Selected quad for the lemma: religion_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
religion_n	england_n	king_n	kingdom_n	4,625	5	5.7154	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A07805	The encounter against M. Parsons, by a revievv of his last sober reckoning, and his exceptions vrged in the treatise of his mitigation. Wherein moreouer is inserted: 1. A confession of some Romanists, both concerning the particular falsifications of principall Romanists, as namely, Bellarmine, Suarez, and others: as also concerning the generall fraude of that curch, in corrupting of authors. 2. A confutation of slaunders, which Bellarmine vrged against Protestants. 3. A performance of the challenge, which Mr. Parsons made, for the examining of sixtie Fathers, cited by Coccius for proofe of Purgatorie ... 4. A censure of a late pamphlet, intituled, The patterne of a Protestant, by one once termed the moderate answerer. 5. An handling of his question of mentall equiuocation (after his boldnesse with the L. Cooke) vpon occasion of the most memorable, and feyned Yorkeshire case of equiuocating; and of his raging against D. Kings sermon. Published by authoritie	Morton, Thomas, 1564-1659.	1610 (1610)	STC 18183; ESTC S112913	342,598	466

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

stronger men then themselues to passe securely on the way For you know M. Parsons that your not resisting where you want force is done with that reseruation as your Doctors haue taught Vntiil there be sufficient firce to resist Otherwise tell me I pray you when you obiect that three Protestant Princes were admitted peaceably How is it which you could not denie that Henry King of Nauarre was resisted lest that comming to the Crowne of France in that disposition wherein he was presumed to bee namely a Protestant hee should attempt the change of Religion in that great Kingdome Here the case of Religion we see was the same in K. Edward of England and King Henry of France and yet behold resisting the one and not resting the other Can you imagine any other reason of this difference but the hauing and not hauing of Power to resist Therefore in this Reckoning you haue beene wisely craftie by concealing an Obiection which you could not satisfie 55. I doubt I shall but trouble you in asking you another Question but you must pardon me for the cause it selfe doth challenge thus much The three Protestant Princes who were as you say so peaceably admitted to the Crowne were they admitted voluntarily on your part or no If they were admitted voluntarily then by your owne former Doctrine M. Parsons all your Catholickes were damnable sinners who admitted any to the Crowne whom they thought to be of a faultie Religion If they were not voluntarily admitted then are you a fraudulent AEquiuocator in answering that They were admitted peaceably reseruing as it may seeme in your minde because our Catholickes had no power to resist Wee draw to a conclusion M. PARSONS his Reckoning WHerefore to come to knit vp this Reckoning briefely with M. Morton we see first that he hath not beene able exactly to verifie any one of his two former propositions out of his owne Syllogisme concerning Dolemans Assertion but that he hath vsed exaggeration and calumniation in them both and that whatsoeuer he hath vrged neuer so boldly to incite his Maiestie against vs may with much more reason and force of argument bee retorted against himselfe and his The Reuiew confuting M. Parsons from the iudgement of his fellow Priest 56. I haue bin earnestly and sharply censured by M. Parsons as one false calumnious and malicious because I noted his booke which he named Dolman to be a Treatise very seditious and rebellious and as though he goodman had meant nothing but well therein he durst in his Mitigation pleade for his Dolman and now againe forbeareth not to reuiue the iustification of that booke in this his newe Reckoning Albeit he could not be ignorant of the iudgment which one Romish Priest with the consent of many moe had passed vpon him Parsons his bookes saith he were seditious as his Philopater speaking most rebelliously against her Maiestie and the whole State and Nobles of this land his Dolman intituling most trayterously the Spanish Infanta to the English Crowne Thus we see his will was extreamely Trayterous 57. The same Authour dooth furthermore display a fine peece of witt-craft which M. Parsons vseth to practise In the most of Father Parsons seditious books which he hath published saith the same Priest he hath eyther concealed his name or giuen thē such a name as pleased him to deuise and one of his said bookes being set out by him under the name of M. Dolman Now that many exceptions are taken against it hee Goodman was not the Author of it his name is not Dolman and gladly wold he shift and wash his hands of it but all the water betwixt this and Rome will not serue his turne so to doe although by the common opinion of the Iesuits he may by lying and Equiuocating make a faire shew So their Priest And now I ofter the matter to our indifferent Readers to iudge whether Mr. Parsons being thus blazoned by their owne Priest as a man notably Seditious euen in their booke called Dolman and a lying Equiuocator may be thought to haue beene eyther in answering and quallifying of the obiected rebellious position a iust Mitigator or else in this booke a conscionable Reckoner in charging me with falshood SECT XIII The thirteenth charge against Mr. Parsons concerning Pope Gregory 7. alias Hildebrand the first Pope that deposed an Emperour from the testimony of Otto Frisingensis 58. I Said in the Text that Gregory the seuenth was the first Pope who dcpriued any Emperor of his regiment as saith your Otto Frisingensis Adding in the Margent Vt refirt Tolossanus that is According as he is alleadged by Tolossanus Mr. Parsons supposing that the testimony of Otto Frisingensis is alleadged contrary to his meaning noteth me for the falsificator whereas not I but their owne Romish Doctor Tolossanus was the reporter of the testimony of Frisingensis I would onely know whether it were not a malitious tricke in M. Parsons to charge me with the error if yet it were an errour of my Authour Tolossanus The summe of Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning in the discharge of himselfe IN the English Text which was written for the deceiuing of the Englishcommon reader was nothing layd at al of Tolossan ' but thus in disgrace of Pope Gregory the seuenth I reade and reade again saith your Otto Prisingensis and I finde that Pope Gregory the seuenth called Hildebrand in the yeare 1060. was the first Pope that euer depriued any Emperour of his Regiment Onely in the margent he setteth downe in Latine the words of Frisingensis with cyting the booke and Chapter and then addeth Ut 〈◊〉 Tolossanus lib. 26. The Reueiwe 59. That is to say in plaine English that not I but Tolossanus cyted Frisingensis contrary to his meaning And so is Mr. Parsons found to haue falsified in accusing me offalshood And now consider good Reader I pray thee that he hath no colour for the excuse of his former slander and errour but to say that the reported Authour Frisingensis was in the text to deceiue the English Reader and that Tolossanus the reporter was set downe in Latine in the margent which any man of Sobriety would be ashamed to alleadge for were not Frisingensis and Tolossanus both Latine Authours and therefore indifferently knowne and vnknowne to the English Reader How then can this excuse Mr. Parsons fraudulency for he vnderstood that these Latine wordes which were set downe in the margent viz. Vtrefert Tolossanus do signifie being Englished As Tolossanus reporteth so that the very childishnesse of this excuse of his false dealing doth more fully bewray both his folly and falshood 60. As for me I could not thinke it necessary to seeke for Frisingensis when I had at hand so good a Reporter as is their owne Doctor Tolossanus and yet when al is said Frisingensis saith that that Pope Gregory the seuenth was the first who eyther excommunicated or deposed an Emperour Mast.

Iacob would M. Parsons his learning licence him to condemne that speech of incongruitie Although I haue M. Parsons now at this aduantage yet will I not in requital of his owne scurrilitie about the Syllogisme send him vnto the Schoole againe to learne his Grammer but rather hold it sufficient to haue thus admonished him hereof SECT XII The twelueth Charge concerning Doleman alias Parsons 50. THe inquirie is whether Doleman alias Parsons held it to be a damnable sinne for any of his Catholicks to suffer any Protestant Prince to succeede in the Crowne This is your owne case M. Parsons and it wil therefore concerne you much to make vp a straight Reckoning if you will free your intention from Treason Your Answere in your Mitigation was this Is there any word peculiar of a Protestant Prince or of his successor Nay doth not the text speake plainely of making a King where none is c. How then can this malicious cauelling Minister c. This you spake in your lesse temperate moode but since I haue told you thatthe materiall subiect of that Booke was the Succession to the Crowne of England after the decease of Queene ELIZABETH where you spake expresly of an Heire apparant and in particular and by name tooke exception against our now Gracious Soueraigne King IAMES to debarre him from the inheritance of Great Brittaine I must expect of you a more solemne account M. PARSONS his Reckoning HIs last words Of damnable sinner were spoken as well against Catholickes as Protestants and meant more principally of Election then of Succession The Reueiwe 51. Mr. Parsons in his Mitigation would not be knowne to haue meant any more then of making a King by Election Now hee is brought to confesse that hee vnderstood it although lesse Principally of Succession also Which I confesse is a more Sober Reckoning Now yet wheras there is as good a right for an heire to succeed in the Crowne as there is for a King to possesse it M. Parsons reason of not making or admitting the right heire apparant who by the lawes of England is King immediatly after his Predecessor hath yeelded vp his last breath did necessarily inferre that he meant indeed by not making to marre a King which I prooued by a Syllcgisme which did sufficiently manifest his meaning viz. Maior Euery man is a damnable Sinner who admitteth any to the Crowne whom he thinketh faultie in Religion Minor But euery Romish Catholicke in the opinion of Mast. Parsons thinketh all Protestant Princes faultie in Religion Ergo. Euery Romish Catholicke who admitteth a Protestant to succeede in the Crowne is in the opinion of M. Parsons a damnable Sinner Let vs if you please Reckon likewise for this Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning ALl this Syllogisme I say is as well verified of Protestants as Catholickes and consequently the force of this Argument concludeth nothing at all against vs more then against himselfe and his For as for the Maior proposition no Protestant of sense I thinke but will grant that it is a damnable sinne to admit any Prince if it lie in his hand to preferre or hinder whom he thinketh to bee faultie in Religion for that otherwise we must say that Protestants haue no Conscience concerning Religion if they will aduance wittingly any one that will in their opinion destroy the same And then I make the Minor But euery true Protestant thinketh Romish Catholicks faultie in Religion Ergo euery true Protestant that admitteth a Catholicke Prince to succeede in the Crown is a damnable sinner And then what shall we say of the Dolphine of France when he commeth to yeeres to succeede in that Crowne after the death of the king his Father Will the Protestants receiue him or no The Reueiwe 52. The Maior was indeed propounded generally but according to the euident scope of that booke of Dolman it was intended only against Protestants for their Dolman alias Mr. Parsons himselfe being of the Romane Religion did professe it to bee a damnabē sinne to admit of King Iames and so of other Protestant Princes notwithstanding the right of their inheritance to succeed in the Crowne which is all that I haue affirmed of Dolman for the which notwithstanding he hath made so lowde and a lewde clamor saying How is this fellow to be trusted in these his Assertions c. But yet now graunteth in effect my former Assertion 53. True it is that in electing a King a man is bound in conscience to vse his libertie for the good of religion but religion it selfe teacheth vs that in admitting a Successor who according to the lawes of that Kingdome hath a right vnto the Crown the libertie of election ceaseth and the necessitie of admittance by the doctrine of Protestants is layd vpon vs be the partie neuer so aduerse vnto vs in faith as it appeared in their admittance of the now King of France euen when he reuolted from their Religion whom the Romanists would not admitt whilest that he was a Protcstant in profession And this difference of comparison betweene Protestants and Romanistes will continue vntill the Romanistes haue taken out this Lesson of Primitiue and Catholicke Doctrine to witte Diuersitie of Religion doth not change the naturall right of Inheritance which Rule preuailed in the mostpure times as Barkley their owne Doctor prooneth euen when Christians were winnowed and purged with persecution at what time the Apostle exhorted them saying Let euery Soule be Subiect vnto the higher powers And Euen then saith your Cunerus when the Martyrs by reason of their multitude were able to conspire against their Persecutors yet chose they rather to suffer for the obedience and honour which they were commaunded to performe vnto Kings then to resist if it happned that they could not saue themselues by flying This was the true victorie of Christians There is one thing more which you will haue me Reckon for M. PARSONS Reckoning in Charging his Aduersarie ANd to prooue this to bee an exaggeration That all Priests doe vtterly 〈◊〉 the Succession in all Protestant Princes I alleadged contrarie examples in all the Protestant Princes that euer succeeded in England since the beginning of the world who are knowne to bee but three in number King Edward Queene Elizabeth and King Iames who were admitted both by Priests and Lay-men Ergo all Priests doe not vtterly abolish all Succession in all Protestant Princes c. And consequently some moderation must be graunted on our side against this odious exaggeration A Reuiewe shewing how M. Parsons is fettered in his owne Assertions 54. Is this an honest kind of Reckoning to tell what you alleaged and to conceale what I replied namely that it is a sillie sophistrie for you in a question of right to oppose for your discharge only a matter of fact which is no better reasoning then to say that certaine Robbers were honest and quiet Subiects because they suffered three

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