were vpon some occasions necessarily to appeale thither because as it is in the body of the Councels set forth by Surius the Bishops of Affricke in their Epistle writing vnto Celestine Bishop of Rome and intreating him not to receiue into his communion such as had beene excommunicated by their Church argued thus that If this were so decreed concerning the Superiour Clerkes how much more ought it to be obserued concerning Bishops Which consequence is flat contrary to this of M. Parsons who still roaueth and raueth about impertinencies to draw me from the point in question which is onely this whether Gratian did falsly corrupt the Canon of the Councell of Mileuet And now we desire him to reckon for this Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning THirdly where you say that Gratian did adde of himselfe this exception to the Canon you would make your Reader thinke he had added these wordes as the wordes of the Canon it selfe which he did not but as a commentary or Explication of the Canon in a separate place and so is now extant in a distinct letter and consequently your note in the margen that Gratian is a falsificator fals vpon yourself which doe falsifie his meaning For that the most that can be obiected to Gratian in this place is that which Card. Bellarmine saith he mistooke the true meaning and intent of that Canon of Mileuet as though it had beene meant of Bishops as well as of inferior Clergy-men which is farre from the proofe of wilfull false meaning which may bee verie probably obiected vnto M. Morton in this and many other places For that it cannot be well thought but that he must know that he dealt iniuriously and calumniously with Gratian in this place The Reueiwe 5. O the wickednesse of this mans malice Could hee note me of wilfull falshood yea or of falshood at all in this matter The wordes of Gratian saith M. Parsons as they are now extant in a distinct Letter are not added as the wordes of the Canon but as a Commentary c. Is this it But I am sure these wordes of Gratian here spoken of in his Decretum printed An. Dom. 1519. at Paris and another Edition at Lyons Per Hugonem de Porta Anno. 1548. which two onely I then had by me are not distinguished in a different letter which M. Parsons well knew who therefore opposeth onely their new Editions of Gratian in saying so it is now extant which neither freeth their auncient Editions nor Gratian himselfe from falshood and yet with an hard face durst M. Parsons impute vnto me herein the note of Falshood And not so onely but doth furthermore repeate and register this in a peculiar Chapter among those which he calleth New and fresh lies of M. Morton How can I expect any conscionable dealing from a man so peruersly malignant 6. Furthermore I am right sure that the wordes of Bellarmine are these Gratian added vnto this Canon this exception viz. Except perhaps the Appeale bee made vnto Rome Which exception flatly contradicteth the principall purpose of the Canon which forbad saith Bellarmme Appeales beyond the Seas which Decree the Affricane Bishops made principally because of Rome Here M. Parsons your Gratian hath neede of your helpe for he yet lieth vnder an arrest of a notorious falsification Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning THe most that can be obiected vnto Gratian in this place is that he mistooke the true meaning and intent of that Canon of Mileuet The Reueiwe 7. Let it be so yet so to mistake it that when that Decree was principally made to forbid Appeales vnto Rome he should expound it to forbid Appeales excepting onely vnto Rome If M. Parsons should chance to finde such a mistaking in any Protestant O what an hue and crie would he make 8. Neyther was this the errour of Gratian alone for Bellarmine speaking not of your olde but of your new Romish Writers saith that Aliqui respondent cum Gratiano c. Some there be saith he who answere the obiection of Caluine together with Gratian c. Wherefore you may put downe this in your Reckoning as a point confessed by Bellarmine that Some amongst you haue no other shift in answering but so to expound a Canon of a Councell as if it allowed that which principally purposely and plainely it did forbid then the which there cannot bee a greater apparance of 〈◊〉 9. Now that the Reckoning is made vp we may recount the gaines which M. Parsons hath gotten by his defense of Gratian. First he hath falsly put Gratian vpon mee in stead of Bellarmine with an intent to proue me a falsifier Secondly to the same end he presenteth a new Edition of Gratian notwithstanding that he knew that the sentence stood as I deliuered it in the auncient Copies of Gratian. Thirdly after all his plea he would cleare his Clyent Gratian from faithlesnes in expounding a Canon of a Councell flatly contrary to the purpose of the Councell it selfe Fourthly hee findeth now Some other of their new Romanists intangled in the same falshood with Gratian. Fiftly by labouring to free Gratian from one vntruth he hath occasioned me to reueale the manifold guilt of Gratian in his false inscriptions false allegations and false Additions in such abundance that as their Arch-bishoppe hath confessed they cannot be declared in a day And thus Mast. Parsons I confesse hath euery way gained in falsities CHAP. VII Of the Contradictions among other Romish Authours one confuting another first about the Councell of Eliberis SECT I. 1. THE Question was whether the Councell of Eliberis did forbid the vse of Images in Churches Protestants say it did our aduersaries oppose against Protestants other expositions but yet so that they are still extreamely Aduersaries among themselues Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning in discharging his Romish Writers THe state of the question is to prooue that these Authors lied voluntarily you accuse them that they haue different expositions vpon the said Canon of the Councell of Eliberis some vnderstanding it one way some another but how doth this prooue that they erred wilfully If you proue not this you proue nothing And now I would aske you when diuers auncient Fathers in your commentaries vpon the holy Scriptures doe set downe different expositions of hard places euery one thinking that he goeth nearest to the truth may you by this condemne them all of wilfull falshood Are not you ashamed to come forth with these ridiculous proofes The Reuiew aunswering his Obiection 2. Hardly can any absolutely charge another with wilfull falsitie because there are so many infirmities in a man besides the corruption of his will to draw him into error as ignorance negligence desire of breuitie besides other their obiects in reading such as are falts in print obscurities of sentences Independences and which is not the least often transscriptions of sentences of Authors out of one written Note-booke into an other and such like
awake men out of securitie according to that of the Poet Vt iugulent homines surgunt de nocte Latrones Vt teipsum serues non expergisceris Which being the voice of God in nature what spirit is that which shall call it a measure malicious 3. But who is M. Parsons that hee should thus inueigh against Virulencie and Maliciousnesse Looke vpon him good Reader as thou maistsee him described by their owne Priest and then tell me what he differeth from an Edomite What hath he to do saith a Priest speaking of M. Parsons to ballast his pen with gastfulgoars of English blood or to imbrew a Priestly hand in Princes bowels O monster c. And againe Hee became with others namely An. 88. the trumpeter of inuasion blood crueltie and destruction The same Author proceedeth in decyphering M. Parsons his lineaments bestowing many pages in setting foorth his bloodie and cruell disposition yet this is the Sober Reckoner forsooth who dare exclaime against Virulencie and Maliciousnesse calling else-where my Discouerie of the Romish crueltie a meere Barking Wherein I am dealt with no otherwise then was a Lawyer in the dayes of Tully by certaine Catilinarian Conspirators who called him a Barking dogge but he aunswered You may not be offended with me if when I see theeues and murtherers I cannot chuse but barke SECT 11. The first Inquirie 4. I Haue said that I may not denie euen this my Aduersarie his commendation of Modestie who being ashamed we may thinke of the Romish Frauds and Falsifications of former times will insist onely vpon such mens examples as haue professedly written of late against Protestants It were to be wished that his fellow Iesuite Costerus had kept himselfe within the same precincts but hee maketh a more generall challenge thus Nemo hactenùs vel Princeps vel Praesul vel Scriptor fuit qui mendacy vel malae fidei Romanos arguerit That is Neuer yet saith hee Did any Prince or Prelate or Writer accuse the Romanists of falshood I am heereupon called by Master Parsons to a shrewd Reckoning the summe whereof is as followeth Master PARSONS his Reckoning in charging his Aduersarie NOw I must demaund of the Reader what he vnderstandeth Mr. Morton his purpose to bee in this place Is it not to shew that Costerus was lesse modest then I forasmuch as I said If in any one Catholicke writer of Controuersies in our age there might bee found but two or three Examples of wilfull lying I would neuer trust him more but that Costerus went further saying That no Prince Prelate or writer had euer hitherio accused any Romanists of falshood Is not this Mr. Mortons plaine meaning thinke you as both his words and drifts doe shewe Yes truely Which being so I would aske him why he did clip the Latin wordes of Costerus who saith But neucrthelesse there was no Catholicke man bitherto to wit the time assigned when Bishops of Rome were Saints and Martyrs whether Prince Bishop or Writer c. Which two words Neuertkelesse and Catholicke man demonstrate that Costerus spake not of Romane Writers but of Romane Bishops and Popes The Reueiwe and charge 5. The words of Coster are Nemo Catholicus and by Romanos id est Romanes he meant the Romane Popes yet spake he it indefinitely Romanos And Coster in the words following descendeth as lowe as Pope Damasus who was no Martyr and the instances which I gaue against Coster were onely about Popes and taken from the Councell of Affricke which consisted of 203 Bishops among whom Saint Augustine was a principall Actor All which Catholicke Bishops tooke exception vnto the challenge of three Popes viz. Sozimus Boniface and Celestine who vpon the false pretence of a Canon in the name of the Councel of Nice exacted Appeales vnto Rome where it is plaine that I instanced in no examples but onely in Romane Popes If I had vrged any exception taken by any but by those whom they will confesse to haue bin Catholike Bishops or against any Romane Writers sauing onely against Romane Popes then might hee haue had iust cause to note me of wilfull falshood both in respect of the word Catholicke and in the word Romanes But seeing that I haue not committed any such error what meant Mr. Parsons to be so violent It may be that I haue offended him by saying that Coster was lesse modest then he I craue pardon for this fault and hereafter I shall iudge otherwise of his immodestie SECT 111. A second Inquirie concerning the false Canon suggested by those Popes NOw he beginneth with three ancient Popes Zozimus Boniface and Celestine that liued in the time of S. Augustine and were much commended by him for holy men but are accused by Mr. Morton for falsaries as though they had forged a Canon of the first Councell of Nice in fauour of their owne supremacie to proue thereby the lawfulnesse of Appeals to be made to them and to their Sea from the Bishops of Affrica which Canon was not found in the ordinary Copies then extant of that Councell The summe of Mr PARSONS his Reckoning for their owne discharge First of all howsoeuer this matter passed it appertaineth little or nothing at all to our purpose or to the question now in hand of Moderne Catholicke Writers nor doth it prooue wilfull falshood in those three auncient Popes if they cyted the Canon of one Councell for another of equall authority as indeed they did for that it might be ascribed either to the variety of Copies when no print was yet extant or to ouersight forgetfulnesse or to some other such defect rather then to malice and voluntary errour The Reuiew 6. What a pace doe you vse to gallop when you feare that any danger lieth in your way For you saw in the Preamble how three Popes Zozimus Boniface and Celestine at the Councell of Carthage in Affricke did claime a right of Appeales vnto Rome by vertue of a Canon of the Councell of Nice as they pretended And when all the auncient Copies of that Councell had beene diligently sought it appeared by the testimony of three Patriarches viz. of Constantinople Alexandria and Antioch that That Canon concerning Appeales vnto the Bishoppe of Rome as their Lindane speaketh could not be found in those Copies Or as the Councell it selfe speaketh Istius Concily Affricani seu Carthaginensis ducenti tres Episcopi tribus Papis restiterunt Canonem Concily in defensionem primatus sui falsum esse deprehenderunt And a little after Concludunt tandem nemini licere ad Romanum Pontificem prouocare That is Two hundred and three Fathers in the Councell of Carthage resisted the three Popes and found that the Canon of that Councell brought for the defence of their Primacy was false Therefore in the end they concluded that it should not be lawfull for any of Affrick to appeale vnto the Bishop of Rome 7. Where you perceiuing both the
particularly examined discussed and prooued to haue beene so many inexcusable slaunders euen in that Booke of Apologie whereof Master Parsons himselfe hath taken particular notice but more fully and exactly in my lass Catholicke Appeale the fift Booke whereof is spent in the confutation of these and otherslaunders which our Romish Aduersaries haue falsly obiected against Caluine and other Protestants Thus we see that his Ponderous Consideration being put into the ballance is found to weigh no more then doth a vaine and fantasticall conceit CHAP. IX Concerning three other corrupted Allegations of Cardinall Bellarmine SECT I. The charge concerning Saint Cyprian in the poynt of Tradition 1. SAint Cyprian stood vpon written Tradition Bellarmine said that he did it in defending an error Therfore no maruaile saith he though Cyprian erred in so reasonning for the which cause Saint Augustine doth worthily refute him In which place S. Augustine seemeth to bee so farre from confuting him for reasoning so that he saith That which Cyprian warneth vs to runne vnto the fountaine that is vnto the Traditions of the Apostles from thence to deriue a Conduict to our times that is chiefly and doubtlesse to be performed The summe of Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning THis was no good forme of arguing in him but in this necessitie for defending this error for first Saint Augustine doth of purpose refute the same and Saint Cyprian doth elsewhere yeeld and allow the vnwritten Traditions I graunt that S. Cyprian saith as Saint Augustine also doth that when any Tradition or Doctrine can bee clearely shewed out of Scripture Optimum est It is questionlesse the best way of all But when there is no Scripture for proofe of it then saith S Augustine Consuetudo illa c. that is The custom which was opposed against Cyprian must be beleeued to haue proceeded from the Apostles as many things else which the Vniuersall Church doth hold and therefore are well beleeued to haue beene commaunded by the Apostles albeit they are not found written The Reueiwe 2. What Saint Augustines iudgement was concerning the sufficiencie of Scripture as it is defended by the Protestants he hath often vnfolded saying that Amongst all things which are contained plainly in Scripture all those things may be found which concerne faith and manners of life And againe Whensoeuer there is a case of greatest difficultie and we haue no cleere proofes of Scriptures for our conclusions so long must mans presumption keepe silence And euen of this question of not rebaptizing he doth refute it out of Scriptures By as he speaketh certaine proofes and not by coniectures as Bellarmine calleth them before the definition of a Councell And heere also although Bellarmine be in part iustifiable yet looke vnto the sentence of Cyprian and you shall find his reasoning negatiuely from Scripture which is condemned by Bellarmine to bee iustified by Saint Augustine although it be there applied by him affirmatiuely SECT II. The second exception against Bellarmine The charge concerning S. Peters Ordination 3. THe summe of the exception standeth thus Bellarmine defended that Saint Peter onely was ordeined a Bishop by Christ and that the other Apostles were ordeined Bishops by Saint Peter and endeuoured to prooue this out of the testimonies of Anacletus Clemens Alex. Eusebius Cyprian Leo Augustine But these Fahers saith their Victoria do not intend that which the Authors of this opinion doe pretend As for other writings which are attributed vnto Clement and Pope Anacletus which are both many and great they are saith their Cardinall Cusanus Apocrypha wherein they who extoll the Romane Sea which is worthy of allpraise do aboue that which is conuenient or meete either wholly or partly rely We are now to Reckon first for the matter it selfe and then for the maner of deliuerance of it in my Preamble Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning ALl this which Mr. Morton alle adgeth heere if it were graunted as it lieth conteineth nothing but two different opinions between learned men in a disputable question Whether Christ did immediately and by himselfe consecrate all or some of his Apostles Bishops or one onely with authoritie to consecrate the rest Turrecremata and Bellarmine doe hold the one for more probable but Victoria Cusanus and some other do allow rather the other What wilfull falsehood is there in this Or is it not singular folly to call it by that name The Reueiwe 4. If all this were graunted Mr. Parsons Then I can tell you you must either renounce the iudgement of Bellarmine or else recant your owne Reckoning you haue graunted first that Bellarmine did prooue out of Turrecremata that Christ did make onely Saint Peter Bishop with authoritie to consecrate the rest Secondly that Victoria thinketh the contrary opinion to be more probable and aunswereth the argument of Turrecremata saying that the Fathers cited for the same Reuerà non significant id quod Authores huius sententiae volunt That is That in trueth they doe not signifie so much as the authoritie Mr. Parsons should haue said Authors of this opinion would haue them Lastly that Cardinall Cusanus here cited doth to the like effect aunswere the same arguments 5. In all these confessed points consisteth the maine matter of my former exception Notwithstanding this euidence Mr. Parsons saith If it were graunted c. What tricke shall we call this Yet thus much being graunted marke Master Parsons what will follow hereupon viz. that the Church of Rome hath lost her supposed Motherhood For Bellarmine presuming that all auncients held the Church of Rome to bee the mother-Mother-church addeth in these words Quod non videtur c. that is Which seemeth not to be true saith he except mother- in that sense because Peter who was the Bishop of Rome had ordeined all other Apostles Bishops either by himselfe or by others See this and blush at your ignorance Bellarmine reasoneth thus Except Peter did ordaine the rest of the Apostles Bishops your Church of Rome cannot be truely called the mother-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 pro certo that Certamly Peter did not ordaine them Bishops The conclusion will follow of it owne accord which is this viz. It is therefore but Disputable or Improbable yea an Incredible doctrine to say that the Church of Rome is the Mother-church When Mr. Parsons shall consider this I thinke he will repent him of this Reckoning 6. May I be furthermore so bold with Mr. Parsons as to demand why he did translate Authores eius sent entiae that is The Authors of this opinion into The authoritie of this opinion I say what authoritie had he for these trickes for of his purpose we will make no question For he was loath that the opinion of Bellarmine should be held by
authenticall Records of auncient Churches and the diuers oppositions of so many Bishoppes of that Councell conuincing the falshood of that obiected Canon doth this appertaine nothing to the purpose trow you The summe of Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning about the former point in charging his Aduersarie BVT now to the former olde idle worme-eaten obiection against the Pope for counterfeiting the said Councell of Nice Although it hath beene oft answered at large by other writers yet nothing will serue those men but still they bring it in againe as though it had neuer beene answered before Which false dissimulation is heere also vsed by Mr. Morton who saith not one word of any aunswere that euer hee saw vsed thereunto The Reuiew 8. Would any Sober man euer haue vsed such taxation as this is to call it a false Dissimulation sometime to propound plaine Histories without particular notice of the Answeres which our Aduersaries doe vse to make Mast. Parsons could not haue beene more iniurious eyther vnto me or else to omit all other his fellowes vnto himselfe For first I professed not a full Treatise but onely a Preamble vnto a Treatise and else-where I haue particularly set down the Answere of your Authours together with a large replie thereunto How then could I deserue this reproach And that which exceedingly argueth vnshamefastnesse in him the matter which I alleaged out of his owne Authours was no more then that which both he and others will confesse to be true to wit that the Bishoppes of Carthage did renounce that pretended Canon as false 9. Secondly Master Parsons in his Three Conuersions Cap. 2. for the proofe of Transubstantiation c. did cite within the compasse of foure leaues the 〈◊〉 of some Fathers as namely of Ambrose Cyprian 〈◊〉 Nissene Chrysostome Theodoret Irenaeus Augustine Theophilact c. without acknowledgement of the Aunsweres which Protestants haue made vnto euery particular testimonie Will he hereupon suffer Mr. Parsons to fall vpon M. Parsons and to condemne him for a false Dissembler because hee pretermitted the Answeres which Protestants haue made So shamelesse and lucklesse doth this his Accusation prooue What yet more Master PARSONS his Reckoning THere were diuers other Canons made in the Councell of Nice which are not now extant and the Canon questioned of was in the Councell of Sardis which was an Appendix of the Nicene Councell which the Popes did mistake These things haue beene discussed by sixe of our Authours as Card. Bellarmine Barenius c. whom if Mr. Morton had seene as I suppose he did though not perhaps to his contentment why then if he meant plainely as often he protesteth had he not eyther mentioned them or else refuted them or at least wise told his Reader that ther had beene such Answeres although not sufficient to ouerthrow the Obiection c. The Reuiew 10. We may reckon vnto the worldes end if that in euery asseueration which is obiter although plainely vsed all Obiections and Aunswers of all Authours must be necessarily produced And to exact this in a Preamble and as it were a preface vnto a Treatise which I called an Encounter is as disproportionable as was the little Citie of Myndas and the great gates thereof which occasioned the Philosopher to cry Shut your Gates ye Citizens lest that your Citie runne out 11. But because he hath laid such heauie loade of false dissimulation vpon me as though for the terriblenesse of the Answeres I had beene affraid so much as to mention them I shal desire him to know that he could not haue ghessedmore falsly for I haue already produced his Authours discussed their Obiections from point to point where if he will bee pleased to looke he may peraduenture satisfie or at least asswage his earnest appetite wherein the great obiection out of Sanders is likewise answered I passe on vnto the next Taxatiou CHAP. VI. Of the small credite of their Gratian and of the far lesse credite of M. Parsons in his defence by his multiplication of fraudes SECT I. The Charge WHat can be said said I for the defence of Gratian Who as Card. Bellarmine witnesseth citing a Canon of a Councell of Mileuet wherein it was decreed that none should appeale beyond the Sea did adde of himselfe this exception Except it be vnto the Apostolicke Sea of Rome when as that Councell in forbidding Appeales beyond the Sea did especially intend to forbid Appeales to Rome Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning WHereunto I answere that if they be no better then this they are not worth the alleaging but only to entertaine time and to shew your fraude in dealing For first Gratian did liue diuers hundred yeares agoe but we talke of Writers of our time and of such onely is our Question and Controuersie wherein you finding your selfe barren would now extend your Commission to all Catholike Writers of all ages past which is a miserable shift The Reueiwe noting his idle but yet peeuish opposition 2. Thou supposest gentle Reader by this taxation that I had cyted Gratian an old Writer in stead of a new or that I had insisted vpon such reproofes of Gratian and other olde Writers But I alleaged Gratian onely and that onely in that one place adding withall that I might alleage many such like falshoods but the nature of a Preamble said I wil not suffer me to pursue olde forgeries and P. R. doth challenge me to instance onely in new Writers Therefore it was but a peece of M. Parsons his hatefull zeale to conceale my purpose and then to call this dealing a miserable shift The second part of his Reckoning is more rigid SECT II. M. PARSONS his Reckoning charging his Aduersarie with shifting SEcondly there be so many other shifts and trickes in cyting these few wordes as doe make demonstration that you can cyte nothing in simplicity of truth without some wilfull corruption as heere where you say it was decreed in the Councell of Mileuet that none should appeale beyond the Sea you cut off craftily the wordes before cyted of the said Canon Inferiores Clerici the inferiour Clergie-men as though the prohibition had beene for all aswell Bishoppes as Inferiour Clergy-men which presently we shall shew to be false The Reuiew reuealing the singular fraude which Master Parsons vseth 3. I cyted not Gratian but the obiection of Caluine out of Bellarmine and his immediate answere thereunto where the wordes Inferiores Clerici are not mentioned and so to make me a falsifier M. Parsons hath falsely foysted vpon mee those two wordes of Gratian Inferiores Clerici Iudge good Reader whether this be a fit man to talke of Simplicity of truth 4. Againe if the wordes Inferiores Clerici had been cut off yet could not this necessarily in true sense argue any fraud as though where the Inferiour Clerkes were forbid to appeale vnto Rome it should consequently follow that the Superiour Bishops
Senensis nor any Romanist durst euer say that Saints and Martyrs did euer take their voyage vnto heauen by hell Thus then the Vide of Senensis bringeth no doubt in the cause for it is stil plain by the contexts that by it is not meant your Purgatory-fire 8. Finally to Mr. Parsons demaunding why I should ascribe more vnto the iudgement of Senensis then vnto Bellarmine I answer because Bellarmine did write in his heate of altercation but Senensis in the calme of contemplation By which distinction Senensis himselfe discerneth betweene the more and lesse iustifiable sentences of holy Fathers Albeit indeede I doe yeelde to Senensis especially because of the euidence of his proofe SECT IIII. The next Charge against Bellarmine 9. IT follweth in the Preamble Lastly hee professeth to confirme the Doctrine of Purgatory out of most of the Greeke and Latine Fathers And an other Iesuit saith more largely Of all the Greeke Fathers which is an Assertion as false as peremptorie euen by the confession of their owne Bishop saying that There is very rare mention of Purgatory in the Greeke Fathers and that the Latine Fathers did not all at first apprehend the doctrine thereof Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning THis is vnderstood by him as well of the name of Purgatorie not then so much in vse as that the most Ancient writers next after the Apostles time when many things were not discussed so exactly as in processe of time they were did not so clearely handle that matter Nemo iam dubitat orthodoxus saith he an Purgatorum sit de quo tamen apud priscos illos nulla vel quà m rarissima fiebat mentio No rightly beleeuing Christian doth now doubt whether there be Purgatorie or no Of which notwithstanding there was none or very rare mention made among those Ancient Fathers Whereof hee giueth diuers reasons and indeede the same may be said of sundry important other Articles of Catholicke Religion For so much as in the first Primitiue Church when the said Fathers were vnder Persecution and occupied in other weightie affaires against Heretickes and Persecutors they had not time nor occasion to discusse many things which the holy Ghost did afterward make more cleare to the Church by successe of time And yet doth not B. Fisher say that there was no knowledge of this Article of Purgatorie in the very first Fathers but onely his meaning was that the name nature and circumstance thereof was not so well discussed and consequently the thing more seldome mentioned by them then afterward by the subsequent writers And he after proueth it out of many Greeke and Latine Fathers and out of Scriptures The Reueiwe 10. Their Bishop Roffensis confesseth that among the Greeke Fathers there is Rarissima mentio that is Most rare mention of Purgatorie M. Parsons translateth Rarissima very rare which is but a tricke of a nibler Againe M. Parsons will haue vs to vnderstand Rosfensis so as though he had onely meant that The name nature and circumstances were not so well discussed or mentioned by ancient Grecians But Roffensis speaking of Purgatorie it selfe saith that Aliquandiù incognitum fuit serò cognitum vniuersae Ecclesiae c. This is the confession of their owne Bishop Roffensis That is Purgatorie was for a while vnknowen and not till of late knowne to the vniuersall Church With what assurance can the Romanists call the Doctrine Catholicke that is Vniuersall which was not knowne vniuersally in the Primitiue Church of Christ Yet hath Rome adopted this Article of Purgatorie and suffered this Creeper to come into her newe Creede vnder the title of a doctrine necessarie to saluation But more of this hereafter SECT V. The next Charge 11. IF any shall but obserue in this one Controuersie the number of witnesses brought in for confirmation of this their new Article in the name of Ancient Fathers which are by the confession of our Aduersaries meerely counterfeit as Clemens his Constitutions Clemens his Epistles Athanas in Quaestion Eusebius Emissenus Iosephus Bengorion Hieron in Prouerb August ad fratres in Eremo the Liturgies of S. Iames and others All which as they are vrged for proofe of Purgatorie so are they reiected by their owne men I desire to be challenged for proofe hereof as Forged or Corrupted or Apocrypha c. M. PARSONS his Reckoning HE cannot be trusted in any thing he saith For these are not so much as named by Bellarmine except onely the two fitst in a word or two much lesse are they brought in for principall Authors in the Catalogue of Ancient Fathers whose Authorities hee setteth downe for proofe of Purgatorie So as this is one deceitfull vntrueth to make his Reader beleeue that these are our chiefe Authors whereas Bellarmine besides these doeth alleadge twentie viz. Ten of the Greeke Church and as many of the Latine The Reuiew 13. But if this Answere of M. Parsons bee fraught with grosse vntrueths what faith shall any man giue vnto him First I named not Bellarmine in that place but spake in generall of the ordinarie practise of our Aduersaries in alleadging corrupt and counterfeit writers Secondly I called not the foresaid Authors either chiefe or principall as M. Parsons pretendeth And lastly in saying that Bellarmine nameth but the two first of the foresaid Writers viz. Clemens his Constitutions and Athanasius is a notable falshood for Bellarmine alleadgeth Eusebius Emissenus Iosephus Bengorion and S. Iames his Liturgie So that I know not what M. Parsons meant by his denying of this except happily he laid some wager of falsifying and meant to winne it Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning and Charge against his Aduersarie SEcondly it is an other manifest vntrueth to say that our Doctors do confesse all these Authors to be meerly counterfeit For albeit some of them be excepted against or called in question by some Writers whether they be the true workes of the Authors whose names they beare or not and thereof all reputed Apocryphall that is hidden or 〈◊〉 Yet it followeth not that they are meerely counterfeit for that they may bee ancient workes and not to be contemned though not of those Authors The Reueiwe 14. M. Parsons is so transported with passion that hee hath forgotten the last clause which I vsed concerning these Authors to wit that they are either forged or corrupted or Apocrypha and so Apocrypha as being sometime not Obscure onely but euen to be contemned Whereof in these and others I shall giue him such a taste before we end our Reckoning as may I thinke soone set his teeth on edge SECT VI. The last Charge 15. IF he shall furthermore marke said I how true Fathers and Scriptures are instanced in for proofe of the same Article whereof when I speake of Fathers most of them when I speake of Canonicall Scriptures all of them are found by the iudgement of their owne Doctors to be tortured wrested and
forced as it were to say that which they neuer meant c. Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning THis now whether it be not such a wilfull and witting Lie as before I described for a formall malicious Lie such as the Writer did know to bee a Lie when he wrote it I am content to remit my selfe vnto any iudicious and ciuill Protestant in the world For if our owne Catholicke Doctors doe finde this in their owne iudgement how doe they beleeue Purgatorie to be true Why doe they not change their opinion and become Protestants Can M. Morlon answere any thing vnto this lewde and wilfull absurditie and did he not know that he lied when he writ this The Reuiew 16. What meaneth our Quiet Reckoner to reuell so turbulently Will he needes falsifie his owne title The Assertion which I made and which hee calleth a Formall malicious Lie is put vnto the triall in the next Chapter where it will be auouched to be an obseruable iust and incontrollable trueth The reason which hee opposed I shall now confute in this Section and compell him to repent his loose tearmes by an instance which will manifestly discouer a Romish malladie 17. The Doctrine of Indulgences hath beene of late put into their Romane Creede in their Councell of Trent by the Bull of Pope Paulus the fourth This their Doctors will beleeue albeit they confesse concerning Indulgences that There is not found any expresse sentence either in Scriptures or in the writings of Ancient fathers and that in the beginning of the Primitiuc Church there was no vse of them nor yet did they come in vse vntill the feare of a fierie Purgatorie had brought them out Who while they pleade for Indulgences doe it in this maner viz. Indulgences are not therefore to be contemned because the vse of them seemeth to haue beene but of late in the Church for many things are knowne by posteritie which the ancient writers were ignorant of Which we take to be a kind of cracke in their cause especially seeing that for want of better light of Antiquitie they are glad to collect an Antiquitie of them from the Stations vsed anciently at Rome Now what were these Stations Their Onuphrius doeth tell you The word saith he commeth of Stando standing because the people in their solemne Conuents did stand For the ancient Bishops of Rome vpon some set dayes especially in Lent and Holydayes did goe vnto diuers Churches of Rome where a Sermon was made vnto the people there standing and saying Prayers they did afterward communicate with the Clergie and people of Rome in the Diuine Sacraments In all which there is no sent of Romish Indulgences 18. Againe we find them obserue that Pope Boniface the eight about the yeere 1300. was the first who extended Indulgences vnto Purgatorie Which is the Indulgence wherevpon we dispute Besides they tell vs that the inuisible spirituall Treasurie of the Merits of Holy men is the Foundation of Indulgences Notwithstanding Maironis and Durand two of your principall Schoolemen euen of later times Doubted of the truth of such a Treasurie And lastly that some whom they call Catholickes iudged no otherwise of these kinde of Indulgences then of Godly deceits Heere we see more then a glimpse of that light which we professe acknowledged by your owne Doctors I must hereupon make bolde to demaund of Mr. Parsons why their Doctors hauing so great an apparance of the noueltie of this Article did notwithstanding still yeelde vnto the practise of their Church When he shall answere this then may he easily satisfie himselfe concerning his last demaund Master PARSONS his Reckoning BEllarmine hath alleaged ten seuerall testimonies out of the Scriptures of the old Testament with the expositions of the auncient Fathers vpon them which are confessed by Procestants to be Canonicall excepting the Maccabees and Toby which were notwithstanding Canonicall in S. Augustines time by the third Councell of Carthage in which himselfe was present And out of the new Testament he alleageth fiue other places with the expositions in like manner of the Fathers vpon them that vnderstood them to meane of Purgatory And will our owne Doctors say that these fifteene places are all tortured and forced against their meaning and all the Fathers expositions violated against their owne iudgement If our Doctors will say so they must be M. Mortons Doctors and not ours The Reuiewe 19. It is a thing superfluous Actum agere This which I say of the principall places of Canonicall Scriptures wherein your Doctors doe most insist I haue proued also from the meere literal Expositions of your owne Doctors to be inforced beyond compasse and want not a supply of like Answers vnto other Scriptures which haue beene omitted But I shall not need to insist vpon places of Scripture the rather because I am not so greatly prouoked by M. Parsons heereunto who hath reserued his maine violence for the tryall of Fathers 20. Yet notwithstanding one confession of Bellarmine may not be so easily let passe which hath not beene mentioned in my Appeale to wit Cùm nusquam in Scripturis fiat mentio ignis vbi apertè de Purgatorio agitur nihil dubium est qum Cyprianus ad hunc locum respexerit That is Seeing that in no place of Scripture where Purgatory is plainely handled any mention is made of fire it is not to be doubted but that S. Cyprian had respect vnto this place of Scripture to wit 1. Cor. 3. where it is written He shall be saued as it were by fire Which is a sufficient confession that there is not in any place of Scripture any mention of fire wherein there is any plaine proofe of Purgatory except in these fore-cyted wordes of 1. Cor. 3. And can he say that this onely place is plaine for Purgatory fire By no meanes for Bellarmine confesseth hereof that ancient Expositors doe not agree in the interpretation of fire in this place Some vnderstand by fire the Tribulations of this life some the eternall torments some the fire of the last day and some the Purgatory fire How shall our aduersaries presume of any plain place of Scripture for proofe of Purgatory-fire seeing that this their onely plaine place is thus obscured and perplexed with foure different Interpretations CHAP. XI The earnest challenge which M Parsons hath made that I should disannull the allegations of the testimonies of those Fathers whom Iodocus Coccius hath cyted for proofe of the Romish Purgatory SECT 1. Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning COccius produceth vpon the point of threescore Authours within the compasse of the first sixe hundred yeares that confirme the common faith of that Church in those dayes to haue held Purgatory and 〈◊〉 for the dead for Catholike doctrine and for the practise also of praying for the soules departed TO WHAT END DO YOU SAY THIS M. PARSONS To the end that T. M may haue somewhat to
Parsons charge against me about the same matter 61. In the second part I am chargeable to answere Mast. Parsons who asketh that seeing Tolossanus said that Gregory the seuenth was the first who excommunicated and depriued an Emperour of his Regiment why I alleadged the word Depriued onely and left out Excommunicated I readily answered that it was because the question Satisfact 3. c. 11. was onely concerning Emperours and kings who had beene deposed from their gouernements by Popes and not who had been excommunicated And for so answering am called to a new Reckoning Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning YEa Sit thinke you to escape so and yet know that deposition of Princes is an effect of Excommunication and can neuer happen by Ecclesiasticall authoritie but where Excommunication is gone before The Reueiwe 62. Yes Sir I may lawfully answere So. For although Excommunication goe before deposition and Eradication yet was it lawfull for me to intreat of Deposition without mentioning any precedent Excommunication For if being asked how many theeues were hanged at Tiburne the last weeke I had truely answered fiue forthwith some captious Constable should quarrell with me saying Yea Sir dare you say so will you tell vs that any were hanged without mentioning that first they were condemned for condemnation goeth before execution Euen so childishly hath Mast. Parsons cauilled in earnest who still holdeth on his pace Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning AND I would aske M. Morton in good earnest out of his Diuinity when a Christian Prince is lawfully Excommunicated and shut out from all societie of Christian communion and he persist impenitent how can he be head of a Christian Common-wealth for so much as he is no member nor hath any place or part at all in the whole body the head-ship being the chiefe part of all others A Reuiew discouering the rebellious humour of Mr. Parsons 63. If Mastr Parsons had not asked me in earnest I might haue taken him to haue beene but in iest but now by this his serious demaund our Christian Reader will easily perceiue that he hath cast Diuinity in a new mould for a King by his doctrine cannot be Excommunicated but forthwith hee must as it were be be-headed and remoued from his Kingdom we now haue found out the whole portrayture of M. Parsons body by his finger which writeth and teachethth at A King persisting in Excommunication may bee no more a King among Christians No King or Queene or Prince or Counsellour or Iudge or Magistrate being excommunicate may by Mast. Parsons censure haue any communion among Christians but must be rooted out Behold our Romish Mitigator Behold our Sober Reckoner Doth not this smell strongly of fire and Gun-powder whensoeuer opportunity shal serue for the performance of such their exploits 64. But to answere directly to the question moued by M. Parsons not from his owne doubt but for his Readers delusion because otherwise hee could not be ignorant that their Arch-Priest M. Blackwell had answered that point to the full shewing first out of Soto from Medina that Excommunication is not a priuation of any proper good which the transgresser doth possesse but of the common good which he was to receme from the Church as namely the spirituall communion with them and the participation of Sacraments 65. Secondly he alleadgeth Ludouicus Richeome a Iesuite saying that Excommunication is not thundred against Princes that they should be remoued out of their Dominions or that the raines should be loosed vnto subiects or they be freed from the Oath of fidelity 66. Thirdly he adioyneth the testimony of Aquinas saying Aliud est Excommunicatio aliud Eradicatio Which saith M. Bl. is set down in the Canon law of an Epistle of Pope Vrbane thus Liquidò c. that is It doth plainely appeare that Excommunication is one thing and eradication is another for he which is excommunicate as the Apostle saith to this end is excommunicated that his soule may bee saued in the day of the Lord for Excommunication is a correction and no extirpation 67. Finally the holy Scripture speaking of the Excommunicate saith Let him be vnto thee as a Publicane and an Ethnicke I demand then was there no Magistracy acknowledged in Ethnickes by Christians in the dayes of the Emperour Iulian the Apostata or shall not Christian children or wiues acknowledge naturall duety vnto their Parents and husbands as vnto their Heads if they being excommunicate shall proue contumacious Grace doth not extinguish nature but perfect it And this may briefly serue for an Answere vnto your irrelegious and rebellious demaund which hath beene exactly confuted by your owne Doctors Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning ANd Tolossanus here alleadged by Mr. Morton produceth in another example both of Excommunication and of deposition aboue an hundred yeares before this of Frisingensis saying Anteà quidem Gregorius tertius c. Before this Gregory the third beeing made Pope vpon the yeare 759 did depriue Leo the third Emperour of Constantinople both of his Empire and the communion of Christians for that he had cast holy Images out of the Church and defaced them and held a wicked opinion against the blessed Trinity And that Tolossanus in this saith truth is testified also by Zonaras a Greeke Historiographer in the life of the said Emperour Leo Jsauricus The Reueiwe 68. Tolossanus in another booke reporteth this and Zonaras testifieth this Ergo by Mr. Parsons his consequence it must be True which argueth his owne inconsideration and rashnesse because first the matter is not so true but that their owne Barkley durst iudge it incredible and secondly their witnesse Zonaras seemeth to their Baronius to be so insufficient in reporting the behauiour of this Pope Gregory towards the Emperour Leo that he reiecteth him as a man Ignorant of the affaires of the Latine Church and one who in Malice against the Church of Rome doth obiect that the Pope was the cause of the rent of the Empire in the West Thus farre Card. Baronius which sheweth how little we are to regard M. Parsons his iudgement who respecteth not so much how rightly as how readily hee may shape vs an Answere And that Gregory the seuenth called Hildebrand was the first Pope who set the Emperours at such defiance it will now further appeare SECT XIIII An Inquiry into the iudgement of Espencaeus concerning the case of Pope Hildebrand 69. THE last point which is to be inquired into is whether the Authour Espencaeus did not accord vnto the same iudgement concerning Gregory the seuenth who to yeelde vnto M. Parsons computation was Pope about the yeare 1066. to thinke that he was the first Pope that did depose an Emperour The summe of Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning obiecting fraude vnto his Aduersary ESpencaeus heere is handled iniuriously and fraudulently for that these wordes against the Pope are not the wordes of Espencaeus himselfe but related of him
such as were not so vehemently pressed A briefe Recapitulation would make a cleare Reckoning for the accusations which you then vrged although falsly yet fiercely thus In the first This is said you a malicious lie of a lost conscience In the second thus Is not this persidious dealing and open treachery In the third He hath no conscience at all in cousening In the rest we heare of nothing but of Egregious abusing of testimonies of Many frauds in one quotation of Many false trickes of a craftie Minister of Rare singularity and the like scarse euer obserued in corrupting a text of Scripture of a manifest lie and cousenage and of Where is his syncerity in Christ Iesus of foolish treachery In the eleuenth How can the malicious lying Minister expect to be trusted hereafter In the next Consider how falsly and calumniously this Make-bate doth reason In the thirteenth Can any thing be morefraudulently alleaged In the last It is a fraud and impudency or rather impudent impietie will euer any Reader credit him hereafter These and other such like Emblemes and flowers of M. Parsons his Rheterique may giue our Reader a sent and sense of his extream Vehemency which is strong ranck Proue that I singled not out his weakest Obiections as hee falsly pretendeth and as scquel of this discourse will make more manifest SECT II. M. PARSONS his Reckoning and summe of his first charge FOr proofe that hersie may be without obstinacy he citeth in his margent Vasquez Iesuit whose words are Malitia huius peccati in intellectu non in voluntate perficitur that is The malice of the sinne of heresie is perfected in the vnderstanding Which our Minister vnderstanding not hath fondly slandered the learned man Vasquez by making him patronize his absurd doctrine whereas Vasquez doth expresly establish the contrary defining heresie to bee an errour in faith with obstinacie The Reuiew 3 I alleaged nothing out of Vasquez but his ownesentence viz. Malitia c. Heresie is consummated and perfected in the vnderstanding and knowing that the formall perfection of euery thing giveth the Denomination vnto the subiect I did inferre not as his for this indeed had beene an iniury but as mine owne consequence viz. that we may conclude of Heresie as it is an error in the minde without respect of Obstinacie which is a peruersnesse in the will Which libertie of arguing from an Aduersaries proposition against his conclusion is granted vnto any by the law of all schooles especially whensoeuer the proposition and conclusion may seeme to be repugnant As for example Bellarmine in defence of Transubstantiation saith that the counersion of the bread into the bodie of Christ is not wrought by production of the bodie of Christ out of the bread but by Adduction of the bodie vnto the bread Some Romish Authours apprehending this position of Adduction did plainely conclude against Bellermine his conclusion saying that so it shall not be a Transubstantiation but a Transtocation Playing vpon his Antecedent by their owne conscequence Thus much for my conscience 4 Concerning the cause I haue no way offended but in distinguishing of Heresie in respect of a double Court Poli fo rs that is of Inward before God and outward in respect of the Church And the whole controuersie then betweene vs being about the outward apparence of an Hereticke I hold in that respect Obstinacy to bee the propertie of an Heretike which is for the cause it selfe as much as any Romanist would require If therefore this first point haue in it as M. Parsons saith more difficultie than many others layd togither then may we prognosticate that M. Parsons will be in others manifoldly absurd for in this first he seeketh nothing but a knot in a rush SECT III. The summe of M. PARSONS second charge in Reckoning To make vs odious by seuere censuring of heretikes he bringeth out of Azorius this sentence If a man doubt of his faith willingly he is certainly an heretike but by our Ministers leaue Azor addeth more He that doubteth willingly and pertinacitèr that is obstinately he is thereby an heretike So we see the most substantiall word obstinately to be craftily conueyed away c. The Reuiew 5 M. Parsons knoweth right well that I needed not to omit this word pertinacitèr to make his Professors odious who multiplied other farre more odious positions than this such as were the accounting of euery one an obstinate heretike that maint eineth anything contrary to the Church of Rome together with their Bulla coena vpon Maundie-Thursday curssing and excommunicating all heretikes among whom they recken Protestants ioyntly with all their Fauorites or Commenders of their behauiors which for the odiousnesse of them he cunningly pretermittcd and yet noteth me of craft for the omission of pertinacitèr As though the defending of an vntrueth wittingly and willingly did not emphatically enough implie that it was done obstinately according to the saving of our Sauiour Christ in condemning the obstinacie of the lewes notwithstanding he did say no more but How ost would I haue gathered you c. but you would not Finally because I am willing to satisfie M. Parsons to the full if he be offended for want of pertinacitèr let him put in his Reckening pertinacissimè if he will it shall not displease me SECT IV. The summe of the third charge of M. PARSONS Reckoning THe case was whether a man comming from Couentrie which is held to be infected with the plague which the man himselfe dwelling in a part of the citie which is not infected and is asked at the gate of London whether he came from Couentrie the Keeper intending to aske him concerning a place infected whether he may answer No The Questioner saith he may M. Morton saith No and citeth Azorius as though he had said of this case Nihil tà m falsum c. where he saith that we may not feine words of our selues in an oath without circumstances c. But Azorius in his third Rule speaking of this case of a place thought to be infected and is not resolueth that such an answer is lawfull The Reuiew 6 M. Parsons can not denie but after that Azorius had propounded diuers obiections concerning Equiuocating clauses whereof that of this Case was one he doth applie vnto them two kinde of answers The first is a generall in the words that I did allege Nihil tà m falsum c. telling vs that We may not feine c. Wherein I then insisted and so much the rather because I saw there is the foundation of M. Parsons Defence of Equiuocation ouerthrowen where Azorius calleth it a lie for a man when he is demanded whether he haue any money and hauing it shall answer I haue it not reseruing in his minde to giue it vnto you which kinde of Equiuocation M. Parsons holdeth for a truth as you haue heard But let vs take the Resolution of Azorius as
by saying No-body meaning To tell it vnto you and S. Augustine his Firmus in these daies would be hissed out of their schooles for a simple and witlesse fellow euen as our AEquinocatours would if they had liued in these daies been driuen out of Christendome for gracelesse mont-bankes But heare what followeth 7 An other example Before he deliuereth this example he propoundeth a Conclusion which is principally to be obserued In the case of a man who is wrongfully questioned about a most secret fault If saith Sotus he cannot finde words whereby through an Equiuocation which is in the common vse of men he may couer his fault without a lie he ought rather to die than lie Still we finde that whatsoeuer the AEquiuocation be it ought to be such as consisteth in the common vse of the words themselues And therefore where the question is concerning a guilty person who killed Peter and is examined thereabout Whether he may answer I haue not killed him conceiuing in his minde another man of the same name Peter being one whom indeed he killed not Such an answer saith Sotus cannot be without a lie because according to the receiued vse of all men an affirmation and negation in proper names are so taken for the same man as if this onely had been therby signified viz. for that Peter of whom the question was asked How then shall their AEquiuocating Priest auoid the guilt of a lie who being asked whether he were a Priest Answered No meaning A Priest of Apollo the heathenish God And being demanded whether he were euer beyond the Sea answered No meaning the Adriatique Sea We see that heere also their Sotus meeth with their AEquiuocator to prooue him alier 8 The last example But what shall the guilty miserable woman doe when her husband shall constraine her by violence to confesse whether she had committed Adultrie or no and shee cannot finde any amphibologie to hide herselfe in I answere saith he That the iniquities of men are more than that wee can preuent them therefore in such a case it is better to die than to transgresse by lying This had beene but a fond Resolution if he had thought that Nescio vt dicam would haue serued the turne which to free the speech from a lie notwithstanding is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the profession and practise of our Equiuocators and whereby it is most easie to preuent all guiles of the most subtle Interrogatories In briefe in the shutting vp of this Treatise hee granteth that Words which haue not a true sense according to the signification which is receiued into common vse cannot bee excused from a lie Which conclusion with all these premisses I leaue as a Glasse vnto M. Parsons and other Professors of Mentall Equiuocation to looke their faces in and at their leasure to tell mee what they see From the Spanish Doctor Sotus hee goeth to a Flemmish Doctor Cunerus SECT II. The summe of the sixteeneth charge of M. PARSONS his Reckoning CVnerus is no lesse iniuriously alleaged than the former for Cunerus saying In religione concordiae sola est ratio vt omnes c. that is This in religion is the onely way of concord that all men with apious minde doe wholly conceiue and practise that which is taught in the Catholike Church of Rome Maister Morton translateth This is the onely true religion which is taught in the Church of Rome What dealing is this c. The Reuiew 9 Any man may perceiue what kind of fish M. Parsons is who can thus carpe at words peruersly concealing the plaine intention of the Author Cunerus hee intending to proue the Hollanders to be Rebels against the K. of Spaine who were not possibly to except concord except first they would consent in one Religion and that there is no true religion but that of the Church of Rome Whereunto saith Cunerus a Christian Prince is sworne to be a defender of the faith namely of that Romish and therefore he wil haue that King as Sara to cast out Agar and her sonne so to remoue out of Holland all of the contrarie profession of Religion If then he allowing no possibilitie of Concord without consent in religion and no Religion but that which is Romish doth he not euidently say that the Romish is the onely Religion I am vexed with M. Parsons his vanities and desire something materiall Peraduenture we shall finde it in the next instance SECT III. The seuenteenth charge M. PARSONS his Reckoning NOw we come to another abuse perteining to two menindifferently to wit Cassander a Germane Schoolmaster and Bellarmine a Cardinall but wee shall ascribe it rather to the Germane for this present for that we haue had diuerse examples about Cardinali Bellarmine before The Reuiew 10 Shal I attribute this omitting of my Abuse of Bellarmine vnto M. Parsons his remisnesse or rather to his barrennesse and indeed fondnesse who offereth to Reckon for an abuse of Bellarmine and yet will not tell what it is Wherein M. Parsons abuseth Bellarmine in my opinion bringing him vpon his stage to no other end than as Cato went into the Senate to carrie him out againe But what of Cassander I would heare first something of the man and then of the matter The summe of M. PARSONS his Reckoning Finding my selfe weary with prosecuting the labyrinth of his intricate iuggling trickes I will draw to an end adding only one example more in this place First to pretermit that he goeth about to deceiue his Reader by the opinion of grauity and learning in George Cassander of Bruges who was but a Grammarian in his daies and that hee was a Catholike who is consured for an Heretike primae classis in the Index of prohibited bookes and not onely for heresies of his time but also Quòd dicit Spiritum S. minus aduocandum adorandum esse c. The Review 11 It were good you knew how to make an end and better it had beene for you in your reputation that you had not begunne at all with this taxation of Cassander it is so notoriously shamelesse for I beseech you M. Parsons what great cause haue you to contemne a Grammarian how much lesse to say that Cassander was but a Grammarian As though hee had beene vnworthy of any better esteeme whom both the Emperor Ferdinand and Maximilian King of the Romanes sent for about the time of the Councell of Trent and made singular choise of him before any other Doctor with whom they might consult concerning the weightiest points of controuersie in Religion and in that respect was he commended by the Emperor for a man of singular learning and godlinesse and intituled Theologus that is a Diuine and by Maximilian hee was extolled for a man godly learned and discreet benè versatus in sacris literis that is One very conuersant in holy Scriptures of whom we haue need saith