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

CHAP. III. About the Question of Rebellion; especially concerning the Title of M. Parsons booke of Mitigation.

SECT. I.

The Preface of M. PARSONS.

HE bringeth in a scornefull fixion, in stead of sound argu∣ments, * 1.1 by feigning a ridiculous conference or Colloquie in a Stage-play betweene the Mitigator and Moderator: wherein he himselfe may seeme to play the Vice, &c.

The Reuìew.

1. In that Colloquie was set downe not my fixion, but, that I may so speake, the faction of M. Parsons and his fel∣low: for both M. Parsons did a 1.2 commend the Moderate An∣swerer for his learned Answer; and the same Moderate Answerer did condemne all others, as insufficient, who be∣ing without the Kingdome of Great Britaine, should (as M. Parsons doth) attempt to write of these our English cases: by implication, censuring M. Parsons to be no better then the Dauus in the olde Comedie, that is, a busie and trou∣blesome body. Such an one as their owne Priest hath expres∣sed M. Parsons to be, calling him a b 1.3 Great Polypragmon: So that he shall not neede to seeke abroad for a Vice. Well it were if he plaid that part in iest, and not in earnest, that so he might proue onely ridiculous, and not obnoxious also, as we shall presently demonstrate.

The third Inquirie.

2. Whether Mr. Parsons did not betray his cause, euen by the title of his Mitigation? saying, c 1.4

It is not possible for his

Romish Clients to liue in obedience and subiection vnder his Maiestie of Great Britaine.

This I iudged to be a Title maruelously preiudiciall vnto them, in whose behalfe hee published his Mitigation. Let vs see how soberly M. Par∣sons will discharge himselfe.

Master PARSONS his Reckoning.

THis Inference is a meere cauilling of a seditious spirit, for that * 1.5 my writing aunswereth directly vnto the purport of his seditious Booke, saying, that it was impossible for Catholicke subiects to liue quietly in his Maiesties Kingdome: My aunswere being then con∣tradictorie to Mr. Mortons assertion, conteining so much as was need∣full to haue bene said vnto his negatiue; he saying that it was impossi∣ble, and I aunswering that it was not impossible.

A Reueiwe.

3. Soberly & quietly, good M. Parsons, & so shall you beter remember that which I told you d 1.6 before in the preamble, and w^ch you haue forgottē: to wit, that howsoeuer this an∣swer (if it were true) might confront your Aduersary T. M. a∣gainst whom you writ (who said that It is impossible forthem, whom you haue inspired, to performe due subiection) yet could it not satisfie the States of our land, to whom you writ, * 1.7 who seeke in a dutifull Allegeance, not a constrained, but a voluntarie; nor a suspicious, but a religious possibilitie of sub∣iection, which alwayes (according to the Oath of Allege∣ance) inferreth an impossibilitie of being rebellious: nor can they be contented with your may, but with a must be subiect, as then I told you out of the Apostles doctrine, commaunding * 1.8 Euery soule to submit it selfe vnto the powers that be: explai∣ned by Saint Augustine: The Apostle saying (saith he) that [It is necessarie that we be subiect,] lest that any might not performe this in loue, but as of cōstraint, he addeth Not for feare of wrath, but for conscience sake,] that is, not dissemblingly, but dutiful∣ly in good conscience, in loue of him (that is God) who comman∣deth subiection: as in another place he commandeth seruants to

obey their iniurious Masters, but not with eye-seruice, as onely pleasing men, but as pleasing God. If this kinde of subiection was challenged of Christians vnder Paganish Kings and hea∣thenish Masters, how could you but giue cause of iealousie vnto our kingdome by that your Title, which will promise no more but that [It is not impossible to liue in subiection?] In the end, for want of better demonstration of your good in∣tention in that Title, you run to a similitude.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

ALthough this [It is not Impossible] doe containe but in genera∣litie, * 1.9 yet doth it suppose all necessarie conditions, that are to be required for performance: As for example, If a Noble woman should resolue to depart from her husband; saying, it is impossible for me and you to liue together, the difference of our natures and condi∣tions being considered, and that her husband should answere againe, It is not impossible: doth he not aunswere sufficiently and to the pur pose? For he vnderstandeth the other circumstances included, If you beare your selfe like a wife, haue respect to both our honours, and the like.

The Reuciwe, manifesting the absurditie of Master PARSONS his Similitude.

4. Whereas the question is, how a subiect should mani∣fest the trueth of his loyaltie vnto his King, Mr. Parsons gi∣ueth vs a Similitude, how an Husband, who is the Lord, shall make faith of his behauiour vnto his wife, who is the subiect. This is an absurd elusion rather then an illustration, changing the case, by altering the Sex: For an husband hath a libertie to make his equall conditions, and the terme of possibilitie may become him: but it is otherwise with a wife, who stan∣deth in the obligation of subiection to her husband.

5.

I propounded vnto Mr. Parsons a contrary similitude, to wit, c 1.10 If a wife, to mitigate her husbands ielousie, occasioned by her loose behauiour, should seeke to satissie him by saying, be cōtented good husband, it is not impossible for me to become an honest woman hereafter:

whether her husband wold take this

for a iust Mitigation. This any one may know to be an agreea∣ble and proportionable Similitude, which Mr. Parsons hath not aunswered vnto; but concealed, that he might more li∣berally (which by his leaue, is a peece of fine craft) call my as∣sertion vaine and impertinent: as followeth.

Mr. PARSONOS Reckoning.

VAine therefore is the cauillation of Mr. Morton, saying, that there * 1.11 is nothing else prooued but a possioilitie.

The Reueiwe.

6. These words, It is not impossible, by true equipollency, doe they signifie any more but, It is possible? and so è contra. As for example, he that should commend Mr. Parsons saying, It is not impossible for him to write moderately, saith no more, according to the rule of equipollency, but, It is possible for him to write moderately. I wish, that Mr. Parsons, had looked better to his booke of Modals, before that he had made me this rawe Reckoning. We now come to

SECT. II.

The first Argument of the Impossibility of due subiection.

The charge against Mr. PARSONS

7.

HE said that f 1.12 Christ together with the commission in spirituall affaires, gaue vnto Peters successors a charge and ouersight of temporalities in like manner, with au∣thoritie to proceede against temporall Gouernours, for defence and preseruation of his spirituall charge; whether directly, as commonly Canonists teach, or indirectly, as Diuines hold, there is no difference, but in the manner of speech: for in the thing it selfe, both parties doe agree.

Heere is an aduancing of a power in temporall affaires ouer a King, which I thought

could no more possibly consist with the Ciuill Oath of Alle∣geance in our land, whereby all forraine Iurisdiction in such cases is excluded, then can temporall Supremacie, and no Su∣premacie.

Mr. PARSONS Reckoning, for his discharge.

WHereto I aunswere, that in beliefe and Doctrine they can∣not * 1.13 be reconciled, but in ciuill life and conuersation and practise of due temporall obedience, they may be no lesse (for any thing touching this point) then if they were al of one Religi∣on, if such Make-bates as these would cease to set Sedition.

The Reueiwe.

8. I haue written nothing for mouing, but for remouing of Sedition, which the Title of your Mitigation did but one∣ly palliate and cloake, as now in your aunswere you further bewray. They may agree, (say you) although not in Doctrine, yet in conuersation. If I shall replie and say, that you will not agree with vs in the Doctrine concerning Ciuill Conuersati∣on, Ergo, you will not agree with vs in Ciuill Conuersation: can you possibly shape me any sensible aunswere? For seeing it is your doctrine to excommunicate and roote out all Pro∣testants as Heretickes, whensoeuer there is an opportunitie to proccede against them by armes or otherwise: Shall any looke for Grapes of Thornes, or Figges of Thistles? Can any expect a Ciuill practise from such vnciuill and brutish positi∣ons and doctrines?

SECT. III.

The second Reason of Impossibility and charge against Master Parsons.

9. IT was demaunded, how farre it pleased Mr. Parsons to extend the Papall power in temporall affaires, against

such as doe contradict his spirituall Iurisdiction?

He g 1.14 tolde vs that Two Protestant Prmces were excommunicated consu∣red, and molested by the Sea Apostolike, Q. Elizabeth of Eng∣land, and K. Henrie then of Nauarre, now of France: the first of these two for the violent chaunge of Religion which she made in the Realme, with depriuations and imprisouments of Catholicke Bishops, Prelates, and Clergie, &c. The other, for feare he, comming to the Crowne of France in that disposition, wherein hee then was presumed to bee, should attempt the like chaunge in that great kingdome, &c. These examples (said I) are both plaine and pregnant. A Protestant Queene must be depriued for resisting the spirituall Iurisdiction of the Pope, and a Protestant King must bee also deposed, least peraduenture he may make any resistance. Now, we see, that the same Papall authoritie is by the lawes of Greate Britaine as expressely excluded; their Religion suppressed, their Clergie exiled, and Protestants Religion (according to former proceedings) continued. All which doth ar∣gue as great an Impossibilitie of dutifull Subiection, as it is for Hinderance and Sufferance; Chaunge, and Continuance of the same Religion, to be matched and married together. Thus then, and now I am ready to take his Reckoning.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

His two next reasons of Impossibilitie are so obscurely and intri∣cately set * 1.15 set downe, as if he vnderstand them himselfe, it is much, in my opinion: for as for me, I see not, I confesse, what infe∣rence can be made out of them, though I haue purused them ouer with much attention, more then twice; and the same, I suppose, the common Reader will say, when he hath in like manner considered of them: for they concerne onely the Excommunication of Q. Elizabeth, and of king Henrie the fourth of France, which censure was promulgated by two seuerall Popes of this our age, and consequently the doctrine is dan∣gerous (saith he.) But I haue shewed now, that more then three times so many Protestant Princes were tolerated by other Popes. How then doe these examples inferre so generall a necessitie of disobedience in all Catholicke subiects: yea and an impossibilitie of the contrary, that they can be obedient.

The Reuiewe.

10. When he hath the matter so fully and plainely layde before his eyes, and is challenged to make an aunswere, hee telleth vs that he cannot see. Is this a Sober, and not rather a sorie Reckoning? Notwithstanding it was (I must needs say) * 1.16 a point of wisedome in him, neither to see this himselfe, nor to let it be seene of others, according to that of the Co∣median, Non sapis, si sapis; that is, A wise man must some∣time not see that which he seeth. In which Art, our Ad∣uersaries are not altogether vnexperienced, for their owne Marsilius noteth this to haue beene practised by Cardinall Bellarmine, Who, according to his fashion (saith h 1.17 Marsilius) faigneth himselfe to bee ignorant of the force of an argument, which he cannot aunswere. Wherein they play with men, as the Philosopher, of whom we read, when hearing of a riddle, which he could not vnfold, and being vrged by one that said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that is, Loose this Difficulty, loose it; Answered say∣ing, Soft a while, Sir, for were it not great madnesse in me, if I should seeke to loose that, which whilest it is bound doth so greatly vexe and torment me?

11. Thus it fareth with Mr. Parsons: for the reason of this Impossibilitie was taken not onely from the Excommunicati∣on of Princes: but from the i 1.18 Deposing of them, and so the Reader might haue easily discerned, if Mr. Parsons, to inure his penne to deceitfulnesse, had not craftily concealed that point. This deposing of Kings from their Kingdomes inferred, as I then sayd, as much an Impossibilitie as King, and no King. And this consequence diuers Romish Doctors * 1.19 will readily confesse to be most true.

12. When furthermore we demaund of Mr. Parsons (seeing they teach an eradicatiō of Princes, who will stand excōmuni∣cate) how it cōmeth to passe thatsome Protestant Princes haue not bin molested? He, by way of preoccupation, telleth vs that * 1.20 such Protestant Princes were tolerated-by other Popes. Are not now al Protestāt Princes much beholden to Mr. Parsons who alloweth thētheir Crowns only vpon the Popes Toleration? He thought that I was somewhat Obscure in my former reason,

but I suppose that his Clients will iudge that hee hath beene too plaine in this aunswere, in saying, that Protestant Prin∣ces haue beene but tolerated by other Popes: to wit, onely so long (as others haue professed) vntill they haue power to resist: who seeth not this aunswere to bee intolerably treaherous, allowing no better Toleration of such Kings, then kings often∣times doe in tolerating of Rebels, which is Tolerare dones possint tollere. So that, in very deed, the aunswere which Mr. Parsons offereth, for confutation of the obiected Impossibility of due subiection, doth more strongly confirme it.

SECT. IIII.

The third Argument of Impossibilitie. The charge against Mr. PARSONS.

13.

THis was k 1.21 taken from the practicall Bull of Pius Quintus, in Anathematizing our late Queene, in depriuing her of all Regall dignitie, in absoluing her subiects from their Allegeance; and from Mr. Parsons too tender a touch of that desperate Powder-treason, calling it a Teme∣rarious fact, &c. For both which he is to Recken.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

I See not what inference can be made. * 1.22

The Reueiw.

14. If Mr. Parsons see not, that by dissoluing of the Oath of Allegeance, there is excluded all possibilitie of due subiection, * 1.23 the fault is to be imputed rather to his will, then to his wit. The Prouerbe is, that Blear'd eyes will not see the sunne: And who seeth not that this concealement is guilefull? which kind of aunswering may bee called Quiet indeede, but no Reckoning at all.

The fourth reason of Impossibilitie: and charge against Master PARSONS.

15. Whereas, by their Doctrine, it is in the Popes plea∣sure, to award his censure of Eradication of Protestant Kings, and of their faithfull subiects: it seemed to mee to imply an Impossibilitie of their dutifull subiection.

He aunswered that l 1.24 There is nothing in this but a May, which being de futuris contingentibus, all remaineth in vncertaintie:

which aun∣swere I iudged to be prodigious.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

IDoe not denie, nor euer did, that due prouidence and prouision * 1.25 ought to bee helde of future contingents, but my saying is, that it must haue due limits, lest it become hurtfull, to wit, vaine and vex∣ing Iealousie.

The Reueiwe.

16. It is no rare thing in Mr. Parsons to say and gainsay, according as hee findeth the season to fit. Before he made no more of the dangers, which may insue vpon the Popes malice against Protestants, but as a man would doe of his dreame, which he neuer considereth, before it be past. For now that May shall bee something: but when they speake of sub∣iection to Protestant Kings, his May is but a meteor, as wee shall see.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

I Say moreouer that euery May, is not a Must. * 1.26

The Reueiwe.

17. I beleeue you, for this your position [Romanists may possibly bee obedient subiects,] doth not by your doctrine inferre necessarily that they must be obedient, as by ordinarie experience hath beene too truely seene: but yet your may for the eradicating and rooting out of your opposites

doth, by your doctrine, necessarily inferre a must, as often as you may finde power to performe it,

as hath beene prooued from the m 1.27 doctrine of your Card. Bellarmine, saying, that such Protestant Kings must not be suffered to raigne: From your Doctor Sanders, saying, They must be rooted out: From your Doctor Bouchier, saying that This must be done by all meanes possible: and from the Bull of Pope Vrban, practi∣sing the same, and saying, Not onely Lutheran Kings, but also all their fauourers must be destroyed.

18. All these were in that Reason expresly vrged, the Au∣thours cyted, and now M. Parsons hath fraudulently concea∣led, * 1.28 as though this his Answere (viz. May be, doth not inferre a Must) had not beene so much as thought on before. Here, if euer, it concerned M. Parsons to satisfie; but he dealeth like a close, subtle Merchant, who is loath to acknowledge his debt which he cannot possibly discharge: Is this good Reckoning? Is it not an argument both of a desperate cause, and of a guil∣tie conscience? Notwithstanding, in the end, as though hee had cleared the whole Reckoning, and that nothing could be obiected against him, he addeth two other pleasant, but yet prodigious conceits.

The summe of Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning.

TRuely in this point I see not, what probabilities may be in rea∣son, * 1.29 to perswade his Maiestie that his Catholique subiects would not liue quietly and confidently vnder him, if they might be vsed as Subiects, and haue that Princely and Fatherly protection from him, which both lawes doe allow to free-borne subiects, and they may hope and expect from his benignity, where no personall or actual delict shal haue made them vnworthy thereof.

The Reuiew.

19. If your Catholickes (M. Parsons) may be vsed as Sub∣iects? Let me entreate you for some few minutes of time, to take vpon you the face of an ingenuous man, and tel vs whe∣ther you thinke them to be vsed as Subiects, or no? It is like∣ly you are of the same minde you were, when you said that

n 1.30 His Maiesties milde and sweete respect towards Catholikes at his first entrance, was soone by arte of their enemies auerted, long before the Conspiracie fell out, for that not onely all the most cruell Statutes and penall lawes made by Q. Elizabeth were re∣nued and confirmed before this, with addition of others, tending to no lesse rigour and acerbity, but also the exaction of the same was put in practise with great seuerity: Nor were mens goods and persons onely afflicted, but the liues also of sundry taken a∣way for cause of Religion, before this Powder-Treason fell out. o 1.31 But to proceed a little further in the narration of some points of heauie persecution, which ensued soone after his Maiesties being in England, much before the Powder-treason was attemp∣ted. So you goe on, reckoning vs your Pressures, which you call p 1.32 Violence intollerable; New angariation; yea an huge Sea of Molestations and Exagitations.

One word more. What, I pray you, do you thinke of the Powder-men, who liued at li∣bertie in great ryote? q 1.33 They were halfe a score young Gen∣tlemen, put in despaire by apprehension of publique persecution, without demerit of the persecuted.

Well then, it is plaine that youacknowledg no Probability of quiet Subiection in your Ca∣tholiques, to wards his Maiestie, further then that they are v∣sed * 1.34 as Subiects: but (say you) they are vexed with intollerable violence, new angariations, and persecutions, without their deme∣rit. You neede say no more, your Reader will easily vnder∣stand your conclusion, which giueth vs a fare-wel vnto all vo∣luntary subiection. Thus we haue vnmasked M. Parsons, that we might see his bare face.

20. I willingly omit, as friuolous, his next descant vpon a r 1.35 Red-rose. and a White: for albeit there is Now no difference of Titles betweene the Red-rose, and the White; yet is there oddes betweene loyall subiection, and treasonable Positions and practises, which end in blood as redde as any Rose.

SICT. V.

An Addition vnto the former Impossibilities.

21.

VNto the former Argument I r 1.36 added,as an assi∣stant, your professed Couert of Mentall Reser∣uation,

vsed by you in your examinations for a cloake of much perfidiousnesse, which worketh an Impossibility of dis∣couery, and consequently addeth vnto the former Impossibi∣lities.

Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning, concerning the priuiledge of Priests and their exemptions.

THat we may equiuocate before incompetent Iudges, and that * 1.37 the Lay-Iudges in England are incompetent to examine Priests, may be as well vsed for an argument to proue, that Lay-men and Priests cannot liue together in Spaine and Italy, and other Catholike countries, for that there also Lay-men are incompetent Iudges in Clergie-mens causes, and so are Clergy-men themselues, if they haue no lawfull Iurisdiction, or proceede not lawfully.

The Reuiew.

22 Thus you answere only for iustification of your Priests, we see by this the notable prerogatiue of a Romish Priest, to wit, whensoeuer he commeth to be examined before a Lay∣Magistrate, * 1.38 he is priuiledged to Equiuocate, because Lay-Ma∣gistrates (according to M. Parsons doctrine) are unto them Iudges incompetent.

23. But by what law, M. Parsons, can you pleade such an exemption? by Diume law? some of your side haue so taught, but your more sober Authours dare confute them, as we read in their Marsilius, to wit, s 1.39 The Exemption of Ecclesiasticall persons in temporall and criminall matters, Medina rest. q. 15. a most sound and Catholique Authour saith, is not prescribed in any place of Scripture, and concludeth that it is not by Diuine law; Couarruvias lib. pract. ca. 31. conclus. 2. is of the same opi∣nion

who is also a solid, and Catholique Authour: Victoria al∣so, and Sotus consent thereunto; and so did formerly (meaning Bellarmine) the L. Cardinall himselfe. So he. It must therefore follow, that all such Exemption proceeded from humane in∣dulgence; and may vpon humane necessity be altered againe: neither is that prerogatiue vniuersall: therefore it may bee that M. Parsons, when hee named Spaine and Italy, saw some cause to pretermit Fraunce.

24. Howsoeuer their case may be in other Countries, yet the oddes betweene them and ours is farre different, because the Romanist doe acknowledge a power spiritual in their Bi∣shoppes, and account them to be competent Iudges, both to examine, and also (vpon iust cause) to deliuer their Clerkes in∣to the handes of secular Magistrates, and so vnto execution, according to the nature of their demerit: but in England they hold both lay and spirituall Gouernours to bee in like cases altogether incompetent; and therefore the Argument of Impossibilitie is more in England then it can bee eyther in Spaine or Italy: yet this was the best shift that Mast. Parsons could make, to confound two cases of England and Spaine. which are no lesse different then England and Spaine.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Reckon. c. 2. p. 76
• a 1.2

  pream. p. 30.
• b 1.3

  Quodlib. p. 21 & 120.
• c 1.4

  Pream. p. 34.
• * 1.5

  Recko. pag. 79.
• d 1.6

  Pream. pa. 35.
• * 1.7

  Mr. Parsens in Straits.
• * 1.8

  Rom. 13.
• * 1.9

  Reck. pag. 79. 80.
• c 1.10

  Preamb. p. 35.
• * 1.11

  Reckon. ibid.
• f 1.12

  Mitiga. p. 24. n. 22. and Preamb. pag. 37.
• * 1.13

  Reckon. pag. 81.
• g 1.14

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 p. 83. out of Mitig. pag. 77.
• * 1.15

  Reckon. pag. 82.
• * 1.16

  M. Parsons wisely fainetls himselfe igno∣rant.
• h 1.17

  Marsil. Defens. cap 8. §. errat. 7. pag. 380. Dissembledig∣norance.
• i 1.18

  Preamb. p. 38.
• * 1.19

  Seehereafter.
• * 1.20

  Mr. Parsons al∣loweth of safe∣tie of Pote∣stant Kings only by a To∣leration.
• k 1.21

  Preamb. p. 38.
• * 1.22

  Reckon. pag. 82.
• * 1.23

  Dissembled ignorance.
• l 1.24

  Mitig. p. 95. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 8
• * 1.25

  Reckon. pag. 85.
• * 1.26

  Reckon. pag. 85.
• m 1.27

  Preamb. p. 41.
• * 1.28

  Mr. Parsons most strange fraude.
• * 1.29

  Reckon. p. 87.
• n 1.30

  The letter of a Catholique touching the Oath of Allea∣geance. p. 42.
• o 1.31

  Pag. 43.
• p 1.32

  P. 43. 44 46.
• q 1.33

  Mitig. pag. 50
• * 1.34

  M. Parsons be∣tray eth him∣selfe in the point of Alle∣geance.
• r 1.35

  Rec kon. pa. 87
• r 1.36

  pream p. 42.
• * 1.37

  Reckon. pag. 89.
• * 1.38

  AEquiuocating a Priestly prerogatiue.
• s 1.39

  Ioh. Marsil. Defens. aduers. Bellar. c. 3. p. 199 & 200. &c Exemption of Priests, 〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉