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 Arnalà us 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
forced as it were to say that which they neuer meant c. Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning THis now whether it be not such a wilfull and witting Lie as before I described for a formall malicious Lie such as the Writer did know to bee a Lie when he wrote it I am content to remit my selfe vnto any iudicious and ciuill Protestant in the world For if our owne Catholicke Doctors doe finde this in their owne iudgement how doe they beleeue Purgatorie to be true Why doe they not change their opinion and become Protestants Can M. Morlon answere any thing vnto this lewde and wilfull absurditie and did he not know that he lied when he writ this The Reuiew 16. What meaneth our Quiet Reckoner to reuell so turbulently Will he needes falsifie his owne title The Assertion which I made and which hee calleth a Formall malicious Lie is put vnto the triall in the next Chapter where it will be auouched to be an obseruable iust and incontrollable trueth The reason which hee opposed I shall now confute in this Section and compell him to repent his loose tearmes by an instance which will manifestly discouer a Romish malladie 17. The Doctrine of Indulgences hath beene of late put into their Romane Creede in their Councell of Trent by the Bull of Pope Paulus the fourth This their Doctors will beleeue albeit they confesse concerning Indulgences that There is not found any expresse sentence either in Scriptures or in the writings of Ancient fathers and that in the beginning of the Primitiuc Church there was no vse of them nor yet did they come in vse vntill the feare of a fierie Purgatorie had brought them out Who while they pleade for Indulgences doe it in this maner viz. Indulgences are not therefore to be contemned because the vse of them seemeth to haue beene but of late in the Church for many things are knowne by posteritie which the ancient writers were ignorant of Which we take to be a kind of cracke in their cause especially seeing that for want of better light of Antiquitie they are glad to collect an Antiquitie of them from the Stations vsed anciently at Rome Now what were these Stations Their Onuphrius doeth tell you The word saith he commeth of Stando standing because the people in their solemne Conuents did stand For the ancient Bishops of Rome vpon some set dayes especially in Lent and Holydayes did goe vnto diuers Churches of Rome where a Sermon was made vnto the people there standing and saying Prayers they did afterward communicate with the Clergie and people of Rome in the Diuine Sacraments In all which there is no sent of Romish Indulgences 18. Againe we find them obserue that Pope Boniface the eight about the yeere 1300. was the first who extended Indulgences vnto Purgatorie Which is the Indulgence wherevpon we dispute Besides they tell vs that the inuisible spirituall Treasurie of the Merits of Holy men is the Foundation of Indulgences Notwithstanding Maironis and Durand two of your principall Schoolemen euen of later times Doubted of the truth of such a Treasurie And lastly that some whom they call Catholickes iudged no otherwise of these kinde of Indulgences then of Godly deceits Heere we see more then a glimpse of that light which we professe acknowledged by your owne Doctors I must hereupon make bolde to demaund of Mr. Parsons why their Doctors hauing so great an apparance of the noueltie of this Article did notwithstanding still yeelde vnto the practise of their Church When he shall answere this then may he easily satisfie himselfe concerning his last demaund Master PARSONS his Reckoning BEllarmine hath alleaged ten seuerall testimonies out of the Scriptures of the old Testament with the expositions of the auncient Fathers vpon them which are confessed by Procestants to be Canonicall excepting the Maccabees and Toby which were notwithstanding Canonicall in S. Augustines time by the third Councell of Carthage in which himselfe was present And out of the new Testament he alleageth fiue other places with the expositions in like manner of the Fathers vpon them that vnderstood them to meane of Purgatory And will our owne Doctors say that these fifteene places are all tortured and forced against their meaning and all the Fathers expositions violated against their owne iudgement If our Doctors will say so they must be M. Mortons Doctors and not ours The Reuiewe 19. It is a thing superfluous Actum agere This which I say of the principall places of Canonicall Scriptures wherein your Doctors doe most insist I haue proued also from the meere literal Expositions of your owne Doctors to be inforced beyond compasse and want not a supply of like Answers vnto other Scriptures which haue beene omitted But I shall not need to insist vpon places of Scripture the rather because I am not so greatly prouoked by M. Parsons heereunto who hath reserued his maine violence for the tryall of Fathers 20. Yet notwithstanding one confession of Bellarmine may not be so easily let passe which hath not beene mentioned in my Appeale to wit Cùm nusquam in Scripturis fiat mentio ignis vbi apertè de Purgatorio agitur nihil dubium est qum Cyprianus ad hunc locum respexerit That is Seeing that in no place of Scripture where Purgatory is plainely handled any mention is made of fire it is not to be doubted but that S. Cyprian had respect vnto this place of Scripture to wit 1. Cor. 3. where it is written He shall be saued as it were by fire Which is a sufficient confession that there is not in any place of Scripture any mention of fire wherein there is any plaine proofe of Purgatory except in these fore-cyted wordes of 1. Cor. 3. And can he say that this onely place is plaine for Purgatory fire By no meanes for Bellarmine confesseth hereof that ancient Expositors doe not agree in the interpretation of fire in this place Some vnderstand by fire the Tribulations of this life some the eternall torments some the fire of the last day and some the Purgatory fire How shall our aduersaries presume of any plain place of Scripture for proofe of Purgatory-fire seeing that this their onely plaine place is thus obscured and perplexed with foure different Interpretations CHAP. XI The earnest challenge which M Parsons hath made that I should disannull the allegations of the testimonies of those Fathers whom Iodocus Coccius hath cyted for proofe of the Romish Purgatory SECT 1. Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning COccius produceth vpon the point of threescore Authours within the compasse of the first sixe hundred yeares that confirme the common faith of that Church in those dayes to haue held Purgatory and 〈◊〉 for the dead for Catholike doctrine and for the practise also of praying for the soules departed TO WHAT END DO YOU SAY THIS M. PARSONS To the end that T. M may haue somewhat to
Parsons charge against me about the same matter 61. In the second part I am chargeable to answere Mast. Parsons who asketh that seeing Tolossanus said that Gregory the seuenth was the first who excommunicated and depriued an Emperour of his Regiment why I alleadged the word Depriued onely and left out Excommunicated I readily answered that it was because the question Satisfact 3. c. 11. was onely concerning Emperours and kings who had beene deposed from their gouernements by Popes and not who had been excommunicated And for so answering am called to a new Reckoning Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning YEa Sit thinke you to escape so and yet know that deposition of Princes is an effect of Excommunication and can neuer happen by Ecclesiasticall authoritie but where Excommunication is gone before The Reueiwe 62. Yes Sir I may lawfully answere So. For although Excommunication goe before deposition and Eradication yet was it lawfull for me to intreat of Deposition without mentioning any precedent Excommunication For if being asked how many theeues were hanged at Tiburne the last weeke I had truely answered fiue forthwith some captious Constable should quarrell with me saying Yea Sir dare you say so will you tell vs that any were hanged without mentioning that first they were condemned for condemnation goeth before execution Euen so childishly hath Mast. Parsons cauilled in earnest who still holdeth on his pace Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning AND I would aske M. Morton in good earnest out of his Diuinity when a Christian Prince is lawfully Excommunicated and shut out from all societie of Christian communion and he persist impenitent how can he be head of a Christian Common-wealth for so much as he is no member nor hath any place or part at all in the whole body the head-ship being the chiefe part of all others A Reuiew discouering the rebellious humour of Mr. Parsons 63. If Mastr Parsons had not asked me in earnest I might haue taken him to haue beene but in iest but now by this his serious demaund our Christian Reader will easily perceiue that he hath cast Diuinity in a new mould for a King by his doctrine cannot be Excommunicated but forthwith hee must as it were be be-headed and remoued from his Kingdom we now haue found out the whole portrayture of M. Parsons body by his finger which writeth and teachethth at A King persisting in Excommunication may bee no more a King among Christians No King or Queene or Prince or Counsellour or Iudge or Magistrate being excommunicate may by Mast. Parsons censure haue any communion among Christians but must be rooted out Behold our Romish Mitigator Behold our Sober Reckoner Doth not this smell strongly of fire and Gun-powder whensoeuer opportunity shal serue for the performance of such their exploits 64. But to answere directly to the question moued by M. Parsons not from his owne doubt but for his Readers delusion because otherwise hee could not be ignorant that their Arch-Priest M. Blackwell had answered that point to the full shewing first out of Soto from Medina that Excommunication is not a priuation of any proper good which the transgresser doth possesse but of the common good which he was to receme from the Church as namely the spirituall communion with them and the participation of Sacraments 65. Secondly he alleadgeth Ludouicus Richeome a Iesuite saying that Excommunication is not thundred against Princes that they should be remoued out of their Dominions or that the raines should be loosed vnto subiects or they be freed from the Oath of fidelity 66. Thirdly he adioyneth the testimony of Aquinas saying Aliud est Excommunicatio aliud Eradicatio Which saith M. Bl. is set down in the Canon law of an Epistle of Pope Vrbane thus Liquidò c. that is It doth plainely appeare that Excommunication is one thing and eradication is another for he which is excommunicate as the Apostle saith to this end is excommunicated that his soule may bee saued in the day of the Lord for Excommunication is a correction and no extirpation 67. Finally the holy Scripture speaking of the Excommunicate saith Let him be vnto thee as a Publicane and an Ethnicke I demand then was there no Magistracy acknowledged in Ethnickes by Christians in the dayes of the Emperour Iulian the Apostata or shall not Christian children or wiues acknowledge naturall duety vnto their Parents and husbands as vnto their Heads if they being excommunicate shall proue contumacious Grace doth not extinguish nature but perfect it And this may briefly serue for an Answere vnto your irrelegious and rebellious demaund which hath beene exactly confuted by your owne Doctors Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning ANd Tolossanus here alleadged by Mr. Morton produceth in another example both of Excommunication and of deposition aboue an hundred yeares before this of Frisingensis saying Anteà quidem Gregorius tertius c. Before this Gregory the third beeing made Pope vpon the yeare 759 did depriue Leo the third Emperour of Constantinople both of his Empire and the communion of Christians for that he had cast holy Images out of the Church and defaced them and held a wicked opinion against the blessed Trinity And that Tolossanus in this saith truth is testified also by Zonaras a Greeke Historiographer in the life of the said Emperour Leo Jsauricus The Reueiwe 68. Tolossanus in another booke reporteth this and Zonaras testifieth this Ergo by Mr. Parsons his consequence it must be True which argueth his owne inconsideration and rashnesse because first the matter is not so true but that their owne Barkley durst iudge it incredible and secondly their witnesse Zonaras seemeth to their Baronius to be so insufficient in reporting the behauiour of this Pope Gregory towards the Emperour Leo that he reiecteth him as a man Ignorant of the affaires of the Latine Church and one who in Malice against the Church of Rome doth obiect that the Pope was the cause of the rent of the Empire in the West Thus farre Card. Baronius which sheweth how little we are to regard M. Parsons his iudgement who respecteth not so much how rightly as how readily hee may shape vs an Answere And that Gregory the seuenth called Hildebrand was the first Pope who set the Emperours at such defiance it will now further appeare SECT XIIII An Inquiry into the iudgement of Espencaeus concerning the case of Pope Hildebrand 69. THE last point which is to be inquired into is whether the Authour Espencaeus did not accord vnto the same iudgement concerning Gregory the seuenth who to yeelde vnto M. Parsons computation was Pope about the yeare 1066. to thinke that he was the first Pope that did depose an Emperour The summe of Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning obiecting fraude vnto his Aduersary ESpencaeus heere is handled iniuriously and fraudulently for that these wordes against the Pope are not the wordes of Espencaeus himselfe but related of him
c. That is That I may speake it saith he with the fauour of all good men Haec sola nouit as nè dicam haeresis That is This meere noueltie that I say not Heresie was not as yet sprung in the world that the Priests of him who saith vnto the King Apostata and who maketh the Hypocrite to Raigne for the sinnes of the people should teach Subiects that they owe no subiection vnto wicked Kings that albeit they haue taken an Oath of fidelitie vnto such an one yet they are not bound in Alleageance vnto him and that such as should take part against their Kings may not be said to be periured So he Barkley out of Otto Frisingensis defendeth that There is not found any example of deposing an Emperour of his State in any age before Gregorie the seuenth Which made their late Pope Paulus to acknowledge no violence vsed by any Pope vntill A thousand yeeres after Christ. At what time There were not wanting some saith Cardinall Cusanus yea euen among the Cardinals besides a Councell at Rome who defended Henry the Emperour from the Excommunication of Hildebrand 77. I forbeare to vrge the Epistles of the Priests of Leige which M. Parsons calleth a Passionate inuectiue against Pope Paschalis Lest it might driue the old man into passion Albeit whosoeuer shall Reade that Epistle hee shall find the commendation of Espencaeus to be most true who calleth it A complaint full of grauitie c. Hee might further haue added and of Religious pietie But Mr. Parsons hath not yet done with Espencaeus Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning YEt Espencaeus prooueth by sundry examples out of Scriptures Fathers and Councels that in some cases it is lawfull for Priests to vse Temporall Armes also The Reueiwe 78. It is true and amongst others he produceth the example of Dudechine a Priest who went to Warre against the Turke with Conrade the third and of Turpinus Bishop of Rhemes who warred vnder Charles the Great and of Delbodus who tooke Armes against the Sarracens vnder Henry the Emperour All these in their Warres stood with their Emperours none is found to haue caried Armes against their Emperours Therefore this obseruation which M. Parsons vseth seemeth very idle except it be to bewray his owne disposition whom their Priest hath noted to bee of A furious chollericke and passionate humour in desiring like a tall Souldier the vse of a Iacke and a Speare 79. By this Reckoning it appeareth that M. Parsons is become a fower-fold Debter First vnto the State by his Treasonable Doctrine in teaching an eradication of Princes Excommunicate Secondly to himselfe by a wilfull falsifying of the iudgement of Espencaeus Thirdly vnto me by foysting vpon me the related Historian Frisingensis instead of the Relator Tolossanus with a malicious purpose to proue me a falsifier Lastly to the cause it selfe in not acknowledging the noueltie of their new Doctrine of Deposing of Kings and Emperours Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning in censuring of Espencaeus CLaudius Espencaeus was a Parisian Doctor and a Writer of small account whom he calleth a Bishop but I neuer heard of his Bishoppricke The 〈◊〉 shewing the Eclipse of M. Parsons his iudgement in this censure 80. Mr. Parsons is fallen forth with Espencaeus and good reason for he saw right well that Espencaeus doeth in effect call the Doctrine of M. Parsons and his fellows Rebellious and therefore now must he be esteemed A writer but of small account Wherein our Reader may obserue what small account any man is to make of M. Parsons his iudgement who Reading Espencaeus doeth so greatly debase him especially seeing that their owne learned Authors haue affoorded him a better approbation For Espencaeus is called by Medina saith Cumel A most learned man whom Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe vseth to alleadge among your Doctors of account And Espencaeus himselfe can further assure vs with a protestation of trueth that when he was in possibilitie to bee chosen a Cardinall he thanked God that he missed it concluding with this Epiphonema Quid Romae faciam mentirinescio That is What shall I doe at Rome seeing I cannot lie Doe you heare this M. Parsons We know where your dwelling is and your Booke sheweth you in euery Page to bee truely Romish So hard a thing it is for you to tell a perfect trueth The last Charge will require a Chapter of it selfe CHAP. XIII Contayning the last charge of falsitie against M. Parsons about the iudgement of Romish Writers concerning Mentall Equiuocation conteyning a large Discourse hercof from their doctrine SECT I. First in generall 1. MAst Parsons his falsitie was the imputing vnto me an acknowledgement of the Vniuersall use of Mentall Equiuocation in the space of foure hundred yeares Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning FIrst I said no more in my Treatise then that Mr. Morton had manifestly set downe that for these last 400. yeares he graunted the lawfulnes of Equiuocation to haue bin taught in our Schools And consult saith he with the auncient Logicians from the beginning of the world till within the compasse os these last 400. yeares and lesse that euer any Logician did allow your mixt proposition partly mentall and partly verball and I will c. Out of which exception for these last 400 yeares it is euidently deduced that he granteth the vse of such mixt propositions which are properly Equiuocations whereof the one part is vttered the other reserued in mind as before hath beene declated And thereof I inferred further by euident consequence and sequell of reason though he specified not the same that for so much as our Catholicke Schooles were then ouer all Christendome and none publikely knowne or in vse but they for those three hundred or at least these foure it must needs follow that the same doctrine during that time was generally receiued in the said Schooles Vniuersities c. The Reuiew 2. Here is new Logique which Mast. Parsons hath sent vs from Rome ouer the Alpes to wit Mentall Equiuocation was not vsed before the last 400. yeares Ergo In the last 400. yeares it was vsed Uniuersally in all Uniuersities Chaires Schooles by al Diuines Casuists c. This he calleth an cuident deducement he should rather haue said an impotent Seducement for so it is and all one as to reason thus the Moone was not this yeare in the Eclipse before the last moneth Ergo it was in the Eclipse euery week euery day euery houre of the last moneth which is most ridiculous Ex nihilo nihil fit M. Parsons none can euer deduce an affirmatiue conclusion from a negatiue proposition be then ashamed of your Euidence And so may you be likewise of your next shift in telling vs that you did not seeme to perswade your Reader Expresly and by name that I graunted the generall vse of Mentall Aequiuocation in All Schooles Chaires Vniuersities Tribunals and the like for
such as were not so vehemently pressed A briefe Recapitulation would make a cleare Reckoning for the accusations which you then vrged although falsly yet fiercely thus In the first This is said you a malicious lie of a lost conscience In the second thus Is not this persidious dealing and open treachery In the third He hath no conscience at all in cousening In the rest we heare of nothing but of Egregious abusing of testimonies of Many frauds in one quotation of Many false trickes of a craftie Minister of Rare singularity and the like scarse euer obserued in corrupting a text of Scripture of a manifest lie and cousenage and of Where is his syncerity in Christ Iesus of foolish treachery In the eleuenth How can the malicious lying Minister expect to be trusted hereafter In the next Consider how falsly and calumniously this Make-bate doth reason In the thirteenth Can any thing be morefraudulently alleaged In the last It is a fraud and impudency or rather impudent impietie will euer any Reader credit him hereafter These and other such like Emblemes and flowers of M. Parsons his Rheterique may giue our Reader a sent and sense of his extream Vehemency which is strong ranck Proue that I singled not out his weakest Obiections as hee falsly pretendeth and as scquel of this discourse will make more manifest SECT II. M. PARSONS his Reckoning and summe of his first charge FOr proofe that hersie may be without obstinacy he citeth in his margent Vasquez Iesuit whose words are Malitia huius peccati in intellectu non in voluntate perficitur that is The malice of the sinne of heresie is perfected in the vnderstanding Which our Minister vnderstanding not hath fondly slandered the learned man Vasquez by making him patronize his absurd doctrine whereas Vasquez doth expresly establish the contrary defining heresie to bee an errour in faith with obstinacie The Reuiew 3 I alleaged nothing out of Vasquez but his ownesentence viz. Malitia c. Heresie is consummated and perfected in the vnderstanding and knowing that the formall perfection of euery thing giveth the Denomination vnto the subiect I did inferre not as his for this indeed had beene an iniury but as mine owne consequence viz. that we may conclude of Heresie as it is an error in the minde without respect of Obstinacie which is a peruersnesse in the will Which libertie of arguing from an Aduersaries proposition against his conclusion is granted vnto any by the law of all schooles especially whensoeuer the proposition and conclusion may seeme to be repugnant As for example Bellarmine in defence of Transubstantiation saith that the counersion of the bread into the bodie of Christ is not wrought by production of the bodie of Christ out of the bread but by Adduction of the bodie vnto the bread Some Romish Authours apprehending this position of Adduction did plainely conclude against Bellermine his conclusion saying that so it shall not be a Transubstantiation but a Transtocation Playing vpon his Antecedent by their owne conscequence Thus much for my conscience 4 Concerning the cause I haue no way offended but in distinguishing of Heresie in respect of a double Court Poli fo rs that is of Inward before God and outward in respect of the Church And the whole controuersie then betweene vs being about the outward apparence of an Hereticke I hold in that respect Obstinacy to bee the propertie of an Heretike which is for the cause it selfe as much as any Romanist would require If therefore this first point haue in it as M. Parsons saith more difficultie than many others layd togither then may we prognosticate that M. Parsons will be in others manifoldly absurd for in this first he seeketh nothing but a knot in a rush SECT III. The summe of M. PARSONS second charge in Reckoning To make vs odious by seuere censuring of heretikes he bringeth out of Azorius this sentence If a man doubt of his faith willingly he is certainly an heretike but by our Ministers leaue Azor addeth more He that doubteth willingly and pertinacitèr that is obstinately he is thereby an heretike So we see the most substantiall word obstinately to be craftily conueyed away c. The Reuiew 5 M. Parsons knoweth right well that I needed not to omit this word pertinacitèr to make his Professors odious who multiplied other farre more odious positions than this such as were the accounting of euery one an obstinate heretike that maint eineth anything contrary to the Church of Rome together with their Bulla coena vpon Maundie-Thursday curssing and excommunicating all heretikes among whom they recken Protestants ioyntly with all their Fauorites or Commenders of their behauiors which for the odiousnesse of them he cunningly pretermittcd and yet noteth me of craft for the omission of pertinacitèr As though the defending of an vntrueth wittingly and willingly did not emphatically enough implie that it was done obstinately according to the saving of our Sauiour Christ in condemning the obstinacie of the lewes notwithstanding he did say no more but How ost would I haue gathered you c. but you would not Finally because I am willing to satisfie M. Parsons to the full if he be offended for want of pertinacitèr let him put in his Reckening pertinacissimè if he will it shall not displease me SECT IV. The summe of the third charge of M. PARSONS Reckoning THe case was whether a man comming from Couentrie which is held to be infected with the plague which the man himselfe dwelling in a part of the citie which is not infected and is asked at the gate of London whether he came from Couentrie the Keeper intending to aske him concerning a place infected whether he may answer No The Questioner saith he may M. Morton saith No and citeth Azorius as though he had said of this case Nihil tà m falsum c. where he saith that we may not feine words of our selues in an oath without circumstances c. But Azorius in his third Rule speaking of this case of a place thought to be infected and is not resolueth that such an answer is lawfull The Reuiew 6 M. Parsons can not denie but after that Azorius had propounded diuers obiections concerning Equiuocating clauses whereof that of this Case was one he doth applie vnto them two kinde of answers The first is a generall in the words that I did allege Nihil tà m falsum c. telling vs that We may not feine c. Wherein I then insisted and so much the rather because I saw there is the foundation of M. Parsons Defence of Equiuocation ouerthrowen where Azorius calleth it a lie for a man when he is demanded whether he haue any money and hauing it shall answer I haue it not reseruing in his minde to giue it vnto you which kinde of Equiuocation M. Parsons holdeth for a truth as you haue heard But let vs take the Resolution of Azorius as
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
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
by saying No-body meaning To tell it vnto you and S. Augustine his Firmus in these daies would be hissed out of their schooles for a simple and witlesse fellow euen as our AEquinocatours would if they had liued in these daies been driuen out of Christendome for gracelesse mont-bankes But heare what followeth 7 An other example Before he deliuereth this example he propoundeth a Conclusion which is principally to be obserued In the case of a man who is wrongfully questioned about a most secret fault If saith Sotus he cannot finde words whereby through an Equiuocation which is in the common vse of men he may couer his fault without a lie he ought rather to die than lie Still we finde that whatsoeuer the AEquiuocation be it ought to be such as consisteth in the common vse of the words themselues And therefore where the question is concerning a guilty person who killed Peter and is examined thereabout Whether he may answer I haue not killed him conceiuing in his minde another man of the same name Peter being one whom indeed he killed not Such an answer saith Sotus cannot be without a lie because according to the receiued vse of all men an affirmation and negation in proper names are so taken for the same man as if this onely had been therby signified viz. for that Peter of whom the question was asked How then shall their AEquiuocating Priest auoid the guilt of a lie who being asked whether he were a Priest Answered No meaning A Priest of Apollo the heathenish God And being demanded whether he were euer beyond the Sea answered No meaning the Adriatique Sea We see that heere also their Sotus meeth with their AEquiuocator to prooue him alier 8 The last example But what shall the guilty miserable woman doe when her husband shall constraine her by violence to confesse whether she had committed Adultrie or no and shee cannot finde any amphibologie to hide herselfe in I answere saith he That the iniquities of men are more than that wee can preuent them therefore in such a case it is better to die than to transgresse by lying This had beene but a fond Resolution if he had thought that Nescio vt dicam would haue serued the turne which to free the speech from a lie notwithstanding is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the profession and practise of our Equiuocators and whereby it is most easie to preuent all guiles of the most subtle Interrogatories In briefe in the shutting vp of this Treatise hee granteth that Words which haue not a true sense according to the signification which is receiued into common vse cannot bee excused from a lie Which conclusion with all these premisses I leaue as a Glasse vnto M. Parsons and other Professors of Mentall Equiuocation to looke their faces in and at their leasure to tell mee what they see From the Spanish Doctor Sotus hee goeth to a Flemmish Doctor Cunerus SECT II. The summe of the sixteeneth charge of M. PARSONS his Reckoning CVnerus is no lesse iniuriously alleaged than the former for Cunerus saying In religione concordiae sola est ratio vt omnes c. that is This in religion is the onely way of concord that all men with apious minde doe wholly conceiue and practise that which is taught in the Catholike Church of Rome Maister Morton translateth This is the onely true religion which is taught in the Church of Rome What dealing is this c. The Reuiew 9 Any man may perceiue what kind of fish M. Parsons is who can thus carpe at words peruersly concealing the plaine intention of the Author Cunerus hee intending to proue the Hollanders to be Rebels against the K. of Spaine who were not possibly to except concord except first they would consent in one Religion and that there is no true religion but that of the Church of Rome Whereunto saith Cunerus a Christian Prince is sworne to be a defender of the faith namely of that Romish and therefore he wil haue that King as Sara to cast out Agar and her sonne so to remoue out of Holland all of the contrarie profession of Religion If then he allowing no possibilitie of Concord without consent in religion and no Religion but that which is Romish doth he not euidently say that the Romish is the onely Religion I am vexed with M. Parsons his vanities and desire something materiall Peraduenture we shall finde it in the next instance SECT III. The seuenteenth charge M. PARSONS his Reckoning NOw we come to another abuse perteining to two menindifferently to wit Cassander a Germane Schoolmaster and Bellarmine a Cardinall but wee shall ascribe it rather to the Germane for this present for that we haue had diuerse examples about Cardinali Bellarmine before The Reuiew 10 Shal I attribute this omitting of my Abuse of Bellarmine vnto M. Parsons his remisnesse or rather to his barrennesse and indeed fondnesse who offereth to Reckon for an abuse of Bellarmine and yet will not tell what it is Wherein M. Parsons abuseth Bellarmine in my opinion bringing him vpon his stage to no other end than as Cato went into the Senate to carrie him out againe But what of Cassander I would heare first something of the man and then of the matter The summe of M. PARSONS his Reckoning Finding my selfe weary with prosecuting the labyrinth of his intricate iuggling trickes I will draw to an end adding only one example more in this place First to pretermit that he goeth about to deceiue his Reader by the opinion of grauity and learning in George Cassander of Bruges who was but a Grammarian in his daies and that hee was a Catholike who is consured for an Heretike primae classis in the Index of prohibited bookes and not onely for heresies of his time but also Quòd dicit Spiritum S. minus aduocandum adorandum esse c. The Review 11 It were good you knew how to make an end and better it had beene for you in your reputation that you had not begunne at all with this taxation of Cassander it is so notoriously shamelesse for I beseech you M. Parsons what great cause haue you to contemne a Grammarian how much lesse to say that Cassander was but a Grammarian As though hee had beene vnworthy of any better esteeme whom both the Emperor Ferdinand and Maximilian King of the Romanes sent for about the time of the Councell of Trent and made singular choise of him before any other Doctor with whom they might consult concerning the weightiest points of controuersie in Religion and in that respect was he commended by the Emperor for a man of singular learning and godlinesse and intituled Theologus that is a Diuine and by Maximilian hee was extolled for a man godly learned and discreet benè versatus in sacris literis that is One very conuersant in holy Scriptures of whom we haue need saith
maner of right in the Church ouer Kings What a wilfull intoxication is this We speake of the power coactiue of deposing of Kings which Barkley denieth to be iustifiable M. Parsons opposeth Barkleis confession of a spirituall power of excommunication Nay I say yet more Barkley was so far from agreeing with Bellarmine in this point that he writ a large Chapter against him by name to confute his many rebellious positions made against the authority of Kings and among others he doth particularly answer this his obiection concerning Oziah I haue shewen saith he that this is most false And now I leaue this fraud of M. Parsons to be named by himselfe presuming that he that he that called my true Allegation Inexcusable will not want a proper Epithet best befitting his owne guiltinesse SECT III. The summe of the two and twentieth charge M. PARSONS his Reckoning THe second is about an authority of S. Ambrose craftily cut off from the speech of the said D. Barkley by M. Morton whereof my accusation in my former Treatise was this viz. But yet if I would examine quoth I the particular authorities that be alleaged about this matter though nothing making against vs as hath beene said and consider how many false shifts are vsed by T. M. therein you would say that he were a Doctor indeed in that science for that a seuer all Treatise will scarse conteine them I will touch one for example sake He citeth D. Barkley bringing in the authority of S. Ambrose that heresisted not by force his Arrian Emperour when he would take a Church from him for the Arrians but he setteth not downe what answer his Doctor Barkley doth alleage in the very same place which is Allegatur Imperatori licere omnia c. It is alleaged that it is lawfull for the Emperor to doe all things for that all things are his and consequently that he may assigne a Church vnto the Arrians Whereto I answer saith S. Ambrose Trouble not your selfe O Emperour nor thinke that you haue Imperiall right ouer those things that are Diuine Doe not exalt your selfe but if you will raigne long be subiect vnto God for it is written that those things that belong to God must be giuen to God and to Caesar onely those things that belong to Caesar. Palaces appertaine to the Emperor but Churches to the Priest Theright of defending publike walles is committed to you but not of sacred things Thus D. Barkley out of S. Ambrose in the very place cited by T. M. which he thought good wholly to pretermit and cut off and yet to make a flourish as though D. Barkley had cited S. Ambrose to prooue that the temporal Prince and Emperour was in no case nor in any cause spirituall or temporall to be withstood or resisted And what will yee say of this maner of dealing Out of what conscience may it proceed The Reuiew 19 Surely either my answer proceeded out of a better conscience than that which M. Parsons bewraieth in this accusation or else I must confesse it is a blacke and vgly conscience indeed For the matter in question being this Whether it be lawfull for Catholikes to raise tumults against Hereticall Magistrates euen when they haue force to resist which is the now generall doctrine of Romish writers as there appeared I for confutation heereof alleaged Barkley who writeth thus of S. Ambrose S. Ambrose saith he was sufficiently armed both by the power of the people and souldiers and strengthened by the might of Christ yet would he not defend his Church with violence no not against the furie of an Heriticall Emperour The whole question being not of resisting by disobedience which is not obeying a wicked command but of resisting by violence by bearing armes against his person This causeth me to wonder at the palenesse of M. Parsons his face who blusheth not to insist in that example and Author wherein both he and all his Complices who like Heralds proclaime Armes and violence against the maiesty of Kings to depose them are so literally so largely and so really confounded For thus it followeth in Barkley Ambrose doth so handle the matter saith he that he neither betraieth Gods cause nor yet violateth the Maiesty of his Prince he resisted by not doing that which the wicked King did command yet be 〈◊〉 suffering paciently that which was decreed in the Emperours Edict Ambrose would not excite any to armes not because he could not but because he ought not as he himselfe did confesse And in the shutting vp of the point These haue I therefore written saith Barkley to shut vp the mouthes of such who say that the ancient Church did tollerate euil Princes because at that time they were not of sufficient power to resist and abstained onely vntill they might finde strength to resist 20 Which confession of Barkley may serue for a muzzle for Alan Rainolds Coster Creswell Bellarmine Symancha and my good friend M. Parsons who doe generally professe a violent resistance of them whom they call Hereticall Kings as soone as they may presume of their owne force Notwithstanding M. Parsons his Conscience could dispense with himselfe to perswade vs that nothing in this part of Barkley maketh against them when as wherein I dare appeale vnto any Reader of what profession soeuer neither M. Parsons nor any Iesuit can haue a greater Aduersary in this cause not onely in that place but euen throughout that whole booke CHAP. V. Conteining an Answer to the last charge of an heape of Falshoods at once §. I. 1 THe Question was whether our Aduersaries doe offer greater indignity vnto Kings than vnto Popes by their Doctrine of Deposing of Heretikes The Moderate Answerer held that they Doe not I went diameter and affirmed that They doe offer more preiudice vnto Kings because they teach that Kings when they command obedience vnto Doctrines as Kings they may become Heretikes and thereby they are made by them liable vnto the censure of deposing But for Popes they resolue otherwise to wit That Popes as Popes can not be Heretikes and they vnderstand that a Pope then speaketh as a Pope whensoeuer he determineth any doctrine to be a truth and propoundeth it to be beleeued of Christians whether he define so in a Counsell or Alone without a Councell Whereupon I inferred this mine owne Consequence as the Characters should haue distinguished that by this doctrine A Pope cannot be deposed and so their disparity betweene Kings and Popes is easily euicted 2 The Antecedent viz. Popes as Popes cannot be Heretiks I vndertooke to prooue to be the Romish Tenet from the confession of Bellarmine Greg. Valentia Salmeron Canus Stapleton and Costerus And now M. Parsons is desirous to be heard speake this being his last Charge He hath rammed his peece full and shooteth haile-shot pretending that in these Allegations I haue committed Ten Falshoods M. PARSONS his Reckoning He citeth other foure or fiue
was this Seeing that that and other Canons teach that the Pope cannot be iudged except he be found to erre infaith Ergo the Pope may erre in faith or otherwise such Canons should be in vaine hee vseth two answers but as though the sirst were too feeble Secondly I say saith hee that such Canons doe not meane that a Pope may erre euen as he is a priuate person but only that the Pope cannot be iudged And because it is not altogether certaine whether the Pope may be an heretike or no therefore for more cautelousnesse they added that clause Nisi haereticus extiterit that is except he be an heretike By this it appeareth that Bellarmine will not thinke that any Pope can be an heretike either as he is Pope or as he is a priuate man 10 Concerning Honorius Bellarmine in the clause of the same sentence which M. Parsons hath alleaged held it for probable that Honorius was not an heretike in whose defence he bestoweth a large Chapter wherein he is so bolde as to say that the foresaid Councell was deceiued in iudging that Honorius was guiltie of heresie Could M. Parsons be ignorant of this 11 By this time wee may discouer a strange mysterie of strong delusion which I shall first shew in a mirror Cambyses King of Persia being so farretransported with vnnaturall lust as to desire to marrie his owne sister demanded first of his Councellers whether such a match were warrantable by the law of the Persians they return him this answer There is no Persian law which will allow you such a marriage but yet we finde say they a law which doth licence the K. of Persia to doe what he list So some Romish Authours likewise although they say that a Pope being an beretike may be deposed yet haue they also taught that the Pope can not be an heretike which is all one as to thinke that as Pope he may not be iudged an heretike and if not iudged then how shall he be deposed For if hee shall happen to teach an heresie seeing that we may not belecue that he can be an heretik let him teach what he list he may not be suspected of heresie if not suspected then not iudged or condemned and then consequently not deposed for heresie which is our maine Consequence And for a further confutation I adde as followeth That their position concerning Deposing a Pope is but a cunning delusion §. III. 12 Bellarmine doth consider two capacities in the Pope the first is in respect of his Temporall Princedome the other in respect of his Spirituall Pastourship and Popedome Concerning his Temporall state The Pope as other Princes saith Bellarmine may ackno wledge no superiour in Temporall matters but in examining the Spirituall Iurisdiction We say saith he answering in the name of the rest that the Pope can not be iudged vpon earth by any Prince Christian whether he be Temporall or Ecclesiasticall no nor yet by all assembled together in a generall Councell meaning that he can not be deposed coà ctiuely Be it that this is spoken in respect of matter of fact and not offaith yet when supposing that a Pope may be an heretike we shall demand how a Pope may be deposed what will our Aduersaries answer For either must the Pope relinquish his Popedome together with his Temporall Princedome voluntarily or els by violence but not voluntarily because Obstinacie that iron sinew being a propertie of heresie the Pope will not voluntarily remoue especially out of so rich a Chaire Neither may he be remoued violently and by coactiue force For what Romish Author will iustifie violence in deposing a Pope by any example and yet diuers Popes haue been heretikes yea euen as Popes 13 From these premises our Christian Reader may vnderstand first the trueth of my former assertion to wit that the Romish Doctors beleeue that The Pope as Pope can not be an heretike Secondly the vanity of M. Parsons his obiection that being heretikes they may be deposed seeing that they must not beleeue that any Pope can be a pertinacious heretike Thirdly the necessitie of my consequence vz. They that holde that the Pope can not be an heretike must grant that he can not be deposed for heresie And lastly the disparitie betweene the state of Kings and Popes issuing from the former considerations because thus Kings shall by this doctrine be deposed for heresie but Popes may not And what a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and gulfe of difference do they furthermore make betweene these two states whilest as they iustifie the examples of diuers Popes in deposing of many Emperours not for heresie but for other causes and yet denie that the Pope may be deposed Although he should do any thing preiudiciall to the vniuersall state of the Church as their Carerius taught or Although as their Iesuite Azorius spake hee should neglect Ecclesiasticall Canons and peruert the lawes of Kings or Although as it is in Gratian he should carie infinite multitude of soules headlong with him into hell And now wee see the height of Papall prerogatiue and therein the depth of Antichristian tyrannie CHAP. VI. Conteining a briefe Censure vpon a late little Pamphlet intituled A PATERNE OF A PROTESTANT which was written by a namelesse Libeller 1 IT is now almost foure yeeres since my Booke of Ful Satisfaction was published in answer vnto the Moderate Answerer in all which time I heard nothing of this fellow who Endymion like seemed vnto mee to haue slept a drowsie sleepe yet now at length hee beginneth to rowze himselfe and to tell vs his dreame of a Paterne of a Protestant or as though some man had serued a Latitat vpon him because he had formerly betraied his Romish cause Therefore he holding it a shame at least not to saie something he commeth in clamorously with a scurrilous libell which the wise Reader will discerne to haue been penned rather for the vexation of his aduersary than in any hope of the reparation of his broken cause To whom first I make this answer viz. that I owe him no answer That there is no Answer due vnto this namelesse libeller euen by the doctrine of the Romanists themselues §. I. 2 CArdinall Bellarmine censuring a Venetian Doctor who printed a booke without prefixing his name before it telleth him that The Councell of Trent Sess. 4. doth exact vpon paine of excommunication that no bookes concerning Diuine matters be printed without the Authors name and the Approbationof the Ordinary both set downe in the title page of the booke But this Libeller doth not affoord vs so much as the least letter of his name and therefore ought he first to seeke an absolution for his contempt against their Churches order before that he can iustly expect of me an Answer to his calumnious Pamphlet Againe the same Cardinall elswhere noteth that Author sinè nomine est sinè
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