Cannibals.  
11 Secondly 
b Pag. 12.  there was displayed the Cruelty of their Inquisitors by their Agrippa (De vanit. Scient. cap. 69) noting 
The extremity of the inquisition.  them to be so rigid in their examination, as not to allow men Conference, but to answer them only with fire and faggot, who maintain their cause by the word of God.  
12 
c Pag. 64.  There also Arnalàus in a Parliament at Paris was heard to accuse the jesuits to have been the causes of the great tyranny which was practised among the poor Indians. 
d Pag. 115.  There their own French Historian noted the cruelty which was used in France, telling us how Twenty thousand Protestants were slain in one month by the fury of the Catholics. Cruel Inquisitors, civil jesuus, cruel Catholics (as it is confessed by their own Authors.) All whom M. Parsons leaveth as desperate debtors wallowing in their own guilt.  
13 Thirdly, 
e Pag. 112.  there was unfolded by their own Historian the slanderous disposition of some Romanists, who bore false witness against Protestants in open Court, assirining 
Slanders against Protestants.  that they in the night season Put out the candles, and every one took a woman at his pleasure; only upon a persuasion, That such an Accusation is good against an Heretic, be it true, or false. This is a foul matter, and belike M. Parsons his fingers were so clean, that he would not touch it.  
14 Fourthly, their common doctrine being this, that a King being an Heretic and excommunicate may be deposed, was proved to be a rebellious doctrine by many arguments, 
A Confutation of their common seditious positions.  which M. Parsons would not so much as look at: and to the same purpose was alleged the confession of their own jesuit 
f Pag. 31.  Acosta (out of his second book de Indorum salute, cap. 5.) affirming that after that a King is established in his throne, his power is from God, and the people owe him subjection, even as did the people of Israel unto jeroboam (3. Re. 11. & 12.) albeit he was an Apostata from the faith of the true Church. This M. Parsons thought not good to account for, lest this example might have convinced him and his fellows of seditious and pernicious doctrine. And there also we 
g Pag 62.  read of the example of the elder Romish Clergy, brought in to condemn the later brood of sedition: but this also had his pass.  
15 Fiftly, 
h Full Satisfact. part. 3. ca 20.  by the testimony of their Cardinal Tolet (Instruct. Sacerd. lib. 5. cap. 66.) we were taught that although their Priests and others may in their examinations, 
A Rack confessed to be the best remedy against some Equi vocators.  before Magistrates, whom they hold to be incompetent, use Equivocation, rather than to reveal any trespass of an other: yet If they shallbe brought unto the rack to be tortured, they are no further bound to conceal the truth. Whereupon it followeth, that in such cases their most competent judge will be a rack. M. Parsons saw this Rack; but only saw it: for, in his discourse of Equivocation, he came not near it by a mile.  
16 Sixtly, 
i Ibid. part. 3. pag. 39  Cardinal Bellarmine did interpret the place of S. Paul, Rom. 13. [Let every soul be subject to the higher powers] to imply the Spiritual power, as well as the Temporal: 
Scripture perverted by Bellarmine.  but was confuted by their Espencaeus (in Tit. 3. 1. Digress. pag. 513.) from the judgement of ancient Fathers, no one allowing that interpretation. The place of a Cardinal should have moved M. Parsons to have yielded some piece of an Answer for his dearest friend, if the truth of the cause would have so permitted.  
17 But how will he answer for others, 
k Ibid part. 1. pag. 43.  who leaveth himself in the lurch? who together with Carerius, thought that No king is to be acknowledged to be a king, before he be anointed. Which Paradox was firmly and freely confuted by 
A paradox.  their Barkley (in lib. 3. cont. Monarchom. cap. 2.) I let pass divers such particular persons, and choose rather to observe his want of duty, or else of ability, in answering for his headfather the Pope.   

M. PARSONS his notable Omissiens', in forsaking the necessary defence of Popes.  
§. IV.  
18 The Oration of Pope 
a Ib. pag. 75.  Xistus Quintus is famous for commending jacob Clemens, who was the murderer of Henry 3. King of France; and for that cause was that Pope propounded as the Patron and indeed pattern of all rebellious Doctors. Which doctrine was likewise objected to the 
Pope Xistus his oration.  Moderate Answerer, but he very moderately forbore even to taste or touch it. After him M. Parsons the Mitigator beheld the ugly spectacle, and swallowed this whole Camel. Now at length he cometh in with a new Reckoning, but doth not reckon for this his grandfathers debt. 
b Pag. 77.  Boucher also was brought in by Barkley (lib. 6. contr. Monarchom. c. 28. pag. 536.) commending the act, and rejoicing thereat, whom the foresaid Barkley doth therefore condemn (pag. 535. & 539.) of treason, for patronizing that fact, and by doctrine persuading men thereunto.  
19 There came in also a 
c Pag 91.  Canonist, who reported the perjury of Pope Gregory 12. whom M. Parsons suffered to die 
The perjury of a Pope.  in debt, never opening his mouth to free him either à toto, or à tanto. After this the 
d Full Satisfact. Part. 3. pag. 17.  Bull of Pope Paulus 3. against Hen. 8. and another of Pius Quintus against Q. Elizabeth, were heard bellowing out a Fullness of Apostolical authority for 
Sense of Scripture perverted by the Popes.  the rooting out of Nations, and of Kingdoms, according unto that of Hier. 1. Behold, I have appointed thee over Nations, to root them up, and to destroy them. Which Papal exposition of that text was an impudent glozing. M. Parson's can 
e Mitigat. cap. 5. pag. 171.  say nothing but that it was spoken by allusion unto that text of jeremy, which poor rag can not possibly cover so great a shame: for the text of jeremy was expressly cited in their Bulls for confirmation of their authority, by way of interpretation, accordingly as their Carerius (lib. 1. depotestate Papae) had done. But it was confuted by the true and proper expositions of Lyra, who said that the Prophet jeremy did not destroy, but only denounce they should be destroyed: By S. Gregory, who noteth not destruction by fight, but only by preaching: But especially by S. Bernard (lib. 2. de Consid. ad Eugen.) reproving the Pope for the abuse of this place, by turning the spiritual and ministertall rooting out of sinners into a Temporal dominion. here M. Parsons imitated the Egyptian dogs, Lambunt & fugiunt, they used to lap a little at the river Nilus, and forth with to run away, and all for fear of a Crocodile. So here the Mitigatour took a bite. but spying Lyra, Gregory, and Bernard make against the Popes, and perceiving that his Answer of Allusion was but an Illusion, he speedily took his course another way.  
20 For further demonstration of the novelty and impiety of the Papal claim in temporal affairs, for the refusing of Emperors, and deposing of Kings from their Sovereignty, 
f Full Satisfact. Part. 3. pag. 18.  there was produced the example of Christ, who thought his temporal Dominion superfluous for him, as Bellarmine confessed: then the example of the 
g Pag. 19  Apostles, who were subject unto Heathenish Emperors: after that 
h Pag. 21.  the examples of All Christians for the first two hundred years, who albeit sometime 
Antiquity of Subjection of Clergy men unto Tempo temporal States.  they had equal force, yet they professed subjection unto temporal Magistrates, whereby the doctrine of Christians became glorious, as Tolossanus confessed. And unto these were 
i Pag. 22. unto Pag. 26.  added the answerable Testimonies of Tertullian, Cyprian, Nazian. Athanas. Ambrose, Basil, Gregory. here the main question of Allegiance was handled, and proved from Antiquity, here, if ever, the Pope did need his help. But such was the desperateness of the cause, that M. Parson's would not come off not with so much as a barefaced groat, in part of payment.  
Finally, their 
k Ibid. pag. 29. & 31. & 32.  Sanders intruded himself, ' avouching the Donation of Constantine, wherein all the kingdoms of the Western world were said to have been conferred by the Empetour Constantine upon Pope Sylvester, Anno. 300. and 
The Donation of Constantine counterfeit.  unto him Carerius assented; and all for the magnifying of the Papal jurisdiction in temporal things. Which other of their Doctors did thus far confute, as to grant that The most ancient Histories & Authors of best credit, and such as did purposely record the Acts of Constantine, did not make mention of that Donation. So Canus (loc. Theol. lib. 1. cap. 5.) Which Pope Pius Secundus did count to be a counterfeit Donation: so Balbus lib. de Coronat, seeing that Pope Boniface 9 Anno. 1400. was the first that challenged the Donation of the City of Rome, saith the same Balbus. Add we hereunto how 
l Pag. 32.  Carerius pretended that the Emperor must necessarily have the Pope's Confirmation: which dealing their Lupoldus, and Balbus both Bishops, did prove to be most false. I supposed if his ability had been answerable to his charity, he would not have suffered jesuits, Priests, and Popes to languish under these Arrests, yet all this while we hear not of our friend the Moderate Answerer. Will M. Parsons neglect him also?   

The Omissions of M. Parsons, in neglecting his peculiar Client the Moderate Answerer: leaving him in the conviction of many foul errors and slanders.  
§. V.  
21 This Moderate Answerer is the man that writ against the book of Discovery of Romish Positions, and Practices of rebellion, whom therefore M. Parsons hath particularly commended for one, who acquitted himself learnedly: So that this man might seem to have a peculiar interest in M. Parsons his partonage. Shall we now try how he is often left in the lurch to shift for himself. I may not insist in all points, yet some few I may not omit.  
22 The Moderate Answerer answered for his Catholics in general, that they taught not 
a Full Satisfact. part. 3. pag. 33. & 34.  A power simply over Kings in temporal affairs, which was proved to be a singular falsehood out of their Bozius, and especially out of Carerius, who challenged the Common consent of Canonists, and Divines to the contrary. 
b Pag. 57  He, under the names of two or three Authors pretended that their Doctors Defended not violent deposing of Kings, who are, in their opinion, Heretics: which is a most prodigal untruth, and so proved to be by the testimonies of their Modern Doctors, such as were Rainolds, Parsons, allen, Coster, Bellarmine, and others. 
c Pag. 66.  He propounded a Canon teaching that No Clerks may take arms, neither by their own, nor by the Pope's authority: as though any such Canon were now in force; which was proved to be a loose overlashing by their Rainolds, Alan, and by 
d Pag. 67.  Sanders. 
e Pag. 86.  He in the name of all Romanists, did teach that they Allow Magistrates, who are Protestants, to be as competent judges in all temporal causes, in as ample manner, as if they were of their own Religion, before whom, judging according unto law, they may not equivocate. Wherein he was contradicted by Rainolds, who absolutely denied that Protestants have any authority over them; and by Cardinal Allen, and M. Parsons, who taught that Priests may equivocate before them, because they be Tyrants. In these the Answerer needed M. Parsons, his help, but it would not be; belike he judged that the Answerer, for modcrating of matters, had erred immoderately.  
23 Furthermore, he was directly noted to have 
f Full Satisfect part. 2. pa. 106.  slandered an Author, as though he had taught Subjects to fight 
Notoitou slanders.  against their Kings; and was confuted by the words of the Author himself. There followed his 
g lbid. pa 107. & 109.  slanders against Calvin, and Bezu, and confoted from the confessions of them both. He 
h Pag. 114.  pursued Beza yet more extremely, to make him 
Slancer against Calvin and Bezae.  guilty of the death of the Duke of Guise, suborning Pultrot to kill him: wherein he was confuted by the testimony of their own Historian. He 
i Pag. 120.  objected a Conventicle held at Cabellion, wherein he said it was decreed by Protestants that All the families of ancient houses, and all civil government should be taken out of the World: where he was charged to show his Author or else to confess his slander. These four gross slanders are so many debts, & the debtor Non est soluendo, had nothing to pay, therefore M. Parsons was loath to meddle with him for the discharge of his Reckoning.  
24 He stayed not here, but fell afresh upon Luther, making him 
k Pag. 121. & 123.  say that Among Christians there is no Magistrate, no Superior: which wicked falsehood was expressly controlled by the contrary doctrine of Luther, out of his Tom. 1. in 
Slander against Luther.  Gen. c. 9 where he condemneth the Pope and his Clergy, for shaking off the yoke of temporal government. But not contented with this, he 
l Pag. 126.  imposeth again upon Luther the cause of the loss of Belgrade, and Rhodes by the hands of the Turk, his entrance upon Hungary, together with the death of King Lodovick. and Buda conquered, citing for proof thereof Munster, and Pantaleon, which points were examined, his allegations were proved falsifications: and the cause of the ruin of Hungary, and of Bohemia, the 〈◊〉 of Rhodes, together with a thousand such Evils, was attributed unto the Covetousness of the Pope of Rome, by their own Historians.  
25 Lastly, 
m Pag. 127.  he maketh Luther to be of the same opinion and practice of Rebellion, with Muntzer: which was proved to be an ugly falsehood by their own Author Peter Frarer, who confessed that Luther writ against that Muntzer, and his Complices, and exhorted all Christians to persecute those rebellious ones unto death. Could there be any fouler slanders than these, or more plainly discovered? Notwithstanding this Moderate Answerer hath behaved himself thus, yet hath he been said by M. Parsons to have acquitted himself learnedly. But what shall I say; but like Patron, like Client? Thus much for Omissions.   

An Answer unto M. PARSON'S eight Chapter: concerning the L. Coke.  
§. VI  
26 M. Parsons directeth his eight chapter of his Reckoning only unto my Lord Coke concerning the 
n Reck. pa. 529.  Municipal laws of England, which Argument he himself did before prosecute under the name os a Catholic Divine. wherein he seemeth to be so conversant, as if he had turned his Divinity into human Policy; yet peradventure so unskilfully, that the verse of Navita de ventis etc. may be inverted upon him thus; Navita de terris, de ventis narrat arator. After a long intermission (as he calleth it) of his affairs, by interlacing a Treatise against the Lord Coke, (whereunto he expecteth no Answer from me) he calleth again upon me in his next Chapter.   

An Answer unto M. PARSONS his ninth Chapter, concerning the Fresh lies, as helyingly calleth them, and recapitulateth.  
§. VII.  

The sum of M. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
IN this ninth chapter is laid together another choice number 
Reck. pag. 625.  of new and fresh untruths of later date in the last Reply of M. Morton: and albeit those that are to be touched in this chapter have been, for the most part, handled and discussed before, yet thaet they may be more effectually represented unto the eye and memory of the Reader, by putting the principal of them together in a rank, etc.   

The Review.  
27 At the first reading of this inscription of a new chapter of new and fresh lies, I thought that M. Parson's would have brought in some new charges, which have not hitherto been mentioned; but by his next words, telling us that These for the most part have been handled before, I do perceive that his fresh criminations are stale, and smell rank both of 〈◊〉 (by intituling twelve leaves New and fresh lies) and also 
His excellent fraud.  of plain falsehood, by saying that they have been handled, but only for the most part: for I see none at all now alleged which he hath not already handled in his former Reckoning, but yet with unwashed hands and heart, as my Answer hath particularly disclosed. And now I make bold to call M. Parsons to a summary account of his own charges.   

A brief Recapitulation of the manifold frauds and falsities of M. PARSONS, which have been discovered in this Reckoning.  
28 Upon the sight of his repetition of falsehoods, which he hath untruly imputed unto me, I have been provoked to requite his injurious dealing with a summary recognition and recapitulation of the principal untruths, which I have truly laid unto his charge, and have already handled: which now I need not touch, but only point at, according to the marginal Notes of this Encounter.  
29 The first book cap. 2. one falsehood, cap. 4. another, cap. 6. two, cap 7. two, cap. 8. two, cap 10. four, cap. 12. fifteen; and then many other in one: and after that eleven more, cap. 13. six, cap. 14. also eleven. Then in the second book, cap. 1. many in one; and again, three more: cap. 2. seven, cap. 3. four, cap. 4. two, cap. 5. divers in objecting heaps offalshoods; besides his manifold guiles and frauds, and ridiculous vanities, wherewith almost every page is bespangled, which might make up as many more notes of insincerity, if I would but use M. Parsons his art of Reckoning. But the former kind, which have been pointed at, being both so many and so manifest untruths, may serve for M. Parsons his conviction, for I may well spare the confession of their own Priest, who notifieth M. Parsons how prone he is to forge and falsify.     

CHAP. VIII.  
Containing an Answer unto M. Parsons his tenth chapter.  

§. I.  

M. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
THe tenth and last Chapter containeth his new challenges, protestations, and vaunts, wherein he hath enwrapped himself in the bands of further absurdities.   

The Review.  
1 THe particulars of this last part of your Reckoning are not of any such nature, that they may require any large Discourse. I will therefore be brief, taking them as I find them distinguished into matters which more specially concern me, and yourself. First of the first.   

The sum of M. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
He protesteth for his own sincerity and diligence in reviewing 
Reckon. cap. 10. pag. 651.  his books, yet is forced to confess in his own defence sometime that he did not see the Author that he citeth himself, but received it of some others, etc. He hath taken in hand Bellarmine, to pick out matter out of him, that might seem to bear some show of untruth, but hath been able to find no one, as we have made it plaive in the third chapter. Thirdly, the Reckoning being now made up, and especially in our last three precedent chapters, he had objected against him fourteen falsehoods, which he chose to answer, but could not: and then twice fourteen, which he willingly pretermitted: and lastly, a number of new lies, uttered in discharge of the former.   

The Review.  
2 I stand in the same protestation still against all wilful transgression. And to the first I answer, that I never heard before, that the citing of testimonies upon credit could be named insincerity, the examples of which manner of dealing are infinite even in our Adversaries themselves: whereof one example doth even now offer itself from Cardinal Baronius. He (writing of the manner of the martyrdom 
a Baron. Not. ad Martyrol. Rom. jan. 12. f.  of Zoticus) complained that he was wrong informed by one that writ letters unto him, Testifying that he had found them in the Acts of Zoticus, but afterwards reading the Acts myself (saith Baronius) I fowd no such matter in them. And so likewise both Bellarmine and Boucher 
* See above lib. 1. cap. 1.  have been by their own friends noted to have offended in this kind. Neither yet were the escapes, wherein M. Parsons insisteth, so inexcusable on my part, as he would enforce.  
3 To the second, I say, that if my Reader will be pleased to examine the fatshoods which were 
* See above li. 1. per totum.  viged against Cardinal Bellarmine, he shall find that the objections are no picked quarrels, but plain convictions, as hath been proved, and whereof I shall give the Reader a Synopsis in the next Chapter.  
4 To the third I need say no more but that I have answered those particulars to the full, where the Reader may find just cause to abhor the vileness of your calumnious, false and unconscionable Reckoning.   

M. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
Fourthly, I shall set down the words of a stranger, by which 
Reck pag. 654.  it is manifest what stuff is contained in his Latin books of Apology: his words are these: Quid Mortoni editionem retardârit, etc.   

The Review.  
5 here he hath objected against me a stranger and Adversary in Religion to be my Accuser, to prejudice my sincerity; 
M. Parson's marvelous incircumspection through his greedy humour to calnmniate.  never regarding that it is as easy for me to return upon him, not a Stranger, but his own countrymen; nor Adversaries in profession, but his fellow-soldiers & Priests, who have bespotted him in their public writings dedicated unto the 
b Declaratio motuum & turbationum inter jesuitas & Sacerdotes. Ad Clementem Pont.  Pope, and 
c The book of Important considerations; and the book of Quodlibets.  others, with more ugly marks of a lying, slanderous, libellious, treacherous, and bloody behaviour, than I have read objected unto any man of what profession whomsoever, in this latter age. But I am not delighted with fingering other men's ulcers, nor will I vex M. Parsons with repetitions thereof.  
6 As for myself, as yet I can say no more unto his Stranger, but that he is a Stranger unto me, and when I shall be better acquainted with him by his book, I shall (God willing) answer him, although not according to his acerbity of words, yet according to the truth and equity of the cause; whereby I shall be better occasioned to set abroach in Latin the formerly confessed falsehoods of Bellarmine, Baronius, Boucher, M. Parsons, and others. But why hath not M. Parsons Englished that Epistle of the Stranger?   

M. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
I have thought good not to translate this Epistle into English, 
Reck. pag. 656.  for that there be some words therein more sharp than I would willingly use against an Adversary, whom I seek rather to pacify, and satisfy with reason.   

The Review.  
7 When Rabshakah came against judah, blaspheming God, and vilifying their King, the Elders requested him not 
2. Kings. 18.  to speak in the vulgar language of the people, but in a strange tongue: but Rabshakah would not yield unto them. M. Parson's will seem to be more favourable, he will not English it, why? They are too sharp. here, I confess, I 
M. Parsons his praetence of favour.  know not his meaning, why he should spare me in this, who hath shown himself throughout his Reckoning more sharp and galfull, than any other Adversary hath been. Unto this Stranger he is pleased in his courtesy to adjoin the censure of Gretzer a Dutch jesuit against me. But if it would have likewise pleased M. Parsons to have read the places wherein he taketh exception, and to have examined them, I durst bide his own censure between me and Gretzer: whose dispraise I account an honour unto me, both because I see him with as high contempt vilify those learned and godly men, with whom I may not make any shadow of comparison.   

M. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
I cannot let pass to set down the judgement of an other learned 
Reckon. pa. 656  Stranger extant in a printed book of his in defence of Card. Bellarmine, whom M. Morton chiefly pretendeth to impugn, but so weakly and absurdly as the said learned man giveth a very 
Gretzer in defence. Bellar. pag. 435.  contemptible censure of the whole work, saying: Hoc opus merito suo inter stulcissima. etc.   

The Review.  
8 And I cannot but thank you that you would honour 
Gretzer his Cocoëthes and 〈◊〉 salt humour in dispraising his Aducisaries.  me with his Contemptible Censure, for so I do esteem it, especially knowing the Author to be james Gretzer, who is a superlative Contemner of all his Adversaries, whereof some were far more learned than himself: Censuring D. whitaker's thus, Mendax Spiritus; Mendax Confessio; Mendax Historia; mendacia omnia; delirat, non argumentatur. Censuring D. Lubbertus thus: Si quis velit octo mendaciorum millia, facise possit ex eius pagellis colligere, is febriculosâ suâ phantasiâ deliravit. Vix ullum reperi, qui in mendacijs cum eo comparari queat. Censuring Lamb. Danaeus thus: In toto eius Responso nè micaquidem boni, & ingenui, et eruditi Viri; adeò omnia mendacijs et nugamentis horrent. Censuring Franciscus junius thus: Tu mendacitèr omnia; omnia falsò; omnia imperitè. Censuring AEgidius Hunnius thus: Euidentèr apparet, Hunnius nihil aliudfuit, quam os & lingua sinè mente; Delirat. Censuring Dr. Reynalds thus: Nihil aliud est quam mendatiorum quidem minimè pertusus sacculus. Censuring the Phoenix of this age joseph Scaliger thus: potius Onologias quam Chronologias conduit: In respect of all these I do confess myself to be worthily contemptible. But yet who knoweth not, that this kind of censure, without proof, is but the language of Canaan, mere railing? which this Gretzer doth not practise only, but even also profess. And every one can understand that the dispraise of an Adversary, and the praise of a man's self are both but stinking breaths.  
9 here again (as before) I could requite M. Parsons with an other kind of censure, passed upon him not by his Adversaries in religion, but by his own brotherhood, whereby they make him not contemptible only but even the most execrable man of his profession: but Non est crimen proprium nescire alienum. I therefore answer for myself, desiring M. Parsons to look into Gretzer, and to examine the places wherein he doth insist in Confutation of any thing that I have written, and judge between us, and accordingly to esteem of Gretzers' Censure. In the mean time I shall answer unto the censure which M. Parsons himself hath made against me.   

M. PARSONS his Reckoning.  
Neither will I allege any thing injuriously against M. Mortons' 
Reck. pag. 659.  person, which I do love from my heart in the true love of Christ our Saviour, wishing his best spiritual good, as mine own; and do esteem him also for the good parts that God hath bestowed upon him, though I do pity the evil employment thereof in the cause he defendeth.   

The Revew.  
10 You shall not need (M. Parsons) to do that you have 
M. Parson's greatpretence of charity towards his Adversary.  abundantly done, which is, To allege matters injuriously against me. Notwithstanding I do embrace your tender of love, and shall (I hope) not be overcome in this contention, by affecting your eternal good, even as mine own; neither shall I further esteem of myself, than that my employment may be for defence of a cause, which I ought to love a thousand times above myself. Hactenùs de me. Now I come to you, M. Parsons.    

SECT. II.  
Concerning the Challenges made against M. PARSONS.  

M. PARSON'S Reckoning.  
Mr. Morton hath lost himself through vehemency of Passion 
Reckon. pa. 659  in this place, where he censureth his Adversary in four several challenges, which I have thought good to set down together, and not to answer them severally, as I did in the former Paragraph, for that indeed there is in them nothing but excess of intemperate heat in contumelious speech: etc.   

The revew.  
11 If M. Parson's would have considered either his own desert, or my behaviour, he would never have complained of contumelious speeches. For neither am I so lavish, but that their own Apologists, (whom he greatly commendeth) have allowed me the Title of 
a The Apology for the Rom. Church, the 2. edition, in the Praef. to the Reader, pag. 10.  A man not intemperate, neither yet used M. Parsons to be so moderate, but that his own fellow could note him, from the mouth of Cardinal Alan, to be a man of a 
b Quod lib. pag. 236.  Very violent, and unquiet spirit. Yea, and M. Parsons himself also hath wished that 
c Reck. pa. 669.  He had not used such asperity of speech against me. Wherefore I pass over personal and offensive terms, which notwithstanding were only expressed in Latin, and I come to the Material points to try, whether I have been able to perform my challenge against him or not.  

There were four principal parts of the challenge against M. Parsons.  
1. The Discovery of Romish Positions and practices of Rebellion to be just.  
2. His Treatise of Mitigation to be falsely so entitled.  
3. His Mental equivocation to be an Art of lying.  
4. The Romanists to support their causes by lying.    

The Performance of the first part of the Challenge.  
12. As the presence of light dispelleth darkness, so Uerum est judex sui, & obliqui. Seeing now therefore, that after M. Parsons hath made his full Reckoning, and that answer hath been made to all his exceptions, we find that their former 
* See these points above cap. 7.  Bulls, and practices of their Popes (such as were Pope Greg. 7. Paulus 3. Sixtus Quintus, Pius Quintus) and that the sentences of their own Doctors (such as were Card. Bellarmine, Boucher, Carerius, Bozius, Rainolds, Allen, Simancha, Costerus, Sanders, Creswell, Dolman) do, without exemption, defend a rooting out of all Princes, who shall not subject themselves under the Pope of Rome, whensoever there is a sufficient power to prevail: Albeit it doth no less manifestly appear, and that by the confession of their own Authors, that in the time of the old law, the High Priests were subject unto Kings; And in the new Testament that Christ, and his immediate Disciples did not affect, or exercise power over Kings in Temporal 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 been likewise confessed) did profess their subjection unto the Emperors of their time, according to the doctrine maintained in our Church. All these Considerations cannot but justify the first part of my Challenge, concerning the Discovery of seditious Romish Positions, and Practices of Rebellion.   

The discharge of the second Part.  
13 As for the deciphering of the disloyal affection of M. Parsons the former Mitigator, what can be more pregnant than are his own clauses, who permitteth a subjection unto Protestant Kings with a 
d Lib. 1. cap. 3 §. 4.  May, and of a Possibility, instead of a Must, and Necessity? who also alloweth his catholics to acknowledge their loyalty unto our king only, so long as they are 
e Ibidem.  Used as Subjects, and then complaineth that they are not used as Subjects? Who teacheth that they who are 
f Cap. 12. §. 13. num. 63.  Lawfully Excommunicate by the Pope, & persist obstinate, may not be heads in Christian Communion? who can afford no more grievous epithet unto the horrible plot of the Gunpowder Treason, than to call it A temerarious fact, notwithstanding it were a fact, which both heaven and earth do detest, and at which hell itself (as it were) standeth all aghast? who being urged to answer whether their part would not eradicate Protestants, if they had power to execute their will, could find no better evasion then to say that the question was 
g Cap. 14. §. 5. num. 36.  Impertinent? Finally, who defendeth the book of Dolman, als. Parsons, which hath been condemned by their own Priest, as most 
h Ibid. Sect. 11. num. 61.  Rebellious against the English State? How shall not this be held a just performance of the second part of the Challenge?   

The discharge of the third part of the Challenge, against Mental Equivocation; as it hath been described by M. Parsons.  
14 The Mental Equivocation, which M. Parsons hath propounded, as justifiable in the judgement of all Schools, Chairs, and Universities, is in sundry places of this Encounter largely 
i Especially lib. 1. cap. 4. & ca 13. & lib. 2. ca 1. &. 3. &. 4.  discussed, and proved to a lie, not only from Reason, but also from the judgement of Romish Doctors; such as were 
k These Six lib. 1. c. 13.  Sepulveda, Aquinas, Gabriel Biel, Scotus, Henricus de Gandavo, Azorius, and Sotus: and was never justified for true by any 
l Lib. 2. cap. 4.  Heathenish man; whereof there will be occasion to say much more in the answer to the 
* Cap. 9  Appendix following; wherein the Reader will find (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 devices.  
15 What would any Reader require, for the due performance of this discharge? The dispositions, which their Writers have to falsify? Then see above their 
m Lib. 1. 〈◊〉 1.  Suarez condemned by Cumel; their 
n Ibid.  Baronius reproved by their Venetian Doctor; their 
o Ibid.  Boucher controlled by Barclay; their 
p Ibid.  Gratian corrected by their Archbishop Tarraconensis; their 
q Ibid.  Bellarmine condemned by Marsilius, by P. Paulus, and Barclay; and lastly their M. Parsons, and their Moderate Pamphletter confuted in this Encounter.  
16 Would he furthemore have it shown unto him, wherein they have abused the Fathers? he need but look back again unto the former Chapters, where 
r Cap. 1 & 9 & 10.  Bellarmine is deprehended in that guilt; where their 
s cap. 11.  Coccius (whom I was challenged by M. Parsons to examine) is convicted of above 40. transgressions, in producing Fathers in the defence of but one doctrine of Purgatory.  
17 Doth he desire to understand some thing of their slanders against their Adversaries? then let him see the 11. which 
t Cap. 8.  Bellarm. did injuriously object against Protestants; besides others committed by 
u Cap. 7.  Surius, & the 
x Lib. 2. cap. 6.  Moderate Answerer; and M. Parsons, as hath appeared thorough out this whole Encounter; towhich may be added a memorable slander about a Yorkshire case, discovered hereafter in the next Chapter in Answer to his Appendix.  
18 What shall we speak of the foundation of some doctrines of theirs by Deceitful 
a See the Catholic Appeal. lib. 1. cap. 2. & lib. 3. c. 19  Apparitions of the dead; and the seals of their superstitions, their false 
b Ibidem, l. 3. cap. 17.  Miracles? or else false doctrines themselves, like unto their doctrine of 
c Ibidem, l. 1. cap. 2. §. 20. etc. & lib. 2. c. 15. & l. 4. c. 25.  Indulgences, which have been confessed by some to be but a kind of Deceits? To omit their fictitious Canon of 
d See above in this Encounter, lib. 1. c. 5.  Appeals to Rome in spiritual Cases; the more fabulous 
* lib. 2. cap. 7.  Donation of Constantine, in behalf of their Temporal power.  
19 Peradventure he desireth to be acquainted with some corruption of books, which a man may call the Falsities of Falsities; then let him but remember the complaint, which their own Marsilius hath made against their practice of Razing something out of the 
e See above lib. 1. ca 1. num. 18.  Counsels, Canons, and Historians: some experience whereof we have taken in M. Parsons his exceptions against 
f Lib. 1. ca 13. §. 5.  Maldonate, 
g Lib. 1. c. 14.  Polydore, and 
h Ibid. c. 13. §. 4.  Eman. Sa. As for their manner of Mental Equivocation, we have proved already to be but an artificial lie: whereof something more remaineth to be spoken now in Answer unto M. Parsons his Appendix, and as also touching his imagined Yorkshire Case of Equivocating.     

CHAP. IX.  
Containing an Answer unto M. Parsons his Appendix, which he hath inscribed thus.  
AN Appendix concerning a case of Equivocation lately 
Reckon. pa. 671.  written out of England, wherein resolutionis demanded about the false Oath of two Ministers: Whether it may be salved by the licence of Equivocation, or no? Together with a note out of D. King his Sermon, preached at the Court 5. of Novemb. 1608. so far forth as it toucheth Equivocation.  

The Revew. §. I.  
1 At the very entrance into this Appendix I first understood of the late death of M. Parsons, and shall therefore a little rebate and blunt my style, because I love not, quasi cum laruis luctari, to insult too personally upon the dead. To this purpose I shall omit the ordinary Apostrohe of speaking to him in the second person, by challenging him to his face, and shall use his name only so far as both the state, absence, and condition of this cause shall permit or require.  
2 This his Appendix compriseth first a wild slander against a Protestant Minister, by pretence of an ugly Equivocating Case, supposed to have been acted in Yorkshire: And secondly a transgression (as it may seem) against the truth of Christ the Son of God, whom (in the Taxation, which he useth against the Sermon of Dr. King) he feigneth to have patronized and practised that form of Equivocation, which he himself hath professed and defended in his Books. The point of slander, about the Case of Yorkshire, seemeth to contain three parts of Oratory. 1. An Exordium, or Preface: 2. A Narration or declarion of the Case; and lastly a determination and Conclusion thereof.  

The Preface, which M. PARSONS useth for an introduction of the pretended Yorkshire Case.  
Ireceived, gentle Reader, not long since by a letter of the eight 
Reckon pa. 671  of November Anno. 1608. from a friend of minc dwelling in the North parts of England, ascertain Advertisement about a case of Equivocation fallen out in those parts, wherein my said friend requested my judgement, whether the same were tolerable, or excusable, or not? And for that it seemed he had some right to urge me in the matter, in respect of the Trcatise written by me of that argument against M. Morton I thought myself the more bound to yield him some satisfaction to his demand.   

The Review, discovering the forgery of this Case by four probabilities, taken out of M. PARSONS his Exordium.  
3 Because this case is made so notorious, that the relation thereof, if it be true, must needs bewray exceeding mischief on the side, or else on the other side extreme malice, if it shall appear to be false: I shall entreat thee (Good Reader) to observe and ponder the circumstances of this Preface, which M. Parsons hath commended unto thee; and to consider, first, Who it is that inquireth whether this pretended Equivocation be Tolerable, or not? M. Parsons hath told us that he is his Friend; and in that (according to his profession) great friend unto any Protestant. Is it not therefore altogether improbable, that his conscience should be so tenderly scrupulous about that which was his adversaries sin, and none of his own?  
4 Secondly consider What the doubt and difficulty is, which the Friend of M. Parsons doth desire so earnestly to be decided: The only thing that he would know (poor soul) is, whether when a lawful Magistrate proceedeth judicially in examination upon Oath, it may be held Tolerable for any to abuse and delude this judge by Equivocating in Oath, or no? But shall we think that M. Parsons his friend or any Christian would make question and doubt whether that be Tolerable, which every conscience of man, yea of the very Pagans, by the only light and instinct of Nature, can presently condemn as most intolerable? Would he have us to think that his Friend could be so sottish as to make question about a point so utterly unquestionable?  
5 Thirdly, Whither now will his Friend travel for means to remove this great perplexity? We see that he now posteth over the Alps as far as Rome, by his letters, for satisfaction in this case. But what? Is there no balm in Gilead? Is there no sufficient Counsel in any jesuit, or secular Priest within England, that can resolve this so silly and senseless a doubt? and to untwine so loose a thread? shall we think this probable?  
6 Lastly, when all is done, Whom will the good man make choice of in Rome, for the deteiminer of this point? whom, but his friend M. Parsons? and good reason, because 
* Reckon. See above.  It seemed (saith M. Parsons) that he had some right to urge me in this matter, in respect of the Treatise written by me of that matter against M. Morton, and I thought myself the more bound to yield him some satisfaction to his demand. But how could his Friend be ignorant of M. Parsons his judgement in such a Case? We may try this by his last Conclusion. 
a Reckon p. 674.  I do infer (saith M. Parsons) for resolution of the case, that this was no true, or proper Equivocation at all, but rather a flat lie. and open perinry; as by that we have treated before with M. Morton in the second chapter of this book may appear more largely: but much more throughout divers Chapters together in my former Treatiss of Mitigation. Let us put his former 
M. Parsons convicted by his own mouth.  Reason and this Conclusion together, and hence I infer a notable absurdity, viz. that Master Parsons his Friend must bethought to have sent many hundred miles unto M. Parsons, to answer a doubt by his letters, which he had largely and sufficiently unfolded and assoiled publicly by his book a year before.  
7 These four particular circumstances, viz. 1 Who, 2 What, 3 Whither, 4 and Whom, implying these sour Improbabilities, the 1. to seek to be informed in conscience concerning a sin, that did not concern him: the 2. about a Case, wherein there could be no doubt: the 3. by delaying time, and consulting far off, whereas he might have been presently resolved at home: and 4. in urging M. Parsons to satisfy that, which he had satisfied; do all (in my apprehension more than coniecturally tell us, that this Case was devised either by M. Parsons his friend, or else by himself, tather than derived from the practice of any Protestant. And this will be found to be not only (as in this Exordium) probable, but even demonstrable, by examination of the Narration itself.   

The Narration of the pretended Equivocating Case of Yorkshire.  
The Case then in offect was this. A certain Minister in Yorkshire 
Reck pag. 672.  named Wh. (for I think not good to set dewne all the letters thereof) dwelling at a town called Thornley, if I miss not the name.   

The Review, showing the manifold falsehoods of this declaration.  
8 Upon the discovery of the falsehoods of this Narration, it will easily appear that M. Parsons had rather cause to blush at the noting of the two first letters of the Ministers name, than the Minister himself need to be ashamed, to be named to the full, who is willing to reveal himself to be that Ed. whitaker's, Rector of the Parsonage of Thornhil (for that is the right name of the place) who had a suit with M. C. about the Tithe of a Close: but how? M. Parsons hath related the Case in the behalse of the Defendant, shall not we be heard speak for the Plaintiff? Qui partem alteram audit, part inaudit â alterâ, (saith Seneca) iniquus erit, aequum licet iudicaverit: that is; He that in judgement heareth one party speak, and neglecteth the other, albeit he happen to judge justly, yet is he an unjust judge. Now then behold we the first untruth of this fabulous devise.   

M. PARSONS his Appendix.  
He being married and loaden with many children, and thereupon 
Reck. ibid.  not content with the ordinary Tithes, that were wont to be given, and paid in that Parish:   

The Review.  
9 This is spoken to make the Minister seem to have been a man contentious, who notwithstanding dare profess of himself, that for Thirty years space, (for so long hath he been Rector of that Parsonage) he troubled not any of his Parishioners for Tithe, except the now questioned. Mr C. and that especially for the Tithe of one Close. From this he passeth to another untruth.   

M. PARSONS his Appendix.  
He began to urge one of his Parishioners to pay him other 
Pag. 672.  Tithes also out of a certain Close or Field that was pretended not to have paid Tithes before to other precedent Incumbents. Whereupon this Minister devising with himself, how he might further his own cause, resolved upon this mean, among others, to deal with another Minister, which immediately before had possessed that Benefice, entreating him aswell by request, as by offering him a piece of money (as hither is written) to assist him in this behalf, by lending him the aid of an oath, that he had received Tithes before that time out of that Close or Field.   

The Review.  
10 The Plaintiff answereth, that The Minister, which immediately before had possessed that Benefice, was dead, before I was instituted unto it; being about twenty years, before this action began. Therefore M. Parsons, without a miracle of raising the dead man unto life, could not make good this part of his accusation. But he goeth onaudaciously, without fear of other pits of errors and falsehoods, which are in his way. The third followeth.   

M. PARSONS his Appendix.  
Whereat though for a time the second Minister did seem to 
Reck. ibid.  stick much, saying that he could not do it with the peace of his conscience; yet afterward it seemeth by the earnest persuasion & inductions of the other Minister, his repugnance of conscience was so mortified, as he yielded to the others entreaty; especially for that he told him him he had so great friendship and acquaintance with those that must be judges and examiners of the cause at York, as he doubted not but their two oaths would caris it away.   

The Review.  
11 M. Parsons had a great mind to bring some Minister upon the stage for all spectators to point at him, insomuch that he hath fancied such a man to be that Minister, as was dead and buried twenty years before the beginning of this Suit, as was said. And now the Plaintiff furthermore answereth, that No Minister was ever used in this cause, either as witness or as aider, or any way else. But it is known what a Priestly Itch M. Parsons had to traduce Ministers: which kind of dealing might proceed from a Conscience that was mortua, but not mortificata. Although these former falsehoods may much prejudice M. Parsons his Report; yet shall I desire my Reader to forget these circumstances, and to judge according to the issue of the Case itself, for now we launch into the main.   

M. PARSONS his Appendix.  
To York Assizes then they went, where having taken their 
Reckon. p. 673.  Oaths, and pleaded the case,   

The Review.  
12 Then, belike, both the Ministers did Take their Oaths in this Case: but the one did not swear, neither, indeed, could he swear by the law of nature, because he was 
The Transparancy of the forgery.  dead; and the other could not swear by the order of the Common-law of the land, which admitteth none in those Courts to swear in his own Cause. Which Circumstance maketh the forgery of this Case to be such a Pellucidum mendacium, that is, so transparent an untruth, that a man may see thorough it. But we have longed all this while to hear the issue of this cause, and what success it had.   

M. PARSONS his Appendix.  
At length they found not that success, which they expected: for 
Reckon. ibid.  that the whole Town and Parish of Thornley offering themselves confidently to swear and depose the contrary in behalf of the Defendant (to wit, that Tithes were not accustomed to be paid out of that place) the Ministers had sentence given against them, with no small note of public perjury.   

The Review.  
13 The four former falsehoods were notable, but this, as the Masterlie, exceedeth them all: for at the Assizes at York, when the Nisiprius between M. Whit. and M. Co: was to be tried, and verduit ready to be given M. Co: was Non-sute, and afterwards sought for an other Prohibition, still to hinder the Rectors proceedings. The truth hereof I have confirmed not only by M. Whit. his protestation, but also by the most credible testimony as well of the then judge in the Court of York, who kept a note of the passages in this cause, as of a Counsellor at Law, of M. Co: his part, who advised his Client to forbear that course of prosecution. The wisdom of which his Counsel was largely verified by the event. I forbear to mention a public Instrument under seal, which noteth that M. C. sought for a Prohibition against M. Whit. after the Assizes at York. We may guess what complexion M. Parsons his friend was of, who blushed not to say, that M. Whit. had sentence given against him at York. Furtheimore, because M. Parsons hath adventured to talk of Success, I hold it not inconvenient to add as followeth.   

The memorablenesse of the Suit between M. Whit. and M. Co: about the Tithe of that Close, and the Success of the whole business.  
14 It was to be sentenced before the Ordinary at York, but before the sentence was pronounced, M. C. got a 
1 Probib. (by judge 〈◊〉) dat. 8. Feb. An. R R. Eliz. 37. Out of the Kings been h. And a Consult (〈◊〉) Dat. 7. May An. Reg. Eliz. 39  Prohibition at London, wherein M. Whit. obtained a Consultation, because M. C. had been Nonsuit in a former 
2 Probib. (lud. Anderson) 30. jan. An. Eliz. 40. out of the Common-Pleas. And then a Consultation Dat. 24 Maij, An. 40. Eliz.  Prohibition at York. Nevertheless he procured a third 
3 Prohth. (lud. Popham) 5. 〈◊〉 An. Eliz. 40. out of the Kings Bench. And then a Consultation by judg. Popham, Dat. 12. Feb An. 41. Eliz.  Prohibition, & was again by another Consullation remitted to his Ordinary at York. He stirreth up to London for a fourth 
4 Prohib. (jud. Anderson) Dat. 23. jan. An. Eliz. 44. And a Consult. 14. Maij, Anno. Eliz. 44  Prohibition, and after that, a 
5 Prohibit. (jud. Anderson) Dat. 23. Junii, An. 44. Eliz. & Consult. Dat. 3. Novem. An. Eliz. 44.  fifth and a 
6 Prohib. or Supersedeas (jud. Anders.) Dat. 12. Feb. An. Eliz. 45. And yet was there granted a Consolt. Dat. 27. Maij, Reg. jac. An. 1. by judge Anderson.  sixth; which were all frustrated by so many Consultations, because he failed to make due proof of his Suggestions, within the times limited by the Statute. After the three last Prohibitions he procured an Injunction out of the Chancery against M. Whimbly: but upon Information giucn to the Court it was speedily dissolved. Is not this a strange case, which continuing the space of nine years, was so often tossed like a Tennis-bal between London and York? But in the end the matter was so vexatiously carried on M. C. his part, as that he was taxed to pay 300. pounds costs, whereof M. Whit. received two hundred pounds, and after that his foresaid Tithes, and hath enjoyed them ever since. here we see not only one Success, but 
The success of the cause.  even as many successes as there were Consultations, which were six; and as there were pounds, which he got for charges, amounting to above two hundred pounds; and as the value of the Tithe is, which he recovered. And now let them laugh that win: for herein we see this Proverb falsified. Notwithstanding M. Parsons still boasteth and maketh sport in behalf of his Defendant, and playeth merrily upon a slanderous figment, as followeth.   

M. PARSONS his Appendix.  
One that was a particular friend of M. Wh. demanding the 
Reck. pag. 673.  reason how they could swear, or rather forswear in such manner, the thing being known to be so notoriously false? He answered, that they in their own sense did swear truly (behold then the Case of Equivocation) and that so they were ready to prove it, if they had been urged by the judges therein, to wit, that their meaning in swearing was, that the former Incumbent had received Tithes out of that Close or Field, or without that Close or Field, namely, in other Closes adjoining, though not in the Field. And with this Equivocation of (Out) and (In) they thought themselves cleared, both for deceiving the judges, and their Parishioners.   

The Review.  
15 This, in his marginal note, he calleth a fraudulent and lying Equivocation: who, if he be alive, might be put in mind by a most grave, godly, & famous Treasurer of learning Sir Tho. B. that there was such a jest as this set abroach in M. Parsons his time in Oxford, by one, who merrily maintained that the testimony, which he alleged, was out of Aristotle; that is not credible (said his fellow:) the other brought for his defence, a book which was not Aristotle, where the alleged testimony was extant, and therefore (said the Sophister) is it found out of Aristotle. May we not think that M. Parsons hath turned a jest into an earnest, and translated the bookcase into the Close. case?  
16 When we remember the diverse improbabilites in the 
A Recapituletion.  Exordium, of a friend busily enquiring about a sin, which did not concern him; and questioning about such a Case, which no Christian could doubt of; and sending for resolution to Rome, which might have been had at home; and consulting thereabout with M. Parsons by private letters, which had been before largely satisfied in his public books: but especially when we recognise the falsities of the Narration and Declaration itself, wherein a Minister is made a witness, who was dead twenty years before; and some Minister is objected, whereas no Minister was any way used in that cause; and they are said to have been forsworn, who were not, nor could not be sworn; and the sentence is affirmed to pass with him at the Assizes, who was so 〈◊〉 as to become Non-sute, and so to forsake his cause, and in the upshot was constrained both to pay the Tithes that were sued for, and to repay the charges of the suit: How can we but think that this Equivocating by out and in, came out of M. Parsons his Equivocating brain, wherein the Mitigation, for defence of a worse kind of Equivocation, by Mental Reservation, was formerly engendered? What remaineth now, but that we understand what Determination M. Parsons hath passed upon this forged Case?   

The Conclusion and determination of the former Case.  
M. PARSONS his Appendix.  
Their Conspiracy together, by way of money, corruption, and 
Reck. pa. 673. 674.  bribes, was detestable. Their guilesull deceiving, their lawful judges, that were competent in the cause, and proceeded iuridically, was abominable. The scandal given to them that knew they swore falsely, was impious. The obligation they had to answer 
The resolution of the case  directly unto the sense and meaning of the said judges, was indispensible: all which points are different in a lawful Equivocation. Whereof I do infer, for resolution of the case, that this was no true or proper Equivocation at all, but rather a flat lie, and open perjury.   

The Review.  
17 Although such a speech (in judgement) being but a Verbal Equivocation in the inward court of a man's conscience, might go for an indirect truth, as hath been 
* See about.  proved yet in foro fori, and outward court of man's judicature, wherein the secret thoughts of men cannot be discerned, it may be censured for a lie. And whether it be a lie, or not a lie, yet being a deceit and delusion against a Magistrate in an Oath, none can deny but every such practice is Detestable abominable, indispensible, and impious both before God and man. And thus far (supposing that the case had been such) I yield unto M. Parsons his Censure and Conclusion.  
18 But now, after the examination of the Third part of his Accusation, I cannot see how M. Parsons could have chosen a more extraordinary and famous case, wherein to betray their own malice against Ministers, and to make themselves most notoriously infamous, by devising this Equivocation of out and in, which may persuade any indifferent Reader to cry out upon such dealing, and to retort his Retorique upon our Adversaries, saying that such their guileful defaming of Protestants is detestable, their objecting of perjury, where there was not so much as an Oath, is abhominablc, their abusing of their Readers credulity is impious; their transgression against their own Conscience is indispensible; and whatsoever lie there is in it is to be attributed not to the supposed Actor, but to the suspected Author and Inventer thereof.  
19 Finally, for as much as our Adversaries will seem to make such kind of Equivocating hateful, it might have become them to have condemned their own Mint and Doctrine of Equivocating, before that they had slandered others by false accusation in that, whereof some of themselves stand convicted, by the the confessions of their own fellows; as now, by occasion of M. Parsons his Challenge I am urged to discover.    

A Confutation of M. PARSONS his proof of Mental Equivocation taken from the speeches of Christ, in joh. 8. upon an occasion, which he took at D. King's Sermon.  
§. II.  

M. PARSONS his Appendix, and Challenge.  
I would demand of this new Prachant-Minister, that is so 
Reckon. pa. 675.  hot and vehement in his calumniation, when he, or his can prove that any one jesuit in the world amongst so many thousands as are extant, hath ever practised, patronised, published, or persuaded any such Equivocation as this, which was used by the Ministers of Yorkshire? When would either Master Southwell, or M. Garnet, whom they are wont to accuse for this doctrine, have taken such an oath for deceiving of their Neighbours, as those Ministers did? Was this out of the infirmity of the flesh, and pusillanimity, or rather out of covetousness and iniquity? Was it with the faces of Jerusalem and judah, or not rather of Sodom and Gomorrah?   

The Review, yielding confessed Examples of jesuitical practise, in lying Equivocations.  
20 Thus the old man still venteth his choler adust, raging, and reviling a learned Doctor, whose studies have soared some what above M. Parsons his reach: whom if he may term a Prachant Minister, then may we venly think that there is no Preaching Priest amongst the Romanists. But we lean comparisons. M. Parsons is therefore so bitter against him, because he thought their Eq 〈◊〉 do carne the faces of Sodom and Gomorrha by paironizing, publishing, and persuading 〈◊〉 whole world the lawfulness of their 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who from henceforth (said he) may ease the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Crete from their 〈◊〉 insame, which the Apostle 〈◊〉 upon them, that the Cretensians are liars, etc. These 〈◊〉 & M. Parsons calleth hot and vehement calumniations, 〈◊〉 outcries, idle 〈◊〉 and flat lies: And in the end exacteth of him an answer unto his reasons, for the defence of the Art of 〈◊〉 which are set down in the Mitigation. In the which challenge who seeth not there is more windy 〈◊〉 then sober 〈◊〉 if either he considered the admirable, and indeed (in his kind) kingly 〈◊〉 of that our Doctor; or the untempered mortar, 〈◊〉 M. Parsons hath daubed up a defence of his mental Equivocation, even by reason of the mixture of absurdity and impiety, whereof they consist? As may be seen especially in his reason taken from the examples of Christ in Scripture. But first he desireth to be satisfied in some I esuiticall examples of like nature.  
21 If I should propound the example of their Priest, who being deprchended and convented before a Magist are, and asked whether he were a Priest or not? Answered no meaning, No Priest of Apollo: secondly, whether he had been beyond the Sea, or no? Answered, No, meaning the Adriatic Sea; or other such like Delphicall evasions used by M. Garnet in his examinations, which were so ugly, that the Examiner's were thereby driven into wonder and horror; M. Parsons or some for him would readily reply that the Magistrates in England are no competent judges of their Priests; and that in so great an hazard, as was his liberty, or life, he might lawfully Equivocate. But I 
* See above, lib. 1. ca 3. §. 5.  have already proved. that the authority of our Magistrates over a Priest is most just: And it is also without question, that a man is no more privileged to Equivocate, in danger of loss of 〈◊〉 or of life, then of loss of goods; and therefore if M. Parjons' could condemn the Equivocation of out and in for a lie, than this Equivocation of a Priest Romish, and a Priest 〈◊〉 may not pass currant for truth.  
22 But what need we our own collection, for the manifestation of their lesuiticall delusions, seeing that we may be sufficiently enabled hereunto by our 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We have often heard of the complaint of a College of Romish 
b Sceva above, lib. 1. cap. 1. 〈◊〉 28.  Priests against M. Parsons for his cozenage, and crueitie against some English Messengers, which were sent from them unto the Pope: together with a description of M. Parsons his former disposition, which was To cog and Equivocate at every word.  
23 Besides this, their Quodlibettarian Priest declameth against the lesuits, because of their 
c Quodlib. pag. 32. & 33.  Abuse of Equivocation, making it indeed (saith he) nothing but an Art of lying, cogging and foisting, and that without all respect of matter, time, or place; and consequently tending unto flat Atheism: So that 
Examples of Equivocating Romish Priests.  (saith he) it shall be as hard to convince them of any errors in matters of faith, as it was to convince Arius, who subscribing to the Counsels decrees, swearing that it was true, as it there was written, (meaning in the paper kept close in his bosom, or sleeve) just like to the jesuits Equinocating, or counterfeited perjuries. And, for example, he bringeth in one 
d Ib. pag. 66.  james Standish a jesuit 〈◊〉 who abused the Pope; when being asked of his Holiness, whether the matter of the setting up of the 〈◊〉 in England was done by the consent of all the rest of the Priests in England, or not? answered, (but falsely, for scarce one of the secular Priests in England, in respect of the whole number, knew of it) that, [It was,] reserving to him 〈◊〉 this part, uz. [As I presuppose, or presume] as since he hath confessed. And the like practice of jesuits he there noteth with Ca Cajetan, in offering his Lordship the names of Priests, as consenting to that which they did not, and excusing the matter by their secret reservation, scil. If all would consent Can any presume that they will fear by Equivocating to abuse their neighbours, who make so bold to collude with their ghostly father, and supreme Pastor, the Pope?  
24 By this we find, that there is, in this point of Equivocating, some odds between the honesty of Protestants, and Romanists, seeing that M. Parson's could not produce an example of any one Protestant, who hath so equinocated; except that of Out, and In, which (upon due examination) appeareth to have been either the lying suggestion of his friend, or else the false invention and forgery of his own brain. And who is there among all Protestants that ever put pen to paper, to justify M. Parson's manner of Mental Reservation? But as for our Adversaries, their profession herein is so rank, and their practice so rife, that one of their own brotherhood had cried out upon theirlyes and coggeries. Yet this devilish Doctrine were less dangerous, if it did not transform itself into the resemblance of more than an Angel of light, by pretending the example of our Blessed Saviour Christ, as followeth.     

CHAP. X.  
Short answers unto the particular Instances, which M. PARSONS used out of 8. chap. of S. john, for colour of their Romish equivocation. And first by way of Introduction.  

§. I.  

M. PARSONS his Appendix.  
IFinde the speeches of our Saviour so frequent every 
Reck. pag. 682.  where in this manner of concealing of secrecies, or things not sit to be plainly uttered, by this doubtful and ambiguous kind of speech, as in one only chapter of S. john's Gospel, I find Christ to have used the same above 
joao. 1.  7. or 8. times at least setting down certain propositions, that of themselves, and as they lie, are in the common Hearers earo false, though true in the speakers meaning, by some Mental Reseruàtion. Which Reservation though he uttered not in words yet is necessarily understood: and this is properly equivocation in our sense and Doctrine.   

The Review, showing the distinction between Verbal, and Mental Equivocation.  
1 It is sit, before we seek to satisfy others, that first we labour to understand ourselves, by setting down the true differences which are between us. To this end I distinguish of 〈◊〉 or Amphibology (as they are largely taken) into Verbal, and Mental.  
2 The Verbal is (as hath been said) when any speech hath 〈◊〉 diverse ambiguous and doubtful senses, according to the outward use of the words in themselves, and not only by the in ward reservation of the mind: which doubtfulness of a speech consisteth sometime in one word, sometime in a whole sentence.  
3 An example of the Verbal equivocation, or ambiguity of speech in one word, may be these: one spying a man of little wit, and perceiving that he had big and strong legs, said that he was a man of good understanding; wittily changing the more usual sense of the word, Understanding, as it signifieth wit and judgement, into the less common acceptation thereof, wherein it agreed unto a man's legs. 〈◊〉 much different was the answer of a Market-man unto one, who being desirous to know what prices good horses bare, asked him, Homgce Horses at the fair? Sir (quoth he) some amble, and some trot; merrily playing upon the verbal ambiguity of the word, Go.  
4 As there is a Verbal Amphibology, and doubtful sense in particular words, so is there also in the composition of whole sentences, and that in infinite varieties; as it happeneth often by the diverse disposal of the word of a speech. As when the man said that he met this morning a cart full of stones empty: which words, taken according to the common reading, do yield no sense, but that which is senseless; but being rightly distinguished, it is the same, as if he had said: I imply, (that is, fasting) this morning met a Gart. Or as an other 〈◊〉 saying, I saw Paul's steeple on horseback; meaning, that being on horseback, he saw Paul's steeple.  
5 But of all Tropes, or figures in Rhetoric, there is none that cometh nearer unto Mental Reservation than do these two; Ironia, and Apiosiopesis: For first in Ironia, or jesting and derision, the meaning, which is conveyed by the words, sometimes is quite contrary unto the natural property of the words themselves: as may be discerned in that contention, which the Prophet Eliah had with Baal's Priests, wherein he is 
a 1. Reg. 18.  said to have mocked the Priests of Baal, saying to them, Cry aloud, for he is a God, either he talketh, or pursueth his enemies, or is in his journey, or else it may be he is a sleep, and must be waked. But in this there was not Romish Mental Reservation, which lurketh wholly in the closet of the speakers breast; but a Uerball ambiguity, whereof the hearer was capable; to understand that the Prophet now contending against Baal, to prove him to be no God, did mean, by calling him God, and attributing unto him properties, which cannot agree unto God (as talking, journeying, sleeping) but to scorn & deride him, and indeed to call him No God. Like hereunto was the Answer which the Prophet Michaih made unto Ahab, when he answered him, saying, 
b Ibid. cap. 22.  Goc up to Ramath Gilead, and prosper: which Irony the King himself perceived right well; whereby the Prophet (saith 
* In Luc. ult. 〈◊〉 28.  Maddonate) did not 〈◊〉 him, but showeth that he was deceived.  
6. The 2. figure, which can best claim any alliance with Mental Reservation, is 〈◊〉 or Reticentia, which M. Parsons bringeth in to pattern their Romish Reservation. This is such a speech, as is abruprly broken off in the half. We have an example in the 3. of Gen. where God now casting Adam out of Paradise, saith, 
c Vers. 22.  But now left, man do put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat and live for ever; Reserving the rest, but not as inconceivable unto the Reader, which in the generality was this. I will take an other order with him. For here, by a known figure, called Anthropomorphia, God is brought in to speak like a man, when he is in anger and passion: Now the voice of man's extreme passion and perturbation is always abrupt and broken, even as he is described by the Poet to say; Quos 
Virg.  ego. Which kind of sentences do, according to the fashion of man's speech, betoken the intendment of some kind of revenge, and cannot any whit countenance the Romish Mental 〈◊〉 which is not all implied in the outward form of the speech, as we shall presently demonstrate.    

That the Scripture alloweth not the Romish Reservation.  
§. 2.  
7. S. Augustine (as he is cited by the jesuit 
d Salmeron jes. Tom. 1. Prelegom. 12. Can. 15. ex Aug. Tom. 3. li 1. de Trin. cap. 12.  Salmeron) saith that Scriptures, because they speak unto men, do use no kind of speech, which is not usual among men. Whereby I make bold to assume, that there is no speech in Scripture, whether it be proper or figurative, but it acordeth unto the use of the outward words and the meaning may possibly be apprehended by an intelligent Reader, who can justly observe the phrase of speech, and the due circumstances thereof. As for M. Parsons his Mental Reservation it is inapprehensible, because he saith that 
e Mitig. cap. 8. pag. 344.  The clause of Reservation may be what it pleaseth a man; and what soever he list to frame to himself: so that it agree with his mind, in a cause wherein he is not bound to make any direct Answer. For example sake, let us take this: If a Priest being asked by a Protestant Magistrate unto whom he thinketh he is not bound to answer directly whether he be an Anointed Priest? and shall answer, saying; I am not anointed Priest, secretly referuing this clause in my mind, not Anointed, on my elbows, or not Anointed with Tar or Oil de Bay: is not this reservation merely Mental, and no-way implied in the outward speech, but unsearchable, and altogether degenerate from the proper or figurative use of man's speech? Can he possibly find us any colour for this Art of falsehood, and coggery, out of the Gospel of truth.   

The Examination of places of Scripture, objected by M. PARSON'S out of john 8. The first is out of the ucrs. 15.  
§. III.  

M. PARSONS his Appendix.  
The place then which I mean is the 8. chapter of S. john's 
〈◊〉 Reck. pa. 683.  Gospel, where Christ our Saviour entering into a large speech with the jews, useth first thesewords, which I have examined before in my said Treatise of Equivocation: Ego non judico quenquam, I do not judge any man: which seeming to be contrary to that other saying of himself within a very few lines, in the same Chapter, I have many things to speak, and judge of you: and further in the same Gospel three Chapters before; For neither doth my Father judge any man, but hath given to me his Son all judgement: it doth not appear how the proposition can be true, but by some mental reservation in the mind of our Saviour; which being examined by the ancient Fathers what it might be, S. Chrysostom with Leontius Thcophilus, and others do think the said secret meaning or Reservation of our Saviour to have been this: I do not judge any man in this my first coming, but do reserve it for my next at the day of judgement. Other Fathers gather another, as though he had secretly meant: I do not judge any man, as you the Scribes and Pharisees do, according to the flesh, and outward show, but in truth: Yet neither of these Reservations being uttered, they do make the speech to be ambiguous and E, quivocall, as cannot be denied.   

The Review.  
8 There is no Mental Reservation in this speech of Christ, which the outward words themselves do not imply; for if we understand the sentence, [I do iudgeno man] according to the first exposition, which signifieth that he did not now judge men, in this life, it is explicable enough by this and other Scriptures: For else where it is plain that he came into the world as a jesus, to Save the world, and not as a judge, to condemn it. And to this purpose the text saith (as 
f In humc 〈◊〉  Cajetan observeth) Non judico, not, Non iudicabo, that is, I judge noman, it saith not, I will judge no man, so that there is no shadow of Repuganancie in this with the other speeches of Christ.  
9 Again if the second exposition be consulted with, concerning the manner of judgement, it doth not exclude the former; and is also sufficiently apparent by the outward words: for in the words going before, he told the Pharisees, saying, You judge according to the flesh; but I judge no man, namely (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith 
* In 〈◊〉 locum.  Maddonate) according to the flesh, whereby Christ distinguisheth his manner of judgement from the Pharisees; because they, as men, judged According to the flesh, that is, (as 
g In 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Tolet expoundeth) according to external & outward sense: but Christ judgeth immediately, without help of sense, and is therefore God. We see then that the sense of Christ his speech was intelligible, by virtue of the words themselves: But the sense of the Priest is not so, for if he shall say, I am no Priest, meaning of the old law, is there any wit of man that can dive into the depth of this Reservation?   

The second place, vers. 32. M. PARSON'S Appendix.  
In the same place he saith to the jews: If you persevere in 
Reckon. pa. 〈◊〉  my sayings, you shall truly be my Disciples, and know the truth, and the truth shall free you: Which freedom, or deliucrance the laws understood from temporal bondage: and therefore answered answered him. that they were the seed of Abraham, and had never been in bondage to any. Which error of the jews proceeded from the ambiguous speech of our Saviour, reserving in his mind, and not expressing in his proposition what bondage he meant: for that his reserved meaning indeed was if the bondage of sin,   

The review.  
10 There was a Verbal ambiguity, because there is a double freedom, the one from corporal bondage, the other from Spiritual, as from sin and hell. The jews spoke of the one, Christ diverteth their thoughts to the consideration of the other, and explaineth his own meaning in the 24. verse; He that sinneth is the servant of sin: As if he had said (saith Card. 
h In cum locum.  Cajetan) Behold what the servitude is, whereof I speak, etc. Which is a case familiar even unto the Pagan's themselves (as their Bishop 
l jansen. Concord evang. eund. locum.  jansenius wellnoteth;) insomuch that Diogenes used to say that There is no difference between Servants, and vicious Lords, but the vowels and Syllables of their names, except only this, that servants do serve their Lords, and Lords are slaves to their own vicious affections. This being so conceivable a sense of these words, freedom, and servitude, even by the common use of the outward words themselves among men, how can it confirm a Mental Reservation, which is such a Couchant in men's hearts, as which by no use of the outward speech can possibly be discerned; as when a man shall say, I am no Priest; conceiving in mind this clause, With a Clubfoot.   

The third place is out of vers. 50. M. PARSON'S Appendix.  
The like may be obserned in those words; Ego non quaero 
Reckon pag. 684.  gloriam meam, I do not seek my glory; and yet doth Christ most justly seek his own glory that is àue unto him: and so in the verse immediately going before he 〈◊〉 this unto them, Vos inhorâstis me: you have dishonoured me; and in another place to his Disciples he saith, Vos vocâstis me Mr. & Domne 
john 13. v. 13.  & benè dicitis, sum etenim. You have called me Master and Lord, and do well therein, for that I am your Master and Lord indeed. And in another place, Creditis in Deum, & in 
john 14. v. 1.  me credit, You do believe in God, believe also in me, which is the highest honour he could exact: And consequently there must needs be some Mental Reservation in this other speech, when he saith, he seeketh not his own glory, which the Fathers do endeavour to seek out in their Commentaries.   

The Review.  
11 This is a Verbal Equivocation in the word, Glory, admitting a double sense, one is the Glory of his Office, so in the other places objected, but in this place it is taken for the glory of Revenge, as the words which immediately go before and which follow immediately after do import: for before it is said, You have dishonoured me, but I seek not mine own glory, that is, Vindictae, to take vengeance upon you As their own 
k Upon this place.  Authors Tolet, Salmeron, Maldonate, and jansenius do acknowledge. What then? shall they be therefore unpunished? No, for it followeth in the same verse There is one (that is, the Father) that seeketh and judgeth, that is, Revengeth, saith their Moldonate. How can this Verbal Equivocation, which is exlicable enough by the force of the outward words of the same vers. countenance the unsearchable depth of their Mental Reservation, such as is this; I have no head, reserving in my thought, horned like an Ox.   

The fourth place is out of the vers. 51. M. PARSONS his Appendix.  
It followeth in the same place? Amen, Amen. I say unto you 
Reckon. pa. 684.  if any observe my words, he shall never see death: Which the Scribes and Pharisees, (though otherwise learned in their law) 
Vers. 51.  understood of corporal death, and in that sense gave an instance of Abraham, and the Prophets that were dead, notwithstanding they had observed the words and commandments of God, and consequently in their sense Christ's sentence could not to be true: but our Saviour had another intention and meaning reserved in his mind, by which reservation the truth of the sentence was justified, to wit, that they should not die in soul.   

The Review.  
12 This is a Verbal equivocation in the word, Death, which in itself doth equally signify a Temporal, and an Eternal death: but in this place is applied only to the Eternal, as may appear by the Text, He shall not see death inaeternum, that is, everlastingly, For these words, in aeternum (saith 
l In hunc 〈◊〉  Cajetan) are added, to distinguish it from the temporal Death: and so also 
m Ibid.  do their Tolet, Maldonate, and Salmeron expound it. By virtue of the which word, Everlastingly, the foresaid meaning of the speech is made intelligible; And is therefore injuriously produced for the justification of his Mental Reseruatian, which is uncomprehensible, because it lurketh in the bottomless pit of man's secret thought, as for example to say; I have not my Crown shaven (reserving in my mind as followeth:) With a pair of Pincers.   

The fifth place, Vers. 54. M. PARSONS his Appendix.  
It followeth yet further in the same place: If I do glorify my 
Reckon pa. 684. 685.  self (saith Christ) my glory is nothing: Which yet I think no man will grant to be true according to the letter, as it lieth. For albeit Christ should set forth his own glory, yet may it not be said, that this glory published by himself is nothing, or vain. Wherefore some reserved sense must here also be sought out, which according to the opinion of sundry expositors is that he meant this according to the opinion the jews, who esteemed that nothing which came from Christ himself. As also a little before in the 5. chap. he used the like speech, saying, If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true. Which sentence I think our Ministers themselves will not hold to be true in the sense, which here it beareth: for than should they condemn our Saviour of falsity, as often as he affirmeth any thing of himself: and then must we of necessity run to some reserved sense in Christ's meaning, which is the thing that we call Equivocation, so reviled by our Ministers.   

The Review.  
13 Their jesuit 
Salmeron. jes. Tom. 1. Prolegom. 11. Can. 22.  Salmeron publisheth this for a Canon, for the direction of every Reader of Scripture, viz. that sometime. It was the fashion of Christ, in giving Answers unto men, to accommodate and apply his speech rather unto their meanings, than to their words: and for example thereof he produceth the second place which now M. Parsons allegeth, taken out of the 5. chapter of S. john, verse. 31. If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true: That is (saith he) according to your understanding, who take me to be a mere man. And of the first place, concerning the Glorifying of himself, M. Parsons confesseth that Christ spoke according to the opinion of the Jews; or, as saith 
o jansen. Concord. in eund. locum. joh. 8. 54.  jansenius, this sentence is to be understood as others be, as if he had said, If I as a man (according to the opinion which you have of me) do glorify myself, my glory were but vain. which showeth that in the speech of Christ the Equivocation was only Uerball, in the word, Glorify, which of itself might signify a just and divine glorifving of himself, as he was the son of God, which was not intended in this place: or else an humane and worldly 〈◊〉 of himself, after the fashion of men, which he called Vain. According unto this Sense he spoke, and applied his meaning unto the meaning of the jews themselves, as hath been confessed. Which fashion of Christ's applying his speech unto the understanding of the hearer, is so far from justifying of their Mental equivocation, that it doth clearly confute it, because in it there is reserved such a meaning, as neither man, nor Angel doth understand, by any circumstance of speech, as when the Romish Priest answered that he was No Priest, meaning of Apollo or Baal, and such like. Was it not then a strange adventure of M. Parsons, from a speech spoken and applied to the hearers meaning, to seek to infer a Mental Reservation, wherein there is enfolded a meaning, which doth not, nor cannot accord at all unto the understanding of the I jearer?   

The sixth place, Vers. 55. M. PARSONS his Appendix.  
Furthermore in the very next verse, talking of almighty God, 
Reckon. pa. 685.  he said to the jews, Non cognovistis cum, you do not know him: which seemeth untrue in itself, for that the jews did profess 
Vers. 55.  to know him, and serve him, above all the people in the world. And in the old Testament it is often said of them, that they, of all other people, did best know God: and therefore some other reserved meaning must Christ our Saviour needs have had, than these external words do insinuate. Which Reservation Saint Chrysost. S. Aug. S. Bede. and Theophilact upon this place do think to have been this in Christ his secret meaning, that they did not know God, as they ought to know him, by serving him as he would and ought to be served, according to the speech of Saint Paul to Titus Confitentur se nôsce Deum, factis 
Tit. 1. 16.  autem negant, They confess to know God in words, but do deny him in deeds. So as here also an Equivocation of speech was used by our Saviour.   

The Review.  
14 There is a double sense of Not knowing of God, taught openly in Scripture, the one is in respect of the intellectual part of man, when Gods will is not rightly believed, so the Gentiles are often said 
* Psal.  Not to have known God, and to have had No knowledge of his ways; and chose of the jews the Scripture saith, 
* Psal. 75. 2.  In jury is God well known. The second sense, of Not knowing God, is in respect of the practical and actual duty, when he that believeth and professeth the true and sincere worship of God, doth notwithstanding wilfully and rebelliously transgress his will, in which consideration Saint john saith, He that saith he knoweth God, 
1. Epist. 2.  and yet keepeth not his Commandment is a liar. We see then that this phrase of Not knowing God, hath a double sense, but yet through Verbal Equivocation, and both of them agree with truth: for some of these with whom Christ spoke, did not truly and intellectively know God, because they knew him not Sub ratione Patris aeterni, as Card. 
* In hunc locum  Cajetan saith. And concerning the practical acknowledgement there, Card. 
p In eund.  Tolet is direct, saying that Christ speaketh here of a knowledge which doth not only signify the act of understanding, but which also comprehendeth the act of the will and affection, in imitation of God; in which regard 1. Reg. 2. the sons of Heli the Priest are called the children of Beliall, who know not God: And our Saviour in the same verse of S. john, saying by an Antithesis and opposition. But I know him, and keep his Commandment, doth expound himself, and revealeth his meaning, signifying that They knew not God, because they kept not his Commandment, as their Card. 
q Ibid.  Tolet noteth; and their Bishop 
r Concord ibid.  jansenius saith that this is Apparent: which is utterly contrary unto M. Parsons his Mental Equivocation. As for example, I have no money (meaning secretly,) to lend it unto you: this Reservation, to lend it, is locked up close, lest it should be revealed, and cannot naturally be implied in those outward words, I have no money: and hath been called by the jes. Azorius a flat 
* See about.  lie. Therefore there is as little affinity between Christ's sentences, and M. Parsons his Reservation, as between light and darkness: truth and a lie.   

The seventh place, verse 56. M. PARSON'S Appendix.  
Again, in the ensuing verse, which is the 56. Christ said to 
Reck pag. 685. 686.  the jews: Your Father Abraham did 〈◊〉 to see my day, and saw it, and took joy thereby. Which words in the common sense do seem to import, that Abraham had lived with Christ, and had seen the day of his birth, and life, and taken great joy thereby: and so did the jews understand his meaning to be, not only the common people, but the Scribes and pharisees also, when they said unto him, Thou hast not yet fifty years of age, and hast thou seen Abraham? Wherein notwithstanding they were greatly deceived, for that Christ had another reserved meaning in his mind, which the holy Fathers do labour greatly to expound unto us, what it was, and in what true sense our Saviour said that Abraham had seen his day: whose different opinions, reasons, and conjectures I will not stand to relate here; It is sufficient for me to have showed, that this was an Equivocal speech of our Saviour, whereby the hearers being deceived, the truth of the speech may only be defended by a reservation in the mind of the speaker.   

The Review.  
15 In this there is another Uerball Equivocation, in the word See, for some saw the day of Christ's being in the world only by Revelation, as Abraham, and the patriarchs; as Esay, and the Prophets; as job, and all the believers before Christ: And some saw the day of his being in the flesh sensibly, as Peter, and the other Apostles; as Mary our Lord's Mother, holy joseph, Simeon, and other holy men, and women, yea and as Caiphas, and other unbelieving jews. That Abraham is meant to have Seen the day of Christ's birth spiritually, thorough Revelation, their Card. 
f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cum locum.  Tolet will not deny: but the jews that scorned him mistook this sense, and conceited only a sensual Seeing with bodily eyes.  
16 Who now seeth not M. Parsons his fraud, who calleth that a reserved sense, which was (that I may so say) a sense conserved in the outward words themselves, and sufficiently manifest, if the scornful jews, who were now blinded with malice, had not perverted them into a sensual Construction. For what phrase in the old Testament is more familiar and notorious, then to call that Seeing, which is perceived only spiritually? for the which cause the Prophets were called 
* 1. Reg. 9  Seers. And shall the misconceit of incredulous hearers make the sense of Christ to be mentally reserved? As for M. Parsons his manner of Reservation, when a man shall say, I keep no Priest in mine house, meaning; with any intent to bake him in a Pie, or etc. It is so far of from a Verbal Equivocation, which may be implied by the outward words, as that no man without Revelation from God can comprehend it. But I hasten.   

The last place, Verse 58. M. PARSON'S Appendix.  
And finally in the next verse after this again Christ useth 
Reckon p. 686. 687.  a greater Equivocation than any before, saying unto them, Amen, Amen, antequàm Abraham fieret, ego sum. Amen, Amen, I say unto you, that before Abraham was made, I am: which being an earnest speech; and as it were an oath, as elsewhere we have noted, the jews understood it as it lieth, that Christ was borne in the flesh before Abraham: and so it seemeth that he should have meant according to his former speech, when he said that Abraham desired to see his day, and saw it, and rejoiced thereat: Which was understood of his incarnation or day in flesh, which Abraham in saith and spirit did see, and rejoice. But yet here when he saith that he is before Abraham was made, he must needs mean of his Divinity, and in that he was God: which S. Aug. upon this place doth excellently note to be by the difference of the two words, Abraham fieret, & Ego sum, the one belonging to the creature, saith he, the other to the Creator. So as more than our Equivocation is used by our Saviour in this one sentence.   

The Review.  
17 But doth any Author say, that in the word, Sum, as it is here used (that is) I am, there is any Equivocation? for seeing that Christ (as Saint Aug. and Almost all other Authors 
This faith their les. Maldonate upon this place.  have noted) did distinguish the Creature, (man) by fieret, was made, from the Creator, which was his Godhead, by the word, Sum, I am, he did not infer, but remove the ambiguity of that phrase: Nay I add further; the word, Sum, in this speech of Christ seemed even unto these incredulous jews to be so far from doubtfulness, and so plainly to signify his Deity, that they accounting it to be blasphemous, took up Stones to cast at him; which their own 
Upon the same place.  Doctors have also observed, as Card. Tolet: Because that Exod. 3. (saith he) God said, Sum qui sum, that is, I am, that I am, the jews knew that Christ did not only prefer himself before Abraham in respect of time, but also publish himself to be God. Which is likewise the observation of 
x Ibid.  Cajetan, saying that because Christ did hereby manifest his Divinity, therefore it is added that They took up stones to throw at him. This sense being so evident unto the hearers, showeth that there was not so much as a Verbal Equivocation; much less M. Parsons his Mental Reservation, which the hearer doth not only not know, but cannot possibly guess what it is: As for example, if one should say, I am no Priest, reserving in his mind, As fit to keep Swine. We see by this time the manifold ridiculous absurdities, which M. Parsons hath enforced in this fond Appendix, whereof notwithstanding he doth not a little boast, as we shall see.   

M. PARSONS his Appendix.  
And if we lay all these Equivocal speeches together which 
Reckon. p. 687.  are 8. or 9 at least contained within a piece of one only Chapter of our saviours talk with the jews, Scribes, and Pharisees, we shall be able to make some guess, how many might be found throughout the whole new Testament and Bible, if we would examine the same particularly, as we have done this: and thereby see how true M. Mortons' bold assertion was in his book of Full Satisfact. That no one jot in all Scripture, no one example in all Catholic 
Pag. 49.  Antiquity could be found for the same. His terms also of heathenish, hellish, heinous, and impious Equivocation, with other infamations of his brother Minister King, may appear what substantial ground they have.   

The Review, showing the absurdities of M PARSONS his Collection.  
18 If all the speeches, which M. Parsons enforceth for Instances to pattern and to justify his fashion of Equivocating, may be called Mental Reservations, then may we grant that not only eight, but even all the sentences, yea and almost every word of this, & all other Chapters may be proved to be Mentally Equivocal. And for demostration sake (because I will not profane the sacred Scripture with such idle crotchetting) I think good to descant a little but upon any one sentence, which M. Parsons can utter, and try, if that almost every word may not imply a kind of Reservation. As for example, suppose M. Parson's should have delivered this speech saying, I will as long as I live go unto the Church to pray unto God. Which in the understanding of any man of sense is sensible enough, yet the first particle is I meaning a man, and no woman: the second word will, meaning, with a resolved and not a dissembling will: 3. As long, meaning the length of time, and not the length of body: 4. As I live, meaning, a life animal in this flesh, and not Angelical out of the body: 5. Go, meaning, by walking, and not by dancing: 6. Unto the Church, meaning of Catholics, and not of Heretics: 7. To pray, meaning, mediately by Saints and not immediately by myself, 8. unto God, meaning, the God of Christians, & not any God of the Pagans. What can be more plainly spoken then the sentence aforesaid, and yet how many meanings suppressed, which may not therefore be called Mental Reservations, otherwise M. Parson's might as well infer that he never promised any lawful thing unto any man never took an oath by any lawful authority of man, without some Mental reservation, the use whereof he himself hath judged in all such cases to be detestable. I shall have further occasion to unfold the grosenesle of his Inference more at large by other examples, after that I have satisfied some other objections.    

SECT. FOUR  

An Answer unto some other places of Scripture, wherein M. PARSONS hath insisted in his book of Mitigation, for the defence of his Mental Equivocation.  
19 I doubt how my Reader might censure me, if after the Confutation of M. Parsons his former Instances out of Scripture, I should inquire into his other book of Mitigation, to seek all other examples, to prosecute them, because this would breed tediousness: I therefore will but choose out some of his choicest places, and so hasten to a Conclusion of this Treatise.   

The first text, which M. PARSONS urgeth in his book of Mitigation, is taken out of john I. verse 2:  
M. PARSONS his Mitigation.  
We shall begin with an example so clear, as it shall be like to 
Mitigat. e. 19 §. 2. p. 359.  that of ours in all points, if we change only the names of persons, and conditions of men that spoke and heard. As that example of S. john Baptist, who being examincd and demanded by them, that were sent unto him from the jews, whether he were a Prophet, or no? he denied it: Propheta es tu? & spondit non: Are you a Prophet, and he answered No, and yet he meant not absolutely to deny himself to be a Prophet, for that it had been false both in respect of that his father Zacharias had prophesied of him in his Nativity, calling him the Prophet of the highest, Luck. 1. as also in respect of Christ's testimony, who Matth. 11. called him more than a Prophet, etc. here than you see a Proposition uttered by the Ghost, that of itself is ambiguous, and of a doubtful sense, and according to the ordinary sound and sense of the words uttered, seemethfalse, no less than our Preposition, I am no Priest. For as this may be refusted by them that know me to be a Pricst, and as Th. Morton still urgeth (though fond) is contrary to my knowledge and conscience, that know myself to be a Ptiest, etc.   

The Review.  
20 
a Maldou. les. upon the place 〈◊〉 these points to the full.  Maldonate the jesuit (and, as it seemeth M. Parsons out of him) collecteth out of Father's three diverse meanings of the jews in their question: the first was, whether he were that singular Prophet, which they fancied should come together with Christ, and he answered, I am not, which was true according to that their sense. Secondly, some thought that the jews meant by their demand to know, whether he were any one of the ancient Prophets, who were long before Christ? And he answered, satisfying them truly according to that their sense, saying, I am not: Thirdly some taught that the jews by their Interrogatory thought to know, whether he were any Prophet at all by his proper Osfice? Now john albeit he was a Prophet by Grace and power, because he was sent by God, and did exhert, reprove, and convert sinners, yet was he not a Prophet by ordinary Osfice: and applying his Answer to this sense, said, I am not, and that truly, because john did not Prophecis: and thus the answer agreed to that their sense. Observe, (good Reader against 
b Mitig. p. 361.  M. Parsons his Observation) that the Answer of S. john, who is the speaker, doth accord (by the judgement of all Authors) unto the supposed several understandings of the jews, and Questionists, who were the hears: chose Romish Priest being demanded by a Magistrate, whether he be a Priest, returneth this Answer, [I am not a Priest,] only with this reserved sense, With purpose to tell it unto you; which death flatly thwart the intention of the Magistrate, and Questionist M. Parsons is like to make a luckless end, who is so unfortunate in this beginning.   

The second place objected out of Matth. 9 20. M. PARSONS his Mitigation.  
Our Saviour Christ coming to raise the Arch-Synagogue 
Mitig. p. 365.  his daughter, found the people in tumult, weeping and lamenting for the death, whom he repressed, saying, Recedite, non est enim mortua puella, sed dormit; Depart, for that the maid is not dead, but sleepeth; and yet is it certain that naturally she was dead, by separation of her soul from her body. So as if this Proposition be taken strictly as it lieth, without any Mental Reservation by our Saviour, it cannot be true neither in itself, nor in the sense of the hearers, no more than in our proposition, I am no priest. The meant all Reservation in our Saviour, according to S. Augustine's explication and other expositions, was that albeit she was dead in their sight, and unto hamane power: yet unto him, and unto his divine power and will to raise her again, she was not dead, but only a sleep.   

The Review.  
21 Christ wrought many among them, wherein he did demonstrate his Divine power, as among others, in curing the woman which had a Bloody issue, whom he healed even in the way as he came to the house of this Archisinagogue. In respect of which his divine power, even they that are dead are said to be cut A sleep, which is a most frequent and ordinary phrase of speech in Scripture. To this purpose their Card. 
c Tolet. in hune locum.  Tolet commenting upon this Scripture, allegeth those places out of the old Testament, where they who died are said to have Steeped with their Fathers: And out of the new, 1. Cor. 11. Many fella a sleep, from the which Metaphor and truth (saith he) the Apostle doth gather an argument of consolation unto all Christians, teach them not to mourn as men without hope, ignorant of the resurrection 1. Thess. 4. In regard of which his Omnipotent power, whereby this woman was now speedily to be raised, He doth comfort those who now wept, as he spoke of Lazarus john 11. saying, Lazarus sleepeth, and I must go and awake him: But here they, who did deride Christ as though he had utterly denied that the maid was dead (because they were destitute of the light of faith,) did measure Christ's power by their own. So he Now then the Metaphor of calling Death a Sleep, being so familiar unto all the Religious of those days, the divine power of Christ being by many miracles made so famous and manifest among them: we may judge (seeing that the raising of a dead woman to life was no more difficulty than the awaking her out of a sleep, which he intended presently to do) that both his denying her to be Dead, and his affirming that she was but a Sleep were but Verbal amphibologies, which all they might have understood, who were not Scornful and incredilous contements of his sayings. But the Priest's Equivocation, as this; I am no Priest, meaning, as ordained to kill a Calf, or such like, is so far beyond the horizen and sight of any man's capacity, that he may sooner clasp hold of the man in the moon, then by any intimation of words, or circumstance of speech reach unto such a reserved conceit.   

The third, fourth, and fifth, places out of john 6.  
M. PARSONS his Mitigation.  
In the Gospel by S. john, speaking of the eating of his flesh, 
Mitting. p. 366. 367.  If any shall eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and yet S. Paul saith to the contrary, 1. Cor. 11. He that eareth and dirnketh unworthily, doth eat or drink his own judgement, or condemnation. By which words of S. Paul it is made manifest, that the former words of Christ cannot absoluted be true, without some Meant all Rescruation or restriction his understanding, for that not all that eat and drink, but they only that do it worthily, have life ever lasting. Secondly, there is discovered what this reservation was, to wit, Dignè; worthily. And 
* Pag. 367.  joh. 16. If you ask my Father any thing in my name, he will give it you, rescruing, if we ask not male, as S. Iames expoundeth it, jam. 4. So Mar. 16. He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved, Reserving; if he believe according to God's commandment, as Christ expoundeth it, Matth. 28. etc.   

The Review.  
22 If we had no other scantling of M. Parsons his judgement, than this, we may guess what was his indiligence in the Study of Divinity, seeing he could be ignorant of that, which is a most general Canon and Rule always to be observed in Scripture, and so acknowledged by their jesuit 
d Salmeron jes. Tom. 1. Proleg. 15. reg. 31. Pa. 294  Salmeron, to wit; When as any Promises are propounded, they are so to be understood, that not so much the effect, as the virtue and nature of the thing, whereunto the Promise is annexed, be signified thereby: and so are we to interpret that of S. Mark, 
Marc. ult.  He that believeth, and is baptised, shall be saved; (viz. so far as belongeth unto the nature and faith of Baptism.) And again that of joh. 6. He that eateth my flesh hath life everlasting, namely, so much as the nature of faith and the Sacrament doth teach, which hath a virtue of helping forward unto eternal life, if there be not some thing to hinder the effect, or some condition wanting, which albei: it be not in that place, yet is it expressed elsewhere, as joel 2. where it is said, whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved, wherein there is understood, that the prayer be made with a lively faith, as it is 〈◊〉 explained. And Matth. 7. it is said, cueryone, that asketh, receivet 〈◊〉 understanding this condition, if he ask those things, which are right and profitable as S. james showeth, ja. 4. saying, you ask andreccive not, because you ask amiss, to consume them upon your Concupiscences. Thus far their jesuit Salmeren. Was there ever any man so simple, as not to know that in all Acts which are prescribed of God this Dignè, that is, the necessary manner of doing it according to God's ordinance is understood, although it be not literally expressed? For when the Master of the family giveth his servants bread and meat, for their food, & saith, Eat this fair will cherish your hearts, will any say that this is not a speech direct enough, but had a reserved sense as namely this, If they did eat it moderately, and not in greater bits, than which they could digest, or If they mixed it not with poison, which bread then might prove their bane. If all such Clauses, which might be supposed must be called Reservations, then is there no speech, but it may contain a thousand Reservations.  
23 The truth is, that whensoever there is any good thing commanded, the speech is plain, direct, and perfect enough although the word, Worthily, be not expressed; because the necessary condition of every good Act doth ordinarily convey unto every hearer this understanding, that it must be done dignè worthily, or duly; for that bonanon sunt bona, nist benè agantur, that is, There is no good action, which is not well or worthily done: and therefore the word, worthily, or duly, being so naturally, commonly, and necessarily implied in such speeches, it evidently evinceth, that this maketh nothing for M. Parsons his manner of Reservation, which is so intricate a fox-hole, as which neither man, nor devil, who goeth invisibly, can creep into. For this speech, [To kiss the Pope's foot, is a ceremony befitting the honour of his person,] every Romanist will think to be an Assertion true and plain enough, without any word, Worthily; albeit to kiss the Pope's foot currishly, as the dog did, that bit him by the toe, were a dishonour unto him. But M. Parsons his Mental Reservation is clean contrary, and so intricately hanckled, that neither man, nor devil can find the right end of the thread, or guess what can be meant thereby; as when a Priest being demanded, whether he be a Priest, should answer, No, reserving in his mind, such an one as is chaste, or such an one as can hope to be Pope, & any like clause of speech.  
24 In like manner might I descant upon his 
* Mitig. p. 367.  Ask and receiving because in Matth. 7. Ask and you shall have, the condition whereof is expounded by S. Iames, viz. so that we ask not Amiss. Which condition (and the same may be answered concerning others) is so necessarily understood by every hearer, that though it be not expressed in outward words, yet is it discernible in the common notion and sense of the hearer at the first sound of every such sentence. As when the Father shall say unto all his children, Ask me blessing, and I will bless you; and all shall fall down upon their knees, and ask his blessing, yetso, that one among the rest, whilst he is craving his blessing, should turn his face another way, and play with a dog; Another should put out his tongue, in scorn and contempt of his father; a third should ask only to be blessed with some groats in his purse; would that Father use the form of blessing towards these foundlings, and not first correct them for their rude and untoward behaviours? or would M. Parson's excuse them, because the Father expressed not the manner of Ask, to wit, that they ought to have done it dutifully, and decently, as it becometh children? would he call these kind of conditions Reservations, because they were not literally delivered in words, which are as it were, engrafted in the common sense of every man, and so generally implied by the ordinary and accustomable acceptance of speech, according to the understanding of all hearers, except they be as ignorant as Infants, or Idiots? whereas the Reservation we dispute against, is (as M. Parsons saith) what a man list to frame to himself; and consequently may surmount not only the ordinary capacity of mortal men, but even the subtlety of the Angels in heaven: as to say, I am no Priest, meaning, Whose name is Tom Tyler, or Watt Miller, or so forth in infinitum   

The last Instance out of Esay 38. M. PARSONS his Mitigation.  
I should utterly weary my Reader, if I would follow all, or the 
Mitig. p. 368.  greatest part of that which may be said in this behalse, for that always commonly all Prophecies that are 〈◊〉 and do threaten punishment, 〈◊〉 still some secret reservation, if they repent not: as that of I say to Ezechias: Haec dicit Dominus, dispone domui tuae quia morieris tu, & non vives: This saith our Lord, dispose of thy household, for thou shalt die, and shalt not live, and yet he lived sifteene years after. If therefore the Prophet had been demanded, Shall not Ezechias live any longer? and he had answered, No, upon what had fallen the negative No? if only upon words uttered, it had been false, for he lived longer, but if upon that together with the Reservation in the meaning of the holy Ghost it was true. And the like may be said of the prophecy of jonas, Adhuc quadraginta dies, & Niviue subvertetur; There remain but forty days, before Ninive shall be destroyed, and so infinite other places. Wherefore in this Tho. Morton was greatly over seen, in making of a confident Challenge, as before you have seen,   

The Review.  
25 I rather think the Reader hath been already wearied with multiplicities of such idle and fond Instances, which prove nothing less than the point in question, as hath hitherto appeared; and may now, by discussing this last place, be further discovered. It is an ordinary Rule in Divinity, acknowledged by their jesuit 
e Ribera jes. in jonam, cap. 3. Num. 27.  Ribera, that The threatenings, which God useth, do contain in them a secret condition, Except they repent. Whereof Saint Chrysost. speaketh thus: If (saith he) men were not changed, such prophecies would take place; but because men are changed, therefore the prophecy, although it be not fulfilled, yet doth it not fail, for that God doth preserve his common-law, which he hath made, to wit, If a Nation shall repent of her sin, I will also repent of the evil, which I thought to bring upon it. Still we see that the error, which hath blindfoulded M. Parsons, is, that he doth not distinguish the Sensum consignatum, à sensu reseruato, that 
A necessary distinction.  is; sense implied in the very speech itself, by reason of the common and ordinary use thereof, from the reserved sense, which is such as neither the common acception of words do convey, nor the most intelligent (God only excepted) can possibly conceive, or apprehend.  
26 This point may be thus explained. 
f 〈◊〉 Stephen Apal. pro Herodoto, li. 1. 〈◊〉 3.  An Ambassador being sent unto the Pope from a Prince in Germany, after that he had taken his leave, & was dismissed of the Pope in these words, [Dic dilecto filio nostro salutem] that is, [Commend me unto my beloved son your Master] he forthwith (doubting lest the Pope had called his Master a bastard) answered all in a sum, My Master (quoth he) is no Priests son. The word, Son, in the Pope's speech signified a spiritual, and not a natural sonship and filiation, as both the person of the speaker, and the ordinary use of that salutation did import, and therefore was a sense implied in the speech, and not reserved only in the mind, as in their other Priestly Equivocating is usually practised, as to say, I am no Priest, (reserving in mind) as willing to endanger myself, by confessing that I am a Priest.  
27 This likewise must be observed, that we are not to call a speech ambiguous, or else reserved, because it is not understood by the giddy & undiscreet hearer, as by the former example is manifest, and may be made more conspicuous and evident by this that followeth of a Mother, who chid & rated her daughter for her rude and rurell carriage towards her affienced lover, especially for not thanking him, after that he had drunk unto her; and therefore her mother, for her better preparation and direction how to behave herself more orderly at their next meeting, spoke thus unto her daughter; Canst thou not say unto him, (quoth she) the next time he drinketh to thee, [I thank you] thou great fool: the daughter, silly body, not discerning the true distinction of the points of that speech, did upon the next occasion of his drinking unto her, answer, I pledge you, thou great fool. Such like absurd & foolish examples I am, beyond my inclination, forced to produce, that thereby I might better display the folly and absurdity of M. Parsons his defence of Mental Reservation, which he oftentimes foundeth upon the rotten post of the jews infatuation, and upon their misconstruction of the sayings of Christ.  
28 Besides these foresaid objections, M. Parsons in 
g Mitigat. cap. 9 pag. 387.  his 9 chap. calleth and challengeth me to make a better Answer concerning an other saying of Christ, wherein he doth triumph intolerably.    

§. V.  

An Answer to an old objection, which hath been taken out of that saying of Christ to his Disciples; I will not go to the feast, my time is not yet come, john 7. Vers. 8.  
29 Much ado have we had about this text, as well concerning the Reading, as touching the Sense thereof. We must begin with the first.   

The sum of M. PARSON'S objection, concerning the Reading.  
But what doth he accuse us of, in effect? forsooth that we 
Mitig. p. 388.  have left the Greek text, which hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nondùm, not yet, and do follow your vulgar Latin, which hath only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is, non not, the difference of which word maketh a main dinersitie 
joan. 7.  in the matter, if you mark it well, for if the true text be nondùm, I will not yet go up, then is there no doubt or difficulty at all of the sense, for that Christ said plainly that he would not go up then, and so his going up afterward had been no contradiction any way to his former speech of not going up, as here our Maldonate cited by Morton doth confess: but on the other side, if the matter were so plain, by reading nondùm in the Greek why do the Father's labour so much to find out the secret meaning and reserved sense of our Saviour in this sentence, and seeming contradiction of his? 
* 〈◊〉 pag. 389 390.  For if that word had been in all Greek books, and so held for the true text, there had been no question, or Controversy, as Expositors confess: yet to grant with Maldonate, alleged by Th. Morton, that very many Greek Copies had so informer times, and have it at this day, neither doth our vulgar deny or dissemble it; for albeit it have non, and not nondùm, yet doth it expressly, signify in the margin, that diverse Manuscripts have nondùm, and so doth set it down for Varia lectio, yea the Rheims English Testament itself doth express that translation also in the margin, I will not go up yet.   

The review.  
30 I can say no less, nor need I say much more than that which is confessed by Romish Doctors upon this place: First, their Jesuit Maldonate, Almost enumerable Greek books (saith he) read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (not yet) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but especially the Vatican Bible, the most ancient and famous of all in the world, and Nonnus, Chrysostome, Euthemius very grave Authors do both read it so, and also expound it; and so am I persuaded that it is red of Theophylact. And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the reading of Chrysostome (saith their Card. Tolet) is most legitimate. And there is that witnesseth (saith jansenius) that some ancient Latin Copies hath it Nondùm, that is, not yet. Their jesuit Sa. making no further question saith, that The Greek 〈◊〉 it, I ascend not yet, and the Siriac, I ascend not now. And lastly Card. Cajetan correcting the Latin by the Greek, saith it hath not, instead of not yet. We have now seen his egregious Cavil.   

M. PARSONS his Mitigation.  
And do we contradict this? your very next immedicate 
Mitig. p. 391.  words do clear us from this your calumniation, for it followeth in your speech: your Latin text (say you) doth sufficiently betoken the same sense of the Greek (not yet) and so do two of the principal Doctors of your Church, Tolet and jansenius paraphrase. And is it so? how then are we so blinded with the love of our Thais, as rather to snatch at any meaning, then take that which is meant? How say you that our Helena, the Latin Translation, is embraced by us before the Greek, if our Latin do not only betoken the same sense of the Greek, as here you confess, but setteth it down so as Varia lectio in the margin, as before hath been showed; yea and that two of our principal Doctors do follow the same in their paraphrases? Is not this to accuse and defend, affirm and deny, and to speak contraries with one and the same breath?   

The Review.  
31 No, their is no contrariety in my Assertions; but this objection of Contradiction is so vain, that it may be blown away with one breath: for in the Greek text there is a double Nondùm, the first is, I will [not yet] go uppo, viz. to the feast; the second is the reason hereof, because mine hour is [not yet] fulfilled. The first [Not yet] which doth demonstratively expound the meaning of Christ, is wanting in the Latin; and the second [Not yet] which doth also prove, but less manifestly the same meaning, remaineth in the Latin text; and therefore may it be said to have in these diverse respects both fully, and not fully betokened the same sense. Hitherto of words.   

The Sum of M. PARSONS his Objection, concerning the Sense.  
M. PARSONS his Mitigation.  
If the matter were so plain by the reading of nondùm in 
Mitig. pag. 388.  the Greek, why do the ancient Father's labour so much to find out the secret meamng, and reserved sense of our Saviour in this sentence, and seeming contradiction of his? For S. August. and S. Bede after much search, do think his meaning to have been, that he would not ascend to that feast with an humane spirit, to procure any worldly honour, etc. Strabus, and other Expositors do interpret that he would not go up to exhibit his Passion, Eucherius, that he would not ascend on the first day of the feast. 
* Mitigat. 389.  Wherefore seeing these and other Fathers do labour so much to find out the meaning of Christ in this sentence, it is not like that the matter was so clear as T. M. would make it, by the clause Nondùm. For if that word had been in all Greek books, and so held for true text, there had been no question or Controversy, as our Expositors confess.   

The Review.  
32 How many, how âncient, and how famous Copies, in stead of, I will not go up to the feact, have, I will not yet go up to the feast, (whereby the whole doubt is thoroughly dissolved?) yea and how true that reading is we have received from the Confessions of their own Doctors. Why some Fathers (and why not then much more Porphyrius, whom M. Parsons objecteth?) wereignorant of such Copies, what better reason need be given than that it so chanced that they had them not?  
33 But we are in the second place to inquire, (supposing the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (which in Latin is Nondùm, and in English not yet, were not in the sentence) whether the same sense may be easily gathered out of the Text, or not: For if the words of the Text itself do sufficiently betoken the meaning of Christ to have been, that he thought not to go up yet, uz. at that time, then is there no Seeming contradiction in that sentence, and consequently no colour or shadow of any Mental Reservation. To this purpose I 
i Full. satisfact. part. 3. cap. 11. pag. 79. 80.  produced the judgement of Tolet, their late Cardinal, and sometime jesuit, saying that [I will not go up] doth signify, I will not go up yet; which he proveth from the words that follow immediately in the Text, [for my time is not yet fulfilled:] That is, (saith Tolet) The time when I ought to go up. And accordingly their Bishop 
* Full. satisfact. ibid.  jansenius The word Not, which is in the Latin, signifieth plainly Not yet, which sense (saith he) is sufficiently shown by the words following, uz. [because my time] namely wherein I must go to the feast, [is not yet fulfilled,] that is, not yet come: And this he calleth the genuous and natural sense of the place. Which being granted, the sense of Christ, even according to M. Parsons his judgement, is sufficiently expressed and not reserved, and consequently here is no footing for his Reservation. In the third place we are to satisfy for the different opinion of some Fathers.   

M. PARSONS his Objection.  
To show one point of manhood in this his flight, he taketh upon 
Mitig. pa. 339.  him to answer one of these six Arguments alleged against him, which is the fourth, concerning the ancient Fathers that laboured to seek out Christ's reserved meaning. You shall see him insinuate two points; first is that the ancient Fathers did suppose that whatsoever meaning was in these words, They (the said kinsmen of our Saviour) did understand them, as well then, to wit, before the Gospel was written, and before the holy Ghost was given, as the said Christian Fathers did afterwards by the learning and light which they had by the spirit and tradition of the Church: which proposition if he were put to prove in the presence of learned men, I doubt not but that he would quickly be in a poor and pitiful plight.   

The Review.  
34 That which I said was only concerning the sense of this place of Scripture, whereof I affirmed that the Fathers thought their expositions, whatsoever it was which they judged to be true) to be as well known unto these disciples of Christ, as to themselves: which M. Parsons maketh to be a general assertion, concerning any other sense of Scripture whatsoever. If it may be lawful for him to deal thus injuriously, viz. by perverting a particular Case into a general, and to cast me into a pit of his own making, none (I confess) need to doubt but my plight must be pitiful: but if my Reader shall consider that he hath cut of the Reason which I then produced, to prove that the Brethren there mentioned did know that it was the meaning of Christ not to deny absolutely but that he intended to go up to the feast, viz. Because otherwise they should have been scandalised and offended, as to think that he had contemned the feast, which, by God's ordinance were yet alive, and in force, (as their 
k In locum con.  jansenius affirmed, whereunto their 
l troversum.  Tolit doth expressly accord) then may he easily discern that M. Parsons was herein more spiteful than I was pitiful; But we proceed unto the chief observation.   

M. PARSONS his Mitigation.  
The second thing which by this answer he would have us understand, 
Mitig. pag. 393. 394.  is, that if these brethren, or kinsmen of Christ, did any way conceive our saviours meaning, than was there no reservation at all, for that as he saith, our joined reservation is always supposed to be a clause concealed, and not understood. But this is a greater foolery than the first, for that there may be areseruation in the speakers mind, though understood to some of the hearers. As for example, in our proposition being demanded, whether I be a Priest, and say, no, reserving to myself, as often before hath been declared, that I am no such, or such Priest, as I ought to utter the same to you, though some of the Examiner's should guess at my reservation, or know the same certainly, for that otherwise they know I am a Priest, this doth not make that this proposition in itself, and in my meaning is not a reserved, or Equivocal proposition, for that they understand it.   

The Review.  
35 This is the last and chiefest point of all this Controversy; which if he have wisely and truly satisfied, then shall I ingeiously confess, that my whole exception against M. Parsons his Mental Equivocation is, indeed, no better then mere foolery. But the truth is, that my exception against his Art of Equivocating is not because the Mental Reservation, which he teacheth, is not understood of some hearers, 
M. Parson's gross ignorance discovered in the very state of the question.  but because it is so couched, that it cannot be possibly understood of any hearer: for The Clause of Reservation (saith M. Parsons) may be what a man list to say to himself, Now their Priest, who listeth not be apprehended, will list to frame to himself such a crotchetive conceit, which shall go as invisible as an Angel of darkness, by whom it is hatched: As for example, to say, I am no Priest, (meaning,) That ever worshipped the Idol Bell: or, I am no Priest, (meaning) whom you love: or, I am no Priest, (meaning,) That is willing to be hanged: or, I am no Priest, (meaning,) that can tell fortunes: or, I am not a Priest, (meaning,) whose name is Cuthbert: or, I am not a Priest, (meaning,) for aught that you shall know. Thus then seeing that the reserved Clause may be according to M. Parson's doctrine, whatsoever a man list to fancy, so that it agree with his mind, although it be not implied in the outward words, it is as infinitely variable, and therefore as certainly unsearchable, as are the fancies and thoughts of men, which only God can see, judge, and revenge.  
36 Knowing therefore that the Equivocations, which have been objected by M. Parson's out of Scriptures, are not properly Mental, but Verbal, because the meanings which he calleth Reservations, were implied in the words of those sentences, and in the circumstances thereof; but the reservation, which M. Parsons professeth and we condemn, is an only mental reservation, which hath no more affinity in sense with the outward words, than this; I am no Priest, (meaning,) like a Goose that goeth barefoot; so that he that from the hearing of the first part, which was the outward speech, could have but conjectured at that reserved meaning of a Goose, might pass for a Magnus Apollo I shall refer this first point, concerning the palpability of Romish reservation unto the wisdom & judgement of our Reader, to award the note of foolery unto whether of us it shall seem, in his discretion, more justly to appertain The second thing, which I promised to show, is the impiety of the same doctrine.     

CHAP. XI.  
A discovery of the impiety of their pretences for Mental Equivocation. First proving it to be a lie.  

§. I.  
IN the former Sections hath been unfolded the gross absurdities of M. Parsons his proofs (which he presumed to collect out of Scripture) in so copious and perspicuous a manner, as that I might fear the imputation of some folly, for prosecuting of such fooleries with so great seriousness. Therefore now my present endeavour must be to show his defence to be no less graceless, than it is senseless, the impiety whereof becometh so much the more notorious and execrable, as it durst more boldly seek refuge at God's sanctuary even the holy Scripture, and there to catch hold at the examples of Christ his speeches, as it were at the horns of the Altar. But I have done my best to pull it from that hold, by the joint help of their own Doctors; and now am I to pursue and to demonstrate the impieties of the foresaid defence, drawing all into these two general heads. The first is in respect of the cause itself, to prove it an Art of lying, and the second is in respect of the Cases, which issue from thence: to show them to be dangerous and unjust.  

M. PARSON'S Mitigation.  
He saith out of Saint Augustine, that we may not leave off truth to be liars, as the Priscillianists did; which appertaineth 
Mitig. pag. 373.  nothing to our purpose: for they endeavoured to confirm the lawfulness of lying out of the words of Christ, which we do not; but show out of Christ's speech, when he said john 15. All things whatsoever I have had of my Father, have I made known unto you,] he did not lie, or falsify at all, but reserved somewhat in his mind not uttered, which joined with the words, make the proposition most true. 
* Pag. 372.  Meaning by [Whatsoever] whatsoever he thought convenient.   

The Review, proving M. PARSONS his Reservation a lie.  
1 Their Card. 
m In john 15.  Tolet doth acknowledge the general Rule of interpreting such speeches, to wit, of Interpreting such general propositions of Scripture, by restraining them unto the circumstances of things, whereof they are spoken, as of the persons, the time, and the scope, and end of which they are spoken: So here, in revealing all things to his Disciples, it must be understood, all which might concern them, as they were now Disciples, and which were necessary for their present State. But the Priestly Reservation is without all compass of due circumstance, being (as M. Parsons saith) whatsoever it pleaseth a man to fancy to himself, so that it agreeth with his mind. And so this mixed proposition must go for currant; viz. I am no Priest, (reserving in mind) for aught that you shall know: where he answereth, as though he would let a man know that he is no Priest, and yet reserveth in his mind, that he will not be known, whether he be a Priest, or no: is there any circumstance of time, or place, or person, that can sensibly or reasonably imply any such reserved sense? Certainly nò, more, then if he had answered thus; I am no Priest, (concealing in his mind,) for aught that you know: or, I am not a Priest (meaning secretly,) that wanteth a nose. If M. Parsons, or all the subtilists Equivocators themselves should hunt by all circumstances that are, to find this reserseruation of a Nose, I suppose that they could never smell it out. Wherefore I now proceed to my purpose.   

The proofs to show the Mental Reservation to be a lie, by the judgement of all kind of Professors: and first by their own Doctors.  
3 We have often heard what kind of Mental Equivocation M. Parsons doth patronize, viz. Any mixed proposition partly delivered with mouth, and partly conceived in mind; so that the reserved clause do agree with my mind, be it what soever I please to fancy to myself.  
4 First this kind of Equivocating hath been condemned 
〈◊〉 See above lib. I. cap. 13. S 2.  ned for a lie by their own Sepulueda, who produceth, for confirmation of his assertion, most ancient Divines (as he calleth them) citing by name Aquinas, Scotus, Henricus, and Gabriel.  
5 After him approacheth their jesuit Azorius, & whereas M. Parsons professeth such a Mental Equivocation, wherein the speech hath a double sense, not by the signification, or composition of the words themselves, but only by somereseruation in the mind; 
o See lib 1. cap. 13. § 3. 'em. 14. & 24.  He (the foresaid jesuit) proclaimeth that every use of words in any sense, which they have not in themselves, is a lie: And after jumping upon the same example of Reservation, which M. Parsons used and urged for proof of Mental Equivocation, to wit, When I am asked of one, who is no good paymaster, whether I have so much money, or no, I may answer (though I have it) No, (with this Reservation) to lend it unto you: this their said jesuit doth contrarily 
p See ibid. Sec. 4.  call a flat lie.  
6 Emanuel 
t See ibid.  Sa another jesuit followed Azor, but yet so haltingly, as though he had had a thorn in his heel, and was afraid to confess a truth; being but half of that opinion. Therefore I omit him, and seek after 
s See above lib. 2. cap. 3. § 1.  Sotus, who cometh on more resolutely to the point, calling this speech [I know not (mixed with this restriction and Reservation) To tell it you] an arrant lie: And concerning Amphibologies used in words, which the outward words themselves will not bear, he concludeth them to be no-way excusable from lies. Can there be a greater impiety, than to bring Christ his speeches for the authorizing and patronizing of such clauses of reservation, which their own approved Doctors and professors have condemned for stark lies?   

Secondly, by Fathers.  
7 Among Christians I held S. Augustine most singular, (yet when I name him, limply also S. 
* See Full fatisfact. P 3. 80. Full satufact. part 3. Pag. 65. out of S. Aug. lib. contra mendacium cap. 18.  Gregory, and Barnard, who follow him in his book Contra Mendacium:) He supposing some old man To be dangerously sick, who if he should but hear of the death of his Son, were like to jeopard his own life; yet so it is that his servant, who knoweth that his son is dead, is earnestly demanded to tell him the state wherein his son is, whether he be dead, or alive, what shall the servant answer in this case? he must answer (saith S. Augustine) either that he is a live, or dead. or else say that he knoweth not: but so say that he livoth, or knoweth not are both false, and the only true answer is that his son is dead. From this determination of S. Augustine I made bold to collect, that if ever S. Augustine had thought Mentivole all Equivocation (as namely to say this Your son is a live, Reserving in mind, for aught that you shall yet know) he would surely have allowed of it in this Case, especially seeing that thereby he might both have freed the old Father from dying, and his own tongue from lying. It were good that we heard P. R. his Answer unto this   

M. PARSONS his Answer.  
To this I answer, that this case is not like those, for that here 
Mitig. pag. 460. 461.  is no just demand, no force, no compulsion, no injury offered, and consequently no right of using such evasion for just defence, for so much as this is in common conversation, from which we have exempted before the use of Equivocations, albeit we have heard also out of the same S. Aug. himself, Aliud est mentiri, aliud veritatem celare. It is one thing to lie, and another thing to cover a truth without lying. S. August. speaketh against the first, and so do we, and consequently this example proveth nothing.   

The Review.  
8 O noble Answerer he that 
u See above l 1. Cap. 13. num 29  taught the use of Mental Reservation, in Case when a man Asketh whether his friend have so much money (where there is only a demand without compulsion,) for fear of getting his displeasure, if he should have directly denied him that sum; would now seem not to admit of the like evasion in the Case of a Servant commanded to answer directly concerning the death of his master's Son, where there is more than a doubt of shortening his master's life. Who seeth not that M. Parsons if he had returned a direct answer, doth now touch bird-lime, wherein the more he struggleth, the more he is entangled, answering nothing to the purpose? For the question is not, whether it be lawful to Cover a truth, but whether this manner of covering it, by Mental reservation, be tolerable, or no; which S. Augustine's wit gave him not so much as to dream of, whose sanctity, doubtless, would have called it craft and impiety; whose definition of a lie is this, Mendacium est falsum dicere, cum volunt ate fallendi, that is, A lie is to speak a false thing with purpose to deceive the hearer. I pretermit another memorable 
a Full satisfact. part. 3. pag. 66.  example, repeated by S. Aug. of the Bishop Firmius, which 
b See above l. 2. cap. 3. num. 6.  hath been alleged by their Sotus, for the confutation of the foresaid manner of Mental Reservation.  
9 In the last end of the book of 
c Part. 3. pag. 102.  Full satisfact. I added to the like purpose an example delivered by S. 
d Tom. I. de●●●liere septies icta.  Hierome, which may be unto us a mirror of ancient simplicity; Of a wife accused by her husband, and tortuted to draw out a confession of guilt: but she lifting up her eyes to heaven, said, thou Lord jesus, who searcheth the heart andreines, art witness that I do not deny truth for fear of death, but therefore refuse to lie for fear of sin. The jesuits, who have instructed the adulterous wife, being asked of her husband, to free herself by a Mental Equivocation, would they not have condemned this woman for want of wit, and have given her other ghostly counsel, teaching her the use of the same Art, for the avoiding of death, and escaping a lie? May we not guesselby the constancy of this godly woman, & by S. Hieroms commendations of her, that those times were not practised in this kind of Alchemy, which abstracteth such a Clause of Reservation, as surpasseth the understanding of any, but of him who only is able to search immediately into the thoughts and understandings of men? as when a man saith I have no money, concealing this Clause in his mind, Which I mean to turn into buttons. The example of this woman may seem to be more forcible, because M. Parsons in his Treatise of Equivocation, in answering some other points, buried this in his sober silence.   

Thirdly, by Heretics.  
10 We read in S. 
e Aug. contrà mendacium, ad Consent. paulò post initium.  Augustine of the heresy of the Priscillianites, who were herein (as he saith) worse than any other Heretics, because they thought it lawful for them to dissemble themselves to be Orthodox and true professors and to conceal their own Religion by lying: and for proof that it was lawful to lie, they used to allege the example of patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, and the speeches of Christ himself: Nec se alitèr arbitrantes (saith S. Aug) veracem suam ostendere falsitatem, nisi veritatem dicant mendacem, that is, They thought that they could not defend their falsity, unless they taught that truth itself was a liar. Let now our judicious Reader but think with himself, seeing that lying was condemned of all other professions, as well Catholics, as Heretics, whether the Priscillianists would have used lying, for the Covert of their heretical religion, knowing that the Art of Equivocating by a mixed proposition, called Mental Reservation, is as close and invisible a conveyance for any thing that a man would hide, as the most diabolical lie that man can invent? As for example, by protesting unto the hearers, saying, We believe no such doctrine, secretly conceining in their minds, to letyou know of it: or, we believe as you do, Reserving this Clause in their mind, But that we do not believe you.  
11 We are to add unto this the practice of Consentius, and some other erroneous ones, who albeit they were faithful professors, yet, that they might discover the Priscillianists, who for fear did secretly profess the heresy of Priscillian, and yet publicly renounced it, holding it lawful in that case to lie; did Cretizare cum Cretensibus, and held it lawful by lying to wind out these liars; to the which purpose they dislembled themselves to be Priscillianists. These erroneous ones are vehemently condemned by S. 
f Contra Mendar.  Augustine, as those who Did evil, that good might come thereof. The discovery of Heretics he calleth good, but to do it by lying, he termeth evil. They saw no other means to unearth these Cubbes of that Heretic Priscillian, but only by dissembling, and lying; Nevertheless S. Aug. pleadeth for sincerity thus, Veritate occidenda mendacia, teaching that lies are not to be slain, but by the truth. But o the wit of our Equivocators! they would have corrected S. Augustine, and directed those erroneous, and taught them (if the Case would suffer it) how to dissemble themselves to be Priscillianists without lying, and yet with as fair a subtlety, as the most profound lying that can be imagined, and that is, by Mental Reservation, as thus; To say that we are Priscillianists, Reserving in our minds, for aught that you shall know, or, We are Priscilianists, reseruiug in our minds, Only in pretence that we may betray you, or such like. Doth not their want of this kind of Evasion tell us that Consentius, and those other erroneous, although otherwise faithful Christians, (who did by lying seek to find out liars,) either were ignorant of this mystery of Mental Equivocation, or else held it to be no better then plain lying.  
12 What shall we say unto the arch-heretic Arius? he (as I 
g Full sasufact. part. 3. pag 91 '  then delivered out of 
h Socr. l. 1. Hist.  Socrates) being compelled by the holy Emperor Constantine to deliver his Subscription to the Council of Nice, and to avouch His integrity by an oath, he used this Art and sleight; his own (heretical) opinion he closely kept under his left arm; and then swore (laying his hand upon his lift side) that he so believed, as he had written. Here we may obseruethat this execrable Heretic used only a Verbal Equivocation, which although it be not an absolute lie, (as 
i See about.  hath been shown) yet could not the use thereof, in dissembling the true faith, be but most sacrilegious and abominable: Notwithstanding, he making conscience (as it seemeth) of a lie, rather answered by a Verbal ambiguity, than told directly that he believed the Article of that Council. We are to mark, that the whole obscurity was in the double sense of the word, Writing, for that he had written one tenor of Confession, which he propounded openly unto the Council; and another had he written, which he kept closely under his armhole, and by virtue of that Verbal Equivocation he made his evasion. I would but therefore demand why this godless and perfidious Heretic should have taken the pains in inventing and writing a contrary form of Subscription, and to keep it about him, (which by a privy search might have been discovered) if it had been known in those days that a Mental Reservation would have served the turn, to avoid a lie; especially seeingthat by virtue hereof he should not have needed either to strain his wit for invention of a Verbal Equivocation, nor stir his hand, forputting it in writing: because he could not have wanted secret and unsearchable Reservations, as his fancies, which may be called mill Artifices, would have presented to his thoughts, which are innumerable, among others, this; to have said to the Council, I believe that, which I have there written, (understanding in his mind) That it is false. Here is the mixed proposition, which by M. Parson's learning must be as true now, being partly uttered, and partly reserved, as if it had been wholly expressed in the outward words, which I have proved to be an execrable lie, both by 
k See above.  Reason, and by the 
l See above.  Confession of their own Doctors; and now evince the same from the practises even of these Heretics, viz. the Priscillianists, and this Arius, they defending lying, for want of other means to hide his heresy, this other using only the dangerous and discoverable Verbal Equivocation, for fear of lying: And therefore (if I be not deceived) do both bear witness that the jesuicall Art of Mental Reservation was either not known in those days, or else known to be no better then mere lying.   

Fourthly, by Pagans.  
13 M. Parsons was earnestly entreated, yea and challenged to produce out of the Schools of all Pagans and Heathens, of what sect soever (who were, for number, infinite and, for natural light, and learning excelling the children of light) that did expressly acknowledge any Truth in his mixed proposition, by a Mental Reservation, as for example, thus: If one shall promise to his Keeper, that he will be true prisoner, not to run away, (meaning,) on his head: Seeing M. Parsons (I say) was extremely provoked to allege but one testimony out of the innumerable Authors that have written either Ethics, Logic, or Metaphysics, who ever justified this apparel kind of proposition, yet could he not instance in any one, excepting only in 
m See above Lib 2. cap. 4.  Cicero, who notwithstanding speaketh only of such a speech, which he himself calleth false, and is indeed as false, as is this promise, I will pay you money, meaning secretly, that I will not pay it, which the Romanists themselves will grant to be a foul lie.  
14 How then shall it not be held an impiety, to make Christ a Patron of that kind of Reservation, which when it seemed to be most needful, yet was not acknowledged for a truth by so worthy and learned Christians, by so great Heretics, by so innumerable Pagans, and lastly by diverse learned Romanists themselves? Thus much concerning the Impiety of Mental Reservation naturally inherent in itself. In the last place we are to point at some accidental impieties, which, by reason of some Cases, and Effects, do incidentally follow thereupon.    

SECT. 2.  
A further evidence of the Impiety of the doctrine of Mental Reservation by the Cases, and some Effects, which incidentally follow upon it.  
First of a few Cases.  

M. PARSONS his Appendix.  
EXcept they will condemn our Saviour himself of all these 
Reckon. pa. 687.  objected impieties, they cannot condemn the manner of speech used by him, especially in so grave and weighty matters: and if they permit the same in him, then can they not condemn the same, in us, who have so good a warrant and precedent for the same, especially seeing we do restrain our use thereof with many limitations, as in our Larger Treatise of that matter is set down, to wit, that it may not be used in matters of Religion, where confession of our faith is required. 
* Mitig p. 548.  Among Cases reserved, Confession of faith is expressly, and in the first place excepted.   

The review.  
15 Often have I distinguished between M. Parsons his Verbal, and Mental Equivocation, the first is when the words themselves carry in them a double sense, according to the use of speech; as that saying of Christ (objected by M. 
n Mitig. p. 347  Parsons) wherein he said unto the jews, 
o joh. 2. 19  Dissolve you this Temple, speaking of his body, and I will raise it up again in three days: the ambiguity lieth in the double sense of these words, Dissolve this Temple, which might signify either the ruinating of the material Temple, out of which Christ cast the money-changers, and so the jews understood it; or else Christ's own body, metaphorically called a Temple, because the 
p Cal. 2.  Deity dwelled in it bodily, and naturally; which was said to be dissolved, because death is a dissolution: and so Christ meant it: which albeit it was not understood of the hearers, yet was it understandible and intelligible; First because the phrase of calling a body a Temple, and of death a Dissolution, was familiar unto the religious of those times, which therefore we find to be so ordinarily used in 
q See 1. Cor. 3. 16. & 6. & 2. Cor. 6. 16. Pbil. 323.  Scripture: insomuch that their jusuit 
r Maidon 〈◊〉 this place.  Maldonate saith that Christ, in saying, Dissolve this Temple, usedwords which agreed better unto an humane body, than unto the fabric of the other temple, becanse 
2. Tim. 4. 6. & 2. Cor. 5. 1.  to dissolve and to raise again are more agreeable to the body, when the bond of the Soul of man is burst in sunder, etc. Yea Christ his body (saith 
s jansen. Concord. upon the place.  jansenius) was more properly a Temple, because the temple was but a figure of his body. And they might have understood him, if they would, (saith their Cardinal 
t Tolet upon the place.  Tolet) because when he said, This Temple, (and not the Temple of God) it is certain that by the gesture of his hand he did demonstrate his own body: words are better determinated by outward gestures and signs, than by Scripture. So he. And there is reason for it, for if they could not have understood it, than had not their Accusation against Christ been a slander, when they laid this saying against him, thus; 
u Matth. 26.  This man said, I can destroy the Temple of God, and buildit up in three days; For the which these (because of their perverse sense) are called false witnesses. But the Mental Equivocation may have such a sequestered and reserved a meaning, as by no circumstance of speech can be made intelligible, as this: I am no Priest, meaning, Who can be unknown to God. This is that kind of Mental Reservation and evasion which M. Parsons alloweth, concerning which he professeth that it may not be used in matters of faith, & yet pretendeth to evince it from Scripture, which is the Rule of our Faith; and from the speeches of Christ, the Author of our Faith; and sometimes in such sentences, which concern Articles of Faith, as in that: 
x See above, cap. 10.  He that observeth my word, shall never see death, and such like.  
16 And here I appeal unto the indifferency of any judicious Reader, to judge, whether M. Parsons be not guilty of the folly and impiety, which I had laid unto his charge, by the force of this distinction, of a sense Implied in speeches, & a sense absolutely Reserved in the mind: the first kind I grant to be, if he will, more than a thousand times used in Scripture; but the second of his manner of Reserved could never find any jota in all Scripture, to countenance so vile a device. Which although I have confuted by many Reasons, yet now I will adventure to turn his own weapon upon him. First thus:  
17 If the Reservation, which he defendeth, be not to be piously and lawfully used in matters of faith, then was it an impiety in him, to ground the truth of that doctrine upon sentences of Scripture, which concern the doctrine of faith. Secondly thus:  
18 If I should pass through all the Articles of our Creed, to search such kind of Reservations, as M. Parsons did in the spceches of Christ, as namely thus, first I, meaning I, a man, & not a woman, 2. Believe, meaning truly, and not feignedly; 3. in God, meaning the God of Christians, & not the Idol of the Pagans; 4. the Father, meaning, by adoption, and not by natural generation; 5. Almighty, meaning, that can do whatsoever he will, not that will do whatsoever he can; 6. maker of heaven, and earth, meaning, with his word, & not with any hands: so might I pass throughout every Article of our Christian Creed, to collect from every joint, & word thereof, all such like unexpressed meanings, as M. Parsons did from the speeches of Christ.  
19 Here I may argue thus: If all such sentences, which according to the custom and use imply meanings, which are not expressed, do exemplify and prove the Romish Mental Equivocation, then is there a Mental Reservation in every Article of our Faith; and so it is unp ossible but to Equivocate mentally in the Confession of our Faith. But if these implied senses do differ from the Romish reserved sense, than was it both wicked & absurd, to seek to draw that exorbitant and inapprehensible doctrine of Equivocating, from such sentences of Scripture which are no more Equivocal, then be the doctrines of our Faith.  
20 The second Case is in the examination concerning their Priesthood, where the Priest being asked, Whether he be a Priest, is licenced to answer, according to their daily practise, saying; I am no Priest, with this Reservation, as purposing to tell it you. Now then, knowing that they hold ordination of Priesthood to be a Sacrament, which impresseth in the soul an indelible Character, & which herein (as they say) excelleth all other Sacraments, in that it advanceth a Priest a degree above all other Christians; the end whereof they make a real Offering up of Christ as a Sacrifice for the quick and the dead; I 
y Full Satisfact. part. 3. pag. 92.  took upon me to argue, in effect, thus: Seeing every Christian will hold it to be an impiety to Equioucate in denying his Baptism, therefore may he judge it likewise a wickedness for a Priest to Equivocate in denying his Priestdome. Unto which I expected an Answer of M. Parsons; but only expected it. From Cases we pass to Effects.   

The Impious Effects of the new kind of Romish Mental Equivocation. The first effect.  
21 The first is, because if this kind of Equivocating be admitted, man's mouth is stopped for giving either man, or devil the lie, because still they may answer, that they did not lie, for that they conceived a secret unsearchable Clause of Reservation in their mind: as when he said unto Eve, Gen. 3. Though you eat, you shall not die, reserving secretly (that we may suppose thus much) die Martyrs, or die Eating, or die In your beds, or what not? M. Parson's perceiving the consequence, returned an Answer.   

M. PARSONS his Mitigation.  
This is childish: And is not this goodly stuff? fill for a book? 
Mitigat. p. 456.  fit for print? are these suffered to pass without controlment in England? If the Devil be the Father of lies, and consequently of them that do lie, of what kind will he prove to be to this Minister, that hath been taken now with so many notorious lies? etc.   

The Review.  
22 Thus he runneth on with a personal and unconscionable invective against me, even unto the end of the Paragraph; not yielding one Syllable, in Answer to the point of Argument. It may be he would have said something, if he had not run himself out of breath; or else Aquila non capit muscas, he held it to be too Childish, and unworthy his Answering: I am rather persuaded that he perceived the full force thereof, which must be this, viz. That if this new manner of Mental Equivocation may be once got by heart of people, and serve to make a speech true, no man shall have any need of a lie, for covert of any guilt, because this Mental evasion will be both as easy, and as secure as any lie; & consequently he shall be accounted the liar, that shall give any other the lie. I suppose my Reader will hold this to be an Argument, yea and peradventure so forcible, that the proverb may be inverted against M. Parsons, as thus, Musca non capit Aquilas; and therefore made he a shift to control that, which he could not confute. Which will be apparent by the next point.   

The second Effect.  
23 Perjury being generally held to be a lie in an Oath, it must follow that the same Clause of secret Reservation, which freeth a man from lying, may deliver him also from the brand of Perjury, and so shall never any, who is experienced in this manner of Equioucating, be possibly condemned of perjury, whatsoever the words be, that he uttereth with his mouth: And so the witnesses, which were suborned against true Naboth, and against chaste Susanna, and against the Just one, yea and against very justice itself our Lord Christ, (supposing that they knew the trick of Equivocation) could not be absolutely condemned of Perjury; And so all Tribunals must cancel, and extinguish the Title of Perjury, in their proceeding against unjust witnesses. This also I 
z Full Satisf. part. 3. pag. 96.  held to have in it some pith of an Argument, but M. Parson's would not so much as mention it; It may be he contemned it.   

The third Effect.  
24 Again jesuits and other Priests are not all soul, as we may guess by their doctrine of Equivocating, which they profess for the safety & security of their own bodies, one branch of which doctrine is this: 
a Tolet jes. & Card. lib. 5. Instruct. Sacer. cap. 66.  When any is put upon the rack, (saith their Cardinal, & sometime jesuit, among his general instructions, which he giveth unto Priests) and doth reveal the crime of an other, although he be not examined justly and according to law, yet herein he doth not sin, because none is bound upon so great bodily harm to himself, to preserve the good name of an other. Therefore (said 
b Full satisfact. Part. 3. Pag. 99  I) when as you make all Protestant Magistrates Incompetent, with whom you think it lawful to Equivocate in your speeches & oaths, when you are questioned about other men, you do, in effect, teach your Adversaries to use that 〈◊〉 with you, as though the only competent Examiner of you must be the Rack. This Argument M. Parsons saw, but yet only saw it; and what marvel? for guilty persons are not willing to come near to the Rack.   

The fourth Effect.  
25 This I noted to be the profanation of an Oath, the end whereof in thus described by the B. Apostle, Heb. 6. 16. Men verily, swear by him that is greater, (meaning, God) and an Oath for confirmation is among them an end of Strife: showing that the consecrated End of an Oath is for such a Confirmation, as may make an end of Contention. But the Manu-script 
c 〈◊〉  Treatise Mental all Equivocation maintained, that a party examined, if he be urged to swear that which he ought not, that then he may swear, but with a secret intention of Equivocation; and if he be further swear without all Equivocation, he may swear That he doth not Equivocate, by a third Equivocation, or Reservation; and so on, often as he shall be asked the like question. Here we see allowed Equivocation upon Equivocation, as it were Cog upon Cog; which doctrine once professed is so far from making an End of Contention, that indeed it maketh it endless, because all men, who are instructed in this Art, being 〈◊〉 in their own Causes, may, by multiplying his Reservations, delude his hearer, and leave him in a perpetual suspense and doubt, that whatsoever the swearer protesteth in outward speech, may through a Mental Reservation prove as deceitful, as was judas his All-haile. M. Parsons answereth both to therelation of the testimony, and also to the Consequence taken from thence.   

M. PARSONS his Mitigation.  
I doubt not but T. M. hath egregiously abused, both this and 
Mitigat. p 479.  other places, in the Catholic M. S. Treatise, against which he 
In answer to the argument taken from the End of an oath. objected in the Full Satisfact. part. 3. pag. 88  writeth, by setting down curtain palpable absurdities, which it is impossible should be there, as setteth them down: Which I must presume of, until I finds contrary, by viewing that Treatise itself, which I shortly hope for.   

The Review.  
26 Mark (good Reader) and marvel with me at this man's wit; he will seem now to grant that it were a palpable absurdity, and impossibilitic. to teach a man sometime to swear, by multiplying Equivocation upon Equivocation, when he is urged thereunto; and therefore will only be thought to suspect, that I have abused M. Garnets' Treatise, by misreporting his direction, which I alleged most faithfully. And for my justification herein I appeal unto M. Parsons himself in the same book of Mitigation, wherein a little before the end (pag. 553.) he confesseth saying; And now at this very Instant cometh to my hands this Catholic Treatise itself of Equivocation before mentioned. So he. And now that it is come to his hands, doth he charge me with abuse of the Author, by misciting the foresaid sentence? no truly, he doth not challenge me for any one falsification, in relating of it, or any other testimony out of that Treatise; which may seem not to need our Censure, seeing the eyes even of this great Proctor for Equivocation can discern in it palpable absurdities. Thus much of the Relation of that sentence. Now concerning the Consequence taken from thence.   

M. PARSONS his Mitigation.  
The end of an Oath, which is to put an end of contention, is not hindered 
Mitigat. p 479.  by the use of an Equivocation, when law permitteth the same.   

The Review.  
27 Law never permitteth any such guileful Equivocation in an Oath, as was 
d Full satisfact. part. 3. pag. 87.  proved both out of their old School by the testimony of Lombard, but especially of 
e Aquina 2. 2. qu. 69. art. 1. Arg. 2.  Aquinas. If a judge require any thing (saith he) which he cannot by order of Law, the party accused is not bound to answer, but either by Appeal, or by some other manner of means may deliver himself: But in no case may he tell a lie, or use falsehood, nor any kind of craft or deceit, etc.   

M. PARSONS his Mitigation.  
This is plainly to be understood, when a judge is competent, and 
Mitigat. pag. 478 479.  proceedeth competently, otherwise when he proceedeth not according to the form of law, etc. And a little after. And in this very place of S. Thomas Aquinas the said Doctors words are, that if a judge, though otherwise lawful, shall require any thing, which by order of law he cannot, the party accused is not bound to answer at all (and much less directly to his meaning) but may either by Appeal or by other means deliver himself by evasion, though he may not speak a lie. So S. Thomas. And what wise man doth not see, that this maketh quite against Tho. Morton? first, if it be lawful to the defendant not to answer at all even to a lawful & competent judge, when he proceedeth not according to form of law, then much less is he bound to answer or swear directly to his intention in that Case; but may use any lawful evasion, by doubtful speech, or otherwise, which is directly against our adversaries conclusion: so little doth he discern when he allegeth authorities flatly against himself.   

The Review.  
28 If this Answer of M. Parson's make not flatly against him, then shall I think it no injury, that he put me in his vile Reckoning of falsehoods. The Testimony of Aquinas was produced to prove, that although a man may refuse to swear, where he seeth great inconvenience; yet whensoever he doth swear, yea although it be before an unlawful Magistrate proceeding unjustly against us, (because in our Oath we are to respect rather God, by whom wesweare, than man, unto whom we swear) we are bound in conscience to avoid that Equivocating trick, for fear of profaning his sacred name. M. Parsons answereth in general unto this foresaid Testimony of T. Aquinas, and the sentences of some others, that we are chargeable to avoid subtlety in swearing, when the lawful judge proceedeth competently, that is, lawfully; when as, indeed, the very words of Thomas, (as both I alleged them, and as M. Parsons himself doth relate them) 
M Parsons his palpable 〈◊〉  stand thus: If a judge. though otherwise lawful, shall require any thing, which he cannot by order of law, then etc. That which is not done by order of law, is not done (as every one knoweth) competently, as M. Parsons answereth, but incompetently.  
29 Secondly; for my better warrant, I had the confession of their own Genesius Sepulueda, who speaking of the same testimony of Aquinas, & speaking professedly against their Equivocators manner of Equivocating, saith; 
f Genesius 〈◊〉 in Theoph. c. 18.  Coula Thomas more plainly deny their opinion, who teach that a guilty person may 〈◊〉 a truo accusation by Art of words? M. Parsons resolveth contrarily. 
g Mitig. p. 478  If a judge proceed not lawfully, in exacting an oath, than he that sweareth may swear to his own, and not to the intention of the judge. We may now perceive, that M. Parsons hath answered Thomas so adversly, as if he meant to have slowen in his face. I hasten to the last Effect.   

The last Effect.  
30 If my Reader require a more full satisfaction in this question of Mental Equivocation, he shall need but to consult with some former Sections of this Encounter in the first book, cap. 4. there is the hunting out of this Fox; in the cap. 10. the Confessions of Sepulueda, Azorius, and others: In this second book and cap. 3. the Confession of Sotus; and cap. 4. the opinion of Cicero; and c. 14. the judgement of Maldonate: All these largely discussed.  
31 The last Effect is the infamy, which redoundeth unto the professed Equivocators, both in their speeches, and in their books: for there is no doubt but M. Parsons and his fellows, who durst seek to justify their Mental Equivocation by Scriptures (the writings of the holy Ghost) will not spare to Equivocate in their own writings, either for the discrediting of their Adversaries; or for the 〈◊〉 of their own deformities; or else for the speedier advancement of their cause; presuming that although they report and profess some things, which in outward words are merely false; and may by their outward sound help forward, to the building up of the Romish Church, yet that in such cases they ought to mortify their falsehoods of the outward speech with their exorbitant, secret, reserved, & inapprehensible conceits: And then what credence may such writers expect of their Readers?  
32 S. August. writing against some professors of the true religion, & yet in one point so far erroneons, as to think that they might dissemble themselves to be heretics, only to the end that they might, by lying more easily discover those Heretics, called Priscilianists, who concealed their heresy by lying, and by pretending that they were Orthodox and Catholics; He reasoneth the matter thus: 
h Aug. contra mendac. cap. 4.  Thou wilt say (saith he) that I therefore lie, that I may catch a liar, viz. The Priscilianist: Then he maketh the Priscilianists to answer saying: But how shall I know whether thou do it rather lest thou shouldst be catched of me. By & by S. Augustine returneth to the Orthodox, Can he persuade a man (saith he) that he will not lie, that he be not catched himself, who lieth that he may catch another? Dost thou not perceive whereunto this evil practice doth lead, to wit, that both they may seem to be worthily suspected of us, and we of them, and every one of each another; and so it shall come to pass, that whilst that our belief is taught by lying, no man shall know whom to believe? Which reward of not being believed is of all men most due unto Mental Equivocators, such as teach men to say to their friends, I have no money, meaning, to lend it unto you; and to their Adversaries, I am no Priest, meaning, with purpose to tell it unto you, etc. which speeches, when their Cases happen to be truly known, to wit, that the one had money, and the other was a Priest, do carry nothing else in their outward sound (which only can be understood of man) but the evident appearance of a lie, and are indeed, in themselves, (as hath been both proved and confessed) no better than flat lies; yet could M. Parson's have no other remedies, whereby to mortify his manifold untruths, which unjustly & unconscionably he did heap upon me: Notwithstanding, I do earnestly pray, if he be yet alive; or if he be dead, I wish that such his Calumniations be never laid unto his charge.      
Laus Deo.