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. XIIII.

The fourteenth Charge.

65. THe crimination, which Mr. Parsons vrged against me was this: m 1.1 His wordes (saith he) are these:

Pope Hil∣debrand (saith our Chronographer) was excommunicate of the Bishops of Italy, for that he had defamed the Apostolique Sea with Simony, and other capitall crimes; and then cyteth for proofe hereof, Lambertus Schaffnaburg. Anno 1077. As if this our Chronographer had related this as a thing of truth, and not rather as slanderous obiection, cast out by his Aduersaries, that followed the part of Henry the Emperour.

The discharge.

66. My discharge n 1.2 was taken from the wordes of Shaff∣naburgensis, Which are these: After that the fame had gone thorowut Italy, that K. Henry had set foote within the coasts, All the Bishops of Italy did flocke vnto him, congratulating his

comming, because he came with a resolute courage to depose the Pope (to wit, Gregory 7.) Afterward he sheweth their reasons: That they feared not the Popes excommunication, whom all the Bishops of Italy for iust cause had excommunicated, who had by violence obteyned the Sea Apostolike by Symoniac all heresie, had defiled the same by murthers and adulteries, and other capitall crimes.

67. Thus the Bishops of Italy (by the testimony of Shaff∣naburgensis) behaued themselues against Hildebrand, and this was the onely matter, which I proposed as worthy of proofe:

for as I then said, o 1.3 The point now in question is, whether this Author Lambertus Schaffnaburg. did thinke that those Bishops of Italy had condemned this Pope Gregory (for whe∣ther they did it iustly or vniustly, is the second question) for such crimes, or no? I haue affirmed that Schaffnaburg. was of this opinion: but P. R. denyeth it, calling my assertion impudent impiety. Let vs be iudged by the euidence of the Authour himselfe.

Which is a plaine conuiction of M. Par∣sons his slanderous dealing, who now strugleth to free him∣selfe from this blot, but (alas!) as a bird in the lime, to his fur∣ther intanglement.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

WHereunto I answere, that this is not the point in question, * 1.4 whether Lambertus did thinke, that they had excommuni∣cated him, or no? Neyther did we euer ioyne issue there∣vpon, as doth appeare in my charge before set downe: though Lamber∣tus is not found any where to affirme that they did excommunicate him, but onely relateth that some of his enemies in their fury, rage, and passion did obiect such things against him: but the true question is, whether Lambertus supposing such a thing had beene done, were of o∣pinion, that it was iustly or iniustly, rightly or wrongfully done, for o∣therwise he should impertinently be brought in for the condemnation of Pope Gregory: for so much as if he had beene wrongfully and iniuri∣ously so condemned, it would haue beene more for his praise, as by the examples of S. Athanas. S. Chrysoft. and other holy men so condemned by multitudes of eyther bad, or deceiued Bishops, may appeare.

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 * 1.5 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 * 1.6 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.

M. PARSONS his Reckoning.

BVt he mentioneth All the Bishops of Italy; the word, A l, is frandu∣lently * 1.7 vrged by him, as you will see. so that scarcely hee dealeth sincerely in any thing:

The Reueiwe.

71. If I haue not dealt sincerely in this word All, then will I confesse that I haue beene guilty of insincere dealing in all the rest: I hope M. Parsons will be so good, as to acquite mee in his charge following.

M. PARSONS his Reckoning.

ALbeit these wordes be in Lambertus, Certalim ad cum omnes Italiae * 1.8 Episcopi & Comites confluebant, All Bishoppes and Earles of Italy did flocke vnto him yet that they were certaine Italian Bishops and Eatles that dwelt about the Alpes, is euident by the narration it selfe: for the very next precedent wordes, left out by M. Morton, are, Superatis asper. rupib. iam intra Italiae fines consistere, certatim ad cum omnes Italiae Episcopi. After that it was vnderstood that the Emperour had ouer∣come the high rockes, and was within the borders of Italy, all the Italian Bishops and Earles flocked vnto 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 Ecclesiasticall Communion And a little after setting downe the clause of suspension, especially of Clergie men, to haue beene of them whom Pope Gregory had forbid marriage, to wit, some of Lombardie about the Alpes: and though Lambert call them Ita∣liae Episcopos, that is, the Bishops of Italy, yet doth he not meane all the Bishops of Italy.

The Reuiew.

72. I grant that the word Al vseth to be taken in Authors in a double signification, to wit, eyther betokening a Generality, that is, All for the most part; or an Vniuersality, that is, euery

one, as euery scholler knoweth. M. Parsons will perswade his Reader, that I vsed and vrged the word All in the larger ex∣tent: now if this may be euidently prooued to be M. Parsons both aduerse and peruerse exception against me, I suppose our Reader hereby will discerne, that if his charity and his truth be put in true ballances, they will weigh both alike, iust * 1.9 nothing at all. For I was so farre from arguing from the word All, either vniuersally, or generally, that in reasoning from that testimony I left out the word, All, and said indefi∣nitely, The Bishops of Italy. And this M. Parsons himselfe was not ignorant off, who reporteth my wordes in his Mitiga∣tion, thus, p 1.10 Gregory was excommunicate by the Bishops of Italy: And (although I could not, in repeating the testimony of Lambert, but sometimes vse his word, All,) yet in my infe∣rence 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 vpon Lam∣bert, by restraining the wordes, All the Bishops of Italy, vnto * 1.11 the Clergie men, who were married, as though all the Bishops of Italy, there spoken of, had beene married, is his owne false and fabulous figment. The case stood much alike, as if our future Historiographers, in setting downe the story of the first comming of our dread Soueraigne King Iames into En∣gland, should say thus: And when that his Maiesty was arri∣ued at Barwicke, and after approached towardes Newarke vp∣on Trent, the Nobles of the land went to meete him for to con∣gratulate his, and, in him, their owne ioy. I thinke that the Rea∣der would hould it to be a fond comment to collect hereup∣on, that by Nobles of the land, were therefore meant only the Northeren Lordes, because the meeting spoken off was be∣yond Trent. I am almost weary with pursuing M. Parsons, he is so extrauagant, but yet I may not giue him ouer, for then I know he would insult in his slanderous vaine, as followeth.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

Mr. Morton corrupteth the Text of Lambert, by putting in Quia, for, * 1.12 Qui, and saying that the Bishops of Italy did excommunicate the Pope [Quia] because he had defiled the Apostolike See by Simo∣ny and other crimes, (as though that had beene a cause) in stead of Qui, that is, who had defiled the Apostolike See.

The Reuiew.

74. What a lustfull appetite hath M. Parsons to slander his aduersaries? For if I should say that the Iudges of England doe condemne Romish Priests [Qui] that is, Who are found * 1.13 guilty of treason, hath it any other sense then this; The Iudges of England doe condemne Romish Priests, [Quia] that is, Be∣cause they are guilty of treason? And that it is so in Lambert, I desire no other euidence then the very wordes of the Author himselfe, where he saith that the Pope expostulating the mat∣ter, said that the Emperour and his fauourites had accused him of attayning vnto the Sea Apostolike, by Simonicall heresie, and defiled his life with other crimes. Now then whether Simony and other crimes were obiected for a, Quia, and cause of ex∣communicating him, let any Reader iudge; and consequent∣ly whether M. Parsons his charge of corruption, proceeded not from his owne corrupt affection. Howsoeuer, this I dare say, that the alteration of Quià was not voluntary, but acci∣dental, euen as contrarily it happened vnto the Latin Romish translation in Matth. 6. v. 5. Qui amant, for, Quià amant: as their owne Iesuit q 1.14 Maldonate doth confesse.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

Mr. Morton alleageth Abbas Urspergensis as writing that Gregory * 1.15 was an vsurper of the See, and intruded by fraude, &c. but urspergensis related that such words were vttered, against Pope Gregory, by the enimies of the Pope, by the commaundement of Henry in a forme of a Councel or Synode of thirty Bishops of Brixia: but that urspergensis did affirme any thing of it or approue the same, is not

found, but rather the quite contrary: for in the very same place and page, he sheweth how these thinges were contradicted by Anselmus Bi∣shop of Luca then liuing, a man (saith he) most excellent, learned, and fearing God, &c. So Urspergensis.

The Reueiwe.

75. What estimate Urspergensis had of the Papall claime, especially ouer Kinges, M. Parsons his owne conscience can tell, who hath r 1.16 called Vrspergensis a Schismaticall writer, be∣cause of his opposition against the Popes vsurped iurisdiction at that time, euen as now he likewise iudgeth these thirty Bi∣shops to haue beene Schismaticall, which condemned Pope Gregory the seauenth for his like vsurpation. Whether there∣fore Vrspergensis meant to yeeld rather vnto the Decree of those thirty Bishops, or vnto the single testimony of Ansel∣mus, I remit it vnto M. Parsons his second consideration to iudge off, after that he hath obserued that, which followeth a little after in the same Authour Vrspergensis, where he wri∣teth concerning Rodulph Duke of Burgundy (s 1.17 whome Pope Gregory the seauenth, as Sigebert writeth, caused to proclaime himselfe Emperour, and to take armes against the Emperour Henry the fourth) that the same Rodulph in a battaile against the true Emperour, hauing his right hand cut off, and looking * 1.18 vpon it, spake vnto 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 leaue both the Kingdome and this present life; see you vnto it, who haue made me ascend vnto his throne, whether you haue ledde me the right way, who haue followed your admonitions. Afterwardes he telleth vs of the Emperours go∣ing to Rome, and of the Romans yeelding vnto him, and abdi∣cating Pope Gregory, because he refused to appeare before the Emperour: and in the end, In a Synode at Mentz all the re∣bellious Bishops were iudged to be deposed. How will M. Par∣sons like this?

M. PARSONS his Reckoning.

HE telleth vs that Seuerinus Binius confesseth, that Bishops in a * 1.19 Councell at Wormes declared Gregory the seauenth to be depo∣sed; and an other at Papia to haue excommunicated him, and an other at Brixia to haue deposed him. How can M Morton cite Binius contrary to his owne iudgement, who calleth these Councels Concilia∣bula, that is, factious and schismaticall conspiracies?

The Reueiwe.

76. I cited Binius, but not contrary to his meaning: This is M. Parsons deceitfulnesse:

for in the margent I expressed * 1.20 his meaning to the full in these wordes, Although Binius (said t 1.21 I) called these Councels Conciliabula;

that which was to be euicted from Binius, was his acknowledgment that such and so many Assemblies of Bishops (which carried the gene∣rall name of Councels) had condemned Pope Gregory. As for the censure of Binius, a late Romish Doctor of this pre∣sent age, and a professed Proctor and Aduocate for that See, it ought to carry no more waight in this cause, then may the censure which Doctor u 1.22 Stapleton vseth against the Councell of Basill, when he calleth it Conciliabulum Schismaticum, ac∣cording vnto our Aduersaries guise of reiecting all other Councels, as oft as they conclude any thing against the pre∣tended authority of the Pope. As for the authority of the foure Councels against Pope Gregory, we may be better dire∣cted by Sigebert and Benno, and other Historiographers, who liued in or about those times of Gregory, and iustified those Councels.

Notes

• m 1.1

  Mitig. ca 6. n. 37. pag. 215.
• n 1.2

  Preamb. p 120 Lambert{us} Scass∣naburg. hist. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 An. 1077. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 sin.
• o 1.3

  Preamb p. 120.
• * 1.4

  Reckon. cap. 5. pag. 376.
• * 1.5

  His meere quarrelling.
• * 1.6

  Dan. 6.
• * 1.7

  Reck. pag 374.
• * 1.8

  Reck. pag. 374.
• * 1.9

  M. Parsons mi∣serable fraude and falsity.
• p 1.10

  Mitigat. p. 215.
• * 1.11

  His fabulous figment.
• * 1.12

  Reck. pag. 378.
• * 1.13

  M. Parsons lust∣full appetite to wrangle.
• q 1.14

  Maldonat. Ies. vpon the Text.
• * 1.15

  Reck. pag. 384.
• r 1.16

  Mitigat. cap. 2. num 46. pag. 80.
• s 1.17

  Vrsperg. quo suprà.
• * 1.18

  A memorable exāple of trea∣sonable pra∣ctise by Bi∣shops.
• * 1.19

  Reck. pag. 385.
• * 1.20

  His deceitfull opposition.
• t 1.21

  Preamb. p. 121.
• u 1.22

  Stapleton Doctr. princip. lib. 13. cap. 15. pag. 547.