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	parliament_n	1,836	5	6.6012	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

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

be medling with M. Autturney now Lord chiefe Iustice of the Common Pleas for the confuting of his fift part of Reports which M. Parsons himselfe hath now begun to impugne If I haue not beene so forward to vndertake Replie it is not that I would be wanting in any part of Dutie but because I was not infected with M. Parsons his vnseemely disease to busie my selfe in an vnproper Element especially in points which concerne so honourable and iudicious a Personage who would haue exercised his quill in some large Replie if his Lordship had thought M. Parsons worthy of any other Answer than the condemnation of a Nihil dicit 8 Notwithstanding it will not I thinke offend his honour nor yet greatly please you M. Parsons that I vpon this prouocation do paint out your vniust Assertions which you call Demonstrations against his Reports especially concerning the Histories of two Kings which now fall vnder mine eie The first is of K. Alfred wherein you may be charged with a nimiùm dicit the second is touching K. Edgar whom you will haue to haue Subordinated his temporall Sword vnto the spirituall iurisdiction of his Prelates after that maner of Subordination which you require in Princes at this day When as it is plaine that King Edgar speaking in that Oration against sturdy Monkes who did contemne verba did tell the B B. Veniendum̄ esse ad verbera that is That they were to be humbled by Stroakes and to this end he saith to the Prelates Vobis istud negotium comitto I commit that businesse to you which sheweth that that part of authority which the King acknowledged to be in the B B. was not by his Submision but his Commission vnto them What shall we thinke of the validity of his Ten Demonstrations seeing he is so insyncere in these Two which he specified as the most principall As for his exception against mee for not Defending all those whom he calleth my Clients I may iustly answer that although I were worthy of reprehension in this case yet M. Parsons is the most vnwoorthy man of all other to reprehend me because I finde diuerse of his Clients of great name in their church whom he hath betraied by his silence The Omissions of M. Parsons in not defending his Clients §. III. 9 I had no little cause to woonder at the boldnesse of M. Parsons in calling so clamorously vpon me that I should satisfie for other mens debts euen in a little Preamble wheras he in publishing a large volume in answer of my Full Satisfaction hath passed many whole chapters ouer vntouched and seeing there many of his own friendes vp to the eares in debt did like the Iewish Priest and Leuite smoothly passe by without the supply of a farthing for their reliefe The examples are abundant I will single out some few 10 Their Loduick of Orleance in his booke Pag. 48. was heard rayling vpon the Realme of England that it is An Isle of men who eat mans flesh This M. Parsons read but pretermitted It will be hard to determine whether heereby he haue been more iniurious to his friend Loduick whom he suffereth to lie vnder the arrest of a cursed slander or to his Natiue Country which he suffereth to be so ignominiously traduced as though the Inhabitants thereof were no better than Cannibals 11 Secondly there was displaied the Cruelty of their Inquisitors by their Agrippa De vanit Scient cap. 69 noting them to be so rigid in their examination as not to allow men Conference but to answer them onely with fire and faggot who maintaine their cause by the word of God 12 There also Arnalàus in a Parlament at Paris was heard to accuse the Iesuits to haue been the causes of the great tyrannie which was practised among the poore Indians There their owne French Historian noted the crueltie which was vsed in France telling vs how Twentie thousand Protestants were slaine in one moneth by the furie of the Catholikes Cruell Inquisitors ciuell Iesuus cruell Catholikes as it is confessed by their owne Authors All whom M. Parsons leaueth as desperate debitors wallowing in their owne guilt 13 Thirdly there was vnfolded by their owne Historian the slanderous disposition of some Romanists who bare false witnesse against Protestants in open Court assirining that they in the night season Put out the candles and euery one tooke a woman at his pleasure only vpon a perswasion That such an Accusation is good against an Heretike be it true or false This is a foule matter and belike M. Parsons his fingers were so cleane that he would not touch it 14 Fourthly their common doctrine being this that a King being an Heretike and excommunicate may be deposed was proued to be a rebellious doctrine by many arguments which M. Parsons would not so much as looke at and to the same purpose was alleged the confession of their own Iesuit Acosta out of his second booke de Indorum salute cap. 5. affirming that after that a King is established in his throne his power is from God and the people owe him subiection euen as did the people of Israel vnto Ieroboam 3. Re. 11. 12. albeit he was an Apostata from the faith of the true Church This M. Parsons thought not good to account for lest this example might haue conuinced him and his fellowes of seditious and pernicious doctrine And there also wee read of the example of the elder Romish Clergie brought in to condemne the later brood of sedition but this also had his passe 15 Fiftly by the testimonie of their Cardinall Tolet Instruct. Sacerd. lib. 5. cap. 66. we were taught that although their Priests and others may in their examinations before Magistrates whom they holde to be incompetent vse Equiuocation rather than to reueale any trespasse of an other yet If they shal be brought vnto the racke to be tortured they are no further bound to conceale the trueth Whereupon it followeth that in such cases their most competent Iudge will be a racke M. Parsons saw this Racke but only saw it for in his discourse of Equiuocation he came not neere it by a mile 16 Sixtly Cardinall Bellarmine did interpret the place of S. Paul Rom. 13. Let euery soule be subiect to the higher powers to implie the Spirituall power as well as the Temporall but was confuted by their Espencaeus in Tit. 3. 1. Digress pag. 513. from the iudgement of ancient Fathers no one allowing that interpretation The place of a Cardinall should haue moued M. Parsons to haue yeelded some piece of an Answer for his dearest friend if the trueth of the cause would haue so permitted 17 But how will he answer for others who leaueth himselfe in the lurch who together with Carerius thought that No king is to be acknowledged to be a king before he be anointed Which Paradox was firmly and freely confuted by