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 Review.

16 No maruell though you thinke this, or any other thing, inexcusable, that passeth from mee, whilest as you * 1.1 looke vpon it thorow your wonted spectacles of rancor and despight, otherwise you could not haue been so grossy ouer∣seene, as to thinke me heerin reprehensible at all, much lesse inexcusable: thereby bew raving our incredible malice, as by comparing the Authors sentences will be most cleere and euident.

17 d 1.2 Bellarmine his assertion was this: King Ozias, for exercising the Priestly office, was depriued of his kingdome. So he. This assertion e 1.3 Barckley called False and contrary to the direct historie of the Bible, and ancient Interpreters, because it * 1.4 is manifest (saith hee) that Ozias died a King, and that his sonne, during his leprosie, was only Rector. Againe, Bellarmine from the same example of Ozias, collected that f 1.5 The high Priest had power to depriue the King of his kingdome. Contra∣riwise Barckley saith, that g 1.6 It is most false to say that Ozias was depriued of his kingdome by the high Priest; saying and prouing, that it is either great indiscretion, or els impudencie, to affirme it, because it is confuted by most euident Scripture. Can there be a greater contradiction betweene East and West, true and false, than there is betweene East and West, true and false, than there is betweene these two opini∣ons of Bellarmine and Barckley?

18 Notwithstanding, in M. Parsons his seeming, Barckley, his oddes is not so great. And why, I pray you, M. Par∣sons? h 1.7 Because Barckley doth acknowledge a maner of right in the Church ouer Kings. What a wilfull intoxication is this? We speake of the power coactiue of deposing of Kings, which

Barkley denieth to be iustifiable: M. Parsons opposeth Barkleis confession of a spirituall power of excommunicati∣on. Nay, I say yet more: Barkley was so far from agreeing with Bellarmine in this point, that he writ a large Chapter a∣gainst him by name, to confute his many rebellious positi∣ons made against the authority of Kings; and among others he doth particularly answer this his obiection concerning Oziah, i 1.8 I haue shewen (saith he) that this is most false. And now I leaue this fraud of M. Parsons to be named by him∣selfe, presuming that he that he that called my true Allegation Inex∣cusable, will not want a proper Epithet best befitting his owne guiltinesse.

Notes

• * 1.1

  M. Parsons his mahcious falshood.
• d 1.2

  Full Satisfact. part. 3. pag. 4.
• e 1.3

  Ib. pag. 5.
• * 1.4

  Bellarmine ful∣ly confuted by Barkley.
• f 1.5

  Bellar. lib. 5. de Pout. ca. 5.
• g 1.6

  Barcl. lib. 5. contrà Monar∣cho. cap. 11.
• h 1.7

  Barc. ib. lib. 3. cap. 15.
• i 1.8

  Barcla. de po∣testate papae. c. 37.