The encounter against M. Parsons, by a revievv of his last sober reckoning, and his exceptions vrged in the treatise of his mitigation. Wherein moreouer is inserted: 1. A confession of some Romanists, both concerning the particular falsifications of principall Romanists, as namely, Bellarmine, Suarez, and others: as also concerning the generall fraude of that curch, in corrupting of authors. 2. A confutation of slaunders, which Bellarmine vrged against Protestants. 3. A performance of the challenge, which Mr. Parsons made, for the examining of sixtie Fathers, cited by Coccius for proofe of Purgatorie ... 4. A censure of a late pamphlet, intituled, The patterne of a Protestant, by one once termed the moderate answerer. 5. An handling of his question of mentall equiuocation (after his boldnesse with the L. Cooke) vpon occasion of the most memorable, and feyned Yorkeshire case of equiuocating; and of his raging against D. Kings sermon. Published by authoritie

SECT. I.

First in generall.

1. MAst. Parsons his falsitie a 1.1 was the imputing vn∣to me an acknowledgement of the Vniuersall use of Mentall Equiuocation in the space of foure hundred yeares.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

FIrst, I said no more in my Treatise, then that Mr. Morton had mani∣festly set downe, that for these last 400. yeares he graunted the law∣fulnes * 1.2 of Equiuocation to haue bin taught in our Schools. And con∣sult (saith he) with the auncient Logicians from the beginning of the world, till within the compasse os these last 400. yeares, and lesse, that euer any Logician did allow your mixt proposition, partly mentall, and partly verball, and I will &c. Out of which exception, for these last 400 yeares, it is euidently deduced, that he granteth the vse of such mixt propositions (which are properly Equiuocations) whereof the one part is vttered, the other reserued in mind, as before hath beene declated. And thereof I inferred further by euident consequence, and sequell of reason (though he specified not the same) that for so much as our Catholicke Schooles were then ouer all Christendome, and none publikely knowne or in vse but they, (for those three hundred, or at least these foure) it must needs follow that the same doctrine, during that time, was generally receiued in the said Schooles, Vniuersities, &c.

The Reuiew.

2. Here is new Logique, which Mast. Parsons hath sent vs from Rome ouer the Alpes, to wit, Mentall Equiuocation was not vsed before the last 400. yeares, Ergo, In the last 400. yeares * 1.3 it was vsed Uniuersally in all Uniuersities, Chaires, Schooles; by al Diuines, Casuists, &c. This he calleth an cuident deducement; he should rather haue said an impotent Seducement, for so it is; and all one as to reason thus: the Moone was not this yeare in the Eclipse, before the last moneth, Ergo, it was in the Eclipse euery week, euery day, & euery houre of the last mo∣neth, which is most ridiculous. Ex nihilo nihil fit (M. Parsons) none can euer deduce an affirmatiue conclusion from a nega∣tiue proposition, be then ashamed of your Euidence. And so may you be likewise of your next shift, in telling vs that you did not seeme to perswade your Reader b 1.4 Expresly and by name that I graunted the generall vse of Mentall Aequiuoca∣tion in All Schooles, Chaires, Vniuersities, Tribunals, and the like, for these 400. yeares, but onely by Consequence. For what can be more expresly assumed than was this, where you said,

c 1.5 Seeing it hath beene admitted (say you) so long time in Chri∣stendome,

as our aduersaries doe confesse, and that it hath beene receiued so vniuersally and generally both by Prelates and peo∣ple: and if it haue beene so publikely taught by all learned men, and contradicted by none,

(This was an Antecedent, and not a consequence, for that followeth in the next words:) it ought to be a great argument to discreete men, that it hath some ground of truth? Neyther is it sufficient to inferre a matter by Conse∣quence, for the diuell made a consequence when hee said, d 1.6 If thou be the Sonne of God, cast thy selfe downe: but this was a lying consequence. And what froath, rather then force M. Par∣sons consequence hath, I haue already shewed. In the next place we are to discusse the Authours, who seeme to except a∣gainst M. Parsons his arte of Aequiuocating.

Notes

• a 1.1

  Preamb. p. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 2. & Mitigat. pag. 279. & 281. & 284.
• * 1.2

  Reckon. cap. 4. §. 11. pag. 265.
• * 1.3

  M. Parsons hath lost his logicke
• b 1.4

  Reckon ibid. pag 266.
• c 1.5

  Mitig. p. 284.
• d 1.6

  Matth. 4.