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.

15 Often haue I distinguished betweene M. Parsons his Verball, and Mentall Equiuocation, the first is when the words themselues cary in them a double sence, according to the vse of speech; as that saying of Christ (obiected by M. n 1.1 Parsons) wherein he said vnto the Iewes, o 1.2 Dissolue you this Temple, speaking of his body, and I will raise it vp againe in three daies: the ambiguity lieth in the double sence of these words, Dissolue this Temple, which might signifie either the

ruinating of the materiall Temple, out of which Christ cast the money-changers, and so the Iewes vnderstood it; or els Christs owne body, metaphorically called a Temple, because the p 1.3 Deity dwelt in it bodily, and naturally; which was said to be dissolued, because death is a dissolution: and so Christ meant it: which albeit it was not vnderstood of the hearers, yet was it vnderstandible and intelligible; First because the phrase of calling a body a Temple, and of death a Dissolution, was familiar vnto the religious of those times, which there∣fore we find to be so ordinarily vsed in q 1.4 Scripture: insomuch that their Iusuit r 1.5 Maldonate saith that Christ, in saying, Dis∣solue this Temple, vsedwords which agreed better vnto an hu∣maine body, than vnto the fabricke of the other temple, becanse * 1.6 to dissolue and to raise againe are more agreeable to the body, when the bond of the Soule of man is burst in sunder, &c. Yea Christ his body (saith s 1.7 Iansenius) was more properly a Temple, because the temple was but a figure of his body. And they might haue vnderstood him, if they would, (saith their Cardinall t 1.8 To∣let) because when he said, This Temple, (and not the Temple of God) it is certaine that by the gesture of his hand he did demon∣strate his owne body: words are better determinated by outward gestures and signes, than by Scripture. So he. And there is reason for it, for if they could not haue vnderstood it, then had not their Accusation against Christ beene a slaunder, when they laid this saying against him, thus; u 1.9 This man said, I can destroy the Temple of God, and buildit vp in three daies; For the which these (because of their peruerse sence) are called false witnesses. But the Mentall Equiuocation may haue such a sequestred and reserued a meaning, as by no cir∣cumstance of speech can be made intelligible, as this: I am no Priest, meaning, Who can be vnknowne to God. This is that kinde of Mentall Reseruation and euasion which M. Parsons alloweth, concerning which he professeth that it may not be vsed in matters of faith, & yet pretendeth to euince it from Scripture, which is the Rule of our Faith; and from the spee∣ches of Christ, the Author of our Faith; and sometimes in such sentences, which concerne Articles of Faith, as in that:

x 1.10 He that obserueth my word, shall neuer see death, and such like.

16 And here I appeale vnto the indifferencie of any iudici∣ous Reader, to iudge, whether M. Parsons be not guiltie of the folly and impiety, which I had laid vnto his charge, by the force of this distinction, of a sence Implied in speeches, & a sence ab∣solutely Reserued in the minde: the first kinde I graunt to be, if he will, more then a thousand times vsed in Scripture; but the se∣cond of his maner of Reserued could neuer finde any Iota in all Scripture, to countenance so vile a deuice. Which although I haue confuted by many Reasons, yet now I will aduenture to turne his owne weapon vpon him. First thus:

17 If the Reseruation, which he defendeth, be not to be pious∣ly and lawfully vsed in matters of faith, then was it an impietie in him, to ground the truth of that doctrin vpō sentences of Scrip∣ture, which concerne the doctrine of faith. Secondly thus:

18 If I should passe through all the Articles of our Creed, to search such kind of Reseruations, as M. Parsons did in the spce∣ches of Christ, as namely thus, first I, meaning I, a man, & not a woman, 2. Beleeue, meaning truly, and not fainedly; 3. in God, meaning the God of Christians, & not the Idoll of the Pagans; 4. the Father, meaning, by adoption, and not by naturall gene∣ration; 5. Almighty, meaning, that can doe whatsoeuer he will, not that will doe whatsoeuer he can; 6. maker of heauen, and earth, meaning, with his word, & not with any hands: so might I passe throughout euery Article of our Christian Creed, to col∣lect from euery ioynt, & word therof, all such like vnexpressed meanings, as M. Parsons did from the speeches of Christ.

19 Here I may argue thus: If all such sentences, which ac∣cording to the custome and vse imply meanings, which are not expressed, do exemplifie and proue the Romish Mentall Equi∣uocation, then is there a Mentall Reseruation in euery Article of our Faith; and so it is vnp ossible but to Equiuocate mentally in the Confession of our Faith. But if these implied sences do differ from the Romish reserued sence, then was it both wicked & ab∣surd, to seeke to draw that exorbitant and inapprehensible do∣ctrine of Equiuocating, from such sentences of Scripture which are no more Equiuocall, then be the doctrines of our Faith.

20 The second Case is in the examination concerning their

Priesthood, where the Priest being asked, Whether he be a Priest, is licensed to answer, according to their daily practize, saying; I am no Priest, with this Reseruation, as purposing to tell it you. Now then, knowing that they hold ordination of Priesthood to be a Sacrament, which impresseth in the soule an indelible Cha∣racter, & which herein (as they say) excelleth al other Sacraments, in that it aduanceth a Priest a degree aboue all other Christians; the end whereof they make a reall Offering vp of Christ as a Sa∣crifice for the quicke and the dead; I y 1.11 tooke vpon me to argue, in effect, thus: Seeing euery Christian will hold it to be an impi∣etie to Equioucate in denying his Baptisme, therefore may hee iudge it likewise a wickednes for a Priest to Equiuocate in de∣nying his Priest-dome. Vnto which I expected an Answer of M. Parsons; but only expected it. From Cases we passe to Effects.

Notes

• n 1.1

  Mitig. p. 347
• o 1.2

  Ioh. 2. 19.
• p 1.3

  Cal. 2.
• q 1.4

  See 1. Cor. 3. 16. & 6. & 2. Cor. 6. 16. Pbil. 323.
• r 1.5

  Maidon 〈◊〉〈◊〉 this place.
• * 1.6

  2. Tim. 4. 6. & 2. Cor. 5. 1.
• s 1.7

  Iansen. Con∣cord. vpon the place.
• t 1.8

  Tolet vpon the place.
• u 1.9

  Matth. 26.
• x 1.10

  See aboue, cap. 10.
• y 1.11

  Full Satisfact. part. 3. pag. 92.