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

The Reuiew.

68. Doth M. Parsons know what he saith? hath not a Rea∣der liberty to iustifie any thing by the actes of men, testified * 1.1 by an Historian, albeit the same Historian doe in his iudge∣ment condemne them? We reade of certaine Princes who accused Daniel, for transgressing the Kings commandement, in praying thrise a day vnto God, and not onely vnto King Darius (according as the King had inioyned:) had it not been lawfull for the godly Iewes of those times, to haue col∣lected * 1.2 from the report of those Princes, concerning Dani∣el, that he was a deuout man, in praying vnto God? Would M. Parsons, if he had liued in those dayes, haue said that this obseruation had beene deceitfull, because the enemies of Da∣niel, who were the Reporters, disliked that acte of Daniel, and did therefore accuse him to the King?

69. M. Parsons himselfe is pleased sometimes to make vse of the relations of M. Foxe, and Holinshed, when they record any matter, which may serue his purpose, neuer regarding whether they that report such things do also reproue them. But of all other men, the late Romish Apologists are they, with whom this kind of practise is most frequent and familiar, who repeat many testimonies of Authours fauouring your cause, but out of the relation of Protestant Writers; notwithstan∣diug the same Protestants in the same places, doe expresly re∣prooue and refute the alleaged Testimonies. Wherefore if M. Parsons will make good this part of his Reckoning, then must he allow vs a new Index Expurg. for the cancelling of the principall arguments of their late Catholique Apology.

70. When will M. Parsons vaine veine of cauelling bee spent, that we may come vnto the point? which is, whether the Bishops of Italy did oppose themsclues against Pope Gre∣gory the seuenth, as hath beene said, for (by your leaue M. Par∣sons) this was the issue; for the argument which I vsed in con∣futation of your rebellious doctrine, was taken from the au∣thority of the Italian Bishops (according to the confession of

your Historian Lambert Schaffnaburg.) withstanding the Popes rebellious practise; and not vpon the opinion of the Reporter, in censuring the opposition of those Bishoppes.

Notes

• * 1.1

  His meere quarrelling.
• * 1.2

  Dan. 6.