A REPLY TO A notorious Libell Jntituled A BRIEFE APOLOGIE or defence of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchie, &c. Wherein sufficient matter is discouered to giue all men satisfaction, who lend both their eares to the question in controuersie be­tweene the Iesuits and their adherents on the one part, and the Saecular Priests defamed by them on the other part.

¶ Whereunto is also adioyned an answere to the Appendix.

PSAL. 26.

Mentita est iniquitas sibi.

¶ Imprinted Anno 1603.

[...]

¶ THE PREFACE to the Reader.

VBi non est sepes (sayth Ecclesiasticus) Cap. 36. diripietur possessio. In such times wee doe liue (courteous Reader) as no care can be too much, no diligence too great, to preserue that litle, which we haue, or are, from ruine, and rapine of the euill disposed mighty. How intolerable the iniuries were, which some Priests once sustained, and afterward freely forgaue, the whole world is now a witnes, and cannot but see, how vntimely these stirres were reuiued by the Iesuits, and the Archpr. after that peace was concluded betweene them. Other iudges, then the whole world, the Priests would haue had, as appeareth by a letter of theirs to the Archpr. in their booke dedicated to the Inquisition pa. 61. but their humble petition was sayd to be a tumultuous presumption, and would not be heard. They foreshewed what danger would grow by his deni­all of a home-conference, but that did nothing mooue him. They de­clared that they stood in such tearmes for their good name, and fame, as they must either liue in perpetuall infamie, or vse their pennes in their owne defence: the first no way fitting their calling, and present state: the second very dangerous to both parts: it being very probable, that an Apologie would draw on an Answere: the Answere, a Re­ply: and that Reply not likely to be the last, howsoeuer lost labour. But neither could this perswasion purchase any peace, or procure, that the Controuersie might be determined at home among themselues. One way more did the Priests assay to stay the outrage of the Iesuits and Archpr. and that was to send to the Vniuersitie of Paris, for their o­pinion in the matters in question, which was no sooner seene by the Archpr. and Iesuits, but an Edict made, [...]9 Maij 1600. and diuulged in condemna­tion of their censure and great penalties threatned against those, who [Page 3] should either directly or indirectly maintaine, or defend it in word, or in writing, whether it were truely giuen, or forged (marke I pray you this spirit) whether vpon true information, or otherwise, as being preiudiciall to the Sea Apostolike, &c.

This headdie proceeding, and disclaiming, or rather condemning all triall (but a selfe will, and a dangerous obstinacie in the Archpr. and Iesuits) compelled the Priests to aduise vpon some other course: in which consult, they resolued to appeale to the Sea Apostolike: and the better to preuent such blockes, as were before layed in their way vpon the like attempt, they published certaine bookes: some in English to satisfie such of our owne Countrey, as were misinformed by the one part, and were not suffered to haue any speech with the other: some in Latine, that the cause comming to triall, might not bee heard with that preiudice, which false informations had before wrought, and would not now be wanting.

Against two of these bookes there is an Apologie lately come foorth, to wit, against the Latine booke which is dedicated to his Ho­linesse, and intituled: Declaratio motuum &c. and againe an Eng­lish booke intituled, The Copies of certaine discourses. And at the end of this Apologie there is an Appendix, wherein two other bookes are shrewdly threatned: the one in English, which was writ­ten in reply to a letter of the Archpriest, to his assistants, concerning the other bookes, and is intituled, The hope of peace: the other in Latine, which was dedicated to the Inquisition: and hath this title, Relatio compendiosa, &c. It is a world to see what shifting there is in this Apologie, when a difficultie occurreth to bee answered: what iugling, to haue the matter on the Priestes side seeme odious: what haste a second vntrueth maketh to ouertake a former, which through the Authors fault onely had gotten the start: how many rot­ten points there are, by which one storie is made to hang vnder ano­ther: what singular deuotion, and extraordinary charity is expressed in the most vile, and bitter termes, that either malice, or madnesse could deuise: as, The Epist. to his Hol. Children of iniquitie, Apol. cap. 1. fol. 5. Libertines, &c. and how true that sentence is in this Author: In oculis suis lachrymatur ini­micus, & si inuenerit tempus non satiabitur sanguine: Ecclus cap. 12. The enemy hath water in his eies: but if the time serue him, it is not blood wil satiate him. And this other also: Caput suū mouebit, & plaudet manu, &c. He will shake his head, and clap his hands: [Page 4] He will seeme to lament the course which is taken, and in the middest of his sorow he sheweth by one, or other impertinent ridiculous matter, how glad he is of any litle occasion to sport himselfe at the griefes of o­ther men. Yet notwithstanding this so grosse kind of dealing, as any man, who is not ouer-partiall, might enter into it, the applause of the ignorant (who will not either reade the bookes which the Priests set out, or examine what is boldly, although most vntruely, aduouched in this Apologie) demandeth an answere, which although M. Doctor Ely, and M. Iohn Collington haue largely and learnedly giuen to the most principall points therein handled, yet vpon the earnest desire of some, who haue seene this reply in my hands, I emboldened my selfe without the Authours priuitie to publish it, referring the Reader, for more satisfaction in this present controuersie, vnto their labours.

The last yeeres BREVE of the 17. of August would haue cast some doubt into me, whether I might haue attempted thus much, had not the Archpr. after a quarters meditation, or more thereon, publi­shed the Apologie, and immediatly after an Appendix vnto it. And if an vncontrolled custome may haue the credite to be the best in­terpreter of a Lawe, my feare is much lessened by the breaking out of another payre of bookes from the same Authours since that time: In which while they endeuour to manifest the bad spirits of other men, they discouer their owne, by such tearmes, as ill beseeme their profes­sion, and pay doubly some one mans debt, to which they would falsely, and against their owne knowledge perswade the Reader, that all the other Priestes were liable: and if no benefite rise by this present dis­course to the Reader, yet will it be another (although a needlesse) wit­nesse against the wilfull blinde, whome the holy Ghost rebuketh by the Psalmist in these wordes: Noluit intelligere vt bene ageret: He would not vnderstand that thereby he might doe as hee ought to doe.

Yours all that he is, A. P.

¶ A Reply to a certaine Libell, lately published in Print in the name of the vnited Priests, called A briefe Apologie, sup­posed to be made by F. Parsons.

CHAP. 1. How the Authour of the Apologie playeth at All hid, with the Reader, and while hee is couered vnder the name of vnited Priestes, he discouereth himselfe to be a Iesuit.

IT might seeme a very friuolous labour, to examine the title of this Apologie, if the Author thereof had not bene more curi­ous in the like, then there was iust cause, and ouer carelesse also what entrance hee made to this present woorke of his vn­trueths, and poore shifts, when imperti­nent discourses doe suffer him to fall into the matter in question, which as at other times, so here in the very title he peruerteth, and possesseth his Reader, that an Eccle­siasticall Hierarchie erected by his Holines, was impugned by the books against which he writeth, and for his pleasure termeth (although most ignorantly) Libels: their Authors being alwayes ready to iustifie them both before God and the world. And if his Reader might be so much fauoured by him, as that hee might haue his leaue to peruse those bookes, hee would soone perceiue, how falsly this title is set to this Apologie: the bookes intreating one­ly of the abuses of the authoritie, and of the iust causes of the Priests their forbearance, to subiect themselues to a superior of the Card. Caietans appointing, before any letters came from the [Page 6] Sea Apostolike, either in confirmation therof: or to shew that the Cardinal had any such authority, or commandement from his Holines, to erect any such Hierarchy. This Apologie is said to be written, and set foorth for the true information and stay of all good Catholicks, by Priestes vnited in due subordination to the right reuerend Archpriest, and other their superiors. As though those, who had appealed from the Archpriest vpon iust cause, did not remaine in due subordination to him, and other their superiors to whom they had appealed. But to let this calumny passe: there hath bene inquity made of many, who are the men here meant by these words: Priests vnited, &c. and as yet we cannot heare of any, who were priuie to the writing of it, or setting it forth. Some there are, who confesse, that their consents were asked to the setting foorth of some booke in their names, the contents whereof they were not to know at that time: and of most likelyhood it was to the setting out of this book: but they denied to giue their consents thereunto. Many suspect that this Apologie was not written by those Priests, which are here made to father it: but rather by those, who haue alwayes made their commoditie by the disunion of the Priests. And although it go forth in the name of many: it is very probable, that it was made by some one man. For whereas one man setting out a booke may vse his phrase in the plurall number, when he speaketh of himselfe: wee suppose: or, we say: it is seldome in vse, that many ioyned together, do vse in the like the singuler number: as I pray you: I suppose, which here we reade in the Preface I shall, in the first chapter: I thinke, I say, in the third Chapter: and in the sixt chapter I omit. [...] But to let this also passe: there are no weake coniectures, that this Apology was made by some Iesuite, who bewrayed himselfe, before he was aware, as may be seene in the 8. chapter of the Apologie Fol. 180. where the author hath these words: Where about they aske this question concerning vs, why should they be vnwilling to procure, &c. Copy [...]. And if any man will take the paines to turne to that place cited by these Authors, hee shall finde, that the question was asked concerning no other then Iesuits, and consequently, that out of this place of the A­pologie, there is iust cause to take them for the Authors. [...] An other coniecture there is, that Fa Parsons in particuler is the au­thor [Page 7] of this Apologie: because in the common opinion of many, who haue read his stile, this is so like vnto it, as it would be hard for any man to imitate it so neerely, without the very same gift which he hath. And the number of letters, and such as they are, do almost conuince, that it is his doing For what occasion had any Priests here in England to enter into so many impertinent matters to their state and profession, as are here by manuscripts testified, which probably were not to be gotten, by the first of Iuly after the publication of the bookes, he vndertaketh to an­swere. And F. Garnet the head of the Iesuits did almost disco­uer asmuch in a letter of his of the last of Iuly Anno 1601. to a Saecular Priest: M. F. B. wherin he told him, that the two printed books (against which this Apologie is written) should be (God willing) an­swered from Rome. Such as had read: Prou. 27. Laudet te alienus, & non os tuum, Let an other man and not thine owne mouth praise thee, might doubt whether F Parsons would so grossely commend himselfe, as here he is commended, were he not knowen to bee one, who would not willingly, that any mouth or pen, of which he hath the gouernment, should not shewe foorth his praises. Some other might doubt whether it were his doing, because of the diuerse Englishing of this sentence: Hebr. 13. Obedite praepositis ve­stris, & subiaccte eis: which here is thus Englished: Obey your Superiours and submit your selues vnto them. And in his selfe-clawing Wardword (wherein hee discouereth a piece of his disposition against some Catholiques) he translateth it thus: obey your Prelates and lie vnder them. Perchance those who had the printing of this Apologie, prefixed this sentence: and we will imagine, that they, in recompence of his extraordinarie commendations of them, requited him in that, which he might blush to say of himselfe: if at any time his vndeserued prayses may make him blush. There is an other place of scripture ta­ken out of the first to the Thess. cap. 5. Rogamus vos fratres, corri­pite inquietos. We beseech you brethren, represse those that are vn­quiet amongst you, which is apparantly abused in this place, both by false translation, and by being applyed against Cathol. Priests: because when they saw a thiefe, they did not runne with him, but stood, and stand still, as they are bound in con­science in the defence of their fame against those, who most [Page 8] iniuriously had taken it away in some places, and indeuoured to doe the like seruice elsewhere if they could. It is set out per­missu Superiorum: that is, by permission of the Superiors: but as yet we cannot learne, what superiors these are, hauing most humbly requested the Archpriest to giue vs satisfaction herein, as may appeare by a letter to him from M. Collington, not long after we had a sight thereof.

It is very probable, that no superiours dare auouch it: for it containeth the most grosse vntrueths, & idlest shifts, and those so hudling one vpon another (especially where the controuer­sie in question is handled) that it is a very hard matter to find a trueth in it. And doubtlesse this permissu superiorum was not set here to any other end, then that the Reader might see, howe the Author could lye by authoritie: which that it may appeare more euident, I haue drawen out of the Apologie some of such falshoods as are conuinced to be such in the Apologie it selfe, or otherwise publikely knowen to be such: without medling with those, which otherwise are to be proued as occasion shall serue. I haue also noted a fewe so apparant shifts, as no man of any iudgement can chuse but finde them, and be throughly sa­tisfied how this game doth goe.

CHAP. 2. A note of some notorious falshoods and shifts which are contained in the Apologie.

IN the title of this Apologie, it is said to be written and set forth by the Priests vnited in due subordina­tion to the R R. Archpriest: which is prooued to bee false, Cap. 8. Apol. fol. 108. where it is confes­sed, that these Authours are those, concerning whom this question was asked in the English booke entituled, The Copies of discourses, pag. 5. why should they be so vnwilling to procure or suffer to bee procured, &c. which question euery man, who can vnderstand English, may see, that it was asked con­cerning not the secular Priests, but the Iesuits: and consequent­ly the Iesuites are to be taken for the authours of this Apologie, and not the vnited Priests, as here is sayd.

2 In the title of the Table of certaine principall deceits, &c. he telleth his Reader, that it is a Table of principall deceits, &c. con­tained in two Libels: which is prooued to be false both by the eye, and by this which he sayth himselfe in the latter end of the Table. As for the second booke set out and intituled, The copies of discourses, &c. wee meane not to cite any thing thereof in this place, &c.

3 In the Table number 5. he affirmeth, That the Priests did ex­ercise Card. Allen when he liued, as now they doe other good men, he being opposite vnto them and their factious proceeding, especially a­gainst the fathers of the societie. And this also is a notorious fals­hood: the Cardinal beeing neuer opposite against the Priests or any their proceedings, how opposite soeuer he might be a­gainst some other kinde of proceedings of some beyond the seas: neither was there any faction in England, against which he might oppose himselfe, The Apologie contradicted by M. Blackwels letter. as may appeare by the testimony of M. George Blackewell in his letters to Card. Caietane in the yeere 1596. which was long after Card. Allen his death. And the let­ter which is here cited in confirmation of Card. Allen his being opposite to the Priests, doth shew no more opposition against the Priests then against the Iesuites, as may be seene where it is Cap. 2. Apol. fol. 11.

4 Ibid. num. 6. it is said, that when the Iesuits were first sent into England (which was in the yeere 1580. as appeareth Apol. fol. 181.) the Priests had but one only Seminary, which is proued false Cap. 1. Apol. fol. 3. where it is saide that the latter beganne in the yeere 1578.

5 Ibid. num. 13. A very malicious imposture. It is said that the good and quiet Cath. prisoners in Wisbich, are compared by the Priests to Donatists, for that they re­tired themselues from the tumultuous & scandalous life of the other, and put themselues vnder rule: which is apparantly false, as may be seene in the place quoted, where the Priests doe not onely not accuse any of Donatisme, but shew how F. Weston (of whom the speech is principally in that place) by yeelding to stand to arbitrement, declared himself not to be Tyronius that Donatist.

6 Ibid. numb. 14. It is fathered vpon the Priestes, that they should say that one in Wisbitch Castle fell out of his wits, by reason of opprobrious letters written vnto him: which is very false, as may [Page 10] be seene in the place quoted by this Author. The Priests there doe affirme, that one in Wisbich fell out of his wits vpon griefe (which these Authors leaue out) taken of certaine letters writ­ten, which were written by himselfe, and as he confessed some­time, that his writing of them was such a corrosiue vnto him, as he should neuer recouer it: and these words vnto him are added by these fellowes for their purpose, and for a braue florish, that they might the boldlier charge the Priests with a falshood.

7 Ibid. num. 16. Hee shifteth off the assertion of the Priests, that M. Standish had giuen his name to be a Iesuite (which was a thing to be considered of) he being the man, who was said to haue solicited this subordination in the name of the Secular Priests: and it is so also confessed in this Apol. Cap. 8. fol. 98. A palpable shift. The shifting of it is in this manner: All are Iesuits with these men, who are not of their faction, the Archpriest and all. And thus hee runneth away with the matter: which as is saide, ought to be thought vpon as much, as any thing here handled, for the dis­couerie how, and by whome this subordination was wrought.

8 Ibid. num. 23. The Priests are charged to call the authority of their superiour instituted by Christs vicar, a masking vizard, which is prooued false in the same place, where the Priestes words are cited. For there (as any man may see) they doe only affirme, that the Iesuits thought to procure dominion to them selues vnder the maske of another mans person, which is no im­peachment to authoritie, or immodestie against it: euery man knowing, that such authoritie as they doe acknowledge most iust, may be abused, and the man who hath it, and made no bet­ter then a masking vizard vnder which men goe, and doe many things vnseene and vnknowen.

9 In the list of principall persons that are iniuried, num. 11. it is said, that the most Reuerend Father in God the Bishop of Tricarica Nuntius to his Holines in Flaunders appointed viceprotector, and iudge of English Ecclesiasticall affairs, is refused by the Priests: which is most false, as their going vnto him (long before this booke was set out) will make euident, Ad Clerum An­glicanum 8. de­ [...]mb. 1601. and his letters doe testifie as much: and of their acknowledging of him in all dutifull sort.

10 In the Epistle to his Holines, num. 14. it is said, that the Priests had obtained libertie for foure vnder the Queenes letters patents to [Page 11] ride vp and downe, &c. which will appeare euidently to bee an egregious falshood, if the records be sought, vpon which all such letters are to be kept at the L. Keepers perill.

11 A whetstone. In this place also is another notable falshood, that fewe Ca­tholikes dared to deny them money, lest they should detect them to the Counsell.

12 The Iesuits play at in and out as they list. In the first Chapter of the Apol. fol. 2. this author affirmeth, that the principall or onely ground of this our present contention and scandalous controuersie, is an emulation partly of lay men against Priests, and partly of Priests against religious men, especially the Fa­thers of the societie. And in the 11. Chap. fol. 161. he sayth, that the whole world knoweth that this cōtrouersie is of Priests with the Arch­priest: and that the stomacke against the Iesuits is for standing with the Archpriest. By which, besides the contradiction, it appea­reth how this poore mans memory doth faile him, euen in the deciding betweene whome the controuersie is, which hee vn­dertaketh to handle and determine.

13 In the same Chapter, fol. 6. and 7. the beginning of the asso­ciation of secular Priests is attributed to the Priests vpon their comming into England, A malicious de­uise for to discre­dit the association intended by the priests. after they were frustrated of their de­signments by F. Parsons dealing at Rome: whereas his comming to Rome was in the yeere 1597. and not before, as appeareth in this place: and the association began in the yeere 1595. and F. Parsons was tolde thereof before hee came out of Spaine for Rome.

14 Cap 3. fol. 20. The Iesuites care for pure stuffe to make priests of. The bookes which are set out by the Priests are sayd to be done by such, as went ouer Seruingmen, Souldiers and wanderers: which is most apparantly false, if those were the au­thors which in the beginning of this Apologie are held to be.

15 Fol. 21. It is sayd, That the whole bodie, and name of Iesuites is impugned: which is most false, as may appeare in the booke to the Inquisition, pag. 5.

16 Cap. 6. fol. 27. D. Norden is saide to haue bene striken by God with a strange accident of repressing his tongue by dumbnesse, vn­till hee died: which is most false, hee dying no more strangely then all persons vse to die, according to the maner as the sicke­nesse doth take them. It is well knowen, that he died of a Le­thargie, and that he spake many times after he was first taken [Page 12] therewith, and died in all points as became a Catholike priest, as there are many to witnesse, who were present.

17 Cap. 8. fol. 98. His Holines is sayd to haue resolued to yeeld to the erecting of a gouernment in England, vpon a mature de­liberation taken of certaine letters, which by the date there set downe were written in England, after that this gouernment was erected. Conferre them with the date of the Card: Caie­tanes letters of the institution of the Archpriest, Martij 7. 1598. and the first of these here cited, wil be seene to haue bene writ­ten in England about a moneth before.

18 Fol. 109. The falsehood which is layd to M. Blackewel in his proposing false instructions, and affirming them to haue been annexed to his Commission, is shuffled ouer with an assertion, that his instructions came with his letters, which no man euer doubted of: The exception was against those, which were pro­posed for such, and were not such.

19 In the same leafe M. Blackewell his persisting in this error, that we could not appeale from him to his Holines, is shifted: first in this maner: We are sure he did not say it, in the sense they take it. Secondly thus: Many men in the world might say this in diuers cases, wherin Appeale is cut off by his Holinesse consent and or­der. A couple of good ieasts. The first is common to that sort of people, to flie to secret senses, to iustifie any thing, whatsoe­uer passeth them. And it were not altogether so intolerable, if they would (vnder the pretence, that sometime men may aequiuocate, by the example of our Sauiour, & other his saints) onely vse it to saue themselues from being taken, for such, as they are: but they will pleasure their friends with the like, and be as ready to giue a sense of other mens words, as their owne: but with this difference, that if they can possibly deuise, how to draw other mens words to an euill sense, they will perempto­rily affirme, that those men spake their wordes in that sense. And this their frowardnes towards others is sufficiently dis­couered, cap 2. Apol fol. 16. where the priests assertions, that au­thority is not an infallible rule of trueth: and that but one vpon earth is warranted from error, and not he in all things, are called in que­stion by this author vpon some his imaginary senses. But in the late spritish manifestation of spirits, cap. 1. hee discouereth [Page 13] himselfe egregiously in this kinde: where confessing that Sta­tutes haue bene made, both by our ancient kings of England, and by our protestant princes, by which they haue forbidden prouisions from Rome of dignities, & Benefices, he telleth his Reader very peremptorily, that they (priests) do conspire and iumpe with the protestant: and in a false, and hereticall sense, obiect the statute of Praemunire. Which also he would seeme to proue, by giuing a reason, why the olde statutes were made: as though neither the statute were to bee interpreted, accor­ding to the contents thereof (whatsoeuer was the cause of the making thereof) nor the absolute prouision of dignities from Rome forbidden: because the motiue of that statute was, to keepe the treasure of England within the land; which was rai­sed by the benefices, at that time annexed to the dignities. But to make this his cauill more plaine: the dignity of a legate had no spirituall liuing annexed vnto it: and yet did those Catho­like princes hold him, to haue incurred the penaltie of the Sta­tute of Praemunire, who would exercise a power Legantine in England without the Soueraignes consent: as may appeare by the answere of Card. Wolsey, when they endighted him in a Praemunire vpon those statutes, constrained thereunto (sayth the history) to intitle the King to his goods and possessions. Iohn Stow, 21. Hen. 8. My Lords iudges, the Kings highnesse knoweth, whether I haue of­fended his Maiestie or no, in vsing of my prerogatiue Legantine, for the which I am indited. I haue the Kings license in my coffers vnder his hand and broad Scale, for the exercising and vsing thereof in the most largest wise: the which are now in the handes of my enemies. Therefore because I will not stand in question with the King in his owne cause, I will here presently confesse before you the inditement, and put me wholly to the mercy and grace of the King, trusting that he hath a conscience, and a discretion to consider the truth, and my hum­ble submission and obedience, wherein I might right well stand to the tryall thereof by iustice, &c. By which it appeareth, that although his Maiesty, who then was, were mooued by some of his coun­sell, infected with Luthers doctrine, to condemne the Cardinal, for vsing his power Legantine: yet it is euident by this, that when the King was most Catholike, and the Cardinal also, the Cardinall would not exercise his authoritie Legantine, with­out [Page 14] the Kings license, and the King gaue it to him vnder his hand and broad Seale: which conuinceth, that whatsoeuer was the motiue of making those statutes, all prouisions of dig­nities from Rome were forbidden, and not those onely which had temporall liuings annexed vnto them. And hereby also may it be seene, how ready these fellowes are to interprete o­ther mens words in the worst sense, which they may, & affirme most peremptorily, that the speakers or writers had those sen­ses, which it most pleased their aduersaries to giue them. And thus much for this point. Onely this is to bee added, that al­though this new manifester of spirits hath in this place recan­ted somewhat of his rashnesse, vttered in the Apol. cap. 2. fol. 15. concerning the chiefe purpose of those statutes of Praemunire, yet he hath left somewhat in this manifestation of spirits, which he must in some other place recant, or shew himselfe a very ob­stinate impostor: that is, concerning the time of the enacting those Statutes, which were long before the time, in which hee here sayth they were made, as may appeare by the booke of Statutes.

The second shift is as apparant, as this. For although many men in the world may say as much as the Archpriest said in di­uers cases, wherein Appeale is cut off by his Holinesse consent and or­der: yet no man in the world, who professeth to be a Catholike, will say it, and stand peremptorily in it, without some warrant by this clause in their Commission, appellatione remota, or to that effect: which is not to be found in the Commission which M. Blackwell had, as may appeare to those, who will reade ouer the Cardinall Caietane his letters: by which he made him an Archpr and Superiour ouer the Seminary priests residing in Eng­land and Scotland.

20 Cap. 9. fol. 123. There are letters of the 18. of March 1598. from Flanders, brought out against the two Priests, that went from England to Rome, about an authoritie not then knowen in England: as by the date of the letters of institution, it may be euidently gathered, which was at Rome 7. Martij 1598.

21 Fol. 125. 126. 127. There are letters brought out to proue, that his Holinesse was prouoked by them to imprison the two priests: whereas the date of the first of them is, after the date of [Page 15] F. Bellarmine (now Cardinall) his letter to F. Parsons, wherein he signified, that his Holines had that resolution, if they came to Ferrara; for his letter beareth date the 17. of October 1598. as appeareth fol. 120. Apol. and the first of the other letters are from Doway 25. Octobr. 1598. as appeareth fol. 125.

22 Fol. 132. A most audaci­ous imposture. It is said that M. Charnocke said, and swore before, that their onely comming was to supplicate, &c. whereas there is no such matter said, or sworne by M. Charnocke, as may appeare fol. 129. where his oath is put downe without this word onely, which is here thrust in by the author for his purpose.

23 Fol. 128. F. Parsons exhor­tations were the students onely informations. The whole English Colledge is said to haue knowen, what passed at Rome in this matter, when the two priests were there deteyned prisoners, which (no one being present at any thing, which passed) is a most grosse and impudent imposture.

24 Cap. 10. fol. 141. It is affirmed, That the two Priests who were deteyned as prisoners at Rome, were presently set at libertie vpon the sight of the Breue, and assurance, that neither they nor any of their side in England would euer stirre more in these affaires. Which may euidently appeare to bee most false: for the Breue was brought vnto them within two or three dayes after the date thereof, which is 6. Aprilis: and the whole Colledge will wit­nesse, that one of them was not set at libertie, vntill the 6. of May following: although the other had this libertie vpon the 22. of April.

25 Fol. 143. A marucilous presumption of the blinde reader his dulnesse. There is very good vse made of the false dating of the Breue, which is knowen to haue bene vpon the sixth of A­pril 1599. and not long before, that is fol. 140. it is twice so cited. Yet here, for the credit of F. Parsons, the Reader must take the Breue to beare date the 21. of the said moneth.

26 Fol. 154. This Authour should haue shewed what meanes M. Char. had to liue in Lorraine. It is sayd, that M. Charnock being at Paris, it was there resolued that he should go into England vnder pretence of lacke of meanes to liue abroade: and that onely for fashions sake hee should aduise Card. Burghesius: which is very false, as the principall of our Nation then liuing in Lorayne can testifie: M. Charnock ha­uing been there almost a yeere, and neuer receiued any thing from them, who confined him there, nor from England, not­withstanding he had written diuers times, both to Rome, and into England for some maintenance as some of them haue testi­fied [Page 16] in their letters to the Archpr. dated the 11. of April 1600. from Liuerdune.

27 Fol. 168. A shameles dis­se [...]ling of the cause of these present contro­uersies. This Author inueigheth bitterly against the priests: and would haue his Reader most ridiculously to thinke that the priests had no iust cause to stirre, as now they doe, but that they tooke occasion (as hee sayeth) vpon an angry Epistle of the Archpriests vnto them, and most impudently quoteth a place in the priests booke to his Holilines, pag. 62. where his Reader may see, that the contents of that Epistle was a publi­cation that they were schismatiks, and that hee had receiued such a resolution from Rome, which we leaue to any indifferent man to iudge, whether it was a iust cause for the priests to stirre for the purging themselues of this wicked slander.

28 Fol. 177. This Author boldly demaundeth touching the two priestes who were imprisoned at Rome, among other questions (all which will bee answered in their places) had they not licence after all examinations made to goe and speake with his Holines if they would? Whereas all the English Nation then in Rome wil testifie, that they were kept close prisoners long af­ter their examinations were made, and the one not dismissed out of prison, vntill two dayes after that the other was depar­ted from Rome: by which it appeareth, that they were not to­gether at liberty after their first imprisonment, nor licensed to goe to speake with his Hol.

29 Cap. 13. fol. 201. It is affirmed that M. Bensted was pursued so narrowly vp and downe London, soone after conference with D. Bagshaw, as he was taken neere the Tower, and soone after made away, in recompense of this his contradiction to the D. A most malici­ous suggestion. For so good friends (saith this fellow in this place) are the persecu­tors vnto them, as none that dissent, or disagree from them shall finde any fauour. And to make this Narration seeme the more pro­bable, the priest himselfe is brought in, as a witnes hereof by a latter letter. But this falshood is so notorious, and knowen to be so great, and so wicked, as the spreaders of this libell blotted it out in some bookes themselues, and pasted thereon a piece of paper, as if they had been ashamed thereof. Yet did they let many books passe vncorrected perchance to such, as they pre­sumed would beleeue any thing they said, without further exa­mination. [Page 17] And to make some kinde of recōpence for this their wickednesse, they haue set a few lines at the end of their Appen­dix to the Apology: but indeed they haue committed a greater wickednesse by iterating the accusation in this maner. A new found meanes to de­fame men.Moreo­uer in the Apology pa. 201. the Reader is to omit the 9. lines immedi­ately following these words, Thus farre wrote that good priest, &c. for that something is therein mistaken through the mistaken date of one of M. Bensteds letters, whereby a former letter of his was taken for a later. His first apprehension was verily thought to proceede of treachery, vpon some free speaches of his with some malecontents: but his second taking which hapened at Lincolne, seemeth to haue been by a meere chance after his breach from Wisbich, and soone after he was put to death. What man of iudgment wil not discouer a no­torious malice in this author: who would so peremptorily af­firme, that M. Bensted did testifie by a later letter, that he was taken, and soon after made away in recompēce of this his con­tradiction: and afterward seem to salue it with a mistaken date of a letter: as though the letter bearing this or that date could de­ceiue the Reader in a matter of so great weight.

30 A most grosse slip. Cap. 13 fol. 207. It is sayd, how that as soone as euer the priests vnderstood, that their two messengers were restrained in Rome, and not like to preuaile: then D. Bagshaw was sent for from Wisbich to London to treate with the Councel, &c. which cannot but be a very shameles vntrueth, all England knowing that he was sent for vp not long after Michaelmas about Squires Spanish trea­sons: and it is well knowen that the priests were not restrained in Rome vntill the 11. of December, as is confessed in the A­pologie, cap. 9 fol. 121.

By these few his Reader may see, how bold a face he hath to prefixe in the beginning of his Apologie this saying of S. Au­gustine: Doe you know to distingui [...] betweene true, and false; be­tweene solide, and puffed vp; betweene turbulent, and quiet; between swelling, and sound; betweene probations, and criminations; be­tweene instructions, and fictions; betweene handling the cause, and running frō the cause? If you know this: well, and good: if you know it not, we are not sory that we haue had this care to instruct you. For al­beit your heart be not turned to peace, yet our peace returneth to vs. Yet to make some flourish in this kinde, and that his Reader [Page 18] should be possessed with a conceit of an infinite heape of slan­ders, calumniations, and contumelious speeches pretended to be vsed in the bookes against which he writeth, he giueth him a taste (as he sayth) in some few places taken out of the bookes, as they doe lie, by way of a Table: which he intituleth in this maner.

CHAP. 3. An answere to those calumniations which the Apologie-ma­ker setteth out in a Table intituled, Of certaine princi­pall deceites, falshoods and slanders.

PArturiunt Montes: who doeth not expect some very great wonder? Who hauing but one eare, or a credulous head, would not at this first en­counter take the Priestes for no other, then strange monsters? But alas how will this good man blush (if he be not past shame) when it shalbe discouered, how litle worth the noting, he bringeth foorth any thing, but the fruite of an idle and distempered braine? of which in these few words he hath giuen a sufficient argument, knowing that this Table is not of deceites conteined in the two bookes (as he pro­miseth) but onely in one, and so telleth his Reader at the ende of the Table: That he meaneth not to cite any thing of the other, for breuities sake. But marke I pray you, what deceites, falshoods, and slanders are here set downe for principall: and by those you may gesse what he would say, if he might.

Out of the latine booke dedicated to his Holinesse, pag 1. he hath found no lesse, then fiue or sixe deceites, shiftes, and fals­hoodes. But if you will know what they are, you must goe looke in the xj. Chap. of the Apologie, where we haue also discouered his exceptions to be no other, then fiue or sixe fond calumnia­tions. He would not tell you here, what they were, either be­cause he would not so soone discredite himselfe: or els because (imitating Painters throughout all this worke, aswel as Poets) the top of his Table shall present nothing to his Reader.

In the second page, as he saith, where the priests complaine of the persecution of the one side, and their oppression on the [Page 19] other side, he findeth great fault, or promiseth to prooue, that few of them haue bene wounded or put to death, but rather cherished, to make an opposition against the whole body. He citeth cap. 10, 11, 12, and 13. But if there should be a recitall made of such, as haue bene put to death, and the priests named, there would ve­ry few be found, that haue fauoured the proceedings of the Ie­suits. And if any priests haue lately found more fauour, then either themselues, or other heretofore haue had, it hath bene (as I suppose) in regard that the Councell hath lately percei­ued a difference of priests from Statists: and what indignities the priests haue, and doe daily suffer, because they will not run the lesuits courses, but oppose themselues rather against their falshood, with all due respect to the whole body of which they are members: and the contrary is not shewed in this Apologie, either in the 10, 11, 12, or 13. Chapter. For in the tenth there are onely a fewe foolish coniectures, that M. Doct. Bagshaw wrought some matters with the Councell (when he was sent for vp to London to his answere about the treason wrought by Squier, being by him charged therewith at Fa. Walpole the Ie­suits direction in Spaine.) In the 11. Chapter there is scarce one word to this purpose. In the 12. there is a bare assertion, as there is here in some foure or fiue lines. In the 13. chapter this authour indeede inlargeth himselfe vpon this matter, and is emboldened vpon a letter of M. Th. Bluet, which by the con­tents seemeth not to be his: Bluet being therein named among others, and altogether spoken of in the third person, not in the first, as Englishmen vse to speake, when they mention any thing concerning themselues and others ioyntly. As for ex­ample our phrase is, we shall be, not, they shall be, if the writer be one himselfe. And to say that he vsed such a phrase, to couer himselfe, is too grosse: for if he would haue couered himselfe, he would not haue set his name downe at the end of the letter, Yours Thomas Bluet. But of this we will say no more vntill we come to answere the 13. Chapter of the Apologie, when it shall be further examined. The second demonstration which this Apologie maketh of deceit, falshood and slander, is out of this same place cited. And as for their oppression (saith he) it is none, but such as they list to imagine, when they cannot haue their owne licen­tious [Page 20] will in all things. What the oppression is, I leaue it to any indifferent man to iudge, when Catholike priests, leauing all other liuelihoods, which either in England they might haue had, before they tooke vpon them this state of life, or other­wise out of England, as many haue at this day, in requitall of many yeeres hazard of their liues to saue mens soules, without any Ecclesiasticall liuing, or other meanes for their mainte­nance, then the charitie of such, to whom they minister the Sa­craments, are turned out to goe picke sallets: and all Catho­likes, who will be accounted pious and zealous, are forbidden their company, vnlesse the priests wil yeeld to their owne most vniust diffamations, and damne their owne soules in following the licentious will of the Iesuits, and Archpr. who would haue them to accuse themselues, that they haue liued, and ministred the Sacraments in schisme. And if any thing be brought in the 1.5.6. or 7. chapter as here is promised contrary to this, it shal be conuinced of deceite, falshood or slander.

Out of the fourth page in the Latine booke, there is deceit, falshood, or slander, prooued in these words: Cogimur, &c. We are forced to fly to the feet of his Holines, &c. But this matter is suffici­ently answered by the Priests presence in Rome: which was with as much speed as conueniently they could make. And if they had neuer gone, their sending of this book to his Holines would iustifie as much, as is here set downe, by them: and if (notwithstanding those means which the priests did vse) their appellation, and consequently this booke, wherein the appellation is, neuer came to his Holines, it is made more euident, how ne­cessary the printing of these bookes was, that some one by one meanes or other, might by good chance light into his Holines hands. And by this is answere made to the next place, taken out of the 5. page, where this deceit, falshood, and slander is found. Haecautem, &c. Wee are forced to diuulge these things in print, where diuers other causes are also giuen of the printing. And to this purpose there was the last yeere a little booke printed at Paris, and dedicated to the Nuntius there residing, entituled, Rationes redditae proimpressione, &c.

Out of the 6. page, where there is no one worde spoken of Card. Allen, but how he was a common father to all the Priests, [Page 21] and how by his wisdome he kept all things in quiet, there is ga­thered by this Author a certaine principall deceit, falshood, or slan­der, which is proued because he was opposite vnto the Priests and their factious proceeding, especially against the Fathers of the society, as by his owne letters appeareth a litle before his death, &c. See Apol. cap. 4. and 7. See the finenesse of this fellowes wit, how hee can discouer a deceit, falshood, or slander. The priests doe not say in that place, that hee was either with them or against them, or with the Fathers or against them: but only make a plaine nar­ration of his wisedome, and the reuerence which all did beare vnto him. And as for the 4. Chap. (to which wee are here re­ferred) there is nothing of Card. Allen his writing concerning our matters, neither could there well be, he being dead before these begun. In the 7. Chap. there is a certaine remembrance of a letter of his to M. Mush, which for so much of it, as is set downe in the second Chapter, it condemneth the priests no more, then the Iesuits: betweene whome belike hee had heard there was some priuate questions: of which, what his iudge­ment was, it is very well knowen to some, and hath beene con­fessed by other: namely Doct. Haddocke, that the Card. before his death had such disgust of the Iesuites their actions, as this good Doctor being tolde by M. Charnocke what was reported in England to haue proceeded from a Iesuite, tooke vpon him perchance to saue then the Iesuites credit (for now they say hee denyeth it againe) that it was hee himselfe who had vsed these words after the Cardinals death. He is well dead, for if he had li­ued, he had greatly dishonoured himselfe and his countrey.

In the 7. page, there is a principall deceit, falshood, or slander, no­ted in these words: Desudantibus, &c. While Seminary Priests did sweat in the haruest of England, which haruest was then well manu­red, and almost ripe, some Iesuits were called in by Doct. Allen to helpe them, &c. But what are these falshoods? and how are they proo­ued? Forsooth, for first (sayth this good fellow) how well manu­red and ripe the English Cath. haruest was 22. yeeres agoe, when the Iesuits were first sent, there being then but few Priests in England, as hauing had but one onely Seminary vntill that time, and fewe knowen Catholikes, also in respect of the number, that after had en­sued, this we say, is knowen to all men that vnderstood our case.

We are not here to stand vpon the encrease of Catholikes, which hath beene within these 22. yeeres: for no doubt there haue bene more knowen, then were before. And if the Iesuits will take it vpon them, that they haue beene greater encreasers of Catholikes then the Secular priests, they will discouer in themselues too much both falshood and vanitie. And as for the exception which is taken against that which is saide of the good manuring of the haruest in England, and that it was almost ripe before the Iesuits came in, hee might as well haue taken excepti­on, and prooued falshood and vanity in our Sauiour his words, when he said, Io [...] 4. Leuate oculos vestros, & videte regiones, quia albae suntiam ad messem, &c. Lift vp your eyes, and behold the countrey, how ready it is now for haruest. And this was spoken by Christ onely vpon the disposition which he saw in the Samaritanes to receiue his doctrine. And as the number of Priests was not so great as now it is, so was it not so small as this fellow would it should be thought, and both the Priests and laity had suffered long before the Iesuites set foot into England: and there was perchance more true & sincere religion in the least houshold, then now is in a wider compasse, what faire shewes soeuer are outwardly made to delude the world. And whereas it is here said, that when the Iesuits came into England, there was but one onely Seminary, it is as false as the other was foolish: For as it is set downe in the first Chapter of the Apol. fol. 2. the first English Seminary began at Doway in the yere 1568. and neuer as yet failed, although vpon occasion it hath beene translated from thence into France, and backe againe now to Doway: so there is also mention in the same Chapter fol 3. of the begin­ning of the English Colledge at Rome in the yeere 1578. which was before the Iesuits entrance into England, as may be prooued out of the 12. Chapter of the same Apologie, fol. 181. where F. Parsons is said to haue come into England betwixt Ea­ster and Whitsontide in the yeere 1580. where he must needs heare of some priests, who had beene sent from that Seminary before him. T.W. in his disgression from 16. Martyrs in one yere, pag. 52. sayth, that the Colledge of Rome was founded in the yeere 1575. which was fiue yeeres before F. Parsons entrance into England. And as I thinke no man doubteth, but that Fa. [Page 23] Parsons, and Fa Campion were the first Iesuits, which were sent into England to labour in that haruest. As for those generall letters, which follow in reproofe of these supposed falshoods, they shalbe answered, where this Author setteth them downe in perticular.

In the 8. page F. Heywood the Iesuit is said to bee falsly, and malitiously belied in these words: Ostentansse, &c. A certaine Iesuit vaunting himselfe among our people, as though he had bene Le­gate to the Sea Apostolicke, &c. But you must go for proofe here­of to the 3. chap. (where there is nothing to this purpose) and to the 11. chap. where fol. 164, F. Heywood is thus cleared from this pretended false, and malitious lye. Onely it is true, that some 16. or 17. Priests (whereof one chiefe man is said to be of their faction at this day) met together with him, (that is F. Heywood) and would haue had all the Nationall customes of England about fasting (for some little diuersitie, and difficulties, which they found in them) to be reduced to the common order of the Romane Church, which D. Al­len, F. Parsons, M. Blackwell, and others did not allow: and F. Hey­wood yeelded vnto these mens opinions. And thus much per­chance should not haue bene said here, had Fa. Parsons, and Fa. Heywood bene friends: but they being otherwise, and the good Fa. Heywood reclayming himselfe, and seeking reformation of manythings in men of his order (for which cause, notwithstan­ding his learning and other gifts, he was made to liue, and die very obscurely) the Author of this Apologie is content to say somewhat of him in this case in question: although so farre as it might touch the credit of the societie, the blame is layed vp­on the Secular priestes. And because perchance it is too well knowen, that some of those priests (otherwise zealous men, as by their death they made euident remonstrance) did long af­ter breake those fasts vpon the warrant of this Prouinciall Councell, it is said that F. Heywood yeelded vnto the contrary opinion, lest the societie should beare the discredit of so rash an attempt. And thus is the calumniation answered, which was made against F. Heyw. and no otherwise, as the reader may see, if he will turne to the places whither this Author sendeth him. And it cannot but argue great want of shame in this Au­thor, to run with such fowle termes vpon men for saying that, [Page 24] which when he cōmeth to salue, he knoweth not almost, how to deliuer otherwise with any likelyhood of trueth.

In the 9 page the principall deceit, falshood, or slander, is noted in these words: Parietiam modo, &c. In like maner the Rectors of our English Romane Colledge did goe about many things, that were grieuous, and asperous to our youthes. But for this point you must see it handled at large cap. 5. Apol. where also it is to be answered, or the Reader referred to some particuler treatise of this mat­ter. But in the same page, there is an other slander, that is: Con­spectis, &c. Card Allen, after he had considered, and discouered the endeauors of the Iesuits, was wont to say, that they sought more their owne good then either that of our Countrey, or Colledge. The proofe here of must now stand vpon the honesty of the Relators: but how iustly he, or any other might speake it, I refer me to any in­different mans iudgement, when the Iesuits would neuer suffer any to be in rest in the College, who would not suffer thēselues to be drawne to the societie either by them, or their Agents, who liuing in the Colledge, as the other students did, had se­cret vowes to be Iesuits, and perswaded, as many as they could, to take the same course. And England hauing more need to be furnished with such, as were most fit to take vpon them the care of soules, who can doubt whether the Iesuits in seeking the most towardly youthes to leaue their vocation, and become of their order, sought more their owne good, then either that of our Countrey, or Colledge? And to the question here foolishly proposed, what priuate good can the Iesuits pretend for themselues worth their labors, and perils in England, more then in the Indies, except the good of soules, and seruice of God? As though they sought somewhat els in the Indies, then the good of soules, and seruice of God, or at the least not so much, as in England; We answere both according to their proceedings, and F. Parsons platforme of Re­formation, that whatsoeuer they pretend, they seeke to keepe not onely the Secular priests in a seruile subiection vnto them, but the Bishops also, and all the whole State of England: ha­uing already in their platforme or Councell of Reformation set downe all Ecclesiasticall men, as pensioners, at the discretion of some Iesuits, and some Secular priests, no doubt of their choosing, for auoyding of cōtention, & diuision. And whereas [Page 25] (good man) he talketh of the Iesuits labours, and perils in Eng­land, who knoweth not, how deliciously they fare, how gorge­ously they are attired, how quietly they sleepe in the best, and safest houses in England? insomuch as it is a marueilous won­der, when any Iesuit is in perill. And there hath not wanted a­mong the Lay gentlemen, that for these respects haue wished themselues Iesuits, notwithstāding they haue liued with wife, children, great friends, and as great contentment, as this world can yeeld to wealthy protected Catholicks.

In the 11. page is this falshood noted or slander against Card. Tolet, in that he is said to haue bene a fauourer of the Trouble­some against their superiors: the wordes are these: I am tum, &c. At that time both the Colledge, and al the schollers had bene vndone, if Car. Toledo had not opposed himselfe, as a wall for the said schollers. This is iustified by many: and in the particular discourse of the troubles in Rome, it will be shewed, notwithstanding this vant here of all Rome, and his Holinesse, as though they would wit­nesse the contrary.

In the 12. page this Author hath noted great falshood in the narration of the stirres of Wisbich, and telleth his Reader in his religious termes, how the priests doe calumniate Weston, and the bigger and better part, because they liued in order, and retired themselues from these mens licentiousnes, and for more proofe hereof his reader must goe looke in the 6. chapter of the Apolo­gie, where hee is like to finde many vntrueths vttered by his Author, which are already discouered in a relation set out of those matters.

In the 15. page (which hee calleth the 13.) hee noteth this falshood, that the priests called themselues vnited: Laicorū, &c. The Iesuits did alienate Lay mens mindes ab vnitis sacerdotibus, frō the vnited priests: note (sayth he) the phrase of vnited, they being farre the lesse number, and diuided both from their head, and the rest of their body the English Clergie. It is as the Hollanders doe call their rebelled states against the King, The vnited Prouinces, &c. Note, say I, how this felow abuseth his reader, by tellinghim of a diui­sion against a head, where there was none, but voto only, that is to say, by a religious desire, which was in Fa. Weston the Iesuite, who would be directer of all the priests in Wisbich, to which [Page 26] because some would not consent, he and his company diuided themselues from them, which being an vniust, and a scandalous separation, the other priests, who remained in their former course of life, might iustly call themselues vnited, as men, who properly kept the vnion, when the other made such a diuision as they would not haue any commerce with them, vpon their idle toy of Reformation, vnder pretence whereof the Iesuits ha­uing gotten the superiority, the priests must yeeld to what con­ditions they would offer, or the whole countrey must be in an vprore: yet will these men chalenge the name of vnited. But let euery indifferent man iudge, which part did most liuely re­present a rebellious state. And for the further proofe of this fellow his malicious impostures (for it is not possible that hee should haue hereof any ignorance) let any indifferent reader looke vpon that discourse cited here by him out of the Latine booke, and it will bee as cleere as noone day, that there is no mention of any other matter, then of the diuision wrought at Wisbich by the Iesuites and their faction, some yeeres before the Archpriest was instituted, and consequently before there was any other head or whole body of the English Clergie, then that, from which the Iesuits and their factious adherents diuided themselues.

In the 16. page this Author discouereth another principall deceit, falshood, or slander, in these words: Ticonius ille Donatista, &c. That Ticonius the Donatist, &c. Note (saith he) the spirit of these men, they compare al the good, and quiet prisoners in Wisbich Donatists, for that they retired themselues from these mens tumultu­ous, and scandalous life, and put themselues vnder rule. See cap 6. Apolog. Are not these wordes, Ticonius ille Donatista, shrewd wordes, that doe inferre such large consequences? are not ra­ther these tumultuous, and scandalous termes, and irreligious exceptions against the life of Catholike priests, and some of them long prisoners for the Catholike faith, an euident proofe of most loose and large consciences? But to make this matter more plaine against this impostor, what if there were no speech of any of the Priests? What a malicious Comment is this vp­on those three words, Ticonius ille Donatista, That Ticonius the Donatist. Is it not most euident that the speech there vsed, con­cerned [Page 27] no one, or other more then Fa. Weston the Iesuit? But yet this was too much to compare him to a Donatist. Well, but then what if neither he were compared to a Donatist, nay fur­ther yet, what if in that very place F. Weston is shewed not to be Ticonius the Donatist, or a follower of him? how then can the indifferent Reader, but iudge the Author of this Apologie past shame, who will lay it to the Priests charge, that in this place cited, they compare all the good, and quiet prisoners in Wisbich to Donatists? And for what cause? Forsooth, for that they retired themselues from these mens tumultuous, and scandalous life, and put themselues vnder rule. Let vs therefore now see what there is in that 16. page concerning Ticonius ille Donatista: That Tico­nius the Donatist, &c. Thus we reade in that 16. page. Tandem verò aliquando, vt inuidiam leniret, quam sibi, suis (que) non mediocrem conflauerat, ne reuixisse videretur Ticonius ille Donatista (cuius il­lud erat, Quod nobis placet, sanctum est) promisit, se boni viri arbitrio rectenè an illicitè separationem feeisset staturum: That is to say, In the ende to mollifie somewhat that great enuie which hee (Fa. Weston) had gotten to himselfe and his followers, he promised to stand to the iudgement of any honest man, whether he had law­fully, or vnlawfully made the separation, least that Ticonius the Do­natist should seeme to haue bene reuiued, whose saying this was, That is holy which pleaseth vs. So that by this it is euident, that not onely the priests are not compared to Donatists, but F. Weston the Iesuite is shewed not to be, as that Donatist, because he promi­sed to stand to the iudgement of another: which as here is a­uouched Ticonius the Donatist would not doe: but would haue, that which pleased him, stand for good.

In the same page, there is another principall deceite, falshood, or slander, noted in these words, Quorum vnus, &c. which this Author translateth thus. One in Wisbich Castle fell out of his wit, by reason of opprobrious letters written vnto him, &c. Now he hath made his tale, as he list: see what he adioyneth. How egregious an vntrueth this is, the whole company will testifie. And if their words will not satisfie a reasonable man, he shall haue more witnesse. For it is most vntrue, that he fell out of his wit by rea­son of opprobrious letters written vnto him: but by reason of opprobrious letters which himselfe had written by perswasion [Page 28] of Fa. Weston the Iesuite, and other of his faction against the other Priests, as himselfe in lucidis intervallis confessed: and as­ked pardon of some of them, whom he had so iniured, as they are readie to testifie: and these two words vnto him are added to the text in this place by the Author of the Apologie, as euery Grammer boy may see, who will turne vnto it.

In the 17. page, a malicious deuise is noted in these wordes, Hanc verò, &c. This sodality of them that liued vnder Rules in Wis­bich, (besides many stumbling blockes, which it brought into our Church) was vehemently also suspected by the Queene and Councell. But if those words of them that liued vnder Rules in Wisbich, be fraudulently thrust into the text by this Authour, in whom is the malicious deuise, (for so it is put in the margent) deceite, falshood, or slander? The words are no other then these. Hanc verò sodalitate [...], praeterquam quod offendicula multa inueheret in Ecclesiam nostrem, paci (que) funesta esset, & vehementer principi, ma­gistratibus (que) suspecta, quod patribus Iesuitis alias, atque alias inuasio­nes hostiles continuò machinantibus in regnum plus aequo tribueret, & quasi totum Clerum ijsdem subderet, videbat ille arbiter nullam habere benè institutae Communitatis formam, monstri (que) simile esse, vt vnus pater Iesuita, membrum vnius corporis, caput fieret alte­rius, &c. That is to say, This sodalitie, besides the many impedi­ments it brought into our Church, and was incompatible with peace, and vehemently suspected by the Prince, and Magistrates, in that it gaue more, then was fit to the Fa. Iesuites, who sundrie wayes busied themselues in hostile inuasions of our Countrey, and as it were made all the Cleargie subiect vnto them, the arbiter sawe, that it had no forme of any well framed Communitie, and that it was like vnto a monster, that one Fa. Iesuite, beeing a member of one bodie, should bee made the head of another body, in which some were, who in regard of their more auncient order of Religion, some in regarde of their degree of Doctorshippe, some for their venerable age, many for their wisedome, learning and vertue, farre his betters, &c. By which it may appeare to the indifferent Reader, howe carelesse this Authour is, what he sayth, so he may make somewhat sounde for his purpose. And to the ende hee might bring the Priestes into obloquie, he will for a colour bring some two or three of their owne [Page 29] wordes, and ioyne somewhat thereunto of his owne, and then runne a while vpon that: as in this place, hauing thrust in those words, Of them that liued vnder Rules in Wisbitch, he maketh this Comment; Great stumbling blockes, that a few pious Rules of modest life in a fewe prisoners could bring into our whole Church. Whereas the place here cited by this Au­thour, giueth him no occasion to frame such a conceite, but pleadeth the iudgement giuen against that sodalitie by him, who was chosen arbiter in the cause.

And whereas he also affirmeth, That if this sodalitie were suspected by the Prince, it must needes be that the Priests had ma­liciously perswaded, that it (as also the institution of the Arch­priest) was not for Religion, but for matter of state, The Ie­suites knowen practises against the State, mentioned in the place, which is cited by this Authour, conuince, that there was no such neede, that the Priestes should vse any perswa­sions to the Prince, or Magistrates: and that no plot in gathe­ring a head vnder a Iesuites direction, could bee free from suspition, as shall be shewed more at large, where the Author shall find his place in the Apologie to giue other colour to the Iesuites actions.

In the 19. page vpon those words: Dom. Standisium, &c. M. Standish, who had giuen his name to be a Iesuite, This Author in­ferreth a prety conclusion. All are Iesuites with these men, who are not of their faction, the Archpriest and all: in which (to omit his folly) how doth he shew in that place any principall deceit, fals­hood or slander? or not being able to gainsay that, which the priests sayd: how shamelesly, or rather childishly doeth hee shift it?

In the 20 page there is exception taken against that which is mentioned of F. Weston his being taken dumbe, and falling downe: and it is called an impudent fiction, refuted by authenti­call testimonies of all the quiet prisoners in Wisbich: and you must goe looke for this in the 6. Chapter of the Apol. where you may find it contrary if you can. For answere to this, we are to re­ferre the Reader to the particular narration of the stirres in Wisbich.

In the 21. page the principall dece it, falshood, or slander, is shew­ed [Page 30] in these wores, Consilium iniuimus, &c. We tooke a counsel toge­ther for appointing prouosts and superiors ouer vs in opportune places of the kingdome &c. It was death for this good fellow to go any further in the narration, which here he doth calumniate: for if he had added these words (which are part of the sentence ci­ted by him with an &c. all which Prouosts and superiours should haue bene chosen by the free suffrages of the Priests, his falshood would haue bene discouered, which he sheweth here in these words. This was the worke of their (the priests) association, where­by a few busie and ambitious men tooke vpon them to be Counsellors of State without Commission, or consent of the rest of the Clergie, or li­cence of their superiours, to appoint dignities to themselues, and o­thers at their pleasures, and to make a new sedition. And if the rea­der will vouchsafe to turne to that 21. page, hee shall see that this author is little to bee credited in his relations, and may wonder, that he will so shamelesly behaue himselfe, as euery indifferent man must condemne him of exceeding great fals­hood, and direct intention to deceiue his reader. And because he referreth his reader to the letters of the assistants, and other proofes, cap. 8. & 9. there we will make our answere vnto them for so much as is there touched in this matter.

In the 23. page these words are cited, Quid interea P. Parsoni­us, &c. What did F. Parsons in this meane space, the Author, incen­sor and actor of allour perturbations, &c. But nothing being in this place answered to that which in the 23. page is sayde a­gainst him, we are not to stand vpon those other matters which are here mentioned. It sufficeth that there is nothing conuin­ced of deceit, falshood, or slander: to which ende the table maker brought this place out of the latine booke.

In the 26. page M. Blackwell is said to be slandered, and that these were spiteful speeches against him: Videns autem D. Black­well, &c. M. Blackwell seeing this, &c. where in the Latine booke mention is made of a letter he writ to the Card Caietane: the letter is out in print, and whosoeuer wil take the paines to read it shall see, that there is nothing but the truth set downe in the place here cited by this authour. And whereas here it is vrged, that he is named euery where without any reuerence at al, they will hardly since him named, but Master Blackwell, which is as [Page 31] much reuerence as is due vnto him for any thing the Priestes know. And if he be sometime called the Archpriest, it is as much as this Authour giueth him, as may be seene in many places. Moreouer, if there be any thing to the contrary in the 4, 10, or 11. chap. of the Apologie, it shall be there answered.

In the 27. page, a principall deceit, falshood, or slander is noted, where it is said: Cum omnes, &c. Whereas all Iesuits almost in En­gland be children of poore parents, &c. And to this, what answer is here made? Forsooth how manifestly false and shamelesse this is, there needes no other proofe but to know the parties: and to consider also, what manner of children, and of what parents they be that doe obiect this, &c. But alas (good man) were they much worse then they are, who are saide to obiect this, they are by many de­grees his betters, who is taken to be the Author of this Apologie. And if the priests had as impertinently spoken so of the Iesuits, as this good fellow speaketh of the priests, his folly might haue bene in some sort excused: but it being euident, that this fellow his speech proceedeth of splene, and without either any neces­sitie to inlarge himselfe so farre, or any furtherance to his cause, (for what doth the quality of this or that man, make better or worse the qualitie of another?) the place noted in this 27. pag. doth shew a iust cause, why the priests did say the trueth in that cause. For whereas M. Blackwell (to the ignominie of the Ca­tholike gentlemen) did most vngratefully suggest, and most vn­truely to the Card. Caietane, that the Iesuits did marueils in En­gland in the releeuing of all sorts of people distressed, and that they did it out of their owne patrimonies, because they were mini­ma, not worth the speaking of, which they receiued of almes from the Catholikes: the priests, to shew how palpable this flattery was, affirmed (as they might iustly) that all the Iesuites almost in En­gland were children of poore parents: and consequently not like to doe so much, & in that sort, as M. Blackwell did most grosse­ly suggest. And let this be sufficient for this time vpon this oc­casion, to prooue that it is no calumniation, as the margent would haue the reader to thinke it, nor deceit, falshood, or slander, as this table is entituled.

In the 29. page are diuers things noted, as that Pope Xistus was tearmed a Wolfe by the Iesuites, and defamed as a most wicked [Page 32] man, and certaine propositions maintained about the Stewes, which will be iustified to haue beene vttered by F. Weston the Iesuite in defence of M. Archer one of his principal confede­rates in his faction at Wisbich, and generally taken for a Iesuite, and cannot therefore but appertaine to the Iesuits, betweene whomesoeuer the controuersie first began.

In the 30. page the priestes are saide to call the authoritie of their superior, instituted by Christs vicar, Laruam: that is, a mas­king vizard: which is very false; and no modest man would haue auowched it out of that place, it sounding no otherwise, then thus: ad dominium comporandum alienae personae larua vten­dum putabant: that is, they (the Iesuits) to get dominion, thought they must vse a maske of an other person; which can beare no other sence then this: that they would rule, and an other should beare the name: and if ought were done amisse, it should neuer bee knowen who were the actors. But this man must be seene in it: and they must be couered by him: which euery man know­eth to be a very ordinary course in the world, & cry out shame vpon it, without any touch to authority, but to the abuse there­of. And whereas Fa. Parsons memorials are here said to bee yet extant, intrearing for obteyning of Bishops, it is no disproofe to that, which is auowched by the priests: it being so possible for the same man to vrge mightily the very same matter, which he will, by some meanes, or other, crosse. And there is suffici­ent proofe of this kind of dealing in F. Parsons: as for example. At the parting of some students from Rome, hee writ a letter of commendations in the behalfe of one of them, and at the very same time hee writ asmuch to the contrary to the very same place: insomuch as they to whom those letters came, confer­ring them together, could not but maruaile much at this false­hood in him. Likewise when M.D. Bishop was to depart from Rome to Paris, in the way of great friendship and confidence, F. Parsons requesteth him, that there might be intercourse of letters betweene them: Mary one thing aboue the rest he ear­nestly cōmended vnto him: and that was, to certifie him from time to time of M.D. Cecill his carriage, and at the same time he writ to M. D. Cecill to doe him the like fauour for M.D Bishop. And not long after he sollicited M. Shelborne (a reuerend priest [Page 33] then abiding in Paris) to certifie him against them both: and very likely it was, there was some other appointed to pay his debts. But imagine what sport there was when these letters came forth: and how peeuish they are, who will not beleeue that F. Parsons can play all maner of playes for his purpose.

In the 33. page the principall deceit, falshood, or slander is ga­thered out of those wordes, Nullo &c. no respest being had to the most Catholike Archb. of Glasco. I would aske this good fellow what respect was had vnto this Bishop, when the Archpriest was made superior without his priuitie or consent ouer all the English priests which then were, or after should be resident in his diocesse? And if there were no respect had vnto him, what deceit, falshood or slander was there in saying so? But listen I pray you to the conceit which is made hereupon. See (saith he) the strange desire of these men to set strife euery where. They would stirre vp the Archb. of Glasco residing in Paris for aboue 30. yeres against the Protector: for that he giueth iurisdiction to the Archpriest vpon English Priests in England, Scotland and Ireland, and yet these men do aske faculties for these three countries, but would be vnder no au­thority in any. Now alas (good man) where hath he his ground concerning this last point, that the priests would not be vnder au­thoritie? so often as hee doeth vrge the association intended in England by the Priests, hee conuinceth himselfe of this false­hood: And if he were set to finde, where the Priests asked fa­culties for those three countries as superiors there, he would be sorely troubled. But the Reader must take all this vpon his word: as also that the Priests minded to set the Protector, and the Bishop of Glasco together by the eares, when they said that in the institution of this authoritie ouer all the English priests in Scotland, there was no respect had to the Catholick Bishop of Glasco. How much better might it be said that F. Parsons and his confederats ment to set strife betweene them, when so vn­aduisedly they procured the Protector to giue such iurisdiction to a strange Archpriest within the dioces of a Bishop in ano­ther Nation, and no way subiect to any prelate of England? In this foolish fury also, how forgetteth he that he often saith that the Cardin all did but witnes the authoritie by his letters, and setteth it downe in plaine termes, that the Priest would stirre vp [Page 34] the Bishop against the Protector, for that he giueth iurisdiction to the Archpriest? In the Apologie almost in euery place, it is said that there was in the Priests at the first comming of the Car­dinals letters no lesse, then a resistance against the Popes order; and how then was not the danger of stirring vp the Bishop a­gainst his Holines, but against the Protector?

In the 35. page and so forward to the 59. many things are noted, for which the Reader must goe looke in the Apologie.

In the 61. page a principall deceit, falshood, or slander is noted in these words. His visis, &c. As soone as we saw the Apostolicall letters of the new Breue for confirmation of the Archpriest; we all present­ly submitted our selues &c. This is so manifest and so often ac­knowledged by all from the highest to the lowest, as there shal neede no further iustifying thereof: But this author would haue his reader conceiue that this submission was fained and forced, and that the euent shewed so much: and that it could not be o­therwise, the Priests hauing entred with the Counsell so farre, as they had done, as is shewed Cap. 10. & 13. where (saith this fellow) wee shew, by their owne letters, their conspiracie with the persecutor. But in conclusion if you doe not trust him vpon his wordes more, then vpon his proofes which he bringeth either in the 10 or 13 Chap. you must hold him still for such as he is. We haue al­ready sayd enough hereof in the defence of that, which hee commenteth vpon those words, Hinc à communi &c. p. 2. as he hath cited it in the beginning of this his table of deceits, to which we remit you for this time; and omitting that which here he saith, that the submission of the priests was forced: which implyeth a true submission (nothing being inforced, but their wil to accept of him against whom they had many iust excep­tions) I will onely note how falsly, and deceitfully this good felow vseth this place, which thus he hath cited, out of the 61. page. His visis &c. As soone as we saw the Apostolical letters of the new Breue, &c. what can his reader thinke of these words, the new Breue; but that there was som former Breue, which was not obeyed by the priests? And to this purpose, as in other places, so in his first Chap. of his Apol. fol. 8. he vseth the same deceit, He (the Pope) confirmed all that was done already by the Card. with a new Breue: where also in the margent this note is made, A new [Page 35] Breue 1599. lest any man should thinke it a worde spoken by chance, and not of purpose, and it is the more apparant in this place, which now we handle, because he hath falsly translated the priests words, and made them to talke of a new Breue. For thus he alleageth them. His visis &c. As soone as we saw the A­postolicall letters of the new Breue for confirmation of the Arch­priest, we all presently submitted our selues to him: where His visis, that is, these being seene, is onely referred to these words, San­ctitatis tuae literae: that is, the letters of your Holines: And there is no other mention, of any other Apostolicall letters, or any other Breue, much lesse any Apostolicall letters of a new Breue, as it may be seene by them, who will turne to the place.

In the 69. page a principall deceit, falshood, or slander, is gathe­red out of those words, Archipresbyter, &c. The Archpriest denieth accesse vnto him, he will not be seene, he doth disdaine to talke with his brethren, &c. But how is this proued deceit, falshood, or slander? Forsooth thus. All things are rhethorically exaggerated, yet it is no maruaile though the Archpriest do vse some moderation, and cir­cumspection in admitting those men to speach, whom hee knoweth to haue an euill mind towards him, and to deale with the Councel, and Bishop of London, and to seeke his speech onely to braule, and to take some aduantage at his words: as two of them did, who accused him of an hereticall proposition in talking with him presently vpon the arri­uall of his first commission. Had this fellow onely giuen a cause, why the Archpriest would not talke with the priests, without any more adoe, it had been a little signe of some small grace in him: but to bring that in for a deceit, falshood, or slander, which he cannot denie, but must confesse to be true, and straineth him­selfe to giue a cause thereof, it is too shamefull. It being then euident, that the Archpriest will not speake with the priests, let vs see how good these causes are, and how true, which are here alleaged. The first is, because hee knoweth that the Priestes haue an euill mind towards him: but this sauoureth too much of malice. The second is, he knoweth that they deale with the Councel and Bishop of London: but alas this cause commeth too late, as may appeare by comparing the times together in which the Archp. hath denied to speak with thē, with the times in which it hath pleased the Coūsel as he supposeth to shew them some [Page 36] fauour by meanes of the Bishop of London, hauing conceiued some hope of their loyaltie towards their prince and country.

The third cause here alledged is, for that the Archpriest know­eth, they seeke his speech, onely to brawle and to take some aduantage at his words, as two of them did, &c. and in the margent M. Col­lington and M. Charnock are named. It is very likely, if the Arch­priest would be so resolute, as he would agree to no reason, but run on the course he hath begun, the priests might haue par­ted frō him, as litle edified as M. Collington and M. Charnock did, when he sent for them & M Heburne to speake with them, pre­sently vpon the arriual of his first cōmission, that is, the Cardi­nals letters vnto him, or conuented them, as M. Standish gaue it out in the Clinke not long after, whereupon M. H Henslow, who before was taken for the Archpr. messenger, was called his Sum­ner, and was very angry at it. And this particuler is brought that it may appeare, what a bold face that fellow hath, who in the Appendix fol. 7. affirmeth, that it seemeth they (M. Colling­ton, and M. Charnocke) were sent to him of purpose to catch him in his words. And if where difference is, there must of necessity be brawling, I thinke no man doubteth, but he is the brawler who offereth the iniury, not he who vseth necessarie defence. And if moreouer M. Collington and M. Charnocke haue accused the Archp. of an heretical proposition (as this Author in this place insinuateth) I do verely perswade my selfe, that they will proue it so farre foorth as two men of their qualitie may prooue it, which would be little for M. Blackwels credit, notwithstanding the slight reckoning which is made of their two relations onely, Cap 8 fol. 109.

In the 83. page a principall deceit, falshood, or slander, is noted in these words, Plura, &c. The Iesuits doe bragge, that many more Seminaries haue beene erected by them, &c. The Priests words are these: Plura numero, more in number. This is very calumnious (saith this good felow) but if they should speake of any such matter compelled by your slanders, should they not say truth, seeing fiue or fixe partly Seminaries, partly residences, haue beene erected by them? &c. Well good sir, not to deuine here what slanders they were, which so happily compelled the Iesuites to speake of their so great benefits vnto the priests, I will keepe mine eye-sight for [Page 37] the 3, 5, 10, and 12. chap. where I am told, I shall see more of this most insolent ingratitude: And in the meane while I will hope that the Iesuits of their charitie, will forgiue them all, who compelled them to speake so much of their owne great good deeds, which, were they a thousand times more then they are, the Iesuites ought not to embolden themselues, or challenge thereby a greater libertie to abuse men at their pleasure: and it is a silly proofe, that they haue not abused men in one kind, be­cause that they haue done them a good turne in another. And with this the table was taken vp: for the author had no other meaning when he set you to this table of principall deceits, fals­hoods, and slanders, then to let you haue a taste of those two libels, which the discontented priests did set forth, to wit, the booke dedicated to his Holines, entituled, Declaratio motuum, A decla­ration of stirres, &c. and the English booke entituled, The Copies of certaine discourses.

But alas (poore man) either his wits appeare hereby to be very shallow, who out of an infinite heape of slanders, calum­niations, and contumelious speeches, which hee sayth are con­tained in the priests bookes, could no better furnish his table with deceits, falshoods, and slanders, which here hee vndertooke: or his malice extreame great, to make such a vaineglorious shew, where the principal stuffe was of no more moment, then is already shewed in these 28. pickt points, to discredit the La­tine booke and the authors thereof, who alwayes haue, & will shew, that they meane better then hee doth, and tend to that place to which honest priests should tend, and hope to arriue in the end: whence it is to be feared, they shall behold the Au­thor of this Apologie lying, and too late repenting this, and o­ther his misdeeds.

The rest that followeth in this Latine booke about the Appellation (sayth this Author) as also about a fond and seditious Latine letter of M. Iohn Mush thereon ensuing, are sufficiently examined, Cap. 10, and 11. Apol. But vnlesse the 10, and 11. Chap. be too too much ouerseene, there is no one point of the Appellation exa­mined. There is somewhat said to M. Mush his letter in the 11. Chapter, which is little to the purpose. The examination of the English booke, entituled, The Copies of discourses, is for bre­uitie [Page 38] sake put off to the 1, 2, 7, and 11. Apol. where it is to be de­fended, not to haue any thing in it worthy the name of a scan­dall, but to a Pharisie: and thereby it will be shewed to bee a worke, fit for Catholike priests to write, and publish to the world, their case standing as then it did. And their fact will ap­peare the more iustifiable, by how much it will appeare by the answer to this Apologie, that they cannot be disprooued, but by manifest falshoods, deceits, and slanders. After these notes, or ex­ceptions against the Latine booke, which was dedicated to his Holines vnder this title, Declaratio motuum, &c. march certaine principall persons, which the Reader must beleeue, are iniuri­ed by the priests, and are defended by the Apologie: amongst which there are such placed, as the Authors might with more honestie haue made two lists: one, of those most honourable personages; the other, of the rest: but since that they haue put them all in one companie, one answere shal serue to the whole list: that howsoeuer his Holines is here abused in the Epistle, and the honour of the honourable is touched in this Apologie, the priests at no time haue iniuried either them, or any the o­ther by-hangers: neither can the contrary be shewed, as any man (who knoweth what vse this author will make of a little) may iustly imagine, in that there is no one place cited out of the booke written by the priests, or in this Apologie, where any abuse is conuinced. And although sometimes in this Apologie the author putteth his reader in mind of such matters, he doth discouer nothing, but his owne desires in some, and follie in other his exceptions, as shall be shewed when occasion is of­fered. And in the meane while, the discreete reader may iudge, whether this authour or publisher were not past shame, who could not but know, that the priests had bene with the Nuntio in Flanders, and acknowledged his authoritie. And to that end, that no principall thing be hidden from his reader, he hath af­ter principall deceits, and principall persons, set down the princi­pall authors & spreaders of the bookes, wherein these principall deceits are contained, & the principall persons iniuried. And in naming those which he doth name for the principall authors, he hath committed a very grosse error in his Preface, where he seemeth to doubt who were the authors. And in the end he con­cludeth [Page 39] thus, So as these bookes must needs be presumed, to haue bene published either by some one, or few discomposed passionate people, or by some heretike or other enemie, to dishonour them all; and discredit our cause, and nation: and so as to such we shall answer, &c. what man of iudgement will not say, that either the memorie of this fellow is very short, or his honestie very small, who hauing named, whom he thinketh to be the authors, maketh his answere, as to heretikes? And if to these be added those disgraceful speeches, which are vsed in the beginning of the 3. Chap. fol. 20. against the Authors of the bookes, impugned by the Apologie, his most audacious friendes will blush at his folly, for there very contemptuously he affirmeth, that some of them went ouer poore seruing men, other souldiers, (what an ingratitude, and dishonor is this to Fa. Ignatius Laiola, the souldier, and Iesuites founder?) other wanderers in the world, &c. Possibly this good mans wits are not alwaies at home, and they should doe him great iniury, who should looke for one wise worde from him, which is not put into him by some other. If he had not named those sixe for the principall authors of the books, he might with lesse shame haue vttered his foule conceite: but hauing named them, hee cannot auoide the note of a most malitious false companion, what godly pretences and promises soeuer he maketh of mode­stie in this Apologie.

CHAP. 4. How the authour of this Apologie followeth that counsell which Achitophel gaue to Absalon, 2. Reg. 16. that other seeing how hee abused his Holinesse, might the more desperately adhere vnto him.

THe Epistle which followeth to his Holinesse, and is saide to be translated out of Latine into English, after some time of probation expired, was admitted, and annexed to the Apologie. It had bene very great pitie to haue left out so me­morable an abridgement of so many impertinent, and false matters, and so well suting with the Apologie. I call all that im­pertinent, [Page 40] which concerneth any diuision, either of Iesuites, and other Catholikes of the Clergie, or of the Laitie, before the comming of the Cardinall Caietans letters, for the institu­tion of the Archpriest in the yeere 1598. or the ambitious at­tempt of the knowen, and couert Iesuites in the scandalous di­uision in Wisbich. For vpon the not yeelding of some secular Priestes, to subiect themselues, first to the Iesuites in direct termes, and the not admitting of an authoritie procured by them afterward, for their indirect soueraintie, this present con­trouersie began, and being once ended, at the sight of a Breue, it was renewed againe by the rashnesse of the Iesuites, and the indiscretion of the Archpriest, as it is prooued at large in the bookes set out by the Secular priests, and promulgated in the latter Breue, dated the 17. of August. 1601. as shall hereafter be shewed. I affirme the rest to be false, because so it shalbe pro­ued, for so much as is touched thereof, either in the Apologie, or in this Epistle. Omitting therefore, what is here propounded to his Holinesse, concerning the Catholikes their going to the Protestants Churches, at the beginning of her Maiesties raign, who now is: (a thing which would not haue bene published to the world by any, who tendered their honour, vnlesse there had bene some greater cause for it) the subornation of some by the Counsell to poyson D. Allen (afterwardes Cardinall) and the Students, & raising of sedition among the Catholikes beyond the Sea, the euill successe, which some had about the Queene of Scots, and diuers Gentlemen (which is here attri­buted to their secret keeping of their practises from Fa. Parsons, and other) the inducing of two Priests, to write two bookes in fauour of heretikes, as it were by reason of State, and to be­come spies, the one in France, the other in Spaine.

Lastly to let passe, that which is here said, that Car. Allen per­ceiued, that there was a faction begun in England by the same acte (of the Counsell) against the Fathers of the Societie, and writ most earnestly against it, & that Card. Sega had found out, that a few vnquiet spirits were set on craftily, by the subtill in­struments of the Counsel, & were the cause of many troubles in that Colledge at Rome, we wil here only touch such points, as do concerne our selues, and the matter now in controuersie. Your Holines therefore (saith this Author) seeing prudently these [Page 41] causes and effects, and hauing put a finall end to the long, and fastidi­cus troubles of the English Romane Colledge, & giuen your straight commandement by words of mouth, to such persons of the tumultu­ous, as departed into England in that yeere 1597, to be quiet for the time to come, & to haue peace with all, but namely with the Fathers of the Societie, and hearing notwithstanding the next yeere after, by diuers letters out of England, that this was not obserued, but new meanes rather deuised of further diuision, and sedition; your Holines did vpon these considerations, and vpon the letters, and requests of di­uers of the grauest Priests of our nation, which after we shall cite, or­daine by the Card. Protector his letters an easie, and sweet subordi­nation, &c. If wee had no other proofe of this fellowes false­hood, then might be made apparant in this second point of the Epistle, it would giue euery honest man sufficient satisfaction. His Holines is here put in minde of such strange matters, and his wisedome very highly commended vpon so false grounds, as if this Epistle had bene euer deliuered vnto him, hee would speedily haue discouered a notable sycophancy. He is here told of two principall motiues, for his ordaining our easie, and sweet subordination. The one were certaine letters, which signified, that betweene the tumultuous who departed into England in the yeere 1597, and the Fathers of the Societie, there was not that peace, which he had commanded, but new meanes rather deuised of further diuision, and sedition. The other were other let­ters and requests of diuers of the grauest priests of our nation, which after (saith he) wee shall cite. Concerning the first, least there should be any error in Iudgement, what those new meanes of further diuision should be, there is this note in the margent, The new association; which conceite is deliuered in plainer termes, and more at large in the first Chapter of the Apol. fol. 6. in this maner, But the reliques of those, that had bene troublesome, and vn­quiet before their comming into England, and conferring againe with their consorts of their former actions, and designments, frustra­ted (as they thought) by F. Parsons dealing at Rome, resolued to be­gin againe, but after another fashion, To wit, by deuising a certaine new Association among themselues, &c. And in the 2. Chapter fol. 13 his Holines hearing of certaine new Associations begun in England soone after the tumults ended in Rome, &c. These (to [Page 42] omit other places in the Apologie) are sufficient to shew, that his intention is, to make the Pope beleeue, that the Association which was begun in England by the Secular priests, was a new deuise of those, who were sent from Rome in the yeere 1597, as tumultuous, and vnquiet persons. That this is a meere deluding of his Holines, all who were then in England can very well te­stifie: yea F. Parsons himselfe will doe vs the fauour (I am sure) to say this is a very false tale, who vnderstood at his first com­ming to Rome by M. Iames Standish, that such an Association had bene long before intended, and consequently could not bee a deuice of such, as thought themselues frustrated of their design­ments, by his dealing in Rome.

The 6. assistants in their letters of the 2. of May 1601. doe te­stifie, that this association began foure or fiue yeres since, Cap. 7. Apol. fol. 90. and that must needs be before those priests came in­to England, on whom it is fathered, if it be true, which is sayd Cap. 2. Apol. fol. 12, that they were not gone from Rome at the beginning of September 1597. It may also be gathered out of the same Chapter fol. 89. that this association very probably was begun long before by others: for there we finde this sto­rie. But (M. Mush) returning into England, as he went forth, and the Cardinall soone after dying (in the yeere 1594. as appeareth Cap. 1. Apol fol 6.) hee ioyned with another of his owne humour &c. And they two, with some few other, determined to make a certaine new Hierarchy of their owne, calling it an association of Cler­gie men &c. The truth is, that M. Mush, and M. Dudley hauing made the peace at Wisbich in the yeere 1595. (as appeareth Ca. 6. Apol fol. 79.) returned to London, and there dealt with M. Iames Standish, a man growing in deed into that humor (to wit of being a Iesuit, which M. Mush was then leauing) and not with M. Colington (as is here falsly noted in the margent, for a­bout that time M. Collington lay very little at, or neere London) and they, and some others thought it very fit, that there should be an association of such priests as would liue vnder rule, to take away that slander, which the Iesuits, & their fauourites (to fur­ther their ambitious attempts) had generally spread abroad a­gainst the priests, to wit, that they liued not vnder rule. And thus much concerning this first falshood, and the deluding his [Page 43] Holinesse with this tale, that the association was a new deuise of such as were in those broiles at Rome, and would not remaine in that peace which was commended vnto them, and com­manded by his Holines in the yere 1597.

The second falshood is more deceitfully (although as grosly) conueyed, in putting his Holines in mind, what was his second motiue, in the ordaining our easie and sweete Subordination: for­sooth, the letters and requests of diuers of the grauest priests of our nation, which after we shal cite. And because he wil seem to deale faithfully in this cause, he putteth this note in the margent, Ca. 9 10. Apol. by which his Hol. is giuen to vnderstand, that those letters and requests of the grauest priests, by which he was in­duced to make this subordination, are to be found in the ninth and tenth Chapt. of the Apol. But now what if there be not any letters, or requests in the ninth or tenth Chapt. concerning any such matter, what a shamelesse felow is this informer? In the ninth chapter fol. 125. begin certain letters of some priests, and others follow: but these are not, neither can be the motiues of his Holinesse to make this Subordination: they are written parti­cularly against M. D. Bishop, and M. Charnock: because they pre­sumed to goe to his Holines about this Subordination, already made as it was: And this is euident to those, who will vouch­safe to turne vnto the chapters. In the tenth chapter there is lesse matter, if lesse may be, for this purpose; that I cannot but marueile how this fellow durst tell his Holines such a lewd tale: But perchance this good fellow had this policie: he set in the margent the 9 and 10. chapters, hoping that his Holines, if he should chance to cause them to be turned into Latin, would be so tired with seeking in the ninth, as he would rather be­leeue, they were in the 10. chapt. then be so troubled againe: perchance this marginall note was set but in the English Co­pie, where it would serue well enough for those, which haue such a facilitie in beleeuing such like felowes as this is, as they will runne ryot with them, howsoeuer their conscience disclai­meth it. Perchance it was mistaken, and this 9. and 10. chapters were put in the margent in stead of the eighth. And this we are induced to beleeue the rather, because at the beginning of the eighth chap. this very matter is handled, and some letters [Page 44] cited: and for the better satisfaction of the reader, I will here set downe the place at large, to which (as I suppose) this felow alludeth, and had rather his Reader should misse the place then hit it, because retaining a confused remembrance of such matters he should runne away with it, without further exami­nation of the trueth, or the likelyhood thereof. These are the words in the Apology, cap. 8. fol. 98. When his Holinesse heard the former state of the matters in England, Flanders, and other places, and of the murmurations of some against the Fathers of the societie, set down aswell in the foresaid contumelious Memoriall, as by diuers other letters and relations which came to the Protectors sight, and by him was related to his Holines, and namely when he receiued great store of priuate and publike letters out of England against the sayd Memoriall of Fisher, and some one with aboue an 100. hands at it, other with 40, and 50, all in fauour and commendation of the Fa­thers their labours, and behauiour in England, against the sayd slan­derous Memoriall, and many other in seuerall letters of principall men, which are yet extant: when also diuers of these did expresly demaund some Subordination and gouernement of Secular priests, to take away this emulation of some few against the Fathers, and that two lately came out of England at that very time: one a Ie­suite, the other a secular priest, each of them vrging the same in the behalfe both of the one, and the other order; his Holinesse after mature deliberation resolued to yeelde thereunto, hoping thereby to quiet all, &c. And so he goeth forward, and sheweth how it was consulted vpon, and of whom opinions were asked, to wit, of F. Parsons, F. Baldwin, who was one of the two, which lately came out of England, as appeareth by the marginall note in that place, M. Doctor Haddock, M. Martin Array, M. Iames Standish, who was the other which came out of England, as appeareth by the same marginall note, although falsly sayd to bee a secular priest, hauing giuen his name long before to become a Iesuite, and gaue it out here in England, that his going ouer was to enter into their order, & others that had laboured in the English vineyard, perchance Fa. Warford, ano­ther Iesuit, & such like: but those matters we shall handle there in that place. Here onely we haue noted this relation out of the 8. chap. to help the fauourers of this Apologie, that they wander [Page 45] not through the woods to no purpose, if they follow not the path which their author sheweth thē, and so bring them where they may find somewhat, (although not that which they looke for) after a long seeking, where there is nothing at all of this matter. And if this be not the place, which is meant in this E­pistle, there is none in all the Apologie. For this quotation in the margent fol. 101. in the same chapt. See the letter of 6. anci­ent priests, the 13. of September 1597. is a poore proofe, and to say the trueth it would bee more for the others credit, if there were none at all cited in the Apologie. For if any man will be so indifferent in this case, as but to looke vnto the dates of the letters here cited in the beginning of the eighth chapter in the Apologie, (which by the Contents seemeth to bee the place, which must iustifie as much, as is suggested in this Epi­stle) and conferre them with the date of Cardinal Caietane his letter, by which this Subordination was appointed in En­gland, he shall finde that they were all written after the Car­dinals letters, some longer, some lesse while, and consequent­ly after his Holines his determination, to make this Subordina­tion, and therefore could not be any motiue thereof. The letter of the Card. Caietane by which the Subordination was appointed in England, beareth date the 7. of March 1598, as appeareth in that 8 chapter, fol. 102. And the letters by which his Holines is sayd to haue been mooued to make this Subordination in En­gland, and are cited in this 8. chapter, fol. 98, beare date, some the 27 of March, some the 20 of Aprill, some the 18 of May, some the 30 of Iuly, the soonest the foure and twentieth of March 1598: all which must needes argue not onely an egregi­ous falshood in this Epistle-maker, but a notorious impuden­cie, in telling his Holinesse to his teeth, that hee did make an easie and sweete Subordination vpon the letters, and requests, which he had neuer heard of, nor possibly could, they not ha­uing been written or thought vpon by the Inditors, long after his Holinesse is sayd to haue thought vpon the Subordination, and caused it to be made by the Card Caietane. And as for the note in the margent, fol. 101. it is not probable that a letter of that moment would not haue been set in the booke much soo­ner then any other.

With the like libertie this Epistle is continued: His Holi­nes is told, that all good and obedient Catholicks were much conten­ted and comforted with this subordination: which is a most iniu­rious insinuation against many, who (to make no odious com­parisons) haue shewed themselues in all points, as hath be­come the best, & most obedient Catholicks. Neither are there any letters at all in the 9. Chap. of the Apol. of this thankesgi­uing, as the Pope is here told, and those which are in the 8. cha. are not from any of the Laitie, but from some priests, all whose names are for some causes omitted in this Apol. except the first subscriber, & the last, which perchance was therefore thought necessary to be set downe, to proue that at the least there were two to a letter: and that the middle names might bee as many in number, as are here supposed. But it was a marueilous good chance, that the first subscriber, and the last were such, as their names might be knowen. But perchance, vnder the name of all good, and obedient Catholicks, the English Clergie is also to be vnderstood, of which a few (saith this Epistle-maker) not the twentieth part, and those for the most part such, as had bene trouble­some before in Rome, presumed to impugne the same subordination, calling first in question the said Cardinals letters, &c. Fa. Parsons was told in Rome, that doublesse the greater part of the priests was not contented with this subordination, & when for his pur­pose he vrged further, how many the messengers did certainely know, to approue their mission (as appeareth Cap. 9. fol. 131.) they (not being willing to depose for more in this kinde, then they had either spoken withall, or receiued letters from them to this effect) answered accordingly that they had certaine knowledge of some 14. or 15, which number is now deceitfully tossed vp, and downe, as though they had no knowledge of any more, or did come in the name of so few against all the rest; yet where there was iust cause if they had bene fewer, yea if there had bene no more but those two, who went to Rome, they had ben enough, because iustice hath alwayes more with it, then against it. But to this purpose, if those 14, or 15, which were named by M. Char­nock in his examination, were here set downe, the falshood of this felow would be euident to those who know the men, when he suggesteth to his Hol. that they were for the most part such, [Page 47] as had bene troublesome before in Rome. Concerning the cal­ling this subordination in question, how it was procured, how far forth it did binde, before the Breue came, and other difficul­ties which the priests had, they haue not desired to haue them muttered in corners, as may appeare by their bookes: to which their aduersaries silence would haue beene somewhat more for their credit, then their shuffling answere. And as for the euill successe, which their two messengers had, whome at the first they sent to Rome, all the world knoweth, that not long after his Holines comming thither, they were infamously apprehen­ded by Iesuits and Sbirri, all their writings were taken from them, they were kept asunder in close prison, and were not suf­fered to speake with any to aske counsell, nor to see the Copie of such accusations as were put vp against them, at such time as they did demand it, to make their answere before the two Cardinals, Caietane and Burghesius 17. Feb. 1599. and yet they were kept afterwards close prisoners vntill the 8. of April, by which time all matters were concluded as their aduersaries would, as appeareth by the date of the Breue which was the 6. of April 1599.

The notorious falshood also which here is suggested to his Holinesse in these words, Who (that is the two Priests) finding not such successe At Rome. there, as they required, their fellowes in England for remedie, began to deale more closely with the Counsell, telling them (as hath appeared since by the euent, and by their latter bookes) that this subordination was not for Religion, but for State practises, as in this Apologie is declared more particularly: And in the mar­gent is set this note, Apol. cap. 10.12.13. But whosoeuer wil exa­mine the tenth Chapter, he shall find a few idle, and doubtful­ly proposed assertions, or rather foolish coniectures, which are in as great neede to be proued, as this is here. In the twelfth Chapter there is not one word, wise, or other to this purpose. In the thirteenth Chapter, there is some proofe brought for that, which is here proposed to his Holinesse. But the proofe is such, as it would haue made a man of little modestie to haue blushed with the very conceite thereof. Marke I pray you, what a narration there is, fol. 209. For this is it, which is ment, as may appeare by this marginall note, D. Bagshaw. But aboue [Page 48] all other meanes the fowlest is, and ought most to mooue a good consci­ence, their ioyning secretly for a time, but after, more openly: and now, most euidently with the common enemie, and persecuter. First (as before you haue heard) as soone as euer they vnderstood, that their two messengers were restrained in Rome, and not like to preuaile, then D. Bagshaw was sent for from Wisbich to London, to treat with the Councell, &c. The Pope is tolde in this Epistle, that the Priests deale closely with the Councell: but in the Apologie, the Catholikes are told, that it hath bene secretly for a time, but af­ter, more openly, and now, most euidently. The Priests haue al­wayes bene readie to giue an account, in what, and how farre, they haue vsed that fauour, which her Maiestie, and the hono­rable Councell are said to haue shewen vnto them: and all men are to thinke, that they would not haue gone to Rome, if they had done any thing, which Catholike priestes might not doe. But marke, I pray you, the substantiall proofe to which his Holinesse is referred: and let it be duely examined: As soone as euer they vnderstood, that their two messengers were restrained in Rome, and not like to preuaile, then D. Bagshaw was sent for from Wisbich to London, to treate with the Councell, &c. If we looke into the Apologie, we shall finde, that the two messengers came to Rome vpon the xj. of December 1598. cap. 9. fol. 121. and they were imprisoned vpon the 29. of the same moneth. And M. D. Bagshaw his sending for was not so secretly done, but that all England may quickly vnderstand, that he was long before this time at London, and that hee was either returned againe to Wisbich, or vpon his returning, before it was knowen in England, that the two Priests were restrained in Rome. And yet his Holinesse must needes be tolde, that vpon their restraint in December, and by reason thereof, D. Bagshaw was sent for from Wisbich, to treate with the Councell, in the moneth of October. Can any thing make this fellowe blush, who is so generally carelesse, what he publisheth to the world? or can the Cath. expect, that hee should deale more faithfully with them for their instruction, who will so boldly abuse his Holinesse?

All that also which followeth in the 13. point, touched in this Epistle to his Holinesse, consisteth vpon diuers vntrueths shuffled in one vpon another: as first, that the two Cardinals, [Page 49] Caietane and Burghesius, did duely examine all matters. Second­ly, that the Priests did but make a shew to obey the Breue (as hauing engaged themselues before with the Councell to the contrary) and thereupon sought occasions to breake againe. Thirdly, that they sent not any to prosecute their appeale. Fourthly, that they did not expect his Holines sentence or definition, but proceeded by secret fauour, and intelligence with the Councel, and Bish. of London, to print and set forth erronious libels to the detraction of diuers venerable men, and of a whole order of Religion, and of their immediate superiours, and of the sea of Rome it selfe, of his Holinesse, and the Protectors pro­ceeding in this matter. To the first it is answered, that all matters were not duly examined, when the two Priests were not suffe­red to deale, neither as plaintifes, nor as defendants, beeing clapped vp close prisoners, all their instructions taken away from them, not suffered to speake one with another, or to con­ferre with any man else about those matters, for which they came: examined by F. Parsons, who made such Interrogatories as were for his purpose, being the principall aduersarie on the other part, and curtailed their answeres when it pleased him, or blotted out both Interrogatories and answeres when they succeeded not to his mind: being brought before the two Car­dinals, Caietane and Burghesius, where after they had heard se­uerally some part of their examinations read, they were admit­ted to come together to heare a libel read ioyntly against them both, but were not suffered to haue the copie thereof, to make their answere thereunto, as they desired: and beeing friendly dismissed for that instant, were afterwards kept close prisoners seuen weekes longer, and not suffered to come together, vntill the Breue was out in confirmation of the authority. And thus much for the due examination of all matters, which is here sug­gested to his Holines. To the second it is answered, That the Priests made an vnfeined peace for their parts, and sought di­uers wayes to haue all such questions ended, as might be cause of contention betweene them, as may appeare both by their offer of disputation, and their sending to Paris for their further resolution, and satisfaction of their ghostly children, after their offer of disputation was reiected by the Archpriest. It is also well knowen, that the Counsell was not so enformed at that [Page 42] [...] [Page 43] [...] [Page 44] [...] [Page 45] [...] [Page 46] [...] [Page 47] [...] [Page 48] [...] [Page 49] [...] [Page 50] time of the difference betweene such men, as they tooke to be dangerous to the State, and others, neither had any priests as then more fauor then the other had. And where it is said here, that the Priests sought occasions to breake againe, it is most vntrue: the contention was renued by the Iesuits, who after the peace was cōcluded, gaue their censure, that those Priests were schis­matikes, who had deferred to subiect themselues to the new au­thority before they saw the Breue. And this contention was en­creased through the default of the Archpr. who being certified of the Iesuits rashnes in their speeches concerning this point, did shew himselfe to be of the same opinion: and furthermore gaue direction, that the priests should make account of their being schismatikes, and satisfie, before they should receiue the benefit of absolution, as appeareth by the resolution diuulged by him from the mother citie. Of all which, the Breue dated the 17. August. 1601. taketh notice. And in the relation thereof, his Holines vseth these wordes: Quod dolentes referimus, that is to say, which with griefe we relate. And therefore it must be great want of shame, to tell his Holines in this Epistle, that the Priests either made a shew to obey, or sought occasions to breake againe. And this testimony out of the Breefe is of the more force, if it be true which is said in the Preface to the Appendix, that his Holinesse had not vnderstood of any of these scandalous bookes (for so it pleaseth this author to terme the bookes which the Priests set out) when he wrote the Breue, and therefore could not receiue any such information by them, as he doth follow in the Breue.

The third matter is now answered by the Priests, there pre­sent in Rome.

To the fourth it is answered, that notwithstanding the Ap­peale, the Archpriest proceeded against the Appellants, and principally because they had appealed; as may appeare by many acts which he did: and for this in particular, there is yet his owne hand to shew, to a lay gentleman of the 16. of April 1601. This I write vnto you, to make you priuie of the great spirituall danger, wherein you, and all that receiue any sacrament of M. Osw. Needam, may be, if it be so, that hee hath subscribed to a seditious pamphlet coloured with the name of an Appeale. And in respect that the Archpriest did in this maner proceed against the Ap­pellants, [Page 51] without expecting his Hol. sentence and definition, which they might haue procured, notwithstanding his most irreue­rent refutaries, the Appellants proceeded to publish their cause in print without detraction, or defamation, more then is requi­site for the following of the cause in question. And whereas it is here said, that a whole religion is defamed, it is most vntrue: as appeareth by the booke to the Inquisition, pag. 5. the Sea of Rome is no way dishonoured, but rather maintained, and all lawfull superioritie: neither were these bookes printed by secret fauour and intelligence with the Councel and Bishop of London: For which this only argument might satisfie an indifferent man, that they would haue had a more skilfull man to haue printed them, and not to haue one to worke, who (as the Latine booke doth very well shew) did not vnderstand one word in Latine.

His exceptions against certaine propositions, as scandalous, and temerarious, leaue some doubt in a man of iudgment, whe­ther this felow be more ignorant or more malicious. He refer­reth his Holines to the 2. and 11. Chap. of the Apol. where hee doeth too-much discredit himselfe, as shalbe there shewed. But lest the Reader should conceiue, according to the broadnesse of these termes, we will here only note the propositions, which he termeth scandalous, and temerarious, and so leaue them, vntill their place come to be defended. Authoritie is not an infallible rule of trueth in all, who haue authoritie. No man is bound in all things to beleeue or execute, what euery man in authoritie ouer him shall put vpon him. Archpriests, and their superiors also the Arch­deacons, and other of higher degree haue done amisse, and swarued from the trueth; and who vpon earth is warranted from erring, but one, and not he in all things. These propositions are put in the se­cond Chapter of the Apol. fol. 16. and in the margent, there is this note: Dangerous, and offensiue doctrine. And in the same Chap. fol. 19. there is exception taken at this proposition, The sacrament of Cōfirmation is either most necessary in time of persecu­tion, or altogether vaine, and as a superfluous ceremony in Gods Church. And in the margent there is this note set, A very teme­rarious proposition: and he proueth it, because it is not absolutely necessary to saluation. If this fellow had euer bene a Souldier, he would haue conceiued the necessitie perchance, of Armor, [Page 51] and weapons in warres, although no man will say, that armor, or weapons are absolutely necessary to the getting of a kingdom. In the 11. Chapter here quoted, there is nothing but a certaine remembrance of this point, with a reference to the 2. Chapter, where what is said, shalbe discussed, and answered with lesse danger of the Inquisition, then this good fellow is in. And whereas here also it is said, that by the Priests their owne letters it may be proued, that they haue dealt expressely with the Queene and Counsell against the Fathers of the Societie, and such as stand with them: It is a false bragge, and wil be taken for such, vnlesse some other letter be forged, then that which is cited in the 13. Chap. For this doeth not proue any such matter, as any man may see. These are the words in that letter fol. 210, I haue in some sort pa­cified the wrath of our Prince, conceiued against vs, and of her Coun­sell, and haue layed the fault, where it ought to be, and proued that the Secular priests are innocent for the most part. Which words can­not import, that he, who writ this letter, had dealt against any, but onely that he had dealt for some, who were before thought to be as deepe in matters displeasing to the State, as others: the State being before out of doubt, that there were such plots, as were not beseeming subiects, & much lesse beseeming men of our calling, and so much the more odious, by how much the shew of piety is dangerous, for the effecting of any stratageme; And the Counsell thought, that all had bene of one stampe: wherein the Inditer of that letter affirmeth, he hath otherwise enformed them, and freed the innocent. Now we wil see, how this Author beginneth to close vp his Holines mouth with as notorious a falshood, as any of the rest.

They haue obteyned (saith he) that foure of their seditious compa­ny, that were in prison before, haue libertie vnder the Queenes let­ters patents, to ride vp and downe all England for a time, to gather money, and letters, which few Cath. will dare to deny them, least they detect them to the Councell, &c. This also is a meditation vpon the same letter, which is before cited, and is to be found in the 13. Chap. of the Apol. fol. 210. wherein are these words: I haue (by opening the case vnto their Honours and to Caesar) obteyned that foure principall men shalbe banished after a sort, to follow the appeale, D. Bagshaw, Bluet, Champney, & Barneley, all prisoners: they [Page 52] shall be here with me on Wednesday next. A moneth they shall haue within the Realme, to ride abroad for money amongst their friends, and then chuse their port, &c. And from hence perchance this fellow had some part of his intelligence: but how commeth he to inlarge himselfe so farre, as to say, that these Priests had her Maiesties letters Patents? vpon what record hath he found this? or doth he meane thereby to draw the Lord Keeper into questi­on, as though he stood now in his light for some what, which he hath to effect, (all Letters patents being at his perill vpon record?) or doth he know any Cath. who in such quandaries did giue these Priests any money? we knowe some, who, not­withstanding the great bond they had to some of them, would not see them, neither would the priests presse vppon them. Some againe we know, who were requested to giue somewhat to their iourney to Rome, if not for loue of the men, yet for the loue which they pretended to peace, and to haue a final end of the controuersie, which could not be had but at Rome: and nothing would be giuen. But this fellow careth not, what he saieth to the Pope, presuming perchance, that by some way or other, all accesse should be shut, and his falshood should neuer bee discouered. And thus forgetting that which hee saith in the Apologie cap. 11. fol. 162. that the intention of the Priests seemeth not to be, to informe his Holinesse, but to make a noise in England, and to gaine time of libertie, and to preoccupate some mens minds, by making a shew, that they appeale to the highest in this their controuersie, but yet indeed would be loth that hee should know it, and much lother to answere it before him, especially this Pope, &c, Here he telleth the Pope in this Epistle, that the Priests are to passe into France, and there, by the helpe of the Queenes Am­bassadors, and other meanes, to procure (if they can) his most Chri­stian Maiesties letters to your Holines in their fauor, pretending that they can get the Queene of England to giue libertie of conscience, to some Catholicke, vnder certaine conditions, whereof some must bee, that the Iesuits must goe forth of England. All this is in handling (most holy Father) by the children of iniquitie, against Gods cause, and his seruants, and will no doubt, bring forth lamentable effects, if your Holines doe not speedily put your hand thereunto. In this Apo­logie we do lay downe, by cleare historicall narration, and authenticall [Page 54] testimonies, the grounds of all. Christ our Sauiour inspire your Holi­nes, &c. In the 10. Chap. of the Apol. fol. 147. there is a prayer made to God, by the Archpr. to giue him his grace, so to vse Fa. Parsons benefits, as that neuer he abuse them, and that neuer hee fall into any ingratefull behauiour, &c. And in the margent there is this note, A prophecie of the Archpriest to Fa. Parsons. How much more worthily doeth this place in the Epistle deserue to be no­ted for a prophecie? but perchance hee was loath, that there should be any such prophecie, as that any good, or ease should come to the Catholicks, by the absence of the Iesuits in Eng­land. Wotteth he not, that his Holines knoweth, that no euill is to be done, although good should ensue thereon? If it be a sinfull act, to call the Iesuits out of England, what feare is there, that his Holines would doe it? If it be no sinfull acte, to call them out of England: and that thereupon may come ease, and quiet to the Church, which hath bene a long time in the more grieuous persecution, in regard of the hard opinion, which our Prince, and Counsell haue had of their statizing, vnder a co­lour of pietie, and Religion: how farre are these fellowes from that Spirit of Ionas, who willingly yeelded himselfe rather to be throwen out of the ship into the sea, then that through his de­fault those, who were in it, should perish? But of these matters we shall haue cause elswhere, to delate more at large. And in the meane while wee make humble request to the indifferent Readers, to note well throughout the Apologie how farre this Author is from all Authenticall testimonies, in laying downe the grounds of all such matters, as are now in question: for we are not here to stand vpon such impertinent stuffe, as he thrusteth into his booke, to the end, that by shuffling in some­time some part of our matters, he might make them odious to such, as will runne ouer his packes without searching into them, what is therein belonging to our controuersie, and how little coherence it hath with that other, with which it is ioyned.

CHAP. 5. How the Apologie-maker by the same reason which he gi­ueth for the publishing of his Apologie, doth giue light to his reader to conceiue the iust cause which the Priests had to print their bookes.

THe Preface of this Apologie is to the Catho­likes of England to fore-arme, & forewarne them, what is meant thereby, lest the matter being other­wise taken, then it ought to be, should yeeld to scan­dall, and thereby ouerthrow (sayth he) and worke your ruine which is intended, and permitted by Almighty God, Fa­ther of all mercies to your triall, and greater merit, &c. But this fore­arming of the Catholiks is such, as they ought all to be forewar­ned, what is meant by this his fore-arming. For what Catholike, or worthy seruant of God (as he tearmeth them) hath euer before this time beleeued, that either scandall, or their ruine hath been intended, howsoeuer it hath been permitted by Almighty God vp­on some cause best knowen vnto his diuine Maiestie? For how farre off is this fore-arming, or forewarning from his doctrine, who sayth, that the betraying of Christ was Gods acte in Iu­das, aswell as repentance in S. Peter? But I pray you see how he goeth on, affirming that Christ sent aduersaries to afflict his Church: and which is most ridiculous, he auoucheth that he sent a new kind of aduersaries neuer heard of in the world before, named heretikes, that tooke vnto themselues the name of the best sort of Christians &c. If there were no heretikes before, what were the Pharises, and Sadduces? Of whom Ioseph lib. 18. Antiqui. Iud. cap. 2. affirmeth, that the Pharises held opinion that those soules, who af­ter the separation from the body were found good, did returne againe to some other bodies. And that the Sadduces did thinke that the soule died with the body. And doubtlesse this was the cause, why it is so precisely recorded in the second booke of the Maccha­bees cap. 12. that Iudas did thinke piously, and religiously of the resurrection? For about this time did these people rise, and fell very quickly into these heresies, perchance the sooner for their [Page 54] very great pride, which they tooke of their ouer selfe-weening religious course of life. Of the Saduces we haue many testimo­nies in the new Testament, and of their error, as Math. 22. Mar. 12. Luk 20. and Act 23. but two notable places there are in the Acts of the Apostles, which shew not onely, that these were er­rors, but heresies, and that they were Heretikes, who are related by the Euangelist, to haue assaulted our Sauiour. We reade in the 5. chapter a company thus described: Quae est heresis Sa­ducaeorum, which is the heresie of the Saduces. And in the 24. chapter: Tertullus the oratour accuseth S. Paul before Foelix the President in this manner, Inuenimus, &c. We found this pestife­rous fellow both raising contention against all the Iewes in the world, and broaching the sedition of the sect of those of Nazareth. And for that word sect there is in the Greeke copie [...], heresie. And in the same chap. S. Paul answering for himselfe acknowledg­eth, that he serued God in that way, which his accusers called heresie. Can there be any plainer Testimonies, that there were heresies among the Iewes, and so accounted by them, and the men ac­cused thereof, who held such opinions? But this good fellow writeth to such, as hee thinketh will not bee euill conceited of him, howsoeuer he abuseth them, or himselfe, but will rather take his wordes for oracles, how contrary soeuer they are to trueth. Hereupon also he emboldeneth himselfe to cast many doubts, and suspitions into his readers head, against the priests whom he calleth Libellers. First because (as he sayth) There is no certaine author of their bookes named. Secondly, because no li­cence of superiors for printing is named. Thirdly, because worthy men are defamed by name without intention, or possibility to proue it by lawful meanes. To the first I answere, that the authors names are as leageably set downe in the bookes, which the priests set out, as the authors names of this Apologie. That booke which is dedicated to his Holinesse is set out by the priests vnder their owne names, as appeareth by the title of the booke, where it is sayd to be giuen to his Hol. by the priests who were most vniustly defamed of schisme and other crimes. And in the appeale their names are particularly set downe who they are, Pag. 119. and the other are set out in the same maner. And this Apologie is sayd to be written, and set forth by priests vnited in due subordi­nation [Page 57] to the Archpr. but the reader must go looke, who they are. This exception therefore against the priests bookes is very ab­surd, and proueth that the Apologie commeth neerer to the na­ture of a Libel, then the Priests books. To the second I answer, that in case the Superiour be a party & laboureth what he may with all men, that the trueth of the question be not knowen, and to that end forbiddeth, that any thing be written, or read, which may giue satisfaction to indifferent men, it is not neces­sary to expect his licence, neither is it a note of a Libel to print without it.

To the third I answere, that there is no man touched in these bookes, but for such matters, and vpon such ground, as the au­thors of them are ready to iustifie, and haue alreadie shewed, that they haue intention to proue them. In which this Apolo­gie fayling, as it must needes doe, the author hath alreadie gi­uen iudgement against himselfe, that he is a notorious libeller, and that he hath brought all his followers, and furtherers here­in, (whether consenters, or spreaders of it abroad) into a hea­uie case, God amend them. But let vs, I pray you, examine the cause, why this Apologie was written: (the authour thereof blaming so often the Priests for writing) Diuers points (saith he) you know already, and some more you are like to perceiue by this our Apologie (being driuen thereunto) but not all, for auoiding fur­ther scandall: which respect of scandall should haue withheld vs wholly from putting pen to paper in this cause, if the intemperance of some persons (giuen ouer as it seemeth to choler and reuenge, and for­getting both themselues and others, and the times wherein they liue) had not broken foorth of late to such excesse, as we are forced against our wils, to put some stop, or bridle to so licentious and scandalous pro­ceedings, lest it infect euen the good, and trouble the strongest, when they see such enormous matters passe without controlement. In this iustification of his setting foorth this Apologie we gather, first that scandall is not alwayes to be auoyded: For as he saieth: The respect of scandal should haue withheld him wholly from putting pen to paper in this case, if the intemperance, &c. so that the in­temperance belike of some persons may excuse a man doing that, whereupon scandall may arise. Note I pray you, how this fellow can change his hew, when it shall make for his pur­pose. [Page 58] When hee will write himselfe, then the intemperance of some persons is a sufficient excuse for him, although scandall arise thereon. And when he would haue others blamed, who were more grieuously iniured, and prouoked thereby to write then he is: he can preach vnto them, that S. Paul was of a spirit and iudgement contrary to theirs, 1. Corinth. 8. who doth so greatly exaggerate the danger of scandalizing any one of our brethren for whom Christ died (as he sayd) that he would rather neuer eate meate, then doe it. Thus saith this Apologie-maker in his Appendix, fol. 16. And there he goeth on also, and sheweth what Christ himselfe said: Matth. 18. That it were better suffer death in most hideous manner (to wit, with a milstone at our neckes to be cast into the sea) then to scandalize the least of them, that beleeue in him, that be our Christian and Ca­tholike brethren. And then he concludeth in this maner: So as this other diuinitie, that it may be done for sauing of our credites, mainteining our good names, and other commodities, was not then knowen, and commeth now downe from a contrary spirit, and Master, to Christ and S. Paul.

By this then it followeth, that howsoeuer the Priests can a­uoid blame, this Apologie-maker is in the lurch, who (hauing so great skill, not onely in the sayings of S. Paul, but of Christ al­so, and in diuinity, and the true meaning of it) notwithstan­ding he thought that some scandall would growe by this his acte, aduentured contrary to true diuinitie to write this Apo­logie. The diuinitie which the priests doe professe, teacheth them that the scandall of little ones is to be auoided: and the scandall of Pharises is to be contemned. And as they reade in one place: Matth. 16. Qui scandalizauerit &c. Whosoeuer shall scandalize one of these little ones, which beleeue in mee, it were better for him that he had a milstone hung about his necke, and he drowned in the bottome of the sea. So in another place they finde, that Christ (when his disciples told him that the Pharises were scandalized at that which he said) answered, Matth. 15. Sinite illos, &c. Let them alone, they are blind, and guiders of the blind. There are diuers reasons set foorth by the Priests, to iustifie their publishing of their bookes: but to an indifferent Reader this place of the Preface is warrant inough, since that in this authors opinion, there nee­deth no other caufe, then to put some stop or bridle to so licentious [Page 59] and scandalous proceedings, least it infect, euen the good, and trouble the strongest, when they see such enormous matters passe, without controulment. Was there euer any so licentious and scandalous pro­ceedings, as haue beene against the Priestes? Can Fa. Listers, the Iesuites treatize of Schisme be matched for excesse, and pas­sion against Catholike priests? was there euer such an outrage committed in Christendome by any Catholike to another, as this is, Harken, O ye factious, ye are Rebels, yee are Schismatikes, and fallen out of the Church, and spouse of Christ, yee haue troden vnder your feete the obedience which yee owe to the highest Bishop: yee haue sinned against all humane faith and authoritie, by reiecting a moral certainty in a morall matter: yee haue violently run into ex­communication, & irregularitie: ye haue lost your faculties, by which you should haue gained soules to Christ: ye haue so scandalized all the godly, as now yee are generally become infamous? What shall I say more? ye haue sinned against Christ his chiefe Vicar, and Christ him­selfe the Iudge and Iusticer, by your disobedience, that with Samuel the Prophet we may say: Quasi peccatum, &c. as a thing of south­saying it is, to repugne; and as the offence of Idolatry, not to be wil­ling to be quiet. See I pray you, that ye are nothing better then South­sayers and Idolaters. And because yee haue not heard the Church, while she spake vnto you by the chiefest Bishop, yee are as Ethnickes and Publicans. And here I make an end, earnestly desiring the ve­ry mightie God, that he will yet at the last giue you his grace, lest that being thrust into sempiternall destruction with Ethnicks and Ido­laters you suffer immortall paines for this your disobedience and scan­dall. Thus farre F. Lister the Iesuite. And was it not necessary, that there should be some stop put, or bridle to this licentious and scandalous proceeding? was there not danger that the good might hereby be infected? nay is it not euident, that many a good soule hath bene infected, and many also of the strongest troubled here­by? and had not then the Priests iust cause to declare vnto the world, how the case stood with them in England: and to pub­lish some reasons of their actions, especially when after the peace made, and all iniuries forgiuen by them, the Archpriest did not onely not checke these licentious and scandalous procee­dings of the Iesuits, broched afresh by them, but gaue them his hand in this action, and incontinently published this licentious [Page 60] and most scandalous libell, which neither hath the authors name, nor is likely euer to be iustified. We haue receiued a resolutiō from our mother citie, that the refusers of the appointed authoritie were schismatikes. And surely I would not giue absolution to any, that should make no conscience thereof, &c. And therefore my direction is, that they make account thereof, and doe make satisfaction, before they receiue the benefite of absolution. Can this Apologie-maker find any such matter in any of the bookes, which he doth impugne, and terme licentious and scandalous proceedings? or can he shew, how the good could be so dangerously infected, or the strongest so great­ly troubled by any thing which the priests haue written, as they may be with these treatises, resolutions, or libels of the Iesuits and Archpriest? with what face doth this author carpe at the priests bookes, and say, that the style is most bitter and opprobri­ous, and nothing sauouring of that spirit, that should be in the seruants of one God? Could there be more bitter speeches, then these be­fore vttered against the priests? or is there any one in those bookes which he impugneth, comparable to those which this fellow himselfe vseth against the priests in this Apologie, calling them children of iniquitie, in the Epistle to his Holines; some­times Libertines, and other such like, as the spirit moueth him? But these his tricks, not being to be taken by any man of iudge­ment, but to proceed out of great excesse and passion, & him­selfe thereby more likely then the priests to be condemned, he proposeth certaine generall considerations to trouble his dis­creete Reader: For example: What manner of men these be, that haue aduentured to be the authors of so intollerable a scandall in our English Church: what may be their motiues: what their ends: what their meanes, by secret combining themselues with the enemie, for defaming such, as they most feare and hate: and finally, what may be doubted in the sequell: & how disunited these men be from their law­full superiours, and consequently from God also, as iustly may be sus­pected: yet for better enforming the Reader of diuers particularities falsly and vniustly set downe in their late bookes, or infamatorie li­bels, which I suppose the more pious sort of men will haue scruple to reade or looke vpon, we are, &c. A notable insinuation, that eue­ry man must listen to him and his partners, and must not once looke vpon any thing which the priests alledge for themselues. [Page 61] And this caueat was very necessarily put in here, and confor­mable to that policie, out of which the Edicts proceeded, that no man must see, what the priests could say for themselues, lest that the iugling of their aduersaries should be seene by the Ca­tholikes, and they reduced to those, to whome in the end they must adhere, when the true causes of all this diuision are to be ripped vp and iudged.

But if the discreet reader would but enter into the first consi­deration, which is here proposed vnto him, that is, what maner of men these be, his discretion will inforce him to heare them. For some of them are of the most ancient Priests in England: some haue suffered long imprisonment, & were neuer touched with any thing blame-worthy, before this controuersie began. In the time of greatest need these men haue bene of those, who haue most imployed themselues in all parts of England, and what hath bene praise-worthy done in any disputations at any time with the Protestants, it hath bene by some of them. This therefore, and the like contemptible speeches, as Cap. 9. fol. 119. such as they be, and such like, do argue nothing, but an in­tollerable pride in this Author: who being inferior to many of them for many good parts in them, vseth a little liplabour (the best qualitie which he hath) to disgrace them. In which doubt­lesse he will haue bad successe with a discreet Reader, and will dis­couer himselfe and his fellowes, to haue bene the Authors of this intolerable scandall in our English Church. The second conside­ration here proposed to the discreet Reader is; what may be their motiues. And for this the discreet Reader, if he wil (as discretion would leade him) looke into their bookes, hee will finde that their motiues were, to shew how badly the Iesuits, and Arch­priest haue dealt with them; and how vniustly they haue bene defamed of schisme, and other enormous crimes, as before is shewed: and that the end which they desire is, peace, when the trueth shalbe knowen, which so long as it is smothered vp, can neuer breed peace. And thus is the next consideration at an end, which was what their ends were. Now followeth, what their meanes are, by secret combining themselues with the enemy. But first he must haue told the discreet Reader, what enemy this was. The priests neuer tooke other for enemy, then what they iudged er­ror, [Page 62] hauing alwayes honoured the personages of such, as to whom they do owe honour. And if this haue bene now lately perceiued by our Prince, and the State, and thereupon they haue shewed such fauour vnto them, as faithfull and loyall sub­iects do, or may deserue (notwithstanding the controuersie in Religion) how doeth this fellow call it a combining with the ene­mie? If the priests had at any time done any thing, which they are not ready to iustifie at the feet of his Holines, this good fel­low might haue cast some odde surmise into his Readers head: but the contrary being so euident, as the world is now a witnes, the discreet Reader need not stand any longer vpon this consi­deration, nor vpon the next: which is, what may be doubted in the sequell: they hauing in this aswell as in any other thing, beha­ued themselues no otherwise, then hath become Catholicke priests. Lastly the discreet Reader must consider how they are disunited from their lawfull Superior, and consequently from God also. A simple consequence: but well beseeming the charitie with which this Apologie was written. What bad man in authority wil not thinke himselfe much bound to this Author for this his consequence? Must he consequently be iustly suspected to bee disunited from God, who shall not runne wholy with his superior? Cannot a lawfull superior do amisse? and in that misdoing may he not be forsaken by those, whose superior he is, without in­curring a iust suspition, that they are dsunited from God? Haue not the priests oftentimes offered to haue these matters scan­ned and determined (by which the disunion hath growen) with all submission? And hath not the Archpriest refused this offer, and written backe againe vnto them, that their petition is a tu­multuous complaint? And how then can they be said, to be disuni­ted from their superior, and not rather the superior from them? and he in refusing to doe that which is honest and iust, is more disunited perchance from God, then he taketh himselfe to be, or those who direct him in these his strange courses. After these cōsiderations foloweth a faire promise to bring forth authenti­cal proofes of such matters, as are, or should here be handled. But, they being not yet ready, the Reader must content himselfe, with what this Author can at this time affoord him, and hope to see somewhat in a larger Apologie. And he will performe this [Page 63] in a farre other style, then the priests vsed in their bookes, if God assist vs (saith he) with his grace and holy Spirit. A very good con­dition, and such as would gladly be seene in any of his actions, and his fellowes: who (both in their Libel, which was spread abroad vnder F. Lister the Iesuits name, & in this Apologie, yea almost immediatly after this godly resolution) are so farre from Christian spirit, or ordinary modesty, as it could not but be an ex­ceeding ioy to all their friends, to see any iot of Gods grace or as­sistance of his holy Spirit in them. But as it seemeth by the latter end of this preface, there is some kinde of resistance made a­gainst this assistance of Gods grace and holy Spirit. Where this au­thour faigning vnto himselfe, that these bookes against which he writeth, could not be published in the style they goe in, by any modest and Christian spirit, he concludeth that they are pub­lished by some one, or few discomposed passionate people, or by some heretike, &c. and so as to such, we shall answere (saith he) and not to our brethren: yet doth his answere throughout all the Apologie light vpon the Priests, although indeede the termes which are vsed, would much better fit an heretike against an heretike: so little doe they sauour either of modestie, or Christian spirit.

CHAP. 6. How this present controuersie about the abuse of this newe subordination is deduced from Iohn of Gaunt, and other matters most impertinent thereunto. Apol. cap. 1.

HAuing shewed through how foule, darke, vn­euen, and ill sauouring an entry this authour hath lead his deuoted to this Apologie, the indif­ferent reader may probably coniecture, that in the end there will be nothing to be seene, but a boldnesse in auerring any vntrueth: a sleight in casting mistes before his eyes, to hold him still in ignorance of the trueth: a defect of plaine dealing, when he is driuen to say something: and a heape of slanders, with most odious insinuations, to bring the Secular priests into contempt, and obloquy.

In the first chapter of the Apologie, intituled, What great [Page 64] hurts haue come to England by emulation of the Laitie against the Clergie, and of Secular priests against religious, and of the state of the present controuersie in question, he maketh an abridgement of the whole booke following, and contriueth it in such manner, as whereas he beginneth at Iohn of Gaunt, he might asmuch to the purpose haue begunne at the diuision, emulation, and contention, which the enemy raised in Cain against his brother Abel. For although he intitle the Chapter, of hurtes come to England by e­mulation, and therefore a story of emulation in England may seeme to come neerer to his purpose: yet his discourse being of emulation, by which the reduction of England to the Ca­tholike faith hath bene hindred, he might aswell haue applyed the story of Abel and Cain, as that of Iohn of Gaunt, and Iohn Wickliffe, who were dead, and buried, I [...]. Stow. in vita Ric. 2. An. 1384. and this last also had his bones taken vp, and burned aboue 40 yeeres after, to wit in the yeere 1425. by commandement of Pope Martine the 5. which was an hundreth yeeres before the discontinuance of the Ca­tholike faith in England, or the least declining thereof, as may appeare by the most zealous disposition of K. Henry 8. who in Anno 1521. deserued that most glorious title, Defender of the faith. But let vs see how handsomely he patcheth his geere to­gether: thus he beginneth the first chapter.

If euer the enemy of mankind did bestirre himselfe, and all his po­wer to let any publike good of the English nation, it hath bene in this, of the reduction of the Catholike faith. For hindring whereof, he hath tried all his possible meanes, as before we haue noted: but especially that of diuision, emulation, and contention hath bene his chiefest. For by emulation of the Nobility against the Clergie, and of Secular priests against religious, he raised Iohn Wickliffe aboue 200. yeeres past, whom Iohn of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, sonne to King Edward the 3. together with the residue of his faction (vpon emulation he had with B. Arundel of London, B. Wickam of Winchester, and o­thers) did set vp, and maintaine against those and the rest of the Cler­gie: especially against religious men, that had possessions: Wick­liffe being a Secular priest himselfe. Thus saith this author: and then he goeth forward, affirming how that certaine motions were made concerning the taking away of the Abbey lands, & giuing them to the Crowne: which motions were made vpon the same emulation [Page 65] vnder the Kings, Richard 2, Henry 4, Henry 5, and others: and tooke effect in the time of King Henry 8. And in the end conclu­deth, that the want of restitution of Abbey lands was the hindrance of reconciliation in Queene Maries dayes. But this doubtlesse ar­gued rather an vnwillingnesse in the Laitie to part with the Church liuings, of which they were now in possession, then an emulation in them against the Clergie, or religious. And therefore in this conclusion the Author doth seeme much to forget himselfe, who vndertooke to shew that emulation, and not want of restitution of Church liuings hindered the reduction of England to the Catholike faith. It seemeth that hee aimed onely at this, that (the controuersie being now principally be­tweene some Secular priests, and some religious) hee might driue into his Readers head some sinister conceit of the Se­cular priests: and to that ende telleth a tale of the enemie of mankinde, and how hee raysed a Secular Priest against religi­ous: and how that malice tooke effect in K. Henry the 8. dayes, and the Laity would not restore the Church liuings in Q. Maries dayes.

And if the Reader can put all this together, and cry out a­gainst the Secular Priests, habetur intentum, as truants vse to say in the schooles, when they knowe not how to deduce the conclusion to their mindes in forme out of the premisses, with­out laughter in the hearers. We haue before shewed, how that neither by Wickliffe nor by Iohn of Gaunt, there could be any hinderance of the reducing of England to the Catholike faith: and consequently how impertinent this story is to that, for proofe whereof it was brought. But for the better discouering of this fellow his falshood and sinister dealing, you shall vn­derstand that this Iohn Wickliffe was a Secular Priest. And al­though in receiuing that holy Order, he also receiued so inde­lible a character, as he must be still a Priest, how wickedly soe­uer he behaued himselfe: yet he did not receiue any confirma­tion in grace, but might fall into most great enormities, as the most holy (not confirmed in grace) may doe. And entring out of a melancholy humor, which grew vpon him, by being de­priued of a benefice which he had, into a good conceit of him­selfe, that he was not sicut caeteri homines, as other men were, hee changed his life from the ordinary life of the Secular Priests, in­to [Page 66] a streighter rule, and tooke another habit. Io. Stow in Ed. [...]. An 1377. He and all his fol­lowers went barefooted, and in course russet garments downe to the heeles, and in contempt of temporall goods, his conuer­sation was with those Religious that had no possessions, and ioi­ned himselfe vnto the begging Fryers, approouing their po­uertie, and extolling their perfection: Euident tokens that hee had left the state of a Secular Priest, and ascended to some high­er degree of perfection. But as it should seeme, he was neither Monke nor Frier, but talis qualis, such as he was, or as other per­chance who came after him, although they follow him not in all things: For as it appeareth in our Chronicles, hee preached against Monkes and other religious men that had possessions, and taught such doctrine, as hee was condemned for it in the Council of Constance as an heretike, and his bones were taken vp and burned, as is beforesaid. Whereby also this authour is proued to forget himselfe very much, to number him amongst the Clergie, which is generally taken for such, as are not onely in Orders, but liue also in vnitie of the faith. Wherefore pur­posing to tell a tale of emulation in the Clergie against the Re­ligious, he should haue taken some other to haue prooued it, then Wickliffe, who also (by his pretence no doubt of greater perfection) had forsaken the state of a Secular Clergie man, as appeared by his habit, and conuersation. To these falshoods, and couert calumnies against the Secular Priests, this deceit of this author may be added, That whereas the Chronicles doe mention, that not only Iohn Wickliffe, but foure doctors of di­uinitie also (one of euery Order of the begging Fryers) ioyning with him, were imployed by Iohn of Gaunt in his grudge against Bish. Wickham of Winchester, in whose defence the B. of London (not Arundell, as this author affirmeth, but Courtney) speaking as became him to doe, Iohn of Gaunt threatned him also, and swore, that he would pull downe both the pride of him, and of all the Bishops in England: this author mentioneth onely the Secular Priest (as he termeth him) without any mention of the orders of Religion, which were also imployed. Moreouer, it soundeth very foolishly, that Iohn of Gaunt would set Iohn Wic­kliffe against the Monkes, vpon an emulation which hee had a­gainst the Bishops, their estates depending so little vpon the [Page 67] estate of the Monkes: as when all the Abbyes in England were put downe, the Bishops remained in as great honour as euer they did. And wheras it is further said, that the Abbey lands were taken from the Monkes, and giuen to the maintenance of the crowne by the same emulation of the Clergie against the Religious in the time of K. Henry the eight, it is most false: the Abbyes being then put downe by a change of Religion, which had not the beginning vpon any such emulation as this author affirmeth, but vpon the perswasion of Longland B. of Lincolne, the Kings confessor, for­tified by Card. Wolsey, viz. that his Highnesse mariage with the Lady Katherine his brother Prince Arthurs wife, was vnlawfull and against the word of God: whereby the King being indu­ced to seeke a diuorce, but crossed therein with the Pope by Charles the fift, nephew of the Lady Katherine, and some others, as well of the Laytie as the Clergie, both Secular and Religious here in England, it wrought in the King such a dislike of his Holines, and others, as it procured not onely the ouerthrow of the Abbyes, but such a change in Religion, as since the world hath seene. Of this alteration therefore, if any emulation were the beginning, it was an emulation in the Cardinall (who dealt with B. Longland, to perswade the King, as is mentioned, and afterward did second him with all his might himselfe) against the Emperour, for hindering him of the Popedome: and nei­ther the sister, nor the mother to ambition (as this author would haue it) but her daughter.

But the greatest folly committed by this author in this his exordium is not yet touched: and that is, that among all other histories impertinent to the cōtrouersie in question, he would make his choyse of one wherein himselfe (if we are not decei­ued) is notoriously disciphered. Iohn Wickliffe was a Secular priest: being a priest, and neither Monke nor Friar: and no Se­cular priest as differing from them in habit, and conuersing with the religious Mendicants, vnder pretence of greater per­fection. His followers tooke no name of him, as both Monkes and Friers do of their founders, and Sectaries of their Masters: but went vnder the name, which the common people gaue them, to wit, Lollards. He was vsed as an instrument by Iohn of Gant, to bring that to passe which this Duke had long concei­ued [Page 68] in his mind. For he saw (saith the Historie) Ioh. Stow. sup. that it would be hard for him to obtaine his purpose, the Church standing in his full state, &c. Wherefore he laboured first to ouerthrow aswell the liber­ties of the Church, &c. And to this end did Iohn Wickliffe bestow his talents: for he was not onely eloquent (saith the historie) but also seemed to contemne temporall goods for the loue of eternall riches, &c. This authour, being in a state which once was of Secular priests, now no state of Secular priests: not because he will be taken for either Monke or Frier, or goe barefoote as Iohn Wick­liffe did and his followers, or basely clothed (for these are out­ward mortifications) which of what edification soeuer they are, yet are not worthy of that honour, which is due to the in­ward mortifications, which lie hid, and are not seene by the corporall eye. But because Pope Gregorie the 13. hath so de­clared it: yet so as he being filius populi (as people say) hath no other name, but what the people giue him, he is imployed not by Iohn of Gant himselfe in his owne person (for this great Duke died aboue 200 yeeres since) but by Iohn of Gant in some of his posteritie, who hath somewhat to bring to passe, which he hath long conceiued in his mind: for the effecting of which, this godly Father is busied in the corrupting the Cleargie of England, or the vtter ouerthowing it: which at this present, he and his doe worke by taking from them their good name and fame, and making them odious without iust cause, to the people. And to the end that he would be knowen not to haue spent his time idlely in Wickliffe his schoole, he hath not onely imployed his tongue, but his pen also: and in his first platforme of Reformation hath ordeined, that none of the Clergie shall pos­sesse any temporall liuings, but shall liue vpon such pensions, as shall to certaine of his company and some secular Priests (ioyned with them) in their wisedome seeme necessary for their maintenance. But let vs now see whether this authour can fit himselfe better in the next point.

In the beginning also (saith he) of this Queenes dayes, the little affection which the Laitie did beare vnto the Clergie, procured by some vnquiet spirits, as also the small vnion of diuers Clergie men among themselues, some holding with the heretikes and politikes by beate of faction, was a great occasion of the totall ouerthrow of reli­gion, [Page 69] whereupon also the same deuill brought in the diuision of opi­nions, about going to the hereticall Churches and seruice, which most part of Catholikes did follow for many yeeres: and when the better and truer opinion was taught them by Priests and Religious men from beyond the seas, as more perfect and necessarie, there wanted not ma­ny that opposed themselues, especially of the elder sort of Priests of Q. Maries dayes. And this diuision was not onely fauoured by the Coun­cell, but nourished also for many yeeres, by diuers troublesome people of our owne, both in teaching and writing. See how shamefully he followeth still this bug emulation. If the little affection in the Laitie towards the Clergie, and litle vnion amongst the Clergy them­selues, were then culpable, what reward must they haue, who now haue effected the same to the ouerthrow of religiō, which by the great paines of many religious Priests, hath gotten root in many? But to our purpose. It is euident that no emulation was cause of the change of the Catholike Romane religion, professed in her sisters time, but her Maiesties conscience, I must thinke: her Highnesse hauing bene euer trained vp, both in her fathers, and brothers times, in the religion of the Prote­stants, and following to that purpose the counsell of such as thought not so well of the Church of Rome, as of the Religion that is now professed, Io. Stow. in Eliz. An. 1. 1559. as may appeare by such actes as are re­gistred to haue bene done presently vpon her Maiesties com­ming to the Crowne. But as for the Catholikes their going to the Church, it was somewhat more to be lamented perchance, then to be blamed, before it came to be a signe distinctiue, by which a Catholike was knowen from one, who was no Catholike. For this consideration onely in the iudgement of the Iesuites in their Romane Colledge, made the going to Church vnlawful in England, as we haue heard M. Iames Younger (afterwarde Doctor of Diuinitie) affirme, who presented vnto them the discourse, which Bell made in defence of going to the Church with a protestation.

It is also well knowen that Fa. Bosgraue the Iesuite, at his first comming ouer into England, went to Church, vntill hee vnderstood, that now it was become a signe distinctiue, and was excused for that fact by his ignorance of the then present state of our Countrey: himselfe comming from such places, where [Page 70] it was not takē for so heinous a matter to go to the Protestants Church. F. Alexander & his felow Iesuite may much more fitly be said in the spirit of this author, to be the deuils instrumēts in Scotland, by bringing in a diuision of opinions about going to the puritanical assemblies, after that the Catholikes there had been instructed by the secular priests of the danger therof, & forbore those meetings: wherby it was become also there a signe distin­ctiue. But whensoeuer any troublesome of any sort hath either in teaching, or writing nourished this, or any other diuision, bending this way, the Secular priests haue shewed themselues most vigilant & constant in the defence of vnity, and the safety of our English Church: as it very well appeared by M. Io. Mush his labours against Bell in the North: his & M. Watsons confir­mation of the Catholikes in Scotland against those Iesuits, Fa. Alexander & his felowes: & the standing against Fa. Walley and Fa. Southwel, (two Iesuits) in the South by M. Collington, and M. Charnock, when these Iesuits did teach the Catholikes (who were called to the barre openly at Assises or Sessions, in the yeere 1591) that they might lawfully (to keepe themselues out of prison, for not going to the Church) yeeld to goe to this or that learned Protestant to cōferre with him in matters of their faith: which could imply no other (at the least in the face of the world) then a doubt of their faith, or a contentment to be instructed in their faith by such, as in their conscience they tooke for heretikes: and consequently it was a deniall of their faith before men, if this axiome keepe his old authority: Dubi­us in fide est infidelis: He that is doubtfull in his faith is an infidell. But after all this trouble was ended, Fa. Southwell (as we vnder­stand) imployed M. Standish to tell M Charnocke, that hee was now of mind, that it was a thing vnlawfull. And Fa. Walley told M. Collington that his meaning was onely, that the Catholikes should go to the houses of the learned Protestants, not to con­ferre with them, but rather as a temporall punishment, to quit them from going to prison: which how ridiculous a shift it is, any man of meane vnderstanding may easily perceiue, and also what kinde of people they were, whom it was likely the Coun­cell did most fauour, if they would debase themselues to deale in such offices, as the Author of the Apologie doth here affirme. [Page 71] And thus much for his second passage.

The third matter which here he affirmeth is, that certaine Catholicks liked not, that the Catholicke English Clergie should be restored at the least by way of a Seminary, which was begunne at Doway. which because it passeth my capacitie, I will not enter into, further then this; that they were strange Catholicks, of what nation soeuer they were (that Seminary not hauing any rule, by which the Students were bound to any thing more, then to studie Diuinitie, after which they might dispose of themselues as they would) but this Author saith, that those Catholicks their letters are yet to be seene: and perchance they will come foorth with the larger Apologie, and giue credite to this so strange an assertion. In the meane while this Author will goe forward with the narration of those hurts and difficulties, which vpon emulation haue fallen out in this our English cause vnder the Queene that now is, especially concer­ning the Seminaries, &c. But first as it should seeme the Gentle­man must haue a pipe of Tobacco, for that his stomack is mar­ueilous full: and before he can come to this narration, he must disgorge himselfe. Hauing therefore told his Reader, how that some Catholicks were against the restoring of the English Clergie (as is before shewed) thus he easeth himselfe: And for­somuch as the principall and onely ground of this our present conten­tion, and scandalous controuersie, is the very same disease of emulati­on, partly of Lay men against Priests, and partly of Priests against re­ligious men (especially the Fathers of the Societie, with whom at this present they haue to do) and that this emulation is accompanied with apparant wicked sisters and daughters, as Ambition, enuie, ha­tred, contention, malice, pride, malediction, and other like: it is an ea­sie thing for our brethren and others, to discerne, from what root these buds doe spring: and consequently, either to auoyd them in them­selues, or that other men be carefull to take heed of them.

See I pray you, what lothsome stuffe here is: and so peremp­torily set downe, as it doeth most liuely represent the knowen old medicine to kill fleas, by putting dust in their mouthes. If but halfe of these matters here alledged were proued against the Priests, doubtlesse they were to be auoyded by Catholicks, as such as wanting no faults in themselues, would hardly in­struct [Page 72] others in vertue. But this Author being not as yet setled to his Apologie, without doubt discouereth that hee is not free from all those vices, which he hath reckoned (if he want any of them) who vpon so smal, or rather no cause, or euidence, would haue his Reader to enter into so rash, and vile a iudgement of the Secular priests, as though his Apologie were to no purpose, vnlesse his Reader would carry such an vncharitable conceit of them, as there should be no need of any Apologie, or defence of those who are their aduersaries. But now to his ground of this present contention.

The principall, or onely ground (saith he) of this our present con­tention and scandalous controuersie, is the very same disease of emu­lation, partly of Lay men against Priests, and partly of Priests against religious men: especially the Fathers of the Societie, with whom at this time they haue to doe, &c. We haue before shewed that the emulation of the Laitie against the Cleargie (of which he spea­keth before) was, for that the Cleargie were thought to be an hinderance to some designments of the Laitie: and thereupon some few deuised how to indomage the Cleargie. The emulati­on also which was said to haue bene in the Cleargie against the re­ligious, Io [...]. Stow in Edw. 3. Anno 13 [...]7. hath bene shewed not to haue bene in the Cleargie, but in Wickliffe and his societie, surnamed by the people Lollards. And if any of the Cleargie may be said to haue ioyned with Wickliffe in that his insolent and heretical attempt, they were of the Religious cleargie, and not of the Secular. And this emulation was against the religious who had possessions. Now then (good sir) if the principall or onely ground of this our present con­tention and scandalous controuersie is the very same disease of emu­lation: you must shew what like cause the Lay men haue found in the Cleargie, or the Priests in the Religious, especially the Fathers of the Societie, who by their rule haue no properties, nor can possesse any thing, T.W. in his Di­ [...]res [...]on from the 16. Martyrs. pag 63. as M T.W. would haue vs to thinke. We haue giuen a cause before of the contrary part, why the Lay men (who follow the Iesuits) and the Iesuits also may be thought to stirre vp themselues against some Secular Priests: to wit, because that some of the Secular Priests cannot bee brought to like of such plots, as the Iesuits haue layd for the in­uasion of our Countrey, in which they haue imployed them­selues [Page 73] oftentimes, and thrust also some Secular Priests into the action (although most grieuously against their wills) namely in the yeere 1596. And if this Author had not vsed this paren­thesis speaking of Religious men (especially the Fathers of the Societie, with whom at this present they haue to do) we should ne­uer haue dreamed, that this digression from hurts done in this Queenes dayes, had bene made against the Priests, who stand vpon their defence, against the impostures of the Iesuits, and their adherents, because so small a number of the Laity, doe stand with those priests, and the priests themselues are so few, (by this good fellow his accompt) as he disdaineth much, that they are called the priests. And in the 11. Chap. of the Apol. fol. 162. he alledgeth it for the second abuse, sleight or shift, which was vsed towards his Holines in the title of the booke dedica­ted vnto him: wherein it is said, that the troubles were betweene the Iesuits on th'one side with the Archpr. &c, and the Seminary priests on th'other side. But no doubt herein this fellow his me­mory did faile him, as also in another matter there mentioned: For whereas here he affirmeth, that the principall, & only ground of this our present contention, and scandalous controuersie, is the very same disease of emulation, partly of Lay men against priests, and part­ly of Priests against religious men, especially the Fathers of the So­cietie: In the 11. Chap fol. 161. & 162. hee affirmeth, that the Priests their controuersie is with the Archpr. &c. and that their sto­macke against the Iesuits is for standing with him, and for him. So as by this reckoning the case is plainely altered: For if the prin­cipall, and onely ground of this our present contention, and scandalous controuersie, be the very same disease of emulation, partly of Laymen against Priests, and partly of Priests against religious men, especially the Iesuits: to which of these two members will this Author bring this controuersie, which in the 11. Chap. he saith is be­tweene Priests, and their Archpriest? he cannot bring it to the first, which is of Lay men against Priests, for then hee must ac­compt the Priests (betweene whom, and the Archpr. the con­trouersie is) or the Archpr. among Lay men, which I trust he will not. He cannot bring it to the second, which is of Priests a­gainst Religious. For then the Archpr. (betweene whom, and the priests is the controuersie) must be confessed to be religious: [Page 74] which also (as I weene) he will not say: especially, that he is a Iesuit, as hee expoundeth himselfe, or a Father of the Societie, with whom at this present (as he saith here) they (the priests) haue to doe. For at this he laughed, Num. 16. in his table of false­hoods. But perchance his strayning to disgorge himselfe, cau­sed a lightnes in his head, that he knew not well what hee said. The filth then before shewed, being now out of his stomacke, For better declaration of this matter (saith he) I shall goe forward with the narration of those hurts, and difficulties, which vpon emu­lation haue fallen out in this our English cause, vnder the Queene that now is, especially concerning the Seminaries, and the reduction of England by that way, and meane procured, for these 20. yeeres, and more: to wit, since the beginning of the Romane English Colledge, which was in the yeere 1578. at what time a contention beganne be­tweene M. Doct. Lewis then Archdeacon of Cambray, but after B. of Cassana, and the English schollers, about the maner of gouernment, and gouernors of that house, erected especially by his procurement, and industry.

He hath shewed you before, what hurt came to England by the emulation which some Catholicks had against the restoring of a new English Clergie at Doway, which notwithstanding, the Seminary there florished: and afterward also at Rhemes in France in such sort, as England (thankes be to God) did not feele that hurt, vntill new Lords came, who were of the Iesuits faction, and were forced sometime to runne with them, for some respects, how smal soeuer their inward deuotion was vn­to them. Now he will giue you to vnderstand what great hurt our English cause hath had by emulation, which was at Rome. And because he will take all before him, he saith that Doctor Lewis (after B. of Cassana) and the schollers fell out about the maner of gouernment and gouernours of the house, which doubt­lesse if this fellow had any respect to the good reputation of the Schollers, hee would haue concealed, the house being ere­cted, especially by that man his procurement and industry, as here it is confessed. For in reason, who would not haue expe­cted, to haue borne some sway in that of which he might iust­ly haue bene called in some sort a founder, being moreouer a man of great wisedome and integritie? But this Author [Page 75] thinketh it good policie, to conceale Fa Parsons presence at Rome at that time, lest that the riddle should be read other­wise then hee would haue it, and the cause of dissension disci­phered. The trueth is, that F. Parsons was there, and there nee­deth no more to be said. And hee did deale with the schollers vnder hand, & as secretly as he might, but failed of the Rector­ship, if he sought it: although T.W. in his digression from the 16 martyrs, pag. 53. amongst other his follies doth affirme, that the first Rector of this Colledge was F. Robert Parsons, &c. And to say that the Councell did lay hands presently, hoping thereby to keepe a perpetuall diuision in our nation, is to argue the Councell of a great ouersight, and want of consideration, that a diuision in a nation prooueth oftentimes a desolation or vtter ouerthrowe thereof. But let vs see what substantiall proofe there is of this assertion: For which cause (sayth this Author) diuers spies were sent ouer to nourish the said diuision, as namely one Vanne (if we re­member well) who died in the Inquisition at Rome in the yere 1581. and soone after they vsed another named Salomon Alread, a Tay­lor by his trade, and married first at Lyons in France: but after get­ting acquaintance at Rome, and Millaine, hee became a statesman, went in and out diuers times to the Councell of England, vntill at last being discouered, he remained for seruant with Sir Fran. Wal­singham the Q Secretarie: and lastly, professed heresie. Vanne is said to be employed by the Counsell, to nourish this diuision in our nation; but what hee did, it is not said: this the reader himselfe must imagine: neither is it said, with whome he ioy­ned, when he came to Rome, or with whom he dealt: onely it is said, that he dyed in the Inquisition; which argueth that hee was some obstinate heretike. And this example is as foolishly brought, to prooue emulation in the Laytie against the Clergie, as that of Wickliffe was to prooue emulation of the Clergie against the religious, both being heretickes: and consequently neither of them of that body, of which we are to vnderstand this Au­thor when he talketh of the Laytie and Clergie, vnlesse he will also take that word Religious to extend it selfe to such Apostata Iesuits, as are either at Geneua, or elsewhere. And then will hee make himselfe ridiculous in affirming, that emulation against such religious should hinder the reduction of England to the [Page 76] Cath. faith. Salomon Alread was a Catholike, and a great de­uote of the Iesuits, both at Lyons in France and elsewhere. And if by his peuking, he did at any time discouer what he receiued of them, this author (who neglecteth the credit of all whatsoe­uer, to saue the Iesuits credit) should haue couered it, not ha­uing named any place of this mans conuersation, where hee should become a Statesman, but such as where the Iesuits were his directors, as Lyons in France, Rome, and Millaine. And if after the edification he had of the Iesuits, he returned into En­gland, and offered his seruice to Sir Francis Walsingham her Ma­iesties Secretarie, Sir Francis had little reason to refuse him, or not to imploy him, although we cannot learne that euer he did any harme in the English Colledge at Rome. And therefore this example of emulation in the Laytie against the Clergie, is as small to the purpose as the former. His being a Taylor might perchance make to the purpose in this authors conceit; but his being a married man, is doubtlesse here mentioned, for no other end then to put vs in mind, that married men can play the mar­chants as well as others: as if wee had forgotten, that as the Councell did second the Iesuits (who were not maried) in the first diuision at the College of Rome by sending Vanne thither, (as this author sayth) who was an vnmarried man, so did the Iesuits second the Coūcels imploiment of this Solomon Alread, (who was maried) in the furthering of their faction in the same Colledge at Rome, by entertaining Pierce amongst some other straglers, who was also a married man, and his wife knowen to be liuing, to make vp a small number of 8. or 10. pious youths, (as the Iesuites did terme them) to stand with them against all the rest of the students in the Colledge: yet in this one tricke the Iesuits went beyond our Councell, in that they made their married man Cornutus, by putting him in a square cappe, the better to effect that which they did by his means. For this was he, who after many deuises, preuailed at the last with three of the Students, to go to a Tauerne to drinke, where they were no sooner set, then apprehended by the Sbirri. And the matter was made so odious, as hereby they lost the fauor of his Hol. & were brought into a most seruile subiectiō to the Iesuits, not without the great grief of their friends, who long after complained, that [Page 77] they had very euill handled a good cause. And although these were the first stratagems, which were layd open to the world: yet were diuers causes giuen of disquietnes, euen from the first foundation of that Colledge: For the Iesuits hauing gotten the gouernement thereof into their hands, and in such sort, as they were most earnestly requested thereunto by such, as (howsoeuer this Author doth bragge of them, Chap. 5. fol. 28. and their pe­titions to his Holinesse) confessed not long after, that they knew not what they had done; they began to strike (as we say) while the iron was hot, and laboured a couple of the Students to become Iesuits, to wit, Thomas Wright, and Iohn Barton, who were well esteemed of for their towardlinesse. And although both of them did afterward leaue the societie of the Iesuits: yet their present example, together with the Iesuits bad indeuours, was occasion of much disunion of mindes in the Colledge: which when it was perceiued, the Iesuits the better to norish this diui­sion, & to couer their owne dealings, imployed such of the Stu­dents in that office, as had already deuoted themselues vnto their societie: and did countenance them against those, who complained thereof: insomuch as it was too apparant, that some were of purpose deferred, or kept from going into the so­cietie of the Iesuites, to the end they might perswade others to the same course, which was in deed the vndoing of that Col­ledge. For now the Students did not know, how to discerne one of their owne fellowes from the Iesuits, which began to swarme amongst them; and grew in the end to that malapart­nesse, as they laughed, and iested at the Students to their faces: yet must all be accounted the worke of the spirit. And if this spirit were at any time found, then to bleare the Students eyes, it was deuised, that no man did perswade any to leaue the Col­ledge, to become Iesuits: but did onely eleuate the mindes of such good wits, as were capable thereof, to a desire of some higher state of perfection: In which when they had once pre­uailed, and that the student was now resolued thereupon, and consequently to leaue that course in which he was, by being a member of the Colledge, they did the more boldly aske this question, why the Student, minding to leaue the Colledge, and betake himselfe to a state of greater perfection, or security, [Page 78] might not be exhorted to be a Iesuite rather then of any other order of religion. By which poore shifts the Iesuits were often discouered, that they sought their owne honour more, then the good, either of the Colledge, or of our countrey: both which, through these occasions, haue come pretily forward to vtter ruine. And these were the troubles, which this Author men­tioneth in this Apologie, cap. 11 fol. 170. although he would seem to smother them vnder a much-making of M. Mush, who was a principall instrument of the Iesuits in this disturbance of the Colledge, and he is not ashamed to obiect to the Fathers (saith this author) their partialitie towards some, more then towards other, and all this to draw yong men to their societie, whereas in the former we know by experience, and can testifie that no other thing euer wrought the Fathers more trouble in the Colledge, while this man was there, then their ouer much loue and fauour to him aboue his me­rits, as other men thought, and yet was not this to draw him to their societie, seeing they would not admit him in so many yeares, as he pre­tended to enter, foreseeing (as may be thought) his perillous nature, &c. His seruice we may see how much it was worth vnto him: he was kept out, as many are, in all places where there are Iesu­ites; because being Iesuits, they cannot but with too great a wracke of modestie, so inordinately commend them, as they must be commended, nor, without demonstration of excessiue desire of riches, importunate others, to giue them such lands, and goods, as are not to be lost for want of asking, which while no Iesuits do hunt after, they are thrust vpon them (good men) and with all charity are imbraced, with most godly intention, to be bestowed in pios vsus. But it shall be alwayes in the Iesu­ites choice, to receiue such a purueyor into their order: and he must during life be in a seruile estate, ready to attempt, what they shall commaund him (for their intreaties are also com­mandements) or els he shall be turned going with his liuery. They would not admit him, foreseeing (as may be thought) his peril­lous nature. But to leaue such fooles in their expectation of a like reward, after so many yeres better seruice to them, then vn­to their Countrey (although wee make no doubt, but some thinke they doe well, and that all is gold that glistereth) we will returne to examine that which followeth concerning the great [Page 79] harmes, which this authour hath espied to haue come to Eng­land, through emulation (as hee pretendeth) of others: but least these two, to wit, Vanne and Alread, should not seeme enough, to conuince the great hurt, which hath come to En­gland by emulation of the Laity against the Clergie, this author inculcateth to his reader, that the Councel stil pursued this of­fice of stirring diuision between the followers of D. Allen, and D. Lewis, for both whom he doeth here giue his word, that it was much against their willes, although not long after fol. 5. he calleth the one an emulator of the other. But to let this passe, and to beare with this poore man, whose memory seemeth to be very greatly ouercharged with this Apology, we must also vn­derstand, that this plot of the Councel was much holpen by a new ac­cident: and that was, that certaine Gentlemen, hauing once ioyned (as it should seeme with D. Allen, Fa Parsons, and Sir Francis In­glefield, and the rest of the body of Catholikes at home and abroad, in certaine affaires of our Countrey, parted sometime from them: and by going another way, among other inconueniences thereupon ensu­ing, ouerthrew the Queene of Scots. A proofe to serue a poore turne, & very impertinent in this place: yet such, as were it not a discredit for wise men to take aduantage of a madde mans words, it were sufficient to call all Cath. in question, and those affaires, what they were, in which the whole body of them aswel at home as abroad, were vnited, especially it being here mentioned, that the going of some another way was the Queene of Scots her o­uerthrow. But rather then these fellowes will lacke matter, they will tell a hundreth idle tales, with litttle regard what danger may come to those who are vpon ignorance wholly de­uoted vnto them.

About this time also, (saith this authour) and soone after, diuers impugnations were attempted at Rome against the Seminaries and missions of England by men of opposite spirit and emulation. But here is not shewed, what hurt came vpon this emulation, but ra­ther contrariwise it is shewed, that there came no hurt. And if there had come any, yet had this bene farre from his purpose, vnlesse he did shew it to haue bene an emulation in the Laitie a­gainst the Clergie, or in the Clergie against the religious. And not onely lay men, but diuers Priestes also, brought vp in the Semina­ries [Page 80] (saith he) were drawen by little and little to be of this faction against D. Allen, Fa. Parsons and the Iesuits: and namely some in Rome, as appeareth by a visitation, yet extant sent to the English Col­lege by Pope Sixtus in the yeere 1585, &c. At this time, as we are informed, there was a visitation. And if those men should be named, who were then noted for factious, the Iesuites would startle, and many of their friends. But vnlesse some cause be gi­uen of descending to more particulars, wee will say no more, then that the principall (then accounted) of the faction, com­ming afterward into England, and not finding amongst the se­cular priests any, who would consent with them in such their factious humours, are become Iesuites: in which estate they may hope to keepe themselues at the least in vre for that hu­mour. Other some although they doe not professe to be Ie­suites, yet they sticke so close vnto them, as aio doth to aiunt, nego to negant. And for so much as we can learne, that emula­tion was not against D. Allen: for as it appeared very well, he was so much honoured by them all, as at his worde the princi­pall of them, and who is now a Iesuit, made publique submis­sion, and in expresse words acknowledged his errour, in that he had not so long a time obserued that saying, Qui nescit dissi­mulare, nescit viuere: he that knoweth not how to dissemble, know­eth not how to liue. How farre foorth M.D.B. (noted in the mar­gent) was a cause of that visitation, I know not: but if we doe not mistake the man, hee was sent into England long before this visitation came to the College. And as for the other two Priests, whose names are set in the margent in this sort, G G.E.G. who are said to haue conspired with the Councell in England, and for more grace, and gratification, haue writ two mischie­uous bookes, the one (saith this authour) against D. Allen, the other against F. Parsons and the Iesuites, giuing them vp to Wal­singham the Queenes Secretarie, affirming also among other points, to make the parties more odious (as our men their successours doe at this day) that these men depended of Spaniards, and were enemies to their Countrey: We heartily wish that this authour may liue in as good credit as the one of them liueth, after all his trouble in Italy, or elsewhere, and die as penitent as the other died, after his troubles in France. He who writ against the Iesuites, was [Page 81] too priuie to their actions, aswell in England, as elsewhere to be deceiued in them. And if the Appellants be the men, whom here this authour meaneth by these words, their successors, they may purge themselues very well from any offence in hauing the like thought. For it is well knowen, that Fa. Parsons in Spaine caused many aswell others as Priestes to subscribe, as priests, to the title of the Infanta, now Dutches of Burgundie. Fa. Tancard also hath made many to set their handes to three blanks, although some refused to do it, as they haue themselues reported, at their returne into England. We haue moreouer vnderstood, that Fa. Parsons was a chiefe dealer in the sending of those Armadoes which the Spaniards haue set out for the inuasion of our Countrey: and there are in England, with whome hee dealt most earnestly, to goe in the Nauie which was set out in the yeere 1596. who, refusing to be imployed in any action against their Countrey, were for that cause sent a­way from the College, & told, that it was not conuenient that they should stay in the College, where they had giuen exam­ple of such repugnance. There is moreouer sufficient proofe, that after the euill successe of the Spanish attempts, Fa. Parsons carried a youth to the king of Spaine, who pronounced a cer­taine speech for the purpose, which being ended, Fa. Parsons began to vrge the king to giue one attempt more, affirming that he (silly fellow) would write his letters into England, and nothing doubted to effect, what should be to the great furthe­rance of such a iourney. We haue also certaine intelligence, that the Iesuites had deuised a meanes, to haue had the tower of London seazed into their hands, and how they would haue it held vntil the Spaniard came to rescue them. Diuers of their letters haue bin shewed to diuers prisoners for proofe against them, when they haue answered in defence of the Iesuites, that they thought them free from such stratagems. And amongst the rest, there is one of the 10. of Iune 1596. wherein there are these wordes: It may be, if the kings faintnesse and pusillanimi­tie hinder vs not (as heretofore it hath) the Armado will be with you about August, or September. This is one good helpe, Ireland wilbe onely for vs. The Earle of Tyrone and Odonell would glad­ly haue helpe from hence, and they are well contented to let the Spa­niards [Page 82] haue certaine holdes and forts for their vses. This will greatly pleasure to trouble and disquiet England, and in the mean time serue for harbour for the ships, that shall passe that way, &c. It were neces­sary you should make it knowen aforehand, that no Cath. man or wo­man shall take harme, either in body or goods. Let euery man be quiet till the Spaniards be landed, then shall there presently proclamation be made of all securitie. There were 200. copies of these proclamations printed in Spaine. Certaine other letters also haue bene seene of Fa. Parsons to his fellow Iesuits in England, wherein he hath wished, that the Catho. would vnite themselues together, & set vp a king of England. And in his letters of the 24. of Ianu. 1600. to the Earle of Anguise, he confesseth that he dealt in such mat­ters for 8. or 10. yeeres. But if all these, and many other, as in­fallible proofes did faile vs, F. Parsons booke of Succession would so farre conuince his dealing in State matters, in the behalfe of Spaine, as the Appellantes may without scruple charge him with it, yet without any intention to make him more odious, knowing it a thing very impossible, if they were so minded. And thus much concerning this authour his folly in indeuou­ring to gall the Appellantes with the name of Successors to such as affirmed that the Iesuites depended of the Spaniards, and were ene­mies to their Countrey.

The next fit of emulation here mentioned is against D. Allen, when he was to be made a Cardinall, and it is set out with a ve­ry rich margent, and much to our present matter in contro­uersie I warrant you.

But not beeing able to preuaile in this against the Card himselfe, (sayth this author) they began to set more earnestly against the Ie­suits his chiefest friends and constant defenders, as well in stirring vp the schollers in Rome against the Fathers that gouerned them, as also to make a faction against them by Secular Priests in England; as may appeare by a letter of the Cardinals owne, written most earnestly not sixe moneths before his death to a priest named Mush, &c. There is a speciall Treatise comming forth, of the troubles of that Ro­mane English Colledge, to which I am to referre the Reader, and to note no other thing in this place, then that the misde­meanours of the Iesuits was the cause of all those troubles. But concerning this foolish assertion, that there was a faction against the Iesuits by Secular priests in England, the cōtrary is most cleare [Page 83] as all England may witnesse: and there is a letter extant of M. George Blackwell (the now Archpriest) wherein hee inueigheth mightily against those, who had made the report, that the priests and Iesuites were at strife. Ianuary 1596. to th [...] C. Caietane. And this letter is kept in the English Colledge at Rome, & registred as an Oracle, although perchance not for this clause so much, as for the immoderate, but false extolling of the Iesuits, in doing infinite deeds of cha­ritie out of the profits of their patrimonies, nam minima sunt, &c. (sayth M. Black.) it is not worth the speaking of, which they re­ceiue of almes, &c. And whereas the Card. Allen his letter is here brought to testifie a faction of either the schollers at Rome, or the Secular priests in England against the Iesuits, it is a meere mockery, as may appeare by the letter it selfe, for so much as is set downe to this purpose in this Apologie, cap. 2. fol. 11. where we find these words: I haue heard to my great griefe, that there is not that good correspondence betweene the Fathers and other priests. I cannot tell vpon what discontentment, &c. But whereof soeuer it commeth, it is of the enemie, and with all possible discretion and dili­gence by the wiser sort on both sides to be rooted out, or els it wil be the ruine of the whole cause, &c. And therefore in this point (especially M. Mush) be earnest and peremptory with all parties, and euery one in particular, &c. By which we vnderstand not, how it may ra­ther be gathered, that there was a factiō by the Secular priests against the Iesuits, then that there was a faction by the Iesuits against the Secular priests: neither is here any relation to any former speech had with him, as doubtlesse there would haue bene, had M. Mush giuen any such information to him, but ra­ther the contrary, as may be gathered by these wordes: I haue heard to my great griefe, &c. which argueth, that this was put into his head by some other, that this being before layd for a groūd, they might afterward build thereon to their owne best liking, nothing at any time being accounted so much their honor and glory, as others falling out: which howsoeuer they doe vnder­hand nourish it, while they would seeme to remedy it, maketh them wise and charitable purueyours for the common cause, and what not (good men) beeing as innocent of these broyles and diuisions, as Sinon was of the betraying of Troy. Moreo­uer, it may appeare by this letter, that the Car. had a very great [Page 84] good conceit of M. Mush, who would employ him in a matter in which lay the ruine of the whole cause: and therefore willed him to be earnest, yea and peremptory with all parties. His good affection was also shewed, in that at his cōming into England, he perswaded the Pope, to giue vnto him very speciall facul­ties and power to name, at his returne into England, to a cer­taine number, who hoc ipso should haue the like. And yet this author is not ashamed in this place, to set downe to his discre­dit these words: Hauing bene with the Cardinall at Rome, and ha­uing done some euill offices, as is presumed, &c. the Card. perceiuing his humour, wrote most effectually to him, and by him to others against this diuision and faction, but little preuailed. And in the margent there is a note of the aboue cited letters, which as they are set downe in the Apologie, are a most absurd instance to proue thus much, as is here presumed of the Cardinals sinister conceit of M. Mush, as that it was farre from trueth, which was auowed, that the Cardinall was disunited from the Fathers before he died. For thus this author maketh his tale hang together: But it litle preuailed, as now appeareth: onely it may serue to prooue how false and farre from trueth it is, which he (M. Mush) and others of his fa­ction doe auow in their bookes, that the Cardinall was disunited from the Fathers before he died: for that he said, as they relate, that when he should be dead, farre greater troubles and oppositions would fall out against the Iesuits: which may be true, for that he saw so much emu­lation against them, by Libertines and factious people, already begun in his time, which yet were reteined somewhat from breaking forth by this authoritie while hee liued. But the Cardinall liuing yet sixe moneths longer, what proofe could this letter be, that hee was not disunited from the Iesuits before he died? Or what proofe is it of any such vnion to the Iesuits, when he writ it, as it could not be likely, that hee was disunited, before he died he willeth Ma­ster Mush to be earnest and peremptory with all parties: in which words the Iesuites are included, aswell as the Secular priests, and consequently the Cardinall was peremptorily conceited, that somewhat was amisse in the Iesuits, or else hee would not haue bene so bold with them, as he might (vpon any small oc­casion) with the Secular, of whom he had a particular charge. To our remembrance also the words of the Cardinall related [Page 85] vnto vs, were not those which are here cited, to wit, that when he was dead, farre greater troubles and oppositions would fall out a­gainst the Iesuits; but, that there would be very great troubles by the Iesuits their ambitious courses & bad carriages towards the Secular priests. And this gloze, that he foresaw so much e­mulation against them by Libertines and factious people, is piously made by this authour, that the reader should be out of doubt what spirit it is which doeth assist him in the making of this his necessary Apologie.

But the good Cardinall being dead in the yeere 1594 all factions (saith this fellow) brake out together against the Iesuits, destitute now of the Cardinals assistance, &c. This Author mistaketh the matter: For after the Cardinals death, the Iesuits began their raigne in euery place, where any English were resident, as at Rome, and in England, especially at Wisbich, where, through the folly of the Lay Catholicks, they had greatest hope to pre­uaile first, and afterward to haue an easier conquest of the rest. The stirres & troubles of Rome are particularly to be set downe in a discourse thereof, whither wee are to referre the Reader. The stirres in England began at Wisbich by the insolencie of the Iesuits there in durance, F. Weston, F. Buckley, F. Bolton and others, who had deuoted themselues particularly to their or­der, or passed their vowes in secret. And to effect this the bet­ter, the Lay gentlemen, by whose charitie the Castle had bene relieued, were dealt withall by the Iesuits, or their factious ad­herents, to withdraw their charitie from all those, who would not subiect themselues to F. Weston the Iesuit, by whose instru­ctions it is most falsly here auowed, that the company had li­ued a Collegiall and religious maner of life: for before hee came thither they liued indeed in such sort, but after his comming, his ambitious humor disturbed the whole house, as it is set downe in a booke already published of The stirres at Wisbich. And as for the stirres, which were in the Low-countries, the cause is here in patt set downe by the Author of the Apologie, to wit, that Fa. Holt, and M. Hugh Owen were deemed partiall a­gainst some, and did not further them for the getting of their pensions. But as it should seeme these two had some intent, in which because those other would not ioyne with them, they [Page 86] were accompted as factious, and not worthy of the Spanish charitie. F. Holt was sufficiently knowen to haue bene a noto­rious actor in the yeere 1588. and was not without cause thought, through his folly, to haue bene the cause of the death of the duke of Parma. His treacherie was afterward better dis­couered, in his imploying of Hesket, who was executed at S. Albones for his seruice done to the same F. Holt the Iesuit, and o­ther the plotters of the raising of the noble Ferdinand Earle of Darby to the Crowne of England, by the assistance of Sir Wil­liam Stanley, and other such like. After which the good Earle likewise enioyed his life but a little while, but died an vntimely death in the prime of his age. How farre forward this Owen also, mentioned here, might be in these actions, we leaue it to men of vnderstanding; he being pew-fellow with F Holt in the English affaires, as it should seeme by this Author. And cer­taine letters of his of the 5. of April 1596, doe shew euidently, that he was a dealer with the Spanish faction against England. And whereas this Author, among other his impertinent stuffe, doeth here gird at the dimission of M.D.B. out of the English Colledge at Rome, to quit perchance the story of that infa­mous expulsion of F. Parsons out of Baliol Colledge in Oxford: he hath made his answer to this, and set it to M. D. Ely his notes vpon the Apologie. But this is also here to be noted, that he was sent into England very honourably, and was admitted into the sodalitie of our Lady, which was at that time a fauour so ioyned with those, who were esteemed well of by the Iesuits, as if any of that sodalitie had bene factious, or behaued themselues con­trary to their liking, they were expelled, or reduced to a kinde of Nouiceship, as some Iesuits in England can testifie. This also is certaine, that the visitation, of which there is mention made in this Apologie to haue bene about that time, was long after his departure, vpon an open breach, and parts-taking in the Col­ledge, betweene the Iesuits, and many of the Students.

And thus much concerning Iohn of Gaunt, Iohn Wickliffe, the dissolution of Abbeyes in the time of King Henry the 8: the Q. Mary Priests: the going to Church: the emulation against the institution of the Seminaries: the dealings of the Counsell by spies, to further the diuision begun in, and for the Seminaries: the parting of some Gentle­men [Page 87] from D. Allen, F. Parsons, Sir Frances Englefield, and the whole body of Catholicks vnited in certaine affaires of our Countrey: more matters against the Seminaries: the writings of G. G. and E. G. against D. Allen, F. Parsons and the Iesuits: the hinderance of D. Allen, when he was to be made Cardinall, and the setting vp of his emulator: and the breaking foorth of all factions against the Iesuits in Rome, Flanders, and England. Now we shall come to more domesticall affaires. And first of all we must vnderstand that Fa. Parsons comming to Rome in the yeere 1597, made an end of those stirres, which were betweene the English students, and the Iesuits: which we are not here to examine, but referre the Reader to the particuler discourse, which is made thereof. That which concerneth vs here, is the bold and vnshamefast assertion of this Author, who to make a lewd entrance into a like relation, he telleth his Reader that the association which was begun in England by the Priests, was deuised by the relicks of the troublesome, which F. Parsons had after his comming to Rome acquieted. These are his words, But the relicks of those that had bene troublesome, and vnquiet before comming into England, and conferring againe with their consorts of their former actions, and de­signements frustrated as they thought by F. Parsons dealing at Rome, resolued to begin againe, but after another fashion, (to wit) by deui­sing a certaine new Association among themselues, with offices, and prelacies of their owne institution, where unto meaning to be chosen by voyces of such as they would procure to fauour them, his Holines should be inforced afterward to confirme them, &c. What is it vp­on which this audacious companion will not aduenture, who so shamelesly will report a matter controllable by all the Ca­tholicks in England, who can witnes, that this Association was begunne long before the yeere 1597, and consequently before Fa. Parsons came to Rome, as may apparantly be gathered out of this place of the Apologie? Yea Fa. Parsons himselfe (as good proofe will bee made) had vnderstanding of this Association, when he was in Spaine, and M. Iames Standish, who was one of the first dealers therein, was at Rome before Fa. Parsons came thither. And could this fellow without a vizard publish, that it was deuised by the relicks of those troublesome (as hee termeth them) whose designements were frustrated (as they thought) by Fa. [Page 88] Parsons dealing at Rome? Is it not easily seene with what spirits assistance this is written, when as this very same Author in the same booke Ca. 7. fol. 89. turneth this matter to M. Mush, and an other vpon his returne from Rome, & the death of the Card. which was in the yeere 1594 and fol. 90. bringeth witnes of his owne, that it begun about 4. or 5. yeres before a letter dated the 2. of May in the yeere of our Lord 1601? And fol. 96. the examination of Fisher conuinceth most plainely, that it was be­gun before his being returned backe out of England in the yeere 1597 as appeareth fol. 93. Moreouer, that which here in generall termes he calleth offices and prelacies of the Priests in­stitution, in the 7. Chap. fol. 90, he calleth a superioritie, as it were of Archbishops, the one for the South, the other for the North, which if it had bene so, was no prelacie of these Priests institution, as all Christendome will witnes. But there was no such matter, as M. Blackwell his pen will witnes, which was vsed to proue, how inconuenient it was for one to haue so great a charge: neither can this Author proue, that euer there was any thing intended, but an order or rule, vnder which who would, might liue, and those who would not, might chuse. And there is asmuch con­fessed in this Apologie, Cap. 7. fol. 90 where wee finde in the let­ters of the sixe Assistants to the Nuntius in Flanders of the 2. of May 1601, that there were Chapters in the new constitutions of the Association of those that are to bee admitted, or expelled; Which is a demonstration that this fellow enlargeth himselfe too farre beyond the trueth in this point, as also when he affir­meth that those relicks of the troublesome at Rome deuised a new Association in England with offices and prelacies of their owne in­stitution, as if they were Archbishops, the one for the North, the other for the South, as Cap. 7. he explicateth himselfe, and addeth here in this place a stranger conceit, then was in all the rest, that is, that his Holines should be inforced afterward to confirme them. For how this force should be offered to his Holines, we do not vn­derstand: especially if it were true (as it is as far from the trueth, as that which we haue already shewed) which fol. 90. is said, that this Association was to the preiudice of others. And that the most part of our brethren reclaimed, and misliked the same, as sauouring both of presumption, and ambition. But let vs sup­pose, [Page 89] as the trueth was, that as many, as were moued in the mat­ter (either Iesuits, or Secular priests) liked so well of it, as some of them affirmed, that the onely feare they had was, that it was too good a motion to goe forward (hauing perchance had some experience of their owne peruersenesse, or of others, who now exclaime against it) some that it was the best plot that e­uer was deuised: yet could not this be any inforcement to his Ho­linesse to confirme it, vnlesse this author will acknowledge such a right in the priests to chuse their superiour, as the thrusting one vpon them, without their priuitie, must bee taken for a wrong done vnto them, which (we hope) he will not say. But we will leaue this fellow to explicate himselfe howe his Holinesse should haue been enforced to haue confirmed such as the priestes should haue chosen to the offices or prelacies, and as it were Archbi­shops, and we will examine that, which followeth, and is per­emptorily affirmed, that the priests were working against the Ie­suites, whom (sayth this author) they had procured at the very same time by a man sent ouer to this purpose into Flanders, to be accused to his Holinesse in a most odious, and infamous Memoriall, as ambiti­ous men, that will gouerne them against their willes, &c. But this could neuer be proued as yet against those, who were the be­ginners of the association, although perchance some of those in Wisbich might send ouer such informations, as the ambition of Fa. Weston the Iesuite, & others his parteners might giue cause in that insolent Agencie which was to bee erected in Wisbich, whereunto many in England cannot, without a desperate im­pudencie denie, that both they were solicited, and perswaded, that when they sent their almes to the reliefe of the prisoners in Wisbich, all those priests who would not subiect themselues to Fa. Weston the Iesuite, should be excluded from hauing any part of their charity (as they wrongfully termed it) And one of this godly Agencie at Wisbich (breaking forth with the consent of the rest, to imploy the vtmost of his talent in this their nego­ciation) being asked by a Gentleman, with whom he had dealt to this purpose, what should become of those who would not subiect themselues to the Iesuits gouernement, made this an­swere, Starue them. The lamentable diuision which was made by the Iesuits, and their associates in that action, to the pub­like [Page 90] scandall of all our Countrey, doeth also conuince, that the Iesuites, as ambitious men, would gouerne the priests against their willes: there being no other cause of that publike separa­tion both at boord, and in their other conuersation, then the not yeelding of some to become subiects to Fa. Weston the Ie­suite. By which it appeareth that the Memoriall in this part was neither slanderous, nor any way false, as here it is affirmed, but most true and iustifiable, and no priest who had any care of his credit, or conscience, could write otherwise to his Holinesse. True it is, that the Iesuites laboured mightily to haue all the priests to set to their hands to certaine letters or propositions framed by them against a Memoriall, which they themselues spread abroad here in England, and translated it into English, that all sorts of men, women and children might see their goodnesse. And they got many priests to set their hands, some to a letter to this effect, that vpon their owne knowledge all was false, which was contained in the Memoriall: (a testimony, which none but God himselfe could giue, if it had bene so, for it required that such a witnesse was to be present at all times, in all places, with not onely one of those Iesuits, but with them all, in how seuerall, or distant places soeuer they were, and must be priuie to all their actions) others the Iesuits got to set to their hāds to this point, that not knowing any of these articles to be true, they did think that all were false: An act both of exceeding pride, and rashnes in preiudice of such as were sayd to haue bene the authors of that Memoriall, to wit, M. D. Gifford, and M. Charles Paget, and such like, to whome these subscribers & the soliciters were much inferiour for their reputation, and place in the world, and could not without great iniurie (being so informed) giue such a testimony, especially vpon so weake a ground, as not knowing: being bound in modestie to know, that there were many things, both true and iustifiable, which they did not know, and how easily all malefactours would be cleerely purged from all heinous crimes whatsoeuer, if the witnesse of all, who could not, or would not accuse them, were to bee regarded, or taken as currant, against a farre lesse number of accusers. But neither were these subscriptions voluntarily made: for they were exacted with grieuous comminations [Page 91] and threatnings: yea, and some must subscribe without reading that to which they were willed to subscribe, or their subscriptions deferred vntill the time would better suffer the gatherer of the hands, to let the subscriber see, vvhereunto he must set his hand: which what could it argue other, then that there was somewhat to be testified, which they, who deman­ded it, thought in their own consciences, the Priests would not testifie, if they might be suffered to read it? And in this sort was M. Iohnson sollicited to subscribe, as himselfe did at that verie time relate to some of his brethren. And it is very probable, that Fa. Garnet the Iesuit intended some such matter, when wri­ting to M. Collington to request him to set his hand to a letter, which M D. Bauand had written, and to procure likewise M. Charnockes hand, and M. Heburnes to the same, he would not let them see what M.D. Bauand had written: but being asked the letter, to which he would haue had these set their names, he returned answere, that it was already sent away: which could argue no other then a fetch to get their consents to subscribe to such a letter, by vertue of which consent, he would haue set their names vnto it, and they should haue testified, they knew not what. The good dealing also in gathering names against this Memoriall was presently after shewed, by the falsifying of the Archpriests instructions. For in this heate the authoritie was procured and appointed, as may be prooued by the date thereof, which is 7. Mart. 1598. Apol. cap. 8 fol 102. And the first of these testimonials beareth date 24. Mart. 1598. fol. 98. Fa. Garnet fayling of his purpose, of getting these mens hands in that sort, as he wished (for although he gaue them libertie to pen a letter of their owne, if they would, yet his request to haue their hands set to a letter already drawen, but not to be seene by them, as the euent prooued when they sent for it, be­wrayeth his good meaning what it was:) there was (amongst other forged instructions, and falsely inserted among those which were sent vnto the Archp. from Rome) this instruction made, that euery one should set his hand against that Memori­all. And this did the new Archpriest, euen when he was taken in the maner of falsifying his instructions, so vrge vpon M. Col­lington & M. Charnocke when he sent for them, to make knowen [Page 92] his authoritie, as he threatned them grieuously, if they would not subscribe against it, affirming that they should answere this their bearing off from that action, in some publike Court, where they should repent it. Afterward also it was so followed, as M. Henry Henslow was imployed to perswade them, where M. Collington was then resident, to turne him out of their house. And he performed his office with such immodest termes, and with such extreme fury, as he well discouered, whereunto this new authoritie did tend. And thus much to shew, that it was farre ynough both from slander and falshood, which was said of the Iesuites their indeuours, to gouerne the secular Priests against their wils, and how they did canuase for names against the Me­moriall, and pressed the Priests so farre, as they were constrai­ned to vse figures (as some of them haue since confessed) to satisfie the importunitie of the Iesuites and their factours. This also is here to be remembred, that the man named to haue bene sent ouer by the Priests into Flanders to accuse the Iesuites, was not sent by them, but returned thither, from whence he was sent into England, to vnderstand whether the Iesuits did vse them­selues no better in England among the Priests, then they did at Rome among the English Students: for to this ende he was imployed by the Card. Toledo (as he affirmed) and had letters to that effect of the Cardinal, who was much auersed from the Iesuits their actions in the College. And although he brought not these letters with him into England (which was a cause that many giue no credite vnto him) yet he brought some testi­monie thereof, and that he was imployed into England by the Cardinal, and could not returne any other answere, then what was most apparant by the diuision at Wisbich, that the Iesuites as ambitious men would gouerne the Priests against their wils.

When his Holinesse saw this manner of proceeding, saith this au­thour, (that is to say, how he should be inforced to confirme these Prelates which the Secular priests would haue chosen, and how the Iesuites were slandered and purged by the most of the Priests in England) he willed the Card Protector, to call vnto him F. Parsons, and other Englishmen in Rome, to see what re­medie was best for these disorders. They answered, that the only way which seemed good to them was, to giue them a Superior, or Prelate [Page 93] of their owne Order, and to deliuer thereby the Iesuites from these calumniations, which his Holinesse yeelded vnto, after diuers mo­nethes consultations, &c. Here then we are solicited to conceiue that the ground of this new authoritie, was his Holinesse care to remedy the disorders which he perceiued to be in England, by such letters as were written vnto him: namely against this Memoriall, and that after diuers moneths consultation, it was appointed. But we haue alreadie shewed sufficient to prooue this a notorious falshood. For as we haue prooued out of this Apo. fo. 98 the first letters which were written to this effect, were written the 24 of March. 1598. which was after the Cardinals letter of the institution of the Archpriest, as appeareth by the date thereof, which was the seuenth of March, 1598. as it is to be seene fol. 102. and consequently diuers moneths after that his Hol. is said to haue entred into this consultation, as appea­reth in this present place of the 1. chap. and in the 8. Chap. fol. 98. But perchance we tooke this author at the worst, when we construed his words in this manner, as though he had said, that his Hol. had vpon these letters aduised vpon some subordina­tion, & after diuers moneths resolued vpon this: whereas this author, after mention of these letters, and other matters, sayth only in this sort, When his Holines sawe this manner of proceeding, he willed the Cardinall, &c. We are therefore to request the in­different reader to turn to the 8. cha. of the Apol. where no such shift cā be vsed to auoid this foule dealing. The cha. beginneth in this manner. When his Hol. heard the former state of matters in England Flanders, and other places, and of the murmurations of some against the Fathers of the societie, set downe aswel in the abouesaid cōtumelious Memoriall, as by diuers other letters & relations, which came to the Protectors sight, and by him was related to his Holines, and namely when he receiued great store of priuate and publicke let­ters out of England against the said Memoriall of Fisher; and some one, with aboue 100. hands at it, other with 40. and 50. all in fauour and commendation of the Fathers, &c. his Holines after mature deli­beration resolued, &c. And because hee will not come without his proofe, what cause his Holines had to institute this subor­dination, or rather to giue order to the Cardinall for it, as hee sayth, hee hath set downe in the margent a note of the letters, [Page 94] which caused this consultation. See (sayth he, in the margent) the letters of the Northerne Priests, 24. Mart. 1598. and others 20. Apr. and others after 30. Iul and others of the South in great num­ber 18. Maij, and of the quiet sort of Wisbich 27. March 1598. and who without blushing can reade this, and take it as a cause of a determination vppon the 7. of March 1598. for then was the authoritie instituted, as is acknowledged, fol. 102. & much lesse of a consultation diuers moneths before, as is here saide, fol. 7. And thus hee goeth forward with a certaine shamelesse boldnesse, not caring what he sayth, knowing belike that his fa­uorites will swallow any thing easily, which he proposeth vn­to them: yet doeth he too much forget himselfe in this place, where he sayth, that it was not thought expedient for his Ho­lines to write himselfe, for auoiding suspitions and troubles of the state of England: for by this he will sufficiently purge those priests of all disobedience to the Sea Apostolike, who did not subiect themselues to the newe authoritie vpon the comming of the Cardinals letters, by which the authoritie was instituted. But this is elsewhere sufficiently handled, and prooued to be free not onely from schisme or disobedience, but from all sinne al­so, yea though it were true, that his Holines gaue full commis­sion (as here it is saide) to the Card. Caietane the Protector, to appoint the authoritie with conuenient instructions. For his Holines not writing himselfe, as here it is cōfessed, how should the Priests take notice thereof, that it was his acte? which, to­gether with the Archpriests misdemeanour, in the promulga­tion of his new authoritie, & other matters also, was the cause, why the Priests did at their great charges send to Rome two of their brethren, to haue dealt with his Holines about it.

But their Ambassadours comming thither (sayth this authour) and shewing no desire of peace or vnion at all, or to accept of any good condition to liue in obedience, &c. And thus hee runneth with a free penne to auouch any thing which is for his purpose, how contrary soeuer it is to trueth. But because this matter is at large handled by this author in the 9. Chapter of the Apologie, where also we shall declare how these matters passed at Rome, we will onely note here, that the two Priests had little reason to determine their businesse with F. Parsons, D. Haddocke, or M. [Page 95] Martin Array, who perchance are the others which are here meant, and as it is here confessed fol. 99. were actors or consul­tors in the constitution of this authority, and parties directly opposite against the Priests in England. Besides that, the con­dition which was offered by F. Parsons, was very ridiculous, to wit, that the two Priests, who with so great danger and charge were arriued at Rome in the behalfe of many other, should re­turne againe into England with letters to the Archpriest and Iesuits, to amend what should be yeelded by them to haue beene done amisse: & to giue satisfaction vnto all men, where it was due: which if the Archpriest and Iesuites would not performe, the Priests might come againe out of England to Rome. And how sub­till soeuer F. Parsons thought himselfe in this deuise, the two priests could not but thinke it would haue bene a great folly in them, to haue accepted this condition of peace, although per­chance if they had vnderstood his Holines mind, that he would haue entertained them, as they were entertained, with close im­prisonment, and other such fauours (as shalbe shewed as occa­sion serueth) possibly they might haue returned againe into their countrey, and haue contented themselues vntill it had pleased God, to haue taken some pitie vpon their miseries. But to prooue how falsly this fellow affirmeth, that the two Priests shewed no desire of peace and vnion, their going to the Cardinall Caietane (whome they tooke to be the ordeiner of the new au­thoritie, as these words of his letters did import) Dum haec no­stra ordinatio durauerit: so long as this our ordinance shall endure: and there offer to bring him in writing, what they had to say, will be a sufficient argument: which as it should seeme, the Ie­suites, and their faction, fearing least by this meanes their dea­lings might come to light, procured (contrary to the Cardi­nals honour, who had entertained the Priestes in this cause) that they should be committed close prisoners, & not suffered euer after to come together to deale in any thing, vntill some two or three dayes after, that there was a Breue giuen, in con­firmation of the Archpriests authoritie: which being obtai­ned vpon the 6. of Aprill, as the Breue beareth date, the two Priests were suffered vpon the 8. of the same moneth to come together, & the Breue being presently brought vnto them, they [Page 96] yeelded themselues, as well in the name of their brethren, as in their own, promising to obey it, & doubtles were ready enough to haue sworne it, if his Holines had exacted any such thing at their hands, after that he had declared what his wil was should be done, what reason soeuer the priests had to the contrarie. But the trueth is, that there was no oath taken, nor any deman­ded. This might therefore haue been left out with more truth then inserted in this Apologie, to wit: this was promised at that time of all hands, and the two messengers did sweare it also by a corpo­rall oath: as also that epitheton to the Breue, to wit, new: for what doth this import other, then another Breue, as though some Breue had been before made, and refused by the priests? which is a most vntrue conceit, yet necessarily to be made vp­on these words of the Apology, He (the Pope) confirmed all that was done already by the Cardinal with a new Breue. This was pro­mised at that time (sayth this author) of all hands, and the two mes­sengers did sweare also by a corporall oath, and hope was, that all would be quiet hereupon, to which effect Fa. Parsons also wrote very cour­teous and pious letters vnto M. Collington, and M. Mush, and they accepted kindly of the same, as after wee shall haue occasion perhaps more particularly to set downe. But now Sathan being loth to haue se­dition ended, began again to set them out in England, and to put them in worse case then euer, by the industry of certaine seditious humors of the chiefest contenders, whereof some deuised newe iniuries offered them by the quiet, some required satisfaction for the old &c. vntill in Nouember last 1600. diuers of the discontented made a generall ap­peale &c.

Thus farre doth he imbolden himselfe, as who hauing no intention to bee any way accounted a changeling. Wee will here omit, that which he affirmeth of Fa. Parsons pious letters to M. Collington, and M. Mush, which seeme here to haue been writ­ten vpon the promises and oath (as he sayth) of the messengers, to be at peace, when they saw the Popes Breue, which letters Cap. 10 fol. 143. hee saith were written euen then (to vse his owne words) when yet the Popes Breue was not come foorth, as appeareth, for that this was written the ninth of April, and the Breue beareth date of the 21. of the same moneth. What neede was there of this so palpable a falshood? Cannot Fa. Parsons praises euen in [Page 97] matters of smallest moment be sounded by lip, or registred by pen, but with most grosse falshood, thus wrote F. P. (that is, a courteous and pious letter, as here it is declared fol. 8. for it beareth the same date, and is written to the same men as may be seene) euen then when yet the Popes Breue was not come forth. And lest a­ny man should doubt of this Fa. Parsons his courtesie or pietie, be­fore that time of the comming forth of the Breue, he proueth it by the date of his letters which he sayth is the ninth of April, and the date of the Breue which he sayth is the 21. of April. A manifest falshood, as may bee seene both by the Breue it selfe, and by many places in this Apologie: where it is set downe to beare date 6. April 1599, as in the same tenth chapter fol. 140: and immediatly before in the end of the ninth chapter, and els where. So that I cannot but marueile at the foolish greedines of this author, in taking euery occasion to commend Fa. Par­sons, how vntowardly so euer it fadgeth with him. But Sathan being loth to haue sedition ended, began againe to set them out in En­gland, and to put them in worse case, then euer, by the industry of cer­taine seditious humors of the chiefest contenders &c. These were the Iesuits and the Archpriest: first the Iesuits, namely Fa. Ia­cob, who after the peace made, gaue out, that they, who should hold opinion dogmatizando, that the priests were not schisma­tikes, should incurre the censures of holy Church, which the Archpriest did not onely not controll being told thereof, but bare the Iesuit out in his wicked assertion. And further­more published a resolution, which he sayd hee had receiued from the mother citie, by which the priests were condemned, as schismatikes. and it was high time for the priests not onely to complaine of intolerable iniuries, but to seeke for satisfacti­on also in such places, where they were by these meanes defa­med, which when it would not be granted, they made an offer to come to dispute the case, with promise most humbly to aske pardon of the Archpriest, and the Iesuits, if it could be proued, that they had been schismatikes, and desire to be restored to their good name, if in case they could not be proued to haue been such. But this offer of dispute was also reiected, and they were threatned, who should goe about to defend their good names, thus most vniustly harmed. whereupon they sent to the Vni­uersitie [Page 98] of Paris, that by the resolution of learned men, such as they imagined a company of punie felowes would haue regar­ded, this question might haue bene ended. But when these sil­ly men saw this resolution for the priests, they were worse then euer they were, and the Archpriest did forbid all sorts vpon grieuous penalties to maintain that resolution by word, or writing, directly, or indirectly, whether it were giuen vpon true information, or otherwise. as though those learned men hauing true informa­tion (as the Archpriest here supposed) were so much to be con­temned, as no man without incurring grieuous censures, might defend their opinion, in the question proposed: for these are the words of the decree, made by the Archpriest 29. Maij 1600 whether it be truely giuen, or forged, whether vpon true information, or otherwise. And these proceedings of the Archpriest compel­led the priests to make their Appeale to his Holines, which beareth date the 17 of Nouember 1600. And it was made not onely for them who set their names vnto it, but for others also, who seeing the affliction which hung ouer the secular priests, and fearing (not without iust cause) that their turne would come afterward, were desirous of redresse, but dared not to shew themselues in the action, in respect of the hard measure which they saw offered to their brethren, who were in actuall persecution by the Iesuits, and Archpriest. And when this A­pologie was published in England, it was knowen, that long be­fore the publishing thereof, the priests were gone ouer to pro­secute their Appeale; and had presented themselues before the Nuntius in Flanders, who was in commission, as they vnder­stood, to determine this matter.

And whereas it may be sayd, that the booke was printed, be­fore thus much was knowen, this answere also may be made, that in the like case, where an vntrueth was printed in the 12. Chapter fol. 201. they did find a meanes to clap on a piece of paper, that it should not bee read, being a relation no more false, then this was. But if they should haue taken this course throughout the booke, to haue pasted paper, where there were vntrueths vttered, there would haue been very little to haue read in the Apologie. And therefore perchance they re­solued rather to aduenture all their credit at once, by letting [Page 99] the booke goe vncorrected of those falshoods, which are con­tained in it, then not to do the harme which they intended. The like folly and falshood also is that, which is here inserted of M. Charnocks Appeale: for as we had sufficient testimony from be­yond the seas, his Appeale was prosecuted in due time: and moreouer, that he was long since freed from the sentence of the two Cardinals.

And wheras it is furthermore sayd, that M. Charnocke appea­led frō the sentence of two Cardinals, after that he had accep­ted it, and sworne to the obseruation thereof, it is most vntrue; for no oath was euer demanded of him, concerning that sen­tence. It was onely shewed by Fa. Parsons first to him, and af­terward to M. Bishop, who had his liberty foure or fiue dayes be­fore this sentence was seen. And all the oathes, which were taken, were taken by Acarisius the Fiscall, when M. Bishop was deliuered out of prison: which acte of the Fiscals was of none effect, as not hauing Commission to do any thing in that cause, as Fa. Parsons affirmed, when hee shewed this sentence of the Cardinals, alleaging for proofe, out of the same letters, that the declaration of the Cardinals mind was committed to the Re­ctor, or Vicerector of the English Colledge. But of these mat­ters, and the falshood vsed therein, we shall haue occasion to write more at large in answere to the ninth chapt. And while these Appeales did and doe hang, all obedience is shewed, which may bee shewed without preiudice of the Appeale, or which is to be vsed to notorious detractors, and vnconsciona­ble defamers of Catholike priests. Neither is there any other libertie, or freedome sought for by any, then such liberty as belongeth to Christians, and of the which Catholike priests are most vnchristianly depriued, and they onely seeke to liue in reputation due vnto their estates, and to maintaine the same by all lawfull meanes. How falsly also this is inserted by this au­thor, that liberty is sought, and not triall of the cause, I commit to the iudgement of all men of any sence, who vnderstand how that the priests are gone to Rome to his Holines, to haue the case decided. But nor resting here, nor contented with this free­dome during the dependance of the sayd Appeales, they haue procee­ded (sayth this author) to greater disorders, which is, to publish in [Page 100] print most iniurious contumelious, and infamatory bookes, and li­bels, (as before hath bene sayd) without particular name of author, without licence of Superiour, and other circumstances of modesty, right, and conscience required in such attempts, &c.

This good fellow presumeth much of his readers ignorance, fauour or patience. For, as it appeareth by the Archpr. his let­ters to M. Collinton, he reiected the appeale, & by other his acts he hath declared, that those, who had put their names vnto it, had incurred the penalties of his decrees. He also hereupon sol­licited some not to receiue the Sacraments at the appellants hands, as may appeare by his letter of the 16. of April 1601. to a gentleman, where thus he writeth, This I write to make you priuie of the great spirituall danger, wherein you and all that receiue any Sa­craments of M. Oswald Needam may be, if it be so, that he hath sub­scribed vnto a seditious pamphlet, coloured with the name of an ap­peale. With what face then doth this fellow, in the Archpriests behalfe, vrge the dependance of the appeale? or what freedome is that, with which hee would that the appellants should haue bene contented? if there was iust cause to appeale, in what a poore case would the Archpriest bee, if that there were put in execution against him, which is due vnto the refusers of iust ap­peales, and contemners of the sea Apostolike, whither the ap­peale was made? And if the appeale were not a iust appeale, how foolishly is it here vrged, that the Priests not resting here, nor contented with this freedome, during the dependance of the same ap­peales, they haue proceeded to greater disorders? which is to publish in print most iniurious, contumelious, and infamatory bookes, and libels, without particuler name of Author, without licence of superior, &c. The causes of this publishing haue bene diuersly touched by many, who haue proued, that it was most necessary, for the pro­curing of an vnfeined peace, lest matters being shuffled vp, as once before they were, the Iesuits should breake out at their pleasure (as they did once before, not long after the peace was concluded) And being backed with the authoritie of the Arch­priest, bring new quarels euery day worse, and more grieuous, then the former. And whereas here it is particularly vrged, that during the dependance of the appeales these bookes were pub­lished, it is easily answered, because the archpriest shewed no re­uerence [Page 101] to his Holines, and to the sea Apostolicke, but denied the dimissory letters, which were demanded of him, reiected the appeale, as a seditious pamphlet, and proceeded against the appellants, as if the appeale were no otherwise to be esteemed: as wee haue immediatly before proued, and all Catholicks can testifie as much, who haue bene warned not onely from recei­uing Sacraments of the appellants, but also from being present at their sacrifice, because they set their hands to that appeale. And therefore it was iudged necessary, that all Catholicks should be informed of the trueth, and how the case stood in this present controuersie, which, without printing, could not con­ueniently haue bene declared, especially where the matter is so hardly followed, that no one of the Priests may bee suffered to speake for themselues. And to this effect also were the Latine bookes printed, that the Priests making their cause generally knowen in Christendome, they might (maugre their aduersa­ries) come to haue audience, where they desired, and had once before failed: when, for auoyding of too much speech of stran­gers, they went in a more priuate sort for a remedy of home mi­series. Neither ought any man to wonder at this good fellow, when he calleth these bookes Libels: for the spirit moued him in hope at that time, that the Priests should be sufficiently de­barred from comming to the place, where now they are, and being there ready to proue such things, as are here to be obie­cted, they doe conuince the vnderstanding of him, who hath a­ny, and knoweth what belongeth to a libel, that these bookes are no Libels, against which this author inueyeth in these hote termes, iniurious, contumelious, and infamatory bookes or libels. But by that which followeth, he doeth more discouer his folly. He saith, that the bookes were published in print, without particuler name of Author, without licence of superior, and other circumstances of modestie, right, and conscience required in such attempts. Alas good sir, to omit in this place, what want there is of other cir­cumstances of modestie, throughout all the Apologie, if it be a ne­cessary circumstance of modestie, right, and conscience, to put to a booke some particuler name of Author, where was your modestie, right, and conscience, when you published this Apologie? what particuler name of Author hath your booke? Haue you not set it [Page 102] out in these general termes written and set forth by Priests vnited in due subordination to the right reuerend Archpriest, and other their superiors? And I pray you (sir) what particuler name is here, and of what author? Good sir turne once againe the bookes against which this Apologie is written: and finde this circumstance of modestie, right, or conscience more wanting in their bookes, then in the Apologie, and then with lesse shame vpbraid the priests that they published in print without particular name of Author, and other circumstances of modestie, right, and conscience.

But to giue a fuller satisfaction to our Reader, We affirme that the books which were published by the Priests, were pub­lished with more particular name of authour, then this Apologie was, if the particular name be that which bringeth the authour to be knowen who he was. For first the Latine booke, which was published in print, and dedicated to his Holinesse, is sayd to be exhibited by those Priests who were accused of Schisme, and o­ther crimes. The English booke also which is intituled, The co­pies of certaine discourses, carieth as particular a name of authour, in these words, which were extorted from diuers, as their friends de­sired them, or their aduersaries driue them to purge themselues of the most grieuous crimes of schisme, sedition, rebellion, faction and such like. Now good sir, I doe appeale to the indifferent Reader, whether the authors of these two books (for this Apologie mea­neth none other, as appeareth by the whole discourse thereof, and particularly fol. 8.) were more knowen by this description accused of schisme (they shewing themselues publiquely in their owne defence) then the authors of the Apologie by this descrip­tion, Priests vnited in due subordination to the Archpriest, all the rest keeping their consciences to themselues, that no man al­most is sure, who can be meant by this name. And some of them, who were so firmely reputed for such, as the Archpriest and Iesuites aduentured to aske their handes or consents to somewhat, which some doe thinke should haue bene vsed, for the authorizing or giuing their consents to the setting out of this booke, they tooke this priestlike courage vnto them, as to deny to set their hands to that, to which they were not to be made priuie. And many more there are (as many doe knowe) who goe for such as are here set downe for authours of this A­pologie, [Page 103] who perchance haue their handes as deepe in the an­swere, as any of the other. But we will let this slip go, hoping that this good fellow will be better aduised in his next booke, how he taxeth men for that, in which he doth offend himselfe, if the fault which hee findeth may be called an offence. But now concerning the other circumstance, that the bookes were printed without licence of Superiour. If this authour will tell vs, whither we should haue gone neere hand to haue found an in­different Superior, we will acknowledge that there was some er­rour. The Archpriest was not an indifferent Superiour in this case, because he was a partie, against whom the bookes were to be published so farre foorth as they concerned the contro­uersie betweene himselfe and the Priests, and therefore he was not likely to giue them licence to print An other Superior they know not where to seeke in any reasonable distance, to demād their licence. Besides that, to their remembrance, they doe not finde any authority in his Commission, to licence bookes to the print being no Ordinarie, but a Subdelegate, and for certaine pur­poses, among which this is not reckoned for any. And per­chance this was the cause, why being sollicited by M. Colling­ton vpon the comming foorth of the Apologie, to certifie him what Supertours did licence the printing thereof, he knewe not what to answere. And if these words, permissu superiorum, bee prooued a necessary circumstance of modestie, they shall be vsed hereafter in our books also: Much idle stuffe followeth to make an end of this chapter, as that the Priests doe goe about to disguise matters by laying the fault vpon M. Archpriest and Fa. Parsons, as though they did not descend to such particulars, as cannot be applyed vnto any other, but vnto them. They labour to purge themselues from schisme, in their forbearing to obey the authoritie appointed by his Holinesse, before they did see some instrument from his Holinesse, in testimony that he had instituted, or giuen authoritie to another, for the institution thereof. They complaine of hard dealing vsed to­wards the students, and particularly against the two Priests, who were not suffered to come to his Holinesse, being sent vnto him to deale concerning this new authoritie. And whereas the Priests are here charged to contemne the Cardinall Farnesius his doing, or writing, or procuring for the Archpriest a Protonotariship: [Page 104] This fellow seemeth to take it for a disgrace, not to make some sport among all his big words. For how would a man thinke, that he prooueth this negligence or contempe; as he tearmeth it? Forsooth the Cardinall procured the Archpriest to be proto­notarius apostolicus. And what then? doeth it follow, that the priests doe neglect and contemne, whatsoeuer the present Pro­tector, Cardinall Farnesius hath done or written, or deferred to the Archpriest, because the Cardinall procured him to be a Notarie? But perchance the booke is falsely printed, and that which followeth, as another contempt, is to be vnderstood to be the onely proofe of the contempt, of which here is mention. These are the words, Neither doe they giue him the title of Reue­rendissimus due to that degree, and vsed towards him by the Cardi­nall himselfe in his letters. We will leaue it to this author to ex­placate himselfe, whether this word neither implieth a second or one onely contempt. We will onely excuse the Priestes for not giuing him the title of Reuerendissimus, vntill they did know some cause why. For as it is to be supposed, the priests did not see, what Cardinall Farnesius writ vnto M. Blackwell. Neither yet haue they seene any thing, why he may not challenge to be called Illustrissimus. And yet, I thinke, it were a wonderfull folly, if they should giue him that title, and he could not but take it as a flout, or a mocke to be so called. The reason then being all one, the Priests knowing no more of the one, then of the other, it is an argument, that this authour wanted both matter, and wit to deuise matter. For who would haue vsed so great termes against priests, for not giuing a title to one, to whom a Cardinall gaue it in a priuate letter? In what feare may we be striken, least that some Cardinall had also written to this authour, and giuen him some title, which we know not? Or if any Cardinall would bestow any honest title vpon him, yet this kind of Reuerendissimiship, being a matter of twenty or forty crownes, he might easily procure it: and wee might be condemned for neglecting or contemning somewhat, which is not in vse, where as skilfull Protonotaries, as any are in England do keepe open shops in euery good towne, and are knowen a­mongst their honest neighbours for such. But we will let this idle exception go, among the other, as idle & railing speeches, [Page 105] with which this authour endeth the first chapter, and closeth vp his readers stomacke with them, who cannot but see what spirit, and in what sort it mooueth him.

CHAP. 7. How this Author of the Apologie while hee would inueigh against dangerous and temerarious propositions, engageth himselfe further then becommeth a Catholike. Apol. c. 2.

IN the second Chapter of the Apologie, this Au­thor purposeth to treate of three things: first, of disobedience: secondly, of vndutifull behauiour to superiours namely his Holines: thirdly, of scanda­lous and temerarious propositions.

Concerning the first, he bringeth some Scriptures, with if, and ands: as if his reader should prouide himselfe to heare of a great plumpe: If all this be so as it is (sayth he) alas in what case, &c. And so proceedeth to a lamentation ouer his brethren, supposing that the scriptures he brought were as truly applied, as they were true in themselues. And to prooue the stubborn­nesse in the Priests, which the good man seemeth to lament, he bringeth a clause (as he tearmeth it) of a letter of Card. Allen to M. Mush, dated the 16. of March 1594. whereby he would haue his reader conceiue very strange matters, and wrongfully in­formed himselfe of any euill affection or hard opinion of the Cardinall towards the Secular priests. And lest wee should be thought to blame this authors folly without cause, wee will set downe his owne words as they lie after his exordium, together with the Cardinals letter. These are his words.

For first of all to begin with Cardinall Allen, of whom these men would seeme to make most account now he is dead & gone, as though he had fauoured them when he was aliue, which yet (as we shall shew) is quite contrary: for he in his foresaid letter of the 16 of March to M. Mush, doth most earnestly giue in charge to him and to all other Priests, to liue in great vnion with the Fathers of the Society, yeel­ding for his reason the singular obligation they had to their manifold benefits. His words are these: I haue heard (sayth hee) to my great [Page 106] griefe, that there is not that good correspondence betweene the Fa­thers and other priests. I cannot tell vpon what discontentment, &c. But whereof soeuer it commeth, it is of the enemie, and with all possi­ble discretion and diligence by the wiser sort on both sides to be rooted out, or els it wil be the ruine of the whole cause, &c. Therefore in this point especially (M. Mush) be earnest and peremptory with all par­ties, and euery one in particular. And tell them, that I charge and ad­uise them by the blessed blood and bowels of Gods mercie, that they honour, loue, and esteeme one another according to euery mans age, or­der, and profession: and that those of the Secular order, especially those that haue beene brought vp vnder the Fathers, and haue found so great loue, charity, and helpe in all places at their hands, that they be correspondent in all gratitude and thankefulnesse, reuerencing them in word and deed, as is requisite to their merits and calling, &c. Thus wrote the good Cardinall not aboue halfe a yeere before his death. And by this we see, both what his loue & opinion was towards the Fathers, and what his commandement and order was to all those priests, he be­ing superiour to them all, appointed by his Holinesse, that now are so contentious against the Iesuits. What would the good man haue said, if hee had liued till this day, to see his request and commandement so contemned by them? And how can M. Mush and others name so of­ten the Cardinall without blushing, when they breake so earnest an exhortation, and order of his in so great a matter?

The contents in this letter are so plaine, as I cannot but marueile at this fellow his boldnesse, and how without blush­ing he can make that descant which here he doeth.

The letter (as all men may see) was written vpon a suggesti­on made vnto the Cardinall, that the Priests and Iesuites were dangerously fallen out, as may appeare by those words, I can­not tell vpon what discontentment. And afterward, Therefore in this point especially (M. Mush) be earnest and peremptory with all parties, and euery one in particular. Thirdly the charge and aduise which was giuen, was as deepely giuen to the Iesuits as to the Priests, as may appeare by the wordes immediatly following those which we last cited: And tell them that I charge and ad­uise them, by the blessed blood and bowels of Gods mercie, that they ho­nour, loue, and esteeme one another, according to euery mans age, or­der, and profession. Fourthly, the particular exhortation to the [Page 107] Secular priests to be correspondent in all gratitude and thankeful­nesse to the Iesuits loue, charitie, and helpe, with reuerence in word and deed, not only as was requisite, but as was aboue their me­rits and calling, was long since preuented, as appeareth by a let­ter of F. Campion to F. Euerard the generall of the societie (with whome there was no cause why hee should dissemble) as may be seene in the Epistle of pious griefe, fol. 6. & 7. These are his words there cited: Tanta est aestimatio, quam de nobis concitarunt Presbyteri, ipsietiam piissimi, & doctissimi, vt nisi timidè comme­morandum sentiam: The Priests here, who are most learned and ho­ly, haue raised such an opinion of vs, as I cannot speake it without feare: which saying of F. Campion proouing nothing but a cor­respondence in all gratitude on the behalfe of the priests for the loue, charitie, and helpe, which they had or might haue of the Fathers, I cannot but wonder at the Epistle maker, who bringeth it to prooue a correspondence in the behalfe of the Iesuits, vnlesse perchance he meane, that no other gratitude is to be expected of a Iesuite, then that he will tell his generall, what benefits he receiueth. This correspondence of the Priests was so followed still by them, vntill the Iesuits grewe so insolent, as those, who brought them into credit, were forced to stand at their reuer­sion, and without respect either to age, order, or profession, they went about tyrannically to haue the gouernment ouer the Priests, as may be prooued as well by their attempt at Wisbich, as by the beginnings abroad, where Catholikes had no enter­tainment for Priests of what age, order, or profession soeuer, vnlesse they did come by order of a Iesuite, and so would the Cardinal haue said, if he might haue liued till this day: notwithstanding his request and commaundement giuen as well vnto the Secular Priests as Iesuits, in these words: Tell them, that I charge and ad­uise them by the blessed blood and bowels of Gods mercy, that they ho­nour, loue, and esteeme one another according to euery mans age, or­der, and profession: yet this fellow, without blushing, citeth this letter to prooue the Cardinals more speciall affection before his death to the Iesuits, then vnto the Priests, wherin he giueth a like round charge to them both: and in that hee gaue this commission to a Secular priest, to be peremptory with all parties, this letter doeth rather prooue, that hee fauoured the Secular [Page 108] priests then the Iesuits. And thus much concerning those fond collections which are made out of this letter by the author of this Apologie.

Our author hauing shewed (as he supposeth) that the priests haue disobeyed this the Cardinall Allen his commandement, (whereas indeed the Iesuits did breake it, and draue the priests to stand vpon their owne necessarie defence) he pretendeth to shew the priests their progresse from worse to worse: but in verie deed discouereth his owne in the same kind. And first he out­runneth his reader, by briefly touching (but vntruly, as will be shewed in the particular treatise of the Romane stirs) the brea­king forth of the students in Rome with the Iesuites: and as if his words were Oracles, hee applyeth some places of Scripture (as he knoweth who did to our Sauiour in the desert) then hee pursueth his former confuted falshood, of the beginning of new associations in England, after the aforesaid tumults ended in Rome, & telleth his reader that his Holines perceiuing the same to tend to a new diuision and contention, as well by the lawes and rules thereof, as by a certaine new, contumelious, and most enor­mous Memoriall, sent ouer against the Iesuits, hee appointed them (the priests) a superiour of their owne order, as you haue heard, and such an one, as their owne two ambassadours sent to Rome, confessed vnder their owne hands and othes (as appeareth in their examinati­ons) that he had bene the likeliest man of al others to be chosen by voi­ces, if the election had beene permitted vnto them. And so he goeth on without any newe matter, or any thing that needeth newe answer: only this we are to note (for so much as we can learne) that neither of those two Priests (whom here he calleth the two ambassadours) did euer say or sweare so much, as here they are charged: neither can it be prooued out of their examinations, vn­lesse the Iesuits haue shewed their skill in corrupting, or falsify­ing those examinations, as they haue done in other writings. The challenge also which followeth, that the Priests did not obey the Archpriest at the sight of the Cardinall Caietans letters, is of­ten, but now lately by M. Collington sufficiently answered. And if the Cardinall had vpon his owne proper motion, expected an absolute blind obedience vnto him, it had argued too great a want of consideration in him.

There is also a full satisfaction giuen, that what the priestes did, might very wel stand with obedience, and with humility, and was not against any oath which any tooke, when they were schollers of the Seminaries: that oath being no other, then to take orders, when the superiour would haue them, and to re­turne into England, when they should be sent, ad lucrandas a­nimas: to gaine soules to God: which they did performe vntill this new authority, pretending power to take away their facul­ties (by which they laboured in their vocation) solo nutu (to vse M. Blackwells words to M Charnock, in his letters 17. Iunij 1600.) at his becke did make them cease (for scandall sake) to doe that, to which by oath they were bound. By which it may appeare how foolishly this oath of the Seminaries is vrged, a­gainst those, who did not become blind obedient at the sight of the Cardinals letter to M Blackwell. And if any haue since pro­mised obedience to the Archpriest, when they receiued their faculties, they are ready to giue a reasonable cause, why in such and such particulars they did not obey him. For as I take it, this fellow will not stand obstinately in this heresie, that a supe­rior cannot doe any thing, or command any thing amisse, wherein a subiect may refuse to obey him, although he were sworne to obey him, as now many are. For such oathes are alwayes to be vn­derstood, to be obserued in iust and lawfull matters, or at the most in such, as are not to bee prooued most vniust, and vnlaw­full, as these are, which the Archpriest doth command, to wit: that they shal not defend themselues, nor be defended of other from the infamie of schisme, sedition, faction, rebellion and such like, whereof they know themselues to be most cleere, and that the suffering of such slanders to goe vncontrolled, would bee most iniurious to themselues, preiudiciall to Gods Church, in which they liue as pastors, and dishonorable to God himselfe, to whose seruice they haue, with their vttermost peril, deuoted themselues. But to make all apparant in one word: the priests obeyed so soone as they knew it to be his Holinesse will, that it should be so, as appeareth by the second Breue, dated 17 August 1601 if there were no other profe for it. These are the words of the Breue: Quae nostrae literae, simulat (que) promulgatae advestram (filij presbyteri) notitiam deuenerunt, omnem illico sedatam fuisse discor­diam, [Page 110] & summam pacem (reconciliata inter vos gratia, depositis (que) o­dijs, & simultatibus) initam fuisse, magno nostro cum gaudio cogno­utmus: Which letters of ours (the Breue) so soone as they were pro­mulged, and came to your knowledge, we perceiue to our great toy, that all discord was presently appeased, and that a full peace was made by a mutuall atonement, and a laying apart all hatred, and priuate grudge. So that we doe not a little marueile at this fellow his boldnes, who without any regarde of so many testimonies, as would be brought against him, or of this Breue, would set foorth to the view of the world this vntrueth, concerning the priests obedi­ence at the sight of the Breue, to induce his Reader to a contra­ry conceit of the priests actions. For thus he telleth his tale: But at length his Holinesse to resolue all doubts declared by his Breue, that all, and euery point of the former institution by the Car­dinall was by his order, consent, knowledge and commandement, and should not this haue brought some remorse to good and tender consci­ences, of all the broyles, and turmoiles raised vp before about this vn­necessary doubt? Or at least wise should not this haue so appeased men for the time to come, as that whatsoeuer the superiour had bene for his person, yet should his authority neuer more haue bene called in que­stion? But what insued? Truely we are afraid to recount it, remem­bring that dreadfull saying of the Apostle, Mali autem homines proficiunt in peius. Euill men shal go frō worse to worse. And it seemeth to haue come to passe, for that diuers of these chiefe heads of this seditiō, seeming to haue lost much of Gods grace, in not obeying promptly that Apostolicall declaration, & determination, haue run since to farre greater contempt, and perturbation of mind &c. Could this fellow haue vsed himselfe more malapertly against the Popes Breue, then after his wonted and graceles conceits and insinuations, to tell his reader that the Priests did not promptly obey that apostolicall declaration, whereas the words of the Breue are most plaine to the contrary, Quae nostrae literae simulat (que) pro­mulgatae ad vestram (filij presbyteri) noticiam deuenerunt, omnem ilico sedatam fuisse discordiam, &c. So soone as our Breue came to your viewe, presently all discord was a appeased, and peace was made &c. which peace is in diuers discourses shewed to haue been broken by the Archpriest, when complaint being made vnto him by the priests, of that audaciousnesse of Fa. Iones the [Page 111] Iesuite, in renewing his fellow Fa. Listers absurd, and seditious assertion of schisme against the priests, hee did not onely a­nouch asmuch now a fresh, but published a resolution, which he sayd hee had receiued from Rome, to the same effect: and with such appurtenances as might well declare how deepe a roote the infection had taken.

The other two points, to wit, of vndutifulnes and of scanda­lous & temerarious propositions, are handled somewhat confused­ly: But for the fuller satisfaction of the Reader, they shalbe an­swered as they lie. And whereas this author doeth first begin to except against some speeches, vttered by letters, conteined in the English booke, as cōtemptuously spoken of the dignity, and office of the Archpriest, and also of the maner of the institution thereof by his Hol. the reader is to vnderstand, that in this there is very euil dealing, cōsidering that those speeches, which were vsed, were vsed before it was knowen, that his Holines had his finger in it. And they were the more boldly vsed, because it was presumed, that the authority was not instituted by his Ho­lines, but by the Cardinall Caietane, who in his letter constitu­tiue affirmeth, that this was his owne ordinance: although hee saith in one place in generall termes, that he was commanded to make a peace in England vpō the false suggestion, that the priests and Catholiks were at warres. And in another place that hee followed the Popes will, who thought it meet that there should be a subordination in England, being induced thereunto by reason giuen him by priests: whereas to this day neither were the rea­sons euer heard, nor what priests they were who gaue them, ex­cept perchance a few Iesuits, who are exempted frō the autho­ritie. Nothing then being knowen to the contrary, but that it was a deuise of the Iesuits, and an institution of the Card. Caie­tane by their meanes, without any letters to one effect, or other from his Holines, as is here confessed in this Apol. Cap. 1 fol. 7. the priests might the more iustly terme the authority by such names, as to them it seemed then to deserue, to wit a new, and extraordinary authority vnpleasing, obtruded, disorderly procured gouernment, exorbitant and altogether dissonant from reason, & the accustomed practise of Gods Church, and that it was already thought by the Councell, to bee of purpose erected, not for Religion, but for the [Page 112] better effecting of plots and designments of State. For although nei­ther the title of an Archpriest be new, nor the authoritie of an Archpt extraordinary, yet may this authoritie be termed both new and extraordinary being such as was neuer heard of, to haue bene before giuen to so meane a Prelate. It was called an vn­pleasing authority, for that it was meerely affectiue, as may ap­peare by the constitutiue letters: and if it haue now any pow­er to do any good to any, the Prelate is to giue thankes for such thankes for such his authority to those priests, who found the fault. It was said to be obtruded, for that neither the priests knew, that it came by any lawfull authority, nor it selfe brought any gratefull thing with it, but rather did grace and strengthen the faction of the Iesuits against them, the Archpr. being cōman­ded in his instructions to doe nothing of moment, without the aduise of the Iesuits, who had already begun a most scandalous sedition in England. It was said to be disorderly procured &c. both in respect of the false suggestion, which was the mother thereof, (as may appeare by the constitutiue letter) and also in respect that the principall actors in the procuring thereof were men of an other order, who were not onely free frō being sub­iect vnto it, but must be directors also in it, especially in matters of moment, as appeareth by the Archpr. his 6 instruction. All which maner of proceeding being right well knowen, and that these principall procurers, and counsellers were such, as were also knowen to the Counsell to be more medling in matters of State, then became them, they could not shoot very wide, who affirmed that this authority was already thought by her Maie­sties Councell to be of purpose erected, for the better effecting of such designments. Neither was this to bring the archpr. or any good Cath that should obey him, within the compasse of treason, for matter of State: but a reason which al good Catho­likes might take, why the priests were not euer forward, to run after the noueltie, hauing no other warrant for it, then a letter of a Cardinall, who vnder colour of pietie might easily be ca­ried by the Iesuits knowen Statesmen) to do any thing, which might further their designments. And the Counsel being kno­wen to be thus possessed, the priests had no reason to runne fur­ther into displeasure of her Maiestie, & her Hon. Councell: but [Page 113] rather seeke to be well assured, that the ground thereof was no State plot, but Religion, for which they haue bene, and are most ready to shed their blood, when it shall please God to suffer it. But where doeth this good fellow shew, that the priests would bring all good Catholikes, that should obey the ordination, & the Arch­priest, within the compasse of treason for matter of State? See I pray you how he choppeth Logike: which point these men, to worke more mischiefe, do teach the persecutors in plaine words: againe a litle after in the same page in these words. Besides all this by the opinions of diuers men in the Lawes of our Countrey this our cause may, and wilbe drawen within the compasse of an olde Lawe enacted as well by our Catholike Bishops and Prelats, as by the Prince aboue 300. yeeres agoe, viz. the Law of Premunire, because it is an externall iurisdi­ction brought into this Realme, against the wil, & notice of the prince and countrey: which made the late reuerend Bishop of Lincolne, D. Watson, to refuse all externall iurisdiction offered him ouer his fel­low prisoners, although once hee had lawfull Episcopall Iurisdiction within the Realme, & was vnlawfully depriued thereof. Thus much doeth this author cite out of the English booke, to proue that the priests, to worke mischiefe doe teach the persecutors in plaine words, that all who obey the archpriest, are within compasse of treason. Is this fellow in his right wits trow ye? or must not his Reader be very credulous, or at the least very forgetfull, who being told, that he shall see how the Priests to worke mischiefe teach the persecutours a lesson to bring the obedient within compasse of treason, must be serued with an example of a Pre­munire? But neither doe the Priests affirme in this place, that the Archpriest, or those who obey him, incurre the Statute of Premunire, but say onely, that by the opinions of diuers men in the Lawes of our Countrey, this our cause may, and will be drawen within the compasse of an olde Law, &c. And in that they say of diuers men, they leaue a scope for others to be of the contrary opinion. And if the matter were so cleare, as all men were of that opinion, there being as expert Lawyers of the Priuie Councell, as any other are, how can they bee thought to bee taught by the Priests, that there is here in our case any danger of a Premunire? Who can iudge whether the follie [Page 114] of this authour or his malice were greater, when he alleaged this sentence out of the Priests their booke, to prooue that they to worke more mischiefe, did hereby teach the persecutours in plaine wordes to bring all good Catholikes that obey this ordination and the Archpriest appointed by his Holines, within the compasse of trea­son for matter of State?

Let vs put the case that there were no danger of a Premuni­re in this our case: yet if by the opinions of diuers men in the lawes of our Countrey, it might, or would be drawen within the compasse of such a law, it had bene wisedome to haue pau­sed vpon the matter, and not to haue runne ouer headlong in­to so great a danger vpon a letter of a Cardinall: which added affliction vnto affliction, without any good, or ease to men o­therwise afflicted, and might very well haue bene omitted, and God much better serued, except onely in the triall of his priests, who haue euer since the institution of this authoritie, liued vnder a grieuous yoke, and most extreame persecution, vnder the Archpriest, Iesuites, and other their ouer forward, and busie adherents.

And whereas this authour noteth, that the Priests would haue consent of the prince (though different from them in re­ligion) to be needfull for legitimation of this authoritie, hee doth but shew how his pen can play the Gentleman vsher to his wit. The lesse the likelihood is, that the Prince would le­gitimate this authoritie, the greater was the reason, which the Priests did vse for their forbearance to yeelde vnto it. It is very well knowen, that when the prince did not differ in reli­gion, the statutes against the prouision of dignities from Rome was sued. And can any man of reason hope for more fauour at the hands of a prince, who doth differ in religion? If this Archipresbyterie could be prooued so necessary, as without it the Catholike religion could not stand in England, this glanse were to some purpose, and the Priests no doubt, would haue bene as resolute in the behalfe of the Catholike faith, as they are not sparing their liues in the defence thereof, which they daily giue for it, although through the businesse of a fewe vn­timely Statesmen, they are all generally taken for such, and are [Page 115] put to death as traytors. But the Archipresbyterie being no way so necessary, but that it might with much more profit to Gods Church haue bene wanting, the Priests most resolute to die in defence of the Catholike faith, might aduise themselues whether it were wisedome, to runne needelesly into an other danger, and of such qualitie, as if the magistrate had no way differed in Religion, he would haue put the law in execution against them.

An other note, which this authour maketh, is, that by the Countrey, the Priests must needes meane themselues only: that is to say, some fiue or sixe that opposed themselues at the beginning, for that his Holinesse had not asked their consents. See I pray you, how this fellow stil thrusteth in his Holinesse in this action, who was not knowen in 12. moneths after, to haue dealt therein, ex­cept what might be gathered by the imprisonment of the two Priests, who went out of England to Rome, to haue shewed what they, and others thought meete hee should vnderstand; although this their imprisonment being such, and in such ma­ner, before they had audience, was an argument to some, that it was not his action, and that aswell his Holinesse in particular, as that Sea, and those who did fly thither for succour, were too too much abused: and this imprisonment of the two priests was about ten moneths after the institutiō of the Archipresbyterie. How handsomely would this fellowes musicke sound, were this string in tune, vpon which he harpeth so often? But it be­ing so generally knowen, that his Holines was not seene in the action vntill his Breue came, which was aboue a yeere after the institution of the authoritie, no man but he, who is past shame, would so often vrge his Holinesse, or disobedience to his Holinesse. And in this place he giueth this cause in mockage, why fiue or sixe opposed themselues at the beginning, for that his Holinesse had not asked their consents. Alas poore man, how faine he is of any foolish conceite, to bring the priests into a contempt with the Catholikes? Whose consent did his Holinesse aske, when he con­firmed the authoritie by his Breue? I am well assured that he asked not the consent of any of them: and yet if the Pope be of any credit, or his Breue of the 17. of August 1601. they did [Page 116] all presently without delay yeeld themselues. So that this ab­surd fiction of this fellow is too too apparant. I would also de­mand whether his Holinesse had the consent of any of the Se­cular priests in England, when this authoritie was first institu­ted, and of how many? If he had not the consent of them, as doubtlesse he had not, more then what M. Standish a Iesuit by promise (abusing the priests) gaue for them, & in their names, who sent him not: why is this vrged against fiue or sixe, as though all the rest had giuen their consents to the institution thereof? If he had the consent of the priestes, why was there such canuasing for voyces, or hands to be set to a letter which began thus: Olim dicebamur? Why were so many threatned? Why were others (who were not to be threatned) sollicited, with, Now it is Fa. Parsons deuise, you must not deny your hand? A­gaine to an other: you shall not deny me, to set your hand vnto it: And afterward his hand was set to it, and he knew not thereof, nor gaue any consent thereto. And in this kind did the Iesuits labour, and posted from one to another, to get consents, after that they sawe some to forbeare to yeelde themselues vnto it. What deuises were vsed to others for their liking hereof, may also be gathered by M. Blackwels behauiour in this point: who sending for M. Collington, and M. Charnocke, vrged them to like thereof, and threatned them, that vnlesse they would positiue­ly affirme, that they did like thereof, he was to send informa­tion to Rome, that they did dislike thereof: notwithstanding they would giue no other answere, then this vnto him: that they did neither like, nor would dislike, but would beare them­selues as became Catholike priests to do. And this was all the opposition which was made at the beginning, and it was by fewer then 6. or 5. for it was by these two only, which were enow, and are as many, and perchance one more then at the beginning vse to oppose thēselues against springing heresies, errors, falshoods, or the misdemeanors of such, as aduenture to shew themselues in priuate, before they appeare more openly to the world. The causes of this opposition (as this fellow tearmeth it) are discour­sed vpon at large by M. Iohn Collington, in his booke lately set foorth of this argument. And thus much in answere of that [Page 117] which this author noteth vpon the priests wordes, which he ci­teth in this place.

After these notes taken vpon the priests words, he declareth his opinion of the statute of Premunire, in this maner. And as for the Statute of Premunire by them mentioned, it is not so ancient as they make it, but was begunne to be treated, about the time that Wickliffe rose vp, when emulation was in heate against the Cler­gie: and the chiefe purpose thereof was, at the beginning to prohibite appellation to Rome in the first instance, vnder the paines aforesaid: and the worst kings of England euer since haue most vrged it, and it was not made (as these men say) by our Catholike Bishops, and Pre­lates, nor could in conscience, but sorely rather against their wils was it passed in Parliament by the streame of Temporall power, and emu­lation against them, &c. If the priests did speake of a Statute of Premunire, according to the opinions of men well seene in the lawes of our Realme, how impertinent is this to tell vs, what the chiefe purpose thereof was at the beginning? and this be­ing so, that the chiefe purpose thereof was to prohibite appellation to Rome in the first instance, and therefore no Catholike Bishop, or Prelate could in conscience agree to the making thereof: doeth not this fellow shew himselfe to be past shame, in bringing in this conceite, to the infinite discredit of the Archpriest and his tu­tors? We will here omit, how the Archpriest (who according to his sixth instruction, is to doe nothing of moment without the aduise of the Iesuites) when he sent first to speake with M. Col­lington and M. Charnocke, stood very stiffely vnto it, In his letters to M. Collington. that we might not appeale from him to Rome, vntill it was often inculcated vnto him, how dangerous that proposition was. We wil also here omit his commandements vnto vs, not to goe to Rome, first to pleade our cause in hand: for to this perchance answere may be made, that he had procured, that it should be first heard in Flanders, before his Holinesse his Nuncio: to whom when our brethren presented themselues, and shewed themselues readie to haue their cause heard, no one appeared for the Arch­priest, although he had before giuen out by his letters, what potent aduersaries the priests should there find in this behalfe: The Nuntio his letter to M. Blackwell. and the Nuntio himselfe had written vnto him, to come or send some instructed in his cause. Wee doe here aske, with what [Page 118] conscience haue his godly tutors aduised him, and he attemp­ted to punish such as haue appealed to Rome, because they haue appealed to Rome, as his owne hand will iustifie it against him: namely in his letter to a lay gentleman dated the 16. of A­pril 1601. where he affirmeth, that he writeth vnto him, to make him priuie of the great spirituall danger, wherein he, and all that re­ceiued any sacrament of M. Oswald Needam might be, if it were so, that the said M. Needam had subscribed vnto a seditious pam­phlet (these are his words) coloured with the name of an Appeale? And hauing denounced M. Robert Drewrie to haue incurred the penalties of his Decrees, for subscribing to the same Ap­peale, he sent vnto him a forme of submission, which he was to make, or not be restored. And this was the forme of that submission. Ego N. confiteor, &c. I doe confesse and acknowledge, that without any iust cause I haue complayned of grieuances, and many iniuries offered mee by the most Reuerend archpriest, and haue cast vpon him the blame of these dissentions, tumuls, and deadly warres, and that I haue transgressed his wholesome Decrees, of all which I humbly craue pardon, restitution of my faculties, and the re­moouing of Censures, if I haue incurred them. And I recall all these aforesaid, and doe greatly wish, that I had neuer spoken, writ­ten, or approoued them. Moreouer, I doe sweare that I will here­after behaue my selfe peaceably, and obediently towards this my Su­periour, and will procure according to my bounden duetie what lieth in me, that others doe the same. At London. March. an. 1600 according to our English account.

The decree which the archpriest made, and by the subscri­bing to the appeale was, and is iudged by him to be broken, and these grieuous penalties thereby incurred by those, who sub­scribed, beareth date 18. Octob. 1600. The words of the decree are these Prohibemus autem sub poena suspensionis à diuinis, & amis­sionis omnium facultatum, ne quis sacerdos vllo modo suffragia vel scripto, vel verbo danda ambiat, vel det, ad quamcum (que) causam, quā antea nobiscum, vel cum duobus ex Assistentibus nostris non constet fuisse communicatam. Wee forbid vnder paine of suspension from diuine offices, & of losse of all faculties, euery Priest to go about, to take any suffrage, or voyce, any maner of way, either by writing, or by word of mouth, or to giue any such suffrage, or voyce to any matter whatsoe­uer, [Page 119] which is not knowen to haue bene before communicated to vs, or vnto two of our Assistants. This is the decree, & by vertue here­of the Appellants so setting their hands, or giuing consent, that their hands should be set to the Appeale, are said to haue lost their faculties, and incurred the consures, which, were the Law a iust Law, is not true, the penaltie not being inflicted therein, but onely threatned. And whereas the Archpriest, and his ad­herents, to faue him from those penalties, which are due, and are ipso facto incurred by those who forbid Appeales to Rome, affirme, that there was a Libel and an Appeale, & that his decree was broken, and the penalties therein conteined, were incur­red by subscribing to the Libel, and not to the Appeale; it is a poore shift, and to be vsed but in a few corners: for in his letter before cyted, he maketh no difference, but in the name onely: For these are his words, concerning M Needam, If it be so that he hath subscribed vnto a seditious pamphlet, coloured with the name of an Appeale. So that now it is too late, to make two things of that, to which the priests did subscribe. Secondly it is a very grosse ignorance, to make two matters of that Appeale, all wri­ters affirming that Appeales made à grauaminibus, from grie­uances, must expresly conteine them. For breuitie sake Lance­lot L. 3. Instit. Iuris Can. tit. de Apella. writeth thus, Multum autem interest, ab interlocutoria, vel alio grauamine, an à definitiua: nam primo casu, & causam &c. There is a great difference betweene appea­ling from an interlocutory sentence, or other grieuance, and a defini­tiue sentence. For in the first case the cause of the Appeale must be put downe in writing, &c. Yea it is so essentiall a point to such an Appeale, as no case can be pleaded, which is not expressed in the Appeale, as is shewed in that Clementine, Appellanti de Ap­pellationibus. Thus saith the Pope, Appellanti ab interlocutoria, vel à grauamine iudicis, non licet alias causas prosequi, quam in Ap­pellatione sua nominatim duntaxat expressas &c. It is not lawfull for the Appellant from an interlocutory sentence, or from a grieuance of a Iudge, to prosecute any causes, but such onely, as are by name ex­pressed in his Appeale &c. If then there be nothing in that, which he calleth a seditious pamphlet, or a Libel, but an Appeale, contei­ning (as it ought) the causes thereof, what a poore shift is this, to say that the Archpriest punisheth, or denounceth none to [Page 120] haue incurred his penalties conteined in his Edicts for subscri­bing to the Appeale, but onely for their subscribing to a seditious pamphlet, or a libell, colored with the name of an Appeale, or prefixed to an Appeale? The whole Appeale is now set forth in English by M Colington in his late booke, that euery man may see, whe­ther there is any other thing, then we haue said: that is, an Ap­peale, with the causes thereof expressed, as it ought to be, and as we haue sufficiently proued, it being so euident a trueth, as no man may without blushing deny it. And to conclude this point; if we should attribute so much ignorance to the Arch­priest, and his busie adherents, as that they would separate the Appeale from the causes thereof, being an Appeale a grauamini­bus, from grieuances (as it lieth open to all mens view to be such) then there is a much greater deformitie in his actions, who proclaimeth, that the Priests haue subscribed to a seditious pam­phlet, or a Libel annexed or prefixed to an Appeale: and that they haue thereby incurred the censures, and other penalties con­teined in his Edict of the 18. of Octob. 1600. because there is not one name subscribed to any thing, but to that, which he must confesse is really the Appeale, if hee make such a distinction be­tweene the Appeale, and that, which he saith is prefixed vnto it. And consequently, he must confesse that he hath incurred the censures of holy Church, and the iudgement giuen against the Bishops in this place of the Apologie. Those Kings of England, who had the will to prohibite by Statute Appeales to Rome, doubtlesse had neuer the grace to goe to Goose faire, where not onely they, but their Nobles also, aswell the Spirituall, as the Temporall might haue learned, how they might with consci­ence haue enacted, or consented to the making of such a Sta­tute. But this one thing was wanting to make perfect their fe­licitie in this world: they neuer eate a goose at that faire, where the courtesie is to minister geese to all commers gratis, and the Host will not receiue any money for them: onely they must pay for the sawce, which (according to the custome of the faire) they must haue, or els they must haue no goose. O happy day, wherein that faire was first instituted, and a secret discoue­red; which no Catholike Kings or Prelats could euer attaine vnto. And thrice happy are they, who by the light (as it should [Page 121] see me) of that day did see to make that Statute in the third yere of the Archipres byterie of M. George Blackwell, vidi preuarican­tes, &c. 18. Octob. 1600, wherein, al right to appeale to Rome be­ing most Catholikely conserued, the penalties therein contei­ned doe onely light vpon such as haue set their hands to that, which is prefixed to the Appeale, which is nothing els, but the causes thereof: without which (according to the custome, and Canons of holy Church) the appeale is of no force, and are therefore by name to be expressed, as we haue before shewed out of the Clementine: Appellantide Appellationibus. Now it re­maineth, that we shew when, and vpon what occasions the Sta­tutes were made, by which the prouisions from Rome, and some Appeales to Rome were forbidden.

First concerning these prouisions, there was a statute made, either in the 30. or 35. or as some other affirme 25. Edward 1. which was aboue 300. yeeres since, wherein it is agreed, and established, that they should not be suffered. There was also the like statute made in the 25. yere of Edw. 3 to the like effect, by which it was forbidden, that any should be placed in any dignitie, without the assent of the King. The same is also for­bidden in the Parliament holden in the 38. of the same King. The occasions of enacting these statutes are set downe, as well in that of the 25. of Edw. 1. as elsewhere: & the iustice of those, which were made in the time of Edw. 3. is the more apparant by a letter, which hee and his nobles sent in the 17. yeere of his reigne, to his Hol. to haue redresse for such defaults, as were in that kind committed. The Letter was to this effect.

King Edward and his Nobles perceiuing the derogation that was done to the Realme, by such reseruations, prouisions, and collations of benefices, as the Pope practised here in England, wrote to him, requi­ring him, that sith the Churches of England had beene founded and endowed by noble and worthy men, to the end the people might be in­structed by people of their owne language: and that he, being so farre off, could not vnderstand the defaults: yet his predecessors, and hee more then had been vsed, by diuers reseruations, prouisions, and colla­tions made to diuers persons, some strangers, yea and some enemies to the Realme, whereby the money and profits were carried forth, their Cures not prouided for according to the founders minds: they there­fore [Page 122] vpon due considerations thereof, signified vnto him, that they could not suffer such enormities any longer: and therefore besought him, to reuoke such reseruations, prouisions, and collations, wholly to auoid such slanders, mischiefes, and harmes as might ensue; and that the Cures might be committed to persons meete for the exercises of the same, beseeching him further without delay, to signifie his inten­tion, sith they meant to bestow their diligence to remedie the matter, and see that redresse might be had. Giuē in full Parliament at West­minster 18. of May Anno Dom. 1343. Thus far out of Iohn Stow 17. Edw. 3. where he also citeth Auesburie and Honingford.

Secondly, concerning the forbidding of the appeales to Rome, we find a Statute made in the 27. of Edw. 3. against those who shall drawe any person in plea (out of the Realme) of a thing whereof the knowledge appertained to the Kings Court, or of such things whereof iudgement was giuen in the Kings courts, or should sue in any other courts to defeate or let the iudgements giuen in the Kings Court.

To these, and other Statutes to the like effect, the author of the Apologie affirmeth, that the Catholike Bishops neither did nor could assent. But whatsoeuer may be said for or against this position, concerning the appeales, no man can in reason think, but that they both might very well, and did assent to those sta­tutes, which were made against the prouisions, or bestowing of dignities in England, without the kings consent, the causes are so apparantly layd downe by the King and the Nobles, for that abridging of his Holines his promoting whom he would, and to what dignities hee would in England. And thus much may be alledged in the behalfe of the consent of the spirituall Lords to the statute against those appeales, That in the new great abridgement printed Anno 1551. there is this clause set to the end of some statutes, But the spirituall Lords assented not to this statute. And there is no such note set to any of these Sta­tutes which we haue here cited.

It is also euident, that these statutes were not made vpon a­ny heate of emulation against the Clergie: for as we finde that in the 38. yeere of King Edw. 3. the statutes against those pro­uisions made in the 25. and 27. of the same King, are confirmed, although there be some fauour giuen to the Lords and Prelats [Page 123] offendors: so in the 39 yeere of the same King (which was the next yeere after) we find that the Clergie in England was in as great honour, as any Clergie in the worlde, as may be shewed by the offices which the Bishops and Priests had then in Eng­land. For the Bishop of Canterbury was Lord Chancellour of England: the Bishop of Bath was L. Treasurer: the Archdea­con of Lincolne was Lord priuie Seale: the Parson of Somersam was master of the Rolles: ten beneficed Priests were masters of the Chancerie: the Deane of S. Martins le grand was chiefe Chancellour of the Exchequer, Receiuer, and Keeper of the Kings Treasure and Iewels: the Archd. of Northampton was Chancellor of the Exchequer: a Prebendarie of S. Martins was Clerk of the priuie Seale: a Prebendarie of S. Steuens was Trea­surer of the Kings house: the Parson of Auon or Oundell was ma­ster of the Wardrobe: the Parson of Fenny Stanton was one of the Chamberlaines of the Excheq. and Keeper of the Kings Treasury and Iewels. Other of the Clergie are noted to haue ben in office also in France, & in Ireland, as well as in England.

Iohn of Gaunt Duke of Lancaster, the fourth sonne of King Edward 3. hauing the gouernement of England committed vn­to him in the time of his fathers last sickenesse (which was in the 50. and 51. of his reigne) disposed so farre of matters and of­fices, as he conceiued some possibility to attaine to the Crown, and to depriue his nephew, Richard of Burdeaux, who was sonne to the Blacke prince Edward, the eldest sonne of King Ed­ward the third. But perceiuing that it would be hard for him, to obtaine his purpose, so long as the Church stood in that estate it did, and the citizeens of London enioyed their liberties, hee laboured to ouerthrow them both. For the ruine of the Citie liberties, he deuised that it should no more be gouerned by the Maior, and Aldermen, but by some Captaine, appointed for the purpose: And that the Marshall of England (who then was a trustie friend of his, and placed in that office by him) should vse his authoritie, as well in London, and the liberties thereof, as els where: which the Commons taking in euill part, rose to­gether in great multitudes, and in heate of emulation (to vse this authors words) sought the Duke, and the Marshall with such fu­ry, as if the Bishop of London had not happened to appease [Page 124] them, the Duke and the Marshall had not escaped them. But when all was quiet, and the best of the Citie (for the common sort would not obey it) had giuen such satisfaction, as the king commanded, the Duke tooke exceptions thereat, affirming that they knew his minde, and were not ignorant, how to make satisfacti­on: with which words (sayth the historie) the citizens were much troubled: for, quoth they among themselues, hee would haue vs to proclaime him King, but this shall neuer be done.

The way, which hee tooke to ouerthrow the estare of the Church, was by countenancing Iohn Wickliffe, who, by reason of an hypocriticall demeanour among the Common people, had gotten an opinion of holinesse. Hee had liued as a secular priest; but afterward hee changed his habit, and conuersed with the Friars mendicants. Hee and his company went bare footed, and in course russet garments down to the heeles. They preached especially against Monkes, and other religious men that had possessions: and for this cause got in some fauour with the Religious, who had no possessions, and were assisted by them in that cause. This Wickliffe being called before his Or­dinary, to answere for certaine wordes spoken by him, was brought in by the Duke, and the Marshal into S. Pauls Church in London, and was bidden by them to sit downe, as hauing much to answere: which when the Bishop Courtney of Lon­don vnderstoode, hee countermanded it. Whereupon the Duke and the Marshall tooke occasion of anger against the Bi­shop: and the Duke threatned to pull downe both the pride of him and of all the Bishops of England. He had before caused all the goods of the Bishop Wickham of Winchester to be seized on, and would not suffer him to make his answere, and had per­secuted others, who had bene most vsed by his father in the go­uernement of the Realme. But shortly this Bishop had his tem­poralties restored vnto him by king Edward against the Dukes will: and presently after, the Duke and he were made friends at the very beginning of the reigne of King Richard the second, who succeeded King Edward the third. And this accord was not onely made betweene them, but also betweene the Duke, and the citie. And thus ceased that heate of emulation, so soone, as it was begun, and yet it began not, vntill the 50 or 51 yeere [Page 125] of K. Ed. the 3: in whose 17, 25, 27, & 38 yeres of his reigne, the statutes before cited were begun to be treated of, & made, con­cerning the abridging of prouisions for dignities from Rome, and the forbidding of Appeales in some cases to Rome: besides what we brought, concerning the first of these two points out of a statute made aboue 300 yeres since: to wit in the 25 of Ed. the first. By which it may appeare that it was treated, concer­ning these points, before Wickliffe rose: & how deceitfully these matters are layd vpon a heate of emulation against the Clergie.

And although in the 9 yere of the reign of K. Rich. the 2, there was a Bil put vp in the Parliament, against the Clergy for their temporalties: the King hearing (sayth the story) the inordinate cryings out of the Laity, & the iust answeres of the Clergy, cō ­manded that the bil should be cancelled, & such inordinate pe­titions to cease: & affirmed, that he would preserue the church, during his time, in as good state, as he foūd it, or in better. And the king, being then not past 20 yeeres of age, no doubt but his nobles counselled him in this his answere: which is an argu­ment, that at that time the aduersaries of the Clergy did beare no great sway in England. In the 18. yeere also of his reigne, the Clergie and religious men being oppugned by certaine fauou­rers of those hypocritical Lollards, the King being in Ireland, & certified therof, hastened home, and threatned those fellowes, that if they did from thencefoorth fauour the Lollards, or in any wise comfort them, he would extreamly punish them. By which it is euident, that what was enacted; or confirmed by him in the 16 yeere of his reigne, which was two yeres before this, or at other times concerning those points, cannot bee construed to haue bene done by heate of emulation against the Clergie.

King Henry also the fourth, who was sonne of Iohn of Gaunt, and succeeded King Richard the second, was so great an enemy to these Lollards, as in the beginning of his reigne at a Parlia­ment held in London, he made a statute against them: wherein it was enacted, that they should be apprehended, and deliue­red to the Bishop of the Diocesse: and if they were found ob­stinate, they should be degraded, and committed to the secular iurisdiction, to be executed. And in the fifth yere of his reigne, when some to relieue his want, made a motion in the Parlia­ment, [Page 126] to haue the Clergie depriued of their temporalties, and Thomas Arundel Archbishop of Canterburie had giuen his rea­sons to the contrary, the king and his Nobles stood for the Bi­shops, and those knights of the parliament, who were actors a­gainst the Clergie, were brought to confesse their offence, and to aske forgiuenesse thereof.

To conclude, no one of these statutes were euer repealed by any of our princes Catholike, or other, which concerned those prohibitions of prouisions from Rome, or pleading of matters out of this Realme, the knowledge whereof did appertaine vn­to the kings Court, although some particular clause concer­ning the punishment of the offenders hath been repealed. As for example: where it was lawfull for any man, or at the least not punishable by our lawes, to kill such, as were out of the kings protection, or to be taken as the Kings enemies, by offen­ding against these statutes. And in the first yeere of Queene Mary, whom the Author of the Apologie will bee ashamed to number amongst the worst kings, (for according to the sta­tutes of our Realme, what prerogatiues soeuer any kings haue had, they are to be vnderstood to be fully, and wholly in the Queenes, who come by succession to the Crowne) when no doubt these statutes were in minde, it was enacted, that all of­fences made felonie, or limitted, or appointed to be within the case of Premunire, by any act, or actes of Parliament, statute, or statutes made sithence the first day of the first yere of the raigne of the late king of famous memory King Henry the eighth, not being felony before, nor within the case of Premunire: and also all, and euery branch, article, and clause mentioned, or in any wise declared in any of the same statutes, concerning the making of any offence, or offences to be felony, or within the case of Pre­munire not being felonie, nor within the case of Premunire be­fore; and all paines and forfeitures concerning the same or any of them should from thenceforth be repealed, and vtterly void, and of none effect. King Henrie the eighth also when he was so deuoted to the Catholike faith, and particularly to the Sea of Rome, as he gaue monethly 60000 angels, towards the pay of an Armie vnder Mounsieur de Foy for the deliuery of Pope Cle­ment the 7, when he was holden prisoner in the Castel Angel [Page 127] in Rome, by the Duke of Bourbon his Armie, and the prince of Oringe: Yea, when Pope Leo the the tenth esteemed of him, as of the best prince in Christendome, and either to his deserts, or vnder them, gaue him this glorious title Defender of the faith: he did so far foorth execute the law of Premunire against all for­raine prouisions of dignities, and authority, to be practised within his Realme, without his assent, as the Cardinal Wolsey, not­withstanding an extraordinary affection in the king towards him, dared not to exercise his power Legantine, vntill he was licenced therunto by the king, vnder his hand, and broad seale: Io Stow. 21. Hen 8. which he pleaded, that he had when he was indited afterward in a Premunire, for his exercise thereof. And yet was the king himselfe a sutor to the Pope, to giue that authority to the Car­dinal, as may be seene in the tenth yeere of his reigne: which was about three yeeres before he was intituled, Defender of the faith. But all aswell princes, as other must stand to this good fellow his checke: and if they displease him, it is enough to haue them accounted in the highest degree of badnesse, how pious, and godly soeuer hee esteemed them before with the same breath.

But now concerning that which is sayd by the Priests, of Bi­shop Watson, that he refused, vpon these statutes, all externall iurisdiction offered him ouer his fellowe prisoners, this good fellow sayth, that it is most contumelious and false. Whome shall we beleeue in this case? those who were Priests, and fellow pri­soners with him, and were present at the offer, and his refusall, and are eare witnesses therof; or this peremptorie fellow, who careth not what passeth him? But perchance his reason may ouerpeaze the relation of these witnesses, although for many respects most reuerend. For (sayth hee) that had bene to deny his Holines Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction in England. Marke (I pray you) this reason, and weigh it with that which is before saide and shewed concerning this point. Card. Wolsey would not exer­cise his power Legantine in England, vntill he had licence of his Maiestie, as appeareth by his plea before cited: and yet neither the king nor he denied his Holines Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction in England; as appeareth by that the king of England made request to Pope Leo, to constitute Card. Wolsey his Legate in [Page 128] England, and behaued himselfe so Catholikely, as hee was cal­led Defendor of the faith. Also the most Catholike Bishops, who liued in the times of many, and those most Catholike Princes without al doubt obserued the law, yet no way were to be tou­ched, as this peremptory companion would haue them, with a deniall of his Holines iurisdiction in England. And in the Parlia­ment holden 16. Rich 2. the Bishops doe make a difference be­tweene authoritie in the Pope to excommunicate, and the exe­cution thereof in England. Moreouer, this Doctor Watson when he was made a Bishop, hee had licence of her Maiestie, who then was, before he would take vpon him to vse his Episcopall iurisdiction in England; as he related himselfe to some yet li­uing, & of credit. And no doubt this was done vpon the same ground (that lawe of Praemunire standing in full force in her time, as being neuer repealed, but rather suffered voluntarily to stand in full force) as may be gathered by an acte primo Ma­riae: yet no Catholike doubteth, but that her Maiestie did ac­knowledge the Popes authoritie in England, as appeareth by her repealing diuers statutes made by her father, to take away the Popes authority in England; Anno 1. & 2. Philip. & Mariae. So that the folly of this fellow is exceeding great in giuing this reason, why the Bishop could not refuse all externall iurisdicti­on offered him from his Holines.

Againe, although Doctor Watson were Bishop of Lincolne, and had vsed his iurisdiction in that Diocesse by the licence or permission of Queene Mary: yet he was neuer Bish. of Ely, in which Dioces these prisoners liued, who offered him that ex­ternall iurisdiction: so that his refusing all externall iurisdicti­on ouer his fellowe prisoners, is no way to be brought within the compasse of denying his Holines Ecclesiastical iurisdiction in England. And if his Episcopal iurisdiction were so inlarged by his Holines, that he might haue vsed it ouer all England, yet might he most iustly haue refrained from the present exercise thereof in that ample maner, hauing neuer had any such li­cense, or assent from his Soueraigne, according to that Statute, which was made 25. Edw. 3. wherein it is enacted, that first the Kings license, to chuse, was to be demanded, and after election, his roy­all assent was to be had. And as he was not to expect, that a Prince [Page 129] of a contrary Religion should legitimate any such authoritie in him, so he was to assure him selfe, that a Prince of a contrary Religion would take hold of that Statute against him: seeing that Princes, who were of the same Religion, did both enact it, and cause it to be most strictly obserued, and yet they neuer de­nyed his Holines Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction in England. And by this it is made most manifest, how Bishop Watson might ac­knowledge his Episcopall iurisdiction from Rome, and yet re­fuse to exercise the same, without deniall of the Popes Ecclesi­asticall iurisdiction in England any more, then for 200. yeeres together al the Catholike Bishops in England did before him.

But I cannot a little marueile, that this authour would com­pare the association (intended in England) with this Archipresby­terie, which is so pontificall or maiesticall, as the Title (which by vertue thereof he vseth) is enough to make such meane men as his fellowes are, not to know which way to looke. For thus he writeth himselfe: George Blackwell by the grace of God, and the ordinance of the Sea Apostolike, Archpriest of England. We will put the case, that the association intended had gone forward: but then how (sayth he) would that haue stood without externall tu­risdiction, seeing that one of these two points they must confesse, that either they would haue asked confirmation thereof from Rome, and consequently it would haue beene an externall iurisdiction as well as this of the Archpr. or else they would haue gouerned absolutely of themselues, without any dependance or approbation of his Holinesse? And this had bene a farre worse inconuenience, to exclude wholly the Sea Apostolicke, for auoiding the statute of Praemunire. Wherefore whither this spirit tendeth, all men doe see. But fewe men yet doe see, whither this spirit tendeth: neither must they so much as aske a question. which may imply a doubt of any thing which this author affirmeth. If the Priests must confesse, that either they must haue asked a confirmation of their association frō Rome, or else haue excluded wholly the Sea Apostolike, what must the eighteene (so often surnamed quiet Priests of Wisbich) confesse, who sought no confirmation of their enforcing and violent agencie or gouernement vnder F. Weston the Iesuit? Must they confesse, that they did wholly exclude the Sea Apostolike? or had they any priuiledge aboue other Priests, to confesse that it was [Page 130] not of any necessitie for them either to seeke a confirmation from the See Apostolike, or to exclude it wholly? Had it not been a suffi­cient acknowledging of the authoritie of the See Apostolike, if they had alwayes beene ready to haue dissolued their associa­tion, vpon notice from his Holines, that he would not haue any such association in England? Is euery dutiful respect, which one man or two will cary voluntarily to a third, to be confirmed by the See Apostolike, or else that See to be thought wholly to be ex­cluded? It is most certaine, that the association intended, was of no other, then such as would voluntarily subiect themselues to a course of life for their owne both spirituall and temporall good, and to do what good they could to all others, although they would not be of that company, as their rules did shewe. Cannot this good fellow make a difference between the sen­ding in of an authoritie, which must imply necessarily an exter­nall iurisdiction, and include the accepters thereof within the Statute of Praemunire (vnlesse the prince had accorded vnto it) and the sending out to haue a liking of a confraternitie of priests, or association, which might haue beene, whether the Pope had liked it or no, vntill he had forbidden it, it hauing no such title of dignitie, as required necessarily any acte of the Pope, or ex­ternall iurisdiction to erect it, or her Maiesties allowance, li­cence, or assent, if shee had bene of the same religion? If there were no other, this title of the Archpriest would make a great difference: George Blackwell by the grace of God, and the ordinance of the See Apostolike, Archpriest of England.

This author hauing pleased himselfe in prouing a contempt (as he weeneth) in the priests concerning this authority, he stil inculcateth, that it was instituted by his Holinesse, and confir­med afterward by an expresse Breue, as though it had bene knowen before the comming of the Breue, that his Holinesse had any part in it, or that any of these forementioned matters had bene first, or formerly vrged by the priests, after that they had full notice of the Popes mind therein, and not rather been only published afterwards, to the end that all might see (who would) what reason the priestes had to forbeare, to subiect themselues vnto the authority, at the sight of the Cardinall Caietans letters. And whereas hee would after shew out of the [Page 131] priests their owne words, how dangerously they doe teach dis­obedience to this authoritie, and to all other, which they mis­like: and in the margent putteth this note: Dangerous and offen­siue doctrine: he doth infinitely discredit himselfe: the doctrine as he hath here deliuered it, being so sound and Catholike, as whosoeuer shall gainesay it, will prooue himselfe an Asse or an heretike. Neither can his malicious descant vpon these words, which he citeth, preuaile in the iudgement of any, who hath iudgement. As for example, that by this doctrine men are taught, to examine euery thing, comming from their Superiors, by their owne iudgements, and to admit, what they please, and leaue the rest: For the discourse, from whence these words are taken, which are here cited, doth plainely shew, that the priests relied vpon the iudgement of many learned men from beyond the Seas. And whereas the priests their wordes are these: that no man is bound in all things to beleeue, or execute what euery man in authori­tie ouer him shall put vpon him: he peruerteth this sentence, and telleth his reader, that the priests doe teach that euery thing must be examined: which the priests neuer affirmed: or that which plea­sed them should be admitted. And in this matter of schisme, which was not euery thing, but one speciall thing, and of great impor­tance, they relied vpon the censure of Paris as all men do know, which cleared them from it, and also from sinne: from which also his Holinesse hath now declared that they were free, not­withstanding that M. Blackwell was an Archpriest, & a Superior, and stood most peremptorily in that error: And by his being in authoritie, countenanced such his forward adherents, as by their audaciousnes in this present controuersie haue giuen ear­nest, that they will be most ready, if occasion be offered, to raise a most dangerous faction against the Clergie, without all re­spect of duety, or correspondence in good desert toward them. And to the question mooued here in the Apologie, what other way did heresie take at the beginning against Ecclesiasticall gouer­nours, or what other gate did some vnquiet and disobedient Catho­likes in those dayes open to heresie: who being offended with their su­periours, taught, that their subiects in conscience might dissent from them, and disobey them in diuers cases? I answere that heresie ne­uer found her way into the world by trueth, or Catholike do­ctrine, [Page 132] (as that is which is cited here in the Apologie, out of the priests bookes, and most ignorantly (to censure it no worse) oppugned by this author) but by falshood, after that the peo­ple were caried away with an opinion, that this or that man could not erre, and that all must be true, which this or that man sayd. And perchance the fowlest blocke, at which many here­tikes at this day doe stumble, is a supposed doctrine, which (vn­till this Apologie came forth) was neuer fauoured by any Ca­tholike, and that is: that there are some, who in respect that they are in such place of authority, cannot erre in any thing; which being so apparantly absurd, as all Catholike histories may conuince the contrary, some that heare it, doe resolue themselues, that all the rest is naught. Neither is the excepti­on iust, which is here taken against the priests: to wit, that they did teach this doctrine in generall without any particulars, although they might haue done it, without offence to any (but to such as hope by their egregious flatterly & sycophancie to preuaile in that, after which they haue long gaped) for the priests deliue­red this doctrine vpon occasion of the controuersie of schisme, and proued by this doctrine, that the credit of the Archpriest, as Archpr. was not sufficient to conuince, that it was schisme: and added in most plaine and particular tearmes, as much as was needfull for this place, for the credit of the chiefe pastour in these words: And who vpon earth is warranted from erring, but one? To which, to take away the scandall, which vpon some speaches of such sycophants, as this author is, hath growen in Christendome among the simpler sort of people, these words are most Catholikely and truely added, and not he in all things.

The exceptions which afterward are taken for vnkindnesse towards the Cardinal Caietane, are very foolish: and those that are for irreuerence are as false; the priests hauing always shewed asmuch reuerence, as the Cardinall did deserue, or they could doe: sauing their duety to the Cardinals superiour and theirs, and the libertie which the Clergie hath in all places of Chri­stend [...]e, and yet deserue not the name of libertines, as this godly author out his great charitie, and assistance of the spirit, which guideth him, termeth them in this place, vpon occasion of some wordes which he saieth are vnder the handes of sixe [Page 133] prisoners of Wisbich, and were to bee shewed to his Holinesse, to wit: citò indignabitur libertas, si prematur: that is to say, oppressed libertie will not long beare it. For after that hee hath shewed that the priests dealt vnkindly with the Cardinall Pro­tectour, who now hee sayth is gone to God (and perchance had left a greater hope of possibilitie, of some peace in our af­flicted Church, if he had taken some of these godly with him) he would perswade his Reader, that the priests doe not spare the Pope himselfe, & for proofe he citeth one place, where they speake of their boldnes, in repelling iniuries, as though this did any way concerne the Pope, and that other place before cited, which he saith should haue bene shewed vnto him: and then he falleth from this to proue a haughtinesse in the priests, in that they would not suffer themselues to be accounted al the world ouer for schismatikes. Other sentences also are cited out of their bookes, where they indeuour to prooue, how conuenient it had beene, that they had had the choyce of their Superiour, according to the decrees not onely of Popes, but also of the Em­perours: at which this Authour glaunceth, and vseth these wordes: as though this were more: as though this were not more, although the one be of a higher order then the other: as when we say, that such a thing is of force by lawe diuine and humane, when no man is so absurd, as not to thinke that the law diuine doth farre excell mans law. But for our purpose, and to prooue, that it was alwayes more to haue a libertie by the temporall Prince his lawe, ouer and aboue the libertie which the Clergie had by the decrees of holy Church: see I pray you, howe this was thought on, when it was graunted by a Parliament, 47 Edw. 3. that the Cathedrall Churches should enioy their elections, and that from thencefoorth the King should not write against the elected, but should by his letters helpe to­ward their confirmation. But (sayth Iohn Stowe) this statute tooke small effect. By which it is euident, that the Clergie did finde, that it was more to haue the decrees of the Pope and King, then the decrees of the Pope alone. But if this fellow will say, that two are not more then one, his Reader must take it for an Oracle, and by vertue of blinde obedience beleeue it vn­doubtedly.

In the next point, this author iuggleth vp two matters toge­ther: the one that the Priests doe call into suspition of forgery the Popes Breue it selfe: the other is, that they draw his Hol. pious mea­ning into matter of State. For proofe of the first he citeth these words out of the English booke: that it was procured God know­eth out of what office: which words cannot by any, but an euill disposition be brought to an accusation of forgerie: The most that can be made of it is, that Fa Parsons might be suspected to haue procured it, where hee might haue his will perchance more then was conuenient; and yet the Breue not forged. For as Rebuffus in praxi beneficiorum, de breui Apostolico numero 16. doeth note: an Apostolicall Breue, solet concedi & à Papa, & à Cancellaria, ac à summo paenitentiario, & horum quodlibes dici­tur Apostolicum, & sic Breuia dicuntur literae Apostolicae. It vseth to be granted by the Pope, and by the Chancery, and by the high peni­tentiary, and euery one is called Apostolicall, and so the Breues are said to be Apostolicall letters.

Hauing then thus shewed that Breues may come from diuers Courts, and yet be true Breues, we haue also shewed, that the Priests are here falsly accused, where they are said to bring the Breue in suspiciō of forgery, by making a doubt, out of what court it was procured. But to giue further satisfaction to the curi­ous. The cause why a doubt was made of F. Parsons his cariage in this matter, is (as we haue set it down in the booke dedicated to the holy Office pag. 59) for that the Breue affirmed that M. George Blackwell was appointed by the Cardinals letters of the 7. of March 1598 Archp. of the English Catholicks, for the better vnion of the Catholicks of the kingdomes of England and Scotland; whereas in these the Cardinals letters he is not made archpriest of the English Catholicks, but onely of Priests, and not of all the priests, but onely of the Priests of the Seminaries. And we did more easily giue consent to thinke, that Fa. Parsons had busied himselfe more then became him, because his Holines, as no doubt he is carefull, that no errors or shew of errors should be in the Breues, so he hath no custome to looke vpon them, but only giueth his consent that they be made. Which consent although some­times the chiefe of that office doeth take in presence: yet some­time he giueth credit to those, who say, that they haue his Ho­lines [Page 135] consent thereto. And although he, who is chiefe in that office, must giue also his consent or warrant for the making of the Breue: yet he taketh all his information of him who asketh for it, and seeth not the Breue, but onely a small abstract there­of, and leaueth it to other inferior officers to draw it as it must be, seale it, and deliuer it to them, who are the procurers there­of. All which is expressed by Zecchius in his booke de republica Ecclesiastica tract. de prelatis Cap. 9. Breuium vero officio praeposi­tus est vnus Cardinalis iurisperitus, qui habito viuae vocis oraculo Papae perseipsum, vel alium facto, absque alia Papae signatura, omissa etiam porrectione supplicatoris, sed sola Breuium minuta ab Ab­breuiatore recepta, videt formam Breuis, addit & minuit pro eius arbitrio, & reuisam, minutam, & subscriptam ab ipso, solicitatoribus restituit, quae postea apud expeditores fidem facit, & inde litterae in forma Breuis in tenuiori pergamena scribuntur, & scriptae sub annulo Piscatoris dominico sub cera expediuntur apud Secretarios domesti­cos, & corum scriptores fere semper, & expeditae, expectantibus, ac­cepta earum taxa pro rei natura, & scripturae mercede restituuntur. There is a Cardinall skilfull in the Lawe (saith Zecchius) who is ap­pointed ouer the office of the Breues, who hauing leaue immediatly from the Popes owne mouth, or by the relation of some other, without any other warrant from him, and without the supplication, but onely hauing a small abbreuiation of the Breues, vieweth the forme of the Breue, addeth or diminisheth thereof, as it shall please him, and when he hath viewed his small abbreuiation of the Breue and set his hand vnto it, be deliuereth it backe to those, who presented it vnto him, and so it is carried as warranted, to those to whom it belongeth to make the Breues. Hereupon are letters framed in forme of a Breue, and writ­ten in thinne parchment, and being written, they are sealed with waxe vnder the Popes scale called annulus Piscatoris, by the dome­sticall Secretaries, and their writers almost alwayes; and being di­spatched, they are giuen backe to those who wait for them, paying the dueties according to the nature of the matter, and the hire or reward for the writing.

Let vs now lay these matters together: first how that Breues be made, and his Hol. neuer readeth them, nor yet the Cardi­nall who is president or chiefe in the office, after that he hath giuen his warrant for the drawing of the Breue, according to [Page 136] that which was shewed to him by the abbreuiator, nor know­eth ought of the matter, but what the procurer thereof sugge­steth. Secondly F. Parsons industry to further the plots, which he hath layd. Thirdly the credit which he hath in Rome, by reason of the Spanish faction, which he hath many yeres blin­ded in such sort, with putting so great an Iland as England, or Ireland, or both in their eyes, as they cannot see how vainely they wast themselues vpon the foolish promises of so meane a man. Fourthly the fault which seemeth to be very great in the Breue, where it referreth vs for proofe of a matter to a letter, which doth not conteine that which the Breue saieth it doth. Fiftly that it may come from diuers offices, and no man can with reason blame the priests if they haue some doubt of the maner of procuring this Breue, and also affirme thus much, God knoweth out of what office it was procured: Not accusing it not­withstanding of forgerie, as this authour most iniuriously, and falsly taxeth them.

Concerning the other accusation, that the Priests doe seeke to drawe his Holinesse pious meaning into matters of State: I answere, that his Holinesse pious meaning was not knowen, or that he had any part in the institution of this authoritie, vntill his Breue came. And if since this time, by the Iesuites meanes, or any o­thers, his Holinesse hath by any acte in Ireland or otherwise, giuen the Councell cause to thinke that hee dealeth in State matters, the priests in England are not to be charged with that which may thereupon fall out. And it is said that it hath bene confessed by some, who are in hold now in England, that such a conceite was currant in Spaine, that this Archipresbyterie was made for the furtherance of some State plots against our Countrey, which at that time perchance was concealed from his Holinesse, and a fayrer tale told him of pietie, to winne him to institute it at their instance: who hoping to get therby, what they desired, would in time bring the Church gouernement into a company of blind-deuout-obedient children vnder some elder, or some Agent, which had beene to take away all Ecclesiasticall Hierarchie, and ancient approued gouernment in our Church. But as it hath bene often sayd, and is confessed in this Apologie, the Breue came not in a yeere after the institution of this au­thoritie. [Page 137] And therefore these are very malicious accusations, and constructions of the priests their words, which were writ­ten or spoken, when they knew no other, then that all procee­ded from the Cardinall Caietane at the instance of the Iesuites, whose troublesome and seditious State-humors were too well knowen in England, and gaue too much cause to say more then euer the priests as yet haue said in this kind.

But now to make an end of this second chapter, this author citeth an other proposition out of the English booke, that is: that confirmation is either most necessary in time of persecution, or altogether vaine, and as a superfluous ceremony in Gods Church. Vp­on which assertion thus he runneth: which is a very temerarious and scandalous speech, not to censure it any further, but to leaue it to whom it belongeth. But yet he will haue a blow or two at the legges of it at the least. Let vs see his play, for that the wordes vaine and superfluous ceremony, are contemptuous phrases of the heretikes. In good time good sir: and you by this haue giuen vs some light, how it could be possible, that you should goe so farre out of the way as you doe, not only here, but euery where in this Apologie. You haue read, as we take it, that saying of Elias, Siautem Baal, sequimini illum. If Baal be God, follow him. Those latter words doe best serue your turne, the whole proposition is too heauie for you. Can you find in any of the priests books, where they say, that the sacrament of confirmation is a vaine and superfluous ceremony? If you can, then cite the place, and you shall haue humble thankes for your paynes, and shall thereby also put the priests in mind of such their temerarious, and scanda­lous propositions. If you cannot (as we are most sure that you cannot) then must you not be offended, if we thinke that you set vp your rest vpon Sequimini illum, the following of Baal, and that your company will suite better with beasts, then with men, vpon whose last words, none but such senselesse ecchoes doe take aduantage. His Reader being preiudicially possessed by a cō ­ment vpon the last words, he imboldneth himselfe to say some­what of the whole sentence, to wit: Neither doth it follow, that albeit his Holinesse and predecessours hitherto, haue not thought the vse of this Sacrament necessary in England, during the time of our persecution (as indeede to no man in any time is it absolutely necessa­rie [Page 138] to saluation) therfore good Catholikes should esteeme it for a vaine and superfluous ceremony. Note I pray you, the pretie sleights which he vseth. The priests did say, that this Sacrament was ei­ther most necessary in time of persecution, or els a vaine ceremonie. And he telleth vs, that albeit his Holinesse hath not thought it necessary in England, during the time of our persecution, as though his Holinesse could not thinke, that this Sacrament of confir­mation was most necessarie in the time of persecution, and yet not iudge it necessary here, and now in our persecution by rea­son of such misinformations, as might be giuen him: as if for example, any should say vnto the Pope, as Fa Parsons saide to M. Charnocke at Rome, Why can they not now do aswell with­out it as heretofore? Or some other perchance might put into the Popes head, that which some Iesuites put into some of the Catholikes heads in England: it cannot last long now, the next yeere we shall haue Masse openly in Paules: or as a Iesuite hauing once promised a gentleman, in recompence of an iniurie done vnto him, to get him a dispensation to marry his kinswoman: and being sued vnto to remember his promise, answered, that he vnderstood that the Card. Allen was now vpon his cōming into England, and would be here shortly, and dispatch by him selfe this, and many other such cases. Vpon how many motiues may a thing, from one small time to an other, bee deferred, which notwithstanding might bee thought necessary? Can any Catholike thinke, that amongst all Countries christened, onely England must be depriued of the benefite of this Sacra­ment, and that the Sacrament, which is as properly instituted to strengthen Christians in persecution, as Baptisme is to make Chri­stians, must not be granted to the English, as their case standeth? For what els can these his words imply: albeit his Holinesse, and predecessors hitherto haue not thought the vse of this Sacrament ne­cessarie in England, during the time of our persecution? Belike then it is necessary in time of persecution: but we in England must not haue it. Hath he not well holpen the matter? and as for that foolish parenthesis (as in deede to no man in any time it is ab­solutely necessary to saluatiō) to what end is it here brought? who hath euer said that it is at any time absolutely necessary to saluati­on? Baptisme by water is not absolutely necessary to saluation, as [Page 139] some Martyrs haue prooued, and yet our Sauiour saith, Iohn. 3. Vnlesse a man be borne againe by water, and the holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdome of God. The like phrase of speech, implying necessitie, is vsed by our Sauior concerning the receiuing of the Sacrament of his bodie: and yet no man doth say, Iohn 6. that it is ab­solutely necessary to saluation. This question was not, whether the Sacrament of confirmation was absolutely necessary to salua­tion: for this must haue set a stint vpon the power of God: but the question was, whether that confirmation were necessary in time of persecution in Spaine (if you will) when God shall suffer it, or in Italy, if in England and in the English persecution it be not thought necessary. And if it can be prooued, that at the least somewhere this Sacrament is necessarie in the time of per­secution, the proposition, which the priestes did make, is nei­ther scandalous, nor temerarious, nor false doctrine: it being eui­dent to all men of sense, that the one part of a disiunctiue pro­position being true, the whole proposition is true. As for ex­ample, if a man say of a Swanne, this Swanne is either white or blacke: His proposition is so true, as no man of any sense can deny it: although it were a most ridiculous assertion to say, that the Swan were blacke. If then we can proue, that confirmation is most necessarie in time of persecution, he would be prooued to haue bene ouer hastie, who snatched so greedily at this propo­sition: It is either most necessary in time of persecution, or a vaine and superfluous ceremony in Gods Church.

  • The necessity thereof in time of persecution is thus proued.
  • That by which onely a speciall grace is giuen, to strengthen a Christian against the assaults of the persecutor, is most necessary in time of persecution.
  • The Sacrament of Confirmation, is that, by which onely a speciall grace is giuen, to strengthen a Christian against the assaults of the persecutor.

Therefore,

  • The Sacrament of Confirmation, is most necessary in time of persecution.

The first proposition is euident by light of nature. The se­cond proposition is so generally receiued of all Catholike Di­uines, as they doe anathematize whosoeuer denyeth it, and it is [Page 140] made plaine by induction: For in Baptisme wee receiue grace for remission of originall sinne, and all other, if we haue any at the receiuing of that Sacrament: but we doe not receiue any speciall grace to resist the persecutor: and so likewise doe wee receiue grace to such, and such particular end, by all the other Sacraments. But the grace by which wee are strengthened to combat with the persecutor, is only giuen, & vnder this name, by the Sacrament of Confirmation. And for this cause doeth Pope Vrbane, as he is cited de Consecra. dist. 5. cap. 1. affirme, that all Christians must be confirmed: and in the same place Melchia­des the Pope is cited, who affirmeth, that the helpes, which wee haue by Confirmatiō, are necessary for those who liue: for in his time all Christians liued in persecution. Hosius citeth this Epistle of Melchiades more at large in his booke entituled Confessio Catho­licae fidei Christianae, cap. 38. where the Pope compareth the Sa­crament of Baptisme, to the admission into a warrefare; and the Sacrament of Confirmation, to the furniture for the battaile. And to shew further how necessary this Sacrament is in time of persecution, he applyeth to it that saying, Nisi Dominus cu­stodierit ciuitatem &c. vnlesse the Lord keepe the citie, he watcheth in vaine who keepeth it. And afterwards to this doubt, what did the comming of the holy Ghost profit the Apostles, after the passion and resurrection of Christ? He maketh this answer, that thereby they were made able to that, to which they were not before: for that before the comming of the holy Ghost, the Apostles for very feare denyed Christ: but after that the holy Ghost was come vnto them, they were armed to suffer martyrdome. And to conclude, this Pope telleth vs, that by this sacrament we obtaine, amongst other gifts, that gift of vnderstanding, of which it is said. Intellectum tibidabo, &c. I wil giue thee vnderstanding, and instruct thee in this way in which thou goest. The same Hosius in the same Chapter citeth S. Cle­ment, who succeeded S. Peter; and Cornelius, who attributeth the fall of Nouatus the heretike, to the want of this Sacrament of Confirmation: for Nouatus falling dangerously sicke, after that he was dispossessed, was baptized, but not confirmed, as he ought to haue bene, according to the rule of the Church. This Epistle is in the 6. booke of Eusebius his Ecclesiasticall historie. cap. 43. By these and other the like doth Hosius prooue, that baptisme is [Page 141] for those that come in; confirmation, for those who fight. King Henry the 8. in his book against Martin Luther, hauing discour­sed vpon this Sacrament, citeth those wordes out of Hugo de S. Victore. Illic gratia tribuitur adremissionem peccatorum, hîc gratia datur ad confirmationem: Quid autem prodest si à lapsu erigeris, nisi ad standum confirmeris? That is, There (that is, by baptisme) is grace giuen for the remission of sinnes: here (that is, by confirma­tion) is grace giuen for strengthening: For what profiteth it you to be raised after a fall, if you are not confirmed or made strong to stand? And a little after sayth the King: Ad hoc enim ordinatur: It is ordained to this end, that a man may boldly confesse his faith before the persecutor. And to make here an end of this discourse, Pope Leo the 10 gaue vnto the King for this booke, this Title, Defen­der of the faith. And if there were no other proofe of the neces­sitie of this Sacrament in time of persecution, that which is here cited out of Hugo, and so highly commended by Pope Leo, were sufficient for a farre better man then the fault-finding Apologie-maker: and to conuince him, that the proposition which the priests vsed, was neither words of great excesse, nor contained false doctrine, nor was reprochfull to his Holinesse, or his predecessors: who could not but know, that confirmation was most necessarie in time of persecution, howsoeuer they were perswaded by some our backe-friends, that it was not necessarie in Eng­land, during the time of our persecution. And thus much in answere to the second Chapter of the Apologie, wherein the au­thor doth sufficiently discouer by his proud and peremptorie iudgements, whither his spirit tendeth: and that his hope to preuaile with his reader, is founded more vpon contumelious words and false imaginations, then vpon sound discourses.

CHAP. 8. How this Authour layeth his plot for the disgrace of Secular Priests, and draweth on his reader with diuers idle stayes. Apol. cap. 3.

IN the third Chapter this Authour intendeth, first, to shew the great iniuries and ingratitude of­fered to the whole body of the society: secondly, how pleasing and profitable this is to heretikes: thirdly, how preiudiciall and dishonourable to all our Catho­like nation and cause: three very materiall points, were they per­formed. The priests doe shew all these things most plainely a­gainst the Iesuits and their adherents in this action. For where­as the Priests did raise a very reuerend opinion of the Iesuits in the hearts of the English (as Fa. Campion in his letters to his generall, confesseth) and such, as without feare hee could not recount it, the Iesuits being by these meanes wrought into credite, wrought the priests out so far, as in many places no priest was welcome, who came not by order of a Iesuite: and hauing gotten an ad­uantage (as they thought) of the Priests, followed it to the priests great disquiet, although in the end it will turne to their owne vtter discredite, as already it beginneth, and their best friends doe see it, and wish too late, that their treatise of Schisme against the Priests had neuer bene written. The commending of which treatise by their fellow Iesuits, or the not punishing of so famous a libeller, hath iustly drawen on a hard conceit of the whole body, especially the superiour of the society, who in conscience should haue corrected so foule a fault, and chiefe root, from whence doeth spring the present disquietnesse in England among the Catholikes, and a very profitable pleasure to the Protestants, who cannot but laugh at this sinnefull folly of the Iesuits, while by libels they would possesse al Catholikes, that the priests, who reconciled them to the vnion of Gods Church, were now themselues become Schismatikes, the most preiudiciall and dishonourable calumniation, that euer was raised against our Catholikes, and the Catholike faith.

And for the further vexation of the priests, this author pro­ceedeth in this third Chapter, to bring them into the highest degree of contempt and hatred: he endeuoureth to bring them into contempt, by telling his reader, that they went ouer-Sea some of them poore seruing-men, other souldiers, other wanderers in the world; good stuffe to make priests of, whom Catholiks are to reuerence, and at whose feet Princes are to kneele. And although our Sauiour made his choice of his Apostles out of the meaner sort of men, to giue vs to vnderstand that it was their function which was honourable in them, yet these words in this place might for diuers respects haue bene spared. First, for that if any such be among them, it is litle for the Iesuits cre­dit, who procure them to take orders. Secondly, because these who are named to haue bene the authors of the bookes, against which this Apologie is written, and seeme by this discourse to be here girded at, haue some of them left more, to betake them­selues to that calling, in which they are, then all our English Ie­suits haue done: others are so abundantly prouided for out of their owne patrimonies, as they do maintaine diuers others of their friends: Others (if al their worshipful friends should haue failed them) were so well placed in the Vniuersities of Eng­gland, as they needed not to haue come to any such bare estate as to become poore seruing men, souldiers, or wanderers: And he, who was worst of them all prouided for, was a scholler of good fame, and so might haue liued in such sort, as he neither needed to serue in this maner, or to wander in a strange country. Third­ly, the author of this Apologie (if he be not mistaken) had he not helped himselfe with his pupils money, with which he was put in trust for his pupils vse, might haue bene a poore seruing man in some strange countrey, or a souldier, or a wanderer, not hauing any honest place of abode in England. For being expulsed with infamie out of his Colledge at Oxeford, and thereby made destitute where to become in England, resolued to trauaile and to study Phisicke in Padua, where in a short time his money failing him, which his pupils lent him against their wils, want wrought such a deuotion in him, as he was contented to be be­holding to the Iesuits in such sort, as here in generall termes he affirmeth of the priests. Fourthly, if the remembrance of sir [Page 144] William Stanley, and of other good souldiers, and zealous men for the Iesuits, could not haue obteined of this author, not to haue spoken so contemptuously of souldiers, and to discredit some of his closest adherents; yet the remembrance of F. Igna­tius Loiola, the founder of the Iesuits, should haue made him beare a greater reuerence to the name of a souldier. But per­chance he meaneth to keepe himselfe well ynough out of his sight, and we feare it greatly, that F. Ignatius wil haue litle ioy to looke vpon him, vnlesse hee fall to repentance of these his bad dealings.

And whereas he affirmeth, that probably some of those which he calleth heads of the faction, had neuer bene men of learning, or accompt, or able to write bookes, if the Iesuits had not bene: It is well knowen, that some of those whom he by-nameth were neuer the better by the Iesuits: some so little, as little might be: and al of them might haue bin probably men of more learning, & ac­compt, & better able to write books, if they had neuer knowen the Iesuits, then now they are: hauing had more hinderance by them, then furtherance, while vnder colour of prudent and necessay mortification, those who would not listen to the spirit which called them to be Iesuits, were enforced to spend their time with lesse quietnesse, and consequently with lesse profit, then otherwise they might. Neither is it here needfull to stand vpon the Catholiks their blushing, to aske helpe now of the Ie­suits: for their helps are, as they haue bene a long time (as wee feare) vpon such conditions, as all honest men must blush, if they doe aske them, and those, who are as ready to further the Iesuits plots; as themselues (a notable abuse of the Catholike King his charitie to poore Catholicks) are neither driuen to aske help, nor to blush, when they take it: although their helpe is so prudently offered, as few do surfeit vpon it.

Hauing thus laied his plot to bring the priests into contempt, now he imploieth himselfe to bring them into hatred with the Catholicks, by affirming, that they conspire with the very enemy against their owne. which is most false: For if matters of Religi­on be in question, the priests are ready to ioyne rather with the lewdest Catholicke in the world, then with the Protestant: al­though when matters of trecherie against their Prince and [Page 145] countrey be handled, they are as ready to defie the plotters thereof, were they the most zealous Catholicks in the world. Sure we are, that this author cannot iustly challeng vs, that we haue swarued one iot from the Catholicke faith: and his accu­sation must needs sound euill in the eares of vpright Iudges, when he saith we conspire against our owne. I wish also that it were not too sure, that the Iesuits & their adherents haue thrust themselues into conspiracies against their owne, if either their Prince and their countrey, or Catholicke priests be their owne. For it is so palpable as euery man may feele it, how they haue thrust in not onely their aduise, but their persons in actions a­gainst their Prince and countrey, & against Catholicke priests. What greater conspiracie could haue bene made, then hath bene by their slanderous tongues, and infamatory libels of schisme, dispersed against them? whereby they haue declared, that they haue giuen hands to all sorts of enemies, aswel ghost­ly, as visible, against their owne, in which their vnion the priests haue no reason to ioyne themselues.

Now do follow certaine exceptions against some marginall notes made in the book dedicated to his Holines. For example in the 23 page, there is this note in the margent, Iesuitae quaesua sunt quaerunt, which this author Englisheth thus, Iesuits seek their owne, and not those things which are of Iesus Christ, which is more, then is in the Latin, or perchance more then was meant by that Latine, or could be honestly gathered, the priests not citing the place of Scripture to which this author alludeth. And vpon his owne addition hee discourseth somewhat in the ende of this Chapter, & concludeth, that they haue sought those things which are of Iesus Christ. The error then was, that the priests put this word sua, where they should haue put Iesu Christi & haue made the note more true in this maner: the Iesuits seeke those things, which are of Iesus Christ: for belike the Iesuits haue no list to bu­sie themselues, where nothing is to be had, which they must doe if they seeke sua, their owne. They doe rather seeke, where there are some great summes of money to be bestowed vpon the poore Catholicks & priests, who are in want: which almes are Iesu Christi, belonging to Iesus Christ; and the note had stood ve­ry well to this sence, Iesuitae quae Iesu Christi sunt quaerunt. The [Page 146] Iesuits doe seeke those things which are Iesu Christs. The other notes this fellow calleth them trifles, & he might very well haue left them, as many other: For he doeth but stirre vp a desire in the Reader to looke vpō the booke, whence these notes were taken: where he shall finde matter ynough, to make more displeasing notes, then these are which are here picked out. Yet that note, concerning the Seminaries, must in no case bee omitted, al­though it hath bene often answered, that they are more to the benefit of the Iesuits, then to England; hauing therein such, as they vse, or abuse rather, for the furthering of their present state-plots, & a good assurance, that the Colledges in Spaine are to fal to their share hereafter. The lamentable state, into which the colledge of Rome is brought, wil be declared at large in a trea­tise therof: The college of Doway is brought into these termes, vnder pretence of pouertie, as no man is to be admitted there­unto, of whō there is not great hope, that he will become of the Iesuits faction. The Cardinal Protector willed perchance, that there should be a stint vntil the debts were payd: & this is vsed for a colour, to admit, or reiect, whom the Iesuits list. If one be presented thither, whom the Iesuits like not, then the colledge debts are to be paid: if it be one, who is likely to be factious for them, the Colledge hath credit for his admittance. And if he be one whose friends wil maintein him, then he shal go to S. O­mers after some circumstances, where the Iesuits wil haue care for the pious distribution of that which he hath: and nothing is ought worth, which hath not some great prouidence, or pie­tie at one end thereof.

To conclude, In this chapter the author doeth litle other then weary his reader, with those idle matters, which he hath before brought, to proue emulation and faction in all places, and actions, where Iesuits haue had any thing to doe: and to the ostentation of the Iesuits actions, he addeth some litle of the zeale of the priests, which would proue, that the good priests dwelt farre from good neighbours, if I thinke fol. 21, and such like slips, did not discharge the vnited Priests from all the suspi­tion of writing this Apologie, as by the title he would that the Reader should beleeue,

CHAP. 9. How this Author pursueth his impertinent discourses of trou­bles among the English in Flaunders, Fraunce, Italy, and Spaine. Apol. cap. 4.

IN the fourth Chapter of this Apologie, the Au­thor intendeth to shew how greatly the Card. Allen, and others of our nation are iniuried, by being said to haue bene against the Iesuits, and what iniurie is also offered to the Cardinals Borromaeo and Toledo, and his Holines himselfe. And for his ex­ordium, hee declareth how all sorts doe seeke companie, to ap­prooue and authorize their actions. Belike it was not forgot­ten as yet, how the Iesuits haue canuased, not onely in Flaun­ders amonst the souldiers, religious women, and artificers, for voi­ces in commendation of themselues, but also here in England: hoping that the number of such as can be gotten by bribes, flat­tery, or threats, may in time ouerpease the trueth of the cause now in controuersie. The first proofe which is here brought to declare the Card. Allen his loue and affection to the Iesuites, is out of his letter written to M. Mush: of which wee haue dis­coursed before, and shewed how little it can make for the Ie­suits. All the other also here cited make as little to the pur­pose, this present controuersie being long after the Cardinals death: to wit, whether the priests (who would not be blinde obedient vpon the sight of Card. Caietane his letters for the in­stitution of the Archpriest) were schismatikes, factious, seditious, rebellious, fallen from Christ and his spouse, excommunicated, irregu­lar, witches and Idolaters, and as Ethnicks, and Publicans? In which controuersie, if any of those stand with vs, who shewed them­selues contrary to the Cardinals proceedings, while he was se­duced by the Iesuits, and brought into dishonourable actions against his Prince, countrey, and friends, what reason haue we to reiect their helpe? And if they had bene as bad as heretikes in those actions, why should we be charged as partners in that action, more then any Catholike prince may be charged to be [Page 148] a fauourer of heretikes or miscreants, who should haue any such ioyned with him in his armie, either for loue or money, when hee fighteth against some other Catholike prince, vpon iniuries offered by the one to the other. Those Noble men, Gentlemen, and others whilest they liued, were ready to giue account of their actions in those times, and some will yet per­chance vpon this occasion, say somewhat therin: and the Car­dinall might shewe himselfe very contrary vnto them in those actions, and yet be very fauourable to the students in Rome, towards the latter end of his life, when time let him see those things in the Iesuits proceedings, which either affection would not let him see before, or little hope to amend them, made him dissemble, which perchance he did the rather, because by the Iesuits meanes with the King of Spaine, hee came to that pre­ferrement which he held, and could not so suddenly goe about to reforme, what he saw amisse in their gouernment of the En­glish Colledge, and their generall cariage in English affaires.

The feares and doubts which F. Parsons shewed in his letter to M. Tho. Fitzherbert doe discouer, that D. Stapleton dissem­bled with them, as may be gathered by the bolde carriage of such, as stand with them and their impatient violence, which leaueth no doubt to any how they are caried: and this doctor hauing bene once of their societie, and going out from them, might iustly feare that it would haue beene laid wholly in his dish, if he had declared his mind in any publicke sort, as he did often priuatly to such, as he thought he might complaine vn­to, without harme to himselfe. He was also a man of that marke and merit aboue all the rest of our nation, as it was expected he should haue come to some great preferrement, which hee was sure that his manifesting himselfe would haue hindered. And this was also an occasion of Do. Barrets dissembling, of whose minde there are many witnesses in England: and of his lamen­tations, for his opposing himselfe against such, as he confessed were the onely men with whome hee durst deale confidently. And although it pleaseth this deuout spirit, to taxe such, as he sayth are of the faction, that they are a fewe of the meaner sort of our nation, and that they carry their knowen notes of discredit with them, if they be examined: he who shall examine it shall find the [Page 149] cleane contrary both in England and out of England: and that the Iesuits faction is held vp by such only, as seeing the liberty which the Iesuits & their adherents do vse against the priests, or hoping of some reward by them, do feare to displease them. Which folly, were it once remooued, the Iesuits and their ad­herents would appeare to be sicut caeteri homines: as other men are: (notwithstanding this pharisaicall cōtempt of the priests) and perchance much worse, euen to the equalling of the au­thor of this Apologie, who carieth his openly knowen notes of discredit, for the which he was expulsed the Vniuersitie of Ox­ford, and are not yet displayed as they may be hereafter, as oc­casion may be giuen; but are as much laughed at in priuate by some, as his counterfeit holinesse is admired by other.

The iniurie which the priests are sayde to haue done to the Card. Borromaeo, Archb. of Millan, consisteth in their affirma­tion, that he tooke the gouernement of one of his Seminaries in Mil­lan from the Fathers. This might be an iniury to the Fathers, if the Card. did it without iust cause: but being done, the case is to be discussed whether it were iust or no. And the Cardinall being knowen to be a most deuout Bishop, and not likely to haue bene caried away with any foolish passion in a matter of so great moment, the priests haue layd the blame vpon the Ie­suits their misgouernement. And further they say wherein, to wit, because the Seminarie instituted by that deuout Bishop, for the maintenance of able persons for the Church vnder his charge, the Iesuits tooke their pleasure, and choyse of such as they thought would be some credit vnto their own order, and thereby indeuoured to furnish themselues rather then the Church, for which the Seminarie was instituted. And they who gaue this cause of the Iesuites their remooue, were well acquainted therewith, and with those Iesuites, which were thus allured from that state of life, for which they had mainte­nance of the Cardinall. But let vs see how this author shuffeth off this matter. The Fathers of their owne will, and vpon their owne earnest suite, left the said gouernment for the great labour and trouble thereof. Good charitable people, who challenge vnto them a particular vocation to bring vp youth, and labour it in all places where they come, as the best policie they can de­uise [Page 150] to binde men vnto them, without respecting how them­selues are maintained for that purpose in the Countrey, or the College, as many other would, and do in Vniuersities much better cheape, where any Lecture is founded for all commers vnto it. The second shift which is here vsed, is farre worse, although in an other kind: for thereby they draw the Cardinal or themselues into discredit. Forsooth the matter was, the Car­dinall would haue had those his schollers more bare in their dyet and apparell, then the Fathers order in their Seminaries did permit, see­ing they were to be sent afterwards abroad to poore benefices among countrey people, where they must fare hardly. If the Cardinall did allow sufficient for them, then had the Iesuites no cause to giue it ouer, vnlesse perchance they could not content themselues with that which was sufficient. If the Cardinall did not allow that which was sufficient, then was he not of that wisedome, of which he was reputed to be, neither could any benefice in all his Diocesse be so beggerly, as that it would not maintaine the Pastour in such diet, as is ordinarily vsed in the Iesuites Se­minaries: neither could the Cardinall be so ignorant, but he knew he might, nor so carelesse of the credit of a pastour, but that he would vnite two benefices in one, where one could not suffice to maintaine the pastour, at the least after so meane a rate, as we doe conceiue in is kept in diet and apparell in the Iesuites Seminaries. And this dislike in the Cardinall, of the Iesuits gouernement of his Seminarie, might stand with an opinion, that many of them were good men, and to bee vsed otherwise. As also the Cardinall Tollet might conceiue of them how euill soeuer some of them behaued themselues in the go­uernement of the English College at Rome. Lastly, where­as the priests are here challenged to haue done iniurie to his Holinesse, for that his exhortation to the Iesuites in their ge­nerall congregation is remembred by them, is a very foolish conceite of this author, as also that he would haue vs to thinke, that his Holinesse did exhort the Capuchines to lay downe their pompe, who are generally knowen to vse none. But as this authour said at the beginning of this chapter, All sorts seeke companie, and of all other, the Iesuites loue the Capuchines, be­cause they desire nothing.

CHAP. 10. How the stirres in the English Colledge at Rome began, the cause wherof this Apologie-maker doth seeke to colour, and to lay it where it should seeme it was not. Apo. cap. 5.

IN the fifth chapter this Author treateth of the great troubles which were raised in the En­glish Colledge at Rome, after the Card. Allen his death, and challengeth the priests of impru­dencie, for bringing them in now againe, and defending them in their bookes. And forsomuch as this chap­ter doth wholly consist of this point, here is little to bee sayd thereof, the story being particularly set downe by such, as to whom these things doe principally appertaine: only these few matters are to be noted, that whereas this Author would make shew, that the Iesuites were drawen into the gouernement of that Colledge; there are priests yet liuing, who will iustifie, that they were sollicited by the Iesuits to take them for gouer­nours: which how willingly soeuer, and sincerely the Students then performed, being caried away (as many yet are, though not so faultily, as those who are now deluded therewith) with the religious name of some, who little deserue it: M. Sherwine who is here named in this chapter, sayd not long after in the presence of some, from whose mouth wee writ it, that they had done they know not what. What would he haue said if he had li­ued to see this loue vnto the Iesuits, vsed by the same Iesuits to bring the Secular priests into hatred, euen with such, as will they, nill they, must take them for their pastors, as all the world doth, and hath done, and haue prospered in soules health for the space of 1500 yeres, and more, before this society surnamed of Iesus was begun? And whereas there is a touch here also, of some troubles raysed in that Colledge, not long after the foun­dation therof: it is wel knowen, that they grew vpon the Iesuits their dealings with the students to become Iesuits: which how pious soeuer the desire was in the one to dispose, or in the other to attaine to a higher perfection, was a trouble to the rest, who [Page 152] grew in contempt with the new inspired, and were much lesse regarded of the Iesuits.

But these troubles were quietly ended within the Colledge, after that the Students perceiued that the Iesuits notwithstan­ding their publike protestations to the contrary, did vnder­hand practise themselues, & bare some others out, which were their chiefe instruments in this action. And this is the true so­lution of that riddle, which is in more generall tearmes rela­ted in the second chapter of the Apologie, fol. 170 where (spea­king of M. Mush) the author affirmeth, that no other thing euer wrought the fathers more trouble in the Colledge, while this man was there, then their ouermuch loue and fauour to him aboue his merits, as other men thought: to wit, when the Rector was informed, that (hauing at that time deuoted himselfe to the Iesuits, as also there it is sufficiently insinuated) he vsed to perswade the Stu­dents to become Iesuits, and the profes were very euident, the Iesuits would neuer beleeue it: and their trouble grew by deui­sing sleights to saue him from blame, hauing offended in that, for which in publike sermons, the Iesuits would often protest, whosoeuer he were that should vse it, he should be the same day turned out of the Colledge. These troubles being ended, and the schollers acquieted (as seeing no remedy without further trouble) and contented to beare what was offred them by this new spirit, which first began to be the ouerthrovv of that Col­ledge, and now of England: Other began in the time of Pope Xistus of holy memorie, and then there was a visitation made in the Colledge. But what the causes were thereof, we doe not vnderstand. If this authour could doe any thing impudently, doubtlesse he sheweth his weakenesse in bringing this matter. For as we are informed, those who were reputed the chiefe in that faction, since they came into England (not finding belike such among the Secular priestes, as could sort with that hu­mour) haue betaken themselues to the Iesuits order, and some of them, who are now in England, are as factious in their Re­ligious humor, as they were busie before against the same re­ligious order.

CHAP. 11. How this Author beslirreth himselfe to lay the fault of the scandalous diuision in Wisbich vpon those Priests who would not subiect themselues to that insolent Agencie of the Iesuits. Apol. cap. 6.

THe sixt chapter of the Apologie is of the troubles, which were raised among Catholike prisoners in Wisbich: the beginning whereof this author affirmeth, that the priests doe declare in the Latine booke, pag. 11. to haue beene a repining in themselues, that their fellowes would haue certain rules of orderly liuing: which is most false. For they haue alwayes attributed the cause of these stirres, to the separation, which the Iesuits, and their ad­herents made from them, because they would not subiect themselues to F. Weston the Iesuite, as a new illuminate, vnder the name of an Agent, which I leaue to those, to whom it ap­pertaineth to discouer, if this Apologie minister occasion, to say more then hath already bene sayd of these matters. And where­as this author promiseth, to put down authenticall informations, and originals against the narration which is already made of these stirres, he bringeth his proofes onely out of the letters of the Ie­suits, and their faction, who are, and were parties in the contro­uersie. And although the testimony of Fisher may seem to some to be of some weight against the Priests, as hauing been some­time an enemie to the Iesuits: yet it ought not to mooue any man of discretion, what he said against them. For if the author of this Apologie be of any credit, Fisher mst be of no credit. For in the seuenth chapter fol. 93. Fisher is sayd to haue bene one of the most exorbitant disorderly fellowes in the Romane stirres: and professing to haue been now more, then halfe conuerted fol. 94. what is to be looked for of him, but the like behauiour against the other part vpon this his conuersion? yea in the very point, for which Fisher is brought as an authenticall witnesse or in­former, hee is discredited by this Author. For fol. 95. spea­king of Fisher, thus hee sayth. And albeit wee will not affirme all to bee true, which he sayd: yet many things are such, as they could not be well fained (perchance that they had a swanne to dinner at Wisbich, which was a most necessary circumstance to be no­ted, [Page 154] and put in print) and are confirmed otherwise, and the speaking voluntarily (see Fishers relation to D. Bagshaw at Paris, set out by the same Doctor, with M.D. Ely his notes vpon the Apologie) vpon his oath, must be presumed to haue had some care also of his con­science, &c. This &c. were enough in this place, to make a man doubt what care hee was thought to haue of his conscience. But such testimonies must be taken for authenticall against the priests. And if there be an original brought out against a priest, it is enough: it is no matter, how many vntrueths be in it: for it is an originall.

The extraordinary commendations here brought of F. We­ston we wish he might deserue them: and if his life were so ex­emplarie in the Clinke, the man had an euil chance to be remo­ued to Wisbich, where his actions are blamed, and prooued blame worthy, at the least in this point very manifestly: that see­ing what stirre was likely to grow vpon his Agencie, he would not giue it ouer, but would prosecute it, it being a thing which if it had neuer bene thought vpon, might very well haue been missed in Gods Church, and no way necessary for the refor­mation intended by him and his fellowes (as F. Weston himselfe confessed in his letter to his Generall 27. March 1598, and is here to be seene fol. 77.) especially without their priuitie, whom hee would should become his subiects, or pupils, or how the good mā would haue had them called, who (setting passiō aside) were much fitter to gouerne him, then he them. The cause of the breach when peace was once made amongst them, was in the lesuits; for that they would not stand to such rules, as were made, but when they listed; which D. Norden taking (as he had iust cause) in euill part, got away the copie of the rules which the Iesuits had, and their faction, and would not restore them againe vnto them: And for this is he challenged to haue bro­ken the peace, which in trueth they did breake: and if he tore the paper, or burned it, they tore the rules, and cancelled them before, when they refused to stand to iudgement, according as the rules betweene them had ordered it. But of this there is not a word spoken.

This authours meaning is, to preuaile if he can by falshood and cousening of his Reader, & laboureth to make him merry [Page 155] with now and then some foolish impertinent matter, as here fol. 82. he telleth him how that there were sixe or seuen butterics for 13. persons, they not suffering the 20. to haue any. And further (saith he) the party that directed him (M. Mush) after hee had shewed him all these, he brought him to a chimney where also there was good ale, and said, here is another buttery: nay said M. Mush, there is the deuill, whereof that place was called afterwardes merily by some, the deuill in a corner. And verily it was a matter worth the laughing at: whoreson deuill, the chimney was too good a place for him, vnder correction of that zealous com­pany, the other 20. that would haue all things in good order, and euery one in their due place, as seemed them. For these good and vertuous (as they say of themselues in this chapter fol. 65. and therefore may be beleeued in this point, vnlesse per­chance they will now disclaime the company of the vnited to the Archpriest, which are said to be the authors of this Apologie) brought their diuell and placed him in the chappell: where what worship they did vnto him, either merily, or more seriously, we leaue it to their owne godlinesse to explicate. For we should be loath to say any more, then what all the world talked: that is, that they made a buttery of the chappel, which is in the castle of Wisbich. Other many things there are here touched in this chapter, wherein folly and falshood striue for the mastery. As where this author telleth his Reader, that the Iesuites and their faction at Wisbich forced none, but such as would willingly put themselues into their Academy, or congre­gation according to the fashion, and example of those priuate congre­gations of our Lady, allowed by the Sea Apostolike in diuers Coun­treys. A strange liberty doth this authour take to fitton, seeing that all men doe know, that the cause of breach was, for that some would not subiect themselues vnto that Academy, which was devised by the Iesuites and their faction: and that this A­cademy would not eat and drinke with their brethren. Where­upon the breach was first made publikely knowen, an vnusuall fashion, or example in any priuate congregations of our Lady, or any honest company, and neuer perchance heard of before, but among the impurer sort of heretikes: to which separation, because the lesser part would not agree, they are charged fol. [Page 156] 67. that they were so diuided among themselues, as in the yere 1597. as one writeth, that they did eate and take their diet in foure seuerall places, hauing notwithstanding driuen out of the common hall by helpe of the Iaylour, the other part, though farre the greater. But the manner of driuing them out was no other, then that least these (the lesser number) should seeme any way to accord to the separation, made by the greater number, they did sit some of them at euery table in the hall; and not vpon any diuision, which was amongst themselues, as it is here falsely suggested. For had the Iesuites faction had but so much against the lesser number, that they had flocked together at one table, the sepa­ration should haue bene fathered vpon them, although they neuer dreamed thereof: and this humour of the Iesuits being knowen vnto them, they vsed to sit at euery table some, because it should be manifest, that the other made the separation. Yet was not this altogether done of purpose to this end: for they vsed before to sit at the same tables, at which now they sate But if they had now left those places, and haue sitten together at any one table, this circumstance would haue bene euidence enough for their aduersaries against them. There is also a no­torious falshood in the 68. leafe, where these priests of Wisbich are sayd to haue bene the first that appealed from his Holi­nesse Breue, by which the Cardinal Caietanes letters were con­firmed: whereas they neuer appealed from the Breue, but from such grieuances as they haue set downe in their Appeale, a­mong which the Breue is none, as there may bee seene. And fol. 76. there is a scornefull speech of the degree of Doctour in Diuinitie: where speaking of Master Doctour Bagshaw, thus he saith: and all this stirre to make roome to his Doctourship: (a de­gree wont to be honoured among honest Catholike priestes) which God knoweth in what corner of the worlde he got it, and how worthily: but certaine it is, as farre as we are informed, by or­dinary commendation of his Superiours he had it not. God and the world knoweth, that he had his Doctorship, at which this silly fellow gybeth, in no corner of the world, vnlesse one of the most famous Vniuersities in Italy, be to be tearmed a cor­ner of the world. For it is well knowen, that hee tooke his Doctourship in Padua, and hee tooke it so woorthily, as this [Page 157] poore fellow might come learne diuinitie of him these many yeeres: although his grauitie perchance would thinke much thereof. And it is certaine also, howsoeuer this fellow is in­formed, that he had it by the ordinary commendation of his Supe­riour, who at that time was no other, then his Holinesse, who in his predecessours time, admitted all into the degree of Do­ctourship, who should be iudged worthy thereof, by such as were in office for that purpose in that Vniuersitie, aswell as in all others: and the most iniurious Breue, which afterwardes the Iesuites procured against all Englishmen, aswell Diuines, as Lawyers, was not as yet procured by them. But this fellow his griefe is, that he, or any other should take degrees, vnlesse they would become of their faction, which maketh them to haue so many venerable Doctours for them, and so forward, as some of them haue not blushed to take vpon them to heare and determine the matters of such learned men, as were iud­ged most worthy of that degree, and had it, and other honou­rable places in Gods Church, when these were blockheaded boyes: and cannot but mooue wonder and also laughter to those who knewe them, to thinke in what corner, or how they came to be made Doctours. But they were the fittest subiects for Iesuites to worke vppon, and stood most in neede of ex­traordinarie commendations from such Superiours, as here this Authour would that M. D. Bagshaw should haue had for the taking of his degree.

As for the other points touched in this sixt chapter concer­ning the stirres in Wisbich, I am to referre the Reader to a rela­tion set out thereof, before this Apologie appeared, and to that which M.D. Bagshaw hath set foorth already at the ende of M. D. Ely his notes: and what others, now touched here, shal here­after say of these matters.

CHAP. 12. How this present controuersie is dissembled and fetched from a head in Flanders by the Apologie-maker. Apol. ca. 7.

IN the seuenth Chapter of the Apologie, the Au­thor intendeth to shewe the generall troubles and disquietnesse, which were raised among the English Catholikes in Flaunders and England, during the former stirres in Rome and Wisbich, and how the one gaue hand vnto the other, & that all procee­ded from different members of the selfe same faction. And this his narration of the Flemish troubles, he beginneth at the yere of our Lord 1588. and continueth it with many idle discour­ses, and altogether impertinent to the present controuersie. But when he hath told his tale of those matters, then he patch­eth thereunto the stirres in England, with an As in the cōtrouer­sie against F. Holt, & others in Flanders, these few had against them all the body of our Cath. nation, &c. So fareth it now in England, where a very few at the beginning, partly vpon stomacke and auersi­on, or rather discontentment, partly of ambition, vnquietnes of spi­rit, and desire of contention (as by their doings may appeare) they be­gan to oppose themselues against the whole streame of other Catho­likes, deuising particular wayes for their owne preferment. The ad­mirable mildnesse of this Apologie-maker, and his true religious pietie! But it is great pitie to interrupt him, for he meaneth to shewe his reader the true state of the question; and thus hee proceedeth, And since that time haue drawen in diuers other, one vpon one motiue, another vpon another, some for preferrement, some for discontentment, some for other occasions, to take their parts: and being once engaged, to leape with them from an inch to an ell, & from a little slide to a headlong precipitation. A godly procession, but where is the true state of the question? Forsooth, and this is the true state of the question. Happie is he who can vnderstand it: A few discontented, vpon such causes as this author affirmeth, began to oppose themselues against the whole streame of other Catho­likes, but you must goe looke wherein: and those fewe made some other to leape from an inch to an ell: and this is the true state [Page 159] of the question. How haue we hitherto bene deceiued, in taking the true state of the question, to be in matters principally between the Secular Priests, and the Iesuits, as sometime we are told in this Apologie, namely in the first Chapter fol. 2. or betweene the Secu­lar Priests, and their Archpriest principally: as other sometime we are tolde in the same Apologie, cap. 11. fol. 161? Now we must be­leeue, that the true state of the question, is betweene some fewe, and the whole streame of other Catholikes: But what skilleth it, since that euery thing is vsed in his place to some good purpose, for the bringing about that, which is principally intended by the authors of the Apologie? The opposition then against the whole streame of Catholikes, and particular deuises for preferment, with the making diuers other to leape or slide, must here be suggested to be the true state of the question, which how deeply it may touch the Iesuits and their factious adherents, is, or will be declared elsewhere; to wit, with what ambition they sought their owne preferment in the castle of Wisbich, and with what scandall they wrought it, by a most wicked separation or schisme, at what time the true state of the question was: whether the Iesuites and their fellow-factious committed any sinne, or did like Christians, in making that diuision in Wisbich from their fellow prisoners, and priests as they were, suffering all vnder that name of Ca­tholikes, and Catholike priests. Secondly, with what ambiti­on, vnquietnesse of spirit, and desire of contention, the Iesuites began to oppose themselues against other Catholike priests, when they writ that wicked and senslesse libell of schisme, omit­ting no name of disgrace which a Iesuits malice could deuise, at what time the true state of the question was: whether the priests were bound to subiect themselues to an authoritie procured by falshood (as the letters of institution shewed) proposed with falshood, as then the Archpriest, being taken in the man­ner, could not deny, put in execution contrary to the tenour thereof, hauing no letters from his Holinesse; besides whom, the Priestes had no knowen Superiour, either for the erection of that authoritie, nor any testimonie, that any other had po­wer giuen vnto them by him to make that subordination. Thirdly, with what stomacke, and auersion from all Chri­stian peace the Iesuites proclaimed (after that the peace was [Page 160] made) that they all incurred the censures of holy Church, who should dogmatizando, mainteine, that those Priests were not schis­maticks, who forbore to subiect themselues vnto the auctoritie, be­fore they saw his Holines letters in confirmation thereof, and the Archpriest published, that he had receiued a resolution from the mother City: which afterwards hee explicated himselfe to some, that it was from a paire of yong Iesuits: to wit, F. War­ford & F. Tichborne, or from one of them. The contents where­of were, that these priests were schsmaticks, which is now the true state of the question, (as none but most impudent compani­ons can deny) and the original of these present stirres. And this the Archpriest his fact, the author of this Apologie in the 11. chap fol. 168. calleth an angry Epistle, and challengeth the priests in termes best fitting his Religious humor, that for an angry E­pistle they would breake out into such scandalous tumults, and so leaueth the matter without telling, what this angry Epistle was, and that it was a proclamation, that the Priests had liued a long time inschisme: and what other matters must thereupon necessarily insue, not onely to the discredit of those priests, but also to the disturbance of many deuout Catholicks, whose ghostly fathers they had bene, during that time. But since that this author hath proposed the true state of the questiō, as he saith, to be an opposition of a few against the whole streame of other Catho­licks, deuising particuler wayes for their preferring, and there causing some to leape, and slide: Let vs do him the fauor to heare how he proceedeth with this his imagination. And this (saith he) is the true state of the question: let vs declare briefly the way, and path how they came into this pit. Thus he beginneth this declaration.

Wee haue vnderstood by Card. Allens letters before mentioned, written to M. Mush the yeere that he died, how he had vnderstood of a certaine emulation, and deuision begun in England by some priests against the Fa. of the Societie, and perhaps hee perceiued the same by no meanes more, then by himselfe, his speach and behauiour, while hee was at Rome with him the very same yeere. I doe nothing mar­ueile that this good fellow, would faine haue his Reader con­ceiue, that the Priests began a diuision against the Iesuits. For if he could perswade this, he would not doubt, but to deale well ynough with such fooles, as cannot thinke, that the Iesuits can [Page 161] giue any iust cause, why the Priests should breake with them. I marueile much, that he is not ashamed so often to inculcate this letter of the Cardinall; which if it make any thing in this matter, it maketh against the Iesuits, as we haue often shewed. For first cōcerning the diuision, the Fathers want of good cor­respondence is first placed, the cause of discontentment not knowen, and M. Mush a Secular Priest put in commission to be peremptory, aswell with the Iesuits as the Secular Priests, with whō the Cardinall knew he might be bold, especially in so good an action, as was the furthering of a peace, where he was informed there was want. And for the better satisfaction of such as will be satisfied, we will once againe repeate the Card. letter, as it is set downe in the second Chap. of Apologie fol 11. I haue heard (saith he) to my great griefe, that there is not that good correspon­dence betweene the Fathers, & other Priests. I cannot tell vpon what discontentment, &c. But whereof soeuer it commeth, it is of the ene­mie, and with all possible discretion, and diligence, by the wiser sort on both sides to be rooted out, or els it will be the ruine of the whole cause, &c. And therefore in this point especially (M. Mush) be earnest, and peremptory with all parties, and euery one in particular, and tel them that I charge, and aduise them by the blessed Blood, and bowels of Gods mercie, that they honour, loue, and esteeme one another, according to euery mans age, order, and profession. And then he exhorteth those of the Secular order, which is an argument, that what went be­fore did principally concerne the Iesuits. The maner also of the Cardinall his writing doeth shew, that what he conceiued of the diuision here supposed, was by other meanes then by M. Mush: For had he vnderstood it (as this Author saith) perhaps by no meanes more, then by himselfe, his speech, and behauiour, while he was in Rome, without perhaps the Cardinall would not haue written vnto him, after his departure in this maner: I haue heard to my great griefe, that there is not that good correspondence between the Fathers and other Priests, I cannot tell vpon what discontent­ment: but rather haue put him in minde, what he had tolde him, and would not haue bene left ignorant of the true cause, or some colour of cause, if M. Mush had discouered any such mat­ter vnto him: And whereas here is mention of M. Mush his behauiour while he was in Rome with the Cardinall, we may [Page 162] verely beleeue, that it was such, as became an honest priest, and that he gaue very great satisfaction, not onely to the Cardinall Allen, but also to many other, hauing those graces, and fauours at his returne, which no man euer had before him: to wit, au­thoritie, not onely for himselfe in diuers reserued cases, but to giue to a certaine number of other priests, whom he would name at his returne into England. But marke, I pray you, what moueth this author to say; that the Cardinal writ his letter vpon M. Mush his behauiour, when he was with him at Rome the very same yeere. For albeit (saith he) this man gaue out euery where, that he went to Rome, to enter into that order, which many yeeres be­fore he had pretended: yet others that knew him better, did soone dis­couer his alienation from them, and that he pretended perhaps by his iourney to Rome, to get some other dignitie. Here there is an­other Perhaps to helpe the former. For first it was perhaps that the Cardinall perceiued a certaine diuision, by no meanes more then by M. Mush his behauiour and speech at Rome: and now it is perhaps that he went to Rome, for to get some other dignitie. Good meditations for such spirituall guides, and very charitable. We will not here cite M. Blackwell his letter, which was written in the yeere of our Lord 1596, which was two yeres after the Car­dinals death: wherein hee taketh on marueilously against all those, who did affirme at Rome, that there had bene strife, or a­ny falling out here in England, which was worth the talking of: although neither he, nor any man els can denie, but that the scandalous separation in Wisbich was begun by the Iesuits and their faction, long before, and is not to this day ended. We wil onely request the religious spirit of the author of this Apologie, to let vs vnderstand what reason he had in this place, to make this note in the margent, How this last sedition in England began, shewing nothing in the text, but his general conceit of an emu­lation and diuision begun in England, by some Priests against the Fa­thers of the Societie: and bringeth no other proofe therof, then the Card Allen his letter aboue mentioned, wherein there is no more mention of any diuision by Secular priests against the Ie­suits, then by the Iesuits against Secular priests, as hath bene shewed. And if by this note we are giuen to vnderstand, How that this last sedition in England began before this letter of the Car. Allen was written: then at the latest this last sedition must [Page 163] haue his beginning in the yere of our Lord 1594 or before For in that yeere the Cardinal died, as it is here confessed in the A­pol. fol. 6. Now then if this last sedition in England did begin in the yeere of our Lord 1594, or before, what was the secret intention which this Religious spirit had, when in the 9. Chap. of this Apologie fol. 131. it made this marginal note, The first be­ginners of the sedition M. Collington, and M. Charnocke by his owne confession; how could these men be the beginners of this sedition by an acte done in the yeere of our Lord 1598 at the soonest (for so the letter constitutiue beareth date, about which this confession is said to haue bene made) when this author af­firmeth that this last sedition was begun in the time of Card. Allen, who died in the yeere of our Lord 1594. But as the good-wife of an Ordinary saith, A ioynt is a ioynt, so with this good fellow, A booke is a booke And it is no great matter how one piece is pat­ched to another: the fooles who are deuoted vnto him wil take al with blinde obedience: and for the rest there wil be some other deuise: as to stand stoutly to the auerring of any thing, which may further his cause, or the denying whatsoeuer may hinder it.

Hauing thus farre presumed vpon the simplicity of his Rea­der, he proceedeth in his declaration of the way or path, or the supposed true state of the question, and continueth his tale of M. Mush his negotiation. But returning (saith he) into England, as he went foorth, and the Cardinall soone after dying, he ioyned with an other of his owne humour, that had left another religion, namely the Carthusians (and in the margent he setteth M Iohn Colling­ton) and they two with some few other, determined to make a cer­taine newe Hierarchie of their owne, calling it an association of Clergie men with two Superiours, as it were Archbishops, the one for the South, and the other for the North, with certaine Rules and deuises impossible to be obserued in England, while times and matters doe remaine as they doe, &c. It is very well knowen that M. Mush returning into England, imployed himselfe in more offices of charitie, then all the Iesuites in England. And all the North parts of England will affirme it: especially those who were in durance for their conscience. And when the spirit of the Ie­suits mooued them, vnder pretence of reformation in Wisbich to make their scandalous separation and schisme, he went thi­ther accompanied with M. Dudlie, where after that they had [Page 164] spent some dayes, and perceiued that there was no hope of a­ny accord, but by the cōmandement of him, who was Superi­our to F. Weston, who canuased in Wisbich for a superioritie vn­der the title of an Agent, he came to London, where he found this Superiour, and after long conference with him about it, as one, who was loath the matter beganne should go backward, he promised at the length to send such letters vnto Wisbich by them, that at the sight thereof his subiect Fa. Weston should surcease from that intended Agencie, and all should bee well. But M. Mush and M. Dudlie were compelled to send for these letters, and if they had not vrged the matter in such sort as this Superiour could not any longer halt with them, they had departed with such letters, as had bene to no purpose, and the time was differred vntill it was so late, as he hoped they would not haue stayed for any other.

The peace being in the ende made, such as it was, and not without this vnder-hand condition, that the Iesuits & their fa­ction might afterward breake off, when they would, M. Mush, and M. Dudley at their next returne to London, if not before, delt with M. Iames Standish for the erecting of an Association of such priests, as would voluntarily subiect themselues to liue vn­der such a superior, and such rules as they should among themselues agree vpon. M. Standish communicated this mat­ter to other priests, who liked well therof, & as yet M. Colington (not being neere Lōdon) knew nothing of this intent: & how­soeuer it hath pleased this author now to except against it, there will be good proofe made, that the Superior of the Iesuits was so farre from speaking against it, as he did seeme to take great ioy in it, vntill he perceiued, that he was not likely to haue the go­uernment thereof, as his fellow had in Wisbich of the greater part of the Catholike prisoners: And if the vnited priests were the authors of this Apologie, how ridiculously are sixe of them brought in here to credit it, as though there were more ho­nestie in these 6. alone, taken singly from the rest, then 16. in the whole company of those vnited brethren, when those sixe also are among them, but it shalbe well seene in a particular answer to their letter, here cited, that whosoeuer were the authors thereof, those sixe, who subscribed vnto it, had smal cause to doe so, or to thanke them, who eased them of the labour to pen it.

But now remitting the reader for M. Collington his iust causes of leauing the order of the Carthusians (in which he neuer was, but onely in probation, which argued a most religious minde in him, and was crossed onely by the disablements of his body) to the last point handled by himselfe in his late booke of Rea­sons intituled A iust defence &c. And for M. Mush his leauing the Iesuits, to the eleuenth Chapter of the Apologie, fol. 170, where it is plainely said, that they would not admit him, we will see how this Apologie fitteth his Reader.

First, by this narration in the Apologie, it is euident, that the association, of which here is mention, was not deuised by such as thought their designements frustrated by Fa. Parsons dealing at Rome in the yeere 1597, as the author of this same Apologie affir­meth cap. 1 fol. 6. & 7. Secondly, it is vntrue, that these two de­termined vpon any such matter. Thirdly, there was neuer any determination to haue two Superiors, much lesse, as it were Arch­bishops: For as may appeare by the rules made in the North, the very first rule, De rectoribus, is this: There shall be chosen euery yere one Father, and two assistants, by the consents and most voices of the brethren. And vnder another title afterward there is this rule: When in any Countrey the multitude of the brethren are increased to the number of eight, and cannot conueniently resort to the consultati­on of this confraternitie in the Countrey where the Father and the Assistants abide, they shall at their owne discretions chuse a father, &c. But neither in the rules made in the South is mention of any more then one Superior. And these diuers rules were made, not that one form should be of force in the North, & another in the South, but that one forme should be drawen for al England out of such rules, as were thoght fit by the priests, which liued either in the South or North parts of England. And the forme which was drawen in the South, was accepted by those in the North with some few rules added, or altered. And this was so well knowen abroad, and confirmed also by that, the two priests ca­ried no other forme with them to Rome, as I cannot marueile enough at the author of this Apologie, that he will cite the rules which were made in the North, yea and take his arguments (although foolish) from them against the priests, as here hee doth fol 91. where first he argueth out of them negatiuely, that [Page 166] there was no mention made at all in their constitutions, that the same should be confirmed by his Holinesse: as though the author of this Apologie did not know that Fisher vnder his oath at Rome had affirmed, that the priests determined to send some to his Holinesse for this purpose, and named the persons: and if this testimony were not, many are yet liuing, who made their peti­tions to his Holinesse vnder their owne handes for the confir­mation thereof. And these petitions were taken from M Bishop and M. Charnocke, among other their writings, when they were apprehended at Rome by the Iesuites. The second aduantage which this Authour would scrape out of those Rules of the North is: that they left no appeale to Rome, or other place: and this he would prooue out of their Chapter (as he sayth) of Appella­tions, and then he setteth downe almost all the Chapter in this manner, That no appeale shall be made from the sentence of one com­pany to them of an other Countrey: but all the brethren shall content themselues with the iudgement of the Fathers, and assistants, or more part of the company, where he shalbe, &c. Thus farre in the Apologie. Whereby he would proue that the priests would de­barre appeale to Rome. Can any man thinke his wits were at home? is there any mention of any, but of the seuerall compa­nies vnder diuerse Fathers, or Superiours here in England? and how doth he drawe it to a debarring appeale to Rome? But marke I pray you this fellowes falshood: to helpe himselfe to make this foolish calumniatiō, he hath cited the rule or decree, as he calleth it: but he cited it with an &c. Whereby his Rea­der should vnderstand, that somewhat did follow, although he said not what. And in that he would haue his Reader knowe thus much; it is likely he knew it himselfe, and what it was: and moreouer that if he had set it downe, he had discouered him­selfe to haue bene a notorious calumniator. And the indiffe­rent cannot but note him, for a very false fellow in his dealings. The rule beginneth in this manner: No appeale, and so foorth as he set it downe vnto these wordes: where he shalbe, and then it goeth on thus: for the present, vnlesse it seeme otherwise more con­uenient, by the most voyces of the company. So that there is appeale left from those of one company to them of an other countrey, if it be thought conuenient by the most of them. And whereas [Page 167] he would hereupon inferre an absurditie against the Priests, like to that, which the Archpriest committed, when he would not admit appeale to Rome, he committeth as great folly, as in any of the other. For the Archpriest stood peremptorily in it in plaine termes, that we could not appeale from him to Rome, and this rule was onely for such, as would in such maner vo­luntarily subiect themselues to their superiors. And as it ap­peareth by the rule, there was no mention of Rome. But put the case that the priests had debarred themselues of appealing to Rome, is it all one thing in this Authors conceit, for a man to be content, to part willingly with that which he hath, and to haue it vniustly taken away from him? If the priests had made such a Rule, as that they would haue debarred them­selues thereof, was this any warrant for the Archpriest to ob­trude such a matter vpon them against their wils, hauing no such commission from any that could giue it vnto him, which is also to be vnderstood in friuolous matters? But the good­man must play at small game, or els he must sit still.

That calumniation also is hereby answered, which is layd to D. Bagshaw, that he thought it not fit for them, to be tied to Rules at Wisbich: For the difference is manifest: for that the Associa­tion was free for all who would, and who would not might con­tinue, as they did, without any impeachment, either of same, or what els soeuer: those Rules at Wisbich were to be accepted of all so necessarily, as the not accepting thereof was deemed by the rest a sufficient cause, to make that scandalous schisme, which was there made, and remaineth as yet, and to defame all those who would not subiect themselues to the Iesuits who were the deuisors, and must be superiors also, vnder the title of Agents.

Touching the detestable Memoriall here mentioned (sayth this author) drawen out, and published, &c. Here is nothing to be said of this Memoriall, more then that the Iesuits were the first pub­lishers thereof in England, (so far as we can learne) and trans­lated it into English, for women to see it, and vnderstand it. The contempt of Vniuersitie men, and graduats, of which the Iesu­its are said to be accused in the Memoriall, is not obscurely sig­nified in this Apologie, cap 6 fol. 76. where speaking of M. Doct. Bagsh. thus the author sayth, And all this stirre is to make roome [Page 168] for his Doctorship: being a Doctor of Diuinitie, and proceeding in Padua with the applause of the Vniuersitie. And in this 7. Chap fol. 93. he putteth this limitatiō of the Iesuits their esteem of Vniuersitte men and graduats; If their vertue answere to their degrees: that is, to speake the true English, if they will bee wrought to be Iesuits, or factious for them. And whereas it is said, that Iesuits are more hurtfull to Catholikes then heretiks, let indifferent men giue their verdit, after due considerations of the diuisions made by them. And as for this author his cer­teintie, that these articles of the Memoriall came from D. Bag­shaw, (whom he here insinuateth to haue bene expelled the Col­ledge at Rome for his troublesome spirit, with a reference to Card. Sega his visitation, which is well knowen to haue bene long af­ter the Doctor his departure from Rome) his perswasion is vp­on a very weake ground. For although such articles might be giuen or sent to M. Charnocke vnder his hand, to carie to Rome: yet these articles might come from some other, the Memoriall being long before made, and at Rome, as appeareth in this A­pologie, fol. 94. where also Do. Barret affirmeth, that he found a little compendious note of all their articles against the Iesuits at Rome, which (sayth he) hee (Fisher) carried with him to dilate to the faction in England: and for proofe hereof he addeth: as ap­peareth; for it is very old, and almost worne out.

All the foolish story of Fisher, we here leaue out, as not worth the noting, he hauing bene in the iudgement of this author, fol. 93. one of the most exorbitant disorderly fellowes in the Romane stirs. And fol. 95. albeit (sayth this author) wee will not affirme all to be true which he said: yet many things are such, as they could not be well feigned, and are confirmed otherwise: and the speaking voluntarily vpon his oath must be presumed, to haue had some care also of his con­science, &c. or of his sides, as himselfe confessed at Paris. But I pray you let there be care of conscience at the lest with an &c. in such matters as may make for the Iesuits. Some things heere set downe are not onely false, but so impertinent to the matter, as we cannot but iudge, that there was much good iugling be­tweene him, & his examiner: as that which is affirmed, fol. 96. At London I lay cōmonly with M. Charnock, otherwise called Long, and M. Medcalfe: whereas the poore man was neuer in any [Page 169] such credit with either of them, as that hee was acquainted where either of them lay: yet some things at the least could not be well feigned: perchance that beeing bidden to a banquet at Wisbich he had a swanne, which was the more to be noted, because it was a very vnusual dish at a banquet, vnlesse we turne the banquet into a dinner, and then the grace of this relation is marred. For the reader must conceiue that the priests in Wis­bich did not dine, (that is, too grosse) but they did banquet: and he must vnderstand, that the Priests had a Swan, at that banquet. Certainely either Fisher did herein shewe himselfe to be too weake a man to be brought here for an authenticall witnesse, vnlesse some such particular question as this is, was demanded of him, What good cheere had you? or else the examiner was ex­ceeding foolish, who in a serious matter would fall into such questions, and set downe such stuffe in an examination. But had not such folly beene to be vttered, we should haue had no Apologie. One thing more is here to be noted, that fol. 96. this author relateth out of Fishers examination, that there passed eight or nine moneths in diuersitie of opinions: and that he went seuen or eight times from the North parts to Wisbich, Cambridge, and London, about an affaire which would not well stand with the asso­ciation then begun. Which being compared with that which is also affirmed fol. 97. where it is said, that it was not knowen at his departure from England, that peace was made at Rome, or that Fa. Parsons was come thither: albeit M. Bagshaw and his friends see­med to feare it much: This author must wipe his mouth, for his false tale told in the first Chapter, fol. 6. and 7. where hee affir­meth, that the reliques of those that had beene troublesome, and vnquiet before, comming into England, and conferring againe with their consorts, of their former actions and designments, frustrated (as they thought) by Fa. Parsons dealing at Rome, resolued to begin a­gaine, but after another fashion: to wit, by deuising a certaine newe association, &c. Did these men (who were thus frustrated at Rome by F. Parsons his dealing there) know that Fa. Parsons was come to Rome, trow yee? If they did know thereof, and were in England before Fishers departure from England, how was it vnknowen there at his departure thence, that F. Parsons was come to Rome? If they knew thereof, but were not as yet come into England, before Fishers departure from thence, how did Fisher [Page 170] goe seuen or eight times from the North parts to Wisbich, Cam­bridge, and London, about the affaire he speaketh of, in which the association had caused diuersitie of opinions? For if this au­thour be an honest man, those men, who were said in his first Chapter fol. 6. and 7. to haue bene frustrated (as they thought) by F. Parsons dealing in Rome, resolued to begin againe by deuising a certaine new association, &c. But perchance Fisher dreamed, that hee was employed in such businesse in England, and how that he had a swan at a banquet in Wisbich, and lay at London with M. Charnocke and M. Heburne, and much other good newes. And this authour putteth downe his dreame, as an au­thenticall testimonie, for want of other stuffe. And if hee had not dreamed himselfe, when hee set it downe, doubtlesse hee would haue omitted so much at the least, as (if one dreamer may conuince another of falshood) conuinceth him most ma­nifestly of fault in his relation of the beginning of the association, set downe in his first chapter, as we haue noted. But by this (saith the Apologie) any indifferent man may see, how matters stand, and where the ground of all troubles and dissensions lyeth. All is but a con­spiracie of euill humors, against them that doe better then themselues, and euery man that loueth his soule will soone descrie the same. Reli­gion is not sought by this faction, but reuenge and satisfaction of bad appetites. This wrote he, who knew well what he said, although his vngratiousnesse would haue his reader apply it to others, and not to him, who deserued it, as hath bene shewed: and will still appeare in euery chapter more clearely then other. And in this vaine he telleth his reader, that his Holines cleerely percei­uing, tooke order first in the Romane colledge (which belongeth to another place) and then in England for remedie thereof, as hereaf­ter you shall heare. And so he setteth himselfe to the eight chap­ter, where at the very first he doth notably abuse his reader, as shall be shewed, and he conuinced of most manifest falshood, and to be a chiefe man in the conspiracie of euill humours, a­gainst such men as sought religion with the greatest hazard of their liues, when he and his fellowes were idle lookers on, and would be no actors, vntil room was made for their fatherhoods.

CHAP. 13. How the Author of the Apologie to cloake the Iesuits their dealings concerning the institution of the new Subordina­tion, perswadeth his Reader that his Holines was moued thereto by certaine letters which were long after written. Apol. cap. 8.

IN the 8. Chapter of the Apologie the author proposeth to handle how his Holines hearing of the former disorders, and contentions, did resolue to make a Subordination in England, and how it was ordained, and intimated by the Pro­tector, & called in question by some discōtented brethren, with­out reason, or authoritie: and how great troubles haue ensued thereof. And first he beginneth to declare the motiues, or causes of this Subordination in this maner.

When his Holines heard the former state of matters in England, Flanders, and other places, and of the murmurations of some against the Fathers of the Societie, set downe as well in the aforesaid contu­melious Memoriall, as by diuers other letters and relations, which came to the Protectors sight, and by him was related to his Holines, and namely when he receiued great store of priuate, and publique let­ters, out of England against the said Memoriall of Fisher, and some one with aboue 100. hands at it: other with 40. and 50. all in fauour, and commendation of the Fathers, their labours, and behauiour in England, against the said slanderous Memoriall. And in the mar­gent there is this note: See the letters of the Northern Priests 24. Martij 1598. and others 20 of April, and others after 30. Iuly. And others of the South in great number 18 of May, and of the quiet sort of Wisbich. 27. of March 1598. it followeth in the text, and many other in seuerall letters of principall men, which are yet extant, (but are not yet to be seene) when also diuers of these did expresly de­mand some subordination, and gouernment of Secular Priests to take away this emulation of some few against the Fathers, (as though all but a few, would haue had them to haue bene their masters) and that two lately came out of England, at this very time, one a Ie­suit, the other a Secular Priest (bate me an ace, quoth he, for M. [Page 172] Standish had giuen his name before, to become a Iesuite, and therefore a vassaile of theirs, although he retained still the ha­bite of a Secular priest, that vnder that habit he might the more cunningly deceiue his Holines) each of them vrging the same in behalfe of the one, and other order, (a couple of fit Proctors for the purpose.) But when all this was done, What then? Forsooth his Holines, after mature deliberation resolued to yeeld thereunto, ho­ping hereby to quiet all, as well for that the Secular priests should by this meanes, haue gouernours of their owne, as also for that the Fa­thers by all likelyhood should remaine free from all matter of calum­niation about gouerning Secular priests for the time to come. How currant would this tale be, if one of the most necessary matters there, were not, that the Archpriest must aduise still with the Iesuits in his greatest affaires? for so he is commanded in his instructions; and consequently, the Fathers by all likelyhood, do not remaine free from all maner of calumniation, as he termeth it, about gouerning Secular priests. And doubtlesse if it be a ca­lumniation, to say, the Fathers do gouerne the Secular priests, what is it when they are not said to gouerne, but doe really gouerne, by order as is said from his Holines in great matters, and of their owne great deuotion in all other by the Archpriest his blinde obedience vnto them?

But now to the maine motiue of this Subordination, and that which caused his Holines to consult for some moneths, and to seeke for informations out of England (of the quiet at the least) for the fit­test men for gouernment, (as this author immediatly suggesteth) we must conceiue some such strange miracle; as that there was some extraordinary day, weeke, or moneth, in which this mo­tiue was made, consultation had, and information giuen. In this chapter fol. 102. it is confessed: and if it were not, it would bee otherwise prooued, that the Cardinals letters, by which the au­thority was instituted, did beare date the seuenth of March, in the yeere 1598. This then being dispatched at that time, what time would a reasonable man haue allowed for the trauailing of the motiues thereof out of England to Rome? How many wil he gesse those moneths to be which are here said by this au­thor, that his Hol. tooke to consult, and to haue intelligence from the quiet in England, of the fittest men for gouernment, and could [Page 173] heare but of seuen in all England, wherof one was dead, to wit, M. D. Henshaw? The sunne, who kept his course in England, and saw how the Iesuites were calumniated, as men, that would gouerne the Secular priests, stayed his course at Rome, for the space of fiue, or sixe moneths.

And whereas the Romanes had gotten the start of vs in England for some tenne dayes in the course of the yeere, now the English had gotten the start of them, and made their se­uenth day of March, come many moneths after ours. For as it is sayd, this authoritie was made at Rome vpon the seuenth of March 1598: and it was made vpon certaine informations (as appeareth here in the margent fol. 98.) which were sent out of England, some the 24 of March, some the 27, some the 20 of April, some the 18 of May, some the 30 of Iuly, in the same yere 1598, to which if we should allow a time for the motiues to tra­uaile to Rome, and some moneths for his Holinesse to consult, and send backe againe into England for informations of the fittest men for gouernment, I trowe the same would haue rested himselfe well at Rome, (howsoeuer hee laboured elsewhere) to haue an authoritie instituted vpon these motiues, consultations, and infor­mations, vpon the seuenth of March, at Rome in the same yere 1598. And least that they should bee idle at Rome any time of this long day: In Rome also (saith this Author) the opinions were asked by the Protector of the principall English, that resided there, and could best informe: as namely Father Parsons that had often ad­uice from thence, (from his fellow Iesuits, and therefore could the better informe for his owne purpose) Fa. Baldwin, lately come from England (a iolly bold yong fellow, but a Iesuite, and there­fore a principal man) M. D. Haddocke, M. Martin Array (whose fayrest game was to please the Iesuits) M. Iames Standish (who had giuen his name to the Iesuits to become one of their Or­der) and others that had laboured in the English vineyard, (per­chance Fa. Warford, who was become also a Iesuite, and helped to make vp a very fit Iurie to passe vpon the priests) as also M. Thomas Allen, nephew to the late Cardinall, and diuers else (not worthy the naming, yet might very well be of the Councell, the plot was so wisely cast) who concurring with the opinion of letters comming out of England (hee hath before told you what [Page 174] letters, and when they were written: some of them in Aprill, some in May, some in Iuly) as also with diuers other principall men that wrote thereof from Spaine, Flanders, and other places (some di­uine intelligencers) both of the necessitie of some Subordination to be made (they had belike vnderstood of the Iesuits their ambiti­ous humor wherewith they had begun to trouble all England: namely about their insolent Agencie in Wisbich, where who would not subiect himselfe to a Iesuite, was to be defamed as a loose companion, or libertine, and be flarued to death, and suffi­ciencie of M Blackwels person, with the helpe perchance of the Iesuites, for such is his sixt Instruction. Et licet Superior ille ex cōsultoribus Archipresbyteri non sit, quia tamen summopere expedit, sua Sanctitas id omnino cupit, at (que) precipit, vt inter patres, & sacer­dotes summa sit animorum vnio, ac consensio: Et quia dictus Supe­rior pro sua in rebus Angliae experientia, pro ea (que), quam apud Catho­licos habet, authoritate, plurimum poterit ad omnes Sacerdotum con­sultationes adiumenti afferre, curabit Archipresbyter in rebus ma­ioribus iudicium quo (que) eius, concilium (que) exquirere, vt omnia eui­dentius, ac maiore lucc ac pace ad diuinam glorinam dirigantur: That is, And although that Superiour (of the Iesuites) bee none of the councel of the Archpriest, that is, of his twelue assistants, who were appointed to aduise the Archpriest, but are vsed onely as in­formers, and are furthest off from him, yet because it is very expe­dient, his Holinesse also doth altogether desire, yea, and command, that there be the greatest vnion that may be, and agreement betweene the Fathers (the Iesuits) and the Priests. And because this sayd Supe­riour (of the Iesuits) both by reason of his experience in the affaires of England, and of the authority which he carieth among the Catho­likes, can very much further all the consultations of the priests, the Archpr. shall haue care to seeke for his iudgement, and counsel in mat­ters of greatest waight, to the end that al things may more ordinate­ly, and with greater light, and peace bee directed to the glory of God (almost a threedbare worne cloake to couer any disorder) Nowe that he hath declared vpon what motiues his Holinesse resolued to make a Subordination, hee descendeth to more particulars, and telleth his Reader that vpon the aduise of these iollie Counsellors, (all Iesuites, so farre as we know, except M. Thomas Allen, whose name is here set, for the more credit of [Page 175] this consistory, because he was nephew to the late Cardinall) his Holines resolued according to their opinions and informations in these two points, (marke I pray you, what this author attributeth to his Holines in this subordination) to wit, to appoint a gouern­ment: and that this man should be the gouernour: though for the third point (that is) about the kinde or manner of gouernment, hee iudged not expedient for the present, to appoint any other but an Archpriest, an ancient dignitie in the Church of Christ. This then, by this authors relation, was the vtmost which his Holines re­solued, to wit, that the kind or manner of gouernment, should bee no other, then what is vnder that ancient dignitie of the Church: namely of an Archpriest. Consequently his Holines appointed no other subiection or subordination, then such as is to an Arch­priest: we are therefore to see, what belongeth to the office of an Archpriest, and in that onely (according to his Holinesse ap­pointment) we are to obey M. Blackwels person, and in no other. For such are this authors words: though for the third, about the kind and manner of gouernment, he iudged not expedient for the pre­sent to appoint any other but an Archpriest: whose office whosoe­uer will seeke in the Canons of the Church, he shall find to be in another kind, then this of M. Blackwels is, as it is instituted by the Cardinall in his Holines name: for so also is it here confes­sed in the words immediatly following, Lest if hee (the Pope) should haue begunne with Bishops, hee doubted very probably, that it would haue caused some great motion in England: for auoiding whereof, he resolued also for this first time, not to write himselfe any Apostolicall letters (note here the folly and malice of the Iesuites and others, who writ or approoued that scandalous Libell of Schisme: in which the Priests were condemned of schisme, sedi­tion, faction, and denounced to bee excommunicated, irregular, fallen from the Church, as Southsayers and Idolaters, Ethnickes and Publicans: and for what? For resisting Apostolicall decrees, when there was none, but to commit rather the institution of the matter by speciall order to the Protector, to be done in his (the Popes) name. And how agreeth this with the Cardinals letter, where wee reade these words in the Cardinals own name: Dum haec nostra ordinatio durauerit; so long as this our ordinance shall remaine? And all that followeth concerning the Archpriest his subdele­gation, [Page 176] and faculties, or forme, which he was to keepe in the exercise of his subdelegation. But his Holinesse sayth after­wards in his Breue of the sixt of April, that all was done by him. Be it so. What is this to the purpose? the priests doe not now call that in question, nor euer did since the time, that they first saw that Breue. Where is then the difficultie? Whether the priests were Schismatikes, seditious, factious, excommunicated, fal­len from the Church, as Ethnicks, Publicans, Sorcerers, and Idolaters, in that they did not yeeld their obedience to a Superiour, sayd to haue bene instituted by his Holines: but not proued other­wise then by the bare testimony of a Cardinal in a letter to the same man, who was to become a Superior: which letter beareth date the seuenth of March 1598: and it was more then a yeere before the Popes letters were written, as appeareth by their date, which is the sixt of April 1599. And the foolish blind obe­dient must beleeue you, and vse Catholike priests like schisma­tikes, who in the space betweene the seuenth of March in the yeere 1598, and the sixt of April 1599, did resist (as they are tolde, and will not vnderstand any other) the Popes order, and decrees.

Loe here then (saith this author) the grounds of this his Holines resolution, so farre as we are informed by them, that were priuy there­unto. Loe then say I, how sottishly the Iesuits vrged a resisting of Apostolicall decrees, before the Pope resolued to write himselfe any Apostolicall letters. And by this (saith he) are ouerthrowen all these cauillations. And by this (say I) is ouerthrowen that ma­litious Libel which was fathered by Iesuits, and fostered by the Archpriest, and all his seditious adherents, wherein the priests were concluded to be Schismaticks, excommunicated, fallen from Gods Church, &c. as resisters of the Popes decrees, when there was none made, as here it is confessed in the Apologie: And su­spitious coniectures (saith he) which our discontented brethren in their last bookes haue set foorth, about this meaning aswell of his Holi­nes, & the Protector, as of those also that gaue informations for pro­curing of this authority, sinisterly interpreting the one, and the other. There could be no suspitious coniectures of his Holines meaning. For as here it is confessed, his Holines declared nothing in a yeere after, that he had any meaning, or knowledge of this Su­perioritie, [Page 177] instituted by the Cardinall: the Protectors meaning not being knowen otherwise, then by his proceedings in the institution of this auctority, did minister cause of suspition, that he knew not what he did. The meaning of the informers, for procuring this authoritie (being not knowen to be any other men, then Iesuits, & confessed to be those fol. 99. by this author, to wit, Fa. Parsons, F. Baldwine, D. Haddocke, M. Martin Array, M. Iames Standish) might without offence be subiect to a suspicious coniecture; cōsidering the canuas, which the Iesuits had made for a Superioritie ouer the priests in Wisbich, vnder the name of an Agencie. And whereas here is mentioned sometime, that Catholicks desired some subordination, sometime that the priests, there are no other particulers set downe, then certaine letters, which were al written long after, that the Subordination was in­stituted: neither can they bring any, as in reason may be iudg­ed, by their so long concealing them, (the sight of them being more materiall, then all their Apologie) vnlesse they will bring foorth some of those letters, which were taken from M. Bishop, and M. Charnocke at Rome, & abuse them: affirming, that they were sent before by some others for such a purpose. For when the priests determined vpon the erecting of their Association, they had the petitions to his Holines of many aswell of the an­cientest priests, as other: some in general termes for some Sub­ordination, some to haue his allowance for their ioyning parti­cularly in that maner, as they wished, vnder a head, and such Rules as were proposed: and some of these were written before this Subordination was made, as is confessed in the 5. article of the Libel, which was put vp at Rome to the Cardinall Caietan, and Burghesius vpon the 17. of February 1599. in the English Colledge, which also demonstrateth, how false the imputation is fol 100, that without all Superiors auctoritie, they (the priests) would haue set vp their Association.

But marke, I pray you, how this felow goeth onwards in this narration, and you shal quickly find where his shooe did wring him. For so long (saith he) as our Clergie proceeded in the Spirit of humilitie, obediēce, peace, & vnitie, there was no need of Superior▪ for that euery one was a rule, and law to himselfe. Where was this defect of humilitie, obedience, peace, & vnitie? or in whō? If con­tention [Page 178] for superioritie be an argument of pride, then was this defect in the Iesuits and not in the priests. For as all the world knoweth, the Iesuits sought a Superioritie in Wisbich ouer the Secular priests. Or if they wil stoutly stand vpon it, that it was thrust vpon them: yet they must confesse, that it was most fol­lowed by such as were secretly Iesuits, as F. Bickley, F. Bolton, F. Archer, and who els. And that when it grew to a marueilous tempest, the Iesuits persisted still in their course, or canuas for the superiority, vnder the title of an Agencie; neither was there any disobedience euer noted in any of the priests, but to F. We­ston the Iesuit, and first vsurper in Wisbich, which was not to be called a disobedience, but a resisting rather of his ambitious humor, and his fellowes: who laboured, notwithstanding the scandal which came thereof, to make him Superior ouer the Se­cular priests liuing then in the Castle: by which, peace was bro­ken, and a most sinfull diuision begun, so farre foorth, as those factious innouators would not eate with those priests, who would not subiect themselues vnto the Iesuit. But (saith this au­thor) crescente numero discipulorum, factum est murmur Graeco­rum aduersus Hebraeos, &c. when the multitude of our priests en­creased, and the former spirit in many of them decreased, then begun presently murmuration, and emulation against the Fathers of the Societie, as though they onely did hinder vs, who indeed were, and are the men, that doe principally helpe vs both in word, & life; so long as we were content to learne. Hinc illae lacrymae, We would not be contented to learne any longer of the Iesuits. If this fellow had ment honestly, he would haue cited a litle more of the text of Scripture. But then perchance it would haue made against him more, then he would his simple Reader should vnderstand. He taketh as much as he listeth to apply, & leaueth out the rest: yet doeth he falsly apply also that which he bringeth. For in our case the Priests were the Hebrues, for they came first into this haruest: and the Iesuits must be these murmuring Graecians, who came in after vs: and the Iesuits not being contented with their fellowlike State with the priests, must become forsooth, M. Agents, and take charge of the priests, whether they wil or no; as in their vproare at Wisbich was manifest to all the behol­ders. But now to that which this authour concealed vnder an [Page 179] &c. In the text it followeth, eo quò despicerentur in ministerio quotidiano viduae eorum: because their widowes were despised, or contemned in the daily seruice, which vsed to be performed by wid­dowes in those times. And by this it would haue bene apparant, that the pride of the Iesuits had bene the cause of this murmu­ration, and our peace broken vpon their foolish selfe conceite, that they were not sicut caeteri homines, as other men. But note I pray you, how the text is turned, from a despising or contemning, to a conceite, that the priests were hindered by the Iesuites. It is also further to be obserued, that when the multitude of Priests were great, and the number of the Iesuites very small, the Priests and the Iesuites conferred together, and great peace was be­tweene them. But when the number of the Iesuites encreased, that they began to conceiue a hope of Superioritie, & to bring the Secular priests into a slauish bondage vnder them, they be­gan to take exceptions against the priests, and the more wicked and sinfull the slanderer was, the more vnited he was to the Ie­suites. And no other remedie must be vsed, but a Subordination to a Iesuit, to keepe the priests in order. And this was thought fit, to be first attempted at Wisbich, where the priests liuing vp­on the almes, which Catholikes sent thither, might be enfor­ced therunto by the Catholikes there, withdrawing their cha­ritie from them: to which purpose the Iesuites friends imploy­ed themselues abroad. But some comming out of the Seminaries (saith this Authour) where they had liued vnder the Iesuites, with lesse, or worse Spirit, then were to be wished, drew other to emulate them, whom before they had obeyed. This emulation would be ex­pressed: The Priests affirme, that the Iesuites pride and ambi­tion was the cause of all the stirre in England, and for proofe they bring their attempt at Wisbich, before which time all was in quiet. And as some priests did sometimes obey some Ie­suites, as Rectors of Colleges, where they were brought vp: so are there many in England, who neuer obeyed any Iesuite. Nei­ther doth this argument prooue, that they should euer after o­bey the same men, much lesse that they should obey all other, who are of that order: yet must this be the argument, which is foolishly here insinuated by this authour, or else none. For of al the Iesuits in England there are none, whom these priests [Page 180] obeied at any time, in any place. Besids that they are al of them inferiour to many priests, both for age, learning, wisedome, gouernment, and what els belongeth to men. But by this hath this authour shewed, what his meaning is: that forsooth, be­cause some Priests haue obeyed some Iesuites, therefore all priests must be obedient to any of the Iesuits: yea although he be one, who immediatly before he became a Iesuite, had scant the wit to keepe himselfe cleane. But for the auoyding of this emulation it seemed (saith this authour) in all good mens opini­ons, and the Iesuites aboue the rest (or els all is marred, when you talke of good men) that the onely, or chiefe remedie would be, to haue this subordination of Secular priests among themselues: but so as the Superiour must be at the Iesuites direction, as both his in­structions, and his practise declare. And then followeth a proofe out of a letter of 6. Assistants, to cleare the Iesuits from the procuring of this subordination, against or without the will of the Secular Clergie, which testimonie, if the vnited Priests were the authours of, the Apologie is as cleare, as that, of which one requested to haue, either his fellow asked, or him­selfe, if he were a thiefe. This testimony also harpeth vpon the long day at Rome, of which we spake before, and of the wonders wrought thereupon the 7. of March, by certaine letters dated in England in April, May, and Iuly following. Of this letter we shal haue occasion to say more in a particular answer thereun­to. And here we will leaue the Reader to wonder onely at this marginall note, fol. 101. See the letter of sixe Ancient priests the 17. of September 1597. For he telleth not, where this letter is to be seene, but rather leaueth a suspition, that it is yet to be de­uised, vnlesse he thought it too worthy a thing to be inserted among so many foolish and friuolous impertinencies, as with which this Apologie doth swarme. The proofe also which fol­loweth, that Fa Parsons laboured to haue Bishops in England, is most absurd in their vnderstanding, who knowe how he can play on both sides, and impugne that in which he would seem to be most forward: he can send notes of such things, as hee would pretend a desire should be kept secret, and send them round about the world with the same desire of secrecie. He can write his letters in exceeding great commendations to one of [Page 181] some one man, and at the same time write to another, in the dispraise of the same man. And is it a sufficient disproofe of his backwardnesse of hauing Bishops, that he laboured with some to haue them in England? Can Fa. Parsons so farre ouershoot himselfe, as to make his credite so small in the Court of Rome, as that any thing can be denied him, being assisted by such as expect from him a kingdome or two for their seruice?

Well (saith the Apologie) this then being resolued by his Holines, that he would haue an Archpriest appointed in England, whom all the rest should obey, he gaue commission to the said Cardinall Prote­ctor to institute the same in his name. Howe was this made knowen to the Priests? Forsooth the Cardinall shewed, that it was his Holinesse especiall order and commandement by these words, Speciali mandato nobis iniunxit; his Holines hath ordained this vnto vs by a speciall commandement. What silly boy would thus haue Englished iniunxit in this place? or what is that This, which his Holinesse ordained by a speciall commandement? the instituti­on of this subordination with these faculties &c. could this man imagine, that the Cardinals letters would neuer againe be loo­ked on? or if he could feare that, could he be so impudent, as to cite this part thereof, for to prooue his Holinesse speciall com­mandement for the erecting of the Archpriest? And to prooue, that his Holinesse was mooued by the aforesaid reasons, allea­ged by him, to wit, emulation, and what els pleaseth him: he citeth these words out of the same letter of the Cardinall: Ra­tiones abipsis sacerdotibus redditae, &c. the reasons alleaged by priests for this matter, were allowed by his Holinesse: and afterwardes he citeth a great part of the letter, for so much as concerneth the commendations of the Iesuits: and the desire which the Pope hath, that the Iesuites, and the Priests might liue in peace toge­ther. Which (saith he) comming from so high a superiour, and di­rectly from Christs vicar himselfe, we doe wonder, how it tooke no more effect within the heartes of our brethren, that impugned the same. And our brethren wonder, that any man can bee so impu­dent, as to make such a wonder; confessing so often as he doth in this Apologie, that Christs vicar himselfe would not write at all: whereby neither his letters appeared for the institution of this Archpriest, nor any commission by which the Cardinall [Page 182] had power to doe it. But the Cardinal his word was sufficient (saith he) and our brethren say no, and proue it by the testimo­nie of all men of knowledge in the Canon and Ciuill lawes: who say, that the sole testimonie of a Cardinall, is not necessarily to be credited in any matter preiudiciall to a third person: yet must the blinde obedient beleeue, that the priests in not obeying the Car­dinals letters, did directly withstand Christs vicar himselfe. But after he hath cited a part of the Cardinals letter, he affirmeth, that all was confirmed afterwards by his Holines owne Breue: and that all written by the Cardinall, and euery parcell there of, was by his order, consent, proper motion, and commande­ment, written, ordained, and sent into England. And to this our brethren answere, that so soone as they sawe this, they did presently submit themselues vnto the order. And say more­ouer, that this is very foolishly brought in, to prooue a disobe­dience in them, before this Brcue was written. And by this is answere made to the question following. But what? did this sa­tisfie or quiet them, that had resolued to be vnquiet? For the priests perceiuing such a deuise of the Iesuits, & foreseeing how here­by the Iesuits might vnder a maske play their prises more bold­ly then before, sent to Rome, as became Catholike priests, to know his Hol. pleasure, & in the meane while, these who were resolued to be vnquiet, spread Libels abroad against the priests, and condemned them of schisme, & much more such religious stuffe. The causes which moued the priests to demur vpon the matters, vntill they saw his Hol Breue, are set downe at large by M. Io. Collington in his booke intituled A iust defence &c. whither we are to referre our Reader: and as for the letter of the 6. As­sistants, it shall haue his place elsewhere, to be answered, & for now, we let it passe, as a base profe of any thing, which is therin affirmed, it being (no doubt) penned by those, who are inter­essed in this Apologie. Neither doe the letters of fortie or fiftie priests in England egged on, and in a manner compelled ther­unto by the Iesuits and Archpriest, to approoue his authority, or giue thankes to his Holines for it, prooue any thing, but a lightnesse in them, to giue credit where it was not due, euen in a most preiudiciall matter against themselues. The praises which are here attributed to M. Blackwels person, no man wish­eth [Page 183] more he may deserue, then I doe: but the testimonie which is brought of his false dealing, when he first manifested his au­thoritie, will goe hard against him: and the harder, for the poore shifts which are vsed in this Apologie, fol. 109. to salue them. This author hauing prooued a resolution in the Pope, and layd downe the supposed reasons of the institution of this subordination, and concluded, that the priests were disobedient to Christs Vicar himselfe, yet not hauing the wit to conceale, that his Holines did not write himselfe any thing, vntil a yeere after, and more: (at the sight of which letters, the priests did instantly submit themselues) hee goeth about now to salue the reasons which the priests haue giuen in their bookes, of their forbearance, vntill they saw his Holines Breue: and telleth his Reader, that hee hath gathered them out of both the two late bookes, the one in English, the other in Latine, though confu­sedly and tumultuously set downe in both; and in no one place distinctly and in order: whereby perchance hee might haue de­serued some commendation for his good will, had he not mar­red all himselfe in this Apologie, chap. 2. fol. 18. where hee taketh notice of one and twentie reasons, which are distinctly and in order set downe in the English booke, and citeth the pages 84, 85, 86, & deinceps: and chap. 11. fol. 176. hee acknowledgeth the same 21. reasons to be laid together by distinct numbers.

The first reason which this author impugneth is, that it was gotten by wrong and false information, by the instance of the aduerse partie onely, against their willes, and without their knowledge, con­trary to all equitie and iustice: And this hee impugneth, by affir­ming, that he hath already shewed it to be false, but you must goe looke where. The reason is defended by M. Doctor Ely in his notes vpon the eight chapter of this Apologie, pag 226. and o­ther following; and by M. Iohn Collington in his first reason.

Secondly (saith this author) they alledge, that they doubted whe­ther this ordination came from the Pope himselfe or no, seeing there came no Breue, nor Bull. Their reason is, for that the Pope vseth to send his Breues or Bulls in matters of lesse weight then this is, as appeareth by that extrauagant Iniunctae nobis, de electione: where all men are forbidden to receiue lesse prelacies then this was: although this were the meanest title that any prelat hath, [Page 182] [...] [Page 183] [...] [Page 184] as is handled at large by M. Collington in his 4. Reason, pa. 138, 139, and 140: and M. Do. Ely, pag 141. to 149. whereabout they aske this question concerning vs: Why should they be so vnwilling to procure, or suffer to be procured, some Bull or Breue for the confir­mation thereof, if it came from his Holinesse? Here were so many tales told of the vnited Priests, which labour well and zealously al­so, chap. 3. fol. 28. and chap. 8. fol. 105. but what now, the good and obedient: and such like arguments of the quiet, their dwelling farre from good neighbours, that the rope brake, and downe fell the Iesuits. Whereabout (sayth this author) they (the priests) aske this question concerning vs: wee must goe see concerning whome this question was asked, and assoile this riddle, Who is the author of this Apologie? and for the greater euidence, we will set downe the priests words, in the place cited by this author out of The copies of discourses, pag. 4. and 5. And more to shew their (the Iesuits) intentions in this matter, what interest they seeke and challenge in this authoritie (though indeed nothing concerning them, because a distinct societie and body from vs) one of them (and in the margent we reade Fa. Garnet) in a letter hee wrote vnto one that would not subscribe, confesseth and acknowledgeth, that whatsoeuer is opposite to the reuerend Archpriest, must of force be consequently opposite and against them; which thing must of necessitie import an extraordinarie tie betweene the authoritie of the Archpriest and them: either of the subordination of them to the Archpriest, which they disclaime from and denie; or contrariwise of the Archp to them: Fls how must it of necessity follow, that he which is opposite vnto the Archp, authority, must of force be opposite to them, as though a man might not resist their superior of an order, but he must needs thereby oppose himselfe against the whole body of another order? Furthermore if their interest were not great in this authority, why should they be so vnwilling to procure, or suffer to bee procured some Bul, or Breue for the confirmation thereof? Now tel me, Concerning whō is this que­stion asked? If ye be Ies [...]ts (who are authors of this Apologie) why doe ye maske your selues with the name of Priests vnited in due Subordination to the Archpriest? If ye are secular priests, tell me, How doth this question concerne you? The author of this Apologie was not mindfull of the weaknesse of the Rope, by breaking whereof he catched so foule a fall. The matter being [Page 185] layd downe so plaine before you assoile this hard riddle, concer­ning whom is this question asked? Why should there not &c. Will you for shame answere as the poore fellow did to this question, Who was Iaphets father? being no plainer taught, that Noe had three sonnes, Shem, Cham, and Iaphet, then you are taught in this place by you cited, that this question was asked concerning the Ie­suits? Well then, hereafter we must take either the Iesuits to be meant by your words concerning vs, and consequently one of them to haue made this Apologie, or Troll, Tom Millers bitch. But what? doth this authors folly cease with this? no God wot, (to vse his owne phrase fol. 104.) but he giueth a like answere to the question which the priests did aske, and this is it: but this question, and reason thereon depending is now answered: and how? for that a Breue was procured: but when? aboue a yeere after, as appeareth by the date. but when the priests did aske the que­stion, how was it then to bee answered? they knowe now, that there is a Breue procured, and they all submitted themselues readily vnto it, as is witnessed in this Apologie. And in the last Breue of the seuenteenth of August 1601, to the manifest repro­uing of this authors falshood, who in this place affirmeth, that it was not much more esteemed by these men (the priests) then these the Cardinals letters. but marke I pray you this proofe, as appeared by the effect: what effect? forsooth, the priests would not suffer themselues to be abused, and reported to haue been schisma­tickes as the Iesuits published, after the comming of the Breue, and the peace made: and the Archpriest did not onely not controll this seditious attempt of the Iesuits, but furthered it by promulgating a resolution which hee sayd he had receiued from the mother Citie, that the priests were schismatikes, who re­fused to obey the authoritie before they sawe the Breue. And what els? And that they in this very booke do call it in question also, how it came forth, saying, that they doe not know out of what office it was procured by Fa. Parsons meanes. Is this to call the Breue in question, or rather the maner of procuring it? He who vsed the wordes, out of which this clause is gathered, declareth in the Pamphlet, intituled, The hope of peace pag. 23 that a Breue may come from diuers places, & be called an Apostolical Breue: and pag 24. he giueth a cause why there might be some ielou­sie [Page 186] had of indirect dealing, in the procuring of this: to wit, a manifest mistaking of the Cardinals letter, which is also noted in the booke to the Inquisition pag. 59: a thing not vnufuall in his Holines Breues.

Other reasons of theirs are (sayth the Apologie) that the Cardi­nals letters Patents are not sufficient to giue the matter credit: and this is sufficiently prooued by M. Io B. in The hope of peace pag. 32 33. and since by M. Iohn Collington in his third reason, pag. 60.61. and other following. M. Doctor Ely also, Doctor of both lawes, and professor in Pont à musson in Lorraine, in his notes vpon the Apologie from the 116 page to the 137. prooueth this point: where also that foolish obiection of the eighth priui­ledge of a Card. here cited in the Apologie, is answered: as also by M. Iohn Collington pag. 114. and the authour of the Apologie iustly reprooued for his false dealing in citing this impertinent glosse: for he leaueth out a part of the sentence, which mar­reth his market, and maketh it euident, to what poore straits he is driuen, that must cite such a place for himselfe: which besides that it maketh not for his purpose, it maketh altogether against him, in calling that in doubt, vpon which hee would build his argument which he would frame in this maner: The credit of a Card is so great, that if he should say, he is the Popes Legate, he is to be beleeued, though he shew no letters: ergo in this, as a matter of lesse moment, he is to bee beleeued. If a debtor tell his creditor he is a Christian, his creditor will be­leeue him: but if he telleth him that he oweth him nothing, I doubt whether he will beleeue him, notwithstanding he belee­ueth him in a farre greater matter then forty shillings, to wit, that he is a Christian. But to their argument. First it is to bee seene, that it is not infallibly true, nor so taken generally, that such credit is giuen to a Cardinall: For the same glosse in the same place affirmeth, that some do doubt thereof. And M.D. Ely affirmeth, that it may be better said, that all do doubt there­of, and so he goeth on pag 125. vpon this point, shewing vpon how weake a proofe this Apologie standeth. and M. Iohn Colling­ton prooueth pag 118. that he to whom a cause is delegated by speciall commandement, is greater in the same, then is a Legate generall, and by this is that supposition also maimed, that in [Page 187] our case (where the Cardinal is said to haue affirmed, that what he did, he did by speciall commandement) hee was inferiour to a Legate, although in very trueth he sayth not so, but onely that he had a speciall commandement of his Holinesse, to doe what he could, for the making vp the breach, which was suggested to the Pope, to haue been in England betweene the Seminarie priests, and Catholikes, as may be seene in the letters consti­tutiue, prefixed to M. Collingtons booke. And yet to blind such as take pleasure therein, this author speaking of the Cardinall, demandeth, who doth not know what a Cardinals test monie in any Christian Catholike Court is worth: especially a Protector, testifying, and professing in his letters patents, to doe it exspeciall mandato Sanctissimi, at this man doth in his letters? As this man doth not in his letters, more then wee now haue sayd: which was no commission, to make his Subordination. Let the letters bee sought, and it will soone be seene, that this fellow vsed these Latine words of his owne, and not out of the Cardinals letters: and that the like words are referred by the Cardinall to some other point, then the making of this Subordination. But to o­mit the iugling which is vsed betweene the Cardinals doing it sometime, as here fol. 108. and his witnessing sometime, that his Holinesse did it: as it was sayd in the Libel which D. Haddocke, and M. Martin Array put vp against M. Doctor Bishop, and M. Charnocke at Rome the tenth of Ianuary 1599, and all with the same letters, commonly called the Constitutiue letters. This cir­cumstance of being Protector doth litle helpe the matter: for that, as is sayd in The hope of peace pag. 33. this acte of the Card. was a subdelegation, as appeareth by those words of his letters, Te deligimus &c. We make choice of you, whom for the time we sub­delegate in that charge which was committed to vs, and not an acte of Protectorship. And pag. 34. it is shewed that the office of a Protector stretcheth it selfe no further then the Court of Rome. For so doth Zecchius set it downe in his booke De repub. Christi­ana: De statu Ill. Dom. Card. Nu. 9. In hoc Consistorio quae (que) pro­uinciae, & regularium congregatio, ac reges habent suos patres tutela­res, qui Protectores dicuntur: qui electiones, & alias causas prouin­ciae sibicommissae, in Consistorio proponunt, & oppositoribus respon­dent. In this Consistorie euery prouince, congregation of Regulars, and [Page 188] kings haue their Fathers, who haue care of them: and these are called Protectors: these doe then propose elections, and other causes of the prouince, committed vnto them, and doe make answere to such, as op­pose against them. This point is also handled by M. Collington pa. 6 [...]. and by M D Ely pa 163. & 164.

But not to stand vpon these matters (saith this poore man who in trueth can finde no footing in this his cause) it is a foule thing; what? for birds to defile their owne nests: as these vnited priests do oft in this Apologie, if they are authors thereof? you meane some other matter; Let vs heare it: when for couering our owne wils, of not obeying, we seeke holes in the coates, and authoritie of our Superiors. I wil shew you what is a fowle thing; when for co­uering the lewdnesse of others, who shot at nothing els, then to haue you, and all the Secular cleargie of England vnder them as punies, and boyes, you will take vpon you to patronize and make their actions to be yours: that if through your folly, and their foule dealing they could preuaile, in their most vniust, and wicked attempt, you shall feele the smart of your blindnesse in which now you glory. And if they do not preuaile, you must beare the shame of your wicked enterprise▪ But what holes are those, which these men are said to seeke in their superiors coats? and what superiors are they? Marke I pray, how this author dis­chargeth himselfe of this matter: as these men do both against the Cardinall Protector his auctoritie, and person, as also the Archpriest; yea and his Holines also in couert words, & so far as they dare. What, man? so farre, is they dare? what is that, which they would dare against his Holines? Forsooth perswading the people, that he hath beleeued false information: did any man euer dare to say: what? and perswade the people also, that the Pope could beleeue false infor­mation? marry sir, here was such a nole found in his coate, as himselfe could neuer haue seene. Here was Christs vicar him­selfe very strangely abused: and thereby appointed a subordination most inconuenient. Were all those Popes fooles, whose letters are cited in the common Law, de rescriptis, & the Bishops also, to whō they did write in such forme, as they did acknowledge, they might be, and were often mis-informed, and did many things otherwise, then they would haue done, if they had bene truely informed? Si quando (saith Pope Alexander the third, to [Page 189] the Archbishop of Rauenna. cap. si quando de Rescriptis) aliqua tuae fraternitati dirigimus, quae animum tuum exasperare videntur, turbarinon debes. Et infra. Qualitatem negotij, pro quo tibi scribi­tur, diligenter considerans, aut mandatum nostrum reuerenter adim­pleas, aut per literas tuas, quare adimplere non possis, rationabilem causam pretendas, quia patienter sustinebimus, sinon feceris, quod pra­ua nobis fuerit insinuatione suggestum. That is, If at any time we di­rect any things vnto your brotherhood, which seem to exasperate your minde, you ought not to be troubled thereat. And afterward, Ha­uing diligently considered of the quality of that busines, of which wee write vnto you, either fulfill our commandement reuerently, or pre­tend some reasonable cause, by your letters, why you cannot fulfill it. For we will patiently beare, that you do not that, which was by bad in­sinuation suggested vnto vs. Other Chapters there are there to be seene to this effect, which in this place would be needlesly cited; Onely this will suffice, to shew that it hath bene long since seene, that Popes could be falsly informed, and thereby also appoint a matter most inconuenient. And yet this was neuer taken for a hole in the Popes coat. But what more is there concerning this hole, not heard of in the Church before? The day would blinde Hugh faine haue seene, and those, that are deafe, would gladly heare, when it was euer heard of in the Church be­fore, that an Archpriest was made Superior ouer all the Secular cleargie of two whole kingdomes, as now M. Blackwell is of England and Scotland. And that it is against all equitie and iu­stice, and that his Holines could not lawfully appoint it without their consents. The accepting of the auctoritie at the sight of his Ho­lines Breue doeth conuince, that the priests neuer stood vpon his absolute authoritie, but vpon the custome, which by Law is also confirmed, that they should chuse their superior, which M. D. Bishop touched, and proued in his reply to F. Parsons pa. 151. and it is handled since more at large by M. D. Ely pag. 190. to 196. And that the meanes by which he had appointed, is insufficient, binding no man to obey it. If this man do meane, that the priests did not take the Cardinals letter, as sufficient to binde them to obey it, it is very true, that they thought those meanes insuffici­ent, and they haue giuen diuers proofes of the insufficiencie thereof. If he meane any other matter, he must explicate him­selfe. [Page 190] For other meanes the priests did not know, vntil they saw the Breue: at which time they did all submit themselues vnto it: All which must argue great insufficiencie, defect, and lacke of cō ­sideration in his Holines proceeding. They should haue had more honestie, who gaue the false information: and their fault was the greater, because so great a trust was reposed in them by his Holines. And to mend these holes in the Popes coat I would gladly vnderstand, why the two priests, who were first sent to his Holines, were clapt vp close prisoners, before they could haue accesse vnto him? If his Holines could not beleeue wrong information, then might the Iesuits, and the Sbirri with more credit haue bene at their iayles, then seeking to imprison such as came to informe his Holines. If his Holines could beleeue wrong informations, and that these good men therefore ioyned together to apprehend, and imprison the two priests: then is this hole in his Holines coate patched vp againe: that the Priests dared to perswade the people, that he hath beleeued false informations: for this implieth that he could. And thus much for the holes in his Holines coat: a pretie slubbering kinde of answere to the priests reasons. The Protectors turne should be next, but this author will owe him the patching vp of his holes, and will goe helpe the Archpriest. And as for the Archpriest their immediate superior (saith he) though in words they acknowledge his authority, &c. yet doe they seeke by all meanes possible, to discredit both him, his authority, and person. The first matters seeme to concerne him, and his person; as that he is charged about his doubling in his instructions, and about an heretical proposition. But how are these things answered? the first is thus awarded, We cannot ap­prehend how it could be spoken: the second thus. If M. Blackwell should say, as wee are sure hee did not in the sense they take it: two poore shifts. But to the Apologie as it lieth. And here in this place they will needs raise a certaine cauill against him (the Archpriest, or his persō) saying that he doubled in his speech with M. Collingt. and M. Charnock: for of their two relations onely all these matters are raised against him (vt in ore duorū, vel trium testiū saith our Sauiour Matt. 8.) stet omne verbum, that euery thing be tried by two or three witnesses) when at the first comming of the Cardinals letters and instructions, he conferred them confidently with these two [Page 191] (but this his confidence wrought in him a marueilous confusion, when hee was taken tardy vpon too great a confidence of an vn­cleanly conueyance) who so dutifully interpreted his speeches, as first they said he was contrary to himselfe, and affirmed his instructi­ons to haue come from Rome together with his letters, which is most true, and they are to be seene vnder the Cardinals hand and seale, &c. Marke how this matter is shuffled vp: He was neuer blamed for saying his instructions came from Rome, which were vnder the Cardinals hand and seale, but for saying that those instructions came from Rome which he shewed, and were neuer to be seene vnder the Cardinals hand and seale, but were of his owne ma­king as he confessed, being enforced thereunto, when so much was conuinced by the contents, and that he had counterfeited them, which at that time was no little cōfusion vnto him. And thus may any reasonable man apprehend, how it could be spo­ken, which (this author sayth here) wee cannot apprehend how it could be spoken. We doe further apprehend how it could be spoken, and to what ende, that he had authoritie to excommunicate, and send priests to their answere to the Court of Rome, and how a nod could bee giuen toward the next chamber, to insinuate that there was his commission for this also: and yet neuer a worde true of all this which he spake. And the thing beeing apprehen­ded, how it could be, and two priests ready to depose, that it was so, we doe further apprehend, that the Archpriest or his person deserued a greater punishment, then his factious adherents would should light vpon him, especially if his instructions, which he had so falsified, were sent by his Holines, and onely testified by the Card. as sometimes for an aduantage this fel­low will vrge. But whither doe we wander, that this fellow vn­derstood not, how it could be spoken? For the Archpriest himselfe could not well tell what hee said, as it should seeme by a letter of his of the second of March following, being charged with these matters: Sir (sayth he) the Archpresbyter hath to doe about excommunications, and the sending to the Court of Rome. But what? can he excommunicate, or hath he any power to send priests thither? no such matter. What is it then, that he can do? Marke I pray you his owne words, and how he answereth that which was laid to his charge: For by his commission hee is charged to spe­cifie [Page 192] all such rebellions and contumacies, as are too familiar with you, if they cannot be suppressed, with his authoritie at home, and to inti­mate the same to the Card. Protector his grace, and so by his meanes to procure excommunication, or the sending for to Rome, for the re­dresse of such licentiousnesse. By this logicke then, a power to ex­communicate, is a power to write to those who can procure it. And hee that cannot write to any, that can procure an excom­munication, is not worthy to be said, to haue the power him­selfe to excommunicate. But for the instructions, note I pray you how hee would shift the matter: And for the particular in­structions, he neuer said they were all made at Rome. Indeede there was no cause, why he should vse those particular words neither is the charge so to be vnderstood. Hee is thus charged by Ma­ster Collington and M. Charnocke, that after the Cardinals letter was read, he put them in mind, that the letter did mention cer­taine instructions, which should be annexed thereunto: and therewithall drew a paper out of his bosome, which he did not deliuer vnto them to read (as he had done the letter) but kept it still in his owne hands, affirming that those were the instructi­ons which were meant in the letter, and he read them as such: and being taken in the maner, and conuinced, that they could not be such, he confessed that some of them were of his owne making. And this will the two priests aboue named iustifie be­fore God and the world, where this poore shift will not serue: he neuer said they were all made at Rome, nor this new deuise: But that his instructions made at Rome, gaue him authoritie to set downe Rules, about all particular matters and cases of such qualitie.

Moreouer (saith he) they gaue out amongst their friends, that he had spoken an hereticall proposition: whereupon M. Bishop tolde the same in Rome, as appeareth in his examination, affirming to haue heard it of his fellow M Charnocke, who yet as farre as we vnder­stand, did set downe nothing thereabout in his depositions. Perchance Fa. Parsons was loath to trouble M. Charnocke with any such in­terrogation: for doubtlesse, if he had bene asked this question, his answere would haue bene here also inserted, especially if he had denied it. The auoiding then of such a question to M Char­nocke must needes be suspitious, his examination both being begun before M. Bishops, as appeareth in the 9. chapter of this [Page 193] Apologie fol. 129. and ended some 9. or 10. dayes, after M. Bi­shops examination, as appeareth in the same chapter fol. 134. And in this latter English Libell, againe diuers times mention is made thereof by a certaine censurer intituled, M. I. B. comenting vpon a letter of Fa. Parsons, but nothing affirming or denying, but onely entertayning the speech, that an hereticall proposition had bene obiected, or spoken of at Rome against the Archpriest, There was no place for to handle any proposition in that censure, more then the letter of Fa Parsons gaue cause, And he gaue no other cause then in these generall termes: you tooke the way first to discredite so much as in you lay, M. Blackwell, &c. yea in the very matter of his faith: for that an hereticall proposition was layd to his charge Copies of Discourses. pag. 62. The censurer perchance did not know thus much but vpon Fa. Parsons word: to which he gaue little credit, and therefore vsed those words, pag. 88. if it should be true which Fa. Parsons saith in the 17. paragraffe, that M Blackwell was touched in the ve­ry matter of his faith, and offereth to prooue it by certaine depositions, yet extant at Rome, that an hereticall proposition was layde to his charge. I doubt their ground for going to Rome will hardly be shaken. And this is the oftener inculcated, because Fa. Parsons in the same letters where he mentioneth this deposition, doth often affirme, that there was nothing of substance brought against the Archpriest pag 55. And a little after that their enterprise of con­tradiction was without foundation at all. pag. 59. And againe, that his Holinesse and the Cardinals were ashamed, to finde them to haue come so long a iourney with so little to say, pag. 58. And the censu­rer thought, that he had discharged himselfe sufficiently in that action, when he shewed how vnaduisedly F. Parsons still ranne vpon this point, that the two priests had nothing to say worth the handling, and yet confesseth that they had to touch, yea and touched M. Blackwell in the very matter of his faith, pag. 62. But now this author will set it downe more particularly, and answere for Blackwell.

And the proposition forsooth was, that M. Blackwel should say vn­to them, that they could not appeale from him to the Pope himselfe: well good sir, how doe you answere for M. Blackwell? which if M. Blackwell should say, as we are sure he did not in the sense they take it. In what sense doe they take it which the plaine wordes [Page 194] doe not giue? what a poore shift is this to say, if he should say it, as we are sure he did not, in that sense they take it? Then you are not sure, that he did not say it, but that he did not say it, in the sense they take it. If you should complain that you were striken, would you take it for an argument, that you were not striken, because the striker did not strike you, in that sense that you take it? He spake it, and stood peremptorily in it, after that he was often admonished of the danger thereof, by M. Collington, and M. Charnocke: and this flying to senses, which are so secret, as they may not be knowen, nor can be imagined to bee other, then the words doe giue, bewrayeth too much guiltinesse. But marke, I pray you another shift, at a dead lift. If M. Blackwell should say it, &c. yet many men in the world may say this in diuerse causes, wherein appeale is cut off by his Holinesse consent, and order. Doth the power which is in other men in the world, giue M. Blackwell a warrant, to say this or that, because they can say it? If many men in the world may say, that appeale is not to be made from them to the Pope himselfe, many men in the world may say more then becommeth them, but in such cases, as wherein appeale is cut off by his Holinesse consent and order. Which consent and order they are to shew, or to be taken for such, as M. Blackwell was taken; that is, either very ignorant, or a worse thing. Such Commissions are commonly granted with this clause appellatione remota, or some other equiualent, which can not be foūd in the Cardinals letters, or his instructions, which were all the commission which he had, when he stoode vpon this point: nor to this day is appellation from him to the sea of Rome cut off by any consent or order of his Holinesse, although the Breue of the 17. of August 1601. doth not admit of the Ap­peale, his Holinesse being perswaded, that it could not be fol­lowed without further trouble. And if he had this clause from his Holinesse himselfe in any commission Appellatione remota, yet would no man of vnderstanding affirme, that the Priestes could not appeale from him to the Pope himselfe, according to that chapter. Pastoralis de officio & potestate iudicis delegati. Si Papa scienter commisit appellationem interpositam à suo delegato da­to cum clausula appellatione remota, iurisdictio primi delegati est interim suspensa, quoad executionem, &c. If the Pope hath wittingly [Page 195] committed an appellation, which was made from his delegate, who was delegated with this clause appellatione remota, (without ad­mitting any appeale) the iurisdiction of that first delegate is the meane while suspended from any execution: Donec (saith Pope In­nocent the third, out of whose words the Rubricke is made) ap­pellationis merita plenius sint discussa: vntill the causes of the appel­lation be discussed. And Launcelot lib. 3. tit. de Appell. Interdum non obstante prohibitione appellari poterit. Sometime it is lawfull to ap­peale notwithstanding the prohibition. And he putteth some cases for example. Licèt causa (appellatione remota) commissa fuerit: although the cause were committed with this clause, appellatione remota, without admitting any appeale: so that whatsoeuer this authour of the Apologie sayth, few men will say so much, as M. Blackwell said: Although appellation from them be sometimes cut off with his Holinesse consent, and order: and much lesse where there was no such cutting off, as may be seene in his let­ters by which he was instituted Archpriest. Besides that, these were not his Holinesse letters, but the Cardinall Caietans: and therefore as yet was there lesse cause to stand so peremptorily vpon this point, as M. Blackwell did, after that he was tolde of his errour. And if M. Charnocke in conscience had thought this to haue bene heresie, or hereticall, he was bound vnder paine of ex­cōmunicatiō (especially being in Rome) to haue prosecuted the matter, &c. M. Charnocke might haue thought that it was heresie or he­reticall, and might haue had the purpose to prosecute it in Rome: who can say the contrary? But then why did he not? perchance because it ranne in his mind, as good neuer a whit, as neuer the better. Perchance he might dreame that M. Blackwell had some secret sense, contrary to the purport of the wordes, and say, that he meant all well. What if it were set downe in wri­ting among those notes, which the Popes officer tooke from him, as Fa. Parsons insinuated in his letter to M D. Bishop, which is in The copies of discourses, in these words, pag. 62. Moreouer it appeareth by your papers and depositions yet extant, that you tooke the way first to discredit (so much as in you lay) M. Blackwell &c. yea in the very matter of his faith. And if M. Bishop did depose, that he heard such a matter of M. Charnocke, how farre were the ex­aminers bound, especially at Rome, to prosecute this matter, it [Page 196] being there deposed in that manner? Or where should M. Charnocke haue prosecuted it, being close prisoner, and com­mitted to his aduersaries to be kept, examined, and haue all his words and actions interpreted by them, and was debarred of conference with any but them; whereby hee might well per­ceiue there was no fit place for him to deale in any matter, but what the Iesuites would like of, and their adherents: in so much as if Fa. Parsons haue any trueth in him, the Pope was hardly brought to thinke, that M. Bishop & he were Catholike priests? And was this (trow you) a conuenient place, or time for him to enter into any course (had he bene otherwise bound there­to) against another, especially such a man, as whose discredite would be so great a blowe vnto M. Charnockes Iaylor, as hee could not haue had the like in the Court of Rome? But how hangeth that together which followeth; and not hauing done so (that is, prosecuted this matter at Rome) and yet procuring in these late libels to renue the speech thereof againe. How is this pro­ued? It is easely seene, that their intention: now he is fallen from M. Charnockes supposed acte, to their intention: as though, if it had bene true, that M Charnocke had procured to renue those speeches, and that all those friends had forgotten it, amongst whom in this place the Apologie confesseth it was giuen out, the intention of the rest could be d scouered to be onely to discredite the person of their superiour in what they may, which (saith he) is a bad kind of obedience. He may sweare it, for it was neuer heard that the acte of discrediting of a man, was an act of obedience, vnlesse the Superiour would giue such a foolish cōmandement against himselfe, which M. Blackwell will neuer do, as we hope. And although that these bookes were printed, as here it is vr­ged, after that M. Blackwell was made a lawfull Superiour, (to wit by his Holinesse Breue) yet these matters were touched (as long past before the Breue came, and at such time, as hee was deemed to be intruded, without his Holinesse knowledge) to shew what iust causes the Priests had, to be aduised before they should resolue, to subiect themselues vnto him.

After this long paine, to finde holes in Superiors coates, the au­thor is fallen againe into the priests reasons, among which hee citeth those, which wee haue now once already answered, to [Page 197] wit, that his Holinesse could not do it lawfully without their consents, and that the election pertained vnto them, and the like. One newe deuise he hath for some varietie, as for that it is a forreine autho­ritie and subiect to danger of Premunire, which is answered be­fore, that the priests did not plead this, or giue it as a reason a­gainst the authority, but alleaged it as the opinion onely of di­uers men of iudgement in the lawes of our countrey, as may be seene in the sixt page of the English booke, and prooued thereby, that in wisedome they might pause vpon their submit­ting themselues vnto the authority, seeing no other warrant for it, then a Cardinals letter, to whom they knew no tye of o­bedience, much lesse in a matter of so great moment. And that this was all which they did, it is euident in that so soone, as they did see his Holinesse letter (whom they knew to be their Supe­riour) they all yeelded themselues. And as it is sayd before, if our princes of the same religion, of which we were, did punish such as accepted of any dignities by prouision from Rome, without their cōsents, the priests might assuredly expect some seueritie of a prince of a contrary religion. And as they were not bound to accept thereof, before it was confirmed by his Holinesse, so did they thinke it great follie to exasperate the state any more against them, by accepting of so strange and needles a noueltie.

And these reasons (saith the Apologie) are set downe and prin­ted in two of the first treatises of this English booke intituled, Copies of discourses, which were written before the Breue came foorth for confirmation of the Archpriest: and therefore they ought to haue bene answered according to that time, not with this idle shift: His Holines Institution. For as then it was not knowen, that it was his Holinesse Institution, as here is confessed in these words, Before the Breue came foorth. And consequently it seemeth strange to vs, why they were now permitted after the Breue is foorth, and hath not wrought that effect for quieting them, which then they promised What then will this fellow say to all the testimonies brought by himselfe, to proue the peace was made at the sight of the Breue Cap. 10. Apol? what will he answere to his Holi­nesse Breue of the seuenteenth of August 1601, where his Holi­nesse auoucheth it that all was presently ended vpon the sight [Page 198] of his Breue of the sixt of Aprill 1599. His riddle then is thus read: that the Breue did worke that effect in the priests, which they promised, as we haue now shewed. But not long after the Iesuits began to spread abroad, and that the priests, who obeyed not, before they saw the Breue, were schismaticks: and the Arch­priest was so farre from controlling this reuiued faction of the Iesuits, as hee published a resolution pretended to come from Rome, that the refusers of his authoritie were schismatikes. And now it will not seeme strange to a reasonable man, that these discourses were now printed, for that now there was need to per­swade Catholickes, that the priests were not then schismatikes: which perswasion the priests thought it fit to further, by decla­ring the true state of matters, how they then stood, and vpon what reasons. And these were best, and most sincerely to be shewed by the letters, which passed at that time to and fro, and by laying downe the causes, which then they had, and might haue, to deferre their obedience, vntill they saw the Breue: and thereby giue satisfaction to Catholickes, that they had not been schismatikes, as the Iesuites and Archpriest began now a­gaine after the peace made, to publish against them.

But now after these treatises (sayth this author) ensueth an Epi­stle of M. Anthony Champneys, which we would hardly beleeue to bee his, if he had not suffered his name to be put downe in print to the same. For we had greater opinion both of his discretion, learning, and modestie, then that hee would vtter such things as in this epistle are contained: especially matter of so much gall against the Fathers of the societie, vnder whom he hath bene brought vp, and of whose or­der for diuers yeeres (as we are informed) hee sought to bee, Note this author his opinion of M. Champneys discretion, learning and modestie, and how that this opinion must no longer last, be­cause he maintaineth his good name against the slaunderous tongues of the Iesuites, and their associates, in their vniust accusation of Schisme, and disobedience. And whosoeuer shall reade his Epistle, which is heere mentioned, shall perceiue great cause, why that good and reuerent opinion was rather to be still kept by that Epistle, then the least iot diminished, as ha­uing shewed very discreetely, learnedly, and modestly, how wrong­fully he, and other graue and reuerend Catholicke priests were [Page 199] charged by the Iesuites and their adherents. But this seemeth very strange to many, that there being so reuerend an opinion of his discretion, learning, and modestie, as this author affirmeth, they would not admit him into their order, hauing sought it for diuers yeeres, as here is affirmed. Will hee perchance haue his reader to vnderstand, that a man of discretion, learning, and mo­destie, cannot well suite with that religious order? or that such men are not thought fit for such purposes, as the master of mis­rule would effect in our countrey, who now hath the disposing of our English Iesuites, and is of opinion perchance, that the further off a man is from discretion, learning, and modestie, the fit­ter will he be to further his designes, and hath for the instructi­on of his nouices, or encouragement to other, written this A­pologie, and shewed that he himselfe hath neither discretion, lear­ning, nor modestie, or else that his instruments must haue defect at the least in some one or two of these three vertues, as the au­thor of the Treatise of Schisme, and his abettors therein, who were thought to haue had some learning, but they haue giuen an earnest penny in that Treatise, that they neither had discreti­on, modestie, nor learning? And M. Champney might be thought to be highly fauoured of God, that he escaped so great a dan­ger, seeking it himselfe for diuers yeeres (as here is said) although no doubt he might haue bene of the societie, and haue taken such good and religious courses, as we doubt not but that ma­ny of that order doe. But those commonly (sayth this author) are worse when they loose their spirit, seeking to pacifie the remorse of their owne conscience, by deuising defects against them whome they left. See how this fellow doubleth in his tale. If M. Champney sought for diuers yeeres to be of the societie, why was he not ad­mitted, they hauing an opinion of him to be of discretion, lear­ning, and modestie? could he doe any more then to seeke it, and to perseuere in seeking it for diuers yeeres, as here is confessed? how is hee charged to haue left them? Is it not rather euident that they would not admit him? Againe, I would faine knowe what remorse of conscience it is, which a man of discretion, lear­ning, and modestie, can haue, for missing that, for the effecting of which he did the vttermost, which hee could morally doe. He sought it, you say, for diuers yeeres: and is hee to be charged [Page 200] with any thing, of which he should haue remorse of conscience: he should perchance haue continued still that mind to be a Ie­suite, but must haue deserued it by some emploiment vnder you; in which if hee had not had that plausible successe which you desired, the Secular priests must haue borne the shame thereof, because whatsoeuer he was in desire, or in the aduen­ture, yet in his state he had been no other then a Secular priest. And so by this Epistle he payeth all his former obligations vnto them, by as hatefull speeches as commonly any enemy could vtter. This au­thor hath shewed you the obligations which M. Champney had vnto them, which perchance were obligations in them toward him, in that he perseuered diuers yeeres, seeking to be of them, and was likely to haue beene a greater credit vnto them, then any of our nation, which haue bene employed here in our En­glish affaires, being accounted a man of discretion, learning, and modestie. And can any man thinke, that if there were any hate­full speeches in his Epistle against the Societie, that this author would not mention them? But leauing this (sayth he) we come to the point it selfe, wherein hee sheweth as little sound iudgement of learning, as any other that had his hand in the booke. Prouided al­wayes, that it be remembred, how that this author dealeth a­gainst a man, who otherwise hath bene esteemed discreete, lear­ned, and modest, which qualities were neuer known to haue had greater aduersaries then indiscretion, ignorance, and immodestie. And here these shew themselues now against M. Champney his learning, discretion, and modestie. For first (sayth this author) hee will needs take vpon him in this Epistle to prooue, that he and his fel­lowes had great reason in doing as they did, and that it neither was nor is any sinne or disobedience at all: for (sayth he) to disobey, is to resist, contemne, and impugne the knowen commandement of a Su­periour. His reasons (good Sir) you are contented to let them rest for this time: and you imploy your talent against this defi­nition of disobedience, in which you haue offended against mo­destie, as we take it, in that you would so boldly relate his words with falshood. Is it all one with you, It is midday, or midnight; and, it is midday, and midnight? His words are, resist, contemne, or impugne: and you cite them, resist, contemne, and impugne. And in the margent you make this note, The large definition of diso­bedience, [Page 201] deuised for excuse of the troublesome. Know you what you say? If this be the large definition of disobedience, how doe you here exclude out of it the disobedience of Adam, Saul, and A­chan, whome you confesse to haue disobeyed, and sinned by their disobedience? yea you deduce the matter in such sort, as you prooue this definition to be onely of that disobedience, which is the sinne against the holy Ghost. For thus you argue speaking of Samuel: He did not say to Saul, why diddest thou resist, contemne, or impugne, which is not onely disobedience, but rebel­lion and obstination, of which obstination S. Thomas in the questi­on by M. Champney cited, affirmeth to be the sinne against the holy Ghost? And yet in the margent, you will make a note, That this is a large definition of disobedience, deuised for the excuse of the troublesome. For which hee (M. Champney) citeth S. Thomas (sayth this author) 2.2 quaest. 104. art. 1. & quaest. 105 per totum. But here we would aske M. Champney, that came so late from his studie, whether to euery sinfull disobedience, yea mortall sinne, it be needfull that the disobedient should resist, contemne, and impugne, or whether S. Thomas in these places by him alledged, doth define any such thing, and not the plaine contrary? In the absence of Master Champney, who perchance at his returne will giue some larger satisfaction, it is for this time answered: First, that here is a iug­ling of mortall sinne, and disobedience, as if M. Champney did vn­dertake to define euery mortall sinne, and not the sinne of disobe­dience. Secondly, it is answered directly to the question: first, concerning euery mortall sinne, that to euery mortall sinne it is needfull that the disobedient should resist, contemne, or impugne, according to the doctrine of S. Thomas here cited, quaest. 104. art. 3. in corpore. These are his words: Sicut peccatum consistit in hoc, quod homo, contempto Deo, commutabilibus bonis inhaeret: As sinne consisteth in this, that man (God being contemned) doth follow such a good as is subiect to change. And now concerning disobedi­ence, it is also answered, that the disobedient, not as an adulterer or a thiefe, but as disobedient doth resist, contemne, or impugne, not onely virtually (as euery sinner doth, according to S. Tho­mas cited immediatly before, and which were enough to iusti­fie M. Champneys wordes in euery mortall disobedience) but actually. And in this sence doth Nauar. in his Manuel. cap. 23. [Page 202] nu. 35. define disobedience. Inobedientia (sayth hee) prout est spe­ciale vitium, est vitium inclinans ad non faciendum, quod iubetur, eo principalitèr, quòd iubetur: Disobedience as it is a speciall vice, (that is, as disobedience) is a vice inclining not to doe that which is commanded, principally because it is commanded. And for this he citeth S. Thomas 2.2. quaest. 104. and then hee addeth this: Ita quod ex duobus conficitur inobedientia specialis, scilicet ex non faci­endo iussum, & ex animo non faciendi illud, eo principalitèr quòd iu­betur: So that disobedience (as disobedience) consisteth of two things, to wit, of not doing that which is commanded; and of a minde not to doe it, principally because it is commaunded. S. Thomas quaest. 104. ar. 2. ad primum, sayth directly of disobedience (as it is a speciall vice, that is, as disobedience.) Ad inobedientiam requiritur, quod actualiter contemnat praeceptum: In disobedience it is to be required, that the commandement be actually contemned. And quaest. 105. ar. 1. ad primum: Nec etiam omne peccatum mortale est, inobedientia propriè, & per se loquendo, sed solum tunc, quando aliquis praeceptum contemnit, quia ex fine morales actus speciem habent: Cum autem fa­cit aliquid contra praeceptum, non propter praecepti contemptum, sed propter aliquid aliud est inobedientia materialiter tantùm sed per­tinet formaliter ad aliam speciem peccati. That is, Neither is euery mortall sinne a disobedience, if we speake properly, but only then when the commandement is contemned, because morall actions take their nature of their end: But when a man doth any thing against a com­maundement, not vpon contempt of the commaundement, but vpon some other motiue, it is onely materially a disobedience, but formally it appertaineth to another kind of sinne: and is called for example, pride, couetousnes, theft, or such like not disobedience. By this it ap­peareth, that M. Champney is vniustly blamed: & that the author of the Apologie may as yet goe to M. Champney his lecture: and in the meane while if he would be silent, he might be taken for a iolly fellow. But who is so bolde as blinde bayard? And thus he runneth on. For if it be true that no man doeth sinne by disobe­dience, but he onely who doeth resist, contemne, and impugne, (M. Champneys words are, or impugne) his superiors cōmandement, how was Adams offence so greatly punished in him, & his posterity? where­in yet we doe not reade, that he did resist, contemne, or impugne the Commandement of God Almighty about the apple: but onely did sim­ply [Page 203] disobey by eating the same which was forbidden. We might here make answere out of S. Thomas, that there was a contempt: for so hee saith, Quest. 104. ar. 3. in corp. peccatum consistit in hoc quod homo contempto Deo &c. Sinne consisteth in this, that man (God con­temned) doth follow such a good as is subiect to change. And if reply be made, that it is no actuall contempt; I will aske where they read this word actuall in M. Champneys definition of disobedience? But to make this matter more cleare, I demaund of this author whether that this sinne of Adam were a sinne of disobedience for­mally; that is, the same which is called peccatum inobedientiae or no? If he answer affirmatiuely, then he must confesse, accor­ding to the doctrine of S. Thomas quest. 104 ar. 2. ad. 1. that there was an actuall contempt. If he answere negatiuely, and that it was some other sinne, as S. Thomas affirmeth quest. 150. ar. 2. ad 3. that it was pride and not disobedience, otherwise then eue­ry sinne may in a generall terme be called disobedience, then is not this example to the purpose. For M. Champney did not de­fine pride, but disobedience, and not disobedience in the largest ma­ner as here it is foolishly noted in the margent (which as S. Tho­mas saith quest. 104. ar. 2. ad. primum, is a generall sinne, as obedi­ence may be a generall vertue if obedience be taken for an execu­tion of any thing, which may be commanded, and disobedience for an omitting to do the same, vpon whatsoeuer intention) but disobedience (as disobedience,) to which S. Thomas saith in the same place is necessarily required, that the commandement be actually contemned. The same answere is to be made to the next instance, which this author giueth against M. Champney his definition of disobedience. Neither do we read (saith he) that Achan in the spoile of Iericho did resist, contemne, or impugne the commandement of Ioshua, that nothing should be touched, or saued of the goods of that towne, but being delighted with some part there­of, held it to himselfe. See how this fellow minseth the matter, being delighted with some part thereof, held it to himselfe. Whereas the words of Acan Ios. the 7. are these, concupiscens abstuli, coue­ting them I tooke them away. By which it is euident, that his sinne was couetousnes, and not disobedience, but in that large maner, in which the pride of Adam, and euery mortal sinne according to S. Thomas might be called disobedience. And if this author will [Page 204] auouch, that it was formall disobedience, that is, the speciall vice of disobedience, then do we say according to S. Thomas before ci­ted, that there was an actuall contempt. The third instance is of King Saul for his sparing the Amalekites, and retaining some part of their goods: for the which (saith this author) Samuel said vnto him, Quare non audisti vocem Domini? why diddest thou not heare, or obey the Commādement of God vttered to me? He did not say, Why diddest thou resist, contemne, or impugne? which is not one­ly disobedience, but rebellion, and obstination; of which obstination S. Thomas (in the question by M. Champney cited) affirmeth to be sinne against the holy Ghost: Non omnis, &c. I first demand of this author, what hee thinketh of this sinne of Saul, what kinde of sinne, or what name it had in speciall? S. Thomas aboue cited saith, that the name of Adams sinne was pride, and Acan con­fessed that his sinne was couetousnes. Now are we to finde out the name of Sauls sinne. If credit may be giuen to Lyra at the very beginning of his Comment vpon the 15. Chap of the first booke of the Kings, whence this story is taken, the transgression of Saul was, Ex cupiditate, & superbia, vpō couetousnes, and pride, so that then this must be the name of his sinne, and then is the same answere made to this instance, which was made to the o­ther. And if this author will contend, that his sinne was nei­ther pride, nor couetousnesse, he must tell vs, what he will haue it called. And if he will haue it to haue no other name, but disobedience, and that it was that speciall sinne, which is cal­led disobedience: then doe I say according to S. Thomas, quest. 104. ar. 2. ad. primum, that there was an actuall contempt. But the Prophet did not say, Why didst thou resist, contemne, or impugne? How then good Sir, I perceiue the spirit is not cleane gone from you as yet, in which you offered to take your oath, to a Gentleman in the Temple a little before your go­ing ouer, that you neither then were, nor euer meant to be a Papist. You cannot be ignorant what sort of people do ground their arguments against the Catholikes, vpon such negatiue propositions. The Prophet (say you) did not say, why didst thou re­sist, contemne, or impugne? But if it also be found, that the Pro­phet did say thus much, where then will ye say your spectacles were, if you did reade out the Chapter? or if you did not reade [Page 205] it out, what blind bayard would haue bene so bold as to affirme peremptorily that the Prophet did not say so? I reade in the 23 verse, Pro eo quod abiecisti sermonem Domini &c. Because thou hast contemptuously cast away the commandement of God: & verse 26. Etait Samuel ad Saul, non reuertar tecum: And Samuel said vn­to Saul, I will not returne with thee. Why so? Quia proiccisti ser­monem Domini: or Quia spreuistiverbum Domini, (as Lyra saith according to another editiō) because thou diddest despise the com­mandement of God. You could content your selfe with those words, Quare non audisti? Why didst thou not heare? and dissem­ble those which followed in the same chapter, which doe im­ply a contempt. But yet make your answere, whether you will haue this act of Saul, a formall acte of disobedience, and then you are told, that according to the doctrine of S. Thomas, here must be an actuall contempt, or some other mortall sinne. And then, although according to the doctrine also of S Thomas, it inclu­deth at the least a vertual contempt: which if you confesse, you cannot impugne M. Champney his definition, yet is not your in­stance ought worth against the definition of disobedience as it is a speciall sin, which and no other sin was defined by M Champ­ney. But marke I pray you another point of this authors diuini­ty: He (Samuel) did not say, why didst thou resist, contemne, or im­pugne, which is not only disobedience, but rebellion, and obstination, of which obstination S. Thomas in the question by M. Champney cited, affirmeth to be sinne against the holy Ghost: Non omnis inobedientia (saith he) est peccatū in Spiritum sanctum, sed solum illa cui obstina­tio adhibetur: Not euery disobedience is sinne against the holy Ghost, but that onely whereto is adioyned obstination. Is euery sinne of disobedience, I say not of theft, nor murther nor such like, but of disobedience formally taken, as here M. Champney doth define it) a sin against the holy Ghost? This is a very strange doctrine, that a man that obeyeth not, because he will not obey, shall be sayd to sinne against the holy Ghost: yet doth this followe of this doctrine in the Apologie: for (sayth hee) to resist, or to con­temne, or to impugne, is rebellion and obstination, of which S Thomas sayth is a sinne against the holy Ghost: but as S Thomas affirmeth quest. 104. art. 2. ad primum. Ad inobedientiam &c. It is required to disobedience, as disobedience, that there bee an actuall contempt, therefore euery disobedience, as disobedience, is a sinne against [Page 206] the holy Ghost. A very faire piece of diuinitie; yet well fitting the diuine author of this Apologie, who, had he had the least ho­nesty, although he had no diuinitie, he would not haue vsed S. Thomas in this sort: For in the very place where he had his di­uinity, of the sinne against the holy Ghost, S. Thomas teacheth him (if he had had the wit, or the grace to haue learned) that not the contempt of euery hinderance of sinne, doeth make a sinne a­gainst the holy Ghost (by which also he explicateth what he mea­neth by obstination) for then the contempt of euery thing that good is, should be a sinne against the holy Ghost, because by euery good thing a man may be hindered from sinne. Sed bonorum illorum con­temptus facit peccatum in Spiritum sanctum, quae directè ducunt ad poenitentiam, & remissionem peccatorum: But the contempt of that good doth make a sinne against the holy Ghost, which good doth direct­ly leade to penance, or repentance, and remission of sinnes: So that the general doctrine here set downe in the Apologie, that a con­tempt is a sinne against the holy Ghost, and fathered vpon S. Thomas, is shewed out of S. Thomas to bee very false doctrine, and onely that contempt is to bee accounted a sinne against the holy Ghost, which is a contempt of such goodnesse, or good things, as directly doe bring a man to penance, or repentance, and remission of his sinnes. These good prefaces being made by the author of the Apologie, hee would seeme to drawe to some point: in which if you marke him, you shall finde his er­rour: Wherefore (saith he) according to S. Thomas doctrine, de­clared also by other schoolemen, and most briefly and cleerely by Caie­tane in his Summe, a man may commit damnable sinne by disobe­dience two wayes. First, formally and properly, when hee resolueth not to obey, which includeth contempt. And of this meaneth S. Tho­mas, when he sayth: Ad inobedientiam requiritur, quod actualiter contemnat quis speciale preceptum. It is required to inobedience for­mally taken; that a man doe contemne actually the particular precept of his Superiour. quest. 105. ar. 2. ad prim. Now then there wan­teth nothing but for this Author to shew, that when M. Champ­ney did define disobedience, he did not define disobedience, as diso­bedience, and as it is formally taken, but for example theft, mur­ther, or some such other sinne. His plaine words are of disobedi­ence precisely, and nothing els, and all his discourse is to proue [Page 207] that there was no disobedience. And will any man doubt, but that he defined disobedience as disobedience? Hath not this author brought himselfe into a good case, that after all this girding at M Champney for saying that disobedience (he sayd not theft nor murder, but disobedience) did include a contempt, and now this author confesseth so much, and can bring S. Thomas to prooue it, (although he mistake the question; for it is in the 104. quest.) whom M. Champney cited, and this author affirmed before very boldly, that S. Thomas did not onely not define any such thing, as M. Champney cited, but the plaine contrary?

But let vs see how this author proceedeth in his discourse a­gainst the definition giuen of disobedience; wherefore (saith he) according to S. Thomas doctrine (but you must go looke where) declared also by other Schoolemen; and most briefly and clearly by Ca­ietane in his Summe, (in the margent is this note, Caietane in summa, verbo Obedientia,) A man may commit damnable sinne by disobedience two wayes, First formally, and properly, &c. And so he goeth forward & proueth no more then M. Champney affir­med, to wit, that there is an actuall contempt in disobedience, as disobedience is of it selfe a sinne. But when he commeth to the other way of sinning by disobedience, (which is some two leaues after) he changeth his termes, and telleth his tale of a materiall disobedience, and flieth off from the sinning by disobedience, which he should haue followed: for so are his words. A man may com­mit damnable sinne by disobedience two wayes, First formally, and properly. This is one way: the other then belike must be materi­ally and improperly, which member is of his owne deuise. And neither S. Thomas his doctrine, nor Caietans in the place which he would cite, (for his note booke, as it should seeme deceiued him, not onely in coating the question wrong, and the sentence also out of S. Thomas, which here he citeth, but Caietane also) who verb. Inobedientia, (and not Obedientia, as he citeth him) saith, Inobedientia dupliciter incurritur, velperse, hoc est, ex intenti­one, i. Disobedience is two wayes incurred. First, as it is a disobedience: that is, when there is an intention not to obey, and this he calleth af­terward, a formall disobedience. Incurritur autem inobedientia materialiter, quandocum (que) non ex intentione inobediendi, sed alia intentione, contra precepta Dei, vel Superiorum homo facit. A mate­rial [Page 208] disobedience (or disobedience materially taken) is incurred, when­soeuer a man doeth against the Commandements of God, or his Supe­riors, not with intention of disobeying, but vpō some other intention: & tunc inobedientia non est speciale peccatum, sed concurrit generaliter cum omni peccato, in quantum in eo est inobedi­entia Dei &c. And then disobedience is not a speciall sinne, but con­curreth generally with euery sinne, forasmuch as disobedience to God is in that sinne. So that according to Caietane, a man doeth not commit damnable sin two wayes by disobedience, but one way onely, that is, when he doeth sinne with intention not to obey. And when he sinneth against some Commandement of God, he sinneth by some other sin, and not by disobedience, although in the committing of that sinne, he is disobedient to God. As for example: A thiefe is disobedient to God, but this sinne is by stealing, and not by disobedience, vnlesse he make it a formall acte of disobedience: for then he sinneth two wayes: one way by stealing, another way by disobedience. As if a thiefe steale, be­cause he will disobey this commandement, thou shalt not steale, he sinneth both by theft, and by disobedience, and more by diso­bedience, then by theft. But if a thiefe steale, because hee will steale, then although he commit a disobedience, he sinneth by stealing, and not by disobedience, and his act is not to be called an acte of disobedience, but an acte of theft, quia ex fine morales actus spectem habent, saieth S. Tho. quest. 105. ar. 1. ad. 1. because moral actions take their nature of their end, for which they are done. And M. Champney did well define disobedience when he said, It was to resist, contemne, or impugne the knowen commandement of a Superiour, and he defined it according to S. Thomas doctrine, who quest. 104. ar. 2. ad. 1. affirmeth that, ad inobedientiam requi­ritur, quod actualiter contemnat preceptum: To disobedience it is re­quired, that a man doe actually contemne the precept. But yet marke (saith the author of the Apologie, after that he hath cited a place out of S Thomas, which as I thinke should be this, which I haue cited, and hee hath mistaken the question, and the sentence) how Caietane doth explicate these words, (and in the margent he referreth his Reader to Caietanes Summe, as before) Idem est, (saith he) contemptus praecepti, & nolle ex intentione obedire prae­cepto: It is the selfe same thing to contemne the precept of our Supe­riour, [Page 209] as to haue intention not to obey his commandement. First it is euident that Caietane doth not take any sentence out of S. Tho. to explicate, but explicateth himselfe according to the opini­on which S. Tho. held of disobedience. Secondly there is very deceitfull dealing in the translation of Caietans wordes, where nolle ex intentione obedire, are construed to haue intention not to obey, whereas the words imply a formall resistance, or repug­nance to obey. And thus by degrees he would conclude some­what against that which is said of disobedience, as disobedience. For in this manner he proceedeth. By which we see, that neither in this proper, and formall kind of disobedience, is it needeful, that a man doe openly resist, contemne, or impugne. But it is sufficient that by one way or other, hee hath an intention not to doe that which is commanded; So that M. Champney teacheth vs very absurdly, that no man disobeyeth sinfully, except he resist, contemne, and impugne. See to what he hath brought this matter. Disobedience, which hath hitherto according to S. Thom. bene taken for a sinne, which doth containe an actuall contempt of precept, now re­quireth no such matter. But it is sufficient for disobedience pro­perly and formally taken, that by one way or other, the offen­der haue an intention, not to doe that which is commanded; and consequently according to this doctrine of the Apologie, e­uery mortall sinne almost which a man committeth, must bee two double sinnes, one in the kind, in which it is, as theft in stealing, murther in killing, and so foorth: and it must be disobe­dience also formally taken: that is, as it is a speciall vice, in that by one way or other, he must needes haue an intention, not to doe that which is commanded, to wit, to refraine from stealing and killing For this, saith the author of the Apologie, is sufficient to make a proper and formall disobedience, whether it be done in secret, or openly, which word I knowe not how he hath thrust it in, or to what purpose, the doing a thing openly or not openly, being nothing to the nature of the sinne, but to the scandall which may grow vpon an openly committed sinne. So that not M. Champney (as hee concludeth) but himselfe teacheth thus very absurdly, and M. Champney doth according to S. Tho. teach vs, that to disobey (not to steale or kill) is to resist, contemne, or im­pugne the knowen commandement of a Superiour.

The authour of the Apologie proceedeth to the other part of the definition which M. Champney gaue of disobedience, and ap­proueth it, to wit, That it must be a knowen precept, and thereup­on concludeth, that it doth goe hard with the fact of priestes, but doth not shew how they did disobey any knowen precept of any Superiour. He commendeth also the preuenting of an ex­presse commandement, by obeying, which no doubt is com­mendable: but if he inferre, that they doe sinne who doe not obey, vntill they are commanded, he will teach an absurd do­ctrine. And this is (saith he) S. Tho. doctrine of this first kind of for­mal disobedience, whereby let any man consider the different spirit of S. Tho. about readie, willing, and simple obedience, from these our brethren, who in their first preface to the Reader, doe make a long speech, that authority of Superiours, is not a sure rule of trueth to be followed without examination &c. What doe we here with any &c? go on I pray you, and let vs heare out the sentence if there be any such sentence there: but the &c. came to stop this fel­low from further falsifying the words cited out of the preface to the Reader. Can any man but this Apologie-maker, finde this sentence there, that authority of Superiours is not a sure rule of trueth to be followed without examination, &c. as heere it is set downe in a different letter to deceiue the Reader? and in the margent there is this note to helpe it, A perilous and scanda­lous doctrine of our brethren about obedience. But because this fel­low telleth his Reader, that he hath treated hereof before, in his second chapter, I referre the Reader to the answere there made vnto it, here only repeating that which is there affirmed, and will be iustified; that whosoeuer he is, that shall goe about to disproue that doctrine which is there giuen of obedienee (as he calleth it) or of the faile which may be of trueth in a Supe­riour, will prooue himselfe an asse or an heretike. And the foundation at the which he immediatly after throweth his cap, to wit, that it is neither pietie, nor true obedience, at the first sight to admit any authoritie, but such as is orderly procured, and lawfully promulgated, is no whit weakened with this idle question, Who shalbe iudge of this? For it is easily answered, that men of vnder­standing and learning may iudge, whether a thing bee orderly procured, and lawfully promulged: and the iudgement was giuen [Page 211] for the priests, who not trusting to their owne learning, sent to Paris, where their iudgement was confirmed, and hath since al­so beene determined by his Holinesse, that howsoeuer it was procured, it was not promulged so as it bound the priests to obey it. Neither doth it therefore follow, that euery subiect is to ex­amine his Superiours ordinances, nor is it absurd, that men seeing cause why they should doubt, should seeke to helpe themselues by dealing with their Superiour as the priests did, who presently vpon the first knowledge of this authoritie, per­ceiuing what they did, sent to Rome to his Holinesse from whom it was said to come: when contrary to the custome and lawes of holy Church, it came without any his Holinesse letters, as it is after confessed in this Apologie.

Here he might alleage (he sayth) the whole course of ancient ho­ly fathers sayings, about prompt, ready and simple obedience, most op­posite and contradictory to this vaine doctrine of these our brethren. But if he meane the vaine of doctrine which he sayth is in the Preface to the reader, and is impugned by him as perillous and scandalous doctrine, then doubtlesse he cannot bring the saying of any ancient holy Father against it, nor of any Catholique new father. If hee meane that the priestes doe argue against prompt and ready obedience, as a matter not worthy commenda­cions, he doeth but mocke his reader: for the priests doe high­ly commend it, as a most rare vertue. If he meane that the an­cient holy fathers did so highly commend prompt obedience, as they did condemne all delayes to obey the commandement of a Superior, vpon what cause soeuer, as sinfull; hee is in a very grosse error. For as wee haue before cited out of the chapter, Si quando de Rescriptis, Pope Alexander the third, writeth this to the Arbishop of Rauenna. Qualitatem negotij, pro quo tibi scribi­tur, diligenter considerans, aut mandatum nostrum reuerenter adim­pleas, aut per literas tuas, quare adimplere non possis, rationabilem causam pretendas, quia patienter sustinebimus, si non feceris, quod pra­ua nobis fuerit insinuatione suggestum. Hauing considered vpon that for which wee write vnto you, either with reuerence fulfill our com­mandement, or pretend some reasonable cause, by your letters, why you cannot fulfill it. For we will beare it patiently if you shall not do that, which was suggested vnto vs with euill information or insinuation. [Page 212] By which & other such authētical warrāts would al the corrol­laries of Gregory of Valēcia be answered, if we should agree, that the priests were cōmanded any thing by a Superior, which they did not obey. But this can neuer be proued: for so soone as they did see his Hol letters, they did obey, as it is sayd in the Popes owne letters, or Breue of the 17. of August 1601. And other Superior they know not, that could make an Archpriest among them, with these appertenances. Whether then it be sayd, that the Cardinal did it himselfe, or that he sayd the Pope did it, it is not greatly materiall. For if it be sayd, that the Cardinal did it of himselfe, wee aske by what authority? if you say by his owne: we say that he had none, or if he had, and had shewed it, he had bene obeyed. If it be said that the Pope did it; we aske how this appeareth? If you say, by the Cardinals testimonie, we say it was not sufficient to bind vnder sinne to obey it. And this is proued by M. I.B. in The hope of peace pag. 32. and 33 and by M. Iohn Collington at large in his first reason: and by M.D. Ely in his notes vpon the Apologie, who handleth this question from the 117. pag. to 233.

It followeth in the Apologie. And all this now is about the first kinde of formall disobedience wherein there must be some actuall con­tempt with reflection: which is, as out of Caietane you haue heard, an intention not to obey: and would to God this also were not too o­penly seene in this fact of our brethren, and their perseuerance there­in. From this kinde then of disobedience it was for the priests to purge themselues, and from the imputation thereof. How vn­iustly then is M. Champney blamed, who to purge himselfe of this kinde of disobedience did first shew what this disobedience is? Why is his doctrine carped at, when his aduersaries are for­ced to say no lesse then he sayd? That disobedience, as disobedi­ence, or disobedience, wherewith he was charged, did imply con­tempt, resistance or impugnation &c. And to what end haue wee now a tale of a materiall disobedience, which is onely commited by stealing, or coueting, or by such like? Listen I pray you to an­other strange Lecture, which this Apologie-maker will giue you. But now besides this (formall kind of disobedience) there is another kind of materiall disobedience, when a man leaueth to doe that which is commanded, not with intention, or reflection, hee will not obey, or [Page 213] doth contemne his Superiour, but onely that he doeth either omit that which was commanded, or doe some other thing contrary thereunto. And in this kind is it to be presumed, that the disobedience of Adam, Achan, Saul, and others were. Wee doe commonly vnderstand sinnes of omission, to be against affirmatiue precepts. It would therefore be explicated, what affirmatiue precepts were giuen to Adam, Achan, and Saul: or els this first kind of materiall disobe­dience might haue been spared, it being no more proper to ma­teriall disobedience then to formall. And so doth Gregorie of Va­lencia affirme of formal disobedience. Disp. 7. quaest. 3 puncto. 3. Fre­quenter autem eiusmodi in obedientia formalis per omissionem accidere potest &c. altera inobedientia formalis est per com­missionem: Formall disobedience may often be committed by omis­sion &c. And the other formall disobedience is by commission. But to returne no more to this, It is euident that the commandement which God gaue to Adam concerning the apple, which com­mandement this author saith Adam did simply disobey, was a ne­gatiue precept in this maner: De ligno autem scientiae boni & ma­line comedas. Eate not of the tree of knowledge of good and euill. Likewise the commandement giuen to Achan was a nega­tiue precept. Vos autem cauete ne de hijs, quae precepta sunt (vobis) quicquam contingatis. Take heede you touch not any of those things which you are forbidden.

The precept likewise which Samuel gaue to Saul, was a nega­tiue precept: Non parcas ei, & non concupiscas ex rebus ipsius ali­quid: Spare them not (the Amalekites) neither couet any thing which is theirs. And consequently these sinnes were sinnes of commission, and not of omission, vnlesse we take omission so ge­nerally, as it may include all the sinnes in the world, for that by sinning, a man omitteth to fulfil that which he is commanded. In which sense, there is no sinne, but there is an omission, as a condition included in it: as Gregory of Valentia speaketh of ma­teriall disobedience in the place cited, Quae-materialis inobedien­tia nihil aliudest, quàm transgressio cuiuscun (que) praecepti, in materia cuiusuis virtutis, atque ita non distinguitur ab alijs peccatis, sed est conditio quaedam generalis, inclusa in omnibus peccatis, hoc ipso, quod peccatum omne est contra praeceptū. Materiall disobedience is nought else, but a transgression of euery precept, in the subiect or matter of [Page 214] euery vertue, insomuch as it is not distinguished from the other sins, but is a certaine generall condition, included in all sinnes, in that eue­rie sinne is against the commandement. Therefore although there be an omission included in euery sinne, and the sinner may iust­ly be said to haue omitted, as there is a disobedience in euery sinne, and the sinner may be said to haue disobeyed, yet is he no more to be said, to haue sinned by omission, then by disobedience, but by doing this or that, for example, by theft, or murther, and such like. This part then of materiall disobedience, as our author cal­leth it, or as Gregory of Valentia sayth of formall disobedience, is shewed, not to haue place in the sinne of Adam, Achan, & Saul: let vs see how handsomely their sinnes will be deduced to the other branches of materiall disobedience, which here this author spreadeth: or doe (sayth he) some other thing contrarie thereunto, that is, contrary to that which is commanded. Now we are to aske how, or in what sort a man is said to doe some other thing con­trary to that which hee is commanded. If a man be bidden to goe vpon the right hand, hee is properly said to doe some other thing contrary to that hee is commanded, if he goe vpon the left hand; for it is another thing, and it is contrary to the com­mandement. Likewise if a man be bidden to stand still, and not mooue, if he doe runne, he doth some other thing contrary to the commandement: or if any other man can better explicate what it is, to doe some other thing contrary to a commaunde­ment, I will willingly learne of him. This authour then, when he would reduce the sinne of Adam to this kind of materiall dis­obedience, who is to doe some other thing contrary to that which was commanded, in my vnderstanding he knoweth not what he saith. Adam was commanded, that he should not eate the apple: now I would know, what was Adams disobedience. This author, fol. 111. affirmeth, that Adam did simply disobey by eating the apple which was forbidden. But now what will hee say? for hee hath brought Adams offence in the roll of doing some other thing contrary to the commandement. And if Adams sinne were no­thing, but a simple disobedience by eating the apple, as he sayth fol. 111. then was not Adams sinne a materiall disobedience in that kind which here he putteth, because he did no other thing con­trary to that which was commaunded, but did the very same [Page 215] thing which he was commanded he should not doe. Such like­wise was the sinne of Achan, who being cōmanded not to touch any thing which belonged to the Amalekites, he did the very same thing which he was commanded he should not doe: and so did Saul likewise the very same thing, which he was forbid­den to doe. So that the sinnes of Adam, Achan, or Saul, were not materiall disobedience, vnlesse this authour can finde better meanes to prooue it, or to reduce them to some other braunch thereof, then here is specified, to wit, that hee committeth a materiall disobedience, who onely doeth either omit that which was commaunded, or doth some other thing contrary thereunto. And thus doeth he leaue the sinnes of Adam, Achan, and Saul, and neither will haue them to be sinnes of formall disobedience, nor is able to shew, how they were sinnes of materiall disobedience. And yet he goeth on, and talketh, what diuines doe hold. Mary if you will haue this fellowes fauour, you must alwayes remem­ber with S. Thomas before cited, that it is sufficient the superiors will doe appeare quocunque modo, by what meanes soeuer: that is, (according to this authors conceit) if you be told it, although it be in such sort, as you are not bound to giue any credit vnto it: which hath beene prooued very often to haue beene in our case, and also that by an insufficient testimonie the will of a Su­periour cannot by any meanes appeare. And thus much in defence of M. Champneys definition of disobedience, with which he and his fellowes were charged.

The author of the Apologie, being (as it should seeme) driuen to a desperate point, beginneth to aduise the priests in this ma­ner: Well then, all this being presupposed, (a hote piece of seruice) and all heate of partialitie and passion layd aside, wee would aske our brethren in their consciences before God, and as at the day of iudge­ment they will and must answere truly and sincerely, when they had seene and read ouer Car. Caietans letters patent, wherein vnder his hand and seale, hee testified to them and the whole world, that in re­spect of the diuision and dissension raised in England betweene priests and Iesuits (I pray you bid the Iesuites welcome into the listes, although they seeme to haue stolne in here at the latter ending of the fray) or priests and priests, vpon that or other causes, and for continuation of discipline, vnion, and concord, his Hol. had resolued to [Page 216] make a subordination, and had by a speciall commandement enioy­ned the same to him to be performed by his letters. And knowing fur­ther, that his Hol. not many moneths before (which the Card. repea­ted in his letters) had told the very same tale vnto diuers of them, at their departure from Rome, about these diuisions, exhorting and char­ging them most straightly, to haue vnion and peace with all, & name­ly with the Fathers of the Societie, making the very like exhorta­tion to them, which now the Cardinall did. All these things wee say concurring, and many others, as well letters from Rome, as men that came from thence, testifying this acte, and meaning of the Pope: and the very probabilitie and morall euidence it selfe, being so cleare, that no Card would euer dare presume to doe, or attempt so publique an act vnder letters Patents, and that expresly in the Popes name, without sure commission: Here wee say, let our brethren tell vs sin­cerely, and without passion, was this morall certainty of the Popes will or not, or was this sufficient knowledge to binde, vnder sinne to obedi­ence, or no? Was a Card. Protectors letters Patents, testifying his Hol. commaundement therein ynough to the condition required by S. Tho. vt superiorū voluntas quocunque modo innotescat, That our Superiors will doe any waies appeare? But we will not vrge this any further here, especially seeing Fa. Valent. his doctrine set downe before out of S. Thomas, doeth most clearely conuince them. And therefore we leaue that to God, and their consciences, to answere one day before the high Iudge, where shifts will haue no place. A condi­tion, which I doubt not, but the author of this Apologie would gladly for this time should be agreed vpon, howsoeuer when that day shalbe present, he would be willing to haue the hea­ring of the matter further deferred. For if we doe but reflect what meanes haue bene made, to haue it heard in this world, and haue bene crossed by him, and his faction, we shall easily conceiue how vnwilling he will be to come to the triall in the next, where hee must come to the naked proofe of right, or wrong without his cloake, which now couereth all his false­hood.

To this adiuration the priests will answere in their consci­ences afore God, and at the day of Iudgement, where shifts wil haue no place, that when they had seene & read ouer the Card. Caietanes letter, which he testified not to the whole world (as [Page 217] here it is most falsly suggested) but onely to M. Blackwell, be­ing a letter written particulerly to him, and to no other (as ap­peareth by the letter extant both in the bookes dedicated by the priests to the Inquisition, and at the beginning of M. Co­lingtons booke lately set forth) and written by one, who was not knowen to haue any authority in England, neither did he make it knowen, that he had any authoritie delegated vnto him for that which he had attempted but only by his owne bare words, which no man in this case was to beleeue vnder any sin; Not­withstanding they had heard that his Hol. had giuen a charge to some in particuler, to haue peace with the Iesuits (a very im­pertinent matter, and as foolishly here vrged, for the band to accept the Subordination at the first comming) or had seene o­ther letters testifying the same, as a heare-say (as M Colington doeth particulerly prooue, from the 68. page to the 80. or that he was a Cardinal who writ his letters (it being euident, in the opinion of the chiefest Cannonists, that a Card. may do more sometime then needeth, or els they would neuer accord, that credit is not to be giuen to him vnlesse he shew his commissi­on,) whereupon your brethren doe answere sincerely and without passion, that it was no morall certaintie of the Popes will, and that they had not sufficient knowledge to bind vnder sinne to obedience, and that no Superiours will did by any meanes appeare vnto them, but rather a very bad part of their aduersaries to crosse them for a time, vntill they could worke the Pope to confirme the plot which they had layde, to bring the priests into a slauish bondage vnder them: neither can they once be conuinced of the contrary, as may in part appeare by that their reasons of their refusall before the Breue came, doe stand firme as yet vn­answered. And thus omitting to coniure the Iesuits, & Arch­priest for their false dealings in this action, for which assuredly they must come to an vnpleasing reckoning, I wil briefly touch what is here said of the censure of Paris, and make an ende of this Chapter, referring the Reader for a larger satisfaction to M.D Elie his notes vpon the 8. Chapter of the Apologie pag. 245. and to M. Iohn Colington in his 4. reason pag. 153.

The decree of the doctors of Sorbon in Paris consisted of two parts; the one was that the priests who deferred to admit of [Page 218] the authoritie vpon the causes alledged, were not schismaticks, the other was that the priests, (the fact of it selfe considered) did not any way offend, or commit sinne. By this definition of Paris (saith this author fol. 118.) commeth very little reliefe vnto the priests, and it was printed onely to make a vaine flourish with the ostentation of an Academicall sentence. Th [...]s very word Academi [...] sticketh marueilously in this authours stomach, and his fel­lowes. But let vs see how he will shew that this decree of these doctors did very little relieue the priests. To the first point that it was no schisme, what saith he? marke I pray you his words fol. 115. for of the other point of schisme we will not talke at all, & am sorie that euer it was mentioned, or brought in questiō. But will you see this good sope of milke turned downe with a foule paire of heeles? Note that which is behinde. Vnquiet people ha­uing taken occasion hereby to continue contention, and to make more brables, then were needfull. They were much to blame belike who would speake being publiquely defamed for schismaticks, and what els a quintessence of malice could deuise, as may be seene in the treatise of Schisme written by the Iesuits, and ap­proued by the Archp. and yet to this day mainteined in corners, where any of that seditious crew can haue any hope to increase the schisme (or diuision, or what els it may be hereafter called) in Gods Church by perswading now some, now othersome, not to communicate in Prayer, and Sacraments with those who are the true members of Gods Church, & for a cause in which these members doe in here, and plead the commandement of the head of the Church, against a priuate letter, from a priuate Cardinal to a priuate man, as may appeare by the letter it selfe. Were shame of that most wicked and sencelesse slander, the cause of sorrow or silence in this author, concerning this point of schisme, what hope might there be that he had some grace? but his sorrow and silence grow both out of a splene, that his, and his fellowes slanderous tongues had not that successe, which he and his froward malitious adherents hoped for.

The submission which the priests did make at the sight of his Holines first Breue of the 6. of April 1599. (acknowledged in his later Breue of the 17. of August 1601.) conuinceth all but contentious, & brablers, that the priests were further off by much [Page 219] from any touch, or any suspition of schisme, then their aduersa­ries here, euer since their first deuiding themselues from them in prayer, and communion of Sacraments. But seeing he will say no more of schisme, we will omit it, and come to the questi­on, which this author meaneth to handle. Our question (saith he) is then onely, whether any sinne were committed, whereof also we will not presume to determine any degree of sinne, but leaue that to God, and to the offenders consciences. Now that the priests here be published for rebels, seditious, factious, excommunicate, irregu­lar, fallen from the Church, to haue lost their faculties, scandalous, infamous persons, no better then soothsayers, and Idolaters, disobedi­ent to the Church, and therefore as Ethnickes and Publicanes, the au­thor of this Apologie will not presume to determine any degree of sinne.

Our question (sayth he) is, whether any sinne were committed: but he giueth no answere to this question, but wrangleth a lit­tle about the censure of Paris in this maner. First, there was no man to enforme the Doctors for the Archpriest: As though the Do­ctors censure had not passed vpon those informatiōs, although no one of any side had been present. The case was propoun­ded, and they gaue their iudgement vpon the case, and not vp­on any particular person. If any, that might haue bene then present for the Archpriest, could haue proued the case, to haue been wrong put, let it now be done, and it shall be all one: For as it is sayd, it was the case, which was censured, which might haue come out of Moscouia, for any thing that was set downe to the contrary, in the information. And the decree being giuen, according to the information, will be iustified, notwith­standing this sencelesse and shameful Edict. 29. Maij 1600. We George Black­well Archpriest of England, and protonotary apostolicall &c. do strict­ly command in vertue of obedience, and vnder paine of suspension from diuine offices, A notorious vsurper. and losse of all faculties in the fact it selfe to be in­curred, all ecclesiasticall persons, and also all Lay Catholikes vnder paine of being interdicted likewise in the fact it selfe to bee incurred. Is not this a strange charge considering the state, in which as well the Lay Catholike, as the Ecclesiasticall person now liueth in England? Who is it that doeth not expect a prohibition of some grieuous crime? You haue heard the charge, Now listen [Page 220] to the matter forbidden: That neither directly nor indirectly they maintaine, nor defend in word, or writing, the censure of the V­niuersitie of Paris, whether it be truely giuen or forged. Was there euer in Christendome heard the like presumption, that a man of some two or three yeres study, and in no Catholike Acade­mi [...] of fame should condemne the censure of the most famous Vniuersity in Christendome? But wil you heare him excel him­selfe, who hath excelled the most proud, and temerarious cen­surer in the world? Note that which he addeth, whether vpon true information, or otherwise the Sorbonists haue spun a faire threed, when what informations soeuer be giuen vnto them, their censure is not to be regarded.

The second exception which this author seemeth to take, is that the Doctors did lightly passe it ouer, and defined the matter in the senior Bedels house, which such as haue studied in Paris, do know to be the vsuall place of their meeting, as standing most com­modiously for all those, who are chosen to meete vpon all cau­ses, comming to the Vniuersitie to be determined, they them­selues not liuing in any one place, but scatteringly in the Citie: Religious men in their Couents; Pastors in their parishes; Rea­ders, and other Doctors in their seuerall houses, or Colledges. How lightly they passed it ouer I know not, neither is the mat­ter of any such difficultie in it selfe, that it should aske great stu­die. But it is an argument that they were not ouer carelesse, what they sayd, who commanded the Bedell to write it downe, as their definition in such wise, as euery thing els doeth passe them, in their consultations of greatest matters.

The third exception is, that it was giuen vpon some sinistrous information: and that therefore the Doctors did prudently giue their censure in this maner: They committed no sinne at all in that fact in it selfe considered. And that they added these words, for that they knew not what scandall, euill example, sedition, and contention and hurt to the common cause had ensued thereof. Had this author in place of this word thereof put after, he had done more wisely, as I thinke: for in that he vseth this word thereof, either he decla­reth himselfe to be very sottish, or els that the Vniuersitie was very vnaduised in adding these words: that fact in it selfe conside­red, for which words this author commendeth their wisedom: [Page 221] for if the fact in it selfe, were such, as so much hurt did ensue thereof, how could the fact in it selfe be cleered from all sinne? True it is that scandal followed after. But it yet remaineth vn­proued, that it ensued vpon the priests fact: doeth not much hurt come after much good? and shall we say that the harme ensued vpon the doing of the good, in such sense, as that the good which is done, must be a necessary cause of the euil, which had not perchance otherwise been? The fact then in it selfe considered being without sinne, we are to seeke who sowed the Zizania, which perchance had neuer been sowed where it was, had not the husbandman sowed good corne before.

The priests perceiuing what was intended, and was likely to fall vpon them, if they sought not some meanes to preuent it, sent two of their brethren vnto his Holines, to preuent it if they might (for contrary to all custom in Christendome, there was a superioritie challenged ouer all England and Scotland, as deriued from the Sea Apostolike, without any letters from the said Sea for warrant thereof) and in the meane time the priests deferred their submission to the authoritie, as well vpon this cause as other contained in the information to the Doctors of Sorbon.

The Iesuits and their faction (of which the Archpriest be­ing now become the head) were impatient of delay: and be­cause the priests did not subiect themselues in this interim, but stayed their submissiō vntill they did see the Popes letters, they first vsed their tongues, then their pennes, and both writ, and approoued seditious libels against the priests, tearming them therein Schismatikes, excommunicate persons, irregular, fallen from the Church of God, and what not, that malice it selfe could de­uise: from which slanders, while the Priests sought to defend themselues, great troubles haue risen in England. Now then the question must be, whether the Priests were the sinfull cause of these contentions, by this their forbearance, to subiect them selues before they sawe the Popes letters, or rather the Iesuites and Archpriest by those their seditious and sinnefull tongues, and libels? The fact of the Priests in it selfe considered, that is, their forbearance vpon such causes, say the doctors, and prudently (sayth this author) was no sinne at all, but the doctors were not [Page 222] truly informed (sayth this author) and therefore their sentence was of no force.

But what then were the defects in the information giuen to the doctors, through which the doctours are thought to haue erred in their sentence? Forsooth, first the priests did not tell them, that the Card. was Protector of the nation. What if the priests did not know, that he was Protector of the nation, when his letters came into England, but onely Protector of the English Col­ledge at Rome, as his predecessour was intituled, and neuer knowen by any other title, as may appeare by the Bull of Pope Gregory 13. for the institution of that Colledge, and the Thesis either in Philosophie or Diuinitie, which were in the publike exercises dedicated vnto him? Moreouer, it is euident, that this which this Card. Protector did, hee did it by a delegation from his Hol. and not as a Protector, and therefore it had beene impertinent to haue said, that he was Protector, and neither ti­tles doe multiply the person, nor any one person carrieth that credit, that in al like cases he must be beleeued, except his Hol.

The second defect which this author findeth, was, that these doctors were not told, that the Card. did all this expresso mandato, by his Holines expresse commandement, which (sayth this authour) the Card. setteth downe cleerely in his letters. To this I answere, that the Cardinall setteth downe such words in his letters, but he setteth them downe onely in that place, where hee is com­manded to labour or endeauour, that there should be peace in all other places, as there was at that time in the English Col­ledge at Rome. And he that should haue informed the doctors of Sorbon, that the Cardinals letters doe testifie either cleerely, as is here said, or obscurely, that he did all which here he did, con­cerning this subordination or institution of this Archpresbyterie, ex­presso mandato, by an expresse commandement of his Hol. had ben similis vobis mendax, and there had beene no trueth in him in this point.

The third defect which this authour noteth, was, that they concealed another thing vttered also (sayth this author) in the Car­dinals letters. And what was that? to wit, that a subordination was demanded by priests letters to his Holines, and that his Hol. had allowed of their reasons. To this I answere, as to the former, [Page 223] that the Card. did not vtter this in his letters, as may appeare al­so by the letters themselues, but by this he giueth his reader to vnderstand, what substantiall informations some agent for the Archpriest should haue giuen at Paris in his behalfe against the priests, and how shamelesly these and such like would haue beene there vttered, which are without all shame set foorth in print for all posteritie to see, that their surest ancre by which they hold, is a gracelesse boldnesse to auerre any thing, and a blinding their adherents, that they shall not finde their false dealing.

The fourth exception which this author taketh at the infor­mation, is, that it was giuen, that many refused to subscribe, wher­as they were not the twentieth part. This difficultie we will en­treate some Grammer boy to assoile, and to put it into the au­thor of the Apologie, in what number may be many. But in the meane while, we shall consider how the Iesuites flattered with some, threatned other some, and yet were forced to presume vpon others, and thereupon set others names to billes, without their consent or priuitie. And if to this I shal ioyne the course which the Archpriest tooke to compell men, to take him for their Superiour at the first, when he had no other warrant for it then a Cardinals priuate letter, and particularly directed to him onely (as may appeare by the letter it selfe) and compare this part of subscribers, with those whose vnreadinesse in this action, was a sufficient argument of their mindes, the number of the willing subscribers will be found much fewer then the o­ther: yet was not the information giuen at Paris in any such sort, as this author enlargeth himselfe, to wit, as though they had ben a great multitude, or the maior part, as the information it selfe doth shew. Neither did the Doctors cleare the priests, in any consideration of multitude, but in consideration of the fact in it selfe as appeareth in their decree, which consideration depen­deth not vpon how many, or how few, but vpon the lawfulnesse of the fact it selfe. And whereas this authour addeth, that if the Priests haue encreased their number since, it hath bene by false infor­mation, as this was to the Doctors of Sorbon, and by perswading them to the participation of their libertie, and freedome from all go­uernment, which is a sore bayte for young men, as all the world know­eth. [Page 224] If the Priests haue not encreased their number, or were not knowen (when this Apologie was written) to haue encrea­sed their number, how can he so peremptorily affirme, that those, who refused to subscribe at the first, were not the twentieth part so many, hauing set their hands to the appeale? And yet many more standing firme with them, whose names are not there expressed, and yet are so many more, (if they knew how to liue in any reasonable sort, without holding with the Iesuits and the Archpriest in this controuersie) as they would leaue a very poore many to stand against the Secular priests: Such the baytes are, and so vnpleasant which are layd to drawe them to the priests side, as they haue no list to byte at them. The priests haue for Gods cause, put themselues in such state of life, as they stand in neede of the charitie of Catholikes, who being abused by the Iesuits and the Archpriest, to disfauour all such as they dislike, and to relieue onely those, who shall stand with them: It is easily seene where the bayte is, at which a yong man will byte, besides the infamie which is continually spread abroad against the Priests, that were it not, to betray God his Church, and their own soules, no doubt they had rather them­selues byte at the golden bayte, and worldly fauour which the Iesuites and the Archpriest doe lay, to catch young and olde, both of the Laytie and the Clergie, then at a crust, as some of them doe call it: and to liue so obscurely as many of them do, yea and in great want, which pacience onely doth often sup­ply (a sorry bayte for young men) as all the world doth knowe. And this is a silly disposition to be perswaded by any false in­formation, especially in such matters, as of which they are themselues eye-witnesses, how they are handled, and cannot easily be deceiued.

The fifth exception is against the information, where it is said, that the priests refused onely to subscribe to the authoritie of the Archpriest, before he had obtained letters from the sea apostolike for his confirmation: as who would say, that this being done, they ment to be quiet. This good fellow should haue disproued this and that, at the sight of his Holinesse Breue, of the 6. of April 1599 all matters were not appeased, and that the Priests did not (ac­cording to this information giuen) submit themselues. But [Page 225] this he can neuer doe, for he will be disproued by his Holinesse himselfe, who in his Breue of the 17. of August. 1601. affirmeth it. And their behauiour in the meane time, was as became Ca­tholike priests, who had care to preserue their credite, in such sort as they were bound to do, without perswading any against the Popes ordination, or discrediting any letters of the Prote­ctor, more then this, that they would not giue any such credite vnto the Protector, that they would without his Holines letters subiect themselues to an extraordinary superioritie; to which without grieuous penalties, no Couent or Clergie are to sub­iect themselues, as may appeare in that Extrauag of Bonifacius the eight Iniunctum de electione, which is afterward extended by Pope Iulius the third in his constitution which beginneth thus, Sanctissimus, &c. to all Prelates. Although also in farre lesser matters then this was, no Cardinall will challenge any such prerogatiue to himselfe, that his word or his letter should stand for a law, to bind all men to whom the matter appertai­neth, to yeeld their obedience vnder sinne. And both falsly and foolishly it is here vrged, that it was the Popes ordination. First because the Cardinall affirmed in his letters, that it was his owne ordination, as may appeare in those words of his letter, Dum haec nostra ordinatio durauerit, so long as this our ordination shall endure. Secondly because although his Holinesse did de­clare, that it was done by his commandement, yet this declara­tion came not in a yeere after, and could giue no more notice to the Priests before that hee did any thing therein, then this authour of the Apologie hath knowledge at this present, by any lesson which may be taught him a yeere hence, and yet cannot but thinke it great folly, to be charged for not beleeuing that, at this present, of which hee is not like to haue sufficient know­ledge, any time these twelue moneths following. But now to the terrors which the priests are said to haue cast into Lay mens heads, of admitting sorraine authority from the Pope: I an­swere that the priests did only cast, as in wisedome they might, whether it were conuenient for them vpon so small a matter, as was a Cardinals letter, to incurre the penalties of such lawes as were before of force among the Catholikes. For their sub­mission to the Breue (so soone as they saw it) proued their rea­die [Page 226] obedience, and reuerence to the Popes authoritie, which they are often, but falsely charged to haue resisted.

The sixt is, that the doctors were told, that it might be seene by the Card. letters, that the Archpriests authoritie was granted by false information; A point largely proued by the priests & the place of the Cardinals letter, quoted in all their bookes, and that par­tialitie was vsed in the choise of him and his assistants. Which clause this author hath set downe in such sort, as his reader must conceiue, that the priests had informed the doctors, how that this also might be seene in the Card. letters; which is a false im­putation: for the priests did not informe the doctors, that any such thing appeared in those letters, but onely that they had noted that there was such a partialitie vsed (as may appeare in their informations) without any relation to the Cardinals let­ters. And no man can better iustifie this to the doctors to be true, then he to whom in presence M. Blackwell tooke excepti­ons, for wishing some matters were amended in the Iesuits, and told him that it was the onely cause why hee missed an assi­stanceship. And F. Garnet dissembled not the matter in his let­ter of the 11. of Nouember 1598. to M Collington; where he ma­keth this conclusion about the middle of the letter, So that if they would haue themselues, or others that doe not affect vs, (though otherwise seeming neuer so vertuous) to be chosen heads, let them first affect vs so farre, as in vertue they ought, that they may be worthy of gouernment. And at the beginning of this Chapter of the A­pologie, fol. 99 the principall counsellers in this action, are said to haue bene F. Parsons, and F. Baldwin open Iesuits, M. Iames Standish a secret Iesuit, or one at the least, who had promised to become a Iesuit, M. Haddock, and M Martin Array, who hauing forsaken their course of life in the helpe of their countrey, lay to deferre some preferment by the Iesuits their procurement, and haue since bene payde their hire, the one with the deanrie of Dullin, and the other with a prouostship in Spaine. And doth not this cōfirme that which the priests did most iustly suspect, to wit, partialitie in the choise of the Archpriest, and his assistants? The readines of the priests to obey (here againe obiected to haue bene a false information) is proued by the Popes Breue of the 17. of August 1601. The matters concerning the two priests [Page 227] their iourney, their restraint, the iudgement of the two Card. against them, the breaking forth of these present troubles after the peace made, are to be handled in the Chapter following, and are here very impertinently brought by this author, as also that it was said (God knoweth out of what office,) when speech was of Fa. Parsons his procuring the Breue of the 6. of April, which words, as it hath bene shewed, were no discredit to his Hol. Breue, it being acknowledged by the priests out of what office soeuer it was gotten, and the words imply no more, then that it might be gotten out of diuers offices, and that Fa. Parsons might vse his talent, to haue matters set downe therein for his best aduantage, whereupon perchance it fel out, that the letters of the Cardinal were mistaken in the Breue, as all the world may see, and it is particulerly said where, in the booke dedicated to the Inquisition pag. 59.

After this exception, there is yet againe a refreshing of the memory of the priests their pride and arrogantie, (for he draweth now to an ende of his question which he proposed fol. 115. to wit, whether any sinne were committed by them, whereof (he saith) he will not presume to determine any degree of sinne) their making a dangerous diuision among Catholicks, in the sight of the common enemie, and in time of persecution, and would not be brought from it by authoritie, or gentle perswasions, whereof infinite hurts, scandals, and other damages, haue and doe dayly ensue. And if any man had proposed the state of the question in this sort, is it likely (saith he) that so learned, & godly Catholicke men, would haue defined, that their fact had incurred no sinne at all? Is not this a pretie resolu­tion of the question, which he had promised, pag 115. that is, whether any sinne were committed by the priests their forbearance to yeeld their obedience, at the first sight of the Card. his letter? I would aske this question, when M. Blackwell himselfe sent first for M. Collington, and M. Charnocke, and could not with all his threat­nings, obtaine of them to say, that they did like of that which was done; what of all these matters here rehearsed by this au­thor, were then to be obiected against their fact? If answere be made, that afterward these things chanced, which would not haue chanced, had all submitted themselues at the first: This an­swere is not to the matter: For we aske the question of the fact [Page 228] in it selfe considered. And before these diuisions among Ca­tholicks began, what was to be thought thereof? Will you heare this author his owne confession in this place. And yet (saith he) is their (the doctors of Paris) definition so limitted, that they determine onely of the fact in it selfe, and this also, according to the present information giuen them, excluding all other circum­stances and considerations, that doe or may aggrauate the same. But what were these circumstances, and considerations? Were they any other then the tumults which are here so often incul­cated? If they were, let them be specified, and they shalbe an­swered If they were not any other then these stirres, then how could these vitiate an acte before they were; the act in it selfe considered, was not vicious, but lawfull, (as here is auouched by the doctors) and lawfully done; and consequently (to end this Chapter) all the euill which followed, was by the misgo­uernment of the Archpriest, and the busines of his adherents the Iesuits, and such as stood with them, to defame the priests. And so for this matter, as the Apologie saith, We end.

CHAP. 14. How this Apologie-maker perswadeth his reader, that his Hol. was mooued to imprison the two priests who went first to Rome, by certaine letters which were written long after his resolution to imprison them, and how hee iugleth about that which chanced vnto them in Rome. Apol c. 9.

IN the ninth Chapter of the Apologie, the author thereof promiseth to shewe, how after the first contradiction made by the priests, against his Holi­nesse ordinance (as hee falsely termeth it, if the Cardinall said true in his letters, Dum haec nostra ordinatio durauerit: So long as this our ordinance shall endure) the Priests went forward, and sent a couple to Rome: and what happened vnto them: (in which the poore man committeth very grosse faults) and how his Holines confirmed the aforesaid ordinance, and Protectors letters with a new Breue, (which is an argument that the ordinance was not his Holines ordinance, for then should [Page 229] it not haue needed any confirmation) hee beginneth his ninth Chapter in this manner. We haue shewed (a brazen face) in the former Chapter, with how great singularitie and little reason (and yet not one answered) our discontented brethren (not without iust cause) being so fewe, and such as they were, yet so many, and such, as their aduersaries as yet neuer durst aduenture to buc­kle with them in the matter in question, holding it greater wis­dome for them to keepe silence, then bewray their ignorance and folly, as this author hath aduentured in this Apologie, oppo­sed themselues at the beginning to the first institution of this hierar­chie, ordained by his Holines; a point often vrged, but neuer pro­ued, there being nothing but the Cardinals bare testimonie, and some heare-sayes, which the priests haue shewed was not sufficient, to prooue that it was the Popes ordinance. Besides, (as it is said) the Cardinall tooke it vpon himselfe, as may ap­peare by his letters: and against the whole body of our English Cler­gie, besides themselues, admitting the same, beleeuing the prote­stations of some that it was his Holines ordinance, not hauing seen themselues the Cardinals letters, and being put in a fright to be excommunicated, if they would not yeeld themselues. Now it remaineth to consider with what resolution and obstinacie, they haue prosecuted this their diuision, (the priests affirme, that this is the Iesuits diuision, and the faction adhering vnto them) notwithstanding all the meanes vsed to diuert them from it, and quiet them, both by superiours commandements, and friends perswasion. These friends perchance were they, who diuulged them to be schismatikes, and the superiour commaunded them that they should not defend themselues, and their fame, (special meanes for quietnesse.) And first of all, about this point is to be noted, that if our said brethren had meant plainely and sincerely (as often they doe professe in the two first discourses of their English booke, in­tituled, Copies of discourses, &c. and in their Information to the doctors of Paris, they doe auouch the same:) to wit, that their scruple was onely, whether this matter came from his Hol or no? And whether Card. Caiet. the Protector (abusing the Popes name) had appointed it of himselfe, and that they deferred only to concurre with the rest of their brethren, vntill they might be acertained of this point. Well, good sir, if all this had beene so, as so it was not, [Page 230] but the priests professions in the places cited, are either igno­rantly, or maliciously misreported, as shall be shewed, It had bene a very easie matter to cleare the doubt by many wayes, yea with­out sending any to Rome, for that so publique an acte as this, vnder a Cardinals letters patents, might haue easily beene enquired of with­out messengers. To what purpose should they haue inquired at Rome for the Cardinals letters, which they saw here in Eng­land? patents, that is to say, priuat letters, directed to a priuate man, for so were the Cardinals: the priests had no doubt of the Cardinals good will, to further any designe of the Iesuites, neither did they euer doubt, but that hee had instituted the au­thoritie, and therefore this was not the cause of their sending to Rome, to be informed, whether the Cardinall had done any such matter, for it was very credible, that he would haue done much more then he did (if he had knowen how) at the Iesuites request: but what were the other meanes? One letter of their owne either to his Holines himselfe, or to Card. Adebrandino his nephew, or any acquaintance of theirs that was in Rome, might soone haue procured them a certificate of this matter, if they had bene desi­rous to haue knowen the trueth; yea further, no man was there of the contrarie part it selfe, which in this behalfe would not haue endea­uoured to haue procured them satisfaction. Good natures, who would so friendly haue vsed the priests letters, & yet did cause the priests to be cast into prison: and lest that they should haue missed of their purpose, they came themselues with the Sbirri, but they were the chiefe captains, and apprehended them, and were their guard to their prison: What if the Priests letters to his Hol. or his nephew, had miscarried (as ordinarily it is omi­nous to all such letters as passe by the Post, and are suspected not to be to the Iesuits liking) might not his Holines haue bene induced to confirme the Cardinals acte, as a matter applauded by all the Priests in Englannd? If (sayth this author) our bre­thren had meant plainely and sincerely (as often they doe professe in the two first discourses of their English booke, entituled, Copies of discourses, &c. and in their Information to the Doctors of Paris, they do auouch the same; to wit, that their scruple was only, whether this matter came from his Holines or no, &c. Hath this author too soone forgotten his paine and trauaile taken in the precedent [Page 231] Chapter, where hee brought diuers scruples by way of argu­ments, for the proouing of the Priests their delay to be lawfull, of which fol. 110. this hee affirmeth: And these reasons are set downe and printed in two of the first Treatises of the English booke, entituled, Copies of discourses, &c. Hath hee not spent paper and inke, and a great deale of foolish labour, in going about (fol. 116. to the end of the Chapter) to disprooue, and cannot, the scruples which were suggested by the priests to the do­ctors of Sorbon, and will he now tell his reader, that the priests doe professe, both in these Treatises, and in their Information to the doctors of Paris, that their scruple was onely, whether this matter came from his Holines or no? Is his memory so short? or is his presumption such of the blind-obedient, that hee may say what he list, and contradict it at his pleasure? yet with all these arguments to the contrary, the priests as well in these Discour­ses, as in their Informatiō to the doctors of Sorbon, affirmed, that his Hol. commaundement lawfully made knowen vnto them, should end the matter: which was no proofe, that they had no other scruple, but rather of their ready obedience to the Sea Apostolicke, notwithstanding any difficulties, which did or might occurre, and were specified in these Discourses, and in the Information to Paris: and they performed it with all humi­litie and charitie, by submitting themselues, and forgetting those most impious slanders, which had beene spread against them of schisme, &c. by the Iesuits, and had lien still to this day in their graue, had not the Iesuits raised them againe, and the Archpriest giuen them free scope, to range in euery seditious mouth without controlment, and for the greater encourage­ment to such ouerforward Amalekites, he published a Resoluti­on, which he said he had from the mother Citie, that the refusers of his authoritie were schismaticks.

This then which this author affirmeth to haue been the one­ly scruple of the priests their delay, being prooued not to haue been the onely scruple, but that there were many more, which this author took notice of in the places cited in the 8 chapter: it is euident, that the sending of letters to Rome had litle auai­led the priests, the letters themselues (if they had been deliue­red to his Holinesse hands) not being able to haue answered [Page 232] to the deuises of such aduersaries, as they had there found, and consequently it was necessary, that some priests should be sent to deale with his Holinesse in such doubts, as they had, with this resolution, that they would stand to whatsoeuer his Holi­nesse should iudge conuenient for the present. And in this maner did the two priests goe to Rome. And now followeth the story of their apprehension there by the Iesuites and Sbirri, and what chanced vnto them, while they were vnder the Iesu­ites safe keeping. And because the blame of that which deser­ueth blame, is layd to Fa. Parsons; as that they were imprisoned before they were heard, and such like, this author to saue Fa Par­sons his sides (of which, by his running so quickly out of the fire of persecution in England, he knew Fa. Parsons had a very great care) goeth about to proue, that the two priests, there imprisoned in Rome (before they were heard) did not proceede from Fa. Parsons; and if he had gone no further then this, hee might haue left the matter in some suspence, and men might haue beaten their braines in conceiuing how such an iniustice should haue come into his Holinesse head, but he will demon­strate how it came, and thereby prooue that Fa. Parsons was no medler in it, to wit, that diuers did write to his Holinesse against them, but alacke their writing, although it might haue some­what excused Fa Parsons: yet doeth it not shew that F. Parsons was cleare. Hee argueth, as though it had bene an impossi­ble matter for him to haue dealt in this action, because so many other did write: but what if all these writers writ nothing con­cerning that point, with which Fa Parsons is charged; to wit: the imprisonment of the two priests before they were heard, to whom shall this fact be attributed? to his Holinesse, who is knowen to be both of mild, and most religious disposition, or to one of a cleane contrary spirit, but in that place, and credit, as he hath been trusted, both by his Holinesse, and vsed by the Cardinall Caietane, Protector, as a chiefe director in all our English affairs? But of this there can be no doubt, but that many did write to some, or other, and those letters were perchance shewed to the Pope, or els he heard somewhat of them. Let vs then examine this matter. The first place of the letter writers is giuen to his Holinesse Nuntij in France and Flanders. But in this he hath not [Page 233] done wisely, they being both strangers, and likely to haue had litle commerce with the English, especially hee in France (if then there were any) and as for him in Flanders, I am certaine­ly informed from his owne mouth, that he neuer writ against these Priests, much lesse would he suggest, that they were to bee imprisoned before they were heard, and be vsed, as shalbe declared. The next letters here mentioned (although not for such as should perswade his Holines to that course, which was taken) were written by Fa. Bellarmine, wherein he certifieth Fa. Parsons, that his Holinesse so greatly misliked their troublesome facte, that he had told him, that if they came to Ferrara hee would cause them to be imprisoned: who gaue these informations to his Ho­linesse, that without more adoe hee was resolued to imprison them, if they had come to Ferrara? If the memory of some, who read the letter, doe not extraordinarily faile them, this was an answere to Fa. Parsons letter, which he had written to Fa. Bellar­mine, concerning the Priests comming towards the Pope: But yet there is a starting hole left, and where is that? the letters of many of our nation, some of the principall, some of the most zealous, and herehence the Pope tooke his motiue to imprison the priests. If this then be so, then must these letters be written at the least, before that his Holines could by these writers per­swasions determine, to cast the two priestes in prison, and yet not so long before, as it should be impossible that the writers could vnderstand of any such attempts, against which they are sayd to write, or to perswade his Holines to this or that course in this or that matter, but neither of these chanced in our pre­sent case. For all the letters (at the least brought heere for proofe or instance) were written either after that his Hol. was induced to make this resolution, or else so long before, as it was impossible the writers thereof should haue knowledge of any such attempt.

The first in the ranke of writers is D. Stapleton, who (as this author thinketh) was dead before the two priests came into Flan­ders (he forgot himselfe that he had sayd fol. 120, that the priests came not into Flanders, but passed by France. But (alacke) the good mans memorie doth much faile him.) How then? what is to bee sayd of him, and his opinion, concerning these two [Page 234] priests, and their attempts against the Subordination? and how was he one, vpon whose information, or instigation his Holi­nesse resolued to imprison the two priests? marie sir, you must goe looke in the 4. Chapter fol 40. a piece of a letter of D. Stapletons to Fa. Parsons which was written the sixt of Iuly 1597. but what doth, or can this concerne the priests comming to his Holines, toward the later end of the yeere 1598, to deale about a matter which was not before the 7 of March in the same yere 1598, as appeareth by the date of the Cardinals letter, Apologie ca. 8. fol. 104? There is also a piece of another letter of the same man to to the Cardinal Protector, of the first of May 1598, which al­though it were written after that the Subordination was institu­ted, yet it was written before that it was knowen in England: for (to our remembrance) we had no knowledge thereof, vn­till it was May here with vs. But howsoeuer this was, it was im­possible, that it could concerne the two priests their comming to his Holines, for this was not so suddenly determined in En­gland, although vpon the first sight of the Cardinals letter the Archpriest was told, that there was iust cause for them, to goe to his Holinesse. By this then it appeareth, that D. Stapletons letters, which were to Fa. Parsons and to the Protector, could not induce his Holinesse, to imprison the two Priests, who came to deale about the Subordination. Let vs now see what the second testimony auaileth him. This testimony was of principall men, who writ some moneths (saith this author fol. 124.) before these two messengers came ouer into Flanders (he sayd France 120.) but their negotiations in England were heard of, and knowen, and these prin­cipall men (of whom the most principall standeth for the priests, and is ioyned with them in affection, and action in Rome at this present) writ their letter to the general of the Iesuites vpon this voice, which they heard, when you doe iustice, you shal make also peace, (a heauy saying for such as will bee prooued to haue done as great an iniury as may be, by a publike diffamation of schisme, and what not, against Catholike priests, without iust cause.) But what is this to the purpose? how was his Holinesse vpon this letter resolued to imprison the two priests, who were in the way to him, for and concerning the Subordination which was made? the Generall perchance of the Iesuits did shew this [Page 235] letter to his Holinesse, and thereby the negotiations of these two, and their fellowes came also to be knowen to his Holines: all this goeth very currant. But what if those men (now be­come principall) neither heard of these 2. priests (as dealers in this action) nor of any other, not onely not in particular, but neither in general? What if they could not possibly heare, that there was any Subordination knowen in England, and much lesse, that any did delay to admit thereof, when they writ this letter to the Generall of the Iesuits? How shamelesse will this author be iudged, who would bring these principall men their letters, as a motiue to his Holinesse, to imprison these two priests, before he would heare what they had to say? This Subordina­tion was made at Rome the seuenth of March in the yere 1598, and if the messenger had stridden a blacke horse to bring it in­to Englād, yet could there not be any negotiations in England conueniently either by these two priests, or others concerning the same, in so short a time, as that these 17 principall men (vn­lesse they were altogether attending, as it were to haue enter­tained the same messenger in Flanders) considered maturely of the negotiations, which were in England, could burnish vp a letter, and dispatch it vpon the eighteenth of March, in the same yeere 1598, as here is cited in the margent fol. 123.

Now follow the letters of diuers zelous men. When (as this author saith) these messengers were in their way indeed for the o­ther were written, especially those of the 17. principall men, when the priests were in their negotiations, before they set for­ward, as it is said fol. 124.) & these men writ indeed very sharp­ly, and with such confidence, as they might giue some suspition to a wise man, that all was not well in England, but yet there is no perswasion to haue the messengers cast into prison, vntill they were heard: a duetie which they might challenge, if in no other respect, yet at least for their trauaile in Gods Church, for which they deserued a good opinion of the gouernours there­of. The first here cited are from Doway 25. Octob. 1598. to the Protector; to which some haue acknowledged their error in sub­scribing. These letters doe not cleare Fa. Parsons for being the cause of his Holines resolution to imprison the two priests: for in this Apologie it is confessed fol. 120, that his Holines was resol­ued [Page 236] vpon the 17. of October 1398. to cast them into prison, for such date doeth the letter beare, which F. Bellarmine (now Car­dinal) is said to haue written to Fa. Parsons, to informe him, that his Holines so greatly misliked their troublesome fact, that hee had told him, that if they came to Ferrara, he would cause them to be im­prisoned. If these then of the 25. of Octob. came too late, to put such a resolution into his Holines head, what shall wee say of these which came after? for the next letters are from M. D. Worthington to the Protector, and these beare date the 30. of October from Bruxels. Next March D. Peerse (who was the first in the ranke of the 17. principall men, but now God knoweth, what place he shall haue, and among whom, for that he is ioy­ned with the priests in Rome, and in that action) D. Caesar Cle­ment, that succeeded D. Stapleton in the office of assistance-ship to the Nuntius in Flanders, in all English affaires (a man that was neuer in England, but (to giue him his right) the fittest man for that purpose, as matters go, and worthy to succeed D. Stapleton, or any farre greater man then he, in that kinde of ma­naging English affaires) D. Richard Hall, three doctors, but what these, or other writ most earnestly, and grauely to the same ef­fect, as the other did, by al likelyhood this author knoweth not: For (as he saith) he had not the copies of their letters, when he writ this Apologie, but hee met with a letter of M. Licentiat Wright, deane of Cortrac in Flanders to the Protector, which is here set downe in the Apologie, wherein this deane hath litle cause to thanke this author, who would discredit him so much, as to set downe his iudgement of two priests, whom he neuer saw. And although his letter doe exceed the limits of all modestie, yet doeth it not any whit auaile this author for proofe of that, for which it is brought, that is, that his Holines was thereupon re­solued, to imprison the two priests: for this letter beareth date 10. Nouembris 1598. as appeareth here fol. 126, which was a faire while after his Holines had that resolution, as appeareth by F. Bellarmine (now Card.) his letter of the 17. of Octob. 1598. cited by this author fol. 120. yet goeth this fellow on very smoothly, and not without great applause of the blinde obedient in this maner.

By this then (saith he) and other letters that came to his Holines [Page 237] (as you must suppose) or to the Protector (he shold haue added, or to the generall of the Iesuits, or to Fa. Parsons, for all these here related, are to some of these, and not one to his Holines, nor all to the Protector, nor about these matters, as in their places it is confessed in the Apologie) about this time, and were related to his Holines by him (his Holines being all this while at Ferrara, and the Cardinall at Rome, or at some place of recreation in those parts) euery man may see, whether he had iust cause to be mooued, or no, and to resolue to restraine them at their arriuall (you must vn­derstand at Ferrara from whence Fa Bellarmine, now Card. is said fol. 120. to haue certified Fa. Parsons by his letter of the 17. of October, that the Pope had told him, that if they came to Ferra­ra, he would cause them to be imprisoned) but much more when after 17. or 18. dayes stay in Rome (as before hath bene said) they could not be induced by the Protectors perswasion, to any quiet course at all. That which was before said, was said fol. 121. which must be one day vnsaid: for there he affirmeth, that the Card. Caietan, and Burgesius said, and did many things to the Priests, which are most falsly related. For the Cardinal Burgesius entertained them very friendly, and being certified vpon his earnest re­quest (set on by Fa. Parsons, to know it at that time) what was the cause of their cōming to Rome, he promised them according to their request, to procure them audience, before they should be iudged, which they did the more earnestly request, for that they had vnderstood by Fa. Parsons (who was then immediatly departed from the Cardinall, but was before certified, that the two priests attended his departure) that his Holines was in­censed against them, & nothing els passed betweene the Card. Burgesius and them at that time, and after this they went to the Card. Caietan so soone as they could, after that they vnderstood of his returne to the citie, and he was also very importunate, to know the cause of their comming to Rome, which when they discouered, hee seemed to be much troubled, especially when they talked of the Subordination, as his fact: yet concluded thus with them, that they should bring in writing what they had to say concerning the Subordination, & the appurtenances to which they accorded, offering to haue the matter (as be­longing properly to him) ordered by him (if so it could be) [Page 238] without troubling his Holines therewith, and requesting his furtherance in such other matters, as were onely in his Holines to graunt; And thus they departed with resolution to returne to the Card. with their difficulties in writing, and agreed with one, who should haue written for them the copy which they were to present to the Card. but they were intercepted by the Iesuits and Sbirri, of which F. Parsons was the chiefe leader. And this was al which passed betweene the Card. Caietan and them, as the Card. well knoweth, and this was vpon the feast day of S. Thomas the Apostle, when the waters had begun to rise in Ti­ber, which ouerflowed the citie, and vpon S. Thomas of Canter­bury his day, about the first or second houre in the night, the two priests were caried away to prison, perchance for the so­lemnising of that feast in some reformed godly maner.

This Authour hauing shewed (to such as must not see) how that the Pope resolued to imprison the two Priests vppon the letters here cited: now he will peswade (such as must beleeue) that it was not possible, that Fa. Parsons could be the cause of their imprisonment. It may be seene also (sayth he) how vniustly they doe calumniate, and accuse Fa. Parsons, as the cause of all their trouble, considering those letters were written from Flanders, vpon the two messengers first comming ouer, so as Fa Parsons had neither time to procure those letters from Flanders, neither is it likely, that men so graue, learned, and wise (as these are) would be induced by another mans request, to write such letters vnder their owne hands, to so great personages (the Protector, the Generall of the Iesuites, and Fa. Parsons) and that in so important a matter, except they had thought as they wrote, and their iudgements had beene conforme to their letters, and thus much of the first point about their imprison­ment. Are not these effectuall perswasions, that F. Parsons could not be the cause of their trouble? suppose all these letters had bene written vpon the first comming ouer of the two priests (as they were not, nor the soonest of them which concerned the two priests, in almost two moneths after) let vs also suppose, that his Holines was induced to resolue vpon the imprisoning these two priests, by these letters which we haue shewed could not be (the soonest of them being written vpon the 25. of Octo­ber 1598. as is confessed in the Apologie fol. 125. and his Holines [Page 239] resolued vpon the 17. of the same moneth before, to imprison them at Ferrara, as is confessed also in the Apologie fol. 120) it was so long before their going, and it was so well knowen, that some were to goe, as one of the now busiest Agents tolde one of them for certaine, that whosoeuer went in that affaire, should at their arriuall be cast into prison. And although these Flanders men, who writ, were so perswaded in conscience to write as they did, and did therefore write, because they were so perswaded, this is no proofe, that they were not induced by others, to haue such a conscience to thinke or to write in that manner, and some of them haue acknowledged, and haue bene and are very sory, that they suffered themselues to be induced by D. Barret to subscribe vnto that letter from Doway. So that this is a poore deuise, and a silly perswasion, that Fa. Parsons could not be the cause of the two priests their trouble, who was knowen to haue his Agents in all these partes, if himselfe were ashamed to haue his letters to be seene for any such mat­ter. And it not being prooued out of any of these letters of Flanders, that any of these great personages (the Cardinal, the Generall of the Iesuites, and Fa. Parsons) to whom these letters were sent, were perswaded by them that these two Priests were to be imprisoned, before they were heard, the authour leaueth the wound in Fa Parsons side, as wide as it was before, vnlesse to heale vp that, he will wound his Holines much deeper, as who (being reputed for a most milde, and wise man) should resolue vpon the imprisonment of a couple of Catholike priests, com­ming (as it were) bleeding from the campe of Gods Church, to open vnto him such difficulties as were to be redressed, ey­ther concerning their whole Church, or some members there­of, who had lately challenged vnto them an extraordinary su­perioritie ouer their fellow labourers, without any warrant from him; and to open vnto him what perill might thereby come to the Catholike cause: and offering themselues & their cause with all submission to his Holines, as the effect also proo­ued (whatsoeuer this slanderous Libeller suggesteth to his blind obedient Reader) But this author sheweth whatsoeuer he saith that he careth not, if his Holinesse his sides be pierced, so that he may keepe Fa. Parsons sides whole. Now to that which ensueth [Page 240] (saith this authour) there is extant a letter, written by F. Parsons to M. Bishop, of the ninth of October 1599. containing a certaine briefe capitulation of the principall points, that passed in this action of the messengers restraint in Rome, &c. To which letter there is answere made in the English booke, where this letter is set downe at large, and the answere is such, as this authour with a litle snarling onely at it, letteth it passe quietly, neither is it a cauilation, but a very material point, that the notary (so much talked of in that letter, and in a wicked false letter of the 20. of February 1599. vnder the name of M. A. as if M. Martin Array had bene the doer of it) was a Iesuite, and that he put in and out what F. Parsons would haue him, being himselfe the examiner (although the Popes Comissary did twice or thrice shew himselfe in that time) and if euery dayes examination had bene read (as it was not) in the presence of him, who was examined: yet F. Parsons might cause somewhat to be written otherwise then the prisoner did deliuer it, and to haue some­things blotted out againe, when the prisoners answere was con­trary to his former information, giuen by him, either to his Ho­linesse or others; neither was euery daies examination subscri­bed the same day for the prisoner neuer set his hand, but to the last sheete, which was of such impertinent stuffe, as it might be added to any examination, and the same hand which writ the examination, being a Iesuits hand, & at the commandement of F. Parsons he might (notwithstanding the scoring of the mar­gent, and the after registring (if it were registred) shew what he listed, and if their examinations be extant (as here it is said) then will appeare in some of them many things blotted out, sometime some words, which F. Parsons caused to be writ con­trary to that which the prisoner deliuered; sometime a whole question, with some part of the answere thereto, when F. Par­sons could not obtaine of the prisoner to make such answere, as hee would haue him: for remedy whereof F. Parsons tooke al­wayes afterward this course, that hee would neuer haue his question written downe, vntill hee had heard what answer the prisoner would make, that if the answere were such as he could wrest it to his purpose, then should the question be set downe, and himselfe would for breuities sake frame the answere, about [Page 241] which there was diuers times some alteration about wordes, which the prisoner vsed not, but was often contented to let F. Parsons haue his will, when the words were such as he knew he could interpret to good sence, notwithstanding his examina­tors false intention, hoping alwayes, that hee should haue so much fauour, when the matter should grow to an issue. And al­though that neither all the examination was euer taken, nor that which was taken, let to stand as it was taken, but somwhat was blotted out (as is said) and many answers out off, vnder pretence sometime of breuitie, sometime that there should be another Interrogatory, to which such an answere would be more fit: the prisoners subscribed, & sware, but to what? Not that there was al which was asked, or answered, nor that F. Parsons had not dealt in this kinde, but that those answeres which were there made, were truely & sincerely giuen, which maketh no­thing to the clearing of F. Parsons, or the proouing of his honest dealing. And now you shall heare, what matters this author hath picked out of their examinations, and thereby perceiue, what this good fellow would say.

First then, to talke of substantiall points (sayth this author) the examination of M. Charnocke beginning the 4. of Ianuary, and that of M. Bishop the 10. of Ianuary 1599, and passing ouer all o­ther demaunds, which these men call impertinent, they were asked, what was the cause and reason of their comming to Rome: who sent them, &c. To this M. Charnocke being first examined, answered in these words: Causa aduentus nostri haec fuit, vt rogaremus humil­limè, &c. The cause of our comming to Rome was this, that we might beseech most humbly, and with all obedience the Sea Apostolicke, that this order appointed by Card. Caietan (for composing controuersies in England, and to make peace) not beeing hitherto confirmed by his Holines (as we vnderstood it is said by diuers priests, and namely Fa. Sicklemore, and others) might be mitigated or changed, or some other order appointed with it for satisfaction of very many priests, who doe thinke (reseruing notwithstanding due honour to the Sea Apostolike) that by this way appointed onely, the strises begun can­not so well be ended, &c. But if it should please his Holinesse to con­firme this authority, and to admit no other, then are these priests con­tent to yeeld all obedience, &c. and as for the Superiour appointed, [...] spake with the Archpriest before I came forth, and desired him not [Page 242] to be offended with me, if I went to Rome about this matter, and hee gaue me leaue to goe to deale for the change thereof. Thus farre the Apologie, by which it may appeare, what cause there was of the Priests so long trouble in Rome, their apprehension by Iesuits, and Sbirri, vpon the feast of S. Tho. of Canterbury, the most prin­cipall feast of any particular in all our countrey, their keeping so close by the Iesuites, as they might not goe out of their se­uerall prisons, to heare masse vpon some of the most princi­pall feasts in Gods Church; their being debarred to speake, not onely one of them with the other, but also with any, to aske councell (except the Iesuits,) their being debarred to come to the altar otherwise then lay men, vntill the 7. or 8. of February, notwithstanding they had by vertue of a Iubile receiued abso­lution, by the same Iesuits from all censures, which it was sup­posed that either they had, or might haue incurred by this iourney to Rome, their continuance in close prison, vntill the 8. of April (notwithstanding they had so discharged them­selues before the two Card. Caietan and Burghesius, vpon the 17. of February in the English Colledge, as both they them­selues and the whole Colledge were tolde, that they should within two or three dayes after, haue their libertie) their being afterwards (although somewhat more easily) imprisoned, the one vntill the 22. of April, the other vntill the 6. of May: their being banished their country, and confined the one to France, the other to Lorayne, without any one penny, or pennyworth allowed them, for their maintenance in those places.

By this also it may appeare, how iniuriously they were accu­sed of schisme, &c. and with what wickednesse this matter was prosecuted in England against them. but to this deposition, what sayth this author? Thus he said (sayth hee) which how true or probable, or coherent it is to that, which since they haue said, done, and set forth in their bookes, I will leaue to the reader to iudge: and all the readers could neuer as yet find any particular, more then this author doeth, in which they haue bene contrary thereto: but how doth this answere suite with the rest of this Apologie, which referreth the reader to the priests their bookes, to see what he would haue them vnderstand, and yet hath hee taken such order, as no man must read them?

The principall matters being then answered by this author in this maner, that the Reader may see, where he is forbidden to looke, he will answere to one point, or two in M. Charnocks de­position. The one is where he said, that the Archpriest gaue him leaue to goe, which (saith he) the Archpriest denieth, for that he saw no iust cause. M. Charnocke affirmeth it, and can put the Archpriest in minde thereof, and of the cause that mooued him thereto: to wit, when M. Charnocke told him, that the mat­ter concerning himselfe in that kinde, it were a necessary point of modestie, to giue leaue: vpon which he was bidden to goe, if he would; Neither doeth the Archpriest his answere to M. Bishop here cited, make any thing against this. For there passed some moneths betweene, in which space he might alter his minde by the aduise of his priuie Counsell. Yet this much is here affirmed by M. Bishop vnder his oath, that he did not pro­hibite him: which is an argument, that it was not a thing im­possible for him, to bid M Charnocke goe, although no doubt he had rather they should both haue stayed at home.

The second point is, that M. Charnocke said: Quam plures sa­cerdotes, Very many priests were not satisfied with his Holines order. Where did M. Charnocke affirme this? Is it not possible for this fellow to deale truely in any one thing? Hath not M Charnocke expresly called it An order appointed by the Cardinall Caietane, and must we now haue a tricke to cousen the Reader, & make him beleeue that M. Charnocke should say, that very many priests were not satisfied with his Holines order? But let vs see how like he is still vnto himselfe; which speech of very many priests (saith he) he doeth explicate afterward, what number it might import in particuler, being pressed thereunto by an Interrogatorie in these words, Interrogatus, &c. Being asked, what the number of priests now in England seemed vnto him, he answered, that he could not tell for certaine: but hee thought 300. more or lesse. Then being asked, how many of these he did certainly know to approue this their missiō, and to be priuie to the matters that should be proposed, and would stand to those things, that these two should handle, and conclude in their names: He answered, I doe know for certaine 14. or 15, albeit I haue not had conference with them all my selfe. Thus farre the Apologie.

How faine would he play at some game, who stretcheth his [Page 244] point thus farre? M. Charnocke vsed these wordes, Very many priests, and M. Charnocke declared what he said to be true, by a­uouching the letters, which he brought with him: whereof some did testifie, that the priests thereabouts residing were of such minde; other residing in other places, witnessed asmuch of the priests who passed by them. M. Bishop remayning in a third place, could testisie for the priests which were neere vnto him: and himselfe remayning in a 4. place, could say somewhat concerning them that were there resident. And thus was it explicated, how he said, Quam plures sacerdotes, very many priests. But now note, how this author would patch vp some matter. F. Parsons not being content with this answere, vrged M Char­nocke as it is here confessed; how many he did certainely know to approue this their mission. To which M Charnocke (as I vnder­stand) made this answere: that he would not depose vpon any certainty for more then those, with whom he had talked, or had some particular message, or notice from them, which were to such a number. And this is that mysterie vnfolded, euen by the Apologie it selfe, how that very many might be said to be of such, or such disposition, and yet but few to be named, for whom, vp­on certaine and proper knowledge, a man may depose; as the question is here cōfessed to haue bene asked. And in the same sense is M. Bishops answere here also acknowledged in these words, Puto me certè scire plus minus 12. I doe thinke, that I know for certaine 12. priests more or lesse to be of our opinion and pri­uie to these matters. And besides this changing of the case to a certaine knowledge, it is otherwise also altered. For the questi­on was not onely for, how many doe you certainly know? but for some particulers, which perchance were not necessary for all to talke vpon, who notwithstanding might giue their full confent to haue matters altered from that they now were: and reposed a trust, aswell in the messengers, as others who were priuie to all the circumstances. So that notwithstanding this oath that 14. or 15. were thus farre forward in the action, there might be the better part of the 300. who were said not to be satisfied with this order (most falsly and fraudulently suggested here, to haue bene knowen to be his Holinesse order) appointed by Cardinal Caietan, as M. Charnockes words are a little before ac­knowledged [Page 245] fol. 129. But yet there is an other proofe of the small number of contradictors: and what is that? Mary sir, M. Charnocke confessed that the first to his knowledge, whō the Archpr. called to conferre his new authoritie withall, was M. Collington and himselfe, which answere is here both falfly and fraudulently said to haue bene made to this interrogatory, who were the first beginners, abetters, and setters on in this contradiction against the Cardinals letters. It is very true that F. Parsons would sometimes vse these words: and the bauble that euery one of the blinde obe­dient are still playing withall, the faction. But against these did M. Charnocke alwayes except: and F. Parsons was to change his lewd termes before answere would be made. But how doeth this proue any thing to this authors purpose? Would he haue his Reader to thinke, that a matter first proposed priuately at the courtesie of the proposer (for his letters were to him in pri­uate, and not to the priests) to such as he should picke out for his purpose (suppose it were the most wicked thing that could be deuised) should displease, or could be contradicted by more, then were called, or sooner then by the first that heard it? The marginall note I take as his cognizance to know him, and his fellowes: The first beginners (saith he in the margent) of this sedi­tion M. Collington, and M. Charnocke by his owne confession. He might better haue made this note in the margent, The first fin­ders out of this most wicked, and seditious plot of the Iesuits, M. Col­lington, &c. They (as is said) were first called, and in post haste they were sent for, and M. Heburne to giue their liking. And we (saith the Apologie repeating M Charnocks answere) hauing read the Card. Protectors letters, began to doubt not so much of the authoritie it selfe (that is, that the Cardinall had appointed such a thing: for so doeth this Apologie confesse fol 129. that M. Char­nocke acknowledged this order, to haue bene appointed by Card. Caietane, neither do M. Charnocke his letters of the 20 of February cited, and abused by these fellowes, proue that after he thought any other, then that it was the Cardinals doing: Notwithstanding that the Iesuits laboured to haue him write, that it was the Popes order, and would sometime make bold with this, where the law was in their owne hands) as of the good maner of procuring it. They perceiued that it was got by surrep­tiō, [Page 246] which is a sufficient cause to except against it: wherby also it may appeare, how ignorantly this fellow cumbreth his mar­gēt, where he hath made this note, Ergo not doubting you are boūd to obey. For first M. Charn. doth not say, that they had no doubt of the authoritie it selfe, but that they doubted not so much of the authoritie it selfe, as of the good manner of procuring it. For they saw it euidently, that it was an ordinance of the Cardinall vn­der his hand and seale, though in a priuate letter to M. Black­well, and his words were plaine: Dum haec nostra ordinatio dura­uerit: so long as this ordinance shall endure. Yet knowing how this Cardinall was caried in our English affaires by the Iesuites, it was neither fellony nor treason, to thinke hee might stretch himselfe to pleasure them. And if the matters had been hand­led with any indifferencie, doubtles neither these two, nor any other would euer haue called the matter in question: but there being a notorious partiality descryed in this order, and such as might be the ouerthrowe of our afflicted Church in England, the Priests had reason to make some stop at the first discouery thereof, as iustly they might haue done, although they had not doubted at al, but that it was ordained by his Holines appoint­ment, or by his Holinesse letters, there being sufficient cause to perswade them, that it was gotten by surreption, which doth vitiate or make voyde his Holinesse letters: as M. Colling­ton proueth euidently in his first reason: and consequently the priests were not bound to obey it: and the lesse for that they prepared themselues to goe to Rome to deale with his Holi­nesse thereabout; and in such manner as is set downe and ac­knowledged in this Apologie fol. 129. out of M. Charnockes exa­mination. And the partiality which was vrged by M. Charnocke, as iustly feared by M. Blackwell, is declared euery where by the priests to be this: that the Iesuites who were the chiefe head of sedition and faction in England against the priests, were now become their iudges and executioners in the shape of a Secu­lar priest, and no way subiect to any order, which was preten­ded to haue bene taken for peace betweene them & the priests: and these to their iudgments seemed serious and graue causes, not to yeeld themselues at the beginning: which their not yeel­ding this authour tearmeth an opposition. Here we see (saith he) [Page 247] how serious and graue the causes were of this opposition at the begin­ning: and how at the first they did not doubt of the authoritie it selfe, nor of the Popes will therein, as after they haue pretended. Where is this seene? or where is any mention of any such perswasion, that the Popes will was knowen therein, or that the priests did not doubt thereof? This fellow must needes borrow leaue now and then to play with his blind obedient, and make them be­leeue that they doe see that, which himselfe doth not, nor can see: for in this answere of M. Charnocke, there is nothing con­cerning the Pope, but onely the Cardinall Protectors letters, by which the authoritie was instituted by him, and might haue bene thought to haue bene authentically done (if he had any Commission from his Holinesse) or not authentically done (if he had none) so that no Commission appearing, the priests might iustly doubt thereof, although not so much as of the o­ther, to wit, the manner of procuring it, which they might per­ceiue was by surreption. And for this cause M. Charnocke sayd not, that they doubted not at all at the first of the authority it selfe, nor of the Popes will therein, as this authour doth most falsely suggest, but this onely, we hauing read the Cardinals Pro­tectors letters began to doubt, not so much of the authority it selfe, as of the good manner of procuring it, as in the same page this au­thour himselfe setteth downe M. Charnockes answere. But yet note another slippery part of this fellow. He citeth M. Char­nockes answere concerning what was done the first day, that the authority was made knowen vnto them, in which you see how he abuseth his Reader, in proouing thereby the smalnesse of the number of the priests. But he ceaseth not here: for he con­cludeth in this manner, We see also, that the Priests could not bee many, nor of great account, that resolued this embassage to Rome. And good sir, how doe you see this? Forsooth M. Charnocke said, that the chiefe priests that dealt with him and M. Bishop, were M. Collington, M. Cope, M Iohnson, M. Monford, and others; and could not many be included in that word others, nor men of great ac­count? if these that were named, were of no great account, were not this apparantly an odious maner of writing? I could retort the phrase, and shew that some of these that are named, and others not named yet, comprehended in this word others, [Page 248] were such as for their merit, and labours in Gods Church can hardly be matched by all the faction which is against them: but we will leaue this fellow tumbling in his owne dirt, and pleasing himselfe in his folly, howsoeuer he displeaseth men of iudgement, who haue often difficulties, whether they may better lament him (who by this continuance therein giueth an earnest peny, that others lamentations will nothing profite him) or laugh at him (whose folly is without measure, and still proceedeth from folly to folly.) But now that he hath proper­ly let his Reader see that they could not be many nor of great ac­count, that resolued of the embassage to Rome, he will prooue, that the mission and commission was not authenticall, because M. Bishop, who was one of them that were sent, affirmed that hee did not know, who was the first authour of this mission, nor why they two were chosen aboue the rest for this mission: As though a matter might not be as lawfully taken in hand by one, who knoweth not who first did motion it, or why he was requested to it, ra­ther then another, as by one who knoweth both the first moti­oner, and why he was imployed, yet his Reader must hereby perceiue, what authenticall mission, and commission it was, and yet is there much bad dealing in the relation of M. Bishops answere, as appeareth in a treatise ioyned to M.D. Ely his notes vpon the Apologie, fol. 13 But yet further (saith he) to say a word or two of the very chiefe point of their commission, and cause of com­ming to Rome, you haue heard, that M. Charnocke saith, and swea­reth before, that their onely comming was to supplicate most humbly to the sea Apostolike, &c. he hath made his blind reader beleeue, that hee hath seene, and perceiued; now his Reader must in like sort beleeue, that he hath heard; what? M. Charnocke say and sweare that their onely comming was to supplicate, &c. if his readers memory will serue him so farre, as to remember what he hath lately read, concerning this point, or turne backe some two or three leaues, he shal finde this word onely foysted in by this authour, to make his Reader beleeue in the next page, fol. 133 that M Bishop and M. Charnocke did scarce seeme agreed in the causes of their comming to Rome.

After this boldnesse, to abuse his reader for his purpose, he sayth a word or two of the very chiefe point of their Commis­sion [Page 249] & cause of comming to Rome, which he thus abridgeth, to supplicate most humbly to the Sea Apostolike, that if the foresayd or­der of the Archpriests authoritie, were not yet confirmed by his Ho­linesse, as they had heard Fa. Sicklemore, and some others had re­ported, that then the same might be either mitigated, or changed, or some other order appointed together with it. Thus hath hee layed downe the priests their plaine song; now marke what descant he hath made thereon: so as now (sayth he) our brethren seemed not to doubt of the trueth or value of the Cardinals letters, nor were not yet growen to be so bold, as to affirme that his Holines could not do it without their consents, except he violated the Canons; nor that it was aforreine Iurisdiction subiect to treason, and Premunire, if it were acknowledged: and other such like deuises.

Our brethren neuer grew to any such boldnes (as he termeth it) as to affirme any thing of Treason, or Premunire, but onely shewed, that they had iust cause to forbeare to admit the au­thoritie, both in regard that by the opinions of diuers men of Iudgement in the lawes of our countrey, this our case may and will be drawen within the Compase of an olde lawe, &c. viz. the law of Premunire, as it is set downe in the English booke pag. 6. where also is shewed, that by the accepting hereof the priests might be taken, for to comply with the chiefe authors thereof in al such state matters, as were practised by them. And these were rather causes for them, why they were not ouer ha­stie to admit of this authority, then arguments vrged against it: And yet neither of these causes haue or can be proued insuffici­ent. And for more proofe, that these causes were not giuen in any other sort, the priests did submit themselues, when they did see his Holinesse letters in confirmation thereof. But now let vs heare the first part of this mans descant. So as now (saith he) our brethren seemed not to doubt of the trueth, or value of the Cardinals letters, nor were not yet growen to be so bold, as to affirme, that his Holinesse could not doe it without their consents, except hee violated the canons. How doth this fellow vpon M. Charnockes answere gather this? If there were no doubt of the trueth, and value of the Cardinals letters, why is it here sayd, that M. Char­nocke put this doubt, if the foresayd order of the Archpriests au­thority were not yet confirmed by his Holinesse? Did this speach [Page 250] imply a doubt or no? if it did, how boldly doth this fellow des­cant vpon a doubt, and say that it was no doubt? if it did not im­ply a doubt, let him tell vs, how a man may more properly make a doubt, then by this word if? Perchance he may meane, that the priests did not doubt, but that those letters were the Car­dinals letters, and then he sayth well: but he doth not descant right: for the question was, whether that the Card. letters had receiued any force by his Hol. confirmation, as may appeare by that, which is here by himselfe set downe: and whereas hee sayth, that the priests were not so bolde, as to affirme at that time, that his Holinesse could not doe it without their consents, except hee violated the canons, the priests were bold to affirme (with humi­litie, and reuerence to the Sea Apostolike) as much. But howe doth he proue, that they were not yet growne to that boldnesse? Forsooth because no such matter was set downe in this point of M. Charnocks answere; as though euery thing must of neces­sitie be set downe, which the priests had to say, or could say▪ but this is perchance an idle shift & now deuised by the priests, and coyned for the purpose: Listen then to that, which is set downe by this author in the Epistle to his Holinesse past the middle thereof: Yet a fewe not the twentieth part of our English Clergie, and presumed to impugne the same, (the Subordination) calling first in question the sayd Cardinals letters, their trueth, faith, and integritie, the indifferencie of his person in iudgement, and affe­ction. Then also your Holinesse meaning, yea your authority it selfe, whether you could doe it without them or no, (the canons of Holy Church obserued) with other like vnseemly oppositions for prosecu­tion whereof they sent two of their company to Rome. But this was forgotten when the author of the Apologie came to this Chap­ter. Furthermore it was obiected against the two priests at Rome, that they had there giuen out, that they doubted whe­ther his Holinesse could appoint them a Superiour without their priuitie and consent (obseruing the lawes of holy Church) as may appeare by the libell Master Doctor Haddocke, and Master Martine Aray deliuered vp to his Holines (as was sayd) 10. Ianuary 1599: for there in the second Article are these words: Ipsi verò nihil credere, nec acquiescere, sed haesitare ad omnia, non ad­mittere authoritatem, vocare in dubium an vera essent, quae literis [Page 251] illis continebantur; Sanctissimi iussu hanc esse constitutam, & si verum id erat, dubitare tamen, an pontifex facere possit, vt ipsis in­consultis, ac inuitis, superiorem ijs cōstituerit, quod postea etiam quum Romam appulerunt dicere, ac saepius etiam repetere non sunt veriti, vt per testes idoneos probare possumus. That is, but they (speaking of M Collington and M. Charnocke) when the Archpriest first sent for them, would beleeue nothing nor obey, but did sticke at all things: they would not admit the authoritie: they called it in doubt, whether those things were true, which were contained in these letters (of the Cardinals) namely, that the authoritie was constituted by his Hol. commandement: and if it were so, yet they doubted, whether his Hol. could appoint them a Superiour, vnwitting, and vnwilling thereto: which afterward they feared not to say, when they came to Rome, yea and repeated it often, as we can proue by conuenient wit­nesses. And yet would this fellow perswade his reader, that the priests did first contradict, or oppose themselues against the authority, and then afterwards finde some reasons for it, yea after the two priests were gone to Rome, notwithstanding these plaine testimonies of his owne, that the priests had these difficulties at the beginning. But perchance M. Charnockes an­swere put all these things out of his memorie: & non putarat, he thought not vpon it. How so? Forsooth M. Charnocke said, that the cause of his comming was to supplicate most humbly to the Sea Apostolike, that if the aforesayd order of the Archpriests autho­ritie were not yet confirmed by his Holinesse, as they had heard that Fa. Sicklemore, and some other had reported, that then the same might be either mitigated, or changed, or some other order appointed with it, thus he collecteth M. Charnocks answere: and thereup­on commeth with a, so as now our brethren seemed not to doubt &c. nor were yet growne to be so bold, as to affirme that his holinesse could not doe it without their consents, except he violated the canons, &c. The humble spirit of the priests (who hauing many and most iust causes to deale in other maner then by way of sup­plication) being measured by his own proud humor of wrang­ling where he had no iust cause, brought him into this error. Next follow the reasons or causes, which mooued M. Bishop to come to Rome, which were sixe, and hee here setteth them downe, and proueth that he, and M. Charnocke did scarce seem [Page 252] to agree in the causes of their comming. And how so? For­sooth M. Charnocke sayd, and sware, that his onely comming was to supplicate &c fol 132. But whosoeuer will turne to M. Char­nocks oath set downe fol 129. shal find this iugler, and how that this word onely is here foisted in by him for this purpose.

And so much (sayth he) of this, for that it were ouerlong to run ouer all points (and not finde one for his purpose, without a litle of his arte, which will serue him no longer, then vntill it com­meth into the aire; for then all this painting and false colours will easily be descried, and himselfe worthily laughed at, for his so grosse counterfeiting:) yet this in briefe they affirmed both of them, that as for the Archpriest, they brought nothing lawfully prooued against him, either in learning, life, or manners: and the like they affirmed of the Iesuits. An euident argument euen to F. Par­sons and the rest, that they went to Rome, to deale in peaceable manner with his Holines concerning these matters; beeing able to bring more matters vnder the hands of sufficient wit­nesses, then the Archpriest will be euer able to answere, and which in any court of Iustice would haue hindered his con­firmation. But this authour setteth downe his matters some­what warily: the priests brought nothing against the Archpr. lawfully proued (as for the Iesuits, let any indifferent man iudge, whether the priests were in place to haue medled with them further, then that the Iesuits were their Iaylours) somewhat be­like they could haue said, but they brought nothing lawfully prooued: M. Bishop (sayth he) said he heard his fellow Rob. say, that M. Collington and himselfe had heard the Archpriest vtter an he­reticall proposition: which was, that they could not appeale from him to Rome. They both affirme, that hee stood very peremptorily in it, after that hee was warned thereof: and if M. Bishop did af­firme, that this proposition was hereticall, or the author of the Apologie doe thinke so of it himselfe, I wonder that M. Bishops fellow Rob. was not asked the question, his examination not being ended in some 6. or 7. dayes after that M. Bishop was dis­patched, as appeareth here, fol. 134. and this is one speciall matter which this author chuse out of many, ouer which it had beene ouerlong to runne ouer. Will ye heare another in briefe, as he sayth? M. Charnocke beeing asked, what money they had, [Page 253] made answere, for 30. crownes more then M. Bishop tooke no­tice of: which perchance this author here inserted, that his rea­der might giue credit to M. Bishop, when he said, as is extant in the English booke, pa. 171. The examinations were: what is your name: how olde: where remained you in England: how and which way came you ouer: what money brought you ouer with you, &c. and much such like impertinent stuffe to fill vp the papers, that when wee came to the matter it selfe, they might be briefe, taking barely what we came about, without the reasons & perswasions of it: yea obiecting against it, and peruerting it what they could.

The third principal point which (notwithstanding the hast) was in no case to be ouerslipped, but rather run ouer, is a disa­greement betweene M. Bishop and M. Charnocke about one point of their commission. And thus forgetting how he had before foisted in this worde onely to make a disagreement betweene them, in that the one should say, that their onely comming was to supplicate, &c. fol 132. and the other alledge sixe causes of his comming: Now hee is contented, that M. Charnocke should say, that he had diuers points in commission: and how commeth this kindnesse ouer him? forsooth he would faine find another disagreement betwixt M. Bishop and M. Charnocke, and for this purpose, hee must intreat his reader to forget, that he had be­fore made him beleeue, how that he had heard, that M. Char­nocke said and sware, that their onely comming was to supplicate, &c. and now that it will please him to vnderstand, that Ma­ster Charnocke said, that he had in commission amongst other points for to procure, that no bookes should be hereafter written by Catho­licks, that might exasperate the state of England: M. Bishop said, that he liked not that commission, but rather it should be left as hitherto, to the discretion of the writers: adding further, that in his opinion such bookes, as before had beene written, had rather done good then hurt. M. Doctor Ely hath noted vpon the Apologie, that the au­thor thereof is much troubled with the chincough: which in his relating this point, may be very easily seene, by his leauing out of certaine wordes at the end of the point, auouched by M. Charnocke to haue beene in his commission. The words are these, sine necessitate aut vtilitate: without need or profit: which words being added vnto the point (as he calleth it in M. Char­nocks [Page 254] commission, or the petition of the priests, as they tear­med it) maketh the matter so iust a request, as no man of sense can dislike thereof. But the very thing indeed which troubled this author was, that F. Parsons vrging very much to know, whe­ther that the booke of succession were not one of these, which were within the compasse of this petition, was told directly by M. Charnocke, that it was, and thereupon grew a little alterati­on betweene them (to fill vp the papers perchance, as M. Bishop sayth) and as for M. Do. Bishop it is so plainely set downe what hee answered concerning this booke of succession, or titles, in the answere for M. Doct. Bishop, fol. 16. (which answere is annexed to M. Doct. Ely his notes vpon the Apologie) that I cannot but wonder at this fellowes greedinesse to forge matters, to make some shew at the least, that M. Doctor Bishop and M. Charnocke disagreed. For first, M. Doct. Bishop was not asked any question concerning this point, as there it is affirmed, but had some pri­uate talke concerning the bookes of titles. And the effect of his answere is, that the booke is so penned, as that while many by warrant thereof may iustly striue for the crowne, a stranger may come in, and take it from them all: and how this agreeth to that which the Apologie sayth, of a difference betwixt Ma­ster D. Bishop and M. Charnocke, an indifferent reader will quick­ly iudge.

Now followeth a contemptible repetition of tickets and scrolles, the least whereof was bigger, then any by which this subordination was requested (vnlesse wee should say, as the au­thor of the Apologie would perswade vs, cap. 8 fol. 98. & 104. that the 7. of March endured at Rome vntill many moneths passed in other countreys) and many of them were directed to his Holines as humble supplications, to which according to the old fashion men did not vse to set any seale, but their names onely: and so were these subscribed in the best manner, that the writers could, and the papers were of purpose so small, for the better conueyance of them, if the bearers should haue chanced to haue beene searched (as this authors wit might haue taught him) and not onely the names were to the petitions, but the matters which were demanded: by which these foolish doubts here made, are easily solued: what manner of commission these [Page 255] men had, or could haue? from whome? by what meanes? for what matters? & whether they in England would stand to all points which these men here should conclude in their behalfe? and whether these mens authoritie were generall, or limited? For by these letters it was seene, that they had such commission as many could giue, where there was no one in authoritie; the Archpriest not be­ing as yet confirmed, nor (if hee had any) likely to haue giuen any commission to any, whome he should imagine liked not of such his preferment. It was also seene, from whome they had the commission, for that the priests names were to their petiti­ons. The meanes likewise were faire, without threatnings of execution and such like, as were vsed to make the priests sub­scribe to the Archpriest. The matters also were specified in their petitions, and the priests in England committing their matters to these two, there needed no great doubt to haue bene made, whether they would haue stood to that, to which they had agreed in that behalfe, as they did, when (receiuing the Breue signed by their two handes, of which otherwise perchance there might haue bene some doubt, vnlesse the originall had bene sent) they all submitted themselues. It was also euident by the points set downe in particular, what they had to deale in, in the names of the rest, although they were not thereby de­barred any way, to deale as they saw cause, or had hope to effect any good for their countrey. So that his endlesse folly might haue bene left out, where he concludeth finally that the priests did onely agree in contradicting, and pulling downe, but nothing that was probable or facible for setting vp, and so their examinations were ended &c. A very good conclusion, and well deducted out of his principles.

All this being done (saith he) and the whole processe considered, and weighed well by the Cardinals, and after related to his Holines: it was resolued, that the said Cardinals, with his Holines Commissary Acarisius, should goe to the Colledge themselues, and to see whether they had any thing els to say, or write. Who doeth not now pre­pare himselfe to heare some matter to some purpose? For all which hitherto hath bene touched in the Apologie, seeme to be but praeludia, or an entrance to this acte. Here was it to be tried how iustly, or iniustly the priests had done, and to be shewed, [Page 256] how worthily they had bene imprisoned with infamy, kept close so long, debarred al helpe, one of the other. Here was the proper place for this author to haue answered the English booke, which was one of the two for which this Apologie was written (this apparance of the two priests before the Cardi­nals being set downe so particularly in the English booke in­tituled The copies of the discourses pag 95 96. 97. 98.) But alack the good man had not what to say, but that which would haue cleared the priests, nor was able to controll any part of the nar­ration, which is made in the places cited, but turneth off his reader with certaine generall termes, to which he first dispo­seth him with as idle discourses, First taking occasion to ex­claime vpon D Bagshaw, for that he thought it requisite, that the Archpresbytership should be recalled, as being neither requested by vs, nor any way profitable: and that some Hierarchie were instituted, which were to be approued by the free suffrages of the priests onely of the Seminaries. And for this this author exclameth, Loe what a resolute lawmaker here is, who recalleth the Popes Subordinations in a word, & setteth vp another of his owne making with as great fa­cilitie. Loe what a resolute ly-maker here is, who affirmeth that which is most false, and can no way follow of the doctors words. For the Archpresbytership was not the Popes Subordi­nation, but the Cardinals, as then it was manifest by the Cardi­nals letters, where he said, Dum haec nostra ordinatio durauerit, so long as this our ordinance shall endure. Neither doeth the Cardi­nal in any place of those letters affirme (as this resolute ly-ma­ker doeth often inculcate in this Apologie) that he did it expresso mandato Sanctissimi, By expresse commandement of his Holines. Nei­ther doeth the doctor recall it, but signifie vnto such as were go­ing to Rome, what his and others opinion was of the vnpro­fitablenes thereof. And being thrust vpon them vnasked, that it was to be recalled by his Holines, in whom the author (as I trow) will acknowledge a power to doe as much as this was.

Loe likewise what a resolute lye-maker here is, who affir­meth that the doctor setteth vp another Subordination of his owne making with as great facilitie, whereas the doctor writeth in the same kinde to haue some other by his Holines appoint­ment, of which he desireth not, that himselfe should be the set­ter [Page 257] vp, but the priests whom it shall concerne, which was ac­cording both to the Cannons of holy Church, and his Holines meaning, as diuers priests can witnes, the Pope hauing alwayes borne that speciall fauour vnto the priests. But what els was discouered in those papers of the doctors? Forsooth the chan­ging of the gouernment of the Seminartes, especially that in Rome, yea the change of the Protector himselfe. Very true, For that the vn­quietnes which the Iesuits made in Rome among the students, was a great cause of the vnquietnes here in England; And see­ing that there was no hope of any quiet so long as the Iesuits had the gouernment, what euil request was it to haue them re­moued thence? Neither was the request of the doctor, and some others ioyned with him, for the change of the Protector absolutely: but that there might be some other, or some ioyned with him in regard he was knowen to be one, who in the Iesuits quarels tooke part alwayes very partially with them against the students, and the students appeale from him, or their declining from his iudgement had bene in former times admitted by his Holines, who now is.

And further it was [...]uered by the same papers (saith he) and other letters out of England, that they had particular designments, to make themselues Bishops and Archbishops. And how was this dis­couered, or what proofe hath this authour of this? whereupon (saith he) in some letters it was written, To your LL. This is all the proofe, that those to whom this letter was written, had par­ticular designments to make themselues Bishops and Arch­bishops. If one should write to Rome to Fa. Parsons, and direct his letter in this manner, To your Grace: of what could F. Parsons be conuinced, others so writing vnto him? But Fa. Parsons in his letter of the 9. of October 1599. to M. Bishop, making menti­on of this iest, is answered in the English booke, pag. 127. and is told, that M. Charnocke hearing thereof at Rome, did there chalenge it as a faigned matter. And there it is shewed at large, in what sort it might be forged. And this Apologie being made to answere that English booke, letteth all that discourse goe quietly: the authour hauing taken good order that his lewd­nesse should not be knowen among these blind-obedient: and hath the lesse shame to iterate any falshood without disproo­uing [Page 258] that which hath bene before directly sayd against it. And a particular discourse being diuulged at this time, vnder the hand­writing of one of their chiefe followers named M. Watson, was sent to Rome, whilest these men were there: Whereunto was subscribed by another in these words, Sic sentio W.B. By this discourse also this author would prooue, that the priests that went to Rome, went with hope of reward: to wit, to be made Primats them­selues; and to make other Bishops of their partners at their re­turne: yea notwithstanding their oath which they tooke, that they neuer heard of any discourse, this authour emboldeneth himselfe to burden them with it, or at the least with the know­ledge thereof. For such are his words, though these messengers in Rome would not seeme to acknowledge it, Fa. Parsons told M. Bi­shop that such a letter he had, and requested to knowe, whether it were not his name, that was subscribed in this manner, Sic sentio G.B. not W.B. as here is most falsely suggested, perchance to take away the suspition from such as were the authors there­of for the disgrace of M. Bishop, and M. Charnocke (as M. Bishop toucheth it in his answere to Fa. Parsons, set downe in the Eng­lish booke, pag. 159) To which demand of Fa. Parsons, M. Bi­shop made answere, that it was not his name: and that he neuer had heard of the discourse before. Moreouer, hee saide that those letters might stand for Geor. Blackwellus, as well as Guliel. Bishop. By which it is euident, that this author dealeth falsely in setting down the letters W.B. For who is so foolish, as to think, that M. Bishop would plead, that George was spelled with W? This is also particularly set downe in the answere made in the behalfe of M. Bishop, which is annexed vnto M. D. Ely his notes vpon the Apologie fol. 17. where also it is affirmed that D. Bishops answere for M. Watson was farre otherwise, then this authour pretendeth: and is therefore challenged to haue no tender conscience in this dealing. But (as it seemeth) this author in­tended to disgrace M. Watson all that he could: and at the first discrediteth himselfe in obiecting, that M. Watson was a seruant in the English College at Rhemes, as though that were so great a blot (many most worthy men hauing bene of as meane, or meaner condition.) And this being truely considered, maketh more for M. Watsons commendation, that he would liue in so [Page 259] meane estate out of his countrey for the cause he did. And if this common wealth, here by a foolish digression inserted, (be­ing a matter as Fa. Parsons tooke vpon his conscience before the Cardinals, to which the two priests were neuer priuy) were of M Watsons making, as he doth vtterly deny it: as also that ei­ther hee sent any such to Rome, or was priuie to the sending thereof, but rather thinketh, as others also, that it was sent by the contrary part to Fa. Parsons for some policie: yet he had not bene more idly occupied, then was the plotcaster of Reforma­tion, the absurdities whereof, were they yet perchance after so many alterations layd downe, would farre surpasse these of this common wealth, which is attributed to M. Watson.

This digression being made, and more seriously handled then any materiall point in this controuersie, this authour fal­leth againe into the Cardinals comming to the College, toge­ther with the Comissary. And to proceede (saith he) more sub­stantially they heard first the aforesaid depositions read, (that is to say some part of them, as is noted in the English booke, pa. 95) as also the procurators of the Archpriest, what they could say or de­mand, who bringing foorth the foresaid letters of the most graue of our Nation (that is to say, the letters of D. Barret, subscribed by D Webbe, D. Worthington, and D. Kellyson: and also the letters of M. Wright, the Deane of Cortrac: all which, and onely these were inserted into a Libell, which these Proctors for the Arch­priest put vp to the two Cardinals against M. Bishop, & M. Char­nocke) against this new sedition begun, made supplication that some effectuall remedy might be put thereunto. Very well, good sir, thus much is confessed in the English booke, pag. 96. that M D. Had­docke, and M. Martin Array deliuered vp in a dumbe shewe a Libell, or bill of complaints, or accusations against M. Bishop and M. Charnocke. But what answere made those priests vnto that bill? The messengers also were heard what they could say, or an­swere. But now in a little honesty what said they? or what an­swere did they make to these matters? Is it not possible, that any thing did passe woorth the relating? was all this preparation fetched from Iohn of Gaunt for no greater satisfaction, then to say, when it commeth to the chiefe point: that the messengers were heard, what they could say, or answere? If there hath beene [Page 260] found so much waste paper in this Apologie, for to entertaine by-tales, and nothing to the purpose, could there not be some spared, for the setting downe of so necessary a point, as this is, and such as was most likely to haue benefited a iust cause, more then twentie tales of Iohn of Gaunt? would not a discourse of what passed betweene the Cardinals, and the two priests with the Proctors, haue bene more gratefull to the reader, after that the Cardinals comming to the College was mentioned, then a relation of M. Watsons common wealth? In the English booke to which this Apologie pretendeth to answere, it is set downe pag. 97 and 98. that the messengers were not heard, what they could say or answere, and it is not set downe in general termes, but particularly, in what sort they were not admitted, to say what they would, or to answere: to wit, that the Libell being read, the priests requested, that the Proctors might be put to their othes, that no falshood was contained therein: and the Cardinall Caietane answered for the Proctors himselfe, that it was not needfull, and furthermore affirming (for the poore dumbe men who as yet had not discouered themselues, whe­ther they could speake or no) that they should prooue what was denied: the whole Libel was denyed, and a copy therof deman­ded, that answere might be made vnto it. This was it that the messengers did say, and the Iesuites gaue this for one cause af­terwards, why the two priests were not set at libertie the same day, that M. Bishop had shewed too much earnestnesse in this very point, for which he was to be kept close some two or three dayes more, and M. Charnocke likewise: but yet for no other cause, then that it was not conuenient, that he should be at li­bertie, vntill the other had satisfied by a longer imprisonment, for his quicknesse of spirit, in demanding the Libell to answere it. But the Proctors hauing before their lesson, what they were to say, or doe, as it should seeme, the one of them stepped pre­sently (without making his fellow acquainted therewith at that instant) betwene M. Bishop, and the table, whereat the Cardi­nall sate: and made humble request, that the copie of this libell might not bee deliuered vnto the priests, but rather that a peaceable conclusion might be made. Of which the Cardinall taking present hold pursued that motion, and would not deliuer [Page 261] the Libell to the two messengers (whereby it is euident, that this authour followeth his old trade in this place, where he af­firmeth, that the two messengers also were heard, what they could say, or answere) but shewed a good face to the priests, and vsed them so friendly as they expected not to returne to their pri­sons, especially being cleared from all matters by the Cardi­nals, excepting this onely, that many were scandalized in Eng­land at their iourney to Rome: which was a thing, that they could not helpe, nor were iustly to be blamed therefore: yet notwithstanding thinking it fit, to keepe the Cardinall in that good and friendly humour, the two priests made this answere: that if by their iourney to Rome, they had giuen cause of scan­dall to any, they were very fory for it, and were ready to giue satisfaction, and so were dismissed, and all was well vntill the Cardinall Burghese was departed. But soone after his departure, the Iesuite, who for this time had supplied F. Parsons (the head Iaylors) place, locked them vp againe in their seuerall prisons, but for two or three daies, as was pretended vpon the foresayd cause: & for that M. Bishop by his silence when he was bidden to speak, after his examinatiō read, did discontent the Card. some­what. This author hauing told his reader of the cōming of the Cardinals to the Colledge, and of the Proctors demand of re­medy against the new sedition: also how that the messengers were heard say what they could (which as it is said is most false) he concludeth this matter as if some great acte had bene made, and the Proctors had had some great day against the Priests. And finally (sayth he) after diuers graue speeches vsed by the Cardi­nals against this diuision in our nation, they departed, promising (per­chance to F. Parsons) to relate all vnto his Holines, and to take his resolution for the finall sentence, which they sent afterward sealed and signed by their owne hands, and seuerall seales, bearing date the S. of April 1599. (vpon which day in the morning the two priests their close imprisonmēt first ceased) In which sentence for that diuers things were inserted in the narration, which might seem gricuous, (which were perchance according to F. Parsons infor­mations, but not to be knowen abroad, lest his doings should haue ben known) & the decree it self, which is yet extant to be seen, appeared somewhat seuere, (against men who were not suffered to [Page 262] make their answere) Fa. Parsons as we vnderstand (to the per­petuall discredite of the Cardinals (howsoeuer the infamie would haue beene wiped away from his Holinesse, if it were true which here is said, that the Cardinals tooke his Holinesse resolution for this finall sentence) procured the said sentence to be deteined, vntill hee had entreated the said Cardinals, to mitigate somewhat that sentence, and to giue another more mild of the 21. of the same moneth, not so much by way of Iudiciall sentence, as of a let­ter (to wit, to the Rector, or Vicerector of the English colledge, F. Parsons or the minister) vnder their hands and seales, appointing that the said two messengers should returne the one to Paris, and the other to Loraine, as they had requested. (They both had requested to be in Paris, being both to be banished their countrey) but this not being to be granted, request was made for the other to be in Loraine, a place that F. Parsons dreamed not of, when hee debarred him not onely Paris, but all other parts of France, notwithstanding hee vrged that France was bigge enough to hold him and his fellow. And these places are said to be ap­pointed by the letter Interpretatiuely (for neither of them are named in the Letter) but not into England (he should haue ad­ded, Scotland nor Ireland, for so runneth the sentence) without speciall licence of his Holines, or the Protector, vnder paine of sus­pension, and other censures, &c. But wherefore was this sentence giuen? True it is, that the two priests were banished not onely their owne countrey, but Scotland also and Ireland, and con­fined in other countreys, where they were lesse likely to haue wherewithall to maintaine them, and had not any thing giuen them to keepe them in these strange countreys from begging or staruing: (a bountiful consideration of the Church, for so it must be taken, towards priests who had left their right and pos­sibilitie of all preferments, to serue the Church with continuall and euident perill of their liues; and one of them had suffered imprisonment for the Catholike faith:) which sentence (sayth this author) they accepted, and confirmed also by a corporall oath. This fellow forgetteth himselfe: This sentence he sayth was by way of a letter (to F. Parsons, who was Rector, or to the Vice­rector) and by F. Parsons onely was this sentence shewed first to M. Charnocke, who was yet in prison: then afterwards to M. [Page 263] Bishop, who was at liberty, and had ben so some certaine dayes. And neither did F. Parsons exact any oth of them, neither did they take any vnto him. And in the tenth Chapter, fol. 155. it is vrged, that this oath was exhibited, by the immediate Commissa­rie or Delegate of his Holines, which titles belonged not to F. Par­sons, to whome this letter was directed by the two Cardinals, as shall hereafter appeare. The truth of this story, and how this letter lay hid (as was pretended) in F. Parsons chamber, for cer­taine dayes (as he told M. Charnocke) is set downe in the booke dedicated to the Inquisition, pag 88. and it goeth vncontrolled and vntouched, which in the iudgement of any indifferent man it should not, if any iust exceptions could be takē against it. Yet must his Reader be told, that this author proceedeth no otherwise, then in such sort as must satisfie all men: for this he sayth, fol. 126. speaking of himselfe, offering for proofe either the publique testimonies of his Holines, the two Cardinals Protectors, Acarisius the Popes Fiscal, and other parties that were actors, or pri­uie to the cause: or else the depositions of the said messengers them­selues, vnder their hands and oaths: or finally the witnesse of the whole English Colledge and nation, that knowe what passed in this matter, which is another manner of proceeding, then to publish things in corners by way of libels, without any further ground of trueth, then the will or malice of the publisher. But these testimonies so much vanted of, are loth to come to light, or are caried into some farre countreys, as disdaining to be in corners, such as England, Flanders France, and Italy: for these were the corners, in which the priests books were published: and in these corners haue the priests iustified their bookes, which this poore fellow calleth libels, to shift them off by one meanes or other. And the priests were neuer so daintie of their bookes, but that they who oppo­sed themselues against them, might haue Gods plenty for their comfort: whereas contrarywise this miserable Apologie, had a quartane euery time that it came to any of the priests hands: and when it was to be seene by them, it was by stealth, and but for an houre or two, so did it quake, for feare of being found to be such stuffe, as since it hath bene sufficiently discouered. Yet to encourage the blind-obedient, it telleth them of Popes, and Cardinals testimonies, and authenticall matters, and bringeth no­thing [Page 264] which can please these blinde affectioned, but some rai­ling words against Catholike priests, as though if it could per­swade the reader, that they were most wicked by often incul­cating it vnto him, the cause were wonne: and a railing word of this authors mouth, would be of more weight to determine a controuersie, then all possible right in the part oppressed. But the indifferent reader will weigh his reasons, and not his foule words; and iudge of matters, not as they are said to be, but as they are prooued. And thus much in answere to the ninth Chapter.

CHAP. 15. How this Apologie-maker shuffleth off the true cause of this present controuersie, and layeth the blame thereof vpon the Secular priests. Apol. cap. 10.

IN the tenth chapter of the Apologie, the author thereof intendeth to shew, how that all contro­uersies were ended vpon the publication of his Holines Breue: and how that a new breach was made. He promiseth also to handle some exces­ses of his brethren, and of their dealings with the Counsell. The first point he handleth very slenderly (as it should seeme) for he forgetteth often that euer the controuersies were ended. The second he layeth falsly to the priests as shall be shewed: and in the rest he onely sheweth his merchandize. And thus he beginneth this Chapter.

After that his Hol. had well considered the little waight of reason, which these two former messengers had brought in the behalfe of their partners in England, for raising so great a sedition against the Pro­tectors letters, and Archpriests incitation, and had giuen some due reprehension to the sayd messengers, as by their restraint, aswell in Rome, as by that they were not permitted to returne presently into England, he thought conuenient to confirme the sayd Protectors let­ters &c. In these few lines it is to be noted first, how that his Holinesse is sayd to haue restrained the priests (who went to Rome) vpon consideration of the little waight of reason, which they brought, and permitted them not to returne, or (as we say [Page 265] in English) banished them, not onely England, but Scotland also, and Ireland, yea and confined them to seuerall Countreys, with­out allowing them any thing for their maintenance. Second­ly, how his Holinesse confirmed the Cardinals letters. Tou­ching the first, it is knowen to all the world, or at the least in those parts, which this author calleth corners, those are England, Flanders, France, and Italie, where their bookes haue been pub­lished, or sent, that the two priests were restrained before they deliuered any reasons of their forbearance, to subiect themselues to the Archpriest, and as yet no one part of their relation hath been prooued faulty. They haue layd downe an orderly narration of their messengers disorderly restraint, through the false & wicked suggestiōs of their aduersaries, be­fore that they had any audience, and thereby haue made it eui­dent, that his Holines did not restraine them, vpon any consi­deration of their reasons, because he heard them not, nor any cause else, before they were restrained. Secondly, it is at large related both in the English booke pag. 97.98.104.105. and els where, as also in the booke to the Inquisition pag 77. how that when the priests came to their answere, before the Cardinals Caietane, and Burghese, they were not suffered to haue a copie of their accusations brought against them, (although it were most earnestly demanded by them) that they might make their an­swere thereunto, but a dissembling shew was made to haue all matters taken vp in peace and quietnes. And this author not being able to gainesay any of this: how shamelesly doth he here tell his reader, that his Holinesse had well considered the little weight of their reasons: and had therefore not onely restrained them, but banished them, or (as he tearmeth it) not permitted them to returne presently into England? And although it be true which this author affirmeth, that his Holines confirmed the Card. letters: yet it is euident, that he did not vpon consi­deration of the little weight of the messengers their reasons: for they were neuer suffred to deliuer them, as the custome of God Church was, where a matter is instituted, and some doe offer themselues (to those to whō it belongeth) to shew what they haue to say in it, before it be established. Neither hath this au­thor shewed, or can without a tricke of his accustomed fals­hood [Page 266] say, that the two priests euer appeared in this action be­fore any other, then those two Cardinals, vpon the 17. of Fe­bruary 1599. or that they did not at that time make request, to haue the copie of the Libel, to make their answere vnto it. And as for their examinations, who is so simple, as to build any mat­ter thereon, as though that were a place, or time conuenient for them to deale in the charge committed vnto them, being both asunder, and priuatly talked with, or examined by their professed enemies? The time, and place of triall was before the appointed Iudges: when, and where this author must shewe, that they did not offer to make their answere to whatsoeuer was obiected against them: and namely to that absurd Libel, which M D. Haddock, and M. Martin Array put vp against them concerning a sedition (as the Libel tearmeth it) supposed to haue bene raised in England by them, and their fellowes, by not ad­mitting the authority vpon the sight of the Cardinals letters. Here was this author to haue shewed a defect of the messen­gers their reasons, and not to haue ouerslipped these partieu­lars, which passed in this time and place, being the sole time and place, in which the two messengers met, & might haue shewed their reasons, if they might haue been heard. But this author his fairest game is to slubber vp al material points, and to beare his reader in hand in generall tearmes, with testimonies of Popes and Cardinals; which indeed he bringeth some time, but not at all for the matter, in which he ought to bring his testi­monie, or to controll any thing, which is set downe by the priest. And so doth he bring here an authenticall testimony, that his Holines confirmed the Cardinals letters. But he prooueth not thereby that the priests restraint and banishment were iust. But let vs examine this testimony, which is here brought: and wee shall finde a notorious falsifying of the Popes letters.

He (the Pope) thought conuenient, to confirme the sayd Prote­ctors letters, and euery part and parcel thereof, with a new Breue, dated the sixt of April 1599. Affirming. omnia, & singula de ex­presso mandato, & ordine, & cum participatione, & certa sei­entia nostris, facta, & ordinata fuisse, & esse. That all and euery thing contained in the same letters were done and ordayned by his Ho­linesse expresse commandement and order, and by his certaine know­ledge, [Page 267] and participation. All this is truely related out of the Breue. And had he here made a stop, he might haue been accounted an idle fellow, to cite a matter, of which not one word proued any thing at all, that the little waight of their reasons, was a cause of the priests restraint in Rome, confinement in strange Countreys, or confirmation of the authoritie. But he will goe a little further; and because if he had cited the Latine, he should haue discouered his falshood, he maketh a stop thereat, and goeth forward with an English translation of the Brene in this manner: And therefore to haue been and to bee firme, and in force and of most full validitie, &c and so to bee taken, and executed of all men &c. which couple of &c. is an argument that he went on forward citing the Breue for his purpose, but how honestly, let euery man iudge, the Latine being in this maner: Ac propte­rea, valida, firma, & efficacia existere, & fore &c. decernimus. We decree therefore, that now (vpon this confirmation) they bee, and shalbe of force firme, and of efficacie. And who is so blinde, that doth not see whether he will or no, that these words here in­serted by this author to haue bene, are falsly thrust in by him, to cousin his reader, and to haue him beleeue, that his Holinesse declared in this Breue, that all things were of force by the Car­dinals letters: which besides the most grosse imposture is most absurd, and against all law and reason, as is euery where shewed (the letters being no other, then from a Cardinall for the insti­tution of a very great authority giuen by him without shewing any commission from his Holines, by which he might doe it.) But there is no dealing for this Author, if hee should deale ho­nestly in any one matter, concerning the question in contro­uersie. But the Archpriest hath presumed to goe a litle further, in adding these words, ab initio. And in this Edict against the censure of Paris, he telleth his subiects, that the Pope had con­firmed the Cardinals letters, as validas ab initio, to haue beene of force from the beginning, which if they could beate into the cares of the blind-obedient, it is as much as they desire. For they haue taken from their sight the view of all bookes, wherein they might discouer how falsly they are lead, and perswaded by guides blinder then themselues.

This declaration (saith he) and confirmation of his Holines, when [Page 268] it came foorth, euery man was of opinion, that all questions, and con­trouersies would be ended thereby: seeing that nothing was preten­ded before by the troublesome (so pleaseth it this foule mouthed fellow to tearme the Priests) but only to haue certaine intelligence of his Holinesse will and meaning. Doubtlesse all that meant wel and honestly, thought that here would haue been an end of all controuersies, not because the priests pretended nothing els, then to know his Holinesse will, for this author knoweth the contrary, but yet must say somewhat, although contrary to his owne knowledge, manifested in the 8 chapter of the Apolo­gie, fol. 107.108.110. where he pretendeth to giue satisfaction to the reasons alleaged by the priests, before this Breue was made, but because the priests did alwayes offer (which also they perfourmed) that so soone as they should see any Breue in confirmation of this authoritie, they would yeeld them­selues, notwithstanding the reasons which they had to the contrary. But this fellow imagineth, that vnlesse he practiseth his trade of lying almost in euery line, he shall lose that habit, which hath, & must get him all the credit which he looketh for. The priests gaue their words both in England, & in Rome (by them whom they sent thither) that al should be quiet vpon the sight of the Breue. But the Iesuites and Archpriest did not giue their words, that the peace should endure. And thereupon was the peace broken, and not by the Priests, as is set downe in al these bookes of the Priestes, and as yet neither is, nor can bee disprooued by this Authour, who heere vndertaketh an answere vnto them. I omitte the kindenesse, which was offered vnto the two priests by F. Parsons, it is sufficiently dis­couered in the bookes already set forth. The English Catho­licke nation in Rome, here spoken of, vsed them indeed some­what kindly, and friendly in all points to their power: but not for loue of the Iesuits, but vpon their owne honest dispositions: except it be meant by M. D. Haddock, and M. Martin Array, vn­to whose lodging the two priests were sent: the one vpon the 22. of April, (for then he was set at libertie, and not presently vpon their sight of the Breue, or assurance that all would sub­mit themselues, for this was done vpō the 8 or 9. of April, when F. Parsons did first bring them the Breue to copy it out,) the o­ther [Page 269] vpon the 6. of May, (for then, and not before was the other at libertie, & not presently vpon their assurance that all would be quiet, as here it is most falsly suggested.) And the trueth is, that this doctor, and his fellow Proctor did vse that kindnesse towards the two priests, as euery day when the priests went a­broad, the doctor himselfe or his felow Proctor would take the paines to rig vp their chamber, that no loose paper should be lost, which they might by any chance leaue behinde them. There was also an honest man in Rome, of the Catholick Eng­lish nation, who in respect of olde acquaintance with one, or both the priests, promised to goe with one of them to visit the 7. Churches (an act of deuotion vsed by all that goe to Rome) but when the day came, he durst not goe, fot feare lest the Iesu­its should shew ouermuch kindnesse towards him, for this loue towards the priest. Fa. Parsons his loue and confidence speci­ally, is not to be measured; who, as I haue bene enformed, ob­iected to the priests, that they had brought with them a letter, which was indorsed or entituled to them in this style, To your LL. by which he, and others at that time, iested at their Lord­ships. And F. Parsons in his letter to M. Bishop of the 9. of October 1999. vrgeth the same; as also this author in the Apologie, cap. 9 fol. 135. But when these priests desired to see that letter, alled­ging oftentimes what comfort it would be vnto them, to see their owne Lordships (so often talked of by F. Parsons and other Iesuits) all the loue and confidence, especially which F. Parsons had, could not worke it: neither would this letter euer be shew­ed vnto them, as M Bishop testifieth in the English booke, fol. 159. Although sayth he, it was most instantly desired, yea and said to haue been forged, as is set down fol. 127. and quietly let slip here in the Apol which vndertaketh to answere that booke.

Now follow certaine letters of D. Bishop to M. Colington, not when hee was at libertie (as here it is suggested) but a prisoner still, although at more libertie then M. Charnocke had: for hee was commanded to the Proctors house (as M. Charnocke was after his departure) and might not lie in the towne where hee would, and might haue liued without further charge, as also M. Charnocke might; for that they had agreed for their chamber, and diet for a certaine time, and payd their money beforehand; [Page 270] and were caried away to prison, before halfe the time was out: and were offered afterward to haue their diet, for so many daies as were behind of the reckoning, which were more then either of them had leaue to stay in Rome, after their seuerall inlarge­ment, out of the Colledge. And as for this glose, that M. Bi­shops letter was written eight dayes after the Popes Breue was published, I should haue let it passe as one of this authors pety follies, this letter bearing date the 29. of April, as here is said, and the Breue bearing date the 6. of April, as in the leafe next before it is twice cited, and elsewhere often in the Apologie. But there is a further folly hereupon grounded, or at the least the like more grossely committed, to shew forth F. Parsons praises concerning a letter next following: at the end of which, thus sayth this author, Thus wrote F. Parsons, euen then when yet the Popes Breue was not come foorth: was not that kindly done and friendly of F. Parsons? But how is it proued, that this letter was written euen then? Marke how hee prooueth it: As appeareth (sayth he) for that this was written the 9. of April, and the Breue beareth date the 21. of the saidmoneth. The Breue which hath hi­therto borne date of the 6. of April, must now for to claw Fa. Parsons, be reported, yea and beleeued also by the blind obedient to beare date the 21. of April. Is not this authour very greedy that F. Parsons should be commended, who will fetch a matter so farre off, and so farre from a knowen trueth, to further it; ergo not being more common in the schooles, then a Breue of the 6. of April for the Archpriests confirmation? This letter and other would aske longer scanning, then would recompense the paines, but to euery mans view they present an argument, that the peace was made vpon the Priests side; and therefore I will briefly goe ouer some marginall notes, which are made vpon these letters. And first I will beginne with the notes made vp­on Master Bishops letter, whereupon Father Parsons his infor­mation, (who was to ouersee what hee writ into England) how that he had laboured for his libertie: he saith, that hee had his libertie by F. Parsons procurement. There is this note in the margent, How then doeth hee denie this afterward; but he telleth him not where: you must go looke for that. And in the meane time you must thinke, that M. Bishop said one thing at one time, [Page 271] and at another time denied the same: which hee might very well doe; speaking first according to such informations, as F. Parsons gaue him, which afterward he might vnderstand to be false. The second note is this, By this we see, how these men were pretenders, and could not expect their owne time. And this note is made vpon M. Bishops good wishes to one man, and certificate, that vpon his peaceable behauiour he should be remembred. And what doeth this proue, that the same party pretended any thing at all? vpon the next letter which is F. Parsons to M. Col­lington, and M. Mush, there is this note, An obiection answered: and that was, Fa. Parsons is of an other body, and therefore no friend of theirs. A shrewd obiection, and how is it answered? He hath procured Seminaries for them: and if these Seminaries were for men of his owne vocation (as in deed they are, and to make his faction the stronger) yet they are all to one end, and one publique seruice of our countrey. And if no man wil this beleeue, let him looke in­to his actions of the yeeres 1596, and 97. when diuers priests were to come in the Spanish Armadoes, vnder pretence to re­store the English to the Catholicke religion; Let their forced subscriptions to strange titles, proue Fa. Parsons and his agents their publique seruice of our countrey. But after this letter of F. Parsons, followeth another of M. Mush to him. And where M. Mush declareth how much he hath bene bound vnto the Socie­tie: and that it is no ioy for him to be at variance with any: much lesse with him, or any of his societie; there is this note in the mar­gent, Exore tuo te iudico, &c. If there be any relation to that, which followeth by &c. It is but an ordinary liuery, which this author giueth at his pleasure, I iudge thee (saith he) by thine owne mouth. as though M. Mush did now professe, that hee tooke ioy to be at variance with any, or that he denied, that he hath bene heretofore bound vnto the Societie, hauing bene many yeeres ta­ken as a member thereof, although in the ende they would not admit him, as here it is confessed fol. 107. In this same letter M. Mush requesting, that M. Bishop and M. Charnocke might be sent home from their banishment, biddeth him not to feare any di­sturbance by them: for (saith he) their owne hands will testifie a­gainst them, if they shall report, or attempt any euill. Whereupon there is this note made, This testimonie we accept now against [Page 272] them; But he sheweth not where they haue reported, or at­tempted any euill. Let this be shewed, and then let their testi­mony be vrged against them. To this letter doeth Fa Parsons reply, and speaking of the returne of these two priests, he put­teth this case, If their cooperation be vnderstood, to worke with you by their letters, as here they promised, and I cannot doubt, but they will performe. Vpon this place there is this note made, Here we see the good man was deceiued. And why so good man? did they not cooperate with the priests in England for the making of peace? Are not their letters continually vrged against the priests in England, as exhorting them to peace? did they not testifie the copy of the Breue to be a true copy thereof, by which peace was made? Is not M. Bishops letter here inserted, a sufficient te­stimony of his cooperation; and what testimony is that, which is accepted here (in a marginal note vpon F. Parsons letter;) but of peace wrought or perswaded by them? And how then was the goodman deceiued? Perchance it was in that, which for all the rest also deceiued him; that was, hauing now gotten a Breue for confirmation of the Archpriest, he expected that his com­pany might trample vpon the priests as them listed, and that now all the priests would be foole-ridden, or worse, and must not stirre for any iniury, whatsoeuer might be offered them; wherein in deed we may see, how the goodman was deceiued. Vpon the same letter there is a note made, that the reconciliation of M. D. Bagshaw was an outward shew. And after the letter this insinuation is giuen, that any indifferent man may perceiue how F. Parsons was desirous and carefull of peace. But of this more after­ward when I shall discouer how he behaued himselfe for the putting all out of hope of peace.

Diuers other letters follow of F. Garnet, and the Archpriest to F. Parsons: all concluding, that there was a peace made, and that there was no doubt of any, but of D. Bagshaw, who (what cause soeuer he had to stand vpon the restitution of his good name) being accompred (as other were) for a Schismaticke, &c. yeelded himselfe. And this author confesseth here fol. 148. that it is most likely, that diuers of them ment plainly, and sincerely indeed: though of some of them it is doubted, that they made the peace only in external shew for the time, assuring themselues [Page 273] (saith he) that there would not wāt some probable occasiō, afterwards to break againe, & to lay the cause of breach vpon the other side, as in effect we see it did insue. But was the heate of faction and sedition so great in the Iesuites and the Archpriest, as the priests could perceiue it, & thereupon assure themselues, that there would not want some probable occasion to breake againe? Or had Fa. Parsons so laide the plot himselfe, that there should be no peace in Eng­land, but with such conditions as no honest priest could accept? Yet this wee haue, that a peace was made by some for peace sake, and by the rest also, at the least vpon this assurance, that afterward there would not want some probable occasion, to breake a­gaine. But see how this fellow goeth on with his tale: For that (saith he) a new deuise being cast out shortly after, that satisfaction must be made to them for some former hard speeches vsed, or written against them in time of the contention, and that otherwise their good names should be taken from them. This was a sufficient match to put fire againe to all that, which had bene raked vp before, by the inde­uour of the foresaid peace. But this narration wil not passe so cur­rant. The priests haue set downe in the booke dedicated to his Holinesse, pag. 63. and in that to the Inquisition, pag. 59.60. that after the peace was made, a Iesuit Fa. Iones by name, began to raise that wicked and senselesse slander of schisme against them. And M. Archpriest published A Resolution, pretended to come from Rome in confirmation of that wicked opinion of the Ie­suits against the priests, and that the satisfaction which was de­manded was of this infamy raysed, after the peace was made, and not of those wicked slanders, which were raysed by the Ic­suites, the Archpriest, and their seditious adherents against the priests, before the peace was made, as here is falsely suggested. And this relation of the priests goeth still vncontrolled, and not disprooued by this authour. And by this might this questi­on be solued, which followeth in the Apologie. Now then, all the question standeth in this, which part hath broken the peace, or which was most like to haue desire, to maintaine and conserue the same. For by this it is euident, that the Iesuites and Archpriest did breake the same peace, and put fire againe to all that which had bene raked vp before. But marke I pray you, how substantially this question proposed is discussed by him: For discussing (saith he) of which [Page 274] controuersie, we might vse that argument of Cassius, Cui bono? who are like to receiue most good or hurt by the peace kept or broken? Here you see what argument this authour might vse: you shall perchance hereafter vnderstand what argument hee will vse. For this in his owne conscience was no sufficient argument, or doubtlesse he would haue vsed it, hauing so great want of good arguments, as here he discouereth, yet the margent must cary this note. The controuersie discussed, who did breake the peace: to giue the reader to vnderstand, that here the controuersie is discussed, who perchance would thinke as litle thereof, as he who passeth through Long lane, by Smithfield, and looketh at the signe of the Booke, would thinke of the Bible if this note were not vpon the signe: The Bible. But as this authour might make this argument, so might the priests fit this answere; that such circumstances might bee iustly considered in controuersies, where no euidence is to be had which part had deserued blame, although in such also there might be iolly wrangling, euery circumstance almost being of force to make the harme or the good greater, which shold ensue vpon a peace broken or kept. But in this case there is no such want of euidence, as the matter must of necessitie be determined by any vncertaine circum­stances. For the priests all ege and pleade, that after the peace was made, Fa. Iones the Iesuit raysed out of hell that seditious, and most wicked slander of schisme against them, in which hee affirmed afresh, that they had liued, while they differred to o­bey the Archpriest, not yet confirmed by his Holinesse in that authority which the Cardinall Caietan had giuen him, and he had vsurped as an intruder, before he had the Popes letters for his lawfull exercise thereof. The priestes affirme also that the Archpriest after the peace made, did publish A Resolution pre­tended from Rome, wherein the priests were condemned for Schismatickes, who were refufers of the authority appointed, as is aforsaid. And this to haue beene done by the Archpriest, was so publikely knowen, that euery man, but the wilful deafe, did heare of it: & his letters flew about with this Resolution. And wil this author that this matter cōuinced by facts, shold be dis­cussed by cōceits & circūstances? If a man of possessions known to be very rich, should spoile a man by the high way, & should [Page 275] be taken with the maner, & brought before a Iudge, why might he not affirme that the poore mā assaulted him, & plead before the Iudge, Cui bone? He was a rich man & of great possessiōs, the other was a poore mā: what reason had he with such danger to seeke the spoile of the poore man? wil the Iudge leaue the eui­dence, and answere to Cuibono? But yet, notwithstanding that it is so euident, that the Iesuits and Archpriests brake the peace (as this author taking vpon him to answere these bookes) let­teth the instances giuen passe by very quietly, not being able to confute them, lest hee should bring all but his like impudent companions, about his eares; the Archpriest his letters being common enough to disprooue his falshood: the petition also being extant which the priests made hereupon vnto him, that the question might be disputed among themselues, and (this being denyed) their sending to the most learned Vniuersitie of Paris, to haue it there decided: vpon the most immodest con­tempt whereof by the Archpriest, the priests were forced to flie to his Holines, and the Sea Apostolicke for succour:) yet (I say) let vs see, how this author doth handle his Cuibono: For (sayth he) the Archpriest and the Clergie ioyned with him, enioyed by the peace all that they could desire: to wit, quiet establishment of their subordination, honour, reputation, rest, quietnesse, and his Holi­nesse confirmation of all their doings. The Iesuits also had as much as they could desire, and were satisfied in all points, as appeareth by their owne letters aboue recited. But on the other side ensued the quite contrary in all respects, so as it could not be imagined, but that by this pacification they receiued secundum hominem, much griefe and inward indignation. See you not the pregnancie of this authors wit, & what a strong argument he might vse? A tyrant hauing obtained by such meanes as he vsed, to be admitted as a lawfull king, beginneth againe to shewe his disposition amongst his subiects; especially against such as would not at the first yeeld themselues, or acknowledge his vsurped authoritie: and when he hath destroyed them, or as many of them as he may, or hath a wicked mind to destroy, what hindereth him, that he cannot lay the blame of this breach of peace vpon those whom he de­stroyed, and plead for himselfe, Cuibono? For he enioyed by the peace, all that he could desire, to wit, quiet establishment of his king­dome, [Page 276] honour, reputation, rest, quietnesse, his confirmation also per­chance by some higher power. His intruders also, or setters on in that course, had as much as they could desire, and were satis­fied in all points: but on the other side ensued quite contrary in all respects. So as it could not bee imagined, but that by this pacification, and the tyrants atchieuing the soueraignty, they receiued secundum hominem, much griefe and inward indignati­on. Is not Cuibono a stout argument? But this comparison is o­dious, betweene a tyrant, and a graue Catholike Archpriest. There is no comparison made betweene them, but it is decla­red how foolish an argument this author might haue vsed, if he would haue vrged Cuibono. But yet in this narration of honor, and reputation giuen to the Archpriest, there are two things to be noted; the one is, that it is most false which is here infer­ted, that the Archpriest, and the Cleargie ioyned with him, en­ioyed his Holinesse confirmation of all their doings. His Holinesse confirmed the Cardinal Caietans letters, by which M. Blackwell was made an Archpriest, and a Superiour: but to make this stretch to the confirmation of all that, which hee, and others ioyned with him did in that time, is both absurd, and a most impious slander of the Pope, their doings hauing beene most wicked and scandalous, yea and most iniurious to many Ca­tholike priests, as it was openly enough seen by diuers others, but principally by that infamous imputation of schisme, sedition, &c. The other thing, which is here to bee noted, is, that this being supposed, that all these had what they could desire, and contrariwise the other had all the contrary, the Iesuits and the Archpriest could not without an exceeding bad intentiō, raise again that slander of Schisme against the priests, after the peace was made; knowing, or being bound to know, that the priests could not in conscience put it vp, howsoeuer before they dis­pensed for peace sake to forgiue them their first outrage.

But now followeth the argument belike which this authour will vrge: for all this is onely what he might doe. And this new argument consisteth vpon two principall points: The first is, that supposing all the foresaid honours on the one side, and the disgraces on the other side, were disgested by vertue of pa­tience, humilitie, obedience, and mortification of minde, his [Page 277] reader must consider, how matters stood with them, or some of them at the least, and with the Archpriest at the comming of the Breue. The second is, how these matters stood with them and the Councell, and some great men of the aduersary part. The first con­sideration is so slenderly handled, and in a manner annexed with the second, as if the last were the onely thing, vpon which this authour would rely, for the declaration of this question, which he thus proposed: which part hath broken the peace?

The matters as they stood betwixt the priests and the Arch­priest, he explicateth by an appeale, which some priests had made a little before the Breue came, which was an argument that the wound was greene: and his reader must vnderstand, that by this appeale there was an egregious faction meant: be­cause the Appeale was made in the names of the present Ap­pellants, and all others that should ioyne themselues vnto them. (which clause was after the Appeale, and onely in a postscript, as it is set downe in the booke to the Inquisition, pag. 52.) And to colour this matter the better, the date of the Appeale is transported to the postscript which he citeth, which is (saith he) against the nature of iust Appeales: for which you must take his credit. But let vs grant, that these Appellants had mistaken Panormitane, explicating the rubricke of the chapter, Olim de occasionibus, & had put in this clause into their Appeale, (which as is said is in a postscript after the Appeale) how is it prooued that there is an egregious faction meant thereby? How much bet­ter might it be sayd, that there was a marueilous contempt of the Sea Apostolike committed by the Archpr. in suspending the Appellants from the vse of their faculties, after this Ap­peale made to the Sea Apostolike? Againe, if we shall consider the backwardnesse of the Appellants, to doe or attempt any thing which might be offensiue to any (which they sufficient­ly shewed, in that they hereupon refrained to vse their facul­ties) and the forwardnes of the Archpr. who would vsurpe such an authoritie; before he was confirmed by his Holinesse (suffi­ciently declared by this irreuerence, to the Sea Apostolike, in taking away from the Appellants, the vse of their faculties for Appealing) it will be euident to the indifferent iudge, which part was more likely to haue a bad meaning, for factiō or distur­bance [Page 278] of the Church. But this was deuised perhaps (saith he) vn­derhand by the persecutors themselues &c. and so hee falleth into that point, of the standing of matters betweene the priests, and the Counsel, which I will leaue a little, and trie, whether be­sides this coniecture already giuen, of the Archpriests mea­ning, and his factious adherents, I can alleage any other mat­ter, whereby it may be coniectured, that the Iesuits, and Archp. did meane an egregious faction, whatsoeuer shew they would make of peace, first occurreth a letter which was written from Rome, by M. Martin Array, one of the two Proctors appointed by the Archpr. and the Clergie vnited vnto him, and allowed by his Holinesse, as in this letter he affirmeth. Which letter, being a pretended relation of such principall matters, as you shall heare, was eyther penned by Fa Parsons, or not without his priuitie: being (as all Rome can testifie) the principall a­gent against the priests, and one who thought nothing could be well done to his minde, vnlesse he were himselfe at the do­ing therof, as appeared by his apprehending them, his keeping them, his examining them, and such like his charitable offi­ces. This letter beareth date the 20. of February 1599. And herein is his deere friend certified, that the matter, about which the two priests went to Rome, was committed by his holinesse speciall commission, to Card. Caietane, and Burghese, to be exa­mined, and heard by way of congregation at the English Coll. it selfe. And so it was (sayth he) vpon Wednesday, the seuenteenth of this moneth: when after sundry informations had from Acarisius Fiscal, of his Hol Congregation of reformation, that had taken their seuerall examinations (by his attourney Fa. Parsons) vpon their oathes. And after they (the Cardinals) had read and viewed such letters, memorials and papers, as the Ambassadours had brought with them, they came ioyntly together to the Colledge vpon the foresayd day, and with them the sayd Fiscall. And there hauing a conuenient tribunall prouided in fourme of iudgement (a couple of chaires set at a table couered with a greene cloth) they heard the whole cause, (but God knoweth who pleaded it.) And first each of the Ambassadours confession and declaration (that is, as much, and what pleased Fa Parsons) seuerally read by the Notary of the cause, (Fa Henry Tichborne a Iesuite) which were long, and euer [...] one of them more then an houres reading. And therefore perchance to [Page 279] auoide tediousnes, there was a little read here and there, where Fa. Parsons had turned downe a lease, and his fellow Iesuit (the foresaid Notary of the cause) was made acquainted therewith, and read accordingly. And then was each of them willed to say, if he had any thing to adde to his declaration more then hee had set downe, M. Bishop would say nothing, for which as was sayd, the Cardinals were offended with him: M. Charnocke deliuered somewhat, vntill Fa. Parsons did breake him off. And after this their letters and papers brought with them were seene againe by the aforesayd iudges, whereof the most part were translated into Latine. (Is it likely that the priests would write to his Holinesse in En­glish? for the petitions were to him, which were brought by the two priests to Rome, and concerned their businesse) And besides that, were also Fa. Parsons, Rector of the Colledge, and Fa. Henry Tichborne Prefect of the studies willed to be present (These were besides themselues: for as hath been sayd Fa Tichborne the Iesuit was the foresayd Notary, and Fa Parsons the man that had takē their examinations) to interpret any thing that should be needfull both the Iudges and the two priests spake both Itali­an and Latine) And after this againe were both Ambassadours cal­led in ioyntly, (for M. Bishop was locked vp againe, as soone as he had heard his examinations read) as also M. Haddocke, and my selfe as procurators of the Archpresbyter, and of the Clergie vni­ted to him, appointed by letters from them, and allowed here by his Ho­linesse, with whom we had been, and had audience particular about this affaire before: And being come in, we were willed, as procurators, to speake what wee had to say in this behalfe. But you must vnder­stand, that this charge was so secretly giuen by the Iudges, as the two priests there also present did not heare it. And these procurators being willed to speake like Proctors, sayd not one word, but Fa Parsons at their entrance began to declare vnto the Cardinals, that those two were Proctors for the Archpr. and that one of them was a Doctor of Diuinitie, and the ne­phew of a Cardinal, and the brother of a Martyr, (agnominations able to credit the best Proctors in the world) After this pre­amble, hee told the Cardinall, what a perillous diuision was made in England: and that these proctors, although they were very loth to deale against their brethren there present, yet for [Page 280] the loue of Iustice, they were contented to be imployed in this action against them, and that they had a libell or bill of com­plaint against them. At which words D. Haddocke (without any word speaking himselfe) deliuered vp a libell to the Card. But let vs heare what M. Array certifieth his friend of his speeches or his fellow Proctors, when (as he sayth) they were bidden to speake as Proctors. Our speech in effect was (sayth he, when they sayd not one word) that albeit it grieueth vs much to be driuen to accuse or pleade against our brethren Priests, that had beene of the same Colledge and Vniuersitie here in Rome, and had gone hence into England iointly to labour, and aduenture our liues for the same cause of the Catholike faith, though before them, (and were quickly wea­rie thereof) yet their maner of proceeding had been, and was so pre­iudiciall to common peace (these good Proctors were 12 yeeres be­fore, or there about gone out of England) and vnion, and so scan­dalous to all good and honest men, that either we must oppose our selues against them in the name of our head (they meane the Arch­priest who was not their head, they liuing at Rome) and of all the rest of our Catholike body in England and abroad (they wil make their foresayd head a yong Pope) or els we should seeme to betray the same cause impugned by them. O scrupulous conscience! who would thinke that all his tale were onely an imagination, what might haue been sayd, neither he, nor his fellow Proctor hauing as yet vttered one word? But let vs heare this saint make an end of this lewde and lowde lie. Wherefore wee prayed their Graces (in what language?) not to be scandalized to see this diuisi­on amongst vs, for that these were the moaths (O gentle mouthes speake) that did breed in the best clothes, and the wormes (O noble Proctor) that were commonly found vnder the barke of euery tree, if they were not looked to in time, and that this happened also in the ve­rie primitiue Church, permitted by God for the better proofe and exer­cise of good men. And that this was a very heresie in maners, & acti­ons, as th'other in Protestants was in faith and Religion: & that this would breake into that in time, if that it were not looked into, as in diuers (of the Iesuits darlings) it had done already, and must needs doe: For that it was contention founded vpon the same grounds of emulation, euery ambition, hatred, couetousnes and libertie of life, as the other heresie was, and wrought a spirit conforme to that in all re­spects [Page 281] &c. This letter being written 3. or 4. dayes after that the priests had appeared before the Cardinals; and after a friendly composition demaunded by the Proctors, and pretended by the Cardinals, Can it be an argument of any other thing, then a desire to continue strife, and diuision? Could the most hate­full professed enemy in the world haue disgorged his filthy sto­mache in more spitefull termes? Had this bene vttered by the Proctors before the Cardinals against the two priests; with shame ynough it had bene written into England, but without the least [...]ot of honesty, the Proctors themselues hauing most humbly desired a friendly composition. But the Proctors not hauing vttered one word (much lesse in these most vile termes) who may not iustly iudge, that when this letter was written (which was after the apparance of the two priests as appeareth by the date) that it was not meant by that side, that euer there should be peace? But marke I pray you yet a most wicked re­lation, and which may conuince more euidently (if it be pos­sible) that these fellowes would not haue peace. And then (saith he) we gaue vp a writing which before had bene exhibited vnto his Holines, & was remitted hither as it seemeth, (it seemed so indeed, for D Haddocke had it ready to giue vp to the Cardinals so soone as F. Parsons had told his tale) that these men came hither onely to trouble the peace of England, and to reuiue stirres in Rome, and that of their owne heads, as it seemeth, for that they had brought no one letter of credence with them of Superior, or other to his Holines Protector, or other man in Rome &c. wherefore we desired remedy in this behalfe, and exhibited diuers letters of the doctors of Doway, and M. Wright the deane of Cortrac, and of other graue men of our nation to this effect. All these letters here said to haue bene exhibited by the Proctors, were no other then one letter from the D of Doway, and an other from M. Wright which are set in the Apologie fol. 125, 126. whereof the first beareth date the 25. of Octob. 1598. and the second 10 Nouemb. 1598. and they were both to the Protector. Yet must M. Martins friend beleeue that he and his fellow Protector did vpon the 17. of February exhibit many other letters to the Protector, (who was chiefe Iudge, notwithstāding the exceptions taken against him at this time,) But how were these letters exhibited? In no other sort, then [Page 282] as a part of that writing: for they were inserted in it, as may ap­peare by the writing it selfe, of which I haue seene a copy. But let this passe, let vs heare what he saith was answered by the priests to all these grieuous accusations; Against all which (saith he) the Ambassadors were able to say little, and willing to say lesse, but onely excused their owne intentions, and asked pardon, if they had giuen scandall by their maner of proceeding, more then they euer meant. But put the case indeed, as it was, and as the Card. Bur­gesius without doubt will acknowledge, and the Iesuits with all the rest of that faction then present, must auouch it one day a­gainst their owne soules, will they, nill they, that Fa. Tichborne the Iesuit (who here also supplied the place of a publique No­tary, and read this Libel) had no sooner done reading it, then M. Bishop required, that the Proctors might take their othes, that the Libel contained nothing but trueth. To which when the Card. Caietan would not consent, he requested that a copy of the Libel might be deliuered vnto him, & his fellow, that they might make their answere vnto it, as most false, and iniurious: whereat D. Hadd. who had giuen vp the writing, stepped to the table, & requested that it might not be deliuered vnto them, but that all things rather should be peaceably concluded. To which the Card. Caietan presently consented, the sooner per­chance for ioy, that both the Proctors were not dumbe: for before this acte of D. Haddocke, it is most certaine that neither of them spake one word, howsoeuer that his fellow vanteth of his workemanship, when he was bidden to speake like a Proctor. Now would I aske of an indifferent Iudge, whether it were possible that there could be any desire of peace in fellowes, who in cold blood, and after three nights rest (if rancor and malice would suffer them to rest) would write thus into Eng­land, cleane contrary to all trueth in a matter of such moment, as was the handling of the cause, concerning which all the di­uision was which was, or was like to be in England? And if this were necessary to be done, lest that they should seeme to betray the cause impugned by the two priests, (as this fellow saith in this letter) must not consequently this cause be a most fowle cause, which must be vpholden with such shamelesse falshood? could these fellowes thinke that Master Bishop, or Master Char­nocke, [Page 283] should euer come to the sight of this relation of theirs, and helde themselues from declaring it to be (as in deede it is) a most false, wicked, and malicious information? or can these men thinke, that these means were meanes for peace, and not rather occasions to breake peace, when they should come to light? But this was not the first plot which was layd, by which their intentiō is discouered neuer to haue had peace. There is another letter written by Fa. Baldwyn (as hoat a shot, as any of the rest) dated 25. Febr. 1599. out of Flanders to Pa­ris to M. D. Cecill: wherein also it may appeare, that these fel­lowes meant, that there should be no peace, when they striued so greatly for the whetstone in their malitious letters against these priests. Thus he writ. I haue receiued, &c. I thinke you haue vnderstood how the Ambassadours Charnocke, and Bishop haue bene intreated by his Holinesse, their articles and cause of their iour­ney. They were imprisoned vpon S. Thomas of Canterbury his day, and remaine yet prisoners. They haue bene examined by a Fiscall, and now they shall haue their sentence by two Cardinals, Burghese and Caietan. Their request was, there might be no subordination: and if it must be, then some one which fauoured them might be created Bishop: for which they named, D. Gifford, Bagshaw, Collington, or Bishop. They say, if they had not their request, experience would teach, quod indignabitur libertas, si prematur, (that is to say, that liberty would be offended, if it were pressed) These were their words. Now the case is altered, and they seeme changed, and sory that they tooke such a iourney in hand: seeing that nothing else, but ambition hath egged them thus farre foorth, &c. Could the spreading of these most notorious falshoods, be signes of any other thing, then of a desire that there should bee no peace? How could these fellowes thinke or perswade themselues, that when these tales came to the eares of the two priests thus abu­sed, they would not be contradicted? was this it, which is ment by the Apologie, fol. 148. where it is sayd, that the Priests assured themselues, that there would not want some probable occasion after­ward to breake againe? Was the authour of the Apologie priuie to these occasions? But how could these be occasions of the breach: seeing that M. Bishop and M. Charnocke knewe not of this false dealing, as being in banishment, besides that the [Page 284] breach was made againe, before that these wicked dealings came to their knowledge. You are therefore to vnderstand, that these are brought to shewe that these fellowes could not haue any desire of peace, who could disperse such false & wic­ked tales against those Priests, and in them against all the rest, by whom these were imployed to his Holinesse. And because perchance they perceiued, that these & other their plots would not fadge to their mind, and that notwithstanding the solemne inquirie of their life, and maners commanded by Cardinall Caie­tan, 10. Nouemb. 1598. the treatise of schisme, and other iniuries offered vnto them, and to the priests imployed by them) they did all (contrary to their aduersaries expectations) submit them selues presently vpon the sight of his Holines Breue, the Iesuits were constrained to goe to worke so openly, as all the world cryeth out shame vpon them. For when peace was made, they fell to a fresh declaring, that the refusers of the appointed au­thority had bene Schismatikes: which in all reason they thought was more then a probable occasion to breake the peace againe, and that their barbarous handling of those priests which were first sent to Rome, to haue dealt with his Holinesse, would be such a terrour to them, as they would neuer send the second time, so as they might tyrannize at pleasure, ouer whom they listed, and principally intended (perchance at the first) as not being now very likely to put vp the second time so scandalous, and vnworthy reproches: nor (as they hoped) would be for­ward to attempt againe to get some remedy.

This first point being sufficiently declared, how matters stood betweene the Archpriest, and his adherents on the one part, and with the priests on the other part: nowe followeth this Authours information, how they stood with the counsell, and great men of the one part, and the Priestes on the o­ther part. For out of these two considerations hee will haue his reader to gather, which part broke the peace, or was more like­ly to keepe it. The first consideration he dispatched briefly, and declared that the wound was greene, when the Breue came: which he proueth by an Appeale made by some of the priests: for which the Appellants were by the Archpriest depriued of the vse of their faculties. The seconde hee beginneth [Page 285] in shewing, howe by certaine wordes in the Appeale it may bee gathered, that there was an egregious faction, as deuised perhaps vnder-hand by the persecutors themselues. See how he falleth into the consideration with a perhaps, and then goeth thus forwards: who hauing with them at London at this time (if he were not very lately returned) D. Bagshaw, called vp as is supposed, by his owne procurement, it is very likely they agreed with him, that in no case whatsoeuer determination should come frō Rome, peace should be made, or kept with the Archpriest, and Iesuits. How many things must a man suppose, before he come to imagine, that one man meant not to haue peace with the Archpriest and Iesuits? which, if it should be graunted to this fellow, how would he hereupon inferre, that there was an egregious faction meant by those Appellants, of which this man of whome hee speaketh, was none, but rather of a contrary disposition, as this author confesseth in this place: where he addeth, which point it may be Ma. Collington and Ma. Mush, two of the three Appel­lants, did somewhat guesse at, when they shewed so much doubt to the Archpriest, as before you haue heard, of bringing D. Bagshaw into this reconciliation? And to further this conceit, that M. Doctor Bagshaw had dealings with the Councell, there is a letter of a reuerend priest dated the 15. of April 1599. which is full of foo­lish iealousies, and senslesse surmises, it being well knowen, that M. Doct. Bagshaw was sent for from Wisbich to London, to answer for his life, being most falsely and vnchristianlike accu­sed, to haue had part in that Spanish treachery, for which Squire was put to death: although this author in the 13. chap. fol. 207. doth most shamelessely auouch, that as soone as euer they (the priests) vnderstood that their two messengers were restrai­ned in Rome (which was not before the 29. of December) and not like to preuaile (which could not be so soone knowen in Eng­land) then D. Bagshaw was sent for from Wisbich to London to treat with the Councell: and all England can witnesse, that he was sent for by the Councell about the Michaelmas before the two priests were imprisoned. But next after these authenticall surmises of one of the fellowe vnited brethren (but a reuerend one, and therefore must carry credit, howsoeuer this Apologie hath cracked it) there followed another letter of another reue­rend [Page 286] priest, who affirmeth that D. Bagshaw is at the last constrai­ned to yeeld his obedience to their Superiour, with the rest of his confederats: If it be true (sayth hee) that M. Mush and some others affirme. And yet there is a greater argument, but it is a­gainst M. Bluet. If (sayth this author) the said keeper of Wisbich castle doe not greatly abuse M. Bluet. And this standing vpon so nice a point, I will leaue to them, who haue will to compare their honesties together, and conclude contrarily to this au­thors conclusion, fol. 153. for there he concludeth in this ma­ner: By this then and diuers other wayes, which we leaue to speake of heere, (the priests are much bound to him for sparing them) it is easie to see what manner of negotiation these men had in hand, when the Breue came, and how farre they were embarked, and in­tangled, &c. (you must cōceiue some strange linke by this &c.) with the Councell at this very time. How gladly would any blind man see this, and bragge when he hath done with the best sigh­ted? For who, that hath his eyes, can see any such matter out of these fond surmises, out of their owne letters, and a memo­riall of a man of whome they themselues haue some doubt, whether hee did not abuse the party, whome he tooke for his author? who doth not rather see, to what poore shifts this au­thor is driuen, who to determine so weightie a question, as he proposed fol. 148. which part hath broken the peace, can say no­thing, but perhaps, and as is supposed, and it is very likely, and it may be, and it is thought: with other such foolish suspicions and doubts, of which all this discourse is full, from the first entrance into the consideration of much more consequence, fol. 144. to this conclusion, By this then, fol. 153. How much more directly doe the priests in all places solue this question, affirming without any such foolish shuffling, that the Iesuits first (namely F. Iones) began this breach, by broaching afresh, that the priests were schismatickes? And the Archpriest seconded him with a most seditious letter which hee sent abroad: wherein hee signified, that he had receiued a resolution from the mother Citie, that the re­fusers of the appointed authoritie were schismatikes. And this haue the priests set downe in their bookes, to haue beene the cause of the breach: and this cannot be denyed to haue beene done by the Archpriest after the peace was made: although this au­thor [Page 287] in chap. 11. fol. 167. taketh notice, that in the booke to his Holinesse, pa. 62. there is this marginall note, Origo nouarum contentionum fuit Archipresbyteri Epistola violenta. The beginning of new cōtentions, was a violent Epistle of the Archpriest. And vpon this note, he exclaimeth in his religious maner against the priests, that they would breake out againe vpō an angry epistle. And he runneth himselfe so out of breath, as although this note is set at the very bottome of the 62. page, he could not step ouer to the 63 page, where some part of this angry epistle is thus set downe. Ab vrbe &c. we haue receiued a resolution from the mo­ther Citie, that the refusers of the appointed authority, were schisma­ticks. But the marginall note was ynough for him to exercise his milde spirit against the priests: and by concealing where­fore that note was made, and what was in the discourse, to cou­sen his blinde reader, who must not once looke into the priests bookes, for feare lest their guides falsenesse be discouered.

And thus haue I shewed, how the Iesuits & the Archpriests want of consideration hath bene the cause of all these present broiles, and that this diuision should not onely not be cured, but be brought in time to a greater breach, as by the euent we haue seene performed. Whereby also it appeareth how false this narration is of this author. For first (saith he) vnder the fore­said pretēce of a satisfactiō to be made vnto them of their fames woū ­ded, delay was made of reconciliation. Hath this fellow so soone forgotten himselfe what he said in this 10. Chap. fol. 147. out of M. Archpriests letter to Fa. Parsons, dated the 3. of Iune 1599? I was inforced (saith he) vpon their contentions, and contemptuous behauiour (that is their appeale from him to the Pope, as is set downe in the booke to the Inquisition epist. 52. & 53.) to suspend the vse of faculties in M. Collington, M. Mush, and M. Heburne. But now God be blessed, vpon the sight of the Breue Apostolicall, that you sent, they haue in such maner submitted themselues, that I haue giuen them restitution of their losses. The Breue also of the 17. of August 1601. excludeth al delay, affirming, that so soone as euer the priests did see the former Breue, they presently submitted themselues, yet must this fellow to keepe himselfe in vre (as if all his discourses were bastards, if they were in the beginning, middle, or ending any other then false tales) tell his Reader, [Page 288] that there was delay made of reconciliation vnder pretence of hauing satisfaction; which howsoeuer the accusers of the priests shall make to God, they are neuer able to make to them. Then (saith he) new quarels pickt, new complaints fained, new exag­gerations made, by words and writings both against the Archpriest (the causes hereof are layd downe before, and the whole story at large sent to the Inquisition) the Cardinals protections, and F. Parsons by name, especially concerning the treatie of their two mes­sengers in Rome. Perchance Fa. Parsons letter of the 9. of October 1599, which he sent into England, France, and Flanders, and where not? came to some of their hands, and also the letter of M. Martin Array, and Fa. Baldwines bolt to D. Cicyll before ci­ted came to be examined, and were euident arguments of fals­hood (to say no worse) and lewd dealing, and the breach re­newed before by the Iesuits, and Archpriest (as is shewed) might giue the priests iust cause to looke further into the mat­ter, then they could before suspect: but when were these quar­rels pickt? by whom? or how followed? marke I pray you how he falleth into a story impertinent to these controuersies. The peace was made by the priests in May 1599 as in this chapter is confessed, the breach was presently after made by the Iesuits, and the Archpriest, as this author doeth in a maner confesse, in that neither of himselfe, nor prouoked thereto by the priests their books he will come neere to this point, which is the most principall in this present controuersie; and now he will tel you a tale of M Charnocke his returne, which was a yeere after, to wit in May 1600. who (as he saith) was inuited to come home, and so hee did, no doubt much against this fellowes will, who (if I am not deceiued) was the cause of his banishment and confinement with­out any maintenance, to keepe him in case for euer comming home, and to aggrauat the matter M. Charnocke is said to haue made a ridiculous appeale from the sentence of the two Cardi­nals. But I thinke that this fellows worship did not laugh when he heard of it Yea and more then this he came to Paris, and tooke degree of Bachelor of diuinitie, which perchance troubled this fellowes worship, as much as the appeale, and thereupon he doeth so iuggle it with M. Bishop his taking degree of doctor, forbidden (as he saith) by an expresse Breue, that his Reader may [Page 289] thincke M. Charnocke had committed some great offence, and yet this author meane nothing lesse, but that he layde all the offence vpon doctor Bishop, who was before, and not at that time made Doctor as he would seeme to say, and was lawfully made, and worthily, and no way contrary to the true mea­ning of the Breue, which was gotten of the Pope not a­gainst the doctoring without approbation, as here is most falsly noted in the margent, but against the doctoring of yong men, and such (by explication of those, who procured the Breue) as would take the degree more timely, then the ambitiō of their aduersaries could well like of. But to returne to his tale of M. Charnocke. Here then (that is at Paris) it was resolued (saith he) that M. Charnocke notwithstanding his Holines prohibition, (that is to say, the sentence of the two Cardinals, Caietane, and Burghese, from which he had lawfully appealed, which also M. doctor Ely confirmeth in his notes vpon the Apologie pag 157. and thereby set himselfe free vntill the matter were againe dis­cussed) and his owne oath to the contrary (which he neuer tooke nor was any offered him, when the sentence here specified fol. 155 was shewed him by Fa. Parsons in forme of a letter to the same Father being then Rector, or the vice Rector of the Col­ledge) should goe into England vnder pretence of lacke of meanes to liue abroad. (This was the cause of his Appeale in Lorraine be­fore he came to Paris, as M. Archpr. vnderstood by a letter from M. Artur Pitts, the Deane of Le Verdun, and Chancel­lor of the Legacion in Lorraine) and that onely for fashion sake he should aduise Cardinall Burghesius thereof, which he did by a litle short contemptious letter of the 25. of May. The letter was writ­ten in very humble maner, as I vnderstood by those that saw it, and with the priuitie of others in Paris, who would soone haue caused any such stile to haue bene altered and as it was not per­chance very long so (as it appeaeth by the authors relation) it was not very short (for here he sayth, that the Cardinall did answere all the obiections, or cauillations touched therein, about their hard vsage, & iniurious sentence giuen against them, and how he had appealed, which this author calleth points of the letter) nor in a­ny such maner contemptible, for who can thinke, that this fel­low were so modest, that amongst all his cōtemptuous tearms, [Page 290] and narrow seeking for the least matters to bring the priests into contempt, he would not set downe some one phrase or o­ther, by which it should appeare to his Reader, that the letter was a contemptuous letter. To the which (saith he) the most hono­rable, and gracious good Cardinal answered with great patience and modestie the fifteenth of September in the yeare 1600, beginning his letter thus: Reuerend in Christ, as my brother, your letters writ­ten at Paris the 28 of May, about your iourney into England, were de­liuered more slowly to my hand then I could haue wished, both that I might haue answered sooner, and haue disswaded that iourney of yours, if they had come vnto me, before your departure out of France, for that I thinke the newes of your departure will bee vngratefull to his Holines, as it is vnto vs, for so much as it is both against obedience, and against an expresse prohibition, and against your owne promise confirmed with an othe, and is thought will giue occasion of new con­tention and troubles in England &c. Thus farre in the Apologie. And afterward this author declareth how the Cardinal did an­swere the obiections, which M. Charnocke had made, and that notwithstanding this, M. Charnocke did not onely perseuere in England in the exercise of his function of priesthood, hauing openly incurred the censure of suspension, but also returned a more vndutifull answere, then was his sonner letter, which hee prooueth by those wordes in M. Charnocks letter, Quam licet tunc cluderem fraudem, ad maiorem securitatem vter (que) ab eo absolui curauimus: although I did delude at that time the deceipt vsed in making vs sweare, to fulfill the sentence giuen against vs, yet both of vs afterward procured our selues for more securitie to be ab­solued from this othe.

This letter of the Cardinall Burghese is set downe at large in the booke to the Inquisition pag 84. 85. 86. and 87. and immedi­ately doth M. Charnocks letter follow, where who will may see them. I will here onely touch so much of M. Charnocks letter, as is in answere to that part of the Cardinals here cited, leauing the rest to men of iudgement; to consider whether M. Char­nocke did not what he did, vpon sufficient ground to saue him­selfe harmelesse from all censures, and blamelesse in the opini­on of any honest man. Thus hee beginneth his reply, which this author taxeth so deepely for vndutifulnesse.

Most Reuerend, and most illustrious prince: your letters dated at Rome 15. Septemb. 1600. I did receiue at London in England vpon the 21. of the next moneth following. To the which I re­turne this answer, with as great respect as the law was in which they were written: I doe not well vnderstand how the notice of my going into England, should be vngratefull, either to his Holinesse, or vnto your Highnesse, when as neither a most louing Father, nor a most iust Iudge, can be ignorant, that foode is as needfull for the liuing, as pu­nishment for the offendor. The Rector, or Vicerector of the English College in Rome was appointed by letters of the most illustrious Car­dinall Caietan of good memory, and of your Highnesse, dated from both your pallaces 21. of Aprill 1599. to signifie vnto vs in your names, that we should not presume for a time to goe without leaue in­to the kingdomes of England, Scotland, or Ireland, but should liue quietly, peaceably, and religiously in other Catholike countreys, where we should be appointed by you, and that we should procure the conser­uation of peace euery where among the English Catholickes. If either of them had signified vnto vs in your names, or in the names of any other, where banished and confined men should haue had those things which were necessary to sustaine life, and that these things had bene at hand, I might haue bene charged with disobedience, and breach of an expresse commandement, not obeying so pious an intention of the decree, which layd vpon me a most grieuous (howsoeuer vndeser­ued) punishment, as being hereby made somewhat tollerable, and the oath had not bene a bonde of so great wickednesse, if I had taken any, not to returne into my Countrey. M. Acarisius vpon the 22 of April 1599. hauing first proposed vnto vs, not to returne into our Coun­trey, vnder paine of suspension, did after by F. Parsons suggestion, among other things, exact also an oath of this: which deceit although then I deladed, for the greater securitie we both procured to be absol­ued from it. Furthermore, if M. Acarisius did receiue no commis­sion from the most illustrious Cardinall Caietane and your Highnes, or that this commission were recalled, before that he came vnto vs, I know not what promise that is, with which any man may charge me, that I confirmed it with an oath: but it is euident by the testimonie of Fa. Parsons and also by your owne letters of the 21. of April 1599. to the Rector, or Vicerector of the English College in Rome, that ei­ther Acarisius receiued no commission from you, or that it was re­called [Page 292] before he came to vs. For in these letters the Commission is gi­uen to the Rector or Vicerector of the College, to signifie vnto vs, as prisoners in the College, in your names what we were to doe. And so doth M. Charnocke proceede, answering euery part and parcell in the Cardinals letters, and shewing out of the most appro­ued Canonistes, that his fact was lawfull, and that he incurred no censures, by returning into his Countrey, after his Appeale made in Lorraine. And by this it is made manifest, what the de­ceipt was, and whose, which M. Charnocke telleth the Cardi­nall he did delude, and the cauils are also answered, which are here made in the Apologie, where this authour would aske: who could absolue from an oath exhibited by the immediate Commis­sary, or Delegate of his Holinesse? For to this is answered, that if the immediate Commissary, or Delegate of his Holinesse aske an oath, beyond his Commission, any man may absolue from it. But neither was here any immediate Commissary, nor De­legate of his Holinesse, but a fellowe suborned (as it should seeme) by F. Parsons to come doe some acte at his request. For M. Acarisius seeming to read what he proposed, as sent to the Colledge by the two Cardinals, had not his lesson so perfect, as Fa. Parsons had it without the booke. And vpon Fa. Parsons after-speech, M. Acarisius repeated his lesson, and thrust in this deuise, that the priests should sweare not to goe into Eng­lang without leaue, whereas before there was onely a censure of suspension to be incurred, if they did returne without leaue, which censure also, as M. Charnocke doeth demonstrate in his answere to the Cardinall, was suspended by his Appeale. But this matter is more aggrauated yet against M. Charnock for that the sentence was such, as otherwise they were bound to accept, and fulfill vnder paine of deadly sinne, that is to say, they were bound to goe begge or starue in some one place or other, out of their countrey, vnlesse this fellow can perswade his Reader, that they had some allowance for their maintenance, to which if any man had bene compelled to binde himselfe by oath; I would aske any in different man, whether there could be maioris iniquitatis vinculum, a bond of greater iniquitie, especially if the Iurors were neuer conuinced of any crime (as their case was) which bond all learned men doe say, is no bond. And if this [Page 293] poore companion his opinion (that euery decree did binde vnder deadly sinne) were receiued, all the Canonists must goe for e­gregious fooles, who affirme both that some decrees are ipso ture, of no force (and M. Charnocke in his answere to the Cardinall sheweth, howe that their decree was such) and also that a iust Appellation such, as M. Charnocke doeth there prooue this to be in the opinions of Innocentius, Hosti­ensis, Geminianus, S. Antonin, Coberrubias, Siluester, Angelus, Nauar, and others, may take away the force of a decree, that it doe no way binde, vntill the cause be againe iudged against the Appellant: But this fellow speaketh according to his skill, when he telleth the Reader, that the two priests were bound vnder mortall sinne, to accept and fulfill that sentence, which the Cardinall gaue concerning the oth. There is enough said, although also it may be added, that there are certaine in all countreys, who haue very large faculties, as this author know­eth well, who can vpon cause dispence with an oath extorted wrongfully, by a greater person then M. Acarisius is, and by the suggestion of an honester man then F. Parsons is, and the partie inueighed may with greater securitie receiue the abso­lution. And vpon occasion giuen him to speake of the oath, as the Cardinall did here giue M. Charnocke, he may say without any bragging, that he did delude the deceit which was vsed by such cousening companions as would exact an oth where they had no commission. But neither was any oth exacted at all for the performance of this sentence, and this authour sheweth him­selfe a notorious impostor in false translating those wordes, quam licet, &c. Here hath this author set downe the decree of the two Card, to the performance whereof he challengeth an oath made by the priests, which he saith was as cleare & reso­lute, as might be set downe in these words. Quapropter praefatis Gulielmo & Roberto sacerdotibus, &c. Wherefore both in his Holi­nesse and our names, wee doe ordaine vnto the foresaid William and Robert priests, and doe command them strictly in the vertue of holy obedience, vnder the paine of suspension from holy orders and exer­cise of the same to be incurred by the fact it selfe, and vnder other cen­sures and punishments, to be inflicted at the iudgement of his Holines, that none of them without expresse licence of his Holinesse, or Cardi­nall [Page 292] [...] [Page 293] [...] [Page 294] Protector, doe presume to goe to any of the kingdomes of Eng­land, Scotland, or Ireland for the time, &c. This &c: cutteth off the principall point, which would here make against this authour; for in that which followeth, it is euident, that not M. Acarisius, but the Rector or Vicerector of the English Colledge, were appointed by the two Cardinals, to deliuer their commande­ment vnto the two priests, and consequently what was before done by Segnior Acarisius, to haue beene some iugling of Fa. Parsons: for that it followeth in the decree, or letter rather, as also it is confessed in his Apologie, fol. 139. Sed apud alios, &c. Hoc (que) nostro nomine Beuerentia vestra eis significet. But liue in o­ther countreys, &c. And this doe your Reuerence signifie vnto them in our name. And if any man should doubt, whose reuerence it was, who was to deliuer the Card. mind vnto the two priests, they may put themselues out of doubt, by looking vpon this inscription, Reuerendo in Christo Patri Rectori vel Vicerectori Collegij Anglorum de vrbe: To the Reuerend Father Rector or Vice­rector of the English Colledge in Rome. But this and the latter part of the letter was left out, that the Reader might conceiue how that the priests had sworne to obserue, or fulfill this decree, and that this oth was exhibited by the immediat Commissarie or Delegate of his Holinesse, whereas this letter appeared not in many dayes after that M. Acarisius the Commissarie came vnto the Colledge vpon a sleeuelesse errand, as by this decree it appeareth, although it beare a date of the day before M. Aca­risius came thither, to wit, 21. April, and M. Acarisius came not vntill the 22. of the same. And this was then vsed as an argu­ment by Fa. Parsons, that M. Acarisius should not haue come, insomuch as hee seemed to be somewhat amazed (as I vnder­stand) when hee shewed this letter to M. Charnocke, what the reason might be that Acarisius did take vpon him to declare the Cardinals sentence, seeing the Cardinals had committed the matter to others, as appeared by those letters. And Fa. Parsons being asked by M. Charnocke, what should be the reason, that these letters bearing date the 21. of April, were not seene in so many dayes after? answered, that they were brought vnto the Colledge the 21. of April, which was the day before M. Aca­risius came thither, but were left in his chamber the same day, [Page 295] and that hee had newly found them, when he brought them to M. Charnocke. M. Bishop was now at libertie, and had ben some dayes before, and had not seene this sentence of the two Car­dinals, neither was it euer shewed him otherwise, then thus: Comming one day to see F Parsons, or M. Charn. who was kept stil as yet in prison, F. Parsons told him, that there lay a letter vpō the table for him to looke on, which when M. Bishop had read, he layd it downe againe, and neuer was any motion made to one, or other for any othe; for the fulfilling of this sentence of the Cardinals, which was their sentence, and no other, as is con­fessed in this Apologie fol. 139. and is onely vrged in this place to haue bin transgressed with periurie: for so still doth this au­thor goe forward. This was the decree (sayth he) and it is strange that any Catholike priest would aduenture, to breake it so openly, and to glory in it by writing, when he had done. This man is vilely trou­bled that M. Charnocke did nothing but for what he was able to giue his reason, and such as when he commeth to answere, he letteth all slip quietly. Yet he wil here haue a saying vnto him, and tell his reader that M. Charnocke did glory in the breaking of the decree; which is most false: for neither did he breake the de­cree, but appealed in forme of Lawe from the iniquitie there­of, nor glory therein, but proued the iustnesse of his appeale out of most approued authors, as may be seene in his answere to Cardinall Burghese set in the booke to the Inquisition pag. 87. But what? (saith he) did he attend to obserue the other part of the decree, more then this, which was that they should liue quietly and o­bediently, and to procure others also to peace, and concord? I answere, that I vnderstood by such as liued in Lorraine, that he liued very quietly, and brought with him a testimony of the same from M. Arthur Pitts, to whom he was so much beholding, as to liue in his house, vntill his breaking vp house caused M. Char­nocke to returne into his countrey: and hee liued obediently to all his Superiours. And in this very Chapter there will be a sufficient testimonie gathered out of the 144 leafe, that he pro­cured peace, and concord in such as loued peace. And as for the others, it was neither in his power to procure it (being ba­nished so farre off from them) neither could any man in wise­dome [...]e him vnto it. But this author will prooue the contra­ry: [Page 296] but how, trow ye? Forsooth by the effects that ensued his going in. As how? For within fourteene dayes after this his letter to the Cardinall, there followed their greatest appeale from the Arch­priest. A great matter against M. Charnocke. Might he not as­well haue sayd, that it was about a moneth after that Cardi­nall Burghesius letter came into England to M. Charnocke, and haue layd the blame (if appealing deserued blame) vpon the Cardinall? If any man will take the paines to looke vpon the causes of the Appeale set downe in English in Ma. Colingtons booke pag. 192. to the 202 page, he shall finde asmuch reason for the one as for the other, and that the grieuances were most intollerable which were offered them, long before M. Charn. returne into England, and were the principall causes of their Appeale. But lest that all, euen his blindest fooles, should find him to be a poore cauiller in this cause against M. Charnocke, he will tell them another coniecture, and that is, that M. Charn. sought occasion to quarrell with the Archpriest vpon his first entertainement into England. And for proofe hereof he ci­teth a piece of a letter, which M. Charnocke writ vnto him 24. May 1600, of which letter I will set some part downe, accor­ding to the copie thereof, as I haue seene it: Right Reuerend Sir, being returned into England, I thought it my duety in most humble maner, to salute you, hoping my returne cannot be preiudiciall to any your good courses, and desiring for your further satisfaction, to speake with you, when it shall please you. This which followeth is inser­ted here in the Apologie. In the meane while to request of you thus much in charitie, to write to me, why sending for me to declare the authority giuen you by Cardinal Caietane his letters, you shewed me such instructions as when I came to Rome, I found were not annexed to your Commission, as you at that time sayd were annexed. Thus far in the Apologie, and then toward the latter end: Reuerend Sir, a small reason from you shall giue me satisfaction: for mine intention is not to argue any matters with you, but to take your answere simply, as you shall giue it, and rest therein satisfied. And this scruple being re­moued, I shall the more confidently deale with you in other matters which I am to impart vnto you. Thus wishing nothing more then peace and quietnesse amongst vs, I cease to trouble you from your cha­ritable affaires, and doe expect some answere from you at your best lea­sure. [Page 297] 24. of May. But of this hath this Apologie maker culled as much as is here noted: which part if it were taken alone by it selfe, could not imply a quarrel in any honest mans iudgement, much lesse when it is taken with all these circumstances. But this author must either adde somewhat still to that which he ci­teth, or curtall it: or els he wil shame himselfe. And as for that which M. Charnocke affirmed in his letter, it is confirmed by an other, although the Archpriests secretary gaue M. Charnock the lie fiue or sixe times in the answere to his letter, which how wel soeuer it suteth with the new religious managing of matters, did not so well become a priest to a priest: neither hath M. Charnocke so behaued himselfe, but that his credit alone with­out any other witnesse may be thought as good as M Blackwels, or this idle authors, although he doth not enuie their worships calling. But marke I pray you how this matter would be here salued. The Archpriest denieth that euer hee sayd, that they (the fained instructions) were expresly in his instructions from Rome. By which it may be gathered, that the Archpriest did at the least propose such matters, as were not in his instructions, which were sent from Rome. But this is not the matter wherewith he is charged, that he should vse these particular words: but hee is charged directly, that pretending to shewe the instructions which were annexed to his Commission, hee shewed such as were not annexed thereunto. And being taken in the manner he confessed asmuch. And who seeth not what a poore shift this is, the Archpriest denieth that he sayd they were expresly in his instructions? who doubteth but that the man saith trueth, when answering his neighbor who calleth for him vseth these words, I say, I am not at home, although he be at home? For although it be false that he is not at home, yet it is very true that he sayth hee is not at home. And with this iest doth this fellow salue this mat­ter; the Archpriest denieth that hee sayd that they were expresly in his instructions. Who euer charged him that he should vse these words? These poore shifts may blinde such as willingly will be blinde, and other men will soone discouer the fallacy. The ac­cusation was and is, that pretending to shew his instructions, which his Commission mentioned, to be annexed vnto it, hee drew out false things, which were neuer annexed to his com­mission: [Page 298] and he was taken in the maner. And this is it which both M. Charnocke and M. Colington will iustifie, & many more such goodly matters, if need shall require, where these poore trickes wil not serue to any purpose, I say not thus or thus expresly. Now follow certaine exceptions against some letters written by certaine priests in Wisbich vnto the Archpriest. I haue not seene the copies to my remembrance, and therefore can say nothing of them more then this, that it is not incredible, that the Archpriest would giue cause of sharper words then are there vsed. But all serueth to prooue somewhat, namely, what course was held by the troublesome, especially after M. Charnockes returne into England. But there is not one worde, what the ma­sters of misrule did before M. Charnock returned into England, or what cause they did giue of these troubles, to wit, the ray­sing of the slander of schisme, and such vile imputations, as the prisoners might accordingly haue written to the Archpriest in other termes, then peripsema tuum. There must not be a word of this matter which made all the stirre: for sayth this fellow with shame enough (ca. 8 fol. 115.) of the other point of schisme we will not talke at all, and wee are sory that euer it was mentioned or brought in question: vnquiet people hauing taken occasion hereby to continue contention, and to make more brables then were needfull. How easie a matter had it been then for this author to haue sol­ued this question proposed in this tenth chapter fol 148. Which part hath broken the peace, since that he doth acknowledge, that the bringing of schisme in question was the cause of this con­tention, and could not be ignorant, who brought it againe in question, being tolde so often that the Iesuites did it; and the Archpriest both before and after the peace was made, and the Archpriest his letter was cited for proofe thereof in the booke to his Holines pag. 63, and in the booke to the Inquisition pag. 60? But this author must haue his Readers eares filled with o­ther stories, such as are impertinent to his question. And when he thinketh that his Reader hath forgotten the matter which he proposed: then he slinketh away, and beginneth afresh with some other which he handleth as wisely.

But to make an end of this Chapter: here are certaine let­ters inserted of F. Parsons exhorting to peace, as though F. Par­sons [Page 299] tricks were not knowen very well. If this author could haue brought forth any of F. Parsons letters to his fellow F. Lyster, or F. Garnet, or F. Iones the Iesuits, who were the chiefe maintei­ners of that senselesse Libel of schisme against the priests, to per­swade them to retract their scandalous opinions, to correct their forwardnesse in insuring Catholique priests, to exhort them to make satisfaction for their vnchristian detractions: such letters would haue bene for F. Parsons credit. But to cite a letter, or exhortation to the priests iniuried, to haue peace: what doeth it argue but an obdurate malice in him, and a wic­ked desire, that they should desist from that, to which they were bound in conscience, to wit, the defence of their fame, and the clearing themselues from such false, but most wicked impo­stures of schisme, rebellion, and whatsoeuer a mischieuous head could deuise, and spred abroad against them?

And so finally (saith this author) after all their former resistance, and appeales aswell of D. Bagshaw and his fellows at Wisbich, as of M. Charnocke and other abroad, they ioyned in greater number vp­on the 17. of Nouember last, if all consented thereunto, whose names are subscribed, whereof we heare the contrary in some (some one or two, who had giuen their consents in generall, but had not seene this particuler appeale, yet afterward confirmed it, and appealed againe, for so much, as there was any need.) In all which doing of theirs one thing is especially to be noted, And what is that? That they haue neuer procured any one of all their appeales to be presented hitherto, or prosecuted in Rome as farre as we can vnder­stand, (this last clause wil not helpe, if the proposition be gene­rall of all the appeales: For M. Charnocks appeale was presented and prosecuted in Rome, before this booke came foorth: and this author could not be ignorant thereof, if I am not mistaken in him) which yet they ought to haue done within certaine moneths, vnder paine that all is voyd if it be not done. But how many are these certaine moneths? The Lawyers say 13. moneths, if we shall count them by the moneths: and vpon iust cause 26. mo­neths from the Appeale, within which time doubtlesse the au­thor of this Apologie, heard of the Appellants at Rome. And Launcelot l. 4. Instit. Iuris Canon. de appellationibus cap. accidit. af­firmeth, Yet a longer time might haue bene granted for the [Page 300] prosecution of an Appeale: But as I thinke no man doeth now doubt, but that the priests had intention to follow their Ap­peale, and will giue this cause of their publishing of books, pen­dente lite, that is, while the controuersies hang: for that the Arch­priest (notwithstanding their Appeale) denounced them to haue incurred the censures, & lost their faculties, because they subscribed to a thing called an Appeale, & he kept a fowle stirre by some of his seditious Agents against the Appellants. An other reason was, because they had a desire that their cause should be knowen sufficiently abroad, which could not bee knowen too much in their conceit, who sought nothing but a trial of the trueth, and for iustice against their vniust defamers. But what this author hath to say against these bookes, you shal heare in the next Chapter: and if you wil haue an answere from him to this question proposed fol. 148. which part hath broken the peace, you must goe picke it vp where you can, now you know his worships minde.

CHAP. 16. How the two bookes against which the Apologie is written, are sleightly runne ouer with a few cauils against them. Apol. cap. 11.

IN the eleuenth Chapter the author of the A­pologie intendeth to shew, how false, slanderous, and iniurious the two bookes are which the Priests set forth; whereof one was in Latine to his Holinesse, the other in English, entituled, The Copies of certaine Discourses. He will also shew how highly the writers and publishers offended God, and all good men thereby. Lastly, he will defend certaine particular men, that are slandered therein. And first he beginneth to shew, how God was offended, supposing still, that credite must be giuen vnto him in all which he sayth, Now (sayth he fol. 160.) are we come (gentle Reader) almost to the last, but the most loathsome part of all our answere, which is to handle and examine in particular, the two contumelious libels, &c. And after a holy protestation against so [Page 301] base and wicked a spirit, neuer so much perchance as imagined, that it should be so manifest in himselfe, doth here, and since in his Manifestation of spirits, and a certaine Latine libell, entitu­led, Appendix, &c. he telleth his gentle Reader, that the sinne of libelling is to be considered, how grieuous it is in the sight of God, how great censures are layd thereon, &c. O how would this man make a saint with a little helpe? but his gentle Reader demaun­deth of him, where all these considerations were, when the Ie­suits writ their discourse, aduersus factiosos in Ecclesia: against the factious in the Church: where were these considerations, when this libell was generally approoued by their fellow Iesuits, the Archpriest, and all that seditious crew, which adhered vnto them in this sinnefull acte, whereby many Catholicke priests were most maliciously, and most vniustly defamed, and (to omit other most malapert and scornefull speeches) were in spirit exclaimed against in this sort, Vos rebelles estis, &c. Yee are rebels, ye are schismatickes and fallen out of the Church the spouse of Christ, you haue trampled vnder your feete the obedience which is due to the sea Apostolicke, yee haue rushed into excommunication and irregularitie, ye haue so scandalized the godly that ye are euery where infamous, ye haue by disobedience sinned against the chiefe Vicar of Christ, and against Christ himselfe the Iudge and Iusticer. See, I pray you, how that ye are nothing better then Southsayers and Idola­ters, and as Ethnicks & Publicans, because you obeyed not the Church when it spake vnto you by the highest Bishop. And all this sturre was, because the priests did not accept of the new authoritie vpon the sight of a letter written by one that was neither the highest Bishop, nor the lowest, nor yet any Bishop at all, nor of any such credit, as he was to be beleeued in this matter, as hath beene sufficiently prooued by M. Doctor Ely in his notes vpon the Apologie, and M. Collington in his defence of the slandered priests, and was diuersly touched before in other their bookes. But where were these godly considerations, when this libell, so senslesse, false, and scandalous, was written and published? how was God offended hereby, or was hee not in your pious wisdome? were any censures incurred hereby of the Church, or any punishments deserued which the ciuill lawe inflicteth vpon Libellers? In whom was that base and wicked spirit, against [Page 302] which you so godly inueigh in this place, when Iesuites, the Archpriest, and their faction were authours, spreaders, or ap­proouers of such things? where were these godly meditations, when the Archpriest after the peace made did spread and ap­prooue that scandalous libell, or resolution (as hee termed it) from the mother citie, that the refusers of the appointed autho­ritie, were scismaticks? I will omit to speake of that base and wic­ked spirit, which caried certain gentlemen from house to house (as he doeth the mountebanks from towne to towne) with cer­taine libels against particular men, where they seeme to striue whether they can excell those mountebanks in shamelesse and vngracious relations. I will here say nothing of that base and wicked spirit, which maketh euery one of the factious adhe­rents to the Iesuits and Archpriest, a most infamous and scan­dalous Libeller against such priests, as did delay to accept of the Archpr. before they saw iust cause, and denyed afterward that they had bene schismatickes during the time of that delay. I will not vrge this fellow his Manifestation of spirits, in which all his holines (which he pretendeth many other wayes) is dis­couered to be nothing but hypocrisie. I will onely stand vpon this Apologie, in which I haue shewed, and shall yet discouer so many falshoods and slanders, as no man of indifferencie can deny, but that it is a most notorious libell, and proceeded of a most base and wicked spirit. And so I will leaue it to the authour his own iudgement here giuen, what sinne it is to libell, how grie­uous in the sight of God and man, and how great censures and ex­treame punishments are due vnto him for it, when hee shall come to his answere, as the priests haue bene in the face of the whole world: which in the opinion of all learned men, hath freed their bookes from the ignominious name of libels.

But here are certaine circumstances, which aggrauate the matter against the priests: as first, that a religious communitie is here defamed: but this is false, for the societie is not touched by the priests, but certaine men of the society, such as we hope the whole society will not beare out in their wicked courses. And if they should beare them out therein, and thereby make themselues a party, then must the religious community expect no other priuiledge, then any other irreligious company. And [Page 303] I cannot but marueile, how M.D. Ely in this Epistle to M. D.W. (prefixed to his notes vpon the Apologie) blameth the Priests for opposing themselues (as he mistaketh them) against the whole society: for they haue not in all their bookes vsed any such generall termes, as may include the whole bodie of the societie when they haue spoken of Iesuits: but in handling par­ticular matters haue sufficiently discouered whom they haue ment, when they haue spoken of Iesuits, yea they haue in plain termes, and particularly affirmed, and published in print, that they doe not touch the body of the societie, but some particu­lar men, as may be seene in their preface to the booke dedica­ted to the Inquisition, pag 5. where they make this protestation, Neque quae de societate hîc dicentur, in vniuersam societatem dicta velimus, cui tantum tribuimus quantū eius virtus, & doctrina postu­lant, hic tantum particulares quorundam actiones conquerimur, &c. Neither will we, that what is said here of the society, be said of the whole society, to which we doe attribute as much as their vertue and learning deserue, we doe complaine here of the particular actions of some onely, &c. And as it should seeme, this matter troubleth the authour of this Apologie much more, as it is against a fewe Iesuits, then as it is against all the rest, which causeth himselfe still to forget himselfe, or his matter rather, when any occasion occurreth as it doth often to speake of the Iesuits, and here he runneth along after them with these admirations, what manner of people they bee for diuers respects, that are here discouered, al­though they were not the same men, which are here discoue­red: and of what account with our very enemies themselues, of what other then hypocrites, matchiuilians and traitors to their Countrey? some of them being Superiours (as euery parish in London hath scholemasters, yea and some in hier offices) some of singular merit towards the common cause, such cause perhaps, as to which the infamie of Catholike priests must bee iudged most necessary: others notorious for their knowen vertues, how gladly would blind Hugh see some of them here in England, for then, neither should the good haue cause to grieue, nor the bad bee conformed in their naughty course, who seeing the supposed best to be so bad, they doe rashly coniecture, that there is none good, for which folly of theirs, they and their [Page 304] bad guides must answere at the last day, and smart long before, vnlesse they repent themselues while they haue time to repent. Thus much concerning this authours conceite of the sinne of libelling retorted vpon himselfe and his partners in this Apo­logie, and other his Libels, which he will neuer be able to iusti­fie. Now follow his exceptions against the two bookes, which he termeth Libels, wherin he purposeth to discouer foule faults to haue bene, as falshood, deceite, malice and slanderous calumnia­tions. Alwayes prouided, that whereas the Reader hath still expected, and liued in hope to see somewhat to the purpose, now he must take this colde comfort to be remitted backe to the Chapters before handled for a larger proofe of what is to be sayd. First hee beginneth with the latine booke, which is dedicated to his Holinesse, whose title is, Declaratio motuum, &c. A declaration of the sturres and troubles that haue risen in England betweene the Iesuits on the one side, together with M. G. Blackwel Archpriest in all things fauouring them, and the Semina­ry Priests on the other side, from the death of Cardinall Allen of pious memory, vnto this yeere 1601. In this very title (saith he) and first page 5. or 6. abuses and sleights and shifts may be noted to be vsed to­wards his Holinesse &c. for first whereas the whole world knoweth, that their controuersie is with the Archpriest as appeareth by their Appellation to his Holines, an. 1600. 17. Nouemb. and others be­fore, and that their stomacke against the Iesuits is for standing with him, and for as by the whole discourse of both these bookes appeareth, here they change the whole controuersie, and do say, that it is with the Iesuits and M. Blackwell, that fauoureth them so as he is put here, but as an Appendix in the cause which is plaine falshood.

This is the first fault which is found in the Latin booke: & all things considered, it wil not proue a fault, much lesse so foule as this author would it should seeme to be: the appellation was made from the Archp. & not from the Iesuits, because appella­tions are made from such only, as are and take vpon them to be superiors. Such are not the Iesuits ouer the Secular priests, nei­ther doeth the appealing from the Archpr. cleare the Iesuits, who in the appellation it selfe are proued to be the chiefe foun­taines of all these broyles, as all the world may see in the Ap­peale. And he doeth very falsly affirme that the whole dis­course [Page 305] sheweth no other, as himselfe can remember, when he listeth: Namely in his table prefixed to his Apologie num. 23. where he citeth this sentence out of his Latine booke pag. 30. Iesuitae &c. The Iesuits dispairing to be able to get superioritie to themselues by way of voyces or suffrages (of the priests) and on the other side hating and flying to admit episcopall dignitie (into Eng­land) thought to procure dominion to themselues vnder the maske of an other mans person, &c. Hath this fellow now forgotten what his owne iudgement was there of the priests their conceit of this matter? hath not he perswaded his reader, that the prin­cipall and onely ground of this our present contention, and scandalous controuersie, is the very same disease of emulation partly of Lay men against priests, and partly of priests against religious men, especially the Fathers of the Societie, with whom at this present they haue to doe? Apol. cap. 1. fol. 2. And would he now haue his reader beleeue, that the whole world knoweth the contrary, and that it is not principally against the Iesuits? And whereas it is here said that the Archpr. is put as an Appendix, some indeed doe thinke, that he hath bound himselfe Appren­tice to the Iesuits: but I doe not heare that the priests do talke of th'one or th'other.

The second foule fault which here is found is, that the priests of the Seminaries residing in England, are put for the opposite part, of which, saith he, these contentions are not the twentieth part, and this is proued by their owne confessions, in the former chap­ter. Perchance this fellow hath relation to the question made to M Bishop, and M. Charnocke, How many they did certainely know to approue this their mission, and to be priuie to the matters, that should be proposed, &c. Chap 9. Apol. 131. To which these priests made their answere according to their owne certaine know­ledge, which answere is there deceitfully inserted, as hath bene shewed, and is here as deceitfully againe brought by him for his purpose, their confessions being, that there were Quàm plu­res sacerdotes, Very many priests, as appeareth where M. Charnocks examination is set downe fol. 130, which he there proued by certaine letters, which he brought with him, which testified as much. And by their answer of their certaine knowledge, which they could not haue, but by present or particuler letter: this [Page 306] fellow taketh a silly aduantage to proue that they were not the 20. part by their owne confession. The priests did call them­selues priests of the Seminaries, because they were so, and by this name are distinguished from the Iesuits, who are the prin­cipall faction against them, and are priests, who sooner or later for the most part did forsake the Seminaries.

Thirdly, they say in this title (saith he) that their contentions a­gainst the Iesuits began from the death of Card. Allen. They nei­ther challenge vnto themselues any cōtentions against the Ie­suits, neither doe they say when any begun, but onely intituled the booke in this maner, A declaration of stirres and troubles which are or were betweene the Iesuits and them, since the death of the Car­dinall, vnto such a yeere. If a man should write of the warres in the Low Countreys from the death of the Prince of Parma, vntill this present yeere, must he be said to affirme, that the warres began then? yet cannot this author proue, that there was any publique opposition, or common stirres in England before the Cardinals death: but that rather what was begunne, (as he saith Cap. 2. fol. 85. in the Cardinals time by Libertines, and fa­ctious people,) was retained somewhat from breaking forth by his authority while he liued, and this is most true: for the Ie­suits who lusted after a superioritie ouer the priests, were afraid to make this their pride knowen, either by themselues, or by their factious adherents, so long as he liued; But the good Car­dinall being dead in the yeere 94, all factious brake out toge­ther; Fa. Weston the Iesuit, and his factions begun a common wealth in Wisbich, and vnder a colour of a stricter rule, all the priests there must become his subiects, or liue in perpetuall in­famie, some Iesuits abroad tooke order for the priests their welcome to all such places, whither they were not directed by them. The matters of Rome I leaue to them to whom that be­longeth, and although this fellow is so impudent, as to alledge the Cardinall Allen his letter to proue that some of the sediti­ous (as he termeth them) had begunne to stirre against the Fa­thers in England in his dayes, his reader may easily discouer his falshood if he will turne (not to the place by him cited, to wit, the 4. Chapter, for there is nothing to be seene) but to the second Chapter, for there he shall finde that the priests are no [Page 307] more charged for any stirre against the Iesuits, then the Iesuits for their sedition against the priests, and moreouer that what difference there was, could not be but some priuate quarrels be­tweene some priuate man, and not any such publique diffe­rence or dislike, as this is of which the booke intreated which was dedicated to his Holines, as I haue shewed where this let­ter is set downe by this author.

Fourthly they said, Ad S. D. N. Clementem 8. exhibita ab ipsis sacerdotibus, that this declaration was exhibited by the Priests them­selues to our most holy father Pope Clement the 8. This word was is of his owne addition. It is said to be exhibited, in that it was presently to be sent by them; And if it came not to his Holines his hands so soone as they intended, the fault was not in them who tooke all such meanes for it as they could, so that they might iustly vse the phrase, which they did, without deseruing any blame therefore. And the priests are saide to exhibite it themselues, for that they writ it, and were to present it in their owne names, and the not comming of it to his Holines view will iustifie their printing of many copies, that some one, by one or other, might come into his hands, and the shamelesse­nes of this fellow may the more now appeare, who would so peremptorily informe his reader, that the priests were loth, that he should know of it (hauing by printing taken a most cer­taine way for it) and much lother to answere it before him, be­fore whom the whole world will witnes for them, that they haue bene to answere it. The fifth cauill is at the sentence of Scripture, which the priests put to their books, as though they had abused it in vsing it in that place; But gald nagges must haue pardon, if being touched they winch. The iustnesse of the priests their cause, will beare them out against all hereticks, hy­pocrits, and Atheists, and will stop the mouthes of them, how potent soeuer they either are, or would seeme to be among their like. Thus much is implied in that sentence, and no lesse was in the priests their meaning when they prefixed it to their Booke.

Sixtly and lastly it is said in this first page (sayth he) that it was printed Rhotomagi apud Iacobum, &c. At Roane in France in the house of Iames, &c. And hereupon he keepeth such a foule stirre, [Page 308] as if it had beene a whole halfepenny matter, where the booke had bene printed, or that the Pope might haue thought the priests cause to be the more iust, if the booke were printed at Roane. I pray you good sir tell me, what doeth the being here or there printed, helpe or hinder the matter in questiō? what if it be printed at Constantinople or at Cosmop? If this fellow could shew what auaile may come to the priests, or what preiudice to the other part, by hauing their booke goe forth as printed at Roane, he might haue bestowed a little of his paines, taken here about it, to some good purpose: but his exception beeing so absurd as it is, I will turne him to the Printers boy to reason this matter with him, who, for any thing that I can as yet learne, set this (which he citeth) to the booke, and the boy fin­ding this fellow some equall match for him, will perchance spurre him this question, Why he should conster Rhotomagi, Printed at Roane, rather then to be [...]olde at Roane; or why hee should interprete Rhotomagi, at Roane in France, rather then at Roane in England, there being in England diuers places na­med by as strange names as Roane is, as Scotland, Iury, litle Bri­taine, and such like; yea the little boy will remember perchance that some of F. P. bookes, which were printed here in England, are said to haue bene printed at Doway, and yet I trow this au­thor will not say for a hundred pound, that F. P. can lye, or at the least, that hee abused any man in saying so. But I will leaue this authour and the Printers boy together, for they seeme to be very well coupled to argue this matter: onely I wish, that this author would beware, what termes he doeth vse in his an­ger: for it may be, the Printer will call him twice or thrice by his name, if he be miscalled himselfe, or perchance the Prin­ter or his boy will tell him, that there are as good Printers in London as in Roane, although they themselues were not so ex­pert, and put him to a nonplus, for saying, that the booke was printed vnder the protection of my L. of London.

Well then (sayth hee) these sixe absurdities, shifts, and falshoods, being discouered in the very first page of the booke, as a preamble to the rest, and vsed euen to his Holines himselfe, we may imagine what the remnant will be. The reader may imagine, that it is not worth the stooping for, which this man letteth lye, if it be not too [Page 309] hot, or too heauy for him, as here also he excepteth against the priests their printing of their bookes: notwithstanding the scan­dall which may grow by the comming abroad of these dissensions: to which, answere is made, that they must looke to it, who driue the priests to this course, hauing no other way left for them to recouer their fame, which was most iniuriously taken away from them. Hee excepteth also against that which is said of Card. Allen his fauour towards the priests, which hee sayth he hath refuted in the third and fourth Chapter, in which this au­thor hath committed (as often he doeth in this kinde) a more grosse fault, then if he had said, that his booke had beene prin­ted at Roane in France: for this would haue troubled none, but some cauilling foole: and these trickes to referre his reader so often to such places, where he shall find nothing of that matter for which he is sent hither, may trouble euen his gentle readers patience. Well yet you must goe looke in the third Chapter for a matter, which is not there touched by him: there is in the fourth Chapter some proofe, that the Cardinal disliked some actions, in which were some temporall men, and some priests, long agoe, many yeeres before these stirres began, which be­long nothing to the controuersie now in question, which is, whether the priests were schismatickes, who deferred to accept the Archpr. before they did see the Breue, or to these priuat quar­rels, of which it seemeth (by a letter of his set in the second Chapter) he was informed before his death: or thirdly to the stirres which the Iesuits began in the Colledge about the same time. To conclude, there is nothing recited there, which is here affirmed; neither is that which is laid to Fa. Heywood his chalenging of legantine power in England any way solued, but in this manner: and this is all the difference, that euer was betweene F. Heywood and F. Parsons: as if the question had beene, which is the way to Poplington? yea there is as much confessed, as F. Heywood was charged with for the particulars, as any man may see in this 164. leafe. The readers must go looke here and there for diuers other matters: but D. Haddocke and M. Martin Array are here to be defended by the author, for that poore re­sistance which they made vnto the two priests. Indeede these good Proctors came vnto the two priests within two dayes, or [Page 310] three of their arriuall at Rome, and were so hote with them, as M. Martin Array stirred not out of his chamber aboue a fort­night after: he had bene all that while possessed with an ague, which some of his friends said, that hee had before hee tooke that heate, but a sudden ioy perchance, that the two priests were that day to be apprehended, put life and health into him vpon the seast day of S. Tho. of Canterbury, and made him come abroad: and what these Proctors did after, at the apparance of the two priests, I haue before shevved, and vvhat M. Martin vvrit into England thereof.

The particulars which touch these Proctors their persons I know not, and therefore I leaue it vnto them to declare, who thought it expedient to make them know in this cause: yet doe I not well vnderstand, how there was any affinitie between Car­dinal Allen and D. Haddocke (which this fellow will needes haue for the Doctors credit) neither of them hauing bene at a­ny time married, and I haue heard that M. Martin Array was extraordinarily fauoured by Sir Francis Walsingham, by whom he was admonished to depart out of England, before some matters should chance, which would shortly chance, and would be some let to his passage: which kinde of vsage at that time, to wit, when the great trouble was in the yeere 1586. be­ing layd together with his being then set at liberty, might giue suspition to some, that all was not as it should haue been, al­though in times of lesse trouble some men haue found the fa­uor by extraordinary meanes to haue their liberty at the inter­cession of some great men, or some highly fauoured friends. Now followeth his defence of M. Standish, and diuers other. And whereas the priests haue set downe in their bookes, that Master Standish had giuen his name to become a Iesuite, and therefore no fit man to deale for them in the procuring of this subordination, which is pretended to haue been made, to take vp controuersies, which were between Iesuits and priests, as cap. 8. fol. 124. this author affirmeth, or priests and priests, and yet was the principall instrumentas is wel knowen to all men) and it is confessed in the same chapter fol. 98. and 99: this author letteth that goe without any word to the contrary, for intrueth he cannot denie it, and taketh occasion to say somewhat, tou­ching [Page 311] that which the priests affirme of M. Standish, that is, that he did vse the name of the priests, as if he had been sent by the priests, whereas indeed he was not, and that he himselfe sayd at his returne (in the hearing of diuers priests, who will iustifie it) that he had their interpretatiue consent, and that hee presumed that they would consent to that which he did. But when this au­thor commeth to prooue, that M. Standish did nothing without the priests their consent, in the procuring of this Subordination, he returneth his reader to the eighth Chapter for diuers priests letters, which already I haue shewed were all written after that this Subordination was made, which argueth a notable impu­dencie in this authour, that hee will so peremptorily affirme, whatsoeuer may sound any way in the eares of those, whom af­fection blindeth, to make for his purpose, although in the Iudgement of the indifferent hee worketh his confusion. For other disproofe also of M. Blackwels, and the Cardinall Caietans ignorance in our English affaires, his Reader must goe backe to the eighth and ninth Chapter: he sendeth also his Reader to the third Chapter, to see how falsly the Iesuites are sayd to seeke their owne, and that they trouble the peace of England, and persecute more then heretikes. To the which it hath been answered, that they doe seeke their owne in some sort, for so much, as pride and what els followeth thereon, may be called theirs, and that also it might bee sayd that they seeke quae Iesu Christi, (as this author doth there challenge) those things which are belonging to Iesu Christ: for so much, as the almes of Catho­likes for reliefe of priests and other Catholikes may bee saide to belong to Iesu Christ; and that they labour by infamie to seduce the Catholike Laitie from that loue, and reuerence, which they owe vnto Catholike priests, which is a persecution against the priests more grieuous, then any that hath been rai­sed by any heretikes against them. For whereas there hath been a most charitable correspondence betweene the Catholike Laytie and the priests: now the world is come to this passe, that he is no zealous or godly Catholike, that will not runne from place to place to disgrace all such priests as refuse to be guided by the Iesuits, or in this present controuersie will not acknow­ledge, that they liued in schisme, and deserued eternall shame [Page 312] and reproch, because they deferred their obedience to an au­thoritie, vntill they did see, what was their Superiour his will concerning it: at what time they all submitted themselues vn­fainedly, whatsoeuer this author most wickedly suggesteth to his reader in this place, without any proofe at all, vpon cer­taine of his most absurd surmizes; for which also he sendeth his reader to the former chapter, where he shal see perhaps, and as it is supposed, and it is very likely, and such like stuffe, as a man who esteemed of his credit would be ashamed of in so weighty a matter. And for his foolish assertion, that if it had been vnfai­ned, it would haue wrought some permanent effect, there is an old saying, that there must goe two words to a bargaine, and so say I, that if there must be peace betweene two parts, both the parts must doe their parts to preserue it: for who seeth not that it is a most absurd iest, that if peace be broken by the wic­kednesse of the one part, the other should be blamed for not dealing sincerely, and vnfainedly? the priests haue sayd, that the Iesuits and the Archpriest did breake the peace, and they haue shewed how, and that which they haue sayd herein, can­not be controlled, and that is, that Fa Iones the Iesuit, after the peace made, fetched out of hell it selfe (as by the euent it ap­peareth) that most wicked paradox of his fellow Iesuit Fa. Li­ster, concerning schisme, and the Archpriest also after the peace made, brake the same peace by publishing a resolution from the mother citie, that the refusers of the appointed authority were schismatikes, which resolution he affirmed he had either from F. Warford, or Fa Tichborne, a paire of yong English Iesuites, and this is the Epistle which is not onely mentioned, but set downe in the booke to his Holines pag 63, and which this author slily ouerslippeth, and stoppeth his readers mouth with the margi­nal note, which is put by the priest, to wit; origo &c. The begin­ning of the new contention was a violent Epistle of the Archpriests, which here this author citeth, and runneth in his new found milde and religious tearmes vpon the priests; because they would breake out for an angry Epistle, and so laughing in his sleeue, to thinke how hee can cousin the blind obedient, which must beleeue any thing that he telleth them, he shutteth vp this matter, without telling them what this angry Epistle was, [Page 313] or that it was set downe in the booke to his Holinesse, least that he should haue discouered the weakenes of his cause, and con­sequently his owne wickednes, who in so weake a case would vse so wicked tearmes against Catholike priests.

This you see how this fellow hath answered the booke which is dedicated to his Hol. and what poore geere he picketh out, sometime out of the discourse, sometime out of the margent, and letteth this discourse goe quietly by him, and with all this nicenesse, and choice of some place, to which he might make colourable shewe of answere, he bringeth nothing, but what being examined will breede his owne shame and confusion.

The Appeale (he saith) shalbe answered by the Pope, who in a briefe of the 17. of August. 1601. refused it for peace sake, as there is said, being induced thereunto perchance by such, as were loath to heare these matters come in question: yet since this Breue, all the world is made a witnesse, that these matters haue bene handled at Rome, and that there was iust cause to appeale notwithstanding the fine gloses here made by this au­thour, who wisheth perchance by this time that he had not so much commended this Pope.

Lastly he agitateth a letter of M. Mush his writing to Mon Seignior Morto, a Bishop in Italy who was ioyned with Doctor Lewes Bishop of Cassana in many affaires of the Church: which letter is said in the priests their bookes, to haue bene sent by the two messengers vnto him. And in reason the Priests (who said so) should haue had credit, vntill the contrary could haue bene prooued (which can neuer be) with more substantiall argu­ments, then are here brought: To wit, it was not found among their papers, as though they (hauing bene 17. dayes in Rome, before that the Iesuites and the Sbirri carried them to prison) could not conuey it (as it was directed) before that their pa­pers were seazed on, or secondly the two messengers neuer spake to Fa. Parsons of such a letter, ergo they caried no such letter with them, as though Fa. Parsons were the man, that must knowe all things, and was not rather kept so short, as diuers in the Citie noted, how he was troubled for that he could get no other an­swere of the priests to his curious question, then that time and place should discouer what they had to say. And although af­terward [Page 314] he was admitted by them to be their examiner, it was not without the condition, that they should not be bound to answere to his questions, which condition the Fiscall did take, and agree vnto, before he could obteine of them to let Fa. Par­sons be the examiner: and it may be thought, that when they were asked such idle questions, they did vse this license, or their owne rights, no oath in this kind binding any man to answere to all things proposed vnto them, and Fa. Parsons may call to minde, if it please him, that to some questions he was directly denied an answere. The matters contained in M. Mush his let­ter, are there so sufficiently handled, as this authour saith no­thing thereof in this place, but referreth his reader backe to fome places already handled, and answered; he glaunceth at that which is there said of the necessity of the sacrament of con­firmation in England, for which all the Catholikes (if they will) may see his egernesse against their good and comfort in this time of persecution, that he cannot heare of any who shal say it is necessary, but he is straight on his iacke for it. And be­cause one said once that it was either most necessary in time of persecution, or a vaine, and as a superfluous ceremony in Gods Church, because there onely is the proper vse thereof, he playeth vpon the latter words, as if they had bene affirmed by any one, and applyeth them to such as speake for the necessitie of the sacra­ment. He excepteth also against that which M. Mush affirmeth of Fa. Parsons his State bookes, and is agreeued, that he onely is named among such as haue written of such a subiect. And for the loue he beareth to Cardinall Allen, and other of our Nati­on, he setteth downe in print, what they haue written concer­ning such matters, as though their fact did excuse Fa Parsons. but why is Fa. Parsons onely named? because Fa Parsons being onely aliue of those writers, of which M. Mush spake, was consequently more likely then any of the other to write a­gaine of such matters, and also because Fa. Parsons his bookes of Titles, are professedly State bookes, and (beeing writ in fauour more of the Spanish faction, then any other) were the more likely to bring affliction vppon Catholikes, (the Spaniardes hauing giuen so often attempt to inuade our Countrey.) Fa. Parsons his dealings with the Studentes in [Page 315] Spaine to come in those Armadoes, are euident proofes of his meaning, and consequently his bookes might be iudged most hurtfull to Catholikes. This author also would perswade his reader, that there was some great matters betweene Master Mush and M. Collington, and others, and that they were discon­tented either with others actions concerning the association, because they had diuers conceits for the proceeding in it: which suspition ought to be taken away from euery indifferent man, that shall vnderstand, that they all came to a conclusion, what was fit to be done, as in all orderly proceedings it falleth out, where diuers men at the first vtter their diuers conceits. M. Mush is also here taxed for his letter to F. Parsons, which is set at the latter end of the English booke, and the matter is made very holy, that a cow should giue a good sope of milke, and kicke it downe afterward with her heeles, and so hauing commended F Parsons for his writings, pertaining to deuotion, and controuersies, for which, and his good will, as I thinke, all the priests doe thanke him, as also for what other good deedes he hath done, and for reward pray to God for him to send him his grace, this author setteth himselfe to answere the English booke entituled, The Copies of certaine discourses, which also is here to be defended: but first this author is to be told, that he doeth ouer lash too much, when fol. 171. hee affirmeth, that neither M. Mush nor his fellowes haue euer written any books concerning deuotion, or controuersies, for they haue written much in both kinds, although they had not that meanes which F. Parsons had, to set them forth: and M. Mush in particular put his pen to paper against M. Bell, now an enemie, as now hee hath done against these factious Iesuits, which haue attempted to trouble Gods Church here in England. This author begin­neth his answere to the English booke with as foolish an ex­ception, as he tooke to the Latine, to wit, that it is said to be prin­ted at Roane: to which the answere is already giuen, as also to that false tale deuised by him, that their bookes were printed vnder my L. of London his protection. The Meditation is as foolish, which he maketh vpon the sentence of Scripture pre­fixed to the English booke, Dicet piger, &c. The slothfull excuse themselues, saying, there is a Lyon in the way: which carrieth his [Page 316] sence with it so plaine, that it needeth no such comment as this fellow maketh; it beeing well knowen, that many priests and lay men doe stand for the Iesuites and Archpriest in this their faction against the priests, which would not if they feared not the like hard measure to that, which is meated to the priests He stumbleth very grossely at the Preface, and the two first letters, with references where his reader should finde them confuted: but there he giueth them small comfort, as may be seene: hee would seeme a little to canuace M. Champneys letter, which fol­loweth, and frameth his aduersary to his minde, finding fault where there was none, as any man may see that wil. That which Ma. Champney calleth an extraordinarie authoritie; this authour turneth it to an extraordinarie dignitie, as if the priests had pre­tended, that they neuer heard of an Archpriest before. Then he commeth on to prooue the absolute authoritie of the Pope, to giue the Priests a Superiour, which the priests did alwayes ac­knowledge, as appeareth by their yeelding vnto it when they saw his Holines Breue, before which time it could not be pro­ued to be his Holines order. That which the priests alledged out of the Canons, was brought to prooue what was the order of Gods Church, which order was broken by the appointing of a Superiour among priests, without their priuitie or con­sent. The letters which are cited in the 8. Chapter to prooue the consent of the priests, or desire to haue a subordination, are there shewed to haue beene written long after the Archpriest was appointed by the Cardinall Caietane. In fine, M. Do. Ely in his notes vpō the Apologie, doth defend M. Champney against this Libeller, in so ample manner, as it were superfluous to say any thing more thereof.

Next vnto M. Champney his letter the priests set F. Parsons his letter to M. B. vpon which there is a censure by M. I. B. which sorely troubleth this good mans patience, especially for that F. Parsons letter is diuided into 24 parts by the censurer, and so (sayth he) leapeth from one to the other, forth and backe, referring you now to this, and now to that, &c. This man knoweth well his owne disease: hee would goe on still, and tell his reader now this, now that, as it commeth into his head, and if his reader should fall to conferring one place of his discourse with ano­ther, [Page 317] then is hee vtterly shamed, his slie trickes are found, his falshood is discouered, his contradiction laid open, and what­soeuer an euill cause needeth to colour it, is shewed to bee in his: yet lest he should seeme to say nothing, he will shew, that there was a contradiction found in F. Par. letter, which he sayth was no contradiction. And how doth he proue this: F. P. saith, that from May to Nouember, is more then halfe a yeere; A iolly wise saying of so graue a father. But where, or when did this said saw passe him? Or how doth this alter the case more then if there were but two daies betweene May, and Nouember? The contradiction was, that F. Parsons said in his letter, that no letter had yet appeared from M. Bishop, or M. Charnocke. And in the same letter he confesseth that hee receiued a stale letter from M. Bishop. The next point for which the censurer deserueth blame is, for that he affirmeth that F. Parsons said, that an hereti­cal proposition was layd to M. Blackwels charge, and would not himselfe affirme so much: he knew nor perchance, what Fa. Parsons meant. F. Parsons said it, and Fa. Parsons must proue it. And whereas it is here said, that M. Bishop affirmed it at Rome, and proued it by a heare-say from M. Charnocke, but M. Char­nocke said nothing of it: I wonder why M. Charnocke was not asked the question, but if it had bene so, Ma Charnocke would haue said so vnasked; And so he must haue done, if he had spo­ken of it: for as it seemeth Fa Parsons had no will to haue the matter brought in question, and as it is to be thought not for a­ny good will he bare either to M. Charnocke, or any of his fel­lowes. This author is also contented to let goe the 21. reasons giuen in the censure for the iustifying of the priests their for­bearance to admit of the authority before the Breue came. His reader must take his word, that he hath assoiled all these dif­ficulties before: he was a cockish scholler, that made them, and there is an ende of a lubberlike answere to the censure, and the 21. reasons contained therein, and to the particulers also, there discouered of the two priests their entertainment in Rome, and what chanced to them there, and afterwards: to wit, the Iesuits and the Proctors inpostures to giue a pious colour to their wicked actions against the two priests.

There followeth lastly (saith this author) the answere of M. [Page 316] [...] [Page 317] [...] [Page 318] Bishop to the same Epistle (F. Parsons letter) contayning two parts: the first about the iustifying the causes of their not yeelding to the Card letters, wherin for that there is nothing singuler from those rea­sons, which his fellowes haue alledged before, and by vs in diuers parts of this Apol. haue bene examined, and shewed to be either false, or feeble, wee passe them ouer in this place. His reader must haue a strong faith that he hath seene wonders in the Apologie; And that he needeth no note in the margent, to direct where any thing hath bene proued false or feeble, he must remember, if he can: if he cānot remember, yet he must make himselfe beleeue, that he doth remember it, or els he shal be accompted among the factious.

The second part treateth of their vsage (saith he) in Rome, where­in diuers particulers are said by him with such passion, as men that knew him before do wonder at him, seeing the contrary may be proued by most authentical testimonies & witnesses yet aliue. But vntil these authenticall testimonies be produced, M. Bishops credit will ouer­passe this authors impostures, why were not these testimonies and witnesses produced? wherefore are they kept, as though they were ashamed to be seene? how could the story of their vsage be set downe more in particuler, then is set down in the books published by the priests? and what one particuler is prooued to be otherwise, then there is said? And as for the exception a­gainst M. Bishop for a passion: that is a most foolish exception; for M. Bishop hauing shewed how falsly he was accused and slandered, vseth these words, pag 174. This fellow miscoun­teth the page, and the sentence. What an irreligious and damnable slander then was that inuented of purpose, to haue vs taken, and shut vp before we were heard, that they might haue the deliuery of our message, and be our interpreters & Proctors, and so make vs say what they listed, and our matter to be such as they would haue it? This fel­low citeth his words in such sort, as if he would haue his reader not onely to thinke, that M. Bishop was in a passion, but out of this sence also, that an irreligious and damnable slander was inuen­ted of purpose to haue vs taken and shut vp before we were heard, &c. As though Ma. Bishop had called his restraint an irreligious and damnable slander. For by this meanes will this author turne a­way his readers conceit from consideration of the slander, to [Page 319] consider onely of the restraint, as if that were the slander men­tioned, which is a most absurd thing. Yet must his reader so conceiue of it, and this author in this 177. leafe (hauing playd some of his old prancks,) concludeth in this maner; How then doe they exclaime, and call this restraint of theirs an irreligious, and damnable slander? But for the iustifying of the restraint, note I pray you, how this author bestirreth himselfe.

But to this (saith he) we aske him (M. Bishop) againe, is this so hainous, or damnable, or vnusuall a matter to restraine a couple of Priests, where so many complaints had bene written of their presump­tion and contempt, and of the scandall raised by their contention, as we haue set downe before? And doth not euery Prince thus to greater men then they are, committing them first, and after hearing their cause? To this question I answere, that the two Priests comming to the Iudge at their great charge, and with great paines (as a winters iourney from England to Rome, will prooue to an in­different man) were not to be thought either that they would runne away, or hide themselues from the Iudge, neither doth any Prince commit any man, that offereth himselfe vncalled to his triall, vnlesse the subiect be such, as the King may feare him, that he will raise strength against him, as may ouerthrow him and iustice. How many do we daily see, that are subiect to the law, euen of life and death, who goe at libertie vpon their friends bonds, that they shall appeare before the iudges at the time appointed, to answere to what shall be pleaded against them? Prisons are onely vsed for such, as of whome there is cause of feare, that they will not come to their triall. these Priests came to Rome voluntarily, and being dealt withall very earnestly by Fa Parsons to returne into England with letters from the generall of the Iesuits and the Protector to the Supe­riour of the Fathers, and the Archpriest (himselfe confesseth in his letter of the 9. of October 1599 which is set in this English booke) it is an argument, that they had no will to start, but to goe forward in the businesse, for which they voluntarily went. But besides all this, whereas this fellowe talketh of in­formations giuen against them, and citeth in the margent, cap. 9. wee haue prooued, that all these letters were written long after that his Holinesse was induced to restraine them: [Page 320] for as there we haue shewed, his Holinesse was resolued vpon the 17. of October to restraine them, and the first letters, which are brought there by this authour, and could concerne the two priests, were not written vntill the 25. of that moneth, & were to goe to Rome to the Protector, and from him backe againe to Ferrara, where his Holinesse lay, and was long before re­solued to restraine the two priests, as the letters of F. Bellarmine (now Cardinall) doe prooue, which are cited by this author in his 9. Chapter 120.

Further (saith this fellow) we would aske them, Were not they heard afterward so much, as they would say or write? No good sir: for when they demanded the copie of the libell which was put vp against them, before the two Cardinals, Caietane and Bur­ghese, by which occasion was giuen them to say and write, they might not haue it. And if their earnestnesse to haue that libel to make their answere, had not bene so great, there would haue wanted matter and cause to haue kept them prisoners after­ward: for this was the cause why M. Bishop was cōmitted againe to prison, for that he was ouer earnest (as they said) in this point: and being demanded why M. Charnocke was also com­mitted, there was no cause giuen but this, that he and M. Bishop were fellowes, and for good fellowship they must be kept a while longer in seuerall prisons close, as they were before, that neither of them might come to the other, but at the Iesuites (who were their Iaylors) pleasure, which within a weeke after this their apparance, were once suffered to salute ech other, and to recreate themselues at such sport as the Students made, but the two priests were garded by the Iesuits M. Bishop was garded by Tremaine, who was Minister, or Vicerector of the College, and F. Tho. Owen, who was the Confessarius in the College, and M. Charnocke was garded by Fa. Parsons and Fa. Tichborne, who was the Prefect of the studies, and then were these caried into the hall, where the Sudents were to recreate themselues, and were set one in the one side of the hall, the other in the other side betweene their gard, for an houre or more, and afterward were committed, as before: but they were tolde, that this was the beginning of their libertie, yet were they kept close priso­ners about sixe weekes after this: and this I haue set downe, as I [Page 321] finde it written in the story, which I haue seene of their vsage, to shew that they were not heard, what they would haue sayd, and written, and that they were committed againe, and kept in prison, because of their earnestnesse to say, and write more then their aduersaries had willed they should. And to this second question, Had they not their papers brought vnto them, to see, reade, and interpret? I answere, that in the time of their examinations, the peticions of the priests, which they caried with them, were brought vnto them to see, and set down in their examinations, what they were, and for what end they brought them, but no o­ther papers were euer brought vnto them, neither could they obtaine to see any of them, after that they were taken frō them, although they stood earnestly to the deniall of some matters, which were sayd to be in their papers, namely where it was said that they brought a paper with them, which was directed vn­to them in England, in this manner, To your L L. of which for­gery there is enough sayd in the censure pag. 127.128. Had they not license (sayth this author) after all examinations made to goe, and speake with his Holinesse if they would? No indeed: For as it is here confessed in the Apologie cap. 9. fol. 134. M. Bishops exa­mination ended 25. Ianuary, and M. Charnockes 4 Februarie, and M. Bishop was not set at libertie, vntil the 22. of April following, nor M. Charnock vntil the sixt of May, to wit, two dayes, or three after that M. Bishop was commanded away from Rome. So that they were neuer at liberty together after that they were im­prisoned, were they abridged of any lawfull iustification, that they would make for themselues, or was euer any petition of theirs, or de­mand not heard, or considered of? Yes marrie Sir: for whosoe­uer did heare of their petitions, and demaunds, or considered of them priuately, it is most certaine, that they were neither suffered to conferre one with another about those matters in which they were ioyned, nor to haue the aduice of any aduo­cate or Lawyer, as they desired, when they were cast into pri­son they knew not why: neither was the exception liked of, which they tooke against the Cardinall Caietane, as being no fit man to be their iudge, in a matter concerning himselfe, to wit, the institution of this authoritie made by him, neither were they suffered to haue the copie of the Libel, when they deman­ded [Page 320] [...] [Page 321] [...] [Page 322] it of the Cardinall Caietane, to make their answere there­unto. And if this were not an abridging of lawfull Iustification, I confesse I know not how a lawfull Iustification may be abrid­ged. And thus with iudgement that the priests will abide no gouernment, he endeth this chapter, and prooueth his suspiti­on out of an answere which M Bishop made, Sunt Sacerdotes, &c. they are secular priests, and will liue freely, as it becommeth priests, and will not be bound to Rules: for this indeed sticketh in the Iesuits stomacks, that they are not esteemed of all men as their Masters, Directors, Lawmakers, and Rulers, and for that cause, vnder pretence of good order, they doe deface all those who will not subiect themselues vnto them. If the priests determine to liue as becommeth priests, they doe as much as belongeth vnto their estate, which if other men would so haue done, these stirres had neuer been in England, howsoeuer they deceiue the ignorant with a false shew of holinesse, and the name of liuing vnder Rule. But now we come to the principal part of all this Apologie, and that is to maintaine Fa. Parsons cre­dit, in which the twelfth chapter is almost all spent.

CHAP. 17. How this Author busieth himselfe to purge Fa. Parsons of his expulsion out of Baliol Colledge at Oxenford and other matters wherewith hee is charged. Apolog. cap. 12.

IN the twelfth chapter this author handleth the accusations (which hee calleth calumniations, and slanders) which he sayth are layd vpon Fa. Parsons without all foundation of trueth, or regard of Christian and priestly modesty: hurtful to the Catho­like cause, and gratefull to the enemie: Such a good conceit hath this author of Fa. Parsons. He will also here set downe a letter of a blessed Martyr, touching one of the chiefe calumniations: which letter he confesseth in the end of the Appendix, he did mistake, and hath for shame pasted on a piece of paper, where els all the world would haue discouered him, to haue beene [Page 323] a most wicked calumniatour: Thus hee beginneth.

By no one thing more doe we thinke our discontented and deceiued brethren, to discouer the lamentable spirit, whereunto they seeme to be giuen ouer at this present, then by their passionate proceeding to­ward this Reuerend religious man, whose merits towards them, and theirs, and vs all are not vnknowen. He might haue added, nor vn­requited in all such sort as honest priests may: who are alwayes ready to discharge themselues in all gratefull manner towards him, or any other, who shall deserue it, which doubtles he doth not, who for lesse then a messe of pottage, looketh for more then a large inheritance, and vnder colour of doing well for some, doth mischiefe to all, and layeth a plot only for his owne preferment: as hath been shewed by the attempts which haue been made by him, and his officers in the Colledges erected by his meanes, where priests and others haue been induced to subscribe to forreine titles, yea and to come in person against their owne countrey: for which in common sense he looked for a reward at their hands, in whose behalf he had thus seduced those, who were vnder his charge: which maketh me marueile more at the boldnes of this fellow in his applying of Scriptures against the priests in the behalfe of Fa. Parsons, especially at his blasphemie, where he sayth that F. Parsons (a most wicked, and sinfull wretch, and in whom it is well knowen there is ouer much possibility to deserue a farre worse death, then stoning) may say with Christ himselfe, and to his imitation, multa bona ope­ra ostendi vobis, propter quod eorum opus me lapidatis? They haue returned me hatred for my loue toward them: they haue hated me with vniust hatred, they haue payed me euill for good, I haue pro­cured them many benefits, for which now they goe about to stone me. And when poore fooles doe see such a conglomeration (to vse his owne word) of Scriptures, they neuer reflect, how the de­uill himselfe, and other to his, imitation doth cite Scripures, and set a better shew of matters, then these men yet haue done, who neuer came to the point of this controuersie, but beare off still. And when they say any thing concerning it, they fetch it so farre off, as a thing done in this moneth, must stay to be thought vpon, by occasions offered many moneths after, as is shewed in the eighth and ninth Chapters which this author [Page 324] here quoteth in the margent for his readers great comfort, and edification: But he will passe to the particulars.

The first particulars are, that Fa. Parsons is called Parsons, alias Cowbucke. And this is taken in very euil part, notwithstan­ding diuers in England are called so alias so. And this being so ordinary a matter in England, many do doubt that this author knoweth some cause, why he should winch at it, as hee doeth. And whereas he saith, that no one of the kinred were euer so called: it is certaine that a brother of his, who liued in a house with M. Brinkly here mentioned fol. 183. was called Cubbucke. And whereas it hath been said, that by occasion of his dealing, in some matters the capitall lawes were made in England, his letters are shewed of the 24 of Ianuary to the Earle of Anguise, which doe testifie how he busied himselfe in State matters, vp­on his first comming into England, although he would cloake his dealing with Religion.

The second imputation (as hee calleth it) that Fa. Parsons came away, is euident, neither is it to be excused by his gene­rall care of the cause: for as the priests say, and M. Do. Ely con­firmeth it in his notes vpon the Apologie, pag. 211. the two el­der Seminaries did send into England more priests, and nouri­shed in them greater numbers of schollers at one time (as hee thinketh) then these new Seminaries with the old now decayed will furnish to send into England in diuers yeeres. And for the number of students, priests, and proper youthes, there were moe for many yeeres together (so long as D. Allen gouerned) in these Seminaries at one time, then are now, or hereafter like to be in all the Seminaries, put them all together. I haue seene (sayth Do. Ely) fiftie priests in one yeere sent out of Rhemes, and yet fiftie other priests remaine in the Colledge st [...]ll. Haue all the Semina­ries so many in them now? no, no. And the Catholicks in Scot­land haue had more increase by the Seminary priests, then by the Iesuits, whatsoeuer this author affirmeth, fol. 185. For the Iesuits taught the Scottish nation how to keepe their consci­ences locked vp, and to goe without any conscience to the pro­testants Churches, as good proofe will be made. But after all Fa. Parsons good deeds, for which (for so much as they may be called good) he hath and shall haue many thankes, this author [Page 325] enlargeth himselfe very farre, when he sayth, that without these good deeds it is like, that the priests had not now bene priests, neither without nor within England. And why so? you shall find that many of them were sent in by him. This is true, and more then a good many haue beene sent by him. And if we would wran­gle with him, wee might say, that he sent some to disgrace the whole body of Secular priests, or els they had neuer ben made priests by him, he being told before such particulars of them, as if hee had had any care of the Church, hee would not haue made them priests. But put the case, that the Seminarie of Rhemes, had not decayed by the erection of the new Semina­ries, why might not these, and many more then now are, be priests, both within and without England? Can this author say so much of all the new Seminaries together with the olde also, as M. Doct. Ely hath testified for that of Rhemes onely? But if this author can deceiue his reader, it is as much as he desireth, which hee thinketh will take best effect, if hee could perswade him, that the Seminaries haue more flourished since F. Parsons going out of England, then before: although nothing so ma­ny priests haue come into England, as did before, according to the rate of the time.

The third accusation against F. Parsons is (sayth this authour) that after his going out of England, hee neuer ceased to exasperate the chiefe magistrates with libels and factious letters.

This accusation dependeth in the proofe vpon the testimo­nie of such, as to whome his letters haue beene shewed: and by his Greenecoat, and such like pamphlets, but especially his booke of Titles, wherein he discouereth his intention for the transla­tion of the crowne of England to the Spaniard, which also his trecherous attempts in Spaine among the students, haue made more manifest, by hauing them to subscribe to that title, and by thrusting them into the inuaders ships: and all which heere is saidin commendation of that booke, is and will be sufficient­ly answered by those, who haue vndertaken to answere it. And thus also is satisfactiō giuen to the fourth matter, against which this author taketh exception, as against a manifest calumnia­tion; for his letters haue ben intercepted and shewed to diuers, although they are not put in print. And in a late booke, enti­tuled, [Page 326] A Manifestation of spirits, there is some feare shewed, that his letter to the Earle of Anguise is intercepted.

The fift calumniation (hee sayth) might be diuided into many parts: But to quit the accusers hee telleth his readers, that the Temporall magistrate doeth not presse the priests, but fauour them rather: which of late is very true, since they haue knowen the difference betweene priests and Statists, although the fa­uour be not so great, as it might be and may be, when her Ma­iestie may be throughly informed of the priests their trueth and loyaltie to her person, crowne, estate, and dignity, yet haue not the priests vsed this little fauor, which they haue had, to the afflicting any of their Catholicke brethren in durance, as here it is most maliciously suggested, but to the comfort of many.

For answere to the sixt accusation against F. Parsons, the rea­der must goe looke in the eight Chapter, whither wee also doe referre the Reader for answere, to what is there brought by this author.

Now followeth a defence of Father Parsons against what is related in the Latine booke of the vsage of the two priests that went to Rome. And this fellow sayth all out of authen­ticall informations. As first that Father Parsons did interteine the two priests kindly in his owne chamber. They confesse they were interteined after a long difficultie. But what authenticall proofe is there, that he did it kindly, or that it was done without difficultie? He told them, that they might not talke with any of the schollers, and no one of the schollers can say, that euer they did talke with any of them, but one, whom M. Bishop was very desirous to see: and he was brought to M. Bishop by the Confessarius of the Colledge, who stood by, and heard al which passed; M. Charnocke did know, that there was one in the Col­ledge, whose mother is his cousen germane, and neuer coueted to talke with him. The quarrell which was against these two priests, was for talking with such as were appointed by Fa. Par­sons to attend them in the hospitall, whereof he, who is here said to be the vertuous priest, was a Iesuit in a Secular priests coat, and shortly after wore a Iesuits coate, and died among them. And the occasion of this talke was ministred by this ver­tuous priest, and it was not of this present controuersie, but a­bout [Page 327] M. Edward Tempest, concerning whom it was said, that he was hardly dealt withall, in regard that such as vsed to inter­taine priests at their first arriuall in England, were perswaded not to intertaine him; And that some of his neerest friends were told, that in conscience they could not relieue him. An other was a ieast, which had chanced about 20. yeeres since in the Colledge of Rome: which because it concerned one, who was chosen in England for an assistant, the matter was taken hainously, yet was the occasion hereof also ministred by tha [...] vertuous priest, and the matter it selfe was but a mery tale. And this is al, which was alledged by F. Owen the Iesuit in the name of F. Parsons, against the two priests: yet doeth this author most shamelesly relate, that the two priests had talked that, which might raise or renew sedition among the schollers. But this, and all which foloweth, is doubtlesse brought in this place, that this author might shew, how he could gall his reader with his owne tale, as an authenticall testimony, for other testimony there is not. That also which is here gainesaid of Cardinal Bellar­mines letter, was said vpon the relation of those who saw it, al­though they haue not the copy to shew. And for so much as concerneth the principall point of F. Bellarmines letter, to wit, the imprisoning of the two priests, it is confessed in his Apologie Cap. 4. fol. 120. out of the same letter. The priests there being imprisoned in the Colledge, is reputed agreat benefit vnto them. They thought it not so, but onely in this respect, that they thought their liues were more in safety in the Colledge, then in a common prison: But in respect of the common cause without doubt it had bene a great preiudice, had they had any hope of iustice. But their hope was small, when they saw that they were to be infamously caried away to prison, before they could get audience. But it troubleth this author much that Fa. Parsons should be termed a Iaylor: especially there being ano­ther, who had the keyes of their chambers to bring them meat, and all other necessaries: but he telleth not who had the keyes all the rest of the day. If F. Parsons had not bene seene to weare them at his girdle, this matter might haue bene somewhat clen­lier caried: but it was too open to be excused.

Next followeth a defence of F. Parsons for his shewing of M. [Page 328] Charnocks handkerchiefs, and night coyfes, which (this author saith) were so wrought with silke, and gold lace, is they might seeme to serue for any Secular prince in the world, and the socks for his feete were of so fine Holland, as the Commissary said he was well assured, that his Holines neuer woare such for his shirts. You must imagine, that this relation is very authenticall, although M. Charnock had neither handkerchiefe, nor night coife, that any Iesuite in Eng­land would vouchsafe to weare, they were so meane: I haue seene the night coife, and it is wrought in deed with silke. For it hath a border of blacke silke about it 3. fingers broad: and all the rest of the cap is plaine Holland, it hath some 6. pennie­worth of gold, and siluer edging, and as many as haue seene the cappe wonder at the impudencie of this Author: who perchance did thinke the cappe would not haue bene kept. The conceit which is made of his handkerchiefes is much more ridiculous. And by the tale of his sockes this Author bringeth into my minde a tale of a preacher, who tolde his pa­rish, that Christ fed fiue hundred with such a small quantity, and being told softly by the Clarke, that they were fiue thou­sand, he bad him hold his peace like a foole, and told him, that if he could perswade the people, that they were fiue hundred, he had done a good dayes worke. I vnderstand that the Com­missary sayd, how that his Holines did not weare so fine cloth in his bands. But this author thought this was too much to be belee­ued, and therefore he set it downe, the Popes shirts. Whereupon (saith he) conferring with M. Charnocke himselfe (in the pre­sence of Fa Parsons and M. Bishop, vpon the 8. of Aprill, when they were to haue the first fauour to speake together, and to walke at libertie in the College at certaine times) when answere was made, that priests now a dayes for dissimulation are forced to vse such things in England: he replied that at the leastwise it was not needefull to bring such strange delicacies to Rome, and that albeit in some externall apparell, dissimulation might be tolerable in English Priests at home in respect of the times, yet in such thinge whereof their vse was onely in secret, as night-coifes, and sockes, and the like, he saw no neede of excesse, or dissimulation. And this was all that passed in this matter, vpon the faith of such an honest man, as writ this Apologie. But now sir, one tale is tolde, the other is not told: [Page 329] which is that M. Charnockes answere was to this effect, that Priests traueiling vp & down in England, were to vse such things as were fit for such persons, as they bare in their trauaile, espe­cially when they lay not in Catholike houses, where they were knowen, but in common Innes, where neither night-coifes, not socks were vsed in secret. And for his bringing those things to Rome, his answere was, that hee had necessary vse of them at his comming out of England, & making account to returne againe, he had little reason to throwe those things away, after that they had the first time serued him. And if it had pleased them at Rome to haue left his Truncke vnsearched, the cap had neuer ben seene in Rome. And M. Bishop being requested to say what he knew of this strange delicacie, affirmed that he had neuer seene it before. But if M. Charnocke had either worne it by the way, as he trauailed in England to the sea coast, or at sea, where he was not knowen, nor willing to be knowen for such as hee was, what an absurd exception was this, that he did bring such things to Rome, as though he ought to haue cast them away? But this fellow careth not what halfe tales he telleth, to make his Reader beleeue any thing, which might any way tend to the discredite of a Priest.

The long tale which this author telleth of Fa. Parsons depar­ture from Oxford I will omit: because it runneth into many particulars, of which I haue no knowledge. But the trueth is, he was expelled, and the bels were rong at Magdalene College for his expulsion. And this authour his charging the fellowes with the breach of oath, when they made knowen his expul­sion, is very ridiculous.

The causes of his expulsion I omit to set them downe in this place, as they are deliuered vnto vs: onely this I note, that it was not for religion, howsoeuer he might haue an inclination thereunto, and might be the worse liked of therefore by some: for of this imputation or slander (as he called it) he offered to a Gentleman of the Temple to cleare himselfe by oth. But when the fellowes proceeded to his expulsion, and no man stood for him, hee requested that he might resigne: to which the fel­lowes yeelded. Then did he write in this manner: Ego Robertus Parsonus socius Collegij de Baliolo, resigno omne meum ius, titulum, [Page 330] & claimeum, quem habeo vel habere potere, societatis mea in dicto Collegio, quod quidem facio sponte, & coactus die decimo tertio men­sis Februarij, Anno Domini 1573. I Robert Parsons, fellow of the Colledge of Balioll, resigne all my right, title, and claime which I haue, or may haue, of my fellowship in the same College: which I doe of mine owne accord and compelled thereto the 13. of February, in the yeere of our Lord, 1573. This being done, he made request that this might be kept secret for a time, and that he might keepe his chambers and scholers as a fellow of the house, which was also granted vnto him: and thereupon was this decree written as followeth. Eodem tempore decretum est vnanimi consensu Magi­stri & reliquorum sociorum, vt Magister Robertus Parsonus nuper­rimè socius retineat sibi sua cubicula, & scholares quousque volucrit, & communia sua de Collegio habeat vsque ad festum Paschatis imme­diatè sequentis: That is, It is dereed at the same time by the gene­rall consent of the Master, and the rest of the fellowes that M. Robert Parsons late fellow, doe retaine his chambers and schollers, as long as he will, and haue his commons of the College, vniill the feast of Easter next following. But F. Par. perceining shortly after that his knell had bene rung at Magdalene College, and how he was mocked by some in the house, he left the College and went to London, where he conferred with a Gentleman of the middle Temple about his trauaile to studie phisicke, to whom hee offered to take his oath, that he was slandered with the name of a Papist, and that hee neither was a Papist, nor euer meant to be one. But withall this is to be noted that this authour appealing fol. 193. to the Registers of Balioll colledge: the Registers haue bene sought, and there is some little difference in the words of the Resignation: for where we haue cited it sponte & coactus, now there is a dash through &, and this word non, writtē ouer head, a manifest signe of some false dealing. For it is not likely that & in that place would haue bin written for non: it maketh a cleane contrary sense. Neither is the obiection well solued fol. 197. which brought F. Parsons in suspition of bastardie: for there are diuers, who confirme as much as the priests said: that is, that it was the common opinion through out the whole Countrey. His quar­rels with diuers of his order, and others, will be iustified: and the letter of M. Benstead will also be prooued to be falsified. But [Page 331] the patch which is clapped vpon the 201. lease, argueth how forward these fellowes are to discredite the priests with most false and scandalous imputations, when they themselues are ashamed thereof. That which concerneth M. D. Bagshaw is to be answered by himselfe: who no doubt knoweth in what cases doubtfull answeres and equiuocations are to be made to cu­rious questions: neither is it to be thought, that he disallowed thereof, but onely of the liberty which is in the Iesuites, and their adherents, in all their dealings with other men, through which all confidence is taken away among men, as not know­ing what senses these fellowes will alleage, that they had in their speeches and actions.

CHAP. 18. How the Secular priests appealing to Rome, and going to his Holinesse for iustice against the vniust slanders of the Ie­suits and their adherents are falsly, and with great igno­minie to the Sea Apostolike, compared by this Apologie­maker to Alcymus and to Simon, who went to Deme­trius and Apolonius, heathen persecutors of Gods peo­ple and his priests. Apol cap. 13.

IN the 13. Chapter this Authour vseth gentle perswasions to his discontented brethren, and proposeth certaine considerations, and a better way for reunion againe, as he supposeth. In the first consideration occurreth nothing worthy noting, his rayling speeches excepted, & hudling vp of scrip­tures one vpon another, against the disobedient to their Supe­riours, which concerneth the priests nothing at all, who neuer disobeyed their knowen Superiours, but alwayes submitted themselues vnto them, as it is manifestly prooued in all their bookes, and more at large in M. Collingtons booke, and in M. D. Ely his notes vpon the Apologie. He maketh a recapitulation of some matters in the same false vaine, in which he writ this A­pologie, as is sufficiently discouered in this answere to the places [Page 332] quoted by him: and in the same kind is his second considera­tion, imputing the iust defence of the priests from the Iesuits imposture of schisme, and other grieuous sinnes to emulation, hatred, pride, reuenge, libertie, and other his owne, and his fel­lowes humours.

In the third consideration he doeth explicate himselfe, how the priests dealt with the Counsell, and his first tale soundeth so shamefully false, as it were ynough to conuince an indiffe­rent man, that this author had no honestie, nor care of his cre­dit. And doubtlesse had there not bene a great dearth of pa­per, this place should haue had a patch vpon it, as was put vpon that malitious, and wicked glose against the same man, and his fellowes fol. 201. Note I pray you, the impudencie of this fel­low. First (saith he) as before you haue heard (and in the margent he quoteth the 10. and 12. Chapters) as soone as euer they vnder­stood, that their two messengers were restrained in Rome, and not like to preuaile, then D. Bagshaw was sent for from Wisbich to London, to treat with the Counsell, &c. Could this man perswade himselfe, that euery mans wit was a woolgathering, when this doctour was sent for from Wisbich, and that no man would re­member, how that this sending for him was about Michaelmas, or not long after, and that the two messengers were not restrai­ned in Rome, vntill the Christmas after? This fellow his affirma­tion that M. Bluet had conference with the Bishop of London, Counsell, and Queene her selfe, for the printing and publish­ing of these Libels (as he termeth them) said to bee printed at Roane, is most false. For these bookes were not printed by any such meanes, but at the charge of the priests, and in most secret maner. And their charge was double in regard of the Printers danger; And this probable reason might satisfie an indifferent man, that there want not as good Printers in England, as are in Roane, and yet the bookes are full of faults. And if the bookes had bene printed by any such license, they would haue had more skilfull Printers, and not haue had so many, and so grosse escapes, euident arguments of the Printers insufficiencie. This authors relation also, that vpon M. Bluets conference with the Bishop, &c. there was a generall search for taking of Catholicks, such as neuer lightly before hath bene heard of, is to be conuinced [Page 333] of great impudencie, in that the most busie Agents of the Ie­suits and the Archpriest, in the furthering of their seditious at­tempts, were neuer called vpon or searched: whereas contrary­wise the houses where the priests friends remained, were curi­ously searched, which was a greater argument, that the Iesuits, and their faction caused the search, then M Bluet or any of his fellowes. And this is euident by recounting the chiefe of the faction of the Iesuits, & Archpriest, who dwelled then in Lon­don, and were so farre from the danger of being searched or ta­ken, as they were not broken of their sleepe, or any way mo­lested, vnlesse it were by the Officers their reuell in other mens houses. The story also of the discouery of their (the priests) print and bookes, but all restored againe with celeritie, and fauour, is both false, and exceeding foolishly heere inserted. False in that the priests neuer had any Print, but to their double, yea treble charge, and by great friendship of a gentleman got their books printed, they themselues neither know where, nor by whom, but as it should seeme by some meane, and needy Printer, who in consideration of being well payd, aduentured to print them. Neither was any of their books at that time in the presse, or in any Printers hands, nor euer needed any restoring, either with celeritie, or fauour. I vnderstand, that about the same time the Iesuits had a presse taken, and many bookes, which were re­stored againe vnto them, but this was not in London, nor by oc­casion of this search. But by this may be seene the falshood of this fellow. Now it remaineth, that his folly also be shewed This search (he saith) was an effect of M Bluets conference with the Bishop of London, the Counsell and Queene her selfe, as the printing was, and publishing of their bookes. Is it likely that the printing, and publishing of these bookes could be a cleare effect of M. Bluets conference with these, and that the Print was subiect to be taken, and the books also? Could neither the B. of London, nor the Counsel, no not the Queene herselfe protect the Print and the books, not onely from being discouered, but from being taken away also, that they should need to be resto­red againe? this search being also a cleare effect of the same conference with the Bishop, Counsell, and Queene herselfe. How doeth he forget himselfe? how grossely doeth he com­bine [Page 334] his matters together? He must also tell his Reader, that the Bb. of London had M. Bluet to his house at Fulham for fuller conference, making him good cheare, as though the Bishop of London his table were not ordinarily to entertaine a greater man then M. Bluet, or that M. Bluet were of their disposition, for whom must alwayes be an extraordinary prouision, for reue­rence to their fatherhoods. Master Bluet was also suffered to goe where hee would without a Keeper. And what harme was this? I haue not heard of any summes of money which the Bb should giue vnto him for any purpose, as this author suggesteth. But if it had beene so, yet whatsoeuer this author would haue his reader imagine, he cannot prooue that M. Bluet hath employ­ed himselfe in any euill office. This most wicked impostor doth furthermore labour, to haue his reader to make no better con­ceit of M. Bluet and his fellowes, then of Tirrell or Bell, a couple of knowen enemies: yea a farre worse, seeing (sayth this im­postor) that neither Anthony Tirrell, nor Thomas Bell, nor o­ther (he meanes perchance some of his fellow Apostataes Ie­suits, that haue precipitated themselues in this time of persecu­tion) did euer engage themselues further with the Councell, then these men seeme to haue done. And how doeth this companion prooue this? Forsooth, by a letter of M. Bluets (as he sayth) of the first of Iuly vnto M. Mush, to which letter there is this sub­scription, Yours Thomas Bluet: and yet the letter speaketh thus of M. Bluet, as if he were not the Inditer thereof. I haue obtai­ned by opening the cause vnto their honours, and to Cesar, that foure principall men shalbe banished after a sort to follow the Appeale, D. Bagshaw, Bluet, Champney, & Barnley: would M. Bluet haue written in this sort to any man, and haue set his name to the letter, as from himselfe? But marke, I pray you, what followeth: all prisoners, they shall be here with me on Wednesday next. And af­terwards hee followeth on in the same kinde, speaking of the same men. A moneth they shall haue within the Realme of libertie, to ride abroad for money among their friends, and then chuse their port to be gone, with some countenance, &c. And after all this clo­king himselfe, as if hee writ not the letter, but some other, his name is put to it, as is said, Yours Thomas Bluet. Many wayes are sought by this companion to bring Master Bluet and the other [Page 335] priests, into an euill opinion with all Catholikes, and many in­terpretations are made of the cōtents in this letter. But among all the rest, I wonder how the Iesuits come to be talked of: I haue layd the fault (sayth this letter) where it ought to be, and proo­ued that the Secular priests are innocent for the most part, &c. This companiō in his commentary, expoundeth these words, where it ought to be, in this manner, that is to say, vpon the Iesuits. And why so? what haue the Iesuits at any time done, that no sooner can any mention be made of a fault, but euery silly fellowe can interprete, what is meant thereby, to wit, some fact of a Iesuite? haue they so badly behaued themselues in all mens opinion, yea in their owne, as no fault can be, but a Iesuit must be at one end? But this companion would haue his reader haue a con­ceit, that this their fault might be the defence of Catholike re­ligion, as though Ma. Bluet (whose letter this is said to be) did esteeme that a fault. Is he not full fraught with most wicked ma­lice, that would driue such a conceit into his readers head, a­gainst a venerable priest, and one who hath suffered in the de­fence of the Catholicke faith, before any Iesuite dared to come neere vnto England, for all those proud vaunts that they were the men specially raised by God, to ouerthrow Luther and his followers? What M. Watson did in Scotland, he is to answere it himselfe: but doubtlesse he was not employed thither in any such affaires, as this author affirmeth, by any of the priests He hath spent time there (as other priests haue) to represse that wicked doctrine of the Iesuits, that a man might locke vp his conscience, after that he had heard masse, and then goe to the protestants Churches. Neither doe wee knowe what meaning any of those had to deale with the French king in any State matters whome this author so taxeth. Hee who is so well ac­quainted with meanings, wil perchance in his larger Apologie tell vs more newes thereof. The stories of Alcimus and Simon, and others, who went to Demetrius and Apollonius, and others here named, can haue no place here, vnlesse this companion doe compare his holinesse vnto Demetrius, as hee compareth the priests to Aleimus and Simon. For all the world is a witnesse for the Priests, that they went to Pope Clement the 8. to seeke for iustice, and that they sought not to any other for iustice in the [Page 336] controuersie betweene the Iesuites and them: although they sought their princes fauour, which they might lawfully doe, and desire to enioy it, as the Catholiques in the primitiue Church haue sometime done: and doe pray vnto God duely for her prosperous raigne: and that God will incline her heart to haue compassion vpon such her most loyall and faithful sub­iects, as haue heretofore most vniustly ben condemned for the euill practises of a few busie fellowes.

The fourth consideration cōsisteth of twelue special points, which I feare will lie heauy vpon their soules, who are guilty of these stirres. The priests make no doubt of the iustice of their cause. And while this matter doth hang in question, this Apo­logie, well considered, and aduisedly read, doth it selfe very much preiudice their cause, in whose defence it pretendeth to be written: If it shall be hereafter iudged that the priests were schismatikes, because they did not accept of the new authority, before they saw a Breue from his Holines, without doubt they haue much to answere for. But if contrariwise it shalbe iudged, that they were not schismatikes, then must the Iesuits and their adherents be the men, who haue been the cause of all the euill which hath come vpon this slander raised by them against the priests: And vpon this also dependeth the fift consideration: for if it be proued, that the Iesuites and their adherents did iniurie the priests in so high a degree, and a publique infamie of schisme &c. then will it not auaile them to say, that the priests should haue considered, that it was a time of persecution, and that they shuld haue suffred this infamie, rather then haue stirred in their own defence. If this doctrine of his might passe currant in tem­poral warres, there would indeed quickly be an end therof: for by this rate euery mā that is wickedly inclined, might murther his fellow without any contradiction, for feare of endangering the campe, if the vniustly assaulted should seeke to defend him­selfe. This companion should haue remembred that the priests sent to his Holinesse, to whom it belonged to determine this controuersie, and that they haue not stirred in any thing, more then in procuring that the quarrell might come to his hearing: For which purpose they iudged it most necessary, to make the world acquainted therewith, hauing once before bene frustra­ted [Page 337] thereof, by reason of their ouer great confidence in the iu­stice of their cause onely.

In the sixt consideration this authour taketh his pleasure in discrediting the priests, who would not consent, that the Iesuits, the Archpriest, with the rabblement of their most wicked, and seditious adherents, shall esteeme of them, as of schismatikes, soothsayers, Idolaters, Ethnickes, and Publicanes: And he would perswade his Reader, that they are not onely few in number, but greene in credit, without scruple of conscience what they vtter; and therefore not to be trusted in matters which concerne the liues, states, and honors of men, who shall fall out with them: yea his Reader must vnderstand, that those who haue yeelded to the enemie in one or two steps, could neuer go backe againe, but must yeeld in greater matters, and discouer all they knowe against their brethren, if not more. He speaketh as clerklike, as if he had sear­ched the greatest secrets of his factious adherents, which will one day perchance come foorth, and the parties named who haue done asmuch, as he mentioneth. But as for the appel­lant priests, he cannot charge them iustly, that they haue yeel­ded in any such thing. If any priest hath yeelded any further, then to thinke himselfe highly fauoured, that there hath beene notice taken of his faith, and loyalty towards his Prince and countrey; let the priest be made knowen, and he shal be estee­med of accordingly by the priests: and if no man haue yeelded in any other matter, then is the Apologie-maker a notorious wicked imposter.

The last consideration is of the necessitie of vnion (which is handled with exhortations vnto it: and disswasions from di­uision) and of the facilitie of making it againe among vs, and to shew, that there is a great facilitie, he will aske his discon­tented brethren that shew themselues so mightily inraged, what is there which they would haue in this matter? who vexeth, or vrgeth them so, as they may not liue quietly if they would? A couple of rea­sonable questions, and therefore this answere is made vnto them. First they would haue that, which the Iesuits, the Arch­priest, and all their seditious adherents are bound vnder paine of eternall damnation to perfourme: that is, that these doe [Page 338] make restitution vnto the priests, for those most wicked slan­ders of Schisme, sedition, rebellion &c. which are contained in Father Lister the Iesuites booke, and their owne most ma­litious stomackes, without any iust cause giuen vnto them by the priests. Secondly they haue prooued, that the Iesuites and Archpriest (with all the seditious followers) doe vexe them so much, as in them lieth, and doe vrge them so, as they cannot liue quietly by them: but in euery corner there is some of this sedition to warne all good Catholikes to flie them, not to giue them any entertainement, or reliefe. And all this is to driue them either to perish, or to belie their owne soules, with the great dishonour both of God, and his Church. And as for the Archpriests good nature, here specified, it is very ridiculous. He recalled his Censures, when the priests sub­mitted themselues vpon the sight of his Holinesse Breue, which censures he had vsed against three priests, because they had appealed from him to the pope (as it is set downe in the booke to the Inquisition:) And I doubt not but that the Archpriest would be as glad now, that all were well accorded, as he was at the first attonement, and be as ready perchance to breake out againe, as then hee was: as it is prooued in the bookes to his Holinesse, and to the Inquisition, neither is there any man, that is in his wittes, but will thinke that the Iesuits and Archpriest would haue peace: that is, power to vse the Se­cular priests at their pleasure, and that the priests should suf­fer all manner of indignities both in fame, and otherwise, and not to stirre for anie thing, which may be done against them: least the Iesuites peace be broken, which they loue so deare­ly, and cloake it with extraordinary pietie in this place fol. 221: where they are sayd to haue stoode with the Archpriest and the rest in defence of his Holines ordination, as though the priests had euer resisted his Holines ordination, and not ra­ther yeelded themselues presently at the sight of the Breue, be­fore which, there was no Popes ordination. And to this the Iesuites their standing in defence of his Holinesse ordination, are ioyned most absurd positions of their desire not to med­dle in the priests affaires: whereas it hath beene shewed, that [Page 339] they haue been the chiefe of this sedition against the priests. And their interpretation, that their dealing proceedes of loue, is to men of vnderstanding an argument of a factious disposition, and desiring of gouerning all sortes of people, whosoeuer must play the Apes part, to take away the enuie for their misdeedes from them. They intend not (sayeth hee) to preiudice them in any preferment for the time present, or to come. Hee were worse then madde, that would trou­ble himselfe with our Iesuites intentions, which varie as often as their tongues moue, and turne their intentions to serue best their owne turnes. Let the Iesuites their hinde­rance of all our nation beyond the Seas from al promotion, speake for their intentions: since that no place, or prefer­ment there can be had, without degrees in schooles, which they haue induced his Holinesse to debarre all the En­glish nation, vnder this other intention, that young men must not take the degrees, when they depart from the Se­minaries.

And that their intention may be the more euident, that they will hinder euery mans preferrement, they haue put into the Popes Breue a barre not onely for the proceeding in Diuinitie, the knowledge whereof they haue now also cleane taken out of the Colledge at Doway: but in either of the Lawes also Ciuill, or Canon: which are not taught in any of our Seminaries. Yet must all their intentions bee most excellent, and must not be thought to preiudice any for the time present, or to come. As for the time to come, were it in their hands to preiudice any man, all their prote­stations, and oathes would carie little credite but with such as know them not. In which as in all other their dealings, especially in this action the priests doe most willingly for­giue them their falshood, and doe pray for them, that God will giue them and their adherents his grace to amende, what they cannot chuse but see is amisse in themselues. To which they may make a good steppe, if they will enter in­to their owne consciences, and consider of what great scandals, and harmes in Gods Church they haue beene [Page 340] a very faulty occasion, by that most wicked imputation of schisme to most Catholicke priestes, and their obdurate standing in that sinfull opinion, without admitting any e­quall triall of the cause in question, which the priests did offer in most humble wise, before they tooke the course that now they take, and was onely left vnto them, to cleare themselues of so dam­nable a slander.

¶ A REPLY TO THE Appendix of the Apologie, by J. B.

THE author of the Apologie hauing seene other two bookes beside those, against which he writ his Apologie, maketh an an­swere (such as it is) vnto them, which an­swere he calleth, An Appendix to the A­pologie by the Priests that remaine in due obe­dience to their lawfull Superior. As though an Appeale made from a superior vpon iust causes, and a law­full prosecution thereof could not stand with due obedience. But somewhat must be said, and if it haue no pith in it, as euery in­different reader will soone discouer that want in this Appen­dix, it must be ouercharged with bigge words, which the blinde obedient must imagine would not haue bene vttered without iust cause, although they see none.

After a long conflict then (as it should seeme) in this author, whether hee should take notice of these two latter bookes, to which he hath made it knowen (both in this Ap­pendix, and other two scurrilous Libels set out since this Appen­dix came forth) that he cannot make any answere, he hath ad­uentured to say somewhat of them, and that it might not bee made too apparant to the world, how little the poore man had to say herein, hee stuffeth these few leafes with exceptions a­gainst those bookes, to which he pretended an answere in his Apologie, & enlargeth himselfe somewhat by way of a preface, wherein he telleth his reader, how vnwillingly he put his pen to [Page 342] paper for the defence of our Superiors, and their lawfull doings, and proceedings against the intemperate impugnations by tumult, and Li­bels of a few discontented brethren, &c. And no man can but be­leeue him, that it was sore against his will, that he had such cause as he had to vse his pen, although he neuer made daintie of his paines and pen, where hee thought he might discredit those priests, which he could not bring to his lure. And as for the priests their doings or proceedings, they haue shewed themselues ready to giue accompt thereof, and to proue both the lawfulnesse, and the necessitie, which was in withstanding the exorbitant proceedings of such, as hauing neither any Christian wisdom, nor honestie, abused our Superiors, and pro­cured that al the priests should be brought into these streights, to wit, either to yeeld to the wicked designes of others, or to be made infamous all the world ouer. And to this effect was the treatise of schisme written by the Iesuits, and sent abroad not onely in England, but into remote places beyond the seas, to perswade such as would be blinde, that Catholike priests, who had liued in a long & most dangerous persecution for defence of the sea Apostolike, were now become schismaticks, and why? because they did not, contrary to the lawes of Gods Church, yeeld their obedience to a creature of the Iesuits, intruded vp­on them as their Superior, without any warrant from the Sea Apostolike, which hath commanded that no such superior be accepted, without a speciall warrant, or letters from the same Sea, as may be seene in that extrauagant of Pope Boniface the 8. Iniunct. de electione, and was afterward extended by Iulius the 3. to such as is our present Prelacie. And all the scandall which hath growne out of this contention, must be answered by those who most iniuriously did driue the priests to so hard a choice, and if the priests haue in the prosecution of their iust defence bin assisted by such, as in some other respect do disclaime from them, and other their actions, the Iesuits and their adherents cannot so cary it away, with saying that they haue combined themselues in secret with the knowen enemies and aduersaries of our Catholicke faith. But they must proue, that they haue made an vnlawfull combination, it being euident to the world, that there may be as wicked and vniust combinations betweene [Page 343] men of the same religion, as betweene men of diuers. And as it hath bene answered before, the priests haue iustified and clea­red themselues sufficiently, by their apparance at Rome, from all suspition of euill dealing, or other combinations, then which Catholike priests might make, and thinke themselues infinite­ly beholding to their gouernours, that they are accepted of by them in that degree in which they are. But listen how faire as false a tale he telleth his reader.

The Apologie therefore (sayth this author) written by vs, was to stay somewhat this violent course (if it might be) by laying open quietly and modestly the true grounds of all these stirres and pertur­bations, and that not by inuectiues, exaggerations, or inuentions of our owne, as our brethrens books doe, but rather by calme, gentle, and modest narration, yea with the greatest loue and compassion of our hearts; alledging alwayes most authenticall proofes for that we say, speaking also the same in the best and most temperate maner we could, and pretermitting many things that might be more odious, if they had beene vttered: and of this wee make Iudges the readers themselues, that shall haue perused the same, or may hereafter. It is very strange that indifferent readers cannot see any of this in the Apologie. If we shall trust to M. Doct. Ely, to whom the Apologie was sent by a principall man of the Iesuits faction to be read, wee shall finde by the notes which hee made thereupon, that the true grounds of all these stirres, are not handled in the Apologie, but a foule stirre made with much impertinent stuffe, full of inne­ctiues, exaggerations, and inuentions of his owne, and his fellow partners in this businesse, and no proofes, but a fewe of their owne letters (a most ridiculous manner of proceeding) where­as the priests haue brought their proofes out of the originals of their aduersaries letters and writings published by them: and this dealing is also discouered in the reply to the Apologie, how this authour in most intemperate manner, and most odious termes, seeketh the disgrace of the priests for want of other meanes to wrecke himselfe vpon his aduersaries, who haue laid too sure and firme a foundation for him to mooue: and vn­lesse a man will be most wilfully blind, hee may very well per­ceiue the distemperature of this brainsicke companion, where he tearmeth the priests, children of iniquitie, libertines, and char­geth [Page 344] them with ambition, enuy, hatred, contention, malice, prink, malediction, and other like. His contemptible speeches also doe argue little modesty in him: but if he should say, that he had writ­ten no Apologie at all, his absurd faction must beleeue him, al­though they see him write it, and haue it in their hands: so reli­gious are our newe illuminated Catholikes become, if their guide tell them the tale.

But now (sayth he) since the writing of the sayd Apologie, some other matters haue fallen out, which doe inuite vs to write againe: and what are those? forsooth, our discontented brethren haue set foorth two other books, and put them also in print, intituling the one, The hope of peace, by laying open such manifest vntrueths, as are diuulged by the Archpriest, &c. Consider you how full of hope this way may be to peace. I haue considered of it, and I iudge it a most effectuall meane for peace to haue falshood discouered, and the doubts or difficulties laide open, which were before shuffled vp in such sort, as the stirres brake forth againe pre­sently after, without giuing so much respite, as to say there was a peace concluded. The other in Latine, whose title beginneth thus, Relatio compendiosa turbarum, &c. A compendious rela­tion of troubles, &c. But now good sir, what of these? wherein doe these two bookes trouble you? will you heare his griefe? he hath tolde you so many idle tales in his answere to the two former bookes, that hee hath none left to bestow vpon the an­swere to these, and therefore hee will make quicke worke with them: and to beguile his deuoted the more cunningly, he be­ginneth to tell them a tale of a Breue of the 17 of August 1601. which he pretendeth here, that hee had not seene it when hee writ this Preface: yet he would not but his reader should con­ceiue, that he was very perfect in it, for he declareth, that there is a full decision of the cause in controuersie, determining all points, that haue beene, or may be in question among vs, or betweene our bre­thren, and their Superiour, or any bodie else. But as yet could no man euer say, that the priests were cleered from schisme there­by, or condemned as schismatickes, and how then are all points determined, that haue bene, or may be in question? or how are any matters determined, which were put vp in the appeale to his Holinesse? nay the appeale it selfe is not admitted, although [Page 345] the Archpriest did that, which his Holines could not without griefe relate, as these words of the Briefe import: Quod dolen­tes referimus: neither is there any one worde of the Iesuites, or their disorders once touched, but in a very fauourable manner: that most wicked and seditious libell, which they writ against the priests, is onely suppressed; and herein doe some of them most insolently glory.

This Breue also is prooued in this preface both by the date thereof, and otherwise that it was gotten by the information of the one part only, and how then could any controuersie be en­ded as it ought to be? for it beareth date 17. of August 1601, which was long before that the priests arriued at Rome, al­though they were there long before they were bound to ap­peare in the prosecution of their appeale, as all men know, who know any thing in the common lawes, which allow two yeeres to the Appellants: and when his Holinesse wrote the same (as though his Holinesse wrote it) he had not vnderstood (saith this author) of any of those scandalous bookes written, and printed partly before, and partly since by our discontented brethren. If then he nei­ther spake with the appellants, nor did see any of their bookes dedicated to himselfe, or the holy office of the Inquisition, by whom could he be informed in their affaires? or can any man of sense imagine, but that there was most vnchristianlike dea­ling, that his Holinesse must be perswaded to shuffle vp mat­ters of so great moment in our Church, to whome were pre­sented in the priests their appeale most euident proofes of the Iesuites, and the Archpriest their disorders, in the managing of our Church affaires? And as for the style, in which his Ho­linesse is sayd to haue written this latter Breue, we leaue it to o­thers to scan, who haue list thereto, and can vnderstand how great the iniuries haue bene and are still offred vnto Catholike Priests, without any one word of satisfaction to be made ther­fore to them, who haue bene iniured: and let men of learning, who haue read, or hereafter may read the priests their bookes to his Holinesse and the Inquisition, iudge whether it was not most necessary for the priests, to publish in their owne defence: and the priests will not be their owne Iudges, whether they haue done, or doe still, as they may in conscience doe, in pub­lishing, [Page 346] vntill their fame be restored (which was vniustly taken away by the Iesuites in their seditious treatise of schisme, and the Archpriest his pretended resolution from Rome) and the con­trouersie decided, which hath bene the cause of all these trou­bles: for vntill this matter be fully ended, and the Catholikes satisfied, that the priests did as become Catholike priests to doe, there will be hope, that his Holinesse will not debarre the priests of such meanes as the lawe of Nature alloweth them, in the purging of themselues of such crimes, as their si­lence must needes argue a guiltinesse in, and their owne con­sciences tell them, they must (vnder grieuous sinne) free them­selues from them. But marke I pray you, what deuises this fel­low doth vse, to haue the priests forget the abuses, which were offered vnto them by the Iesuites, and their faction.

And for himselfe (his Holinesse) seeing that the chiefe com­plaint and offence and petra scandali (as it seemed) was about the name of schisme and schismatikes, he is saide to haue taken that wholly away in this cause, both the matter, and name it selfe. See how he would haue his reader to thinke, that this controuer­sie was about certaine names, as though there was neuer any reall schisme laid to their charge. Were the Iesuits such blocks, as that they would for certaine names exclaime in this manner against the Secular priests, Harken, O ye factious, ye are rebels, ye are excommunicated, ye are fallen from the Church, ye are nothing better then Soothsayers and Idolaters, and as Ethnickes and Publi­tanes, besides the terrours of eternall damnation? Were the Catholikes so barbarous, that for certaine names, they would in this time of persecution thrust Catholike priests out of their doores, and some with most impudent faces, some like eaues-droppers runne, or creepe about, to diswade the Catholikes from harbouring them, or giuing them any maintenance? But let vs see how his Holinesse is said to take away the name, and matter it selfe, in this Breue: forsooth, forbidding any bookes, trea­tises, or writings to be made, read, or held thereof, and about that con­trouersie. This is a faire taking away of a matter: let vs then suppose, that there be no more bookes, treatises, or writings made, read, or held hereof, and about that controuersie: I aske whether the Priests were schismatikas or no: or what is this af­ter-prouidence, [Page 347] or order to the purpose, for matters past? If the priests had bene as wickedly disposed, as the Iesuites, and had procured an infamy to haue runne farre and neere against them without iust cause, as this of Schisme against the priestes hath bene prooued to haue bene most vniustly spread abroad, how could they thinke themselues cleared of any such slander only by an after-suppressing thereof? or how could they thinke that thereby any satisfaction were made vnto them? But glad­ly would this authour haue it so, that the priestes being asked the cause of these present stirres, might be debarred of giuing the true cause thereof: for then might their aduersaries iustly triumph against them as troublesome people, and clamarous, and that they had busied themselues they knewe not why, or wherein. Had these Iesuites, and their adherents halfe that va­lor in them, which they would be thought to haue, they would not for very shame indent with their aduersarie, that he must come to the field without his armes, and themselues armed from the head to the foot: or were they men of that wisedome, of which their followers take them to be, they wold neuer haue committed so great a folly, as to leaue no other hope of helpe for themselues, then to procure that their aduersarie must bee forbidden to pleade for himselfe. If it be true (as their Libels will prooue it) that they accused Catholike priests of schisme, why should any priest be afraid to say, that he was in such ma­ner accused? And if for quietnesse sake the name must be auoi­ded, why for quietnesse sake should not the course be altered, which was taken against Catholike priests, when the Catholike Laitie was in that manner seduced by the Iesuites, to vse that sinfull name, when they named or spake of Catholike Priests? But it is no matter perchance, howe priests be abused by the new illuminated, so that they be not hereafter named Schisma­tickes, and therefore this authour professeth, that he procured to auoid it in his Apologie, though not knowing of this expresse pro­hibition. For (saith he) indeede the thing it selfe did euer mislike, and grieue vs. Weladay, weladay, what thing was that which misliked and grieued you? was it the wickednesse which was committed in the slandering so many Catholike priestes, as would not (contrary to the Canons of holy Church, and vpon [Page 348] many iust reasons) sacrifice to an Idoll, who how well soeuer it was meant vnto him, by him who had authority, had not­withstanding no authority at that time, at which he challenged it, as hath bene euidently proued in the priests their bookes? did you euer mislike that Catholike priests should be contem­ned, and dispised by euery factious and seditious companion, who vpon hope of some gaine thereby, would fit your eares, yea and your hearts with a placebo, without any regard of them, to whom they owed loue, and duetie? harken I pray you, what it was, which misliked, and grieued this fellow, that so much contention, and falling out should be about a matter in the aire, where no man was named in particular. This then was it which grieued this good fellow, that the priests would not be called, and vsed like Schismaticks, but would proue themselues to be Catholike priests, and to haue discharged themselues in all points, as be­came Catholike priests.

But this seemeth very strange, that Schisme (against which there are so grieuous lawes in Gods Church, and against which F. Lyster the Iesuit and his fellowes, the Archpriest and all his faction inueyed so bitterly, and seduced the Laity in such sort, as they did as it were schismatically make a diuision in prayer, and communication, and Sacraments euen from their dearest friends, and vsed themselues most ingratefully toward their spi­rituall fathers) should now become no more then a matter in the aire, where (saith this fellow) no man was named in particuler. And this last clause happily is true: for that they were nickna­med, and that in particuler, and not onely pointed at by euery one of the Iesuits faction, but thrust out of the houses of those Catholicks, who had drunke of the Iesuits poyson, and were particulerly also decyphered in that most wicked treatise of schisme, which was diuulged by the Iesuits, the Archpriest, and the rest, as may appeare by that, which is said in that treatise Paragraph 6 num. 10. Adextremum in suum sempiternum dedecus legatos factiosos ad Pontificem factiosi isti destinarunt. That is to say, At the last these factious haue to their eternall dishonour sent fa­ctious ambassadors to the Pope. And in the next paragraph are the crimes of these factious set downe vnder this title, Factiosorum crimina, the crimes of the factious. Which are these, Ye are Rebels, [Page 349] ye are schismaticks, and are fallen from the Church, and spouse of Christ &c. Prety names: and so he goeth forward with such like; And can his reader thinke, that a Iesuit would rage in this maner a­gainst an aduersary in the aire? or that the particularities were not sufficiently set downe, by which all men had notice who they were, that were held for schismaticks, when the two priests were knowen, that were sent to his Holines, and many of them who sent them, or by whose consent they went? Can any man thinke, that these fellowes had either wit, or honesty, who would in action omit nothing, which might further the infamy or misery of Catholicke priests, and in words pretend, that the matter was a matter in the aire, as here it is said, or as the Arch­priest affirmed in his letter to his Assistants the 23. of Iune 1601 (against which letter the hope of peace was written) a matter of o­pinion, and therefore not worthy to make a matter of cōtention, which part soeuer was true? So doeth it please these new illuminated to oppresse their brethren, and to make a sport of their miseries, and most absurdly condemne themselues of want of al honesty and charitie, who in a matter of so small moment (as they doe make shew) would enter into so desperate courses, and trouble our otherwise too much afflicted Church. But since that the matter, and name of schisme is taken away, I will not vse it, but in such case as of necessitie it must be vsed, and necessitie (as men say) is not subiect to any Law, neither can I thinke, that the priests being demanded the cause of their griefe, are forbidden by any Breue to say, that they were most vniustly both named, and vsed like schismaticks, neither can their aduersaries easily perswade them vnto it, what holines soeuer they doe pretend, or strict charge out of the Breue of the 17. of August 1601, of which Breue this author, not hauing seene it, (as he pretendeth) vndertaketh to relate not only the contents, but also some par­ticuler sentences, which he thinketh do make most for his pur­pose; and thus he goeth forward in his Preface.

The principall points of this Breue (as they are written to vs) are these: First that his Holinesse hauing read and perused the Ap­pellation of our brethren made vpon the seuenteenth day of Nouem­ber 1600, though not to this day sent, or presented from them, as we are most certainely enformed, but onely from the Archpriest, against [Page 350] whom it was made, after due deliberation hee admitteth it not, but wholly annulleth it. Here is one main point of the Breue, his Ho­linesse hauing blamed the Archpriest for his proceeding, as may appeare where these words are inserted, Quod dolentes re­ferimus, which we relate (saith the Pope) with griefe, yet notwith­standing doth not admit the Appeale (yet doth he not annul­late it) and if vpon perswasion of such, as are loth to haue it prosecuted, he hath been induced to haue all matters slubbered vp, as once before they were; there is no doubt to be made, but when he shall haue heard both parts speake (which is requisite to all Christian iustice) he will giue that satisfaction, which a tender father cannot deny to his oppressed children, who haue alwayes borne that honourable respect vnto that Apostolike Sea, that if an Archdeuill had bene appointed their superiour, they would haue accommodated themselues so farre, as they might, without dishonouring God, betraying his Church, or preiudicing their owne selues, yet would they haue sought (as now they haue done) with all submission for reliefe of the like miseries, or greater, if they could haue bene subiect to greater. But the Breue being made (as here it is confessed) before his Hol. saw any of the priests their bookes, & also before he heard the priests (as may appeare by the date thereof) it is no great marueile, that the Breue runneth in these termes it doth: yet is it somewhat strange, and perchance neuer had any president, that the priests are commended who receiued the Archpriest, before they did see the Popes letters, and that the other are dis­commended or checked, these hauing done no other, then they were bound to doe by the lawes of holy Church, and those other most contrary thereunto: for proofe whereof I thought it fitte to set downe the extrauagant of Pope Boni­face the eighth, which doth conuince as much as I haue sayd. Iniunc [...]e nobis debitum seruitutis exposcit, vt qui ad reformandos in Clero mores, & actus (prout nobis ex alto permittitur) solertiùs in­tendimus, ibi praecipue reformationis accommodae remedium appona­mus, vbi maius respicimus periculum imminere. That is, Our office requireth of vs, that we, who by Gods permission doe attend more di­ligently to the reformation of the Clergie, doe there especially put re­medie of conuenient reformation, where we see most danger at hand. [Page 351] And then he proceedeth to tell what this great danger is, and setteth downe the remedy. First therefore hee beginneth thus with the danger: Sanè quam periculosum existat, quod aliquis in officio, dignitate, vel gradu fore se asserat, & pro tali etiam habeatur, nisiprius ipse, quod asserit, legitimis ostenderit documentis, tam ex ciuilibus, quàm ex canonicis institutis colligitur euidenter. Asse­renti nam (que) cum mandatis principis se venisse credendum non est, nisi hoc scriptis prob