Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	authority_n	king_n	kingdom_n	1,417	5	5.6187	4	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

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

that we be subiect lest that any might not performe this in loue but as of cōstraint he addeth Not for feare of wrath but for conscience sake that is not dissemblingly but dutifully in good conscience in loue of him that is God who commandeth subiection as in another place he commandeth seruants to obey their iniurious Masters but not with eye-seruice as onely pleasing men but as pleasing God If this kinde of subiection was challenged of Christians vnder Paganish Kings and heathenish Masters how could you but giue cause of iealousie vnto our kingdome by that your Title which will promise no more but that It is not impossible to liue in subiection In the end for want of better demonstration of your good intention in that Title you run to a similitude Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning ALthough this It is not Impossible doe containe but in generalitie yet doth it suppose all necessarie conditions that are to be required for performance As for example If a Noble woman should resolue to depart from her husband saying it is impossible for me and you to liue together the difference of our natures and conditions being considered and that her husband should answere againe It is not impossible doth he not aunswere sufficiently and to the pur pose For he vnderstandeth the other circumstances included If you beare your selfe like a wife haue respect to both our honours and the like The Reuciwe manifesting the absurditie of Master PARSONS his Similitude 4. Whereas the question is how a subiect should manifest the trueth of his loyaltie vnto his King Mr. Parsons giueth vs a Similitude how an Husband who is the Lord shall make faith of his behauiour vnto his wife who is the subiect This is an absurd elusion rather then an illustration changing the case by altering the Sex For an husband hath a libertie to make his equall conditions and the terme of possibilitie may become him but it is otherwise with a wife who standeth in the obligation of subiection to her husband 5. I propounded vnto Mr. Parsons a contrary similitude to wit If a wife to mitigate her husbands ielousie occasioned by her loose behauiour should seeke to satissie him by saying be cōtented good husband it is not impossible for me to become an honest woman hereafter whether her husband wold take this for a iust Mitigation This any one may know to be an agreeable and proportionable Similitude which Mr. Parsons hath not aunswered vnto but concealed that he might more liberally which by his leaue is a peece of fine craft call my assertion vaine and impertinent as followeth Mr. PARSONOS Reckoning VAine therefore is the cauillation of Mr. Morton saying that there is nothing else prooued but a possioilitie The Reueiwe 6. These words It is not impossible by true equipollency doe they signifie any more but It is possible and so è contra As for example he that should commend Mr. Parsons saying It is not impossible for him to write moderately saith no more according to the rule of equipollency but It is possible for him to write moderately I wish that Mr. Parsons had looked better to his booke of Modals before that he had made me this rawe Reckoning We now come to SECT II. The first Argument of the Impossibility of due subiection The charge against Mr. PARSONS 7. HE said that Christ together with the commission in spirituall affaires gaue vnto Peters successors a charge and ouersight of temporalities in like manner with authoritie to proceede against temporall Gouernours for defence and preseruation of his spirituall charge whether directly as commonly Canonists teach or indirectly as Diuines hold there is no difference but in the manner of speech for in the thing it selfe both parties doe agree Heere is an aduancing of a power in temporall affaires ouer a King which I thought could no more possibly consist with the Ciuill Oath of Allegeance in our land whereby all forraine Iurisdiction in such cases is excluded then can temporall Supremacie and no Supremacie Mr. PARSONS Reckoning for his discharge WHereto I aunswere that in beliefe and Doctrine they cannot be reconciled but in ciuill life and conuersation and practise of due temporall obedience they may be no lesse for any thing touching this point then if they were al of one Religion if such Make-bates as these would cease to set Sedition The Reueiwe 8. I haue written nothing for mouing but for remouing of Sedition which the Title of your Mitigation did but onely palliate and cloake as now in your aunswere you further bewray They may agree say you although not in Doctrine yet in conuersation If I shall replie and say that you will not agree with vs in the Doctrine concerning Ciuill Conuersation Ergo you will not agree with vs in Ciuill Conuersation can you possibly shape me any sensible aunswere For seeing it is your doctrine to excommunicate and roote out all Protestants as Heretickes whensoeuer there is an opportunitie to proccede against them by armes or otherwise Shall any looke for Grapes of Thornes or Figges of Thistles Can any expect a Ciuill practise from such vnciuill and brutish positions and doctrines SECT III. The second Reason of Impossibility and charge against Master Parsons 9. IT was demaunded how farre it pleased Mr. Parsons to extend the Papall power in temporall affaires against such as doe contradict his spirituall Iurisdiction He tolde vs that Two Protestant Prmces were excommunicated consured and molested by the Sea Apostolike Q. Elizabeth of England and K. Henrie then of Nauarre now of France the first of these two for the violent chaunge of Religion which she made in the Realme with depriuations and imprisouments of Catholicke Bishops Prelates and Clergie c. The other for feare he comming to the Crowne of France in that disposition wherein hee then was presumed to bee should attempt the like chaunge in that great kingdome c. These examples said I are both plaine and pregnant A Protestant Queene must be depriued for resisting the spirituall Iurisdiction of the Pope and a Protestant King must bee also deposed least peraduenture he may make any resistance Now we see that the same Papall authoritie is by the lawes of Greate Britaine as expressely excluded their Religion suppressed their Clergie exiled and Protestants Religion according to former proceedings continued All which doth argue as great an Impossibilitie of dutifull Subiection as it is for Hinderance and Sufferance Chaunge and Continuance of the same Religion to be matched and married together Thus then and now I am ready to take his Reckoning Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning His two next reasons of Impossibilitie are so obscurely and intricately set set downe as if he vnderstand them himselfe it is much in my opinion for as for me I see not I confesse what inference can be made out of them though I haue purused them ouer with much attention more then twice and the same I suppose the common Reader

Boucher a Romish Doctor who held it lawfull for a priuate man to kill a Tyrant in the case of publique enmity eyther against the Church or the Common-wealth which I iudged to bee a rebellious position I must now answere according to my charge Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning and charge against his Aduersary BVt it is graunted by Doctor Boucher sayth M. Morton that when the Common-wealth hath condemned and declared any Tyrant for a publicke enemy he may be slaine by a priuate man Whereunto I answere that then he is no priuate man for that he doth it by a publique authority of the Common-wealth as doth the executioner that cutteth off a Noble-mans head by order and authority of the publicke Magistrate so as in this M. Mortons distinction serueth him to no purpose for that neyther for priuate or publique iniuries can a priuate man as a priuate man that is to say by priuate authority kill any Prince though he were a Tyrant for any cause eyther priuate or publique whatsoeuer So as in this principall charge M. Morton remaineth wholly conuicted as you see The Reueiwe 17. Boucher calleth him a priuate man Take the case as M. Parsons hath propounded it that a priuate man after the publique sentence of the Common-wealth is no priuate man but a publique and iust executioner by the same rule he must imply that when the Pope whom they make Supreame in such cases hath excommunicated a King and commaunded Armes against him then euery man may vse Marshal-law and iustly murther that King What is this but to put into the handes of men dagges and knyues and poisons for execution of their hatefull designes But we returne vnto Doctor Bouchier The case may be so vrgent saith he that the publicke iudgement neede not be exspected because where the crime is notorious it is sufficiently condemned without further iudgement And he bringeth in the place of Deut. 13. Thou shalt presently slay them euen before the publique iudgement of the Church published By this I conuince M. Parsons of notorious falshood who defended that Boucher did not allow the killing of any King but after the publique iudgement of the Common-wealth Here we see a case wherein Iacke Straw and Wat Tyler and euery Rascall is armed for this purpose euen before publique iudgement The answere which M. Parsons will giue vs in this his Sober Reckoning is worth our attention Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning DOctor Bouchier in his fourth booke hath a whole Chapter to proue that in some vrgent cause the matter may be preuented as when the thing is so notorious instant and perilous as the said publique iudgement cannot be expected then for subiects to vse poená priuatiua to withdraw their obedience and only to defend themselues and not positiuá that is the positiue punishment of actuall Rebellion or 〈◊〉 offensiue So as considering what here is in the Question hee that is T. M. must needes be condemned of a Nihil dicit or a falsum dicit The Reueiwe 18. Iucundè dictum iocularitèr M. Parsons is a iolly but yet a iugling fellow for although D. Bouchier doth vse the distinction of priuatiue and positiue punishment yet in the next Chapter he sheweth that The iudgement of the Church may be preuented by the notoriousnes of the crime but how preuented by onely a priuatiue punishment or onely by armes for defence No he is not contented with a Buckler of defence but he putteth a sword in mens handes for to kill euen before iudgement saying that they are taught out of Deut. 13. Statim interficere Presently to kill adding the examples of Phinoes killing the Israelite Num. 25. and of Mattathias killing the Kings Captains 1. Machab. 2. Next he seeketh to establish the Acte of killing by a Canon That hee who falleth into a crime which is condemned by the Canon may without further iudgment be held condemned by the sent ence of the Canon Thus farre of the proceeding by Ecclesiasticall censure 19. In the fourth Chapter he entreth the same question concerning execution before publique iudgement Shall we think saith he that secular men in their proceedings in iudgment ought to be more religious or cautelous then the Ecclesiasticall as that they ought to expect that publicke iudgement as Polititians teach before that they may set vpon a Tyrant by armes Immediately to prooue that they ought not to expect any publicke iudgement he saith that in such a case If publicke iudgement may not be had the safet ie of the Common-wealth is to be sought by other meanes whatsoeuer euen as against an armed theife And if any whom he calleth Tyrants shall happen to be slaine in such insurrections Who sayth he will denie but they are iustly slaine In the fift Chapter he giueth an instance in Henr. 3. King of France who was murthered by Iacob Clement a Friar which fact Bouchier in the cap. 23. of the same booke doth highly commend as meritorious Is heere M. Parsons eyther falsum or nihil Is it nothing to arme Subiects against Kings before publique iudgement Is it nothing so to arme them as if they kill such Kings to holde the fact lawfull and meritorious If there had beene any tincture of truth in you you could not haue obiected falsity vnto mee against so many and so plaine instances and examples 20. I call them plaine because Bouchier is challenged by your own Doctor Barclaius euen for the same matter Thou teachest saith Barclay vnto Bouchier there that it is lawfull to kill Henry the third King of Fraunce It had beene therefore safer for M. Parsons his conscience to haue answered Nihil then to haue answered Falsum that he is conuicted by the iudgement of their owne Barclay which is likewise the censure of their owne Priest in the Quodlibets saying that In the Treatises de tusta Abdic Henr. 3. they affirme that it is lawfull to kill a Tyram for so they termed that King although there be neyther sentence of Church nor Kingdome against him The case thus standing we may thinke that Mr. Parsons his guiltinesse concerning the matter did driue his penne awry to wrangle 〈◊〉 about wordes Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning THe adding these wordes which I say by common consent is an accessary vntruth for excuse whereof he runneth to other Chapters wherein he saith that Bouchier auoucheth Mirum esse in affirmando consensum that there is a wonderfull consent in allowing this doctrine But these are other matters vpon other occasions c. The Reuiew 21. If this was spoken of other matters which were impertinent why did you not name them I suspect you haue found some reason for indeede in his third booke and cap. 15. his position is this viz. That it is lawfull to kill a Tyrant which saith he it is marueilous what a great consent it hath not onely of prophane but euen of our owne Authours Which is the very ground and basis

any man reade the booke and chap of Barclay and he will woonder at the impudencie of this vaunter for he speaketh no one word of gathering Councels or comparison of spirituall authoritie between the Pope and Emperour concerning their gathering of Councels or Synods but of a quite different subiect of taking armes by subiects against their lawful temporall Princes And what will our Minister then answer to this manifest calumniation so apparently conuinced out of Doctor Barcley The Reuiew 12 The Minister will answer that M. Parsons was scarse sober when he called either my allegation a calumniation or his answer a conuiction for in that place of Full Satisfact part 3. chap. 10. pag. 27. I did not produce the testimonie of Barkley for the point of Gathering of Councels but for the generall matter of Temporall subiection due vnto Emperours by all persons Which Argument Barkley prosecureth at large in the place alleged being lib. 6. cap. 26. pag. 521. confuring the common answer which is vsed by the Romanists which is this that Although Christ and Iohn Baptist and other Apostles did not teach that wicked Kings ought to be remoued in the first plantation of the Church among Infidels yet afterwards this was the doctrine when Kings should become noursing Fathers Their owne Barkley in the sentence which was alleged confuteth that thus This ought to be vnto vs saith he a weightie argument to know that neither any of the holy Fathers or any orthodoxall Writer for the space of a full thousand yeers and more although the Church did abound with troups of armed souldiers and the number of tyrants was great is red to haue taught any such thing either in word or writing Adding concerning the times of Emperours which professed Christ although heretically Why did not then those excellent Pastors and Fathers excite the people against Valens Valentinian the yonger Heraclius and other wicked Princes 13 Who yet againe in his late booke Depotestate Pontificis writing professedly against Bellarmine by whom the Pope is held to haue a supreme power Indirectly in temporall causes doth cap. 34. argue thus The Pope hath not now greater power ouer temporall Princes than he had before he was a temporall Prince but before he was a temporall Prince he had no temporall authoritie any way ouer Kings therefore now he hath no such power any way ouer them This Confession of their Barkley must needs choake the Romish vsurpation By which my Reader may obserue the impotencie I forbeare to quit him with his owne word of impudencie of this calumniation and his notable falshood in dissembling the opinion of Barkley Now we come to Card. Bellarmine M. PARSONS his Reckoning He vseth heere afarre greater immodestie or rather perfidie in mine opinion The Reuiew 14 These are fearefull termes Will you stand to them Let vs then trie your exceptions which concerne first words and then matter but first let vs examine the materials the summe whereof followeth The summe of M. PARSONS Reckoning The drift of Bellarmine is wholly against M. Mortons assertion for that he denieth that euen the Emperour had any spirituall authority for calling of Councels but onely that they could not well in those dayes be made without them and that for foure seuerall causes The first because the old Imperiall lawes made by the Gentiles were then in vse whereby all great meetings of people were forbidden for feare of sedition except by the Emperours knowledge and licence The second because the Emperors being then Lords of the whole world the Councels could not be made in any city without their leaue The third for that the Councels being made in those dayes by publike charges and contributions of cities and especially of Christian Emperours themselues it was necessarie to haue their consent and approbation in so publike an action And the fourth and last cause for that in those dayes albeit the Bishop of Rome were head in spirituall matters ouer the Emperours themselues yet in temporall affaires he did subiect himself vnto them as hauing no temporall state of his owne and therefore acknowledging them to be temporall Lords he did make supplication vnto them to command Synods to be gathered by their authoritie and licence But since those times saith Bellarmine Omnes iste causae mutatae sunt All those causes were changed The Pope himselfe being now a temporall all Lord also as other Kings and Princes are which was brought to passe saith he by Gods prouidence that he might haue more freedome and libertie to exercise his Pastorship The Reuiew 15 This relation of M. Parsons is very true and my drift was only to shew how that Popes were anciently subiect in temporall matters which is Bellarmins flat assertion wherein then haue I abused his meaning M. PARSONS Reckoning Let vs consider the varietie of sleights and shifts which this our Minister hathvsed first hauing said that generall Councels were not gathered without the Emperours cost he addeth presently of his owne and with their consent which is not in the Latine The Reuiew 16 I will not trouble M. Parsons his patience with any quittance of like language although I am often prouoked therunto by his rigid and vnconscionable taxations whereof this must needs be one For the Latine words of Bellarm. are these Non poterant aliquid facere inuito Imperatore that is They viz. the Popes could doe nothing without the Emperours consent Yet this deuout olde man feareth not to say that I added these words of mine owne albeit he himselfe confesseth the necessitie that then was to haue the Emperours consent This is my kinde Reckoner But let him proceed M. PARSONS his Reckoning Then he cutteth off the cause of the Popes subiecting themselues in those daies touching the temporality which was because they had no temporall state of their owne The Reuiew 17 I alwaies thought it lawfull for mee to make vse of an Aduersaries confessed conclusion such as this is Popes were formerly subiect vnto Emperours without the expressing of his causes especially seeing that the causes whatsoeuer they were are likewise confessed to haue beene since changed Was little Dauid to blame for cutting off Goliah his head with Goliahs his owne sword because he did not first tell what mettall was in it and who was the maker thereof Ridiculous And as fond is his next exception M. PARSONS Reckoning Bellarmine said that Popes made supplication to the Emperors to command Synods to be gathered which T. M. translateth that they would gather Synods as though Bellarmine did affirme that Empersrs had right to doe it The Reuiew 18 As though Emperors may not bee said to doe that which they commanded to be done Iosuah commanded the Tribes of Israel to be assembled and yet it is written that He assembled the Tribes of Israel Or as though the Emperors had not right to doe that which the Pope did by Supplication intreat him to doe

the behalfe of Popes dispensation Nec est qui audeat dicere Domine cur it à facis that is Neither is there any that dare say Why doest thou so Where as though this point were worthy the sight of al passengers there standeth in the Margent as it were a finger pointing vnto it saying Let no man say to the Pope Domine cur it à facis My Lord why doe you so Therefore must I aske you once againe Why deale you so rashly in writing you know not what or in obiecting malice in such a matter why doe you reproach mee so maliciously 20 Furthermore because I finde M. Parsons making mention of Sir Francis Hastings and of his owne booke of Warnwoord I must furthermore bee so sawcie as to pull him once againe by the sleeue and aske him by way of digression whether he be not the man that denied that this salutation Dominus Deus Papa is found in the Glosse of some Canonist SECT VI. M. PARSONS his Warn-woord against Sir Francis Hastings his Wast-woord concerning Dominus Deus Papa SIr Francis Hastings saith that the Canonists say roundly in the Glosse Dominus noster Deus Papa Our Lord God the Pope but if it were so why doth not Sir Francis either roundly or squarely quote vs the text Sure it is that I cannot finde it though I haue much sought for it and hard it is to beleeue that any such text may be found But yet here to helpe out S. F. with some part of his credit and for very compassion I will adde a coniecture of a friend of his how he might chance to haue beene deceiued about Dominus Deus noster Papa if he cite it vpon his owne reading for that perhaps he might find it written thus D. noster D. Papa both D. D. signifying a double Dominus which some cauilling Heretike espying iudging it inconuenient to repeat Dominus twice would needs inforce the second D. to be set for Deus This my coniecture is confirmed somewhat by the similitude of a like fond chance whereof I haue heard as happened in the Subscription of an English letter written from certaine Marriners to the Lord Admirall in these words To the right honourable our good L. the L. Admirall which second L. a simple fellow interpreted to signifie the Lady Admirall saying that the first L. signifying the Lord himselfe the second L. must needs signifie also his Lady If I misse in this coniecture or comparison S. F. is cause thereof that cited not the text thereby to cleare all matters and to deliuer both vs of this doubt and himselfe of new suspicion of imposture The Reuiew 21 I like you well M. Parsons howsoeuer the matter goe you can make your selfe mirth with your owne fancies and coniectures as though there were no such thing as Sir Francis alleaged out of their Romish Glosse when as yet there can be nothing more apparent for in the Extrauagant at the word significâsti Tit. 14. cap. 4. the Glosse saith plainly in the very same words Dominum Deum nostrum Papam that is Our Lord God the Pope euen as it is set out by their best approoued edition of the Extrauagants But so it pleased M. Parsons rather to bewray his owne ignorance of the common Romish Glosse than to lose his ieast of Lord and Lady although it bee but a silly one God wot for what man could bee so simple and indeed stupid as to thinke there could be any congruity of speech in such a superscription as he hath feigned viz To the right honorable our good Lord the Lady Admirall wherein as it were by a strange metamorphosis the sex is changed a Lord being turned into a Lady What then shall we thinke of M. Parsons his wit who hath so vniustly imputed vnto Sir Francis a suspicion of Imposture If he sported thus in dissemblance he must be iudged to haue beene malicious if in ignorance hath he not beene ridiculous I returne to our Reckoning wherein from Boniface an Archbishop hee passeth to a Pope Leo. SECT VII The thirteenth charge concerning the Oath of Allegence The summe of M. PARSONS Reckoning POpe Leo saith M. Morton writing vnto a true Cntholike Emperor said You may not be ignorant that your Princely power is giuen vnto you not onely in worldly regiment but also in spiritual for the preseruation of the Church As if he had said not only in causes temporal but also in spiritual so far as it belongeth to the outward preseruation not to the personall administration of them And this is the substance of our English Oath And further neither doe our Kings of England challenge nor subiects condescend vnto In which words you see two things are contained first what authority S. Leo the Pope aboue 1100. yeares agone ascribed vnto Leo the Emperor in matters spiritual ecclesiastical The second by this mans assertion that neither our Kings of England challenge nor doe the subiects condescend vnto any more in the Oath of supremacy that is proposed vnto them Which if it be so I see no cause why all English Catholikes may not take the same in like manner so far foorth as S. Leo alloweth spirituall authority to the Emperour of his time Wherfore it hehooueth that the Reader stand attent to the deciding of this question for if this be true which here M. Morton auoucheth our Controuersie about the Supremacie is at an end Heerupon I vrged him very earnestly that this assertion might be maintained saying among other things Mee thinks such publike doctrine should not be so publikely printed and set forth without publike allowance and intention to performe and make it good If this be really meant we may easily be accorded if not then will the Reader see what credit may be giuen to any things they publish notwithstanding this book commeth forth with this speciall commendation of published by authority c. Which words in my iudgement should haue mooued M. Morton to leaue somewhat to the matter in this his Answer and not to haue passed it ouer so stily as though neuer mention had beene made thereof But euery man will guesse at the cause and so we shall expect it at some other time The Reuiew 22 I will take no longer Time than this present and vpon the issue heerof will I appeale vnto the Reader to iudge according to the iust apparence of truth That which I thenauerred hath been since published in print by one of far more exact iudgement than that I may be worthy to say that he hath published the same And this passed vnder the approbation and priuelege of our gratious King who is the Lex loquens and can best interpret the sense of the Oath Wee yeeld saith this reuerend Prelate nothing to our King which belongeth vnto Priestly function neither doth the King affect it he iustly challengeth and we acknowledge due vnto him those acts which appertaine vnto outward policy for the

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