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. III.

The Contradictory aunsweres of Romish writers, about the Epistle of Epiphanius, against Images.

17. THe matter m 1.1 is, whether Epiphanius did not con∣demne the worship of Images? Their contradi∣ctory aunsweres are many and memorable.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

IT is to be noted, as before, that whatsoeuer difference of opinions * 1.2 there be, or may be among Catholicke Writers of Controuersie, a∣bout the true meaning of Saint Epiphanius in this place, yet is it no∣thing at all to Mr. Mortons purpose, who is bound to proue that they wrote against their owne knowledge and conscience, which I suppose were hard to do, for that euery man must haue bin presumed to haue written according as his iudgement gaue him, and consequently that all this, which M. Morton hath so studiously gathered together, is nihi' ad rhom bum, nothing to the purpose: and therfore 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 my selfe (saith he) vnto him, by a faithfull protestation; which I beleeue, yea if it were 5000. in a weekes warning.

The Reuiew.

18. It is well, that your Church is so richly fraught with such Contradictions, which if they seeme not vnto you very ougly, why did you conceale them?

The Epistle of a 1.3 Epipha∣nius

is obiected by Protestants, wherein hee is said to haue seene hanging in Church an Image, as it were of Christ, or of some Saint, and to haue taken and rent it, as being an a∣buse contrary vnto the authority of holy Scriptures. Will you see what tripping and skipping your Authours make, to free themselues from this obiection? One thus; b 1.4 Epipha∣nius did it in a zeale, but not according to knowledge, all for feare of the errour of the Anthropomorphites, who sought to haue an Image of God; but it is confuted by c 1.5 Vasquez, as being repugnant vnto the text, which nameth the Image of a man. A second thus: d 1.6 It was the Image of no Saint, but of a prophane man. But the text saith, As it were of Christ, or of some Saint: and therefore this aunswere is reiected by e 1.7 Bellarmine, as lesse common and true. A f 1.8 third is displea∣sed with Epiphanius, and therefore censureth the fact to be er∣roneous: but g 1.9 Vasquez, vpon another conceite, saith, that Epiphanius did well in renting the picture. A h 1.10 fourth sort be∣take themselues vnto this refuge, saying that The wordes of that Epistle of Epiphanius are counterfeit: but the cause, why they were glad to make this shift, is made plaine by their Vasquez, i 1.11 They, being oppressed (saith he) with the difficulty of the obiection, returned this Answere. But what if it be not a counterfeit Epistle? Now commeth their Iesuite Valentia in the last rancke, saying, k 1.12 Yet we aunswere that the Church is of greater authority then Epiphanius. Very good: but E∣piphanius condemned the vse of Images,

as being contrary vnto Scripture, which he spake according to the iudgement of the Church of his time.

19. These so many, so contradictory and so violent An∣sweres, so really confuting one another, for the auoyding of but one obiection, what can they possibly bewray, but distor∣ted wits, especialy seeing that it may be presumed of the most, that they were driuen thereunto by force, as men oppressed (as some are said to haue beene) with the difficulty of the O bie∣ction?

20. Notwithstanding, M. Parsons denieth not, but plain∣ly confesseth, that fiue thousand such like instances of their

contradictorie Answeres may be collected out of the Romish Writers in a weeke: and these kinde of contradictions seeme to him to be a matter to be laughed at. Can there bee any Sobriety in such a Laughter? or could he haue more preiudi∣ced * 1.13 the Romish profession? For if our Aduersaries in satisfy∣ing of the Arguments of Protestants, in points of this nature, be thus inforced to thwart and contradict one another, what can more bewray the desperatenesse of their cause? Now fol∣loweth the last contradiction about this Question.

Whether part of the Epistle of Epiphanius were counterfeit?

21

* 1.14 Bellarmine, Valentia, Suarez, among other Reasons, to proue it was fictitious, do vse these two; one is because, that l 1.15 Of the Epistle of Epiphanius vnto Iohn Bishop of Hieru∣salem, being almost wholly translated by S. Hierome in his E∣pistle to Pamachius, hath not in it that part, Cum venissem Anablatha, concerning that Image. This Answere was con∣futed by their m 1.16 Vasquez, who sheweth this Reason to bee Infirme.

22.

An other answer is n 1.17 vsed from Senensis, to wit, o 1.18 Because Damascene said that that Epistle was counterfeit. Which is a meere falsitie, and so acknowledged by your Vasquez, she∣wing that p 1.19 Damascene spoke not of the Epistle of Epiphani∣us, written vnto Iohn of Hierusalem (which conteyneth the History of the Image) but of the Epistle which Epiphanius writ vnto Theodosius.

Where we still see, that their great Doctors haue committed two notablevntruths, to proue one, * 1.20 viz. The Historie of the Image to be counterfeit. Now let vs see how M. Parsons will reckon hereabout.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

I Wish the Reader, that whereas Card. Bellarmine is here calumniated * 1.21 about Epiphanius Epistle, translated by S. Hierome for denying the last clause thereof to be his, he repaire, for the solution thereof, vnto Card. Baronius, who mere largely detecteth the fraude, then is expedi∣ent * 1.22 for me at this present to relate; especially for so much as I am to

passe to other particular calumniations against Card. Bellarmine, in his very next Example or instance.

The Reuiewe.

23. Whither hasten you so fast, M. Parsons? Let vs haue one word more, I pray you, before wee end this Reckoning: Tell me but with what reason you said, that I haue calumnia∣ted Bellarmine? That which I obiected was the testimony of * 1.23 your owne Iesuite Vasquez, who bestoweth a particular Chapter, in confuting the Obiections which are vsed by Ro∣mish Authours, for proofe that that part of the Epistle of Epi∣phanius was supposititious and counterfeit; promising to q 1.24 Shew Singulas rationes, &c. That is, That all the Reasons, which some Doctors of late doe vse, for the disabling of that E∣pistle, are infirme, and of no validity. Thus we still see Roma∣nists * 1.25 contradicted by themselues; Card. Bellarmine his debt doth hang still on the score vndischarged; and so doth Mast. Parsons his calumnious and vniust dealing, in obiecting ca∣lumniation against me.

Notes

• m 1.1

  Pream. p. 59.
• * 1.2

  Reckon. p. 159.
• a 1.3

  Epiphan. Epist ad Ioh, 〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉
• b 1.4

  Waldens. Tom. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Tit. 19. cap. 157.
• c 1.5

  Lib. 2. de Ado∣rat. disp. 5. c. 3.
• d 1.6

  Vasq. ibid. c 4.
• e 1.7

  L. 2. de triumph Eccles. cap. 9.
• f 1.8

  Alphons. de Castro Haeres. Tit. Jmago.
• g 1.9

  Quo 〈◊〉〈◊〉
• h 1.10

  Alanus, & San∣derus, vt refert Vasq. quo suprà & 〈◊〉〈◊〉 En∣chirid. Cap. 13.
• i 1.11

  Vasquez quo suprà, cap. 4.
• k 1.12

  Valent. Ies.
• * 1.13

  Admirable 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of contradictions confessed by M. Parsons, to be amongst their Doctors.
• * 1.14

  Pream. pa. 60.
• l 1.15

  Bellar. l. 2. de Eccies. triumph. ca. 9.
• m 1.16

  Vasquez Ies. l. 2 de Adorat. disp. 5. c. 3. p. 244
• n 1.17

  Pream pa. 61.
• o 1.18

  Senens. bibl. l. 5. Annot. 247.
• p 1.19

  Vasquez. quo suprà. p. 241.
• * 1.20

  Two notable vntruths.
• * 1.21

  Reckon. p. 148.
• * 1.22

  Tom. 4. Ano. 392 fine.
• * 1.23

  M. Parsons fro∣ward Calum∣niation.
• q 1.24

  Vasq Ies. l 2. de Adorat. 〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉
• * 1.25

  M. Parsons vn∣iust Calumnia∣tion.