Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
authority_n	law_n	power_n	resist_v	2,109	5	9.2401	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A07805	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	Morton, Thomas, 1564-1659.	1610 (1610)	STC 18183; ESTC S112913	342,598	466

in the next place corroborate it by the ingenuous and euident confession of their owne Doctors their Doctor Barclay writing against these kinde of positions and as one obserueth against this their Rossaeus aliàs Reinolds hath bestowed a whole booke vpon this argument prouing especially that A King although he be constituted by the people yet being once constituted he hath afterwards power to rule the people and not to be subiect vnto them Who saith Barclaius although he be vnworthy of his Kingdome in respect of the Maiesty of God vpon whom the Kingdome doth depend yet in respect of the subiects he is alwaies superiour as long as he is a King And againe he else where addeth that Kinges who are lawfully constituted albeit they fall to be cruell yet are they aboue all lawes and iudgments of man and cannot be hurt of any without publike miury and treason And answering vnto this argument of Boucher which is the same which Master Reinolds vrgeth to wit The Common-wealth which is the same as the people which made the King is superiour to the King and the publike authority doth remaine in them This reason saith he I haue proued many waies in many places to be lying and false His principall argument to confute it is that which their owne Marsilius hath lately vrged against Bellarmine If saith he there remaine a power in the people to depose Princes then Princes are no Princes but subiects Now let M. Parsons gather his fiue wits into one Senate and answere whether this confession doe not plainly discouer that the intendiment of M. Reinolds was to make a King a Subiect which is as sensible an abasement of a King as can be imagined 29. Although this may suffice both to represse M. Parsons his insolency who insulteth so deformedly vpon the former allegation and also to reproue my negligence who deferred this Answere and Discharge vntill the publishing of this Encounter yet will I not forbeare to inlarge my selfe in this argument and by a further answere vnto his next obiection to euince the foresaid vile estimate which M. Reinolds had concerning the State of Kings and all Temporall Estates Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning BVt what saith he for his owne defence Vpon this presumption if true saith he that Mr. Reinolds had spoken this to the debasement of Kinges it could be no falshood in me to adde the particle but especially being acquainted with the doctrine of Cardinal Bellarmine who that he might disable the authority of a King in comparison of the dignity of a Pope doth defend that Kinges being chosen by men are not immediately created by God and yet the Pope being elected by Cardinals bath his authority immediately from God Whereunto I answere that well he might say so for that Christ both God and Man did institute in particular and immediarely the supreme authority of S. Peter and his Successours when he gaue to him and by him to them the keyes of heauen but he instituted not the authority of Kings immediately but left by each people to be gouerned by what sort of gouernement they liked best albeit where that forme of gouernement or of any other as of Dukes Common-wealths or the like was once lawfully introduced he commaunded due obedience to be performed thereunto And although the Popes be chosen by Cardinals who are men yet is not their office power or authority chosen by or appointed by those men as in Kinges but immediately is of God so as this hole will not serue M. Mortons turne for his excuse The Reuiew 30. I say with our Sauiour Christ that the Foxes haue holes and so hath M. Parsons who hath taken an example from the instinct of nature in the Foxe for iustifying his Mentall Equiuocation whose difference betweene the Popes and Princes authority from God by Bellarmine his distinction of mediately and immediately hath beene proued of late by their owne Marsilius to be a meere sophisticall fallacy and indeed no better then a Fox-hole into which they doe creepe who seeke by such a distinction to diminish the Regall power in respect of the Papall I shall neede only to collect the summe of the confutation because I presume our Reader will not like too long Reckoning Nauarrus a most sound Catholike saith Marsilius houldeth that the power Laique is immediately from God infusing in people a naturall instinct to haue a gouernement And of Gouernements established The Apostle S. Paul saith Rom. 13. that the powers which be are of God Seeing also that the lay Prince can make lawes which doe binde his subiects consciences to obserue them therefore is their authority not of man but of God whereupon the Apostle addeth He that resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God and although the manner of obtayning a Kingdome be from man This proueth M. Rainolds contrary estimate of a King to haue beene but base yet the authority and power is immediately from God A similitude whereof we haue in the generation of euery man for although it be necessary that the bodily Organs instruments and other naturall dispositions be first perfected before the soule is infused yet will not any therefore deny that God doth immediately infuse the reasonable soule of a man into his body As for his illustrious Lordship meaning Cardinall Bellarmine he erreth first by not distinguishing betweene the Title of authority and the authority it selfe An euident conuiction both of Bellarmine and M. Rainolds For the title vnto an authority is not without the meanes of man but the authority it selfe is immediately from God as hath beene expressed by the former similitude Secondly he erreth in saying that all which dwellwithin the Princes territories are not immediately from God Subiects vnto him and yet all Christians are immediately subiect vnto the Pope for as the Prince is not a Prince without either right of his birth or by election c. So the Pope is not Pope but by the election of Cardinals Thirdly he erreth in saying that when the Prince dieth the authority remaineth in the common-wealth especially where as the succession is by election but when the Pope dieth the power Papall remayneth not in the Cardinals who are to make an election nor in the Church But the Doctors of the famous College of the Sorbonists in Paris doe defend the contrary Fourthly he erreth in making this difference betweene Prince and Pope to wit that the Title of the Prince is but mediately and the Title of the Pope is immediately from God if by the Title he vnderstand the manner of obtaining the authority he erreth for both the manner of the one and of the other are equally humane neither will the Conclauists themselues suffer me to be conuinced of a lye in this point Thus farre their owne Marsilius 31. As for Bellarmine his imagination who thinketh that in the vacancy of the See of Rome by the death of the Pope

not remouing him only at their pleasure Is this good dealing but the necessitie of his cause did constraine him to this shift because there was no other meanes to make this Friar and himselfe friends and professors of the same doctrine but only by abusing the sentence of Royard and making it not to be the same 19 His next guile and cunning is by inquiring into another Tome of Royard to finde out if he might some sentence to counterpoise the former which paines needed not if hee could haue shifted himselfe honestly of the former without notorious fraud But at length after much fishing all that hee hath catched is but this poore gudgeon A King saith Royard must not be obeied when he commandeth any thing contrary vnto godlinesse which saith M. Parsons is the controuersie which is his godlesse falsitie for looke the place in my Full Satisfact part 1. pag. 31. the controuersie there set downe was not whether people are bound to obey the vnlawfull command of their Kings but whether they haue power to depose them The Apostles being commanded not to preach the Gospell answered Whether it be better to obey God or man iudge you yet did they not teach the people to reiect such Commanders and to holde them for no Magistrates And Royard in this place now cited by M. Parsons insisteth in the fact of S. Ambrose who obeyed not the Emperor but reprehended him but yet did not Ambrose teachmen to depose him I would propound an argument to M. Parsons but I doubt he wil stumble vpon it and fal breake his forehead It should bee this If the Popeshould command him any thing which is directly against Gods commandement would M. Parsons obey him He would not for then he should make the Pope his God but in not obeying him would he seeke to depose him He would not for he hath taught that for wickednesse of maners the Pope may not be iudged by any Whereupon it followeth that these two viz. the not obeying and the deposing of Kings are not the same controuersies 20 Therefore may I easily allege against M. Parsons the saying which a Philosopher vsed against a fond Disputer Hic homo sinè controuersia doctus est This man without controuersie is very learned for in controuerting he sheweth no learning or very little To conclude M. Parsons hath shewed vs two singular knacks of leger-demaine the one is the wilfull peruerting of the testimonie of Royard changing a necessitie of not remouing the yoke into not remouing at their pleàsure which are two contrary senses the second by changing the state of the Controuersie to wit the Deposing of a Kings person into Disobeying the Kings vniust command We leaue the Friar and draw neere the Bishop The summe of the charge M. PARSONS his Reckoning He citeth Cunerus though brokenly testisying that it lieth not in the peoples hand to reiect their Prince at their pleasure But Cunerus saith nothing against vsbut against the Rebels of Flanders altogether for vs who notwithstanding this exact obedience which we require of subiects to their lawfull Princes hath aspeciall Chapter expresly proouing that in some causes the Common-wealth and the Church haue authority to restraine and remooue them What falshood is this to alleage Authority flatly against their meaning doth this become a Minister of simple truth is this for a man who so much abhorreth AEquiuocation So I said to M. Morton at that time when I expected he would returne some answer to my demand The like I doe repeat againe now and will attend what may come from him heereafter The Reuiew 21 I am sory that I haue beene so long in your debt and therefore now vpon the second sight of your Reckoning I hope to make all strait by an answer which will be I doubt lesse acceptable vnto you in giuing you to vnderstand that you are M. Parsons in this Reckoning a most vnconscionable person in imputing vnto me matter of falshood heerein For the doctrine which I there sought to refell was the opinion of your Iesuit Salmeron If a Catholike King saith Salmeron shall fall to be an Heretike or an Apostate reason willeth that among Catholike people he be remooued from the gouernment of the Common-wealth but why Because the power was first in the people then in the King and is deriued from the King to the people This reason I confuted by the testimonies out of your owne Doctors the first was Royard who said that the people had not any power to remooue the yoak the second testimony was out of Cunerus which standeth thus Some say that the authority of Princes dependeth vpon the courtesie of the people as thinking that they who gaue consent to choose a King haue power likewise to depose him But proouing this from Scriptures wheresoeuer a King is established by the consent of the Kingdome this ordinance is of God and the people must obey Which flatly contradicteth the former Conclusion of Salmeron And further than this I did not meddle with the opinion of Cunerus Therefore in this charge you haue plaied either the Equiuocator or the flat aposiopesis or both 22 Furthermore to satisfie your expectation to the full if I had stepped a degree further in alleaging Cunerus your owne Barckley would euen out of Cunerus haue iustified my Conclusion for he vnder standing by people All them who are associated together vnder one ciuill law in one common-wealth of what kinde age wisdome dignity soeuer they be doth prooue out of Cuncerus That the King hath not his authority onely from the consent and couenant made betweene the people and the King but from the ordinance of God and that he that resisteth this authority doth violate the constitution of God And out of his 7. Chapter That the Scripture euery where witnesseth that albeit Kings doe sinne yet may they not be resisted with armes or violence but are to be iudged of him who is greater than all Kings which is that wisdome and truth which crieth Heare ô Kings and vnderstand c. Which he illustrateth by an example of Ioas an idolatrous King of Iudah who most cruelly put the Prophet Zachary to death and was slaine by the hands of his owne seruants in his bed-chamber who after that fact were iustly slaine by Amaziah the King and next Successor vnto Ioas in the Kingdome of Iudah It will therefore stand M. Parsons vpon if he affect truth to compare this of Barckley and their Cunerus together and trie how he can reconcile either Barckley with Cunerus or else Cunerus with himselfe M. Parsons his next passage is vnto our Countriman Sayer SECT V. The summe of the nineteenth M. PARSONS his Reckoning OUt of Sayer he alleageth this sentence An obstinate Hereticke is he that is presumed to be as he that is manifest but Sayer speaketh not of heresie but onely of him who may be excommunicated by a

This were to reach the Pope a boxe on the eare Or as though Bellarmine did absolutely denie that Emperors had any right to gather Councels who saith that it cannot be denied but that In Concilys generalibus indicendis c. that is That the Emperor had some authority in appointing of generall Councels and that sometimes They were gathered by Emperors Or as though Bellarmine in denying that the Emperour hath chiefe power heerein might not be confuted by a Doctor of the same chaire Card. Cusanus confessing in expresse tearmes that The first eight generall Councels were gathered by Emperors but the Bishop of Rome like as did other Patriarks receiued the sacred command to wit of the Emperors to come vnto the Synods Thus doth M. Parsons his impotent calumniation vanish into a fancie which if he should spie in an other hee would call a phrensie M. PARSONS Reckoning Then where Bellarmine saith Omnes istae causae c. All these causes were changed he fraudulently cut off the particle istae These which includeth areference vnto these foure causes as though all causes and matters were now changed The Reuiew 19 If I would be as captious as M. Parsons vseth to be I could tell him he must goe to the schoole againe to learne to English Istae which signifieth Those and not These but I will not imitate him in trifling To the matter There were but foure causes which Bellarmine did or could note for the Change of the Popes Subiection and euery one of Those hee saith were changed doth he not therefore say that All causes were changed If M. Parsons shall say that his horse is lame of his foure feete and heare some by stander confirme it saying that indeed his horse is lame of All his feet hee would not I suppose thereupon call him a fraudulent fellow seeing that All the feet his horse hath are but foure for I will not imagine that Maister Parsons his horse is a monster I will now cease to insist any longer vpon these his foolish wranglings 20 The cause standeth thus wee see that Popes then anciently acknowledged Subiection vnto Kings in a maine point which is authority of Commanding a Councell to bee gathered but now as it is confessed the case is changed Then Christian Emperours were humbly intreated to lend their helpe now they are imperiously commanded Then they obeied them in Temporal affaires since they challenge authority to Depose them which as their Barckley maintaineth is contrary vnto the disposition the Doctrine of the Christian Church both in and long after Times of the Apostles From Bellarmine he holdeth it not amisse to passe to the Iesuit Salmeron SECT VIII The summe of the seuenth charge of M. PARSONS his Reckoning MAister Morton will needs shake Salmeron by the sleeue and shew him a tricke of his art telling vs that he allowed that the King was supreme in spirituall affaires and ordering Priests citing Salmeron for proofe heereof which is not ably false for Salmeron prooueth the quite contrarie The Reuiew 21 Heere I am constrained to shake M. Parsons by the sleeue and tell him in his eare that hee hath plaied me a feate of that art which he calleth not ably false by opposing vnto me the sentence of Salmeron concerning the authority of the Kings of the old Testament In spirituall affaires and againe in spirituall matters seeing that the title of that Question concerning the authoritie of Kings ouer Priests was in the very place now obiected expresly and noted only to be In ciuill causes and not in spirituall affaires Is not this indeed a notable falshood But he will still be like himselfe M. PARSONS Reckoning Summarily thus Whereas Salmeron said by supposition vbiid euenisset If it had happened that Kings had prescribed some things vnto Priests it had beene no maruell for so much as the Synagogue was earthly which supposition the Minister left out that he might more cunningly shift and auoid it The Reuiew 22 I will not contend with M. Parsons about the words vbi id euenisset to examine whether it signifie by way of supposition If it had happened or without supposition Whereas it had happened seeing it may indifferently carrie both senses The question is whether Salmeron whom M. Parsons commendeth for a learned man who hath writ many volumes and was one of the first tenne of the order of the Iesuits did suppose onely and not affirme that Kings in the old law had supreme authoritie ouer Priests or no Who can better decide this contention than Salmeron himselfe First looke to the same place and he saith in the words following Itaq cùm populus c. Seeing that the people of God doth consist of a bodie and of a soule the carnall part in the old Testament had the chiefdome and was so appointed for signification of spirituall things A little after speaking of the olde Testament The law saith hee is abolished and the subiection of Priests vnto Kings These termes exceed the degree of supposition 23 But howsoeuer Salmeron may seeme to reele and stagger in that place both by Supposing and by affirming by doubting and yet by concluding notwithstanding if M. Parsons had had a desire to know the resolute determinate iudgement of Salmernon in this point hee might haue easily vnderstood this expresse sentence of Salmeron Nunc omissâ c. That is Now omitting the spirituall power saith hee in the law of nature or in the law of Moses which was lesse in the old Testament than is the Regall and Kingly and therefore the high Priests were subiect vnto Kings as also among the Gentiles c. Let M. Parsons ponder this sentence and he shall finde that this his learned man Salmeron one of the first tenne of M. Parsons his order doth confute many score of Iesuits who since haue held the contrarie This also sheweth how absurdly ignorant M. Parsons is of the iudgement of Salmeron I am almost tired with his verbosities and verball skirmishes and therefore hauing obteined the cause I passe ouer his canuasse of the word Synagoga and the other of Populus Dei and proceed vnto the Materials CHAP. II. Conteining an Answer vnto other eight charges SECT I. The summe of the eight charge of M. PARSONS his Reckoning OUt of Salmeron and Carerius patched together he maketh this Romish pretence that the old Testament was a figure of the new in Christ that therfore the spiritual power as Popedome must be the cheife or substantiue c. and answereth calling this rather babish Grammar than sound Diuinity and saith that the earthly elements were figures of the spirituall and he auenly things in the eternall and celestiall Hierusalem Will he therefore conclude by sound Diuinity that it was not a figure of things vpon earth which should be fulfilled in the new Testament Was not Manna a figure of the Eucharist and Circumcision

care of religion which is according to the law of God to be both keeper and protector of the tables of the law of God by punishing of blasp hemous idolatrous and false Prophets in restoring religion vnto her ancient purity gouerning all kinde of persons within his Kingdom aswell Ecclesiasticall as Laicks yea euen vnto the deposing of a Priest vpon his demerit This is as plaine a profession and with as good Authority and from as worthy a pen as the State which made the Oath could performe 23 What say you now M. Parsons Will you as you said Accord vnto this Oath Then must you renounce the Breues of your Pope if you will not Accord then are you in these offers but wretched AEquiuocators And the rather because Pope Leo as your Car. Causanus obserueth submitted himselfe vnto all the punishments which were contained in the lawes of the Emperor Martianus Vpon which consideration the same Cardinall made bolde to complaine of after-Popes who haue degenerated from the humility of their Ancients In his next exception there is nothing but verbality that is a lauish trifling about words M. PARSONS his Reckoning These words Debes incunctantèr aduertere he translateth Thou may not be ignorant he should haue Englished it thus Thou ought resolut ely to consider The Reuiew 24. By M. Parsons his Grammar Incunctantèr is resolutely I thinke the Boies of his Colledge will correct this and tell him that Incunctantèr is without delay There is no reason wee should expect true Latine-Grammar of him who faileth so absurdly euen in his English Grammar for Resolutely to consider is a phrase I thinke which an English eare will hardly indure It had beene better thus To consider resolutely and yet this is absurd for our English is To resolue consideratly and not To consider resolutely because in this the cart draweth the horse 25 I am ashamed of these impertinencies whereunto I am constrained by Maister Parsons who delighteth so much in friuolousnesse that hee reprooueth mee for translating the word Praesidium Ecclesiae preseruation of the Church and must haue it forsooth Englished Defence of the Church as though defence were not preseruation and preseruation Defence It seemeth that M. Parsons meaneth to claime some kindred with that wise Asynonomist who once said that Pepper is hote in operation but cold in working and to shake hands with that miserable comforter who vsed no other reason to comfort a yong scholar that had beene expulsed out of the College than to tell him that he was but Expelled onely and not expulsed SECT VIII The fourteenth charge in the point of Equiuocation out of Sepulueda M. PARSONS Reckoning BUt what saith this Doctor Genesuis Sepulueda He will tell you saith Maister Morton that this sense of this text of Scripture which you conceale is not onely contrary to the sentence of all Fathers but also against all common sense And is this possible Will Sepulucda denie all those Fathers alleaged by me before for our interprotation to be Fathers Will hee say that their exposition is contrary to all common sense doth not Genesius himselfe in the very chapter here cited alleage both S. Hierom and S. Augustine for this interprotation and alloweth the same What shamelesse dealing then is this of our Minister to charge Genesius with such folly or impietie which hee neuer thought off For Genesius denieth not either the sense or interpretation of the place and much lesse saith That it is contrary to the sentence of the Fathers and least of all to commonsense but denieth onely the application thereof for use and practise to certaine cases wherein he admitteth not Equiuocation c. The Reuiew 26 The Text of Scripture is Mare 13. 32. Of that day and houre knoweth no man no not the some himselfe c. Sepulueda alloweth the interpretation which the Fathers giue hereof but not in the sense which the Equiuocators do vrge and therefore he admonisheth his Reader to take heed lest that vpon this interpretation there be brought in a doctrine of Equiuocation which in his former chapter hee did condemne for a lie as I haue prooued at large Therefore the falshood is of M. Parsons his part who will not distinguish the interpretation which Sepulueda admitteth from that Equiuocating sense which he abhorreth After this M. Parsons returneth to his word-bate M. PARSONS his Reckoning Secondly be maketh Sepulueda discredit the Fathers which he himselfe alleageth Englishing ancient Fathers for ancient Schoolemen and addeth consensum of his owne leauing out hominum to make it sound common sense The Reuiew 27 If there had been in M. Parsons any sense of common shamefastnesse he could not haue sayd that I made Sepulueda discredit the Fathers for Sepulueda said I wil tel you Equiuocators that the sense which you conceit is contrary to the sentence of Ancients Was this to discredit the Fathers nay was it not greatly for their credit to professe simplicitie and to condemne your Equiuocating subtletie And such like is his next Cauill for Sepulueda doth as expresly name these ancient Fathers Hierome Augustine Basil as well as he did the ancient Schoole Doctors CHAP. III. Conteining an Answer to the next fiue charges SECT I. The summe of the xv charge in the point of Equiuocation M. PARSONS Reckoning HEe quoteth Sotus but all is treacherie falshood and lying in this Impugner of Equiuocation for first by subtle Doctor all vnderstand Scotus and not Sotus The Reuiew 1 I Called your Sotus the subtle Doctour you say that this epithet belonged vnto Scotus I haue heard that two Gentlemen the one English the other Scotish met together the one sitting on the one side of the table and the other on the other side And when the English man asked Quid interest Scotum Sotum What therewas betweene a Scot and a Sot The Table quoth the Scot. There was wit in this But if we aske M. Parsons what oddes there is between their Scotus the Franciscan Frier and Sotus the Dominican hee will answer vs Subtletie Is not this a great piece of learning for M. Parsons to vaunt of And yet if we may beleeue Sotus euen Scotus also will condemne your maner of Equiuocating for a lie M. PARSONS his Reckoning summe of his charge in the point of Equiuocation He will neuer be able to shew out of Sotus that all Equiuocators are liars this assertion is an incredible impudencie because Sotus saith that in some cases it is lawfull to equiuocate as where hee teacheth a man that is asked vniustly to answer Nescio Qui iure intelligitur Nescio vt dicam aut Nescio eo modo quo iure debeam dicere c. This wrote I in my former booke and bauing conuinced so euident falsifications as heere haue been laid downe quite contrary to the meaning and sense of the Author alleaged I maruel

to the matter M. PARSONS his Reckoning The most notorious cousenages that he poruerteth all Cicero his meaning words sense and discourse in this matter alleaging them quite contrary to himselfe as before you haue heard him doe many other Authors so hee belieth and corrupteth them all both diuine and profane And if in this one point hee can deliuer himselfe from Punicafides I will say hee plaieth the man indeed The Reuiew 3 If I shall free my selfe from the note of cousenage then all that M. Parsons will allow mee in the conquest is onely the reputation of a man this is an excellent gamster hee will cast at me and aduenture nothing himselfe But good M. Parsons if you will say that I haue plaied the man when I haue freed my selfe from this slander of cousenage what will you giue mee leaue to call you if the cousenage shall fall vpon your selfe May I not thinke that you play the part not of man but of that animal the foxe which you propounded vnto your Equiuocators as a naturall example for their imitations Let the wager be but indifferent and I shall not refuse the Triall whereunto I proceed M. PARSONS his Reckoning First I say that if they sware absolutely to returne againe if they obteined not their sute they were bound truly and sincerely to performe the same And secondly that they being now iustly by law of armes prisoners of Hanniball they were bound to sweare sincerely to his intention and not to any other reserued meaning of their owne as in the former Chapter hath beene declared The Reuiew 4 Very good they were Prisoners by the law of armes and might not therefore violate their oath some of yours who haue beene prisoners by the law of the land according to the law of nature in cases of meere treason somtime notwithstanding their oathes vnto their keepers to bee true prisoners haue made vse of their heeles and after their escape haue found intertainment and securitie in the now Rome Neither may you answere that such men sware not absolutely but equiuocatingly for so you know did that faithlesse prisoner whom the Senate therefore sent backe againe in a vengeance vnto Haniball All this while we heare nothing of Mentall Reseruation M. PARSONS his Reckoning This very doctrine also teacheth Cicero by light of nature in these words perfidiously cut off and left out by this Minister in the very same place out of which he taketh the rest Est 〈◊〉 saith he ius etiam bellicum fidésque iurisiurandi saepe hosti seruanda quod enim ità iuratum est vt mens couciperet fieri oportere id seruandum est quod alitèr id si non feceris nulium periurium est There is also a law of armes saith he and a faith in our swearing to be obserued often times euen vnto our enemie For that which is so sworne by vs as our mind doth conceiue that it must be done this is to be obserued but if it be otherwise sworne that is no periurie if he performe it 〈◊〉 Beholde heere the very same distinction which Catholike Diuines put downe of swearing according to the intention and vnderstanding of the swearer or of him to whom it is sworne and that the former is that bindeth and maketh periurie if it be not performed and not alwaies the second to wit when any violence or force is vsed The Reuiew 5 Behold heere a strange and strong delusion M. Parsons collecteth from those words That which is sworne as our minde doth conceiue that it must be done that is to be obserued but if it be otherwise sworne that is no periurie if he performe it not that Cicero did vnderstand some reserued clause conceiued in the minde mixed with the outward speech to make vp one full proposition such as is their Priestly Equiuocation I am no Priest conceiuing inwardly with purpose to tell it vnto you which kinde of mixture neuer came vnto the fantasie of Cicero or yet of any heathen Writer But his meaning may be easily explaned thus That which is sworne as our minde conceiueth must be done that is when we sweare vnto any to whom wee conceiue that we owe faithfulnesse albeit they be euen our hostile enemies vnto whom as hee speaketh in the words immediatly going before there is a faithfulnesse due according by the common law of armes That oath is to be obserued and may not be broken but if wee sweare otherwise that is vnto them vnto whom wee thinke that there is no fidelitie due such as are Pirats that oath although it be not performed yet is it not periurie that is in the exterior Court of men because Pirats and such perfidious kinde of men of whom he speaketh in the next words who are transgressors of the law of Nations haue no authoritie to iudge it periurie 6 If this exposition concerning the outward Court of man do not satisfie M. Parsons I shall not refuse to ioyne issue vpon the inward Court of the minde and conscience And the proposition of Sin aliter in Tullie truely resolued standeth thus If I sweare any thing thinking in my minde that I ought not to do it this is no periurie although I shall not performe it If our Equiuocators will allow this proposition then must they say that no man can be periured in swearing any thing which he thinketh to be vnlawfull but this is incredible If they will condemne it then must they also condemne M. Parsons for a profane man who esteemeth of this impious doctrine as of a Catholike trueth especially seeing they can not finde their clause of Mentall reseruation in all this for when a man sweareth with his mouth saying This I will giue thee and in his minde shall conceiue yet I will not giue thee this because I ought not these are two diuerse and partly contradictorie propositions and make not a mixt proposition which is the only point that the Equiuocators do defend This will be more manifest by the example following Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning Which Cicero doth expresse in the very next immediat words by the selfe same example that Azor vsed before Si praedonibus pactum pro capite precium non attuleris nulla fraus est nè si iuratus id non feceris c. If thou should not pay the price or ransome vnto publike theeues which was agreed between you for sauing of your life it is no deceit no though you had sworne to performe it c. The Reuiew 7 Methinke I doe perceiue an c. there Yea M. Parsons can you play the gelder so openly to cut off the words which follow and are of so great importance to wit these Nam Pirata non est ex perduellium numero definitus sed communis hostis omnium cùm hoc nec fides esse debet nec iusiurandum commune That is For a Pirat is not to be reckoned in the number of enemies meaning such

Parsons saw but yet onely saw it and what maruell for guilty persons are not willing to come neare to the Rack The fourth Effect 25 This I noted to be the prophanation of an Oath the end whereof in thus described by the B. Apostle Heb. 6. 16. Men verily sweare by him that is greater meaning God and an Oath for confirmation is among them an end of Strife shewing that the consecrated End of an Oath is for such a Confirmation as may make an ende of Contention But the Manu-script Treatise Mentall all Equiuocation maintained that a party examined if he be vrged to sweare that which he ought not that then he may sweare but with a secret intention of Equiuocation and if he be further sweare without all Equiuocation he may sweare That he doth not Equiuocate by a third Equiuocation or Reseruation and so on often as he shall be asked the like question Here we see allowed Equiuocation vpon Equiuocation as it were Cogge vpon Cogge which doctrine once professed is so farre from making an End of Contention that indeed it maketh it endlesse because all men who are instructed in this Art being 〈◊〉 in their own Causes may by multiplying his Reseruations delude his hearer and leaue him in a perpetuall suspence and doubt that whatsoeuer the swearer protesteth in outward speech may through a Mentall Reseruation proue as deceitfull as was Iudas his All-haile M. Parsons answereth both to therelation of the testimonie and also to the Consequence taken from thence M. PARSONS his Mitigation I doubt not but T. M. hath egregiously abused both this and other places in the Catholike M. S. Treatise against which he writeth by setting downe cortaine palpable absurdities which it is impossible should be there as setteth them downe Which I must presume of vntill I finds contrary by viewing that Treatise it selfe which I shortly hope for The Reuiew 26 Marke good Reader and maruell with me at this mans wit he will seeme now to grant that it were a palpable absurdity and impossibilitic to teach a man sometime to sweare by multiplying Equiuocation vpon Equiuocation when he is vrged therunto and therefore will onely be thought to suspect that I haue abused M. Garnets Treatise by misreporting his direction which I alleadged most faithfully And for my iustification herein I appeale vnto M. Parsons himselfe in the same booke of Mitigation wherein a little before the end pag. 553. he confesseth saying And now at this very Instant commeth to my hands this Catholike Treatise it selfe of Equiuocation before mentioned So he And now that it is come to his hands doth he charge me with abuse of the Author by misciting the foresaid sentence no truely he doth not challenge me for any one falsification in relating of it or any other testimony out of that Treatise which may seeme not to need our Censure seeing the eyes euen of this great Proctor for Equiuocation can discerne in it palpable absurdities Thus much of the Relation of that sentence Now concerning the Consequence taken from thence M. PARSONS his Mitigation The end of an Oath which is to put an end of contention is not hindred by the vse of an Equiuocation when law permitteth the same The Reuiew 27 Law neuer permitteth any such guilefull Equiuocation in an Oath as was proued both out of their old Schoole by the testimony of Lombard but especially of Aquinas If a Iudge require any thing saith he which he cannot by order of Law the party accused is not bound to answer but either by Appeale or by some other maner of meanes may deliuer himselfe But in no case may he tell a lye or vse falshood nor any kind of craft or deceit c M. PARSONS his Mitigation This is plainly to be vnderstood when a Iudge is competent and proceedeth competently otherwise when he proceedeth not according to the forme of law c. And a little after And in this very place of S. Thomas Aquinas the said Doctors words are that if a Iudge though otherwise lawfull shall require any thing which by order of law he cannot the party accused is not bound to answer at all and much lesse directly to his meaning but may either by Appeale or by other meanes deliuer himself by euasion though he may not speake a lye So S. Thomas And what wise man doth not see that this maketh quite against Tho. Morton first if it be lawfull to the defendant not to answer at all euen to a lawfull competent Iudge when he proceedeth not according to forme of law then much lesse is he bound to answer or sweare directly to his intention in that Case but may vse any lawfull euasion by doubtfull speech or otherwise which is directly against our Aduersaries conclusion so little doth he discerne when he alleageth authorities flatly against himselfe The Reuiew 28 If this Answer of M. Parsons make not flatly against him then shall I thinke it no iniury that hee put me in his vile Reckoning of falshoods The Testimonie of Aquinas was produced to proue that although a man may refuse to sweare where he seeth great inconuenience yet whensoeuer he doth sweare yea although it be before an vnlawfull Magistrate proceeding vniustly against vs because in our Oath we are to respect rather God by whom wesweare then man vnto whom we sweare we are bound in conscience to auoyd that Equiuocating trick for feare of profaning his sacred name M. Parsons answereth in generall vnto this foresaid Testimony of T. Aquinas and the sentences of some others that we are chargeable to auoyd subtlety in swearing when the lawfull Iudge proceedeth competently that is lawfully when as indeed the very words of Thomas as both I alleadged them and as M. Parsons himselfe doth relate them stand thus If a Iudge though otherwise lawfull shall require any thing which he cannot by order of law then c. That which is not done by order of law is not done as euery one knoweth competently as M. Parsons answereth but incompetently 29 Secondly for my better warrant I had the confession of their owne Genesius Sepulueda who speaking of the same testimony of Aquinas speaking professedly against their Equiuocators maner of Equiuocating saith Coula Thomas more plainly deny their opinion who teach that a guilty person may 〈◊〉 a truo accusation by Art of words M. Parsons resolueth contrarily If a Iudge proceed not lawfully in exacting an oath then he that sweareth may sweare to his own and not to the intention of the Iudge We may now perceiue that M. Parsons hath answered Thomas so aduersly as if he ment to haue slowen in his face I hasten to the last Effect The last Effect 30 If my Reader require a more full satisfaction in this question of Mentall Equiuocation he shall need but to consult with some former Sections of this Encounter in the first booke cap. 4. there is the hunting out of this Fox

their Barkley in lib. 3. cont Monarchom cap. 2. I let passe diuers such particular persons and chuse rather to obserue his want of dutie or els of abilitie in answering for his headfather the Pope M. PARSONS his notable Omissiens in forsaking the necessarie defence of Popes §. IV. 18 The Oration of Pope Xistus Quintus is famous for commending Iacob Clemens who was the murtherer of Henry 3. King of France and for that cause was that Pope propounded as the Patron and indeed paterne of all rebellious Doctors Which doctrine was likewise obiected to the Moderate Answerer but he very moderatly forbare euen to taste or touch it After him M. Parsons the Mitigator beheld the vgly spectacle and swallowed this whole Camell Now at length he commeth in with a new Reckoning but doth not reckon for this his grandfathers debt Boucher also was brought in by Barkley lib. 6. contr Monarchom c. 28. pag. 536. commending the act and reioycing thereat whom the foresaid Barkley doth therefore condemne pag. 535. 539. of treason for patronizing that fact and by doctrine perswading men thereunto 19 There came in also a Canonist who reported the periurie of Pope Gregory 12. whom M. Parsons suffered to die in debt neuer opening his mouth to free him either à toto or à tanto After this the Bull of Pope Paulus 3. against Hen. 8. and another of Pius Quintus against Q. Elizabeth were heard bellowing out a Fulnesse of Apostolicall authoritie for the rooting out of Nations and of Kingdomes according vnto that of Hier. 1. Behold I haue appointed thee ouer Nations to root them vp and to destroy them Which Papall exposition of that text was an impudent glosing M. Parsons can say nothing but that it was spoken by allusion vnto that text of Ieremy which poore ragge can not possibly couer so great a shame for the text of Ieremy was expresly cited in their Bulles for confirmation of their authority by way of interpretation accordingly as their Carerius lib. 1. depotestate Papae had done But it was confuted by the true and proper expositions of Lyra who said that the Prophet Ieremie did not destroy but only denounce they should be destroyed By S. Gregorie who noteth not destruction by fighting but only by preaching But especially by S. Bernard lib. 2. de Consid. ad Eugen. reprouing the Pope for the abuse of this place by turning the spirituall and ministertall rooting out of sinners into a Temporall dominion Heere M. Parsons imitated the AEgyptian dogs Lambunt fugiunt they vsed to lap a little at the riuer Nilus and forth with to run away and all for feare of a Crocodile So heere the Mitigatour tooke a bite but spying Lyra Gregorie and Bernard make against the Popes and perceiuing that his Answer of Allusion was but an Illusion he speedily tooke his course another way 20 For further demonstration of the noueltie and impietie of the Papall claime in temporall affaires for the refusing of Emperours and deposing of Kings from their Soueraignty there was produced the example of Christ who thought his temporall Dominion superfluous for him as Bellarmine confessed then the example of the Apostles who were subiect vnto Heathenish Emperours after that the examples of All Christians for the first two hundred yeares who albeit sometime they had equall force yet they professed subiection vnto temporall Magistrates whereby the doctrine of Christians became glorious as Tolossanus confessed And vnto these were added the answerable Testimonies of Tertullian Cyprian Nazian Athanas. Ambrose Basil Gregory Heere the maine question of Allegeance was handled and prooued from Antiquity heere if euer the Pope did need his helpe But such was the desperatenesse of the cause that M. Parsons would not come off not with so much as a bare-faced groat in part of paiment Finally their Sanders intruded himselfe ' auouching the Donation of Constantine wherin all the kingdomes of the Western world were said to haue beene conferred by the Empetour Constantine vpon Pope Syluester Anno. 300. and vnto him Carerius assented and all for the magnifying of the Papall iurisdiction in temporall things Which other of their Doctors did thus far confute as to grant that The most ancient Histories Authors of best credit and such as did purposely record the Acts of Constantine did not make mention of that Donation So Canus loc Theol. lib. 1. cap. 5. Which Pope Pius Secundus did count to be a counterfeit Donation so Balbus lib. de Coronat seeing that Pope Boniface 9. Anno. 1400. was the first that challenged the Donation of the City of Rome saith the same Balbus Adde we heereunto how Carerius pretended that the Emperor must necessarily haue the Popes Confirmation which dealing their Lupoldus and Balbus both Bishops did prooue to be most false I supposed if his ability had been answerable to his charity he would not haue suffered Iesuits Priests and Popes to languish vnder these Arrests yet all this while we heare not of our friend the Moderate Answerer Will M. Parsons neglect him also The Omissions of M. Parsons in neglecting his peculiar Client the Moderate Answerer leauing him in the conuiction of many foule errours and slanders §. V. 21 This Moderate Answerer is the man that writ against the booke of Discouery of Romish Positions and Practises of rebellion whom therefore M. Parsons hath particularly commended for one who acquitted himselfe learnedly So that this man might seeme to haue a peculiar interest in M. Parsons his partonage Shall we now trie how he is often left in the lurch to shift for himselfe I may not insist in all points yet some few I may not omit 22 The Moderate Answerer answered for his Catholikes in generall that they taught not A power simply ouer Kings in temporall affaires which was prooued to be a singular falshood out of their Bozius and especially out of Carerius who challenged the Common consent of Canonists and Diuines to the contrary He vnder the names of two or three Authors pretended that their Doctors Defended not violent deposing of Kings who are in their opinion Heretikes which is a most prodigall vntruth and so prooued to be by the testimonies of their Moderne Doctors such as were Rainolds Parsons Alen Coster Bellarmine and others He propounded a Canon teaching that No Clerks may take armes neither by their owne nor by the Popes authority as though any such Canon were now in force which was prooued to be a loose ouerlashing by their Rainolds Alan and by Sanders He in the name of all Romanists did teach that they Allow Magistrates who are Protestants to be as competent Iudges in all temporall causes in as ample maner as if they were of their owne Religion before whom iudging according vnto law they may not equiuocate Wherein he was contradicted by Rainolds who absolutely denied that Protestants haue

any authority ouer them and by Cardinall Allen and M. Parsons who taught that Priests may equiuocate before them because they be Tyrants In these the Answerer needed M. Parsons his helpe but it would not be belike he iudged that the Answerer for modcrating of matters had erred immoderatly 23 Furthermore he was directly noted to haue slandered an Author as though he had taught Subiects to fight against their Kings and was confuted by the words of the Author himselfe There followed his slanders against Caluin and Bezu and confoted from the confessions of them both He pursued Beza yet more extremly to make him guilty of the death of the Duke of Guize suborning Pultrot to kill him wherein he was confuted by the testimony of their owne Historian He obiected a Conuenticle held at Cabellion wherein he said it was decreed by Protestants that All the families of ancient houses and all ciuil gouernment should be taken out of the World where he was charged to shew his Authour or else to confesse his slander These foure grosse slanders are so many debts the debter Non est soluendo had nothing to pay therefore M. Parsons was loath to meddle with him for the discharge of his Reckoning 24 He staid not here but fell afresh vpon Luther making him say that Among Christians there is no Magistrate no Superiour which wicked falshood was expressely controlled by the contrary doctrine of Luther out of his Tom. 1. in Gen. c. 9. where he condemneth the Pope and his Clergy for shaking off the yoake of temporall gouernment But not contented with this he imposeth againe vpon Luther the cause of the losse of Belgrade and Rhodes by the hands of the Turke his entrance vpon Hungary together with the death of King Lodouick and Buda conquered citing for proofe thereof Munster and Pantaleon which points were examined his allegations were prooued falsifications and the cause of the ruine of Hungary and of Bohemia the 〈◊〉 of Rhodes together with a thousand such Euils was attributed vnto the Couetousnesse of the Pope of Rome by their owne Historians 25 Lastly he maketh Luther to be of the same opinion and practise of Rebellion with Muntzer which was proued to be an vgly falshood by their owne Authour Peter Frarer who confessed that Luther writ against that Muntzer and his Complices and exhorted all Christians to persecute those rebellious ones vnto death Could there be any fouler slanders than these or more plainly discouered Notwithstanding this Moderate Answerer hath behaued himselfe thus yet hath he been said by M. Parsons to haue acquitted himselfe learnedly But what shall I say but like Patron like Client Thus much for Omissions An Answer vnto M. PARSONS eight Chapter concerning the L. Coke §. VI. 26 M. Parsons directeth his eight chapter of his Reckoning only vnto my Lord Coke concerning the Municipall lawes of England which Argument he himselfe did before prosecute vnder the name os a Catholike Diuine wherein he seemeth to be so conuersant as if he had turned his Diuinitie into humane Policie yet peraduenture so vnskilfully that the verse of Nauita de ventis c. may be inuerted vpon him thus Nauita de terris de ventis narrat arator After a long intermission as he calleth it of his affaires by interlacing a Treatise against the Lord Coke whereunto he expecteth no Answer from me hee calleth againe vpon me in his next Chapter An Answer vnto M. PARSONS his ninth Chapter concerning the Fresh lies as helyingly calleth them and recapitulateth §. VII The summe of M. PARSONS his Reckoning IN this ninth chapter is layed together another choice number of new and fresh vntrueths of later date in the last Replie of M. Morton and albeit those that are to be touched in this chapter haue been for the most part handled and discussed before yet thaet they may be more effectually represented vnto the eye and memorie of the Reader by putting the principall of them together in a rancke c. The Reuiew 27 At the sirst reading of this inscription of a new chapter of new and fresh lies I thought that M. Parsons would haue brought in some new charges which haue not hitherto been mentioned but by his next words telling vs that These for the most part haue been handled before I do perceiue that his fresh criminations are stale and smell rancke both of 〈◊〉 by intituling twelue leaues New and fresh lies and also of plaine falshood by saying that they haue been handled but only for the most part for I see none at all now alleged which he hath not alreadie handled in his former Reckoning but yet with vnwashed hands and heart as my Answer hath particularly disclosed And now I make bold to call M. Parsons to a summary account of his owne charges A briefe Recapitulation of the manifolde frauds and falsities of M. PARSONS which haue been discouered in this Reckoning 28 Vpon the sight of his repetition of falshoods which he hath vntruly imputed vnto me I haue been prouoked to requite his iniurious dealing with a summarie recognition and recapitulation of the principall vntrueths which I haue truely layed vnto his charge and haue alreadie handled which now I need not touch but only point at according to the marginall Notes of this Encounter 29 The first booke cap. 2. one falshood cap. 4. another cap. 6. two cap 7. two cap. 8. two cap 10. foure cap. 12. fifteen and then many other in one and after that eleuen more cap. 13. six cap. 14. also eleuen Then in the second booke cap. 1. many in one and againe three more cap. 2. seuen cap. 3. foure cap. 4. two cap. 5. diuers in obiecting heapes offalshoods besides his manifold guiles and frauds and ridiculous vanities wherewith almost euery page is bespangled which might make vp as many moe notes of insinceritie if I would but vse M. Parsons his art of Reckoning But the former kinde which haue been pointed at being both so many and so manifest vntrueths may ferue for M. Parsons his conuiction for I may well spare the confession of their owne Priest who notifieth M. Parsons how prone he is to forge and falsifie CHAP. VIII Conteining an Answer vnto M. Parsons his tenth chapter §. I. M. PARSONS his Reckoning THe tenth and last Chapter conteineth his new challenges protestations and vaunts wherein hee hath inwrapped himselfe in the bands of further absurdities The Reuiew 1 THe particulars of this last part of your Reckoning are not of any such nature that they may require any large Discourse I will therefore be briefe taking them as I finde them distinguished into matters which more specially concerne me and your selfe First of the first The summe of M. PARSONS his Reckoning He protesteth for his owne sinceritie and diligence in reuiewing his books yet is forced to confesse in his owne defence sometime that he did not see the Authour