CHAP. I.

THe first fault I find vvith you (vni­ted Bretherne) is that by vvriting of this Apologie, you blovve (as it vvere) the trumpett to an nevv onsett, as men desirous to continevve in vvrangling and dissention still, and prouoking your dis­contented brethrene to breake their silence, for their ovvne defence: by vvhich doing you haue not only broken Charitie (vvhich in such a nombre as you be, shoulde more abounde, then in a lesser nomber, not so vvell vnited as you are) but also highly disobaied his holines commandement (vvhich disobe­dience you oft obiect in this your Apologie, to your brethrene) vvho in his last bull sent into Ingland for the pacification of theis con­tentions, forbadde all bookes vvritten on both sides, to be read of any vvith in Ingland, or others to be vvritten, vnder paine of ex­communication. If you (vnited bretherne) be herein obedient childrene? let all men that haue either seene or heard thereof, be Iud­ges.

Besides that, you might very vvell haue spared his labour, for you doe nothing in all this your booke, but rove vp and dovvne vvith by and impertinēt matters, neuer tou­ching or comminge neare the prick: filling vp your booke novv vvith old quarrells, apper­teining neither to the matter you vvrit of nor to the men you vvrite against: then, vvith letters, examinations, and other trifles (as those of M. vvatsons deuises) not vvorth the labor (certz) of such men as you are, and much lesse vvorthe the reading of any vvise, graue or learned reader as in place shalbe noted.

The second fault I find, is vvith the title or inscription of your first chapter (imitating herein your selues, vvho find fault vvith the title of the latin booke, but hovv iustly, shal­be shovved in his place) vvhich you haue put dovvne in generall termes and yet in deed do proue nothing at all of that vvhich you pre­tend. So as it may vvell be said of this title, as our Lavviers often times say of our Rubri­ckes, viz, that Rubrica est generalior nigro, the Rubrick (or title) is more generall and am­ple then the text. yon say: The emulation of secular pristes against religious: bothe theise vvord secular pristes and Religious being put dovvne indefinitly, that is generally, for in lavve Indesinitum aequiparatur vniuersali. An in­definite proposition, is equall to a vniuersall [Page 56]proposition. So that you say thus, (if you say any thinge) The emulation of all secular priestes against all sortes of religious men, hath brought great hurte to Ingland. And all your profes yet are but of some secular prie­stes, against other secular priests and religi­ous. And whē you haue all done, ād come to the pointe of this controuersie, you grant it is the emulation of 13. priestes, (brought af­terwards to 7.) against their fellow priestes, and one Iesuit. and elswhere you confesse a­gaine, that this emulation is but of somme fewe secular priestes against the fathers.

By this generalitie of speach then, you doe not only accuse your selues, (for you are al­so secular priests but do also drawe me and o­thers with in the compasse of this emulation, who were neuer of the one nor of th' other faction, but haue hitherto and so will still kee­pe our selues indifferēt and free, from passion or affection to either side, in this so piti­full and slanderous dissention.

Now as touching Religious. all this emu­lation is but against one order of Religious viz: the fathers of the Society, as you confesse throughout the whole booke, and so it must needes be, bicause there are not many in Ingland of any other or­der. Thus then you should haue intitled your chapter: vvhat great hurt hath come to Jngland by emulation of the laytie against the Cler­gie, [Page 57]and of a fevv secular Priestes against other se­cular Priestes, and the Religious of the Societie of Ihesus. For other emulation then this, your doe not proove, either in this chapter, or in the vvhole booke it self: I feare much that the vnited Priestes, are not the Authors of this booke, for that I cannot iudge so hard­ly of them, that to extoll, praise, and defend the societie and some certaine persones of the same, they vvould so farre forgett them selues, as to accuse men of their ovvne coate and order, of so hainons a crime, as not only in our daies, but from the beginning of Chri­stianitie in our contrey, the emulation of se­cular Priestes against Religious should bring great hurts to our Nation: Out vpon such base Priestes, as so vniustly and vncharita­bly, accuse them selues and theirs, to please others, out vpon such vnnaturall birds, that defile their owne nestes, by slaundering their owne vocation in words without any profs, as anone shalbe shewed.

In an other place, to a base and bring in to contempt, your owne order and vocation, you say: That the greater parte of you were serving men, souldiers and wandrers. but to be plaine with you, I do not thinck that any secular Priestes would be so iniu­rious and vngratfull to this order and vo­cation. And therfore I thincke some reli­gious man hath borrowed your names, the [Page 58]better therby to extoll his religion, and com­panions, and to abase and bring into con­tempt, both with layty and Clergie, the state of secular Priestes: to thend he may so reveng him self, of some of them his aduer­saries, and so for the fault of afewto offer in­iury to the rest. This is no no veltie for the re­port goeth of a religious man, that borrowed M. Dolmans name, (a secular Prieste in a booke dedicated to the Earle of Essex, when he was in his ruffe: the which trick, as it brought that Priest, into some danger then, so this toy is like to bring you (the vnited Priestes) into disfavour, mislick and discre­dite, with all well meaning and vnpassiona­ted men, both Priestes and lay: to see you so farre from all love and charitie towards your bretherne, that you are made not only, in­struments to vexe and discredite them, but also Authors, to renewe, and proclaime the warre a freash against them, with fire and sworde, which will fall out but little to your owne creditt.

If you do iustly mislike the discontented bretherne, for touching the whole bodie of the Iesuits, you haue to pardon me, if I mislike with you in touchinge so generally, the body of the secular Priestes, where of I am a member. But lett vs see first wherein the seculer Priestes haue emulated the Religious with so great hurt to Ingland? Sure it must [Page 59]be that they envied them, for their lands and livings, for their Iurisdiction and autho­ritie, or for their liues and behaviours. Now touching the first twoe, it is well knowen our secular Clergie in Ingland, to haue had such honorable meanes to live, as they had litle cause to envie the religious herein. be­sides who knoweth not the authoritie, and Iurisdiction of secular Pristes, to hane bene farre greater, then that of any religions or­der: yea to haue extended it self, over the Religious them selues. And as for the last point, the Priestes are so farre (especially in this age) from envying the lives and maners of the Societie in speciall, that I am assured, and all men will confesse, more secular Prie­stes to haue entred, and daily doe enter, into the Societie alone, then into all the other orders of Religion, putt them all together. If you knowe any other cause why the Prie­stes should envie them, let me vnderstand it, for my learning in your larger Appologie, for sure Iam that in this Apologie you haue not as yet prooved, that the secular Priestes haue emulated the Religious, either in any of the foresaid 3. pointtes, or in any other point els what so euer. Novv to your examples.

The first is of Ihon of Gant, which proo­veth only this, that there was (for that Prince his sake) Emulation of some secular Priestes, against the 2. Bishopps there named, and the [Page 60]rest of the secular Priestes, and Religious, that tooke their parte as it is now betwene some secular Priests ād the Archpriest, which the rest of the Priestes and Iesuites that hold with him. Doth this proove the emulation of the secular Priests in generall against the Religious in generall? and yet very likly it is, that the kniges vncle duke of Lancaster had both Abbots, Priors, Monkes and friers, that tooke his parte, as well Bis­hops as secular Priestes, and so was it emula­tion of Religious and secular Priestes against Religious and secular Priestes, which proo­veth not your intention. You, your selues also doe in that place, restraine the worde Religious, to such religious men, as had pos­sessions: excluding the 4. orders of sriers, which yet are conteyned vnder the genera­litie of the worde Religious in the title of your chapter.

You seeme elsvvhere to contradicte your selues herein, Fol. 15. b. saying: That some of the Clergie banded them selues against the rest with Iohn of Gant to sett vpp Wicliff. theare you saie, that the statute of Premu­nire, was begone to be treated of, about the time that Wicliff arose, when emulation was in heat against the Clergie. If against the Clergie, then this emulation, was of the laytie against the whole Clergie, secular and regular. How can it stand, that in Wichffes [Page 61]time emulation was whott against the whole clergie, and that some of the clergie emula­ted the rest of the clergie? these two cannot well stand together.

In the next example you bring in 3. kings, like Mummers, for they say nothing: neither doe you there prove any thinge but in the margent, you note a malitious sugge­stion. of whom, I pray you? you name no man, and yet would you haue your reader to vn­derstand it, of the secular Priestes, against re­ligious: and that the secular Priestes did sug­gest these kinges to take away the Abbay landes. for if you meane not so? then the ex­ample is to no purpose to prove the hurte that hath come by emulation, of secular Priestes, against Religious. If you meane so? then turne your note in the Margent vpon your owne malitious hedds, in so malitious­ly slandering men of your owne coate, wit­hout desart of their part, and without proof of yours. For who knoweth not, that if the secular clergie would hane yelded, or agreed to suppresse Abbeies, then especially. when heat of emulation was great, against the whole clergie, (as you say:) but that all had bene lost, both howses and lands. No, no, the secular clergie was so farre from ioy­ning which the envions laytie in that yssue, that their constant withstandinge and cha­ritable cleaving to the Religious at that ti­me, [Page 62]conserved both their landes and posses­sions.

From those 3. kings, your make a great stepp downe to Henry the 8. god be bles­sed, that our secular Priestes, for 200. yeres al­most, bare no emulation against the Reli­gious. but lived in love and charitie toge­ther, till this kings latter daies, when all the Religious vveare turned out of their howses, and their lands taken from them. But hap­pened this (I pray you) thronghe the emu­lation, that was betwene the secular Priestes and the Religious? Put your hands to your consciences, were the secular clergie the doers and sticklers herein? If you say, they gaue their consent in the Parlament, I grant. But not for any emulation, they had against the Religious. Was it not for frailtie and fea­re? Fol. 15. or was it not (as you say well elswheare of the bringinge in of the statute of Premunire) for that our Catho. Bishopps and Prelatz did not willinghy consent, but sore against their wills, was it passed in the Parlement, by the streame of temporall power and emulation against them. Why may not our Prelats of king Heury the eights time, be aswell excu­sed for consenting, to the supperssing of Re­ligious howses, as the Prelats of an other king, for consentinge to the statute of Pre­munire? who is so blinde as to thinck, that the vnited Priestes, are the Authors of this [Page 65]booke? or thay ther vvould be so shame­lesse, as to accuse men of their ovvne coate, the vvhole clergie of Inglād, in kindge Hen­ry the eighths time, by emulatiō and mallice vvhich they bore to the Religious, to haue consented to their destruction, and to the euersion of their hovvses and Cloisters? Suerly, if this vvere true, you said some vvhat. For this emulation in deed brought, vnspeakable hurt and domage, to our poore contrey of Ingland. I ghesse therefore (as I said before,) that some other hath borro­vved your names, to make emulation a­mongst you secular Pristes your selues. If I ghesse amisse? I aske perdon. seeing it is law­full for euerye man (as you knovv,) to de­fend his order, vocation, name and estima­tion, so it be not done vvhich contempt, dis­gracing or dishonoringe, of any others order or vocation.

The 4. example vvhich you bring, to proue the fore said emulation, is of Q. Ma­ries time vvhich seameth very strange to me. For both at her comming to the Crovv­ne, and duringe the time of her raigne, there vvere but fevv Religious men (God kno­vveth) specially of such as had possessions, to be emulated or envied: a fevv Benedi­ctines in Westminster Abbay, and a fevv Carthusicas onely excepted. Hovv lykly is it then, (I pray you) that the emulation [Page 64]of the secular Priestes against the Religious in Q. Maries time, bronght great hurt to In­gland? But you seeme so deeply plonged in this emulation your selues, that you date a­gainst the knovvne truth say: that the fore said emulation hindred much in her time the reconsiliation, vvherby no perfect reformation could be made, nor such restitution of Religious or­ders, as in iustice should haue beene, and as the good Q. Her self desired. And here you cannot co­ver your selues vnder the cloake of the Laye­tie, saying you meane heere of the emulatiō of the Layetie against the vvhole clergie: bicause you say: by the same emulation, that vvas in Iohn of Gants time, for you repete in all your examples, that doe follovv that of Iohu of Gant, by the same emulatiou, that is: of secular Priestes against Religious. But each one of my age, or elder, that savv the begi­ning and ende, of that vertuous Princesse her Raigne, can controvvle you in this pointe, and tell you: there vvas no such emulation at all. euerye man desiring, the perfect re­formatiō of Religion, and entire restitution, of religious orders and hovvses: and the cau­se, vvhy neither the one, nor thother vvas performed, vvas not (as it pleaseth you to say,) the emulation of secular Pristes against religious, but rather the shortnes of her Rai­gne, vvith the difficultie to get the Abbay lands, out of the possession, of the Nobilitie, [Page 65]and Gentlemen, vvho kept them, as hither­to most vniustly they doe.

You are vvellcome at last, to her Maje­sties Raigne, vvithout any good or lavv­full proof, of your former proposition: (vvhich the Reader must haue in mynde) that the emulation (forsooth) of secular Priestes a­gainst Religious hath brought great hurt to In­gland. Novv you are come to the last cast, I hope you vvill say some thinge. Tru­ly as much as you did before, vvhich is iust nothinge. You say: There vvas small vnion of diuers clergie men amongest them selues. What is this to the purpose? The emulation or small vnion and affection vvas betvveene secular Priestes, and not against the Religious. And so you are vvell come home, having made a longe Iurney of 200. yeres, and brought vs home nothinge: you haue fayrely fis­hed, to catth a frogg. If all vvere true you say, in the disgrace of our constant clergie, (vvhich you shall neuer be able to proue,) and if diuers clergie men, holding vvith Hereticks and polliticks, gave occasion of the totall ouerthrovv of Religion in Inglād, yet doth it not prove, your pretended pur­pose. For that vvas the emulation of secular Priestes, against secular Pristes, except you ta­ke the vvorde Clergie mē in generall, Can dno. 12. q. 1. as it doth comprehend vnder it, both secular Priestes, and Religious men: then as vvell Religious, [Page 66]as secular Priestes, did hold vvith Heretikes and politiks, to the totall ouerthrovv of Re­ligion. And so in this case it vvas emulation betvvene the secular Priestes and Religious, against secular Priests and Religious, and so vvithout the compasse of your proposition. Suppose I say, (for we must be Pythagorians, to beleeue vvhat soeuer you say vpon your vvords, (quia ipse dixit) that some clergy man, follovves the time, ād holds vvith the Here­tiks, in heat of faction: vvill you therefore, in heat of detraction conclude there vpon, that in the beginning of her Maiestates Raigne, the emulation of secular Priests against Reli­gious, hath brought great hurt to Ingland? You might haue spared this paine, vvith Inck and papier.

The 3. Fol. 2. a. fault. That the true opinion, of not going to Hereticall seruice, was taught then, by Priestes and Religious men, from beyond the Seas. I perceiue that this Religious, the Author of this booke, vvould vvillingly ha­ne his parte, vvith secular Priestes, vvhen they doe any thing praise vvorthie. But I tell you (my vnited brethren,) you might hane putt vp the vvorde Religious, in your purse. For the best opinion, vvas knovvne, taught and folovved, many a yere, before the Iesuits (vvhom you meane) came or vvrote into In­gland. It came from beyonde the seas I con­fesse, but yet out of a secular Priestes shoppe, [Page 67] Doctor Sanders having vvritten a booke in En­glishe of Images, made a long preface to it, vvherin he admonished, ād exhorted all such as vvere Catholiks in hart and mynd, to shunne and avoide, all Communication vvith Hereticks, in their seruice. The vvhich boo­ke made many to abstaine, from their con­uenticles, and amongst the rest, (I give God hartie thanks therefore) I my self vvas one, and therfore can best tell, vvhich vvay and from vvhom it came, that I forsoke the he­reticall church, vvhich is novv 37. or 38. ye­res past: at vvhat time, the name of the Socie­tie, vvas scarsly hard of in Oxford, I am assu­red. I speak not this to detract any thing, frō the vertuous, painfull and profitable labors and travells, vvhich the fathers of the Socie­tie haue taken, in manuring the afflicted vi­niard of or Conutrey, but to give every man his due praise:

The second praise, of plāting and teaching this better opinion, belongeth as vvel to ma­ny ancicient Priestes, of Q. Maries daies, that stood firme and stable in their faith, and dre­vve daily some out of the mire of schisme, by their preaching and teaching, vvhereof I my self am a vvittnes, having knovvne many that vvere reconciled by them, many a yere, before any Religious, either from beyond the seas, or at home, taught this doctrine. And as for our Seminarie Priestes also vvho entred [Page 68]some yeres before the fathers, there vvere (vvhē they cam in) aboue an hundred, vvhich had travailed in this pointe to vvith dravve men from communicating vvith Heretickes, And God so blessed their travaills, that the fathers found the harvest vvel aduaunced, before their arrivall, to their great ioy and consolation, as I can best testifie, vvho vvent into Ingland vvith them. Besids diuers of our Seminarie Priestes, had suffred glorious Mar­tyrdome, for teaching and preaching this do­ctrine, before any Religious vvritt thereof, or came into Ingland, as M. Cutbert Maine batcheler of diuinitie, and the first Martyr of the Seminaries, M. John Nelson and M. Eve­rand Hanse. What meand you then (you vni­ted Priestes,) to take avvay the praise from your selues, and to give or divide that vvhich is due to your coate only, to others, or vvith others that haue no part therin? There vvas, as I said before, (as by the Registre thereof vvhēnead shall require, I can shevve) above a hundred Seminarie Priestes in Ingland, that taught this perfect doctrine, some yeres be­fore any religious man, putt his foot into In­gland. If you knevv not thus much before, learne it novv. But let vs putt the case, that the foresaid true doctrine, of not going to Hereticall seruice vvas taught by Religious men from beyond the seas, vvill you therfo­re conclude that the emulation of Secular [Page 69]Priestes against Religious, hath brought great hurt to Ingland? This you must prove, or deceive your Reader. For the title of the chapter importeth so much. In your next edition, or in your larger Appologie, vvhich you promis, putt out hardly, or els correct, this bragge of Religious men teaching, from beyond the seas, the perfecte doctrine, of not going to Hereticall churches, bicause they came too late, to haue that glorye, vvhich is only due to Secular Priestes: albeit you vni­ted Priestes, do seeme both vvrongfully and vniustly, to give it to others. such honor bea­re you to Religious, that you vvill for their sakes, dishonor both your selues and your brethren.

At last vve are come, from Iohn of Gant, to vvisbich castle, vvhere you say, vvas emu­lation of secular Priestes against Iesuites. er­go your haue proved that vvhich you tooke in hand to prove. Nothing lesse. bicause that emulation (as you confesse) vvas but of some fevve against one Iesuit and 19. other secular Priestes, and so proveth it not that vvhich you pretend. You say, those fevve Priestes vvere the cause of that contention. They say: fa: Edmonds and his adherents vvere the cause. so that Lis est adhuc coram Iudice, to be decided and resolved not by these Appolo­gies, but by our Superiors authoritie. I pray God it may be so done vvith charitie.

But for better proof of this emulation you all eadge the first contention, of the En­glishe Romaine Colledge, then G. G. and G. vvrittinge against D. Allen and fa. Parsons, vvhich appertaine nothing at all, to this con­tention betvvene the discontented brether­ne, and the Archpriest and Iesuits. This con­tention being grovvnded vpon tvvo other matters. thone for not receaving the Arch­priest, vpon the Card. Protectors letters, for the vvhich fa: Lister proved them Schisma­ticks. thother, for that after the comming of his Holl. breue, and their submission, the Archpriest then, vvould not admitt them to be absolved, of any Confessor, except they confessed their schisme, and abiured it. This is the state of the controuersie, in question betvvene you, and your discontented bre­therne. This is the cause of their vvritting, both in Latin and English, in their ovvne de­fence. But this you vvinck at, and vvill not see, yet this you must prove, not to be the state of the question, and cause of this con­tention, or els you must aske them forgiue­nesse, for so slaunderous, and scandalous in­iuries done to them. Theese questions you touche not: but vvith toies and trifles, fill vp your booke and cast dust (as it vvere) in your readers eies, to blinde, or at the least vvise to hinder them, from vievving the question, and controuersie it felf.

‘For example vvhat doe the troubles in Ro­me in the yere 1578. or the death of Vanne the spie 1581. or the deuision that fill amongst En­glishmen in Paris 1580. or all ther memori­alls made against the Seminarie, (if any such vvere) 1583. and 84. or B. Sega his visitation 1585. or G.G. and E. G. Writting againsts D. Allen and fa? Parsons 1587. or all the factions that vvere made against D. Allen: or M. Wat­sons common vvealth, appartaine to this cō ­trouersie?’ What doth all this stuff (I say) ap­partaine to the sturres begone in Wisbiche 1595. and the contentions vvhich since hath folovved? vvere your discontented brether­ne, either Actors, Abettors, Doers or stick­lers in all theese Tragedies? Had they their hands or pennes therin? Nothing lesse. You might as vvel accuse them, of all the conten­tions and quarrelles that hath happened be­tvvene the Englishs, since Noes floud, as vvith these. Many of them to my knovvledg, being but yong youthes in those daies. To vvhat purpose then is this vnprofitable and vnsave­rie rehersall, ripping vp and reviving, of the faults and follies of many yet living, vvho peraduenture are sorie for the same? Is this charitie? commeth this from a peaceable, or a contentious spirit? to revive old soares qui­te forgotten, and buried many yeares since in deep obliuion? and that to no purpose at all? Doth it prove the great hurt, vvhich the e­mulation [Page 72]of secular Priestes, against the Religious, hath brought to Ingland? as iust in sooth as Germaines lipps, that stood 9. miles a sonder: even so these actions stand at least 10. or 11. yeares one from an other.

The ripping vp of the Actions of those 2. Priestes of the Romaine Colledge G. G. and E.G. the willing discoverie of their filthines after 20. yeres almost, makes me beleeve, that the Author of this booke, is not you (vnited Priests,) who for shame would not, nor without your owne dishonor could not, ripp vp the rottē naughtines of men of your owne coate, thone (as I haue bene aduertised, by a good father his Confessor) dying very sory and penitent, for his sinnes & offenes: thother yet living, and of abilitie and lear­ning, to sett vpon you, and to refute you, of many things, vnduly sett downe in this your Apologīe. And yet all that you haue said of theirs and other mens frailties, maketh no­thing to the matter now in question, as I haue noted before. I pray God, some Religious Parson then offended, hath not kept this v­pon his stomack, till time hath served him, to vomitt it out, to the disgracing of secular Priestes. If it be so, God forgiue him, and send him grace, not by such vndecent meanes, ei­ther to diuert others, from esteaming of se­cular Priestes, or to make secular Priestes, [Page 73]to lesse esteame him and his compaignons, as he geveth them iust occasion: seeing he seeketh euery cornere and hole, & omnem mouet lapidem, to disgrace them, vvith the faults and follies of some one or two, deser­ving reprehension.

And bicause you make mention, of some former troubles happened in the college of Rome, I will for the readers better instructiō sett downe in order, the fiue seuerall trou­bles, that haue falne out in that vnfortunat Colleage, with in the space of 20. yeres. since the fondation thereof which was in the yere 1578.

This colleag had bin an hospitall, to recea­ue English pilgrimes at their comyng to Ro­me, and there were some 8. priests in it, vn­der a hedd: the which hospitall, by the pro­curement and industrie of D. Lewes, after­wards B. of Cassano, (as they confesse) was erected by Pope Gregorie the 13. into a, Col­lege: the 8. priestes by violence (allmost) put out, bicause they would not obey to the Po­pes commandement. Schollers were sent from Rhemes to supplie their places, ād one of the said priestes M. Do: Morrice Clenock a Welchman, being Do. Lewes frend, was made Rector there. Into this college were receaued aswell welch as Inglish, as to this daye they are indiflerently receaued. There were not then many welch men, but some 32. [Page 74]Inglish schollers. Their first complaint was, that the welchmen were better clothed, and better looked vnto, thē they were, and that the Rector was parciall, in so much that the­re grewe great strief, and dangerous quarrels In the end the Protector (who was thē Card. Morono, a great frend and vpholder of D, Morrice: and it may be M. Do. Lewes for frendship and contrey sake, might also bac­ke him) expelled the 32. English schollers v­pon a Shrouetewsday: whiles this sturre was amongst them, th'English for the causes you mention, and with great zeale desired to be gouerned by the Fathers of the Societie. Being thus expelled the next day being Ash­wensday, they dispersed them selues in diuer­se Churches, requesting the preachers to re­commend their case and pouertie, to gett them some money, for they had determyned to returne alltogether in Procession (as it we­re) and with a crosse before them to Rhemes or Ingland. In the meane while his Holl. was informed of all by Father Parsons, and Fa. Al­fonso, who gathering such of the schollers together as he could meet withall, and brin­ging them to the Pope, there was old wee­ping and crying on both sides. The good old ffa. Weept, as one loath to loose so many ze­lous and to Wardly children, and they on thother side cried for sorrovve, that they should be constraind against their vvilles to [Page 75]leaue and forsake so louing a father. But after they had vviped their eies, the Pope sent thē vvith one of his chamber in their compaine, to commād the Rector to receaue them agai­ne: and at their returne, they tooke 2. others into the college vvith them, vvho aftervvard proued naughtie fellovvs called Novvell and Moonday. Not long after, they had their de­sier: for the gouernement of the college vvas giuen to the Fathers, to the schollers great contentement and good of our countrey, ād so ended this first sturre and dissention.

The second, happened the next yere 1579. vvhich vvas rather a certaine murmure then dissention: the vvhich if by ffa. Parsons vvis­dom and industrie it had not bin preuented, vvould in time haue grovvne to an open se­dition. The cause vvas this. Our schollers ha­uing obtained their desire and falling to their studies vsed very zealously all the godly exer­cises of mortification, in such sort, as some o­ne or tvvoe of them became so contemplati­ue that they vvould needs be Iesuits. Which vyhen their companions vnderstood, they begane to mislike of those spirits, alleaging that the college vvas founded for the educa­tion of vertuous and learned priestes to help their contrey, and not to bring vp men to en­ter into Religion, and leaue the haruest at home. Where vppon fa. Parsons procured D. Allens comming vp to Rome, vvho obtained [Page 76]of the Pope, to command the Generall of the Iesuits to send of his Religious into Ingland. the vvhich appeased all this murmur. For (quoth the Schollers) let as many novv enter into the societie as vvill, for vvhen they haue beene sufficiently brought vp therin, they shalbe sent into Ingland. And thus each par­tie vvas pleased. The fathers, for that they might receiue of the schollers into their soci­etie, vvithout grudg or mislike: and the schollers, by cause such as entred, most of all (if not all) should be in time emploied for their countrey. And so the 2. schollers that first en­tred into the Societie of that college vvere M. Wright a constant Confessor novv in In­gland and Iohn Barton, vvho after fell from them and looked back to the vvorld againe, as I am credibly enformed.

The 3. vvas that, vvherein M. Doctor Bag­shavve and M. D. Stafferton (dead long sin­ce) M. Warford (novv a Iesuit) and diuers o­thers had their parte. I haue heard, they vvould haue had the gouernemēt of the Col­lege giuen to the Dominican friers, or to ha­ue it gouerned by English secular priestes. In th'end it fell out that good fa. Alfonfo vvas displaced and an other put in his place.

Not many yeres after fell out another cō ­trouersie betvveene the schollers and father Cresvvell then Rector, D. Allen being then Card. ād a spectator. I knovv not vvell vvhat [Page 77]the cause vvas. but this I am suer that a ver­tuous priest novv a holy Martyr in heauen named M. Iohn Ingram, vvas not ouer vvell vsed. This sturre in the ende procured father Cresvvells removing from thence to Spaine.

The last sturre vvhich vvas the vvhottest endured longest and vexed most the fathers. It began (as you say) after Card. Allens death about the yere 1594. vpon this occasion, as you aftervvard insinuat, and the Actors cō ­fesse: father Harvvood the minister finding 2. youthes clapping them selues on the bree­ches, or rather one for some reveng ierking his fellovve on the buttock vvith a rodd, be­fore he vvas out of his bed, had some suspiciō of vvorser behavior and should (as I haue heard) say, he founde thē at Buggerie, vvhich vvhen the rest vnderstood, it did gtieue them full sore, that the fathers (and specially In­glishe fathers) should suspect any of our na­tion vvith that abhominable sinne, ād calling to mynde some of the fathers former actions tending to this suspition, as cutting the priuie dores beneath shorter by half a foote, to see if there vvere any more then tvvoe feet at once at one priuie, and cutting dovvne a faier groue in the vineyard, bicause they vsed on their daies of recreation, to vvalk there by tvvo and tvvo. They fell first into such a ha­tred of the said fa. Harvvood, that they ma­de a supplication to his Holl: desiring him to [Page 78]send the said fa. to the Gallies, for dishono­ringe and discrediting the Colledg, them sel­ues, and their nation, vvith such a calumni­ous report. Vpon this they fell euery day mo­re, and more, into mislike vvith the fathers, and into this last sedition. Whither the schol­lers had cause to be offended, and to cōplai­ne, I leaue it to the iudgment of others. Thus much touching these troubles, vvherin if I haue misreported any thing, I desier to be better enformed, for I tell it, as I haue heard it of others, according as you tell your tales also by hearesay. My meaning herein not be­ing to defend the schollers, or discredit their Superiors, but to tell the truth only,

If any do muse at these frequent seditions, and vvould knovv the causes thereof, albeit my opinion is, but one doctors opinion: yet such as it is, I vvill communicat it to you, ha­uing duly marked the causes my self, and ha­uing heard other mens iudgmente also ther­ein, That vvhich I vvill say novv, I sent once to father Cresvvell then Rector vpon an oc­casiō vvhich vvere to longe here to set dovv­ne, and nothinge to the purpose. After I had called to his mynde the contentions, vvhich had often before that time happened in the Colledge, and recounted the nomber of Spies, and revolters, from the faithe vvhich had been menbers of the same college, and that till that time, there had neuer happened [Page 79]any one sedition in the Seminaries of Douay or Rhemes, nor any knovven or notorious spie, gone ont of them, one Banes (a reuol­ted priest, vvhich yet vvas apprehended and imprisoned) only excepted: I told him that I thought the causes of those seditions in Ro­me, vveare one of theise that follovve. Either the ayre did infect them, or els our contrey men vvere of a levvde and seditions nature, or other vvise that the gouernment of that college, vvas not convenient for our En­glish natures. If the first should be the cause, then there vvas no other remedie, but to transport the college into a better ayer. For the second, I could not so hardly iudg of my contrey men, especially hauing seene them allvvaies in Rhemes, to be both vertuous ād obedient youthes: and to the third, I neithet vvould nor durst attribute it to the fathers. F. Generall and Prouinciall, the Rectors, su­periors being so neare, and hauing so vigilāt an eye on the gouernment. What shall vve thē doe novv quoth I? Mary, father, chaunge the gouerment for a time, to see if they vvill doe better, and liue more quietely. And if they doe not, then the vvorld must neads attribu­te it, to our evvill and seditious natures. Vn­till then vve must suspend our iudgmēt. this vvas the effect of my letter. for the vvhich he courteously thancked me, and said he vvould communicat my reasons vvith his su­periors.

But seeing I am on this point, I will boldly sett downe what I haue all waies thought in that gouerment, to be not conuenient to out English nature, but is rather the cause both of rancor and diuision amongst the schollers, and of the dislike and discontentment of the gouernment and Gouerners.

I was pensioner in D. Allens companie in in that Colleage 4. monethes and more, and then I marked and vnderstood the mislike of this gouernment, by those that had bene most desirous of the fathers gouernment, I meane M. Sherwin, M. Array, M. Haddock M. Ris­hton, and others my familiares then in the colleage. The first is, their open penances done in the hall, and their dicitur culpa. which is as farre from all good orderly discipline, that when a man doth it at the first, he is so farre ordinarily from amendment, that in his hart he doth grutch, and repine at his supe­riors, for the geuing of it. But when he is v­sed 3. or 4. times to doe it, then he maketh a very scoff and mocking or may game of it: so farre it is from a true penāce, at is engendreth (as I said) both hatred and mockery. If you say it is not the superiors fault. I say it is, if he knoweth it will bring forth no other effects and yet will vse it.

The second is their Spies, which the Re­ctors haue allwaies in store, which by an ho­nester [Page 81]name are called Angeli custodes.

Theise spies at recreation time, and in o­ther places, speake liberally against their su­periors, of their gouernment and vsage to­wards them, of their apparell, meate and drinck, and against the straight keaping of them in, and against what soeuer they thinke is not wel done in the colleadge. And all this to sounde their compaignons. Now if one or twoe hap to discourse, as he doth against the Superior: theese spies carry the wholy dis­course straight to the Rector. After a fewe daies the other are called Coram nobis, ād are ei­ther punished or rigorously reprehended for the same. Theese good felowes afterward recall to mynde, before whom, and in whose presence and what companie, they spake such thinges, and hauing discouered this good fe­lowe, they from that day forewards, hate him as a spie and traitor. If this be a charitable way of gouerment iudge you, and whither this be true, and practized continually or no, I referre it to the conscience of as many of you (vnited brethrene) as haue bene brought vp in that Seminarie, and to the knowledg of all others, that haue bene brought op the­rin, yea to those them selues that haue be­ne these good Angells. Nothing so contra­ry to an englishmans nature, as to be betra­yed by him whom he trusteth. If such spies were in Oxford (whose colleges haue as good [Page 82]statute and ordonances for bringing vp of youthes, if they were put in practise (no displeasure to the Fathers) as they haue or can deuise) if such spies I say weare in our colleages of Oxford, they would be pluc­ked in peeces.

The 3. cause of discontentment, mother of sedition, is when such schollers as haue whollie addicted them selues to priest­hood to serue their countrey, see others which entend to be of the societie, to be more fauored, more cherished and more often in Fa. Ministers chamber at collati­ons, haue more free accesse to the Rector, and to be better countenanced then they: this affectiō which the Fathers beare to such, can neither be wisely hidd of th'one, nor well digested of th'other.

The 4. and which aggrauated the con­tention in Fathers Creswels time, and was the occasion of theise last and gretest trou­bles, as you seeme to confesse afterwards, is: that the Rectors and Ministers are ouer much suspicious of our English youthes thinking them to be giuen to that sinne, which is not to be named. thereof came the cutting downe of a faire groue which was in their vineyard wherein they vsed somtimes to walk for their recreation, two and twoe or more together. Which doings did wonderfully animate the schollers a­gainst [Page 83]their superiors, as I vnderstood by a vertuous priest, vvho since by Martyrdome is no doubt a blessed Sainct in Heauen.

The cause, grounde and beginning also of theise last troubles came they not of that vvhich Father Harvvood said (albeit after, he svvore the contrary:) that the found tvvo, of those libertine ladds committing that abho­minable sinne? the man you note in the mar­gent and your fellovve priestes now in In­gland say so, and you your selues vnderstand so much by your Somme thinges much amisse. If it be true that Father Harvvood affirmed so much as in the 43. leafe you insinuate: their dissolucion in corners to hane bene so secret a sinne, that he could neuer be brought to vtter it for the sauing their ho­nors and the nations, till (forsooth) he was commanded by obedience a litle before his deathe. that he might dy, belike, vvith that glory, to haue infamed the students. Had not those Northen and southren laddes good cause, thinck you to defend their honors and the honor of their countrey? Had they not iust cause to require the Pope (as they did by supplication) to send Fa. Harvv. to the Gallies, for defamyng both the colleage and nation? Whither it vveare true or false god knovveth, neither vvill nor can I decide it: yet vvas this Father much more to be com­mended, then a nother Father, vvho in re­uenge [Page 84]of the factious schollers, vvithout respect of their honor or of the honor of our nation, or of his ovvne conscience, letted not to send about the vvorld gene­rall articles against all the schollers and prie­stes of that faction, the vvhich contained more greuous and abhominablē sinnes then Father Harvvood discouered. Of this oc­casion then begane all that fovvle sturre vvhich as the disconted bretherne say, had like to haue vndoone and ruynated that Colledge.

The 5. is, that the Rectors (yea our English Rectors) in the Romaine Colled­ge haue no respect of such Graduates as are made in our Vniuersities in Ingland, but vvill make more of a boy, and giue him better countenance, and place him hi­gher at the table, then to a Baccheler or a M. of arte, vvhich cannot be but a great cori­siue to such graduats a great fault ād in gouer­mēt especially of English Fa. vvho either doe or should knovve, vvhat esteeme leatning ād degrees takē in scholes (albe it many in deed are vnvvorthie of them) are in Ingland: and hovv an vnlearned man hauing a degree, is of greater respect and credite then a mo­re learned then he hauing no degree. This is the good custome of our conntrey that carrieth such respect and honor to the de­gree, albeit the Graduat be not vvorthie [Page 85]therof, bicause all men presume he hath the learning requisite to the degree. But the Fathers, whither it be vnder the couler of making them humble, or for somme o­ther cause best knowen to them selues, doe giue very litle, or no credit or countenan­ce at all to Graduates. And a nother thin­ge) which hath bene noted of somme men) they neuer sent any from that col­lege into Ingland with any degree of scho­les on their backs 2. only excepted, D. Barrett. D. Stillinghton. who being specially fauored and loued of Father Alfonso were made Doctors in Rome be­fore their mission, yet neither of them went into Ingland, but were both staied at Rhemes.

You goe abont afterwards to defend the Fathers from this calumniation (as you tearme it) how I pray you? Fol. 92.93. Mary they ha­ue receued many Graduates into the Socie­tie. What is this to the complaint of not respecting Graduats in the Seminarie? yes (say you) for many Graduates haue liued in the Seminarie with them much esteamed and honored by the Iesuits. You name 4. and yet 3. of them vpon my knowledg, we­re fauored as the first Authors and bringers in of the Fathers to that gouernment, and honored not for their degrees, but as Prie­stes, and as Priestes they sate at a higher [Page 86]and more honorable table then the rest. But if rheise 4. haue beene respected, how many others haue bene neglected? You con­fesse in the same place, that they are great­ly made of by the Fathers, if their vettue answere to their degree. Who seeth not, that you confesse, they are not respected for their degree, but for their vertue only? Put case he be not so vertuous as his superi­or would haue him, shall he therby loose the respect that is due to his degree? There are punishmētes for his faulte, his degree still respected. But with the Fathers who you say, are men of order, in this case of degrees, is keapt litle order.

To the man you note in the mergent (who complayned of the disgrace of degrees) whē he was sent from Rhemes to Rome, I said thus to him. Master Bagshawe your are going to Rome and in your companie such and such (namyng 2. poore schollers that serued him and the rest at the table) when you come theare, you shall see theis boies (your seruants here) aswell clothed, lodged and served there as your self, paraduenture more in fauor, and better liked of the su­perior then you, and to sitt higher at the table them you, can you abide this? thinck on it, for so it will happen, as it did in deed. Which made him, Maester Stafferton, War­fotd (now a Iesuite) Fixer, D. Cicill and o­thers [Page 87]hauing bene all Graduats of ād good ac­compt in Oxford to dislike and storme at it, as many others haue doone since, and still wil doe, till Graduate, be better respected. If one poore Doct. iudgment might be heard and allowed, I thinck veryly, if those fore said impedimētes weare taken awaie, the Fa­thers and our yonthes would liue louingly, & in peace together. But if this be not remedied then I say (though I be no Prophet, yet beare I a Prophets name) that these discontent­ments may well for a time lye smothering in their breasts: but one day, doe the Fathers what they can, they will flush out into flames of dissentiō as th'others haue done before. It is naturall to that college the foresaid impe­dimente not remoued, but remayninge in their force.

And to augment mens suspicious and sur­mises of the small accompt the Fathers make of degrees and Graduats, they haue obtay­ned a strang and exttaordinary Bull to the di­scredirt and dishonor of our whole nation, to stopp all English students in their banishmēt from the degree of Doctorshipp either in di­uinitie or lawe, I wonder they putt not in Phisicke also, (Doctor Norden, a Doctor of Phisick being so great an enemy to them as you the vnited bretherne do shewe in this your Apologie) and by consequence to stopp them from all perferment and pro­motions [Page 88]in straung countreis in this time of their banishments. I may well call it strang, bicause all strangers do wonder strangly at it. And I may well terme it extraordinarie, for that since Sainct Peter sate in the Sea of Rome, and that Vniuersities haue bine erected, theare was neuer such a Bull sent out into the worlde. The Sea of Rome hath ever bene so fauorable to learning & degrees, that it hath instituted and confir­med many Vniuersities, hath geuen aucto­ritie to certaine, to giue degrees and ma­ke Doctors. Yea Canons that are bownd to residence, Quia datur beneficium pro­pter officium, And to serue in the Church Yet in fauor of learning may be sent to the Vniuersities to studie, and theare to receaue their fruits till they haue taken their degree. But alas? our poore English­men are not sufficientlye afflicted with ba­nishment from our countreye and parents, but more affliction must be putt vpon their shoulders, and as it weare segregated from all other nations, and bounde to be men vnworthie and vncapable of Doctorshipp and that by the highest iudge, and Tri­bunal on earth. And why? for sooth bi­cause our yong Doctors must not sitt above (I will not say Iesuits, but) other grauer and elder Priests. For this cause the Pope hath annulled and abbreged the Ptiuilegs [Page 89]of all Vniuersities in respect of vs poore Soules. This is a point of Mortification in deed, but lett vs here the Bull, which in ef­fect saith thus. ‘Our will and pleasure is, that none of th'english nation hear after so long as Hereticks prevaile in Ingland, &c. doe take degree of Doctor in Diuinitie or in one of the lawes, vnlesse they haue studied 4. ye­res in the same science or profession. Those ended, to studie 4. yeres more to make him prompt and solide, and to become more ma­ture graue and learned: Nor then neither shall he proceade, without the consent and approbation of the Superior of the College or Seminary wherin he hath studied or bene brought vpp, nor without the approbation of the Protector of the Nation or his vice­gerent in those partes where those English­men would be promoted, &c. Who soeuer then shall take the degree of Doctor in any place or contrey with in the time and yeres above prescribed, or without the leaue of his Superior, Protector or his vicegereut, we pronownce the degree to be none, nor such a one to be called a Doctor. And besids this he shall encurre the sentence of excomunic­ation, the absolution there from we speci­ally reserve to our selves and to the Sea A­postolick, &c. And we will this to be in force, not with standing any Apostolick decree what soeuer, or any statute, custome or pre­viledgs [Page 90]of Vniuersities given them by the Apostolick Bulls, &c.’

The reason of this Bull is, least youg men be made Doctors and by that meanes the degree come into contempt in Ingland viz: So great care had these informers of preser­ving the respect of degrees in our contrey: for in all other nations in the world, young men may be made Doctors this reason not withstanding. An other reason is, least by this doctorshipp, they should goe or sitt before auncient Priestes and learneder, then they are. And this last reason seameth to be the chiefest motiue why, this Bull vvas procu­red, and yet not with standing this Bull, a younge man may march ād sitt before an el­der and grauer Priest. For example. If a young man be a Bacheler or Licentiat either in di­uinitie or lawe (which is nothing els with vs, but an Inceptor Doctor) would not an el­der and grauer Priest thinck you, give him place in respect of his degree? Noe doubt he would. Then what haue you gotten by your Bull? You must gett out an other, if you will stopp them from Bachelorshipp or Licen­tiatship, or els those that tak such degrees will sitt above you, be you Iesuit or vnited Prieste not graduated. Be of good cheare all you that haue not studied in the Seminaries, for this Bull toucheth you not. Next note that it saieth in altero Iuris, that is, in one of [Page 91]the lawes, as if it vvould say. No man can proceed Doctor in the Civill lawe alone, or in the Canon lawe alone, without the fore­said conditions. But vpon my words you may procead in both lawes without incurring the penalties of the Bull, because it is a pe­nall Constitution and therfore to be restrai­ned to his case, which is in altero Iure in one of the lawes, and not to be extended ad Do­ctoratum in vtroque Iure to Doctorshipp in both lawes, for the rule is. Odia restringi & fauores conuenit ampliari.

Besids, if I should say the bull to be of no force bicause it may easly be proved to be Surreptice, as also it vvas not promulgated publickly, and in the place, and with the so­lemnitie, that all like penall Constitutions are accustomed to be, you would haue much adoe to prove the contrarie.

This Bull was obtained immediatly after the peace made with the schollers in the Ro­maine College viz. the 19. of Sept. 1597. but yet was it not printed till 3. yeres after (when it pleased such as had obteined it) viz in the yere 1601. The cause as I suspect was for feare least others vvould followe the exam­ple of D. Bagshaw D. Stafferton (dead long sinces) Do: Weston (vvho hath bene a Rea­der of Diuinitie many yeres in our Semina­ries of Rhemes and Doway) and D. Norris (Whom in contempt you call Italian Do­ctors) [Page 92]vvho going from the College tooke their degrees by the waye.

See yet the great diuersitie of Iudgment betvvene D. Allene the Father of our Semi­naries, and the Procurers of this Bull. When D. Bagshavve and D. Stafferton came to Rhe­mes and had signified to him they were Do­ctors, he was so farre from contemninge them, that the next day at dinner he brought them into the hall and placed them him self in their due places, next to th'other Doctors in Diuinitie, th'one above M. Licentiat Par­kinson and th'other above me, being but Doctor of Lawe. And this place they keapt so longe as they remained there, to all mens liking and contentment. If such a Bull had either bene necessary profitable or honora­ble to our contrey, wold not do: Allene (who had as great care of our cuntrey as these In­formers haue) haue pro cured it? Yes I war­rant you. But god be blessed that some of vs vveare Doctors before these men cam to governe the court and cuntrey, els might we haue gone begg our bread, and many a one blovv their nailes besids. But vvill you see the absurditie of it? In most vniuersities (as in this also of Pont a Mousson) theare are cer­taine benefices affected to the vniuersitie, and due (when they fall) to the Senior Do­ctor. Put the case an Englishman hath stu­died his time and is made Licentiat in Diui­nitie [Page 93](as those are here before they be Do­ctors) with one or twoe more with him who­se Senior he is. when the time cometh to proceade Doctor his fellowes passe, and he is staied by the vertue of this Bull. Some mo­nethes after falleth out a benefice, which one of his fellowes catcheth, and he by reason of this bull loseth it. See what good then it bringeth to our Nation. Againe one that hath studied the lawes some yeres is Licen­tiat, and may when he will take his Doctors­hipp. he is in a vniuersitie where a Doctors place falleth vacant ād he is otherwise found capable for it, but by reason he prooceded not Doctor (it being a Doctors place) he lo­seth it. And so by this buggy Bull, all hope of promocion and preferment is taken away hereafter from vs poore Englishmen. Honos alit artes. Who will now studie with any cou­rage either in Diuitie to conuince heretiks, either in the Canon lawe to gouerne the church, when they are barred of the reward of their studies and defrauded of the fruites of their labors? But you vvill (perhapps) say to me here, as you do often in your Apologie to your discontented bretherne, that I find fault with his Holl: actions and doinges. for answere wherto, I say: I do so in deed and vveare I in Rome and worthie to be admit­ted to his presence, I would appeale in this point from his Holl: ill informed, to his Hol: [Page 92] [...] [Page 93] [...] [Page 94]better informed.

The 4. fault I find with you, is, that you say: That the Cardinall Caietan and the Ge­nerall of the Iesuits did hinder the promo­cion of D. Lewes B. of Cassano, butfalsly as you haue credibly heard, Nay, that vvhich you heard to the contrary was credibly false. For, vvhich of you haue not heard that the said B. and fa: Parsons stood for the redd cap, and that the report wēt, that one of the two should vveare it? so that euery man as he af­fected the partie vvished and desired it. yea, the report runneth abrode that many hands and subscriptions vveare gathered in Ingland and Flannders in Fa: Parsons favor for the redd hat. The suspition that the 2. before na­med labored for him against the B. vvas en­creased by this, that the yce beiug now bro­ken to the Cardinall shipp by the creation of Tolledo one of the Societie, and Tolledo beiug dead, that the generall of the Iesuits and the Protector, (who was vvholly the Ie­suits) vveare more vvilling to haue a man of their ovvne and wholly addicted to the so­cietie to be preferred, rather then a man, whō for many yeres they accompted of as one not at all addicted to the societie, but ioyned to the faction that vvas against them, as you in­sinuate before, and in this place also. Besids, as theare vvas no man of our vvholle nation thought so hable for that dignitie as fa: Par­sons, [Page 95]so no man vvas so fitt to be opposed to the B: as he, for by all licklyhood vvithout any opposition, the B. might haue carried it avvay. An other presumption of fa persons preferment vvas, that having (as the reporte runneth) made a booke of the succession of Ingland in favor of the Infante of Spaigne, he had gotten therby both favour and credite vvith the good old kinge, vvho could doe much in the obteyning of a Cardinalls hate. And besids all this at that present time, vvhen these rumors rane abrode, fa. Parsons came from Spaigne to Rome, in the companie of tvvo Spanish Cardinalls. All theis ptesump­tions put together made some proofe he as­pired to the redd hate, and that the Protector and Generall vvould stand for him against the Bisshop. Yet to giue you more certaine satisfaction that Fa: persons and his frends did all they could to hinder the B. (for vvhat cause god knovveth) I vvill (to imitate you) sett dovvne the Bishopps ovvne vvords in his last lettere that euer he vvrott to me, da­ted the 10. of march 1595. after some fevve perticuler affaires thus he saithe.

‘We haue lost our good Card: Allene, he made me executor of his vvil vvith 3. Cardi­nalls, and vve euer haue bene frends though some euill disposed did seeke to seperat vs for their ovvne gaine, and ill purposes. And novv there is such a stinck iug sturre in Flan­ders, [Page 96]Spaigne and Rome, to make Fa Parsons Cardinall and so by consequente to exclude me, that it is allmost incredible. But yet it is so thoughe it be lick to haue no other effect, but the discovering of Ambition, the blot­ting of that blessed Religion and discord a­mongst our nation and persecution against me, least I step before and stand betvvene them and the fire. The doers of this are but 2. or 3. of our Nation, vvhich tumble all vp and dovvne. All the rest, best and vvissest do loue and honor me. And in this Court it is merveiled at of strangers highe and lovve. They say I am an Italian, that I passe not for the Nation, that I am Brittannus and not ve­rus Anglus. That I vvil neucr returne into Ingland, if it vveare Catholick: false impu­dent lies and sclanders, vvhich I pray you cō ­fute as occasion shal serve. By lies, they may hinder others, but neuer are like to helpe them selues. In deed I am 61. yeres old, and am not therfore like to see Ingland, but if the way were open, I vvould leave Bishop­prick and all vvorldly states in this case, and go to serve my naturall conntrey and coun­trey men, vvhom in banishment I haue euer serued and loued more then all theis good fellovves. I seeke not to be Cardinall, bicause I knovve not, An ille status expediat & saluti animae meae conveniat.’ But let god do his devine prouidence, vvho knovveth vvhat is beast [Page 97]for vs all. Thus I confidently tell you my mynde, bicause I knovv you love me and I will ever loue you. Thus much the Bishoppe.

Novv of theese premisses, coniecture I be­seech you vvhither the schollers vvho desi­red the preferment of him, vvhom they too­ke to be founder as it vveare of that Collea­ge, and the fittest and vvorthiest of all secu­lar Priests of our nation to haue that honor after Card: Allens death, had not iust cause to suspect the forenamed to be his aduer­saries, and hindrers from attayning that hi­ghe dignitie? For my parte, as I vvas no de­aler either for the one nor th'other, so I vvis­hed one of the tvvoe to be advaunced, I ca­red not vvhich. For knovving that those tvvoe that stoode for it, to be fittest and ca­pablest men of our vvhole nation, both at home or abroad, I stood indifferent, both in respect of our contreis good, and of my ovv­ne particular, both being able men to serve our countrey and my especiall frends. Mary, yet to tell you the truth, I beleved as much then that Fa. Parsons should or vvould be Card. as I beleave novv the report of travail­lers vvho advouch that M. Geffrey Poole or M. Tho. Fitsherbert shalbe Card. And although it might be true that Fa. Par. Hin­dred the B. all he coold, (for some iust causes best knovvne to thim self) yet of this I am assured, that Fa. Par: had no vvill nor inten­tion [Page 98]to procure it for him self. For I savve a lettre vvritten from Rome by a dere and se­cret frend of his, that Fa. Par. vvith much a­doe and traveill, and at the great suite of his Generall had missed or refused the redd ca­pe, vvishing that some fit man of our na­tion had it. vvhich is an invincible argument to prove, that if Fa. Par. had had the vvill and intention to be Card. he should not haue had neade to employ all his frends to per­suade the Pope to the Contrarye.

A nother fault is, The 5. fault fol. 6. your impertinent dis­course theare of the controuersie of the En­glish Gentlemen against Fa. Holt. Hovv doth this prove that vvhich you haue taken in hand? They vveare but some of the laitie in emulation against one religious man. It is a great fault of you throughout your vvhol­le booke, Impertinent matter. to stuffe it vp vvith impertinent matter. For if a man vvould make a table of your impertinent matters, tales, toies, and di­gressions, it vvould be bigger then half your booke. Well, theise Gentlemen accused Fa. Holt ād M. Ovven of parcialitie. Surely they might say true, for any thiug you bringe or prove to the contrary. Why should not I or any other Reader (I pray you) rather beleave vvorshippsull and Catho. Gentlemen affir­myng by vvords ād vvrittinge that they were partiall, then to beleeue you (vnited brether­ne) talking vvithout booke ād by heare say, [Page 99]vvithout any disproofe of that vvhich they say? men must beleeve all that cometh from you vvithout proof, who gaue you that pri­veledge?

At leugth you are come from Iohn of Gāt to Wisbish castle, and from the yere 1577. Fol. 64. to the yere 1595. vvhen these sturres began the­re, hauing not (as you promise in this chapt.) brought any sufficient proof for 200. and odd yeres space to shewe what great hurt the emula­tion of secular Priests against Religious hath brought to our countrey. Both your bookes do testifie, that at that prison began all these vnfortu­nate and scandalous prison contencions. And although you attribute here, their living many yeres a religious life to haue happened by the instructions of a Religious Father of the So­cietye, Fol. 6. Contradiction Fol. 65. yet after vvards (forgetting your sel­ues) you attribute the cause of their so quiett living, to M. Licentiat Metham, and that it continuvved so long as he lived, and after this blessed mans death the sturres began. I aske you then if it be true, that for diuers yeres they had bene governed by Fa. Ed­monds good instructions, how felit our they continevved not to harken still thereto? You ansvvere. D. Bagshaw begane the diuision. Aetatem habet. Lett him ansvvere for him self. But I rather esteeme it to be that vvhich you say alitle before the good Card. vvas dead, Card. Allens death cause of the diuision. vvho­se auctoritye, as it keapt the Iesuits vnder, [Page 100]so the reuerend respect that all Priestes bare him, as to their loving fostering Father, made them depend vvholly on him, and to refer­re all their doubts and controuersies to him, and not to Religious mē. But after his death, the Priestes like Fatherlesse childrene, did seek helpe and confort vvhere they could find it. Some then liked this, some liked that, and so of diuers humors and liking grevv discontentment amongst them, the vvhich drevve after it, this miserable contention.

The 6. The 6. fault is irreverence to­vvards his holl. Fol. 7. fault is, in speaking so vnreverent­ly of his Holl. (of vvhich irreuerēce tovvards their superiors you often accuse your discō ­tented bretherne) saying that his holl. should be enforced aftervvards to confirme their officers and Prelates. An vndutifull speach. hovv could his holl. (I pray you) be compelled by a com­panie of discontented bretherne, vvhich do not amount (say you) aboue the nomber of 30. to confirme the Prelats chosen by them? A strang case, to see hovv great vvant of chari­ty driveth men hedlong to such vncomly spe­aches, ād to bring their bretherne gods Prie­stes into contempt and discredit. The Prie­stes in their book to his holl. make mention of this Association, of their Rules and consti­tutions and lay dovvne their intentions in these vvords: Sedi Apostolicae confirmandas pro­ponere decreveramus. vve had decreed to present them (our Rules) to the Sea Apostlicke to be [Page 101]confirmed. And aftervvards talking of their Prelates or Bishopps they say: Si quando id (beatiss. Pater.) tibi approbandum videretur. If at any time it should haue seemed good to your Hollines to approue it, vvould these men compell the Pope to confirme their Prelats, vvho protest their association and Prelats to be of no value, nor their election of any for­ce vvithout the Popes confirmation? Many other thiuges they say there, vvhich you lett passe vntouched, and being not to my pur­pose, I omitt also.

You add, that vvhen his Hollines savv this mauer of proceading. What mauer of procea­ding? Mary their nevv association, and that he should be enforced if they choose officers and Prelates, aftervvards to confirme them, thought it vvas time to looke to the matter, and to preuent their force, by prouiding them of a Prelate of his ovvne making. Cer­tes, your vvords must tend to this, or els to­nothing. But his Holl. being in Rome, hovv could he see this maner of proceading in In­gland? Pag. 23. Your discontended Bretherne attribut it to the Iesuits and especially to Fa. persons, vvhich you your selues do graunt here, but more modestly saying: Fol. 7. The Pope caused the Pro­tector to call to him Fa. persons and other English­men in Rome. vvhich other Englishmen as you say afterwards vvere Fa. Baldvvine and M. Fol. 98. b. Standish. one a Iesuit and thother a secular [Page 102]Priest (being latly come ont of Ingland) each of them vrged the same (subordmation) in be­half both of th'one and th'other order. Informes. Fol. 99. So you see theare are 2. Iesuits and one secular priest to enforme of the maner of theese pro­ceadings. Besids theise, th'oppinions of M. Haddock, M. Martine Array, and M. Thomas Allene vveare asked in Rome. So that his holl. vvas informed by tvvoe Iesuits and 3. Priests most affectioned (as all the vvorld knovveth) to the Iesuits against the Associa­tion of the discontented bretherne. And as for M. Thomas Allene, as he is put last, so I deeme he vvas putt in to make vp an nom­bre, as a Cypher in Algorisme. Let all men iudg vvhither your bretherne haue not cause to complaine, that the church of Ingland must be gouerned and ruled according to the iudgment and information of Iesuits, the cause touching them not at all, but the secu­lar Priests only, vvhich are neither called nor heard.

Well it seamed good to theise 6. English­men to giue the Priests in Ingland a Superior of their ovvne order. Fol. 7. b. Who should not be a Bis­hopp, whose dignitie being Culmen dignitat is the highest order in gods church, vvould ha­ue obscured and dymmed (as your brether­ne say) the estimation of the Fathers in In­gland, Pag. 23. but an Archpriest vvhose ordinarie of­fice ād dignitie is the lowest in gods churche.

The next conclusion in that Cōsultation of diuers moneths was, that it vvas not thought expedient for his Holl. to vvrit him self. vvherfore? Mary, for the same cause and consideration. what vvas that cause and consideration? for­sooth for the avoiding suspitiōs and troubles of the state of Inglād. For no other cause or cō ­sideratiō but this, you alleage before: for not having a Bishopp. Where were your wits when you vvrot this, vveare they a woolga­thering? or do you not know, that all things that come from Rome are suspected in In­gland and construed to be against the state? be he Archpriest, or be he Bishoppe? or whi­ther it come from Pope or Protector? either theise were not the considerations that mo­ved the informers to informe, that it was not thought expediēt for his Holl: to vvrit him self, or els they weare of no force and effect, or af­terwards reiected and neglected. For this not­with standing it was thought afterwards ex­pedient for his Holl. to write, and to send his Bulles (as he did). vveare not those causes and considerations as forceable when his Holl. wrot, as before he wrot? yes, yes, you know it full vvel. But theare lay a padd in the stra­we, the which in time wilbe discouerd.

Toching M. Black well, Fol. 8. whom you praise for quietnes, learning and vertue, true it is, that for such a one he was taken before thei­se sturres began, and for such a one I haue [Page 104]knowne him many yeres together. And if the Bishop: or Archp. had bene made by ele­ction, I should haue giuen my voice to him, so soone as to any man I knovv in Ingland. honores mutant mores. if all be true that is sett downe in the Priests appeale Qnantumque mutatus ab illo. M. Blackvvell faults. it is not the same M. Blackvvel. I knevv him to be (I must tell the truth for I looue not to flatter.) in those his answeres and doings he shevveth neither quietnes, modestie nor learning: but rather haughtines, seueritie and much indiscretion, tossing the censures of the church like tennis baules, for euery defaulte, threatning the taking avvay of faculties, Suspention, interdictiō or excō ­munication. Worthily vvas he cheaked in his Holl. last bull for his ouer much seueritie. In Prelats clemencie is extolled more then Se­veritie, Plus erga corrigendos agat beneuolentia quā seueritas: plus cohortatio quam comminatio, plus cha­ritas quam potestas. Can licet. dist. 45 Beneuolence (saith Pope Leo) worketh more vvith those that are to be corrected then seueritie: exhortation mo­re then theatninges and charitie more then auctoritye. I leave to M. Blackwell to me­ditat that vvhich follovveth in the same Canon. If I had bine by him in Ingland I vvould haue vvished him to haue followed the example of S. Gregorye of Nazianzen. Who seing a contention amonge the Bis­hoppes about him, quitted rather the Arch­bishopps [Page 105]Sea of Constantinople, then to be cause of such sturres and contentions. So vvhen M. Blackvvell savve vvhat stur­re and contention began to arise about his extraordinarre office, a man of his mode­stie in the time of persecution, the offi­ce being not profitable but dangerous should haue quitted it. But being vvell vnited in loo­ve and iudgment vvith the Iesuits (as you say here) seeing they had procured him the dig­nitie, he wovld not leave it so easlye, but for the looue of them hold it, and for their sa­kes, to his no litle discredite, subscribe to the booke of schisme which the Iesuits wrote a­gainst the prests, which resisted him.

Next you talke of the 2. priests that were sent to Rome and there imprisoned. I mer­uaile how you can without blushing, twange so oft as you doe vpon this string, which soū ­deth in euery mans eare, and worketh in e­uery mans hart (but your) pittie and compas­sion, as well for their vndue and vniust im­prisonement, as that it should be thought that Fa. Parsons should procure it, as also for his Hol. degenerating so farre from his name of Clement and from all iustice and equitie, as to imprison (vnheard) such as came ab vlti­mo orbe, as appeallants to that Sea. But here parhaps you wil cry out and say that I do not respect his Hol. nor speake so reuerently of him as I ought. Whereto I answere. I beare [Page 106]as great a respect and reuerence to his Holl. and his actions, as any of you do or can doe: But I cannot flatter as you doe but am. Tom tel troth. Is not his Hol. the supreame iudge on earth? Is he not bound to doe iustice? To obserue his owne and his predecessors Con­stitutions and Decrees? Hath not god and na­ture giuen him 2. eares, to heare each partie? Is he not a mā and may be misinformed? hath he not his passions as other men haue to cre­dite one man more then a nother? If all this be true, as you cannot denie but that it is, if you be Christians, Why might he not vniu­stly imprison them, being preoccupied with euell and false informations? Numquam est auditum à saeculo. specially in Rome that men appealling to that Sea, weare imprisoned be­fore they weare heard to speake in their de­fence. In your next and larger Apolog. bring me one like example and I will yeld to you.

They weare there a fortnight (say you) before thei weare imprisonned. what if they had bene there a whoil yere, being no [...] heard the time of their being there doth neither ag grauat their fault nor purge the iniustice of the fact. If they had ben hard and found faul­tie? All the world would haue liked of the iu­stice done to them, as now they mislike of the iniustice shewed to them. the matter pas­sing as it did, assure your selues, all the water in Tiber will neuer wash or cleāse the Actors [Page 107]herein of iniustice, nor stopp the mouthes of the posteritie from speaking against it, if it should be committed to memory and vvri­tinge as you haue done here. It followethe. That his Holl. Fol. 8. b. tooke order that they should be retired to the English Colleage in Rome, but in a nother place you say: it vvas at Fa. Parsons Request. Retyred (quoth you) from such re­tyring Liberanos Domine. If close prison be but a retraict, I know not what prisonmēt is? You do well to couer and mitigat so grat in­iustice with so mild and fauorable a word as retyred is. Certz, they were retyred to the English colleage, as M. Bishopp was retyred in Ingland to the Marshall sea, and there put in close prison by an hereticall Iustice of pea­ce. But to tell you more, this retyring of thē to the English colleage, was as great an iniu­stice as their apprehension was before they weare heard. What lavve doth permitt men to be imprisonned in the hovvses of their ad­uersaries? It is vvel knowe and you cannot denie, but that their comming to Rome was asvvell against the Iesuits as the Archpr. and specially against Fa. Parsons, vnder vvhose custodie they vvere imprisonned. In vvhat common vvealth vvell gouerned are prison­ners committed to the keaping and custodie of their aduersaries? Why are common gailes built but to keape offendors ād malefactors? If you haue any like example in your next, [Page 108]for our satisfaction that doe mislike of this dealing, bring vs one.

Aftervvards you treat more at large of this imprisonment. From fol. 120. dovvnevvards. Cloak and disguize it so vvell as you can novv, the posteritie hereaf­ter vvill vvonder to heare or reade that 2. ca­thol. priestes comming as appellants to Ro­me out of an hereticall coūtrey, in the vvhich they maintained constantly vvith danger of their liues, the honor and preminence of that Sea, and one of them had suffred somme yeres imprisonment vvith banishment after­vvards for the article of S. Peter and his suc­cessors supremacie ouer all Princes and Pre­lats vvhosoeuer, that theise priests (I say) should before they vveare heard, what they had to say, be cast into prison, yea and impri­sonned in the hovvse and vnder the custo­die of their aduersaries. Neuer vvas theare hard of such iniustice since good S. Peter sate in that chaire. Suerly, as strange, vnvsuall ād neuer before hard of iudgment, as the ap­pointment and institution of the Archp. vvas, the vvhich they vvent to impugne. the ma­ner and fashion also of their imprisonment, to be keapt close prisoners and not to see or communicate one vvith th'other for somme monethes, doth make the iniustice much more greater. Murtherers, manquellers, and traitors are not euery vvhere, nor in common gailes so handled. They cam to pleade against [Page 109]a nevv Prelacie instituted vvithout his Holl: bulls, and obteined (if not by evill) yet by the information of some fevve parsons. Was this so hainous a crime, that it should deserue such rigourous punishment? Are not his hol. bulles and breues euery daie almost in eue­ry court impugned, and reiected vpon such pretences as surreption and ill information? And yet such reiectors are quietly heard, and neither imprisonned nor punished albeit they proue not their intention. These men came but to impugne a Card. letters, and yet vvere haynously punished for it, before they vvere hard, and as though they had commit­ted Crimēlesae Maiestatis vvere cōstrained to ansvvere ex vinculis. Yea, Fol. 121. but (say you) they persisted to vvrangle, and vvent about to mis­informe diuers principall men of the citie of the affaires of Ingland and diuisions. bicause they informed othervvise then the 3. priestes and 2. Iesuite, before named had before informed it is misinformyng. In deed they vvere not called by the Protector to counsell as the o­thers vvere, but came to impugne the infor­mation giuen to him, and his appointment of the Archp. and therfore they vvere but vvrā ­glers and misinformers? seeing you vvill haue it so, be it so. They paied vvell for their vvrā ­gling.

After you haue told the tale as cunningly and as smoothly as you can in defence of the [Page 110]Agents and actors of this imprisonment, you fall a mockinge the poore priestes saying this then is the hainous fact vvhich our discontented bretherne since that time haue so much aggra­uated through the vvorld by clamors, and doe at this present both amplifie and vrge in these their bookes against his Holl: the Card. and spe­cially Fa: Parsons, &c. Come hither (I pray you) Is it not a hainous fact to committ iniu­stice and to imprison innocent parsons vn­heard? that they vvere innocent the time of their imprisonement (how soeuer they vvere found guiltie aftervvards) is notorious to all men, for in lavv, Quilibet praesumitur bonut vsque dum probetur malus. Euery one is presu­med to be an honest and innocent man, vn­till he be proued to be an naughtie fellovve, but nothing vvas proued against them before their imprisonment, ergo honest and inno­cent men vveare imprisonned. If this be not a hainous fact, I knovv not vvhat is a hainous fact. Haue so much aggrauated? (quoth you) if men had not vttered it, the stones them sel­ues vvould haue cried out against it, and (as I haue said) all posterity heare after vvill no doubt vvonder at it? Call you the setting dovvne of the truthe exaggeration? That 2. priestes comming out of Ingland to Rome vvith appellation, vveare cast into prison, before they vveare heard, vvhat they had to say, and that in such hast, as they must needs [Page 111]be caught and carried to prison on S. Thomas of Canterbury his day, a day so highly sole­mnished troughout all Chrestiendome of all Englishe Catholickes, vvhere any companie of them dvvell or Remaine? then, to be im­prisonned in the hovvse of those, against vvhō they came to cōtest? Next to be keapt close prisoners some monethes, not to be permitted to speak one vvith another, nor to companie or haue conference (vvhat say I vvith any Aduocat or Procureur for their instruction) no not vvith any English in the tovvne or scholler in the colleage, no not to be suffred to goe to Church, to say or heare Masse vpon Sondaies, Nevv yares daie and tvvelf daie? is this to aggrauat the matter? Thinke they to dazell mens eies by saying: They aggrauat the matter? haue they not iust cause to cry out, and notifie the iniustice to the vvhole vvorld? yea, but they vrge it a­gainst his Hol. the Card. and Fat. Parsons as vvho should say his Holl. the Card. and Far. parsons vveare Angels ad not sinfull men, or such as could doe no iniustice, that haue not their passions and affections a svvell as other men? as vvho should say, his holl. cannot err and misse in matters of fact, such as this is? by creditinge one partie too much, and by pre­iudicing thother partie? By these great braggs you vvould, terrifie your reader, and dravve him from the due codsideration of the fact it [Page 112]self. But all in vaine, vve knovv as vvell as you vvhat is due to his Holl. and Cardinals vvit­hout flattering thē, as you do to your owne and other mens hurts.

Next your ansvvere to their poore obie­ctions that, Fol. 123. if they came to trouble that church of Ingland: his Hollines might vvell determine to re­straine them for their disobedience at their first arri­vall. Which is a poore ansvvere. For had they come to trouble 20. churches, yet they ought to be heard before imprisonment. For hovv could his Holli knovv they came to trouble the church of Ingland, before they vveare heard to speak against that churche? you vvill ansvvere: his holl: knevv it by heare say. And vpon hearsay innocent men be imprisonned. And might not these informatiōs he had out of Ingland and Flaunders (especially being giuen by those of the contrary faction) be false? Good God? my iudg is informed against me by myne aduersarie against vvhō I plead, the iudge giveth eare and credit to his infor­mation and vvil not heare me speake and de­fend my self, but condemneth me to prison. Is not this good iustice thinck you? And yet this is the case of the tvvoe priests. Informa­tion vvas made against them to his Holli­nes by the contrarie faction, vpon vvhich in­formation, vvithout hearinge their defences, they vvere condemned and cast into prison in such order as you haue heard.

And as for that which you add in defence of this fact, that this a is course vsually held in all Princes courts of the world at this day, viz to imprison a man first & thē heare him after: as they doe in kendall, hange a man in the fo­renoone, and sit in iudgment of him in the afternoone, if it were true in temperall prin­ces courtes, yet the Sea of Rome neuer vsed any such course before in Church matters as these are, neither in any Princes courte in the world, are men prisoned in ciuil matters, such a one as this is, before they be heard. Nay, I say more, that ordinarily in criminall causes there is made a secret inquirie of the life ād behauior of the accused by the Princes offi­cers before the delinquant be apprehended and imprisoned. Can. non ita. 2. q. 6. And weare it true you say of Princes courtes, I answere you: Non ita in Ecclesiast. agendū est negotiis sicut in seculari­bus. Ecclesiasticall affaires (quoth the Pope Eutichianus) must not be handled as secular affaires are handled.

The 7. fault, The 7. fault. The state of the question not sett dovvne as you promis. is that you promisse in this first chap. to sett downe the state of the present cō ­trouersie in question. and yet you do nothing lesse but throughe out this whole booke you shūne it and fly from the points in question, as from a snake or serpent.

Your discontented brethrene in the preface of their English booke put it downe thus: The strief and dissention at this day, &c. is a­gainst [Page 114] ‘those priests who did forbeare to sub­iect them selues to the Archp. constituted in auctoritie ouer all the Seminary priestes in England and Scottland by a Card. who was Protector of the English colleage at Rome, and afterwards honored with the title of Protector of Ingland, for the which forbearing &c. the Priestes were accused of schisme, se­dition, faction and rebellion. &c.’

Loe how plainly they goe to work, wher as you still roue abrode, and will not come neare the prick. You should haue confuted this, and putt the case more truer if you could They did putt it more largly downe to the D. D. of Sorbonne which you mislike and fin­de 5. faults therewith. Therfore being parci­all to neither side, I will put it downe truly and as it is in deed. Fol. 116.117. Fol. 7. The true case of the first contro­uersie in questiō

When his Holl. saw the proceadings of the priests in Ingland touching their associatiō and endevours to make them selues officers and Prelats of their owne institution. He vvilled the Card. and Protector to call vnto him fath. parsons and other English men in Rome, to see vvhat remedie vvas best for theis disorders. Where it was concluded that the priests should haue a superior of their owne order, and for somme causes, it was not thought good that this Superior should be a Bishopp but an Archp. with 12. assistants, and for some considerations it was not thought expedient [Page 115]that he should be instituted or constituted by his Hol. his bulles. Where vpon his Holl. gaue full and expresse commission to Cardi­nall Caietane the Protector to appoint the same with conuenient instructions. The pro­tector according to his commission appoin­ted and constituted M. Blackwell Archpriest with as grat iurisdiction ouer Ingland, and also Scotland as al the Bishopps of those 2. realmes had before. The Card. Fol. 116. b. letters whe­rin he said he did this Ex expresso mandato San­ctissimi. by the expresse commandement of his Hol: being receiued in Ingland and com­municated to the priestes. The Archp, Fol. 7. b vvas receued and obayed vvillingly and ioyfully by the English clergie, excepting only a fevve that misliked the facte, Fol. 8. bicause it hindred their asso­ciation. And for that the Archp. being a quiet learned and vertuous man, and vvell vnited in loue and iudgmēt vvith the Iesuits, they mistru­sted euer to be able to dravve him to be indifferēt and for that cause deuised many scrupulls and lets, partly of the faith and credence of the said Card. letters, then vvhither his Hol. could (ac­cording to the canons and constitutions of his Predecessors and according to the vvrittē lavve and style of the court of Rome) institute a nevv office and dignitie neuer hard of before in Christs churche in respecte of his large and āple iurisdiction, by that meane, that is, by the let­ters of a Protectour vvithout his Holl. bulles? [Page 116]This is the case sett downe plainly and trulye Now the question is.

First. First question. whither a Card. Protector is to bele­ued vpon his worde, saying: that he hath ex­presse commandment from his holl: to doe this or that?

2 Next whither not only a new and extraor­dinary dignitie, (as this is for his ample iu­risdiction) but any other benefice or digni­tie what so euer, cā be made, Instituted or gi­uen to anye, or by any other meanes, then by the Popes expresse bulls and breues?

3 Thirdly whither those parsons vpon whō such a superior is putt and thrust, may not, yea are not bounde in lawe and cōscience to withstād him and not to admit or accept him?

4 Fourthly Whither a man put in possession of a dignitie or benefice by other meanes thē the Popes expresse bulles, be not an intruded parson: that is, an vninst possessor of that di­gnitie or benefice?.

5 Fiftly, Whither our English cletgie that re­ceued him and obayed him so willingly and Ioyfully did not offend against his Hol. con­stitutions and are punishable by lawe for it, or no?

Lastly, Fol. ibid. b Whither those few priestes that mi­sliked the fact, and would not admitt such a Superior thrust vpon them by such letters, without his Holl. bulles, did synne, or weare to be counted and proclaimed Schismaticks [Page 117]and worse then sooth saiers for the same.

Theise questions touch the quick of the first controuersie in question by the decision of the which, you and your reader shall see and perceiue (if they be not stark blinded) whither the fault Was in your discontented bretherne that refused to receiue the Archp. and to acknowledg him their Superior vpon the Card. Protectors letters, written as he said ex expresso mandato Sanctiffimi, or in the Archpr. that would accept and occupie such a dignitie vpon such letters: or in you (vni­ted brethrene) that vpon such letters did ha­zard so willingly and ioyfully to receiue the Archp. and by this your Apologie goe about to auerr and allowe of the same.

Touching the first question. For the decisiō of the first que­stion. Fol. 108. b It seemeth that a Card. Protector is to be beleaued vpon his worde, by the text, glosse and reasō which you alledg for the saime. For the Canon No­bilissimus dist. 97. doth report that the Pope receiued a Princes Ambassador as Ambassa­dor, and beleaued all he tould him in his Maist. name that sent him, For the Cardin. and Archp. albeit he brought no letters of credence from the Prince that sent him. Ergo if the Pope him self did belea­ue an Ambassador without letters from his Prince, why should not a few secular priestes beleaue a Card. their Protect. affirming, that what, soeuer he did, was done by his Hol. ex­presse eommandmēt, allthough he shewed [Page 118]no letters from his Hol. for confirmatiō the­reof. Now if the Pope beleued a man of far­re lesse qualitie, dignitie and credite then a Card. (yea a Card. Protector of the wholl na­tion to whom he wrott) is, and that without letters vpon his bareworde: per argumentū à minore ad maius, certs, priests ought to ha­ue beleued a Card. Protector being of so e­minent a dignitie as (vnder his Hol.) theare is no higher in gods church, and by conse­quence theise few secular priests did not well in not beleauing the Card. and in withstan­ding and not acknowledging the Archp. con­stituted by him, by the expresse command­ment of his holl: as by his letters he affirmed and testified.

The glosse by you alleaged reckenyng vp many priuiledges that Card. Fol. ibidem. Ad C. vnic. in extr. Joann. 22. de praebend. sn verb. sublimita­tis. haue above other prelates in the 8. priuiledg saith that a Card. saying him self to be the Popes legat, is to be beleued without any letters at all. But Caieta­nus who instituted the Arch. was a Card. and which is more Protector of the contrey in the which he instituted that dignitie. Ergo he was to be beleued without letters, saying he did it by the expresse commandment of his holl. I see no reason of diuersitie. For why is not this Card. aswell to be beleaued saying he did this by this holl commandment, as the other Card. saying he is the Popes legate, till you discontented bretherne bring me, some reason of diuersitie, I must conclude thone to [Page 119]be as well beleeued as th'other, and so both to beleeued without letters, on their bare words, and by consequēce, you to haue offē ­ded in not beleeuing him, and in not admit­tinge the Archp. vpon his letters, attesting it to be done by his hol. expresse cōmandment.

This reason also, Fol. 108. is against the discontented bretherne vvho doth not knovve vvhat a Card. testimonie in any Chrestian Catho. court is vvorthe? especially a Protector testifying and professing in his letters to doe it by the speciall commandement of his Hol. as this man dooth in this letters? If then Card. be beleeued in Christian Princes courtes, v­pon their words, why doe you poore priestes call his credit in question, vvhy doe you not obay him, thinck you that your disobedience is of greater force to discredit him, then the obedience of all Christian Princes is to geue credite to his vvorde and testimonie, you are farre deceeued if you thinck so.

This is all (my vnited Bretherne) that you haue said or can say in the defence of the in­stitution of the Archp. by the Protectors let­ters ex mandato Sanctissimi. I haue vrged your arguments syncerely, and as farre (I thinck) as you can doe your selues, and yet for all that, your allegations doe not proue your intention nor disproue the fact and do­ing of your discontented bretherne. If you haue no better stuff to bring in, in your next and larger Apologie, I must needs pronoun­ce [Page 120]you to haue an iniust cause in hand, and these fevv priestes against vvhom you vvrit, to gaine the victory of you. and to haue done like good childrene of Gods Churche, in ob­seruing her ordonance and Constitutions by reiecting Superioritie so vnduly and vn­canonically putt vpon them: and you to be (as it vveare) bastards, so vvillingly and ioyfully to receiue an intruded parson thrust in vpon you against the Ordinanances, Decrees, Constitutions and Canons of Gods Churche, The text, glosse ādreasō brought for the Cardin. doing make not for him. as an one shall appeare.

The Canon Nobilissimus is so farre from making for you, that it vtterlye ouetthro­vveth the Constitution of the Archp. and doth proue that a Card. be he Protector of ten Realmes is not to be beleeued except he shew his holl. letters. This saith the Ca­non: Nobilissimus vir atque strenuus vestrae sublimitatis Legatus licet nullam epistolam iu­xta consuetudinem à vobis nostro Pontificio de­tulisset, licet nnnquam Apostolicae Sedis modus fuit absque signatis apicibus vndecumque lega­tionem suscipere: nos tamen vos in illo honoran­tes eiusque grauitatem & eloquiorum illius ve­ridicas cognoscentes assertiones, nihilominus eum & sicut decuit suscepimus, & ei sicut ho­nestum fuit oredidimus. Thus farre Pope Ni­cholas, Which is to say. All though the most noble and valiant man your highnes Legat [Page 121]brought no letters from you vnto vs, and albeit it vvas neuer the maner of the Apo­stolick Sea to receive any Ambassage from vvhat place soeuer vvithout signed or sealed letters, yet that notvvith standing, as it beca­me vs we haue received him, (without let­ters) and as honestie required vve haue be­leeved him. Honoring you in his person, and his grauitie acknowledging his assertions to be true. If this Canon proue any thiuge, it is this: that the Sea Apostolick neuer vsed to receaue Ambassadors from Princes vvithout letters of credence signed or sealed by the Prince thet sendeth such Ambassador, ād that the same Sea neuer sendeth Ambassador or giueth commission to any whosoeuer vvith­out letters from the same Sea. And therfore the Card. Protector by this Canon vvas not to be beleeued Sine signatis apicibus, that is without the Popes bull or breue. And by consequence this Canon brought by you doth discharge your discontented bretherne from all disobedience, and charg your ow­ne selues vvith ouer muche lightnes to ad­mitt a Superior vpon a Card. lettre without letters from the Sea Apostlick. which as your Canon proveth is not accoustomed to giue Commission to any man vvithout letters signed. The truth is, this Canon neither ma­keth for th'one, nor against th'other, for it spaketh in a case farre different from this [Page 122]that is in question. For it treateth of sending Ambassodors to the court of Rome, and our questiō is of sending from Rome. And wher­as Gratian a litle before this Canon by you alleadged, said: That it vvas not the custome of the church of Rome either to receeve Ambassadors from any place, or to send Ambassadors or Legates to any place vvithout letters signed or sealed: And for proof ther of alleadged the vvords of Pope Nicholas: the Correctors of the decret ap­pointed, and after approved by Gregory the 13. Do takaway theis words. (Or to send.) In vulgatis sequebatur: Neque mittere, quae absunt a vetustis neque conveniunt cum his quae sequenti Ca­pite afferuntur. That is. In the vulgar copies it did followe, Neither to send, vvhich words are not in the ancient copies, neither do they agree with those thinges that are treated in the chap. follovving. vvhich chapter is your Canon Nobilissimus. And vvhy do not those vvords agre vvith that vvhich is treated in that chapter? Bicause that chapter treateth of sending Ambassadors to Rome and not of sending Legats or Ambassadors from Rome, and so the case is altered (quoth Ploydon.) Your Canon saith that the Pope of courtisie extraordinarily and against the custome of that Sea received an Ambassador that came without any letters of credence. This is all. Hovv proverh it that the Protector was to be beleeved without letters vpon his ovvne [Page 123]woorde that he did it by expresse comman­dement from his Holl.? even as much as: Hovv farre is it to london? A poake full of plumbes.

Novv to your Glosse. You haue throatled this glosse. Who if it had not had the chyn coughe, and that it had not be­ne (at it vveare) throatled by you, least it should haue spoken out, vvould not haue made muche for you.

The 8. priuilege (saith the Glosse) is, a Cardinall saying him self to be the Popes Legat is to be beleeved vpon his vvorde. allthoughe some call this priveleag in doubt. You are nippers. vvhich latter words you nipped quiteof, bicause they marred the markett. If you had putt them dovvne, your Reader vvould straight haue seene, that that priveledg vvas not so firme and stable, that you should build any solide or firme Doctri­ne vppon it, as in deed it is built vpon a hea­pe of sande, and not vpon a Rocke, as you shall see anon, after the answeare to your reason. No vpright dea­ling.

Why (my vnited brotherne) this is fals­hood in fellowshipp to deceiue your selues voluntaryly, (for you could not but see thei­se vvords if you saw the other) and your vnlearned Reader (that vvould not seek the glosse, but credit you vpon your vvorde) vvillingly, I will not say malliciously. you must in your next Apologie confesse here vvhither you will or no, either your igno­rance [Page 124]or your mallice. Ignorāce for alleaging vntruly an Author you neuer savve, mallice, if you savve him, ād yet alleage him corrupt­ly, in cutting of that which confuteth the thing, for the which you alleage him. This is no nevves to you for elswheare you do the like, as in place you shall heare of. This is to immitate Iewell and Novvell and not Cath. Writters.

That your reasō is not good ād that it hol­deth not in any Christian and Catho. Your reason holdeth not. Courts (as you vvould make men beleeue) is pro­ved out of Robuffus a French man, who was a great Practicioner in the court of Rome and Fraunce, Jn concord. in rubr. de regia ad Prelaturas? verb. Certa. and a Learned Canonist. He saith thus: Secundum praxim in Francia non creditur Legato a latere asserenti se viuae vocis oraculo dispensandi vel aliam potestatem a Papa habe re, nisi eam ostendat, & in Parlea­mentis eius potestas registretur, &c. According to the practize of France a Legat of Latere is not to be beleeved affirming that by wor­de of mouth he hath power from the Pope to dispence, or to haue any other auctoritye, except he shenw it, and that his auctoritye and povver be registred in the parliaments.

This is taken out of a booke dedicated to Fraunces the first king of France, whom I trust you vvill graunt to haue bene a good Christian and Catholike kinge.

So that your vvho doth not knovv, Fol. 108. pro­vethe [Page 125]your intention nothing at all. for if a Legat of latere be not beleeved, whē he saith he hath some specially auctoritye given him by mouth from his holl. how vvould a bare Card. or a Protector be beleeved in the like case? And suer I am neither Legat nor Prote­ctor should be beleeved in Spaigne or els­vvhere in our case, which is the Institution of a new office or dignitie, that neuer vvas seen in Christe his church before, without expresse letters from his Hollines.

Novv to returne to your glosse which saith: The glosse. Licet aliqui hoc revocent in dubium althou­ghe some call this in doubt. for aliqui, some, he might haue better said, omnes. All inter­preters call it in doubt.

First and foremost then, Against the In­stitution of the Archpriest. the first glosse vppon your Canon Nobilissimus saith: here it is proved that Legats are not to be credited vvith­out letters, and so condempneth the said 8. priveleage.

The second glosse theare addeth: A Legat then or Ambassador must shevv and exhibite the letters of his Legation, if he vvilbe beleeved. You see by this that your glosse said vvell: Some doe call this in doubt.

To this glosse I add the opinion of Bar­tolus the Prince of Ciuilian Interpretors. L. Ʋnic. C. de superindicto lib. 1. the Emper or forbidding all men to pay any tovvle or taxe ad solas prefectura lettras, vpon the Capitaine of the Garde (vvho vvas the [Page 126]next person to the Emperour in auctoritye) his letters, except they weare cōfirmed by the Emperors letters, saith thus: ‘Canonista tamen dicunt quod Cardinalibus creditur etiamsi literas non ostendant, &c. The Canonists do hold that credit ought to be given to Cardinalls, all­though they shewe no letters for it. vvhich is flatt against the text of this lavve, by which faith is not given to the Capitaine of the guarde or Constable vpon his owne letters without he shewe also the Emperors letters. ergo a Card. is not to be credited vnlesse he shewe the Popes letters, the which Cardinall Caietane did not. ergo.’

The Lawier that maketh notes or addi­tions vppon Bartolus in the same place, Notes vppon Bartolus. no­teth full well, that the lawe cited is to be vn­drestood of such things as are due to the Prince only to doe, or are reserued only to his auctoritye, as the imposing of taxe, tribu­tes and gabells vpon the subiects belonge only to the Prince, and no man els of vvhat preheminence or dignitie so euer he be, can doe it. And therefore (quoth he) Si quis dicebat se habere talem promissionem a Principe, non est du­bium, quod non creditur sine literis, & maxime quando certatur de preiudicio alterius. if any man should say, he had permission of the Prince (to tovvle or taxe the subiects) without all doubt he is not to be beleeved, without the Princes letters and chiefly vvhen that vvhich [Page 127]he saith he may doe, is preiudiciall to others. Mark hovv he saith. Jf the thing belong to the Prince onely. C. 10. ext. de translat. Cpi. But the instituting of new offices and dignities, belonge to his Holl. only as also doe the collations of benefices depen­ding of his gyste, and not to Cardinalls Pro­tectors or Cardinalls Legats, vnlesse it be ex­pressely sett downe in the faculties of their legation. ergo there ought no credit to be given to the Protectors letters, instituting a new dignitie vvithout shevving his Holl. let­ters for discharge, and by consequent the discontented bretherne in lawe and con­science did vvell, not to admitt the Archpriest as their Superior vpon the Cardinalls letters: and you (vnited bretherne) did against lavve and right to admitt him so lightly and vvil­lingly as you did.

Iason also a Learned Ciuilian after he had alleaged (according to his customet) the opi­nions of all that vvrot before him at last cō ­cluded: Jason. Jn repetit. Li. admonnendi ff. de iureiur. 11. 189. Quod si etiam Cardinalis a latere diceret Papam sibi aliquid commisisse quod respicit damnum & preiudicium tertij non creditur sibi, nisi Bullas Apostolicas commissionis ostendat & ita procedit Glossa ad ca. Nohilissimus dist. 97. If a Card. yea a Card. Legate should say that the Pope (by mouth) hath committed some thing to him that is hurtfull to a third person, he is not to be beleeved, except he shevve the Popes Bulles of his Commission, and so ought the [Page 128]glosse vpon the Canon Nobilissimus to be vn­derstoode, he meaneth the third glosse vpon the same, which saith thus: Credit ought to be giuen to a Card. that is vvel knovvne in any Pro­vince vvithout any letters at all. Maxime cum non contingat Cardinalem vnquam abesse nisi Legationis causa. Chiefly, bicause it doth not lightly hap­pen a Card. to be absent (from the court of Rome) but when he is seent in Legation. Be­sids Petrus Rauenatus a singuler good la­wier, Petrus Rauc­natus. In bre­uiario Juris Can. tit. ext. de foro compe­tent. is of the opinion of the glosse, that a Card. is to be beleived affirming him self to be the Popes Legate, bicause customably Cardinalls do not depart from the court of Rome, except he be made a Legate. But both are to be vndrestood as Iason saied before, except that vvhich they say be preiudiciall to others. And besids, they talke of Cardinalls which be out of Rome that are presumed to be Le­gats. And our Card, was still in Rome, and so the case is altered.

Andreas Alciatus also saith: Alciat ad C. cū contingat in 11.35. ext. de Iure­iurand. Neque Car­dinali creditur in alicuius preiudicium. Nei­ther is a Card. to be credited in an others pre­iudice. Note he speaketh in general of all Cardinalls be they Legats, The Emperors. l. vnic. C. de mandat. princip. Protectors or not. To conclude with Civilians. The Emperors their lords and Maisters say: Si quis asserat &c. If any affirme that he commeth to you vvith our secreat commandements, be it knovven to you all, that you give no credit therto, except he prove [Page 129]it by shevvinge our letters. And be you not terri­fied vvith the dignitie or peruissance of any man, but aske hardly for our letters. This then you see is a rule in lavve, that none that say they ha­ue this commandement from the Prince, or, the Prince hath given me this office or au­ctoritye to constitute such an office or offi­cer are to be beleeved, except they shevve the Princes letters for it. Card. Caietane did not shevve his Holl. letters for the auctori­tye he tooke vpon him in constituting the Archp. ergo by lavve he vvas not to be be­leeved or credited, nor the Archp. vpon his letters only to be received or admitted. Let vs novv heare vvhat the Canonistes saye.

Petrus Rauenatus in the place before alleaged saith: Siautem diceret, &c. Petr. Rauena­tus. againe. But if he (the Card. Legat) should say that some thinge vvere specially committed to him, vvhich is not conteined in his faculties, Commission, or generall office of his Legation, he is not to be credited, except he shevve his letters. This not vvhithstandinge some doe saye: That by custome credit is to be given to him, yea in an other mans preiudice, vvhen he affir­meth some thing to be committed to him by vvorde of mouth.a. In c. sicut ex­tr. de sent. ex­com.But the Abbot Panormitanus doth not be­leeve it, forvvhom is a notable a glosse. and for my part I am of his opinion and doe alleage a singuler text, vvhich is alleaged ordinarily to proue, that the Pope cannot make a lavve: that faith be giuen to one in the preiudice of an other. Thus he.

But let vs heare Panor. Panormit ad. d. c. sicut. the Prince of Ca­nonists speake: Nota singulariter, &c. ‘Note singularly, that a Card. is not to be beleeved affirming any thinge in the preiudice of an other. And therfore if a Card: should say, that the Pope committed some thinge to him by vvorde of mouthe (vvhich is all one vvith ex­presse commandement) tending to an others pre­iudice, he is not to be beleived, except he pro­veth it othervvise. keepe in mynde this Glos­se, vvhich doth notably limitate the Canon Nobilissimus.’ And allthough Nauarre doth seeme to advouch and hold, Nauar. Jn con­sil. 12. tit. de te­statis. that a Card. is to be beleived euen in an others mans preiudi­ce, yet he saith, three thingh must concurre. The first that he testifie of things commit­ted to him by the Pope, or to be sēt to others by him. The second. That they be things ac­customed, to be graunted. The third. That it turne not directly to the preiudice of an other. Novv as the first point might helpe the Protector, so the tvvo others make di­rectly against him. So that in effect Nauar, saith as much as th'others doe, that a Card. is not to be beleved in the preiudice of another

The reasons vvhy a Card. Reasons vvhy a Card. nor any other is to be be­leeved on his vvorde. C. Cum a nobis ext. de test. is not to be be­leived on his only vvorde is: bicause the lawe doth forbidd Any credit to be giuen to the vvor­de or saying of one Iudge, of vvhat soeuer auctoritye he be. And that no Judge doe easely suffree the te­testimonie of one alone in vvhat cause soeuer, to be [Page 131]admitted. And againe. L. Jurisiur. C. de testib. Ca. si testes Par. vnius 4. q. 3. L. Nullus ff. de testibus. We vvill not that the de­position of one vvitnes be heard at all althoughe he be of great honor in the court. For in such a case the Card. should beare vvittnes in his ovvne cau­se vvhich cannot be, bicause, Nullus idoneus te­stis in re sua intelligitur. No man is counted a lavvfull vvitnes in his owne cause. For by the lawe of god and nature (vvhich neither Pope nor Protector can change) it is decreed: that in ore duorum aut trium stet omne verbum. Theare must at the lest be tvvo vvittnesses to proue the thinge that is in controuersie. Alexander the 3. after he had alleaged the fo­resaid vvords, addethe: C. Licet. ext. de testib. Quia licet quaedam sunt causae, quae plures quam duos exigant testes, nulla ta­men est causa quae vnius testimonio (quamvis legiti­mo) terminetur. For albeit theare be some cau­ses that require more then tvvoe vvittnes­ses, yet there is no cause that cā be ended or decided by the wittnes of one alone, be such witnes neuer so lavvfull. And to end this cō ­trouersie vvith Pope Bonifacius the 8. say­ing: Nec simpliciter creditur se asserenti Legatum. C. Iniunctae par. asserenti in ext. com. de elect. Nor is he to be beleived that saieth simplie (vvithout our letters) he is a Legat. Marke hovv he speaketh indefinitly, vvithout ad­ding vvhether it be in the preiudice of an o­ther or noe, he is not at all to be credited with­out letters from the Pope. By this that hath bene said you see, that your discontēted bre­therne had iust cause and good reason not to [Page 132]beleve the Card. Protector vvithout the Po­pes Bulls, and therfore might well say, that they vvere not bound to beleeue him vvith the rest that follovveth in your 17. leafe b. put dovvne by you as not vvell spoken, vvhen as it is the truth it self, as you see hath bene heare proved.

But novv vvhen I haue all done, you will say: the Priests in Ingland vvere not preiudi­ced by the Card. letters, and therfore by the opinion of the Authors by me alleged, they ought to haue beleeved and obaied the Card. affirming to haue done that vvhich he did by the expresse commandement of his Holli­nes. Ansvveare. My vnited bretherne, my Authors do not say that he is to be beleeved vvhen that vvhich he saith is not preiudiciall to an other. But they say: he is not to be beleeved maxime chiefly vvhen he doth therby preiudice an other. vvhich vvord maxime doth not inclu­de, that if he doe not preiudice any he is then to be beleeved. And besids Bonifacius saieth simply: He is not to be beleeued vvithout letters. It importeth not then vvhither this action did preiudice the Priestes or no. but vvhither he vvas to be beleeved and obayed therin vvithout the Popes letters? But novv, if all the Priests in Ingland vveare preiudicied in this action, then must you hold downe your hedds for shame and graunt you vveare too hastie to admitt' such a superior to be putt v­pon [Page 133]you to your owne preiudice.

That you and your bretherne vvere pre­iudicied by this subordinatiō so instituted by the Card. letters may easely be proved thus. That all Priest in Ingland vve re preiudicied by this Jnstitu­tion. Euery Superior as Pope, Archbishop, Bis­hope, Deane, Prouost, Abbott Abbesse and some sort of Priors De iure communi & ordi­nario, by the ordinary and common course of lavve ought to be chosen by those, ouer who­me they are aftervvards to gouerne. Tit. de elect. ext. in 6. in clo. & in ext. This is proved by the generall title de electione of ele­ction vvhich is put asvvell in the Decretalls as in the Clementins and extrauagants. in vvhich title are sett dovvne many notable constitutions touching the maner, order and direction of theis elections. And that in In­gland elections haue had place is euident, by some constitutions directed to the Archb. of Canterbury, the B. of vvorcester, and others, to end some Difficulties vvhich arose vpon elections there. Besids this his Holl. asked M. Standish vvho vvas nevvly come out of Ingland vvith Fa. Baldwine, whither the de­siere to haue a superior as he then informed him, was by the consent of all the Priestes in Ingland, or no? vvho ansvvered that it was. And vpon this information of Fa. Pag. 31. persons and Fa. Baldwine (as you confesse) it was re­solued to giue the Priestes for Superior an Archp. but not a Bishop. That question of his Holl. vvas an euident signe and token [Page 134]that his Holl. meaned not to giue them a su­perior vvithout their consents, nor to take away the right of election that vvas due vnto them by his predecessors decrees and Con­stitutions. C. Ecclesia 2. vers. neque enim ext. de elect. For to vse Gregorye the 9. his words, talking of this matter of election. Ne­que enim credendū est Romanum Pontificem (qui iura tuetur) quod alias excogitatum est multis vigilus & inuentum, vno verbo subuertere voluisse. It is not credible that the B. of Rome (who doth defēd the lawes) would with one vvorde ouer throvve, that vvhich otherwise with much paine and care hath bene excogitated and invented. Euen so I say, the Popes holl, is not to be presumed vvith one vvorde said to the Protector, to take a vvay the right of ele­ction, vvhich by lawe belonged to the Priests in Ingland: specially being informed (thou­ghe falsely) that all the Priestes consented therto. Vppon which information, thinking they vvere contented that his holl. should appoint them a Superior, he appointed then one. Besides you must learne, that all that vvhich his Holl. decreeth or granteth by his Bulls and commandements is all wai­es to be vndrestood. Saluo ture alieno, & sine alterius detrimento, C. L [...]cet ext. de officio iud. ordinand. sauing other mens right and vvithout the hurt and hinderacem of o­thers. Nostrae (inquit) intentionis non est Episco­po preiudicium generare. It is not our inten­tion to preiudice the B. saith Alexander the [Page 135]3.) And Innocentius the 3. vvritting to the Archb. of Sens in France saith. Quia tamen intentionis nostrae nec fuit nec esse debuit Iurisdi­ctioni tuae per mandatum huiusmodi derogare. Bi­cause it neither was, nor ought to be our in­tention by this commandement to derogat thy Iurisdictione. I think if Clement the 8. vvere vvell informed hovv all matters doe goe, and in vvhat sorte he vvas deceived, he vvould ansvvere vvith his predecessors: that it vvas not his intention to derogat the Iurisdiction of the Priestes, by taking from them the election of their Superior, vvhich vvas due to them by the Ecclesiasticall lawes. By this you see, that vvhat soeuer the Protector vvrott, you vveare to haue an eye to his Holl. intention that comman­ded him, as your bretherne hadd. Certz for this your facte of admitting the Arch­priest. vpon the Card. letters vvithout Bull. or breve from his holl. you rather deserue to be called Blinde, then th'others for their lavvfull resisting him discontented brether­ne. This vvich I haue said may suffice for this present to aduertise you that the Card. Protector vvas not to be beleeued in the preiudice of all you Priestes in Ingland both discontent and vnited vvithout letters from his Holl. nor his Archp. to be by you receiued and by consequence your dis­contented [Page 136]bretherne to haue had iust cau­se, of discontentment for such vnlavvfull intrusion, and to haue duly and lavvfully refused to accept and acknowledg the Arch­priest to be their Superior, before he she­wed them the Popes Bulls for his warrant.

CHAP. III.

THE Fathers of the societie are vvorthy of greater praise then you giue them, Fol. 20. b. and wea­re vvorthy of more, if they had not meddled in this con­trouersie, which nothing per­teyned to them, One il herbe marreth a vvhole pott of pottage. and had suffred the secular Priests to followe their affaires, being 2. di­stinct bodyes ād comō wealthes as they are. But this medling so farre in a matter not ap­perteyning to them, doth giue mē suspition, they tend to somme other end, and make their frends full sorie to see contemplatiue men plonged so deepely in vvorldly affaires, and so vp to the eares in strif and contention.

But that vvhich followeth as it should see­me greatly to please you, so it much disliketh me, Disgrace of se­cular Priests. and all of my humor, as spoken in disgra­ce and discredit of secular Priests, but espe­cially of such as haue and doo trauell in In­gland, for the gayning of Soules. I vvill sett it dovvne to see if it can make you blush, so to discredit your ovvne coate and vocation.

Yea diuers, Fol. 20. b. that be hedds novve of faction a­gainst them (the Iesuits) are so farre beholdinge to them, as probably they had neuer beene men of learuing and accompt, if these Religious men, and their charitie had not beene. What an im­pudent [Page 201]ly is this? vvhy? D. Bagsbavv, an impudently. whome they accompt the cheif, D. Bishop M. Champeney, and others the heds of the faction against thē, Would they (thinke you) neuer haue beene men of accompt, if they hadd not gone to Rome? what if they had staid in Rhemes, or Douay? is theare no lear­ning but in the Rom. college at Rome? be they all Asses and vnlerned not able to write bookes that weare brought vp in the semi­naries of Rhemes and Doway? All you vnited priests (the gratest part neuer being brought vp vnder the fathers) are you not men of lea­ring and accompt? and able to vvrite bookes how then wrote you this your Apologie? par­aduenture it was vvritten by a Romist and not by a Rhemist. but vvhat? are all the lear­ned men of our contrey beholdinge to the­se Religious for it? God forbid. yea but Why are men somuch beholden to thes religious: Mary, Fol. ibidem. Jmpudencie. somme of thē (the secular priests) going ouer poore seruing men, other soldiers, others vvanderers in the vvorld, and none lightlie but more or lesse, one vvaie or other, in neede of their helpe and fauor, &c. Far othevvise doth their great friēd And. Philopatris (pag. 199.) vvri­te of them: that those vvho come to the Se­minaries, are for the most part descended of vvourshipfull families, and borne of rich pa­rente. What! diuers of these that be heds no­we of the factiō against the Iesuits, weare they [Page 202]such men as you mention heere? name one of them to saue your honestie. For heds, in al your booke, you recken D. Bagsh. D. Bish. M. Mush. M. Bluet, M. Chāpeney, M. Col­llington, M. Charnock (put in also M. Wat­son if you will:) vveare these poore seruing men, souldiers, or vvanderers, vvhen they came ouer? what impudency is this? vvhat calumniation both of the vocation and of the persons? you tell the reader heere, that the heds vveare such companions as you haue named, but name no man heere. yet after­vvards, you recken these vvhome I haue na­med for the heds of the faction, by conse­quence then, you vvould haue your ignorāt Reader, (that neither knovveth the men, nor their education) to thinke, that those vveare these poore seruing men, souldiers, and vvande­rers vp and dovvne, vvhich if the Iesuites of charitie (forsooth) had not taken in, they vvould neuer haue come to this learnīg to be able to vvrite books against them. Beleeue them vvho list, this I am assured of, that if it vveare true, and that a Iesuit vvrot this boo­ke, An vnhappy Covve. he then dooth like an vnhappy covve, that after shee hath giuen a good meales mil­ke, striketh the payle downe vvhich her hee­le. Euensoe, if the Iesuits had doone somuch for these kind of men as your pretend, you should not by vpbraiding them therevvith blemish and deface all the good deeds you say [Page 203]they did them. And yet this not vvithstāding vvhich you saie heere can scarcely be true. for these Souldiers, seruing men, and vvan­derers, did very rarely goe to Rome to be holpen by the Iesuits, and very fevve or no­ne of thē were made priests there, but vvere still receiued in Douay and Rhemes, there brought vp, and priested. Besides, vveare it true, that all these Souldiers, and Ʋvanderers had gotten this learning to vvrite bookes of the Iesuits, yet the opposition of these priests against that vnorderly and exorbitant superi­oritie obteyned by the Iesuits, is so farre frō ingratitude against them, that it is, a notable fact of conscience and Iustice both.

And your Probably they had neuer beene mē of learning or accompt, nor able to vvrite boo­kes, if they had not beene brought vpp vn­der the Iesuits: is very fondly said on your part, A speache dis­honorable to the Iesuits. and to the Iesuits them selues also dis­honorable, and cause of iust enuie. As vvho should saie: that either there vvas no learning in the vworld before the Iesuits appeered, or no learned man novve, if he hath not beene brought vp vnder the Iesuits, vvhich is both folly to beleeue: and shame to vtter and vvri­te.

But lett vs examine these 4. vvhome you sett dovvne as cheif hedds: viz. D. Bagsh M. Bluet, M. Collingt. and M. Mush. Fol. 29. b (vvho to you seeme the cheifest broachers of all thes [Page 204]suspitious reports. Fol. 68. b) The first, to vvhome you attribut the penning of the Latins booke, vvas a Graduat and of accomptin Oxford before he came ouer. Yf he had cont ynued theare, and neuer comme ouer, or if he had staid at Rhe­mes and not gone to Rome, is it not proba­ble he might haue proued a man of learning, and able to vvrite such a booke? vvhie: did he learne his latin tong in Rome? as for M. Bluet and M. Collingt. they vveare neuer vnder the Iesuits, but brought vp in the seminarie of Douay, and vveare both gone home to serue their contrey, before any Iesuit had a­ny gouernement in our seminaries, and so for the learning and abilitie they haue, not bound to the Iesuits, and consequently can­not be ingratfull: In deede M. Mush (vvho yet by your ovvne iudgment is the auctor, but of 2. letters, and of no one booke) he vvas brought vp in Rome for somme yeares. but hadd he not gone thither, but remayned and spent so many yeres in Douay or Rhemes, should not he probably haue gottē learning enough to vvrite 2. letters and a booke too, if neede vvere? three of these heds therefore at least are not endebted to the Iesuits for their learning and hability to vvrite bookes and therefore cannot commit any ingratitu­de, The beds not in­grat to the Je­suits. in vvriting in so iust and equitable a cause as they haue to vvrite against somme of thē, especially those that vvrott and confirmed [Page 205]the booke of schisme, which Was written ād penned against them. Besides the style and manner of writing, this place aiso dooth dis­couer the penner of this Apol. The author of the Apologie discouered. who omitteth noe occasion (as before I haue noted) to a­base and bring into contempt the vocation, of secular priests. For howe can it be proba­ble rhat you vnited priests should obiect to your brethren as a great disgrace to them, of a seruing man to be made a prieste, of a soul­dier to be priested? Tot. tit. ext. de seruis non ordi­nandis. The canons of the church do not repell from priesthood the verie sla­ues, so they be made priests after they haue beene sett free by their Maist. yea he whose Father was a slaue, C. fin. d. tit. so his mother be a free vvoman, may be made a priest. and was not I praie your the founder of the Iesuits order a Souldier, and is the societie to be vpbraided therewith? God forbid. Bought slaues I say a­re admitted, and you obiect to free men, as a wrinckle and fowle blott to priesthood: by­cause of seruing men and souldiers, they be­came good and vertuous priests, and for that they forsooke the world to serue God in his church, and for that they let the killing of bodies, to helpe to saue Soules. You doe in­iurie not onely to many of your selues (my vnited brethren) amongst whome yet I kno­we somme that weare seruing men: The vnited doe iniurie them selues. but also to many a holie martyr, that of seruing men yea and of meane qualitie, by their zeale and [Page 206]constancie haue come to the height of perfe­ction which is Martyrdoome, to the with I feare me, the Author of this Apol. vvhosoe­uer he be Will neuer attaine, so long as he hath his hedd soe full of these contentiōs ād vncharitable dealings, augmenting them by such fond bokes, as haue neither rythme nor reason in them. howe say you to one (whom synce I haue heard to be martyred) that vvas first a Cobbler. then a Porter, after that vn­dercooke in the seminarie, Coblers and smythes, priests and martyrs. and at last by his extreame diligence gott asmuch learning as was sufficient for a prieste, and finally such fa­uor at Gods hands to be a Martyr: Whereas you by Gods secreat iudgments hane beene as it weare for saken, and left to be dealers ād sticklers in this vncharitable dissention. what say you to M. M. Joannes Cleyton. Iames Cleyton Who being a smith in Ingland came to Rhemes, and thea­re trauailled somuch and profited so Well in his studie, that D. Allen (a man of an other iudgment and spirit then this author Who­soeuer he be) adiudged him worthy of priest­hood. D. Allen of an other iudgmēt. he was not deceiued in his iudgment, for this man after long imprisonement, was at length condemned for his faith, but died in prison before the day of execution. Goe nowe and obiect to that vvorthy Prelat of pious and famous memorie Card. Allen, that he made not onely seruing mē and souldiers priests, but also Coblers and smithes. I refer­ue [Page 207]the names of many seruing men that after they came to Douay and Rhemes weare ma­de priests, Many seruing men priests and Martyrs. and haue doon much good in their contrey, and many of them haue died for the cath. faith most constantly. Yf you knovve them not, their names are written in Libro vitae. You may asvvell and iustly reproche to S. Peter, S. Andrevv, S. Iohn, that they vve­are fischers and so vnfitt to be Apostles.

Souldiers (quot you?) hovve many I praie you? tell their names. I knowe seruing men that became Souldiers, and aftervvards co­ming to the seminarie were made priests: but any that vvas a mere Soldier, I knovve none especially of the heds, as you terme thē, nor any of the 30. vvich subscribed to the appea­le, except the tvvo Bennets, vvhereof the o­ne in deede vvas a Souldier, and after made Priest in Rome, vvhither the other vvas or no I knovve not, but for the rest, I can ans­svvere negatiuely.

Well? these Seruing men, Souldiers, and vvā ­derers, one vvaie or other, stoode in neede of the Iesuits helpe. What! to make them priests? and to haue the habilitie to vvrite bookes? or els in that they gaue them bread at their gates, a meales meate, or a nights lod ging. For the first, they gayned it in the Se­minaries. For the seccond, I knovve hereto­fore our contreymen haue found charitie ād frendship at their hands, but for some yeares [Page 208]since, if all be true that Passingers, trauaillers and vvanderers (be they seruing men, soul­diers, schollers, or others) report. they may assoone breake their necks as their fasts, The Jesuits ould charitie tovv­ards Euglishmē changed. at a Iesuits college. And might starue if they foūd not more charitie and better releife at other mens hands then theirs. Somuch is the old helpe of the Iefuits changed, that they vvill haue no Inglishman stand in neede of them. For if he doe, he may be deceiued. I am sorie our contreymen haue giuen such occasion: but more sorie to see the fathers for somme respects, so to change their charitable natu­res. For hovvsoeuer thes Souldiers and vvan­derers. shevv them selues forgetfull and vn­grat full, yet should not the Fathers for that becomen nigrads and vncharitable.

But to close vvith you. I praie you vvhat helpe and fauor haue these seruing men, soul­diers, and vvanderers, specially the heds of them, found at the Iesuits hands. I vvould faine knovve for my learning. I am sure of this, that the greatest part (if not all) haue foūd helpe and fauor and not of the Iesuits as you insinuat, but in the Semin. to be norished in learning. More charitie vsed in the Se­minary of Dou­ay and Rhemes then in those gouerned by the Iesuits. yf in our semin. of douay ād Rhe­mes, theare had not beene vsed more cha­ritie to commers and vvanderers then is or hath beene in the Seminaries gouerned by the Iesuites, or that novve is in the seminary of Douay gouerned by their vvill and dire­ction, [Page 209]you had lost this good argument of Seruing men, souldiers and vvanderers, our cō ­trey had lost many a good priests and holy martyr that haue beene receiued, entretay­ned and norished in those seminaries, vvhich nowe may go a vvandring in deede, if they haue neither money in their purse, nor com­mendations from certaine men in Ingland! The seminary of Douay meruey­lously changed. O good Cardinal! thou seest the great change that is happened since thy death, and no doubt thou doost lament it. thou receyuest all that came, Seruing men, sonldier, heretick, and all: thou refusest none, and thy charita­ble dealing brought forthe the frute that followed. Not onely Seruing meu, and soul­diers, vnder thy happy, wise, and discreat go­uernement weare made priests, but many an heretick also Was conuerted, priested and sent back, and aftervvards became a blessed martyr, so God blessed they zeale and chari­tie. But novv alas! both charitie and zesle a­re vvaxen so colde, that fewe comme ouer, and many of them retorne, not onely frustra­ted of their zealous hope, but malcontented and keycold.

To conclude, yf these seruing men, souldiers and vvanderers, nowe priests haue not recey­ued such helpe and fauor of thelesuits as you pretend, then you taxing them with ingrati­tude is vndue. and if all be true you say, then you conclude against your selues (Yf you [Page 210]weare the Authors of this Apol.) in that the are are amongst you, mo of these seruing mē, souldiers; and vvanderers, novve priests, then amongst your discontented brethren, and so haue you made a fayre spoke, The vnited pro­ue themselues ingrat. by proouing your selues ingratfull fellovves, as you are in deede to your ovvne coate and vocation, in abasing and bringing it into cōtempt to, plea­se and praise others.

That which you say in the same leafe and elswhere, Fol. 22. Vvhat is to be disliked in the priests? touching their disordinat writing against the fathers in generall and against fat. Parsons in particular, I dissalowe vvith you, and for that kind of writing, I haue alvvaies founde fault with their bookes, and am as so­rie that euer they vvrott so as you are for the booke of schisme. yf they had kept them sel­ues with in the compasse of the question, and not spoken so against the parsons they doo: their boke vvould haue passed without con­trovvlement. but seeing they haue beene so bold, touch them hardly, and lay loade on them, I will not mislike vvith you. so that still you call to memorie, that the biting, pas­sionat, and sclanderous book which fa. Lister wrott against them, might haue pusshed thē into the like disordered heate, and liberty of speech. For Wee haue a rule in our lawe, that Compensatio habet locum in delictis, thar is: o­ne iniurie may be compensed vvith an other, The Iesuite called them schismaticks, and [Page 211]worse then sootsayers and idolaters, and for recompense they call the Iesuites ambitious &c. one is as true as the other, both are false and so an end.

To putt downe my verdict touching your discontented brethrens censure of these so many seminaries that nowe are in respect of the two vvee had onely before, true it is. The authors iud gment of the nō bers of nevve seminaries. The fathers and especially fa. Parson. (by vvhose speciall trauaill and industrie they haue bee­ne erected, D. Cicil. in his spectacles yet at­tributeth the begynning of th' seminaries in in spaine in to his industrie, ād that fa. Pars. did build vpon his foūdation. and as yet are maynete yned) are highlie to be thanked, and gretly to be este­med for the same. and no doubt but in tyme our contrey shall reape great good and pro­fitt thereby: so is it true also, that the 2. elder Seminaries did fend into Inglant mo priests, and norished in them greater nombers of schollers at one tyme (I thinke) then these newe seminaries, vvith the old now decayed vvlll furnishe to send into Ingland in diuers yeares. and for the nomber of studēts, priests and proper yonthes, theare vveare moe for many yeares together (so long as D. Allen gouerned) in those seminaries at one tyme, then are novve, or here after like to be in all the seminaries put them all together. I haue seene 50. The 2. Sem ina­ries flovved mo­re in nomber, then all doe to­gether novve. And vvhy? priests in one yere sent out of Rhe­mes, and yet 50. other priests remaine in the college still. haue all the Seminaries so many in them novve? No no, the reasons vvhy the seminaries flovved then in nomber, are: first [Page 212]bicause all rhat came to Douay or Rhemes vveare receiued and vvellcomme nonevve­are reiected, All vvere vvel­comen. had they money or had they none, brought they commendations or brought they none. After they had beene tried theare a vvhile, such as vveare not foūd fitt (vvhich god knovvth vveare but fevve) vveare graciously and courtuously dismissed vvith money in their purses. But nov if they haue no money, no meate: if they haue no commendations from speciall parsons in Ingl., Nescio vos, and so retorne as they came When it vvas knovvne in our vniuersities, hovve all vveare receiued and full vvelcome that came, a nomber of the cheifest and best schollers and vvytts of both vniuersities ca­me flocking ouer. but no Wit being knowne that none are Welcome Without money ād particular commendatiōs, The gouernemēt more svveete. none or verife We dare aduenture. Next, they liued then very quietly Without rigourous rules and penaū ­ces or dicitur culpa, gouerned and ruled by the countenance and looke of one mā, Who­me all from highest to the lovvest did looue, and highlie reuerēce. But no Wne We la Wes haue altered the state of the seminarie, and make men vn Willing to come theare. yf you Will ans Were here (as you doe elsvvhere) that the Seminarie is novve poore, Fol. 25. Obiection. Ansvvere. and the­refore must diminish the nomber to paie their debts? I mervell it hauing so fevve, it [Page 213]can be so poore-the Popes exhibition con­tynueth, and so dooth the kings of Spaigne. Who as you report. hath euer since the yeare 1583. giuen the seminarie 2000. Fol. 24. Crownes a yeare, the payment whereof hath euer since beene procured by Fa. Parsons labor and tra­uaill. But for all your saying, I thincke the king of Spaignes exhibition hath beene the slower paid, bicause his liberalitie Was with­drawne from thence, to be bestowed on the seminaries that weare in Spaigne. I thinke al­so the poore seminary getteth litle out of England, bicause since Card. Allens death, theare haue beene newe collectors that be­stowe it elswheare, as tyme the daughter of Truth will discouer. Fol. 25. b But whie doe I call your seminary poore, that hath but fewe moone­thes since receyued 2000 crownes. And ex­pect dayly 2000. moe? I may then very well conclude with your discontented brethren, that the newe seminaries haue almost de­stroied the old? as reason and experience it self dooth teach. For euery man by nature is more addicted, and more carefull of that which he hath him self begonn and sett vp, ād to ēcrease it, rather thē to mainteyne that. Which was begoone by another. For that which one liketh, another disliketh. That of Douay Was founded by Card. Allen now de­ade and out of mynde: the others, by fa. Par. that hath credit to mainteine them. Another [Page 214]may comme after that will care for none of all these, but sett vp another elswhere, Este­nim vicissitudo rerum, I doubt not but fa Par. dooth endeuour to mainteine the old Se­minaries, if not in their ancient splendour, yet at the least to see that they doe not vtter­ly fall downe and decay. Which weare great pittie, Fal. 27.29. The author of the Apol. disco­uereth him self to be a Iesuit. The Iesuits at­tribut to hem selues the con­uersion that is made in Ingl. and a Wonderfull losse to our contey

In the end of the 3. Chapt. the auctor of this booke discouereth him self to be a Ie­suit (as I my self alwaies gessed and as all men that reade it diligently, must needs gesse also For, the conuersion of all in Ingland is attri­buted to them, and you vnited brethren, are but lookers on, and made but Cyphers in Algorisme. Mary, yet least he shold take all the praise from you, in recompence of bor­rowing your names, he will content you with this short parenthesis (vvhich labor vvellād zealoufly also) Truly, if so fewe Iesuits as are in Ingland, in respect of somme hundreds of priests that be theare, haue (as this fellove braggeth) conuerted infinitly moe then you all: and haue holpen to saue moe soules then you all, it must needs be a great shame for you all. The vnited con­fesse them selues to be lazie. For, you confesse your selues heere to be very idle and lazy priests. VVhy what doe you theare? If you be but lookers on, ād doe no good? I doo not mervell that so eg [...] ­ly you discouer your brethrens priuitids, when you lay your owne shame so willingly [Page 215]open to all the world. Yf you haue writtē this Apol. blott it out in the next impression for shame, and endeuor to employ your selues better in the vocation and mission you wea­re sent for? or els cast of your gownes, and gett you a spade and mattock in your hands, for you are not woorthy of the vocation you haue. For, is it possible that priests brought vp in learning, order, and discipline, and sent to labor in such a haruest, should be so idle, that a fewe Iesuits should surpasse them in paines and trauaill of gayning Soules, and that by their owne confession? or that they cann without blushing discouer their owne drowzie necligence to the world? Yf you ha­ue not written this Apolog. nor discouered your ydlenes in action, or ignorance in want of abilitie to gaine and wynn soules, then as­ke reason of this good fellowe that hath bor­rowed your names, not onely to declaime a­gainst your brethren, but to calumniat, dis­grace and dishonor your owne selues. Or els I will (as you doe theare) request all godly ād pious mynds to ponder and consider how far Mallice hath blynded you in pursuing your Brethren, in defence of Religious men, that rather then you would hold your peace ād say nothing, you are content to disgrace, and dishonor your owne selues.

CHAP. IV.

IN this chapt. Fol. 29. Amā of strave You haue putt vp a Man of strawe to fight against, re­peating with great teadyousnes, the faction of M. Morgan against D. Allen, which appartayneth nothing to this question, but serueth onely to fill vp your booke, and to make it bigger. as also that of G. G. and Pri­our Arnold. Yf a man should vrge you howe you came by their letters that weare sent se­creatly betweene frend and frend, Intercepting of letters. I beleeue it would fall out, they weare intercepted, as many a letter is, by such as should haue con­science to open other mens letters. At least wise it is taught to be a case of conscience to doe it. And the world must needs deeme that the parson that hath furnished you with all the letters in this your Apologie, and who hath yet I warrant you a heape for you in sto­re for your larger Apol. hath hadd more ca­re to assemble and keepe them, then to saie ouer his beades.

CHAP. V.

FOR their charging the Re­ctor, Dislike vvith the Priests and vvith the vni­ted. I dislike all such vndue digressions from the Questiō in controuersie, as I doo you your selues also for reporting the diuers seditions ad nauseam vsque that we­re in the Rom. College, bicause it is nothing to the purpose and question betvvene you and your brethren, which is: whither the Card. The questions in controuersie. Protector vvithout the Popes bre­ue coulde or might constitute a new dig­nitie in Ingland? and next: vvhither the Priests (that hild and taught he coold not doo it) vveare schismaticks, seditious, and rebellious for the same or no? vvhat apper­tayneth this to the faction of M. Morgan ād M. Paget against D. Allen, or to the discon­tentement of our Gentlemen in Flanders a­gainst fa. Holt? The question (I say) is: vvhi­ther the Iesuits, Arhp. and you vnited Bre­thren, haue iustly or vniustly by writing pub­lished them disobedient and vvoorse then footh sayers for not receyving the Archp. vpon the Card. letters? ād vvhither the Arch­priest (with vvhome you are vnited in this scandalous action) after their submission vn­to him, vpō the comming of the Popes buls, [Page 218]did well and charitably to renevve the old wound (vvhich was before by their submis­sion healed) againe or no, in not admitting them to be absolued, except they did first confesse and recant the foresaid schisme this is the cheife ground of this later contention vvith the Archpriest and the occasion of their writing to the Pope, VVhy the Priests vvrot to the Pope. and to the inquisition to haue their Iudgments (seeing the Archpriest reiected the Iudgement of Sorbonne) whither they are Schismaticks or no? Th'vnited doo neuer comme neere the point. this point you touch not, but make extrauagant discourses vpon factions vvhich were in the world, ma­ny a faire yeare before thes Contentions grewe amongst you. but somme thing you must saie to make your booke the bigger, ād to bleare the eyes of your Reader and contēt his affectiō. Bicause then this chapt. vvith the 2. follovving pertaine nothing to the hedd question in controuersie, but containe one­ly the repeating and ripping vp of the begy­ning of the troubles betweene the Priests and the Iesuits, together with Fishers exami­nations, I passe them ouer.

Where you accuse them to be the first that appealed from his Hol. Fol 68. b. breue, for you say: The Priests vvronged. They vveare the first that appealed from it▪ you doo them wrong, for they appealed no [...] from the Breue, but from the strange seue­ritie and gouernement of the Archpriest who as it seemeth by the Articles of their appea­le, [Page 219]and by his strange answeres made vnto them, could not vvell tell howe to behaue himself in this nevve and vnvsuall dignitie, and Iurisdiction laid vpon him. All this ap­peereth by their appeale.

You add: Fol. ibidem. that somme of them are presumed to beprincipall dooers in these late printed libels. a gre­at fault I assure you. for defending them sel­ues and their honor in print. If they had kept them selues with in the compasse of the con­trouersie, neither had they offended, neither coold their writings haue beene called libels. But what iustice and equitie is therein you my vnited brethren? Iniquitie. you are contented that the Iesuits vvrite scandalous books against them (which in deede deserue the name of libels) and that by your approbation: and yet you thinke it not lawfull for your brethren to defend them selues in print against such infamous accusations as are Schisme, sedition and Rebellion. why! Blind affection. hovve are you so blin­ded vvith affection, that you dissalovve that in secular Paiests, which yet you well alovve in Religious men? and are you so drovvned with passion that you can like of the Iesuits calling your brethren Schismaticks, and wor­se then soothsayers, and I cannot tell vvhat: and yet mislike of them for purging the sel­ues from those haynons accusations, ād com­playning of this vncharitable dealing.

You might (my Brethren) for Modesties Fol. 82. [Page 220]sake, haue passed ouer in silence the 6. or 7. Butteries for 13. Priests (if it vveare true, as all is not ghospell you write in your booke) for re­spect of their vocation, and not to giue Here­ticks occasion of laughture and mocking. surely in the Iudgement of your owne factiō, it is much vnworthie the Modestie and Chri­stian sinceritie and honest dealing that ought to be in the cōfessors of Christ towards their brethren of the same profession and confes­sion you your selues be. but the order of wri­ting, Fol. 83. the phrase of the booke it self, vvith the store of leters, and other particularities doo shevve to the ey, that it was vvritten by a Ie­suit and not a secular Priest. I coold lay dow­ne the first letter of his name if I listed, but it is very easy for euery man to coniecture it onely this I say: The vnited vvrouged by th'author of the Apologie. he hath doon you (my vni­ted brethren) great vvrong, vnder you na­me, to defame your order and vocation.

CHAP. VIII.

THE vvhol discourse of the be­gymming of this chapt. By vvqose in­formation, the subordination vvas made? tendeth to shevve, that this subordinatiō that is nowe in Ingland vvas, ma­de by the information of Fa. Par. Fa. Baldw. and 2. or 3. other Priests, vvhollie affectioned and ledd by Fa. Fol. 99. Par. and as you say, of diuers [Page 221]principall men (naming none) frō Spaigne ād Flāders. All vvhich principall men are vvcll knowne to be the deere frēds ād creatures of the Iesuits. The sōme is: that this subordina­tiō vvas procured by the Iesuites, ād that the Iesuits weare the chief medlers in this subor­dinatiō, Subornation. which might be better termed A su­bornation of his Hol. making him beleeue, that all vvas iump as they told him. Yf I might aske you this Question? A lavvfull question. what had those prin­cipall men in Spaigne and Flanders more to doo vvith the affaires and gouernement of the Clergie of Ingland, then the Priests that reside and trauell theare? vvhat reason is thea­re, that these vnquiet weare not demaunded dvvelling in Ingland, and yet the others dwel­ling in Spaigne and Flāders must be demaun­ded? you ansvvere: Ansvvere. bicause they be so small a part of the English Clergie. Replie. I replie, yet for learning, ancientie of Priesthood, and for the long ty­me they haue trauailled in that contrey, not to be reiected. They knevve vvhat gouerne­ment vvas best for Ingland better then those Spaniards and Flemings. They vveare 13. Fol. 67. b. in nomber, and vveare to liue vnder that subordi­nation: by right then their voyces and con­sents vvas rather to be asked, then the voyces of 2. Iesuits and 2. Priests out of Ingland, and not subiect to that subordination. hovve soe­uer the matter vvas handled, The Fathers in excusable. the Fathers can­not be excused for medling in a matter not [Page 222]appertayning to them, Deut. 16. and so to haue putt their falcem in messem alienam, vvhich both in the scripture and in the lavve is accompred a great fault. what hadd the Iesuits to doo to procure the secular Priests a superior? no­thing at all, except (as your brethrē say) they vvould play sure, and haue such a one appoin­ted, as should alvvaies relye vpon them, and gouerne by their appointement and pre­scription. Presumption against the Fa­thers. Theare is in deede great presum­ption of this against them, their actions and endeuors in this behalf considered. You fin­de fault with your brethren Priests for med­ling in the troubles of the Rom. Colledge against the Fathers: and yet the Fathers com­mitt the same fault (or a greater) here, as being the cheif medlers and dealers in the contentions that weare amongst the secular Priests. Here a man may iustlie turne the catt in the pann, and say as you doo in the first chap. of you Apologie. That the medling and dealing of the Fathers in the secular Priests matters and contentions, hath brought great hurt to Ingland, and is like to bring much more, if this wri­ting of Apologies by them or for them doo still conntynue: as also somme disgrace to the vnited brethren, and no lesse blemish to the Fathers: seeing they be compted and e­steemed rather for spirituall and moatified men, then for contentious or seditious per­sons. and for my part I haue alwaies thought [Page 223]them to be such, and haue against their detra­ctors for such defended them. But yet for all that, wee lawyers say: that there is noe rule so generall but it hath his exceptiō. so no doubt somme theare are in that holie companie. Marke. that are too too much giuē to pollitick mat­ters, and are as it vveare ouerwhelmed vvith the affaires of the vvorld, and more intentiue to them, then appertayneth to Religions mē, or aggreeth vvith their profession. And albeit men vvynck novve, and will not see them, yet in the day of Iudgement they vvilbe ma­de knowne to all the vvorld.

Where you say: Fol. 104. b. that the Popes breue did not satisfie them, but they begann to stagger and doubt, and to discusse their Superiors commandement, The vnited abu­se their Rea­ders and them selues. you abuse your Readers ād your selues. your Readers, in saying they staggered at the Po­pes breue, doubted and discussed their supe­riors commaundement. for they did nothing of all this you aleage, but by your owne cō ­fession yelded, and obeyed the Popes Breue. you conceale the cause why they vvrott to his Hol. and the Inquisition in Latin, and to the English Catholicks in English. vvhich vvas not as you say, for refusing to obey the breue, but for that the Archpriest vndiscre­atly renevved the old vvound of schisme (the vvhich you vvil not talke of, and are sorie that euer it vvas mentioned, as you and all peaceable men may vvell be) in forbidding Fol. 115. [Page 224]them to be absolued except they confessed and recanted the said schisme. the which as it is the cause of all these contentions boo­kes, so doo you still rove at randame, and will not comme neere the marke to ansvvere thereto. you abuse your selues, for that you confesse their voluntarie submission to the Breue. Fol. 146.147. and there you sett dovvne the Con­gratulations of Fa, Garnet, the Archpriest and others for the same submission. The testimony of the 6. assi­stants not vvoorth a ruth. For proof of yourformer saying and their stag­gering, &c. you bring the testimony of the reuerend brethren forsooth the 6. assistaunts nominated by the Fathers as the Archpriest was, and as vnorderly installed as their supe­rior the Archpriest vvas, vvhose letters and testimonie you doo vse oftentimes in your booke, which is not woorth a rush in any in­different mans Iudgement. nor vvould be receiued in any Tribunal in the vvorld, they being the parties, and knovvne aduersaries to those against vvhome they beare witnes. you may please your selues therevvith and becō ­tented to enlarge your booke vvith them as you doo vvith many letters of diuers men, that are knowne to be vvholly affectioned to the Fathers, and to be of their faction (if these contentious sydes and part takings may be called factions) the vvhich men vn passionat, and such as stād indifferent to both parties make little accompt of, and giue lesse [Page 225]credit vnto.

You thrust the synne and scandall that hath ensued and falne out by this contentiō vpon your Brethren, Fol. 105. b. vpon vvhose back the scan­dall of this con­tention lieth. but I praie you giue him his part, that vvrott the scandalous booke (condempned by his Hol. and all the Iesuits that are out of Ingland) of schisme, and part also to those that aucthorized it, and subscri­bed to it. Take part your selues also not onely for contynunig the scandall by your Apologies, but by your ignorant accepting the Archpriest vpon the Protectors letters. for hadd you stood to your Brethren in the iust refusall thereof, these synnes and scan­dall had not happened. this vvriting and li­belling one against an other, had neuer bee­ne heard of, as novve it hath to the vvon­derfull and vnspeakeable greif of all your frends and vvell willers.

I vvonder hovve you dare say: Fol. 107. b. that in both their books they haue sett dovvne their Rea­sons confusedly and tumultuously, Th'vnited giue them selues the ly. and in no one pla­ce distinctly and in order: for in saying so, you giue your selues the lye. For, a little before you say, that in one place of their booke, they vvould shevve the constitution of the Archpriest by the Cardinalls letters to be voyd and of no force by 21. Reasons. Yf I cann proo­ue, that they haue layd 21. Reasons together in one place of the English booke, and that by dis­tinct nombers, then are they not sett dovvne [Page 226] confusedly in both their books, Fol. ibidem. and by con­sequent you say not true in saying: and in no one place distinctly and in order. yet you say: vvee doe lett passe the 21. Reasons vvhich this Cen­surer layth together by distinct nombers. Fol. 176. b. ergo you giue your selues the ly by say­ing: they haue nott sett them dovvne in any one place distinctly and in order. And in their latin booke vvritten to the inquisition (vvhereof you make no mention in this Apol. because it toucheth the point and roveth not at any parson, and bicause it hath in it Fa. Listers booke, vvhich you are sorie to thinke of) they haue layd dovvne many Reasons (not confusedly but orderly,) vvh [...] they did not receiue the Archpriest vpon the Card. let­ters vvithout the Popes buls. you ansvvere neither to those 21. nor yet to these sett downe in the latin booke before mentioned. But to these Reasons confusedly sett dovvne you say you vvill ansvvere. In Gods name. I praie God you ansvvere them not so con­fusedly and tumultuously, as you say they are laid dovvne in their books.

It vvas gotten say they by the instance of the aduers partie. Fol. ibidem. Doo they not say true? vvho is their aduers partie? The Priests say true. By your ovv­ne confession, the Iesuits and specially Fa­thers Pars. vvas it not gotten at the instann­ce of Fa. Par. Fa. Baldvv. and 3. other Priests the Iesuits creatures? you confesse somuch [Page 227]your selues. This benig true, Fol. 99. Fol. 7. b. haue they not iust cause to presume that it vvas gotten by vvrong and false Information? for what hadd the Iesuits to deale therein, more then the Capuchins, Dominicans, or any other Religious order? It follovveth: a­gainst all equitie and Iustice. vvhich they pro­ue by the 21. reasons, by you mentioned, but not ansvveared, and as I haue proued before, against the lawes and Canons, ergo against equitie and Iustice. And yet they doo not put dovvne this their saying as a Rea­son, but as a Consideration. But vvhy did you not go on, and say as they doo: that this superioritie vvas so established by their aduerse partie, that the superior so by them appointed, must needs remaine a punie and inferior to them, &c. vvhich vvords make a vehement presump­tion against the Fathers of stickling and medling so farre in these matters nothing at all apertaynenig to them.

But vvhat doo you ansvvere to this Rea­son (if you vvill needs haue it one?) For sooth, this hath beene euidently prooued to be false. viz: that it vvas not gotten, at the instaunce of the aduerse partie onely. but I say, it vvas prooued by your selues a little before to be true, Fol. 99. as is to be seene in the place al­leaged in the margent. Next, you giue a probable ansvvere touching their vvill and [Page 228]knovvlege, but to that they say: it vvas con­trarie to all equitie and Iustice, you are Mumm, and not a vvord; bicause your con­science tell you, thay said true. so that to the cheifest part of their Reason you haue yelded no ansvvere, although you vvould make your Reader beleeue, you vvill ans­vveare all their Reasons.

You doo as it vveare controwle their se­cond Reason, both at the begynning and at the end. Pag. 5. for they say thus: Furthermore of their interest (the Iesuits) vveare not great in this auctoritye vvhy should they be so vnvvilling to procure, or suffer to be procured somme bull or breue for the confirmation thereof, that it might be an absolute and independent auctoritye? Fol. 108. To pardon your nipping of the essentiall vvords of their reason both in the begynninng and in the end, Nipping and adding. and your adding thereto the vvords vvhich they say not, viz yf it came from his Hol. howe ansvvere you the Reason? Forsooth, the question and reason is novv ansvvered, for that a breue is procured. they talke of cheese, and you ansvvere chaulke. They aske, why the Iesuits vveare so vnwilling to procure or suf­fer to be procured a bull for so many mone­thes as the Card. letters weare in controuer­sie and doubt? and you ansvveare: novve a bull is procured. they aske of the tyme past, and you answeare of the tyme present. They [Page 229]knevve so well as you that a bull vvas pro­cured, and sent before they vvrott this boo­ke. I maruell hovve you dare put dovvne their Reasons, and ansvvere them (I vvill not say so confusedly, but,) so childishly.

That vvhich you add: Fol. ibidem. Th'vnited spea­ke vvithout booke. that the Bull is not much more esteemed of them thē Card. letters, you say vvithout profe, contrarie to your selues, and contrarie also to their protesta­tion. that vvhich you add also, Fol. ibidem. Pag. 2. to proue their little esteeme of the breue (viz: god knovveth out of vvhat office) as it is but the words of one, so are they not to be drawne in generall to all, and yet that one may haue spoken them in a good sense. bicause theare be diuers of­fices out of the vvhich the Popes Buls are procured. but be it that it vvas ill spoken of him, yet doo you not for all that ansvveare his Reason, but sett his words downe falsely, thereby to make them sound more adious­lie. vvords sett dovvne fals­lye. thus you sett them dovvne in a distinct lettre: That they doo not knovve out of vvhat of­fice it vvas procured by Fa. parsons meanes, vvhe­reas the paraphraze vpon Fa. parsons letters, sayth, vntill the 3. or 4. day after that Fa. pa. Pag. 82. had procured (god knovveth out of vvhat of­fice) an Apostolicall breue, &c. you haue sett the vvords downe as spoken of all the dis­contented brethren (saying they doo not knovve) vvhen they are spoken but of one. besides you sett them dovvne as spoken sim­plie [Page 230]and absolutly, vvhereas, they are putt vvithin a parenthesis as spoken in pas­sing.

Thirdly, Of many Rea­sons put toge­ther not one ansvvered. you put many Reasons toge­ther, bicause you faime vvould be at your letters againe, and at Fishers examination. and for hast, you cote not the place vvhere you found them. but vvee must beleeue you on your vvord, that haue so often deceyued vs in aleaging their vvords. but in Gods na­me vvee vvill beleeue you this once. The first. Fol. 108. that the Card. letters patents are not suffi­cient to giue the matter credit, your easy ans­vveare: vvho dooth not knovve, &c. hath bee­ne ansvvered before, and shevved, that a Card. Protectors vvords and letters for the constituting of a nevve dignitie, or confer­ring of an old, hath no credit in any Chri­stian court in the vvorld, albeit they com­me a hundred tymes, vvith Ex speciali man­dato Sanctissimi. your Canō, lawe, and Glos­ses, haue beene turned against you before, and make still against you till you doo bring vs better. Secondly that he hath beene found partiall tovvards the Iesuits. this may be true, bicause he vvas a man as others are, and al­lied to the Generall of the Iesuits as you say. The 3. Reason. that he (the Protector) is not their lavvfull superior, as he is not in deede. neither lavvfull nor vulawfull, for he hath no superiortie at all ouer any English man [Page 231]by that office, as hath beene shewed before. The 4. Reason. And the like. A vvise reason vvhat (I pray you) doo you answere to these 3. last reasons? euen thus. But not to stand vpon these matters, Fol. 108. b. it is a fovvle thing, vvhen for couering our ovvne vvills of not obaying, vvee seeke holes in the coate and auctoritye of our superiors as these men doo, &c. You haue well shot and kild a busard. Th'vnited can­not stand, but must be rouing. you vvill not stand, bicause indeede you cannot stand against Reason, then sitt a vvhile and compt howe many mo of their Reasons (left vnrehersed and vnansvvered) are conteyned vnder your last vvords, And the like? that vvee may see them answeared, vvith your ansvveares to them, in your larger Apologie, in the vvhich as you promys vs more abonn­dannce of letters, and a larger discours of Fisher and his examination, Fol. 95. so I feare me vvee shall finde as little reason and matter as vvee haue found in this.

Well, these discontented brethren doo not onely seeke hoales in the coate of their Superiors the Card. and the Archpriest (the first being neuer their superior, no nor yet, Marke the hoales found in his hol. coate. the next vntill his Hol. bull came) but also in this Holynes (coate) but in couert vvords. But let vs see the hoales made in his Hol. coate and auctoritye? for sooth, they persvvade the people, that he hath beleeued false information. A sore matter. but vvhere haue they persvvaded the people thus much? For sooth, in both books, [Page 232]and especially the English, (you say in the margent) and almost in euery pag. but you note no one pag. Well! they make the people be­leeue, His Hol. may beleeue false information, benig falsly in­formed. that his Hol. hath beleeued false in­formation. Why may not his Hol. beleeue false information? is he not a man as others are? and is he not subiect to passions, as be­fore hath beene noted? yf he hath beleeued false Information, it is not a hole in his cote, but a fowle hoale in their coates and con­sciences that gaue such false information. It follovveth: Pag. 35. and thereby appointed a subor­dination most inconuenient. they giue a good reason thereof in the English booke. For by this subordination gotten by false in­formation the Iesuits haue the Archpriest as their punie, and inferior to them, and by conse­quence all priests must be their apprentizes, The reaso vvhy the subordinatiō is incōuenient. and stand at their command, and thereby may keepe the Archp. in avve, that he shall da­re doe nothing that may displease them, for fea­re they should thrust him out &c. and these be hoales, Hoales in the fathers coate. not in the Popes, but in the Fathers coates, and sufficient causes of inconueniēce Next, And not heard of in the church before. Tell vs (I pray you) in your larger Apol. if e­uer it was heard of in Christes church before, that an Archp. should be superior to all the priests in 2. Realmes, and that his iurisdiction. should extend so largely out of the quire ād church, ouer these Realmes. When you can [Page 233]shewe this, Jgnorance. then vpbraid them for such spee­ches: for vntill then, you shewe but your owne ignorance, in imputing this to them, as an vndue and vnreuerent speach. Thē they say: It is against all equitie and iustice. that this was well and truly spoken, hath beene suffi­ciently prooued before, and you your selues could not answere it. It followeth, Truthies. Fol. 107. b And that his Holl. could not lavvfully appoint it vvith­out their consents. The word laufully being ta­ken for that vvhich is doon by lawe. And vn­lavvfully. for that vvhich is doon against la­we, they say full true His Holl. coold not doe it lavvfully: that is, obseruing and following the lawes, constitutions, canons, and decrees of his predecessors, as hath beene shewed be­fore, Lastly, And that the meanes by vvhich he had appointed it, is insufficient, bynding no man no obay it. All this is true, if there be any truth at all. For as it hath beene proued be­fore at large, a Card. letters are not sufficiēt to constitute a newe dignitie, or to confirme an old. and the meanes weare so farre from bynding any man to obay it, that all such as obayed it, are punishable by the canons, as hath beene before declared. Of all these tru­thes cōclude you vvhat you list, but I cōclu­de, that you are by these words so farre frō finding many hoales in his Hol. coate, as you cānot thereby finde one hoale at all, the sa­me being truly and lawfully spokē. And I cā ­not [Page 234]a litle maruell, that you are not ashamed to reherse them, Without making ansvvere thereto, being so euident against you in the question that is in controuersie. Fol. 109. It followeth They acknovvledge the Archp. and his aucto­ritie in vvords, yet doe they seeke by all meanes possible to discredit his auctoritie. They acko­wlege the Archpr. Pag. 4. in the preface. Pag. 3. auctoritie in more ample manner and vvords then you doe sett downe heere. That is: they acknowledge him since his Hol. bull came. before, they forbare to acknovvlege him, as in the same preface they franckly confesse. But their deeds are con­trarie to their vvords. In vvord they confesse him, in deeds, they discredit his auctoritie. ho­vve prooue you this? bicause M. Collington and M. Charnock reported, the Archpnest dubbled vvith them. Ʋ Ʋiselie. But vvhen dubbled he with them? before the Popes breue came, thē vvhē they did not acknovvledge him either in vvord or deed to be their superior, as they confesse in the preface of their English boo­ke. Pag. 3. Hovv dooth this prooue they seeke to discredit his auctoritie since the Popes breue came? Your proffes hang by Gimboles, and had neede to be knitt together vvith points. Besides, A deceiptfull obiection. you vvould deceiue your reader by obiecting that to them novv since the breue came, vvhich vvas lavvfully do on by them before the breue came. Yf then you vvill prooue any thing, you must prooue that in [Page 235]deeds and facts they haue gone about to dis­credit his auctoritie since the breue came ād your parenthesis (For of their tvvo relations onely all the matters are raised against him) see­meth to in ferre, that 2. vvitnesses although they be priests, are not sufficient testimonie to proue any thing in question. you ought to knovve, that the testimonie of 2. parsons is sufficient by the lavve of God and man, but you thinke it an absurd thing to admitt the testimonie of 2. priests, and yet you are of­fended vvith thē (throughout your booke) for that they vvill not credit one parson, viz, the Card. through vvhose relation and let­ters, all these troubles are raised, betvveene the said priests, the Iesuits and your selues.

You cannnot comprehend hovve these things should be spoken, that the Archprie. should at the first say? His Instructions came from Rome. and yet aftervvards say: they vveare made in Ingland. you cannot compre­hend then hovve a man may be contrarie to him self: or that he may vpon better delibe­ration, correct that vvhich he had said befo­re. Suerly, your comprehension then is verie feeble, if you cānot comprehend thus much. I doe comprehend it vvell, and beleeue it al­so, bicause theare are 2. vvitnesses as you re­port that affirme it: vvhich are asvvell to be beleeued in this cause, as your reuerend bre­thren the 6. assistants are to be beleeued in [Page 236]their ovvne cause.

The next proof is that they giue out he had spoken an hereticall proposition. this toucheth the discredit of his parson, and not of his au­ctoritie a sore matter. vvhoe knovveth not, that not onely an Archp. An Archpriest may erre. (vvhich is the lo­vvest dignitie in Gods Church) but an Arch­bishop also (being so eminent a dignitie) is not priuileged, but that he may erre, ād that this gifte is not annexed to his office or dig­nitie, but that he may somtymes vtter an he­reticall proposition vvhither this vveare said or no, maketh nothing to that vvhich you haue taken in hand to prooue. viz: that since the breue came, ād since they acknovvleged him in vvord. They haue sought all meanes to discredit his auctoritie and parson in deed. For these vvords vveare spoken before the bre­ue came, and before they acknovvleged him to be their superior. Ergo not spoken to dis­credit him as their superior, as you vvould make your simple reader beleeue.

That which you obiect to them of forrai­ne auctoritie and of the premunire, Fol. 110. The priests vn­ [...]rdelie speach. was (in truth) foolishlie and vnorderlye spoken, ād therefore they are iustly reprehended of you for the same. But the words annexed, viz. that his Hol. cannot doe it lawfully vvithout their consents &c. as they are not in the 14. pagin. by you noted, and haue beene often tymes by you repeated, so are they true and irre­prehensible, [Page 237]as in diuers other places, hath before beene shewed.

And althought it seemeth strange to you, Fol. ibidem. ƲVhie (their books) vveare no vv printed af­ter the breue is comme foorth, and hath not vvrought that effect for quieting them, vvhich theare they promyse, to me, or to any vnpassi­onat and indifferent reader, The reasōivvhy they printed their booke af­ter the coming of the bull. it seemeth not strange at all. Bicause the calumnious crime of Schisme, being renewed against them sin­ce the comming of the bull, for that they did not obay the Archp. vpon the Card. letters, they weare driuen to yeld their reasons, why they did not receiue him vpon the said Card. letters, and so to cleere them selues frō that calumnious accusation of schisme, ād to she­we to the World, See their rea­sons in the 2. and 3. Aphoris­me, to the Popes Nuncio in Paris that they are much lesse to be counted schismaticks, since that they yel­ded to his Hol. bull. The vndiscteat dealing of the Archp. and his counsellours gaue the occasion of writing and publishing these books, the vvhich they weare bound in con­science to doe, to conserue their good name and fame.

Well, seeing you haue omitted abooue 30. The vnited ha­ue omitted aboo ne 30. reasons, and lett them vnansvvered. reasons Which they haue laid downe in their 3. books, and haue chosen certeine speeches onely (naming them reasons) to answere, ād yet haue not satisfied to any one of them, I meruell not that you lett passe (as you say) the 21. Fol. 176. b reasons v [...]hich this censurer laieth together [Page 238]by distinct nousbers to discredit the Protectors letters: seeing you cannot answer their sim­ple speeches.

But you Will not lett M. Champeyneyes, Epistle escape so good cheape, you vvill an­swere all his reasons. The first is taken out of S. Thomas who as you confesse, Fol. 110. b Fol. 111. M. Champeneys first reason. saith: That The subiect must knovve the vvill of his Supe­rior, othervvise he cannot be said truly to diso­bay him. But these priests did not knovve the vvill of their superiour the Pope, Ergo M. Champeny saith true, that they vveare not disobedient to his Hol. in not admitting the Archp. Replie. vpon the Card. letters. But you re­plie out of S. Thomas that theare is a secreat and a manifest commandment. but it vvas a secreet commandment of the Pope contey­ned in the Card. letters. Ansvvere. The which they and I both deny: and hovve shall wee knowe it was a secreet commandment? bicause the Card. saith he did it Ex expresso mandato San­ctissimi, No mā is to beleeue him on his word as hath beene sufficiently prooued before, ād by consequence, not to beleeue that it was the secreat commandment of his Hol. Agai­ne his Hol. in the extrauagant Iniunctae dooth expreslie commaund no man to beleeue or accept of those that cōme vvithout his bul: ergo in such a case no secreat commandmēt can be presumed. and if it vveare, yet not to be credited, against an expresse commande­ment. [Page 239]Our lavve saith: Expressa nocent, non expressa non nocent. As it bindeth vnder synne to obay, when the Superiors vvill dooth by any meanes appeere, as you say out of S. Thomas: so it is no synne or disobedyence, vvhen the superiors vvill dooth by no mea­nes or vvaies appeere, as it dooth not in the case of this question, and so lett any man consider vvhither S. Thomas his speach of obe­dience touch your brethrē or no, as it dooth not in deede.

You haue beene told before that you may be ashamed to call that A perillous and scan­dalous doctrine about obedience, as you note in your mergent, and more ashamed to putt a patche or a peace of their sentence in your text, vvhen it hath beene proued before that it is a true, Christian and Catholick Doctri­ne.

From M. Champeney you leape backward to your fare you vvell, Fol. 112. b and are not ashamed to putt his vvords dovvne for absurd, peril­lous, and scandalous doctrine, vvhich is a most iust and lavvfull doctrine, not at the first sight to admitt any auctoritie but such as is orderly procured and lavvfully promulgated. A peece of a se­tence. They a­re vvarranted to say so, by the fore alleaged Extrauagant Iniunctae, Haue at, fare you vvell. and diuers other pla­ces of the Canon and ciuil lawe. Their reason annexed you cutt of vvith your accustomed &c. your ansvvere is: &c. Helpeth much the vui­ted. But vvho shall iudge of [Page 240]this? I ansvvere. his Hol. their superior, to whome in this case they are to retire: but not euery subiect as you guilefully would make your reader to beleeue they thinke and saie: All that you can alleage out of the fathers of ready prompt and simple obedience, is to be vn­derstood of a true Superior, or vvhen (as S. Thomas saith) they knovve the vvill of their Superior.

Your first rule out of Fa. Your first rule nothing vvorth. Gregoire hath no place in this controuersie, bicause the man­ner of constituting the Archp. by the Cardin. bare letters, vvas contrarie to the comman­dement of a higher superior the Pope, vvho in the foresaid chap. Iniunctae forbiddeth any prelat to be receiued vvithout he bring the Popes Buls vvith him, for proof that he is constituted in that dignitie. And besids, the Protector did exceede the limits and povver of a Protector, vvho hath no povver or Iuri­sdiction to constitut any nevv or old dignitie in Ingland as Protector of the nation. And so might you haue put vp this rule in your pur­se, bicause it maketh quite against you. But lett vs see the marke you shoote at. Marke (quoth you) that a man is boond to obay in all vvherein he hath not euident knovvlege to the contrarie. Marke (my Maist.) that this mar­ke is a false marke. Marke a false marke. For Fa. Gregorie saith no such thing. take your spectacles and read him ouer once againe, and so it is not quite oppo­site [Page 241]to your mens doctrine.

The first corollarie of fa. The first corol­larie is not for you. Fol. 113. Gregorie maketh asmuch for you as the rule before aleaged: It is sufficient to bynd the subiect (vnder obediēce) that he dooth not knovve euidently to the contra rie, to vvitt: that it is either euill, or vvithout the limits of his superiorsauctoritie. Ergo if that vvhich is commaunded be euill, or without the limits of the auctoritie of him that com­maundeth, those that refuse to obey, are not disobedient to their superiors. Now the thing it self, as the priests haue often said and proo­ued also, is euell of it self, next, the Prote­ctor that commaunded exceeded the limites of his auctoritie, for he had none at all. by cō ­sequence then your brethen weare not diso­bedient, ād you haue brought this corollarie to curry your selues. By euidēcs heere (quoth he) I vnderstand that vvhich shalbe so iudged not by the passionat subiect, but by other good and learned men. But it hath heene iudged by the good and learned men of Sorbonne that they did not somuch as synne in refusing the Archpr. vpon the Card. letters, ergo heere is no disobediēce. Yea it is iudged by the Pope him self, as hath often beene said, D. C. Jniunctae that no man can be installed in any Ecclesiasticall dignitie, without his buls, Ergo it was euident to the priests that the Card. commandement (if he had beene their superior) exceeded the limi­te of his power and auctoritie, and so by the [Page 242]former rule and corollarie: committed no dis­obedience against their superiors.

The second and third corollarie, Fol. 113. b The 2. and 3. co­rollaries make nothing for the vnited. brought out of the same father, make as little against them as the former. for he talketh in them of a subiect, and so presupposeth a man that is subiect to an other. But no Englishman is subiect to the Protector of Ingland, and the­refore it appartayneth not to your brethren, nor prooueth them disobedient for not oba­ying the Card. protectors commandment.

That which you add: that the priests rune vpon passion may be well applied to your sel­ues, whome passion hath so blinded, that you will not or doe not vnderstand the Author you aleage, when they are so farre from being against your brethren, that they confirme ād prooue their lawfull endeuors and actions.

At last you come to materiall disobediēce, vvhich consisteth in omitting that vvhich vvas commaunded, Materiall diso­obedience. or dooing any thing contrarie the­revnto. viz to the commaundment of his Su­perior. But the Protector as you must still be told (for you vvillinglie forgett it, and yet harp still vpon yt) was not their superior, nei­ther was it euident that it was commaunded by his Hol. and therefore they haue not com­mitted this material disobedience. I graunt with you that both kinds of disobedience are damnable in such as commit them, but you neither haue nor can prooue, that your [Page 243]brethren haue committed either of them, & therefore are not culpable of that damnatiō.

At length you comme to iudge of their in­tentions, of their thoughts and cogitations, you iudge of mens thoughth and cogitations falsely. Fol. 113. b seeing you can proue no disobediēce in their words and outwardactions. You vvish it vve­are not opēly seene in this fact of theirs, and thei­re perseuerance therein. What (I praie you) we­are not seene? forsooth, their intention not to obey. yf men may expresse their inwards thoughts and intentions by words (for words Weare inuented t' expresse mens inward intē ­tions) I will shewe you their intentions, and then lett the reader iudge whither you vtter these vvords with a good intentiō or no, thus they say in English. Pag. 2. ƲVee haue and doe vovve all obedience vnto Gods church, and doe ackno­vvlege and embrace all auctoritie lavvfully proceeding from the Sea Apostolicke, Pag. 7. and are most ready to shevve all obedience therevnto, &c. and elswhere: vvee protest and vovve all obedience due to Gods church, and to all her lavvfull au­ctoritie, and therefore can be no schismaticks. If they say: vvee doe not obay this auctoritie (of the Protectors) let them shevve vs that it is a lavv­full act of the church, and vve obay, howe dare you in conscience reflect so vpon their inten­tions (hauing read these words) as to indge quite against their intentions [...]. you should in your booke haue shewed that the institution of the Archp. by the Card. vvhat the vni­ted should haue doon. Protectors letters [Page 244]was a lawfull act of the church, and then had you gained the victorie: thē might you in so­me sort haue compted them (if not schisma­ticks) yet seditious and rebellious for withstā ­ding a lawfull act of the church. But this rock of theirs is so strōg ād immouable, that you dare not thrust at it, but you scatter the sands of discourses, not apparteyning to the matter ād question in your readers eyes, to hinder him from seeing the force and strength of their cause, and the barenes and weakenes of your pretended defence.

From reasoning, Fol. 114. b 115. you turne to charging the consciences of your discontented brethren, at the day of iudgement, to tell you in sinceri­tie and without passion, Question. whither the Card. mo­rally vveare not to be beleeued, or vvhither he vvould dare presume to doe or to attempt so pu­blick an act vnder letters patentes: and that ex­pressely in the Popes name vvithout sure cōmis­sion? Ansvvere. They may answere you sincerely and truly as at the day of iudgment, that they might both probably and morally doubt of the Car. credit, weare his letters neuer so patēt, or said he in them to haue neuer so expresse cōman­dement of his Hol. as hath beene shewed be­fore in the question: Whither credit is to begiuen to a Card. saying he hath expresse cōman­dement from the Pope to doe this or that? where the cōclusion is negatiue, that neither probably nor morally he is to be beleeued. [Page 245]and thither I referre you.

The fine faultes you finde in their informa­cion sent to the DD. of Sorbonne, Fol. 116. Of the vfaults found in the in­formation sent to the DD. of Sorbonne. are suplied and put in the case proposed by me in the be gynning of this pāphlet. but to say something to thē as they ly in your booke. The first faut you say is: bicause they added not, that he vvas protector of the natiō. the first is of no importaunce. Which is in deede a fault in you to thinke, that that wold haue chāged the case, and made the DD. not to haue pro­nounced as they did. As who should say: he being the Protector had more power and au­ctoritie ouer our nation, thē being a bare Car. and not Protector. Euery Card. in Rome hath as much auctoritie and iurisdiction ouer vs as hath the Protector. For as I haue often told you, he hath none at all. The second is no fault. The second they said he did it according to the vvill and good liking of the Pope. And you would haue them haue sayd it was Expresso mandato, by expresse com­mandement. Is not his will and good liking conteyned in this expresse commandemēt? or is not his expresse commandment his will and good liking? The 3. fault is of as small waight, bicause no such subordination could be made without his Hol. The 3. of small vvaight. breue (vvhich is the thing in them for saying Many. why may not 13. The 4. is foolish. Fol. 67. b persōs be called Many parsons? yf they might say in latin mnlti, why not in Engl. many? The 5. is vvith­out fault. Fiftly they say: that they refused onely to subscribe till he [Page 246]had obteyned letters from the Sea Apostolick. and this was true. howe say you was it not? did they not still petsist in their refusall till the breue came: what fault finde you with this in­formation? when you your selues in many places of your booke affirme it to be true? ād for their so resisting weare accōpted fchismaticks and so are still for the same resistaūce. you add: as vvho vvold say, that this being doō they meāt to be quiet. theare being quiet or not quiet af­terwards dooth not change the case proposed to the Sorbonnists. and as though (you say) in the meane speace they had behaued them selues o­bediently. To whome (I praie you) should they haue behaued thē selues obediētly? to the Ar­chp. whome they iustly and lawfulli denied to be their superior, ād rightly reiected him as an intruded parson? as one that came in at thewin dowe? Obiection. yea but say you) no man vvas the are pre­sent of the superiors side to informe the good Do­ctors. Ansvvere. yf any hadd beene present, ād coold ha­ue said no more then you haue said heere, the good DD. would haue said as they did. for this which you haue aleaged, altereth not the case proposed at all either in substance or circun­stance of any valeur or respect. Fol. 118. The vnited dea­le not syncerely. Vvhy the priests did breake from the Archp. after the comming of the Breue? You accuse them for breaking out againe after the sight of the Popes breue, but you tell not why, nei­ther put you downe the cause as they doe, ād Why? bicause you defend an vniust and scāda­lous cause. They say it was, for that the Arch. after their reconciliation to him, did renewe [Page 247]the old teare of schisme, and hild them for schismaticks for not admitting and receiuing him vpon the Car. letters. Pag. 63. thus they say in ma­ny places of their Engl. booke, ād in their la­tin booke writtsn to his Holl. they set downe M. Blackvv. letter forbidding any priest to ad-mitt them to confession, or giue them absolu­tion except they acknowlege them selues for schismatickes: Pag. 59.60. in their latin booke to the in­quisitiō after they had mentioned the peace that ensued vpon the coming of his Hol. bre­ue, and of the congratulation of the Archp. & Iesuit, ād specially of fa. Pars. they add: that o­ne Rob. Iones a Iesuit did raise vp againe fa. Fa. Iones. li­sters opinion that thny vveare schismat. vvhich Iones taught and preached that all that did not hold then for schismat, The Arehp. in­discretion. did encurre the Censures of the church. Now the Arch. quoth they did not onely approue Iones his teaching but did also publish euerywhere the resolution befo­re specified viz: that they were schismatickes, & weare not to be absolued except they recanted. thus they lay dovvne to the wholl vvorld the cause of their writing and appealing from the Arc. you finde fault vvhich thē for it, The vnited doe not refute this cause, nor giue any other. but yet you neither refute that with they saie, nor giue any other probable cause of this reuolt and contention. To vvhat end vvrott you this booke? not to refute your aduersaries reasons not to reprehend them for laying dovvne a false cause of these contentions? no truly, The substaunce of their Apol. for you doe neither the one nor the other. but ra­rather [Page 248]to discourse of old dissentiōsin Rome Paris & Flanders, in laying dovvne loades of letters to no end or purpose. ād this is the ve­ry substāce of this your breif Apol. that which you add: they bring against the newe breue, hath beene ansvveared before. Fol. 118.

Lastly, you charge your brethren being not scarse 10. against 300, howe they durst make so dangerous a diuision? they may ansvvere that this dangerous diuision proceeded from tho­se 3. or 4. at Rome, that gaue the informatiō & counsell to haue an Arch. without asking the consent of the priests in Ingl. and their procu­ring him to be so disorderly and vnlavvfully constituted: and not frō those priests, that ac­cording to the decrees of the church, yea by the expresse commandment of the holie Ca­nons refused a prelat so disorderly and vnca­nonically thrust and put vpon thē as it vveare by violence, against the expresse lawe and ap­prooued custome of Christs church. The vnited may be ashameth, to put the cause of this diuision v­pon the priests. For my part I much maruell hovv you can in consciē ­ce an hovve you dare for shame put the cause of this diuision vpon them: vvhē as they in all their booke giue solid and lavvfull reasons of their dooings, lay the occasiōs vpō the Iesuits and Arch. ād yet you neither ansvvere their reasōs, nor defēd the others frō the blame put vpon them: neither doe you obiect any reaso­nable cause against thē vvhereby a man may see or coniecture that they vvere the authors and begynners of this diuifiō & cōtēsion. And [Page 249]yet forsooth they are the authors they made this diuision, I talke not of those dissentions that fell out at Wisbith, but of those nevve controuersies, the cause of all these scādalous cōtētiōs, ād vncharitable vvriting one against an other. viz: the subordination and the re­newing of the quarrell of schisme. whereof they shewe and prooue the Iesuits ād Arch­priest to haue beene the Authors. vvhat the vni­ted shoold haue doon in their Apologie. and you doo not cleere and deliuer them from these accusations. this you should haue doon, and this should haue beene the scope of your booke, if you meaned to haue doon any thing that Good is. the fault (so farre as I cann parceiue) lyeth yet vpon their shoul­ders, for any thing that you cann saie in this your Apol. to the contrarie. I knovve not ho­we you vvill handle the matter in your pro­mised larger Apologie.

If little releif commeth to your brethren (as you say) by this definition of Paris: Fol. 118. b. Pag. 110. what needed the Archpriest to make this seuere edict a­gainst it, as it is put downe in your brethrens appeale: Th' edict of Paris maketh for the Priests. that neither directly nor indirectly they mainteine or defend in vvord or in vvriting the censure of the vniuersitie of Paris, &c. belike it made for them, Fol. 116. b. & 117. as in deede it dooth still not vvith standing your 5. additions that you would should haue beene added vnto it. For these circunstāces and considerations neither do aggrauat as you would make men belee­ue, nor at all change the state of the case or [Page 250]question proposed. and so th'Academicall sentence standeth firme still and maketh substantially for M. Champeney without florish or ostentation.

Wee haue shevved (quoth you) in the former chapt. Fol. 119. vvith hovve little reason our discontented brethren being so fevve and such as they vvere (Ser­ving men, Soldiers, and wanderers) opposed thē ­selues at the begynning to the first Institution of this Hierarchie, Fol 29. b. &c. beleeue you vvho list. this is a florish in deede with ostentation of an vnited fitton. And vnited fitton. where haue you shevved it? no­te the place leafe, and lyne sure I am you ha­ue reported, that they haue layde downe 21. Reasons against that Institution, but that you haue ansvvered any one of them, as yet I fin­de not. you haue heere and there picked cer­taine speeches out of their books, but hovv poorely you haue answered them, I leaue to the Readers Iudgement, that will but cast his eyes vpon the same places, and yet vvee must beleeue you bicause you are a nomber, that you haue shevved vvith hovve little reason your brethren opposed them selues to the institution of the Archpriest. Th' vnited play vvith mens noses. You may well play which the noses of boyes, vvomen, and your owne cre­atures, but in different men pitty your case and laugh at your so vaine affirming that which you neuer did. Shevve hovve little Rea­son (quoth you) mary he that hath read the former chapt. and will beleeue you, hath in deed but little Reason. These be gugawes [Page 251]and toyes to mock at or to please foles, and not vvorthy such graue men as you are or ought to be, and such constant Confessors. What! make you no conscience (sauing your reuerence) to fitton and that in print? hovve doo you abuse ād detract them behind their backes, that dare in print say: you haue she­vved hovve little reason they had? hauing not ansvvered to any one of their Reasons as yet. VVhat the vnited should prooue. You add, ordayned by his Hol. this you should prooue. This is the Question. vvhither at the begynning he vvas ordayned by his Hol. or no? they say no. and bring abooue 30. Rea­sons to proue their assertion. But you say of­ten yea, and for prooffes and reasons, you gi­ve vs nought but bare vvords. vvho is then bound to beleeue you?

As they asked you before, Fol. 108. Fol. 119. b. Question. vvhy in so many Monèthes space the bull was not procured? so you aske them heere: vvhy they sent not a let­tre to Rome either to his Hol. him self or to his Ne­phevv, or to any other acquaintannce of theirs there? And as you answered them (but howe Iump iudge you) bicause it is novv ansvvered for that the breue was procured, so say I: Ansvvere. they weare not bound to send either Messenger or lettre ei­ther to his Hol. or his Nephevv, or to any o­ther acquanitannce to knovve vvhither this matter came from his Hol. or no: or vvhither the Protector had abused the Popes name or no? bicause it was ansvvered by the Pope long since that none vnder paine of depriuation of the frui­ D.c. Jniunctae. tes [Page 252]of their benefice should receiue any man to any office benefice or dignitie vvithout he brought the Popes buls. L. 1. §. fin. in fin. ff. de act. empt. Novve vvee hauea rule that saith (Qui certus est amplius certiorarinon debet. he that is alreadly acertyned of a thingh ought not to be certisied againe. They vveare certi­fied by Pope Boniface, not to admit any such: to what purpose then should they send to his Hol. to be certified againe? And if they had sent and that his Hol. had certified them that it vvas his will, yet could they not in co­science haue received and obeyed him as their superior, bicause he vvas not canoni­cally instituted, being instituted without his Hol. buls, and by him that had no auctoritye to doo it, albeit he had had a hundred expres­se commandementes from his Hol. quia subla­ta forma, tollitur res. it is of the forme and es­sence of a canonicall institution to be institu­ted by his Hol. buls, if the Collation (as in this case) partaine to him. but this forme was not obserued, ergo the institution vvas not canonicall, and by consequence if they had receiued a hundred letters from Rome, that all vvas doon by his Hol. Good will liking and consent they had neuer beene the bet­ter for it, neither yet discharged in conscien­ce, for acknovvleging and admitting an in­truded person that entred in by the vvyndo­vve and not by the dore, A fend obiectiō often repeated often ansvve­red. but vnorderly. that is, without his Hol. Bulls.

Hovv oft commeth in this fond obiectiō [Page 253] affirming that the Pope could not doo it vvithout them except he violated the church Canons. sithens it is an infaillable truth, and yet this you lay still downe as an absurd saying, so blinded you are in affection. howe say yow? th'ordina­ry meanes that heaue alwaies beene in Gods church to appoiot Ecclesiasticall superiors, vvas it not by election? Runne ouer the tit­les De Electione. and therefore the Pope follo­vving the ordinary meanes and waies of the church Canons, could not giue them a supe­rior without their consents. C. Bonae memo­riae 2. in fin. Ext. de elect. For in matter of election this is the rule: Plus obest contemptus vnius quam contradictio multorum. the contempt of one that hath a voyce in election dooth more hurt, then the contradiction of many. Wherefore, if these fevve 10. Priests had beene contemned and all the 300. Priests had consented, the election had beene of no valure. howe then cann it be said, that he vvas ordinaryly insti­tuted, and according to the Canons of the Church? vvhen both the 300. and these 10. al­so vveare contempned, and their voyces nec­lected? I speake of the ordinary waie, and so doo they vnderstand (els vvould they not ha­ue made mention of the Canons) not of the Popes plenitude of povver and auctoritye, by vvhich he may take awaie all Election, and alter and change all the churches canons, ād constitutions, and make newe in their places. but by the ordinary vvaie of Canon lawe, as they say well, the Pope cannot appoint a su­perior [Page 254]vvithout the consent of the subiects, Follie and igno­rance. vvhich are to liue vnder that superior. I mu­se at your follie or ignorannce to obiect to them this, and that so often as a great ouer­sight fault and cōtempt: the vvhich (as I said) is truth it self, sound and canonicall doctri­ne.

CHAP. IX.

TOuching the imprisonnemēt of the 2. Priests in Rome, of the vvhich all the 9. chapt. al­most dooth treat, I haue put dovvne my Iudgemēt befo­ré. onely this I add: that all the principall men vvhome you notifie to haue vvritten against them, vveare such men as all the vvorld knoweth to be in this cause too too much affected to the Fathers, Affection of blindeth men. and by af­fection vtterly blinded in the state and que­stion of the Controuersie, that is betvveene the Priests novv, and the Archpriest and Ie­suits. I knovve them all both by face and af­fection, and therefore may be the bolder to say it.

The first man you name is M.D. D. Stapleton proueth not your intention. Staple­ton vvhome his Hol. purposed to preferre to higher dignitie. if he vvere nowe aliue he vvould tell another tale against those that hindred him [Page 255]from that higher dignitie, and that told him a tale in his eare, when he vvas ready to put his foote into his litter and made him staie at ho­me, and loose that higher dignitie. He vvas be­reeued of his higher dignity. the storie (of like) if you contynue your Apologies vvill comme out one day. Well! but vvhat sayth D. Stapleton to the matter? dooth he exhort or defire his Hol. to chastise by impri­sonnement These tvvo Priests? Nihil minus. A dead man fo­re man of the quest. Fol. 173. b. He neuer dreamed of it, and yet is he made the foreman af the quest to condemne them, beinge dead himselfe by your ovvne confes­sion before the Priests came to Rome. What kinde of vvritinge is this to saie that a dead man gaue his verdite after he vvas buryed? And vvhy? because (vvhen he vvas senceles) he agreed in sense and Iudgement vvith other princi­pall men that vvret (after his death) to Rome.

Next to the fore man of the quest that gaue his verdite after his death ther march seventeene hands of the principall of ovvr Nation in Flanders, When wrote they? some monethes before they (the Priests) came out of Englande. But to whom vvrote they? I praye you? forsouth to the generall of the Iesuits, the head of those, against vvhom the Priests vvere in cō ­tention. But vvhat doe they desyre? Impri­sonement? Nothinge lesse. onelye to doe Justice, The 17. princi­pall men of ovvr Nation did not require their imprisonement. and so to make peace. A Iust and reasonable re­quest. I see not to what end you put dovvne a peece of their lettre here. Who would not [Page 256]request Iustite to be done? Why? did not the Priests them selues goe to Rome to aske Iu­stice? that is: If they were founde faultye: to be punished: If innocent? to haue their Iust requests graunted. Doe these 17. principall men request the generall to get them Impri­soned before they were heard? No. Neyther if they had requested it (I deeme) should they haue bene heard. Howsoeuer he was after­vvards brought by one mans persuasion to consent thereto. for I thinke Fa. Parsons durst not haue gone with the Popes Officer to appre hended them, ād to imprisone them in the Colledge vvithout the Generall his knowledge and Consent. And so by this mea­nes the Generall hath his part also in this vniust and vnaequitable action of their im­prisonement, before they were heard, For be­sydes his consentinge to their apprehension by permitting one of his order to be present and cheife actor in it, this memoriall of these 17. sent to him, was also by him to be presen­ted to the Pope as you insinuate.

After this, Fol. 12. b. follovve the letters of the Zea­lous men, the former vvere principall men, these are but zealous, although it be the president and the Doctors of the seminarye. In my ty­me, such men vvere counted amongst the principall of owr Nation but it vvas then, vvhen they vvere their owne maisters, not subiect and pinned to others, and directed by [Page 257]others, as they are novve, The president and his three Doctors desyre not their impri­sonement. the more is the pi­tye, and it is the great hinderance of doinge good in owr Countrey. But to vvhom vvro­te these zealous men? forsooth to the prote­ctor. and not to his holynes? And vvhat do they request? to haue them imprisoned befo­re they vvere heard? (for therein consisteth the iniurye and the Indignitye of the fact.) not a vvord thereof. onely they thinke it good, Fol. 125. that some example of severe correction should he vsed vpon them, to hold others in dutye. Novve if these three Doctors vvhich are yet livinge and subscribed to that lettere vvere exami­ned on their Consciences, vvhether they meant these Priests should be imprisoned before they vvere heard, or that they meant to haue thē punished, being found factious, and comming vvith no matter of importan­ce, but onelye to trouble his holynes: I am assured they vvould ansvvere, they meant not the first, for tvvo of them being Doctors of lavve should othervvyse speake against their ovvne knovvledge skyll and practyse. And some of thē I beleeue haue bitten their singers since, for subscribinge against their will, to please and Content others. Well then these foure zealous Doctors though not before, yet nowe counted amongst the principall men of ovvr Clergie proue but litle your Intention. Fol. ibidem b.

In the fourth place is set dovvne a letter, [Page 258](M. D. ƲVorthing­ton novv presi­dent desyred not their imprisone­ment. President) vvherein he iudgeth them to be repressed vvith some severitye? ergo saie these men, he vvrote to haue them impriso­ned, before they vvere heard vvhat they had to saie, or to impart and vtter vvhat they came for, comming as appellannts to the see Apostolique, this they saie, or els they saie nothing. and for profe thereof they haue printed the letter. I am assured that that vvas not his meaning, vvhat soeuer els he meant by severitye. But by these my notes he may see, hovvmuch he and others vvere deceived that thought them Culpable and seditious, because they vvithstoode the Archpriest, so vnlavvfullye and disorderlye set vp, by the Protectors letters. as also his predecessor with his 3. Doctors that Confes­sed this subordination to be most vviselye and vvholsomelye instituted. I speake not against the subordination, neither do I mis­lyke of it, but of the maner of instituting of it at the first, vvhich vvas against all lavve and reason, as those zealous Doctors might haue seene, if they had but turned ouer their Common lawe.

After your letter, The names of 3. Doctors abu­sed or borro­vved. there are 3. Doctors brought in, and albeit they saie nothing, yet vve must beleeue, that they vvrot most ear­neslye and grauely to the same effect. although (as I haue said) they said neuer a word to the sane effect. What! to be imprisoned before they [Page 259]vvere heard vvhat they had to said, to iusti­fye their comming to Rome? Lansweare, if I vveare with some of thē, they vvould saie, that you abuse their names and credit, to ma­ke men beleeue they vvere so vniust, eruell, and vncharitable men, as to vvyshe the im­prisonement of innocent men. For vntill they be Iudiciallye conuinced of some cri­me or fault, they are presumed innocent, as before I haue proued.

In the end you sett dovvne M. No vvord at all in M. Licen­tiat VVrights letter of the tvvo Priests. Licentiat ƲVrigts (my old and deare frends) letter. Who albeit he speaketh as a zealous frend of the Fathers, as he euer hath beene since I haue knowne him, yet not a vvord in the let­tere of the tvvo Priests at all, nor of punis­hing them, much lesse of requesting them to­be imprisoned before the vvere heard. Fol. 127. By all these letters I see no iust cause, vvhy the Pro­tector should incite the Pope, or his holynes be moued iustlye to resolue to restrayne thē (as you saye) or to imprison them (as they saie) at their arrivall or some 20. dayes after, being as yet neyther heard nor examined vvhat they brought or had to saie. These letters do not discharge Fa. Par. Surelye vvhether Fa. Parsons procured these letters or no, these letters do not discharge him frō their accusation, that he vvas the cheife pro­curer of their imprisonement (I doe not saie he vvas) but I saie these letters which speake never avvord of their imprisonment is not [Page 260]a sufficient argument (as the thinke) to dis­charge Fa. Par. of the suspition they haue of him.

At lenghe after your long trauayle in set­ting dovvne letters that make nothing to your purpose, Fol. 136. in vvrangling vvith your ad­uersaries, and not ansvvearing their reasons: in talking of factions in Paris and Flannders and of the last troubles in the Romaine Col­ledge, after all these great travailes (I saie) you begin to make your selfe merrye, and to en­riche your Apologie vvith M. Watsons com­mon vvealth. and haning first disgraced him for not being a scholler of the Colledge for a god vvhile, [...]f. VVatson disgraced for being a poore scholler. but a seruant to make M. Boasts bed and dresse vp his chāber. If this be a disgrace vn­to him to haue bene a poore scholler in the Seminarie, then is it not onely a disgrace to some of the subfcribers of the former letters, vvhich yet you saie to haue bene the princi­pallest men of our Natiō, Manie of you vnited Priests, some Iesuits, and some of them vvhom you call the prin­cip allest men, vvere poore schollers in the seminarie. but to a great num­ber of your selues (my vnited bretheren) and to some of the Fathers also in England, that haue bene also poore schollers and seruants before they vvere schollers of the Colledge. If you vrge me in your next I will name thē noman knowing thē better then I, as having liued manie a yeare in the seminarie, yea euen from the first setting vp of it. A poore schol­ler is a principall man vvhen you list if he hold with the Iesuits: but if he be against [Page 261]them, then it shal be laid in his dishe I vvar­rant you. What man having anie Iudgment cann think, VVant of hone­stie and con­science. that vnited Priests vvrot this A­pologie? Hovv can they vvith honeslye and conscience obiect to another as a disgrace and in contempt the state vvherein diuers of them also liued. If it were abiect, and M. Wat­son to be counted abiect therefore, yet the same Iudgmēt is to be giuen of a great num­ber of you your selues, that liued also in that estate, except by holding with the Fathers you are restituti in integrū, vvashed cleane frō that spot, the others still remaining all to be smyred thervvith. A question to be ansvveared. But vvhy (I praie you) might not M. Watson a secular Priest, make a common vvealth for Ecclesiasticall gouerne­ment, so well as a Religious man (as it is re­ported) make a common vvealth hovv En­gland shalbe gouerned both in Ecclesiasticall and temperal matters. vvhat priuiledge hath this man mote then the other? the vvhich (if it vvere put in print) perhapps vvould make the reader as merrye as this doth. But you ha­ue set it downe at large in recompence of the setting dovvne af Fa. Listers booke, A comparison betvveene Fa. L. Booke and M. VVatsons common vvealth if that be his vvhich the auctor of the Apologye Fa­thereth vpon him. ad longū sine require. I would to god his booke had do­ne no more hurt then M. Watsons common wealth. For this maketh men merrye, that maketh men grone, this stirreth vp laughter, that breedeth melancholy this reioyceth the readers hart after the reading of so manie te­dious [Page 262]and vndeacent letters ād matters that maketh manie a man bleede at the veriehart throughe greife and sorow. this derogateth but a little the credit of a ordinarye Priest but that doth blemish not onelye the name and fame of the writer, hertofore held for a verie pious, modest and a great learned man: but somvvhat also of the societie it selfe. I knowe manie a Father in these coasts, that byte the lipp, so soone as they heare anie mentiō ma­de therof. And you yourselues that vvill not talke of it, but are soerye that euer it vvas mentioned, for the greife you haue concei­ued of it, cann yet make your selues merrie vvith M. Watsons common vvealth. Cettes your vocation and grauitye might haue ad­uertised you to haue spent your tyme better then in these follyes, and to haue studied to ansvveare your aduersaries Reasons and ar­gumentes and to haue filled vp your booke vvith sound Reasons, rather then vvith these flymflams. But vvhy do I speake to you, whé I knovv you are not the Authors, he hath discouered himselfe (as vvyse as he thinketh himselfe to be) as in place you maie vnder­stande Bonus quandoque dormitat Homerus, even so in this booke he hath ouershot himselfe, and discharged you of all blame, but onely of lending your names vvillinglye to the disgra­ce, contempt and abasement of your order ad vocation, as I haue often warned you. If this [Page 263]vayne of vvryting goforvvard as it hath be­gun, Manie merrye tales are kept in store. credit me there are tales and stories in store, that will make some men blush (if they haue anie blood in their bodie) vvhen they shall be set out in print. Maie I not for these your follyes better crye out then you doo. Good lord, to vvhat vanitye are these owr vnited bre­thren grovvne by contention that they cann lose their tyme in filling their booke vp with these toyes! Fol. 138. whee­re is the spirit of charitye? vvhere is the vertue of modestie become? is this fit for designed Martyrs, or for good Confessors? to disgrace and deface a man of their ovvne coate and vocation, to make him a mocking stock to the readers without iust occation: his vvords ād vvritings nothing at all appertayning to the matter inquestion? But dravvne as it vvere vvith a cart rope to make your selues merrie? one daie you vvill ansvveare for this Idle tyme so scandalou slye spent. Doe you designed Martyrs giue your sheepe such edification? Doo you good con­fessors instruct your flocke vvith such stuffe and exhortations? hath contention and mali­ce so blinded you, that you forget the hono­rable state and vocatiou you are in? Yes true­lye, els vvould you neuer commit the absur­dityes you doo, and espetiallye about the cō ­tempte of men of your ovvne coate and vo­cation, Amend, amend it is highe tyme. Fol. 139. Who I praie you sent the common vvealth vnto Rome to be Cōmunicated to the Cardinalls that laughed so hartilie at it? who translated [Page 264]it into Italien or Latin, or vvho did explicat it to the Cardinalls to make them so mertye? (for I suppose it vvas written in English for anie thing I can perceiue in this Apologie to the Contrarye.) vvho but the Author and vvriter of this Apologie, to vvhō it vvas sent from England to Rome. Me thinkes I see hovv he laughed whē first he did read it. And then hovv he hasted to Communicate the sa­me to the said Cardinalls to make them mer­rye, and then vvhat discourses there vvere of the insufficientie, vnlearnednes, and ambitiō of these Priests that stood against the Archp. because this commō wealth maker vvas one of them. vanitas vanitatum that Religious men vvho should spend their tyme in studie and contemplation, do take their greatest plea­sure, delite, and contentement in vvriting ād receiving packets of nevves from all coasts ād cuntreyes, making that their vvhole stu­die ād trauaile. Would to god they would cō ­tent thēselues vvith such packets as are di­rected to thē, ād not forestalle, and take vp, other mens that appertayne not vnto them.

We are come at last to the Question that standeth in this vvhich part hath broken the pea­ce, VVhich side broke the peace after the com­ming of the bull. that vvas made by the comming and sigth of his Holines bull. You saie they did by a nevv deuise they shortlye after cast out, that satisfaction must be made to them for some former hard speaches vsed and vvrytten against them in the tyme of contention, &c. this you saie but doo [Page 265]not tell vvho began, vvhich vvaie, in vvhat place and at vvhat tyme and this you proue onelye by cui bono. They saie the breach be­gan on the Archp. his side when they had for­giuen and forgottē all the foresaide hard spe­aches and iniuries done vnto them (so farre were they from requiring satisfactiō for thē) ād this they proue in both their Latin booke, Pag. 65. in the one and 60. in the other. by putting downe the Arch. letters, vherein he saith he had receiued from the mother ci­tie a resolution that the detractors of the pro­tectors authoritie were schismatickes, and that he would not absolue anie that made not a conscience of it. Beside they put downe a forme of recantacion or satisfaction which is to be made by such as held against his institu­tion before they could be absolued. Pag. 120. This breache crediblie beg­on the Archpr, syde. These are better and more substantialle proofes then, cui bono, that this pitious breache began on the Archpriests side, and not on your discon­tented brethrens syde. the vvhich I beleeue to be true, because you answeare not one word therto in this Apologie, neither goe you about to cleare the Archp. of it. For this being the cheefe cause they pretend of this conten­tion, and affirminge so oft as they doe that the Archp. renewed the old quarrel of schis­me, in all wyse mens iudgment you should haue spent your labour in proouing the con­trarie and in discharging the Archp. from this fowle fault. the tyme, (I saie) inke, and pa­per spent in setting downe M. Watsons com­mon [Page 266]wealth, had bene much better imployed in controling your aduersaries of an vn­truth, by laying the breach of the peace vniu­stlye vpon the Archp. and his coūsellours but fortis est veritas, the truth carrieth such a ma­iestie with it, that the verie aduersaries them selues dare not approche it, much lesse impu­gne it. And to prooue they broke the peace made after the comming of the breue you al­ledge an Appeale made by 3. of those priests from the Archpriest before the comming of the said breue. Wiselye, but yet according to your custome throughout your booke, The vnited put stil quid pro quo where you put still quid pro quo, and the cart before the horse. The question is, Who bra­ke the peace after the comming of the breue? And you prooue they brake it, bicause some of them appealed before the breue came downe. Fol. 154.

Where you obiect the one was made a do­ctor of Diuinitie, and the other a Bacheler in Paris, against an expresse Breue that forbad the same in all Englishmen. I maruell that this Author the procurer of that Breue is so for­getfull, as to saie, it is forbidden to all Englis­men to take the degree of a Bacheler, where as Doctorship is onelye forbidden. You maie correct the fault in your next, Fol. ibi. in mar. Pag. 91. as that also, in calling the Appeale made by M. Charnocke verie ridiculous, for he proued in his letter to the Cardinall Burghesius which is put dovv­ne in their booke to the inquisition and that [Page 267]authoritie of the learnedst Canonists, that it vvas a lavvfull and not a ridiculous appeale. you should haue ansvveared his auctorityes, and them haue termed it ridiculous. But lea­uing his authors vntoucht you shevve your selues to be verie ridiculous people, that would haue men beleeue you vpon your ba­re vvords, and not beleeue those that bring good stuffe and authorities for them.

Touching the speciall point (you saie) to be noted that they haue not procured anie one of their Appeales to be presented or prosecuted in Rome. the note is easily to be ansvveared, Fol. 159. b ƲVhy the priest did not prosecu­te their apeales. be­cause the place is not tutus sure for them, ha­uing experimented it first in ther messengers, Fol. 137. and next hauing Fat. Parsons in the tovvne, vvhom you confesse they take to be their cheefest aduersarie, and vvho for his creditt (you saie) in the Romaine court dooth great lye lett and hinder their designemens. ād this their saying vvas not manie monethes since confirmed by one of his ovvne coate passing by this vvaie, vvho said: fa. Parsons could doe vvhat he vvould vvith the Pope. Iudge if such a place be sure for your brethren to persecu­te their appeale. And vvhere you adde, that they ought to haue prosecuted it vvith in certaine monethes, vnder payne that all is voyd if it be not doon: you talke like diuynes and not lyke lavviers, as I haue shevved els vvhe­re before.

And vvhere you saie that the Archpri him­selfe presented their appellation to his Hollines. Fol. 160. If he haue presentēd that appeale vvhich they have put in the end of their Latyn bookes Certes, either the appellants are egregious. lyers and shamels men, or els the Atchp. had a brasen face: they shameles to exhibit to his Holynes, and to all the vvorld such faulsityes and vntruthes against their lavvfull superior: but if they be truthes and not forged, then had the Archp. a brasen face to exhibit or cau­se to be presented to his Holines such true, but yet vnvvorthye stuffe against him selfe.

If they had kept themselues vvith in the compasse of their matter, Fol. ibidem. The cause vvhy the priests prin­ted their bookes. the booke vvritten after the appeale, had neither beene libelles (as you tearme them) neither yet vnduelye printed. Why should they not informe his Holynes, and giue notice to all all the vvorld hovv vniustlye and vnchristianlye they vvere dealt vvith all before the coming of the bre­ue, to be called, counted, and by vvriten bookes prooued Schismaticks, for not admitting an exorbitant dignitie vpon a Card. bare let­ters. And againe after the comminge of the bull. and their acceptatiō of that dignitie, the same crvme to be renevved, and so horrible a cryme to be imputed to them againe. If you iustlye accuse them for imputing far lister faults to Fa. Pars. and others, and take them vp egerlye for the same? hovv can you finde fault [Page 269]with them for defending and clearing them selues from so horrible a sinne, next cosyn to Heresie? and worse then soothsaying and I­dolatrie it selfe they wrote then both for the defence of their good name and fame, which is iust and naturall, and to aduertyse his Holy­nes of their vsage, requesting him either to quit, or condemne them by his sentence. To this end they published their booke, as they affirme, and you selues cannot well denie. the which sentēce of his Hol. which (you saie) you expect, is come out alreadie (as I haue heard) and if I be not deceaued I haue read it also. In the which he condemneth expressely fat. Li­sters booke of schisme, and theirs also com­manding silence and forbidding anie more writing. the which yet you (that so often ob­iect contempt of his Holynes and his doings to others) doe neyther obserue nor obey. Fol. 162. Of the 6. abuses you finde in the title of their la­tyn beoke.

The first of the 5. or 6. abuses which yov fin de with the title of the latyn booke is. Becau­they make the strife to be betweene them ād the Iesuites and the Archp. fauoring them. this to be false and that their strife is cheiflye with M. Blackwell, whom they make in their title but an Appendix, you proove, because the Appellation is made against M. The cheise strife is vvith the Je­suits. Blackewell But they shew, and your selues elswhere confesse that their cheifest strife is with far. Pars. for giuing false informatiōs for this subordi­nation, and With Fath. Lister for writing his [Page 270]booke of schisme, and fa. Garnet for the ap­prouing thereof. Yet was their first falling out with fat. Weston and the others before named, manie a daie, yea some yeares be­fore they appealed and therefore it is playne truth and not falsehod, that they put the Ie­suits in the first place and M. Blackw. in these cond. For much strife and contentiō had they with the Iesuits long before M. Blackw. vvas made Archepriest.

Your second fault also is faultles in them. The second fault is faultes. for had they said: and all the Seminarie priests, thē had they lyed in deed. but saying onely and the Seminarie priests, they said true, for they are Seminarie priests, but you saye this vvas but a poore faulte and therefore passed it o­uer lightlye.

Thirdlye they saye from the death of Card. Allen. you adde that this sturre against the fa­thers vvas begonne in England in his dayes. If in his dayes? then might it be continued from his death. you looke verie narrovvlye to sin­de hoales, vvhere none are, they doe not saie the troubles beganne but from his death, but that haue rysen from his death. that is, haue beene increased. And here by your ovvne vvords is prooued that vvhich I said before: your ovvne vvords against you. Fol. 162. that these priests vvere in trouble and concē ­tion vvith the Iesuits some yeares before the Instituting of the Archpr. for your saie: That the contentions against the Iesuites vvere [Page 271]begonne in England euen in Card. Allens daies. by consequence then, they committed noe abuse to put the Iesuits before M. Blackvvell and much lesse is it then a playne falshood. The fourth is no abuse.

Fourthly, they say: Ad S. D. N. Clementē octauum exhibita ab ipsis sacerdotibus, that this declaration vvas exhibited by the Priests them selues to our most holie father Pope Clemēt the 8. I see not to vvhat purpose you put this dovvne, you do not acknovvledge it your selues to be an abuse. What matter is it I praye you (so it be exhibited to his Holines) vvhe­ther it be exhibited by them selues or somme other therir frend or foe? as it vvas exhibited by the Archp. as you saie before. For the ap­peale and the booke being printed and boūd together, I cannot see hovv the one could be presented vvithout the other. except the Ar­ch. did cut of the booke, and send the appea­le onely. What matter (I saie) maketh it, so it come at lēgh to the Popes knowledge (which is the scope of their vvriting) as it did come indeed, the vvhich maie appeare by the bre­ue he sent dovvne, to condemne both theirs, and Fa. Listers booke also.

Neither is this vvord exhibit, to be taken so strittly, as you seeme to take it, that is: to deliuer vp into the Popes hands, but in his vs­uall and common signification: vvhich is to set abroad for euerie man to behold, or to offer and she vve a thing to another. But why [Page 272]did you not put dovvne all their vvords at lenght vvithout nipping of the latter vvords vvere you afraid of somme buggs? Nippers. or did your consciences accuse you for the former iniurie of schisme laid against them? of the vvhich you talke not vvillingly: and are sorie to heare of it. Why did you not speake out ād saie as they doe: ab ipsis sacerdotibus qui schi­smatis aliorumque criminum sunt insimulati. exhibited by those priests that vvere vnduely ac­cused and appeached of schisme and others cri­mes. The vnited doe iustlye abhorre the vvord schis­me. I cannot blame you if you abhorre the vvorde schisme. because the vniust, vncharita­ble, and vnlearned accusation of your brethrē of this schisme vvas ihe springe and fountaine of this trouble, your consciences doe testifie as much, and therefore you nipped of these vvords vvhich declare the cause of their vvri­ting ād exhibiting their latin booke to his Holynes. And besides in this vvhole booke you neuer enter into speech of this matter, albeit the same be the ground of all this contention but vvith other to yes and flymflamms, you turne your readers eyes and intention from marking this point.

As for the 5. Fol. 162. b abuse vvhich you gather by the application of the verse of the Psalme to their booke: I passe ouer being no diuyne ād therefore cannot iudge vvhether they or you explicate it most aptlye.

You 6. reprehension is verie foolish: the [Page 273]which as for saying: The 6. is a foo­lysch reprehēsion 163. their booke vvas printed at Roan in the hovvse of Iames Molens, and you confesse you knovve not vvhether there be aine such signe or man dvvelling in Roan or no. If you cannot precisely saie their is no such mā, why doe you finde fault with thē for say­ing there is such a man. You should haue doō well if you had followed the same counsell which you gaue them a litle before, to send a letter to Rome to his Hol. his nephewe or some other frend to know whether the Car. instituted the Archp. by his Hol. consent or no. So might you with lesse cost and charges, haue sent from Flaundres (where this booke was printed) to Roan, to knowe vvhether their be such a printer so named or no, If not? then you might haue precisely said, there is none such, and as precisely taxe them: but if you had found such a printer there. Then might you haue saued this labor. but you are lyke to such as can giue good connsell to o­thers, but will followe, none them selues.

Well then, seeing that all yours. Fol. 163. and 164 absurditi­es, be neither absurdities, shifts, nor falshoods, but that you haue committed a manifest fals­hood in nipping of these words. Their 6. faults if they vvere such not comparable to your ovvne fault. ab ipsis sa­cerdotibus qui schismatis aliorumque crimi­num sunt insimulati, to which one shift &c. falshood, all their 6. are not comparable, al­beit they vvere shiftes and falshoods novve your readers maye imagine vvhat stuffe the [Page 274]Remnant will be. And if we maie presume (as the lawe saith a praeteritis de futuris) by that which you haue alreadie said, of that which you are like hereafter to saie: then sure I am, that you will not saie much to the matter, nor come neere the question. nor yet ansvveare there reasons, for as yet you haue done nei­ther of the three.

To their 2. Pag. 5. reasons that caused them to print their bookes. Fol. 164. The first reason for printing their booke is good. The first: They could not haue copies inough in vvritten hand: You ansvvere is: That manie copies vvas not needfull, if they vvere onelye for his Holines information as they pretend. Indeed if they were onelye for his Holynes information so manie copies nee­ded not: but where doe they pretēd that they wrote for his Holynes onelye information? their intention was not onelye to informe his Holynes, but also to defend their innocē ­cie, fame, and good name, that was blotted & blemished, both at home, and in forraine cō ­treyes by Fa. Listers booke, the copies vvhe­re of flewe ouer into strange countreyes, sent and dispersed euerie where by the Fathers. And this is the third reason, wich they giue in that place in the margent, which you willing­lye omit.

The seconde reason. Pog. 5. The secād rea [...]e. Fol. 164, To get their good na­mes againe in forraine nations taken avvaye by the Iesuits wherto you answere, that in your opinion it vvill fall out quite contrarye: to witte [Page 275] vvhere before they vvere not infamous nor yet knovvne: novv they shalbe both by their infa­matorie vvritinge. Take heed this prophecie fall not vpon your selues. This is perchaunce but your owne opinion. Howsoeuer it will fall out vvith them, my opinion is, yea I am full sure of it, that somme others that haue beene medlers herein, especiallye the writer and the consirmer of the booke of schisme against them, haue lost much of their credit alreadie by the devulgating of these bookes, and that their best frends hould downe their heads for shame when it cometh in talke. And as litle credite I beleeue, you will get (by the­se your Apologies) both at home and abroa­de, as you deeme maye happe to them for theire bookes.

From the 164. you repre [...]end them iustly. lease of your booke to the 168. you rune ouer their latin booke and doe duly reprehend them for their writting a­gainst certaine reuerēd and vertuous parsōs. VVilling omis­sion. But yet I marke, you willingly omitt and ne­glecte their quarrel against some Iesuits and specially Father Lister, for writting against them and Father Garnet for approuinge the same. This is, as I haue often repeted the grownde of theis troubles and contentions. Hinc fundi nostricalamitas. Here you should either haue defended Father Lister or haue condemned him (as in your conscience you doe) but you are of that veine, that if you should condemne or dislike of any thinge in [Page 276]one Iesuit, you thinke it would denigrat the praises you attribute to thothers. Speak truth. But for all this, you being priestes and confefessors should speake the truth and shame the deuil and lay the fault, vvhere it is. You knovv vvho said: Amicus Plato, Amicus Socrates, sed magis amica veritas. But vvith you, the Fathers and their praise are more respected, then the truth it self.

They goe about (say you) to shevve that the Archpriest hard proceeding with them, Vneuē dealing. vvas cause of their nevve contentions and sturres. This you prooue by 2. Marginall no­tes of theirs. But vvhy did you not put dow­ne the text also? Why did you not sett downe the Arcpriest his epistle renevving the woun­de of schisme and coūting them schismaticks? Why? bicause you loue not to talk of the mat­ter. albeit the same be the chiefist pointe in the controuersie. Markstill the question in con­trsuersie. That is: Whither they be Schismatickes for vvistanding the Card. let­ter? But bicause you will not talk of it, and that you are loath to heare of it, and especial­ly for that I would inculcate into the memo­ry of the reader the true cause of theis con­tentions, and call to his mynde, What you should haue handled, I doe so much the ofte­ner and vvillinger repete it. But is not this a prettie trik? You alleage the page vvhere the epist. is, you knovv that the Arch. ouer shott him self in it, and yet you come in with, But [Page 277]suppose he ouershott himself, and then, Foolish suppos­alls. vvas this a sufficient cause for priests, &c. Yea fors­ooth, and for monkes toe, to defend their good name and same, and especially to ac­quitt them selues of so hainous a crime as schi sme is in that contrey, The pestes vve­re bound to de­fend their good name. in time of persecution for the satisfaction of their spirituall childrē, and contentment of all that knevve them. for had they held their peace, they should haue beene iudged and holden for such in deed, and that worthily our Sauiour him selfs gaue them example to defend their fame. By the example of our Sauiour. For whē the Ievves had said to him. Samaritanus es tu & Daemonium habes. He ansvvered: ego De­monium non habeo. And so defended his good name. What man of reason or religion vvill not allowe of this? Who will say (With you) that these mē are out of the right or true path of priestly proceeding, vvho doe but that vvhich god ād nature permitt thē to doe: that is to defend their good name against slaunde­rous and exorbitant calumnies. Fol. 167. b Lett euery indifferent reader consider well vvhat you do in this place, and they shall find, a mā of clovvtes that you make your selues a man of clovvtes to fight against, and then you rune furiously at him vvith hedd hand and feet, but for all that, you hurt him not. VVhat the vni­ted people shold haue doone. No more doe you any thing at all heere touching the matter your take in hand, vvhich is to confute your aduersaries [Page 278]booke. For if you vvould haue confuted it, you should haue shevved and proued that, that the epistle of the Archp. vvas not his, or that that epistle did not giue the first cause of this breach, after the comming of the Po­pes breue. But vvhat (I pray you) doe you herein? Nothinge, but Suppose it vvas his Epistle, and then you rage at their tvvo notes in the margent. They say: the be­gynning of nevve contentions vvas a violent Epistle of the Archpristes and that the Arch­priest renevved the vvarres. And this they proued by producing of this Epistle. But you What? Mary But suppose he ouershott himself. Well, Suppose he fovvly ouershott him self in calling them Schismaticks, yet say you Priestes that professe modestie, obedience, and mortificacion &c. Can. Non sunt. 11. q. 3. S. August. bjd­deth them to de­fend their fame. should suffre it. Are they more modest obedient and mortified then Saint Augustine? Saying: Proinde quis­quis à criminibus flagitiorum atque facino­rum vitam suam custodit, sibi bene facit: quisquis autem famam: & in alios misericors est. Nobis enim necessaria est vita nostra, aliis fama nostra. Therfore vvho soeuer keapeth him self from synning and offen­ding greuously, he doth good to him self, but vvho soeuer doth keap his good name is mercifull to others. Can. Nolo 12. q. 1. For our life is ne­cessarie to vs, our same to others. And the same Doctour againe. Conscientia ne­cessaria [Page 279]est tibi, fama proximo tuo. Qui fi­dens conscientiae sua negligit famam, crudelis est, Thy conscience (that thov liuest well) is necessary to thee thy self: but they fame (that thovv liuest vvell) is necessary in re­spect of thy neighbour. He therfore that trusteth to his conscience and neglecteth his fame, is cruell. Are they more modest and mortified then our Sauiour? Who (as I haue said) ansvvered his calumniators, Salomon vvil­leth them to doe the same. Eccl. 41. S. Paule defen­ded his fame. 2. Cor. 12. that he had not the deuill? And Salomon commandeth vs, Curam habere de bono no­mine. To haue care of our good name. And S. Paule defendeth his good name. Good and iust cause then had these Priestes by reasons and examples alledged, to defend them selues, from so haynous a crime, put vpon them by the Arehpriest in his let­ter or Epistle. Which you vvill not see, but only suppose at it. To conclud this pointe notvvithstanding your bigg and lo­ftie vvords of Scandalous tumults, Fol. 168. exorbi­tant passions, and furious rages (very vn­fitt termes for such Priests, as you are that professe modestie and mortification, and that are in Ingland, not only to suffre, but also to dye for Christian Religion) with which you vvould make babies afraide. The Priests had iust cause to ap­peale. They had very iust cause to appeale from so vniust a iudg charging them both falslye [Page 280]and vncharitably, with so hainous a crime as schisme is. And that men iustlye defending their honor and fame, do nothing at all dy­minishe, eitherof their modestie, mortificatiō or obedience, neither haue they stepped for that, out of the path of Christian Religion, or priestly proceading, as you would make not your wise but passionate and affected reader here beleeue. Fol. 169. And thus much you ha­ue said of the Latine booke. A short horse is soone curried. A vvhole boo­ke briefely an­svvered If you can answere whole boo­kes so briefly, you nead no more large Apol. you are men of dispatch, I see wel, but no marwell: many hands make light work, you are many vnited priestes together, and ther­fore you haue the soener done. And yet as brief as you are, you haue spoken more then, at the beginning you thought to say in this pla­ce, Truly if at the beginning you thought not to say so much, you thought to say ve­ry litle o [...] nothing. Thouchinge the pridcipall you haue as yet said nothinge. For touching the princi­pall pointes of the booke, ād the matters the reof in controuersie, you haue yet said no­thing at all in this chapt. I know not what you will doe here after. Now to the English booke for as for the third booke vvritten to the Inquisition, You touch not nor mention their booke to the Inquisitors. you touch it not, bicause they keapt close to the matter, and did not fling out at the Iesuits and specially at Fa. Persons as in th' other they doe, ād so doing gaue you [Page 281]no occation of vvritting. Fol. 172. If the thad bene as modest in their book to his Holl. vve had lost the notable peece of vvork of this A­pologie. Dixit Piger, leo est in via. Prouerb. 26. The slouth full excuse them selues sayinge, there is a lion in thewaie. What soeuer they meane by it, or hovv soeuer you interpret it of ouer thro­vving all that stand in their way, Superioritie, Reason, Religion, and S. Peters koies, &c. This peec of scripture inter­preted against the vnited. I may vvell applie it to this Apologie of yours. For you are so slouthfull or so fearefull of the lion that lieth in the vvay, that is, to co­me neare the points in question or to handle any one of them, as you ought to haue done, that for feare of that lion or of the iustice of their cause you dare not put out your head so much as once to looke them in the fa­ce. You vvent veryneare in deed, Fol. 167. b. yea so nea­re as the margent, but you durst not looke ouer into the text, for there lay the lion. that is, the Archpriests epistle, vvhich was the ori­ginall and foundamentall cause of these last controuersies, and writting of these bookes. If you had not bene slouth full covvards you should haue caught that lion by the eares, and plucked him out of his denme. Such as vvrit vvith conscience should haue done this. and if you had foūd him to haue had venyme ād no hony in his mouth, you should haue torne him in sonder as Sampson did: that is, haue freely confessed the truth, and blamed your Archp. for such an vncharitable act. other­wise [Page 282]if you had found him a vvolfe in a lious skine, you should haue pluckt the skin ouer his eares: that is if you had found that it vvas not M. Blackvvels letter, then you should haue discovered their falsehood and impo­sture by fathering that vpon him that vvas none of his. But it was in deed a lion and nei­ther wolf, fox or beare, and therfore you lett him alone, and durst not come neare him. So that this sentence man vvell be applied to the fashion of your writting. hovv you dare not come neare the lion, Fol. 172. An vncharita­ble vvronge. that is, examine the true question of this controuersie.

Why do you vvrong your bretherne by saying, That they taking vpon them in the place (of their English booke) to the Reader to sett dovvne the true state of the question, putt it dovvne vvholly to the contrarye. Lett vs see, The first con­trouersie. if you be true men of your vvorde, There are handled in their bookes 2. contro­uersies (the vvhich being lions, you shonne and feare so much that you dare not come neare vnto them) The first is: that the Arch­priest was not orderly instituted, by the Card. letters and them selues vniustly called schis­maticks for not receauing him vpon those letters. The second con­trouersie. The second. That after the Bull came and all had submitted them selues thereto, the Archpriest sett abroch the old matter of schisme, and as schismaticks forbad (by his letters) them to be absolued of any Priest ex­cept [Page 283]they acknowleged their Schisme and disobedience. The first they sett downe in the said preface thus. ‘The striefe and dissen­tion at this day too great and scandalous in Ingland is maynteined by the Archpriest the Iesuits ād their adherents against those Prie­stes vvho did forbeare to subiect them selues vnto the Archpriest constituted in authori­tie ouer all the Seminarie Priestes in Inglād and Scotland by a Cardinall who was Prote­ctor of the English colleag at Rome and af­terwards honored vvith the title of Prote­ctor of Ingland, for the which forbearing to subiect thē selues at the first making know­ne of this auctoritye, the Priests were accu­sed of schisme, sedition, faction, rebellion, &c. Doe you putt downe the question in cō ­trouersie so simplie and plainly in your first chapt.’ as you make your Readers beleeue by your title you would doe? Nothing lesse. Let any man reade ouer that chapt. and he shall find no case or state of the questiō proposed. You fly it, as it were from a lion. From fol. 2. to b. There you shall find a ragmans roole of all the conten­tions and factions that hath bene in Fraunce, Fol. 6. b. and 7. Fol. 7. b. Italy and Flanders for many yeres. Fa. Parsons retorne from Spaigne to Rome, mention of a nevv association, of Fishers confession, of Fa. Parsons information, and of the conclu­sion taken to make an Archpriest rather thē a Bishopp, and that he should rather be in­stituted [Page 284]by the Card. letters then by the Po­pes bulls: Fol. 8. b. Fol. 9. Fol. 10. of a great nombre of letters, of D. Bishopp, and M. Charnoks examination, of the new Breue, of Fa. Parsons letters to M. Collington ād to M. Mushe, of appeales wit­hout prosecution, of M. Charn. letter to Card, Burghesius, of the Archpriest being ma­de Prothonotarius Apostolicus, and so the ende.

Wheare is the state of the present controuersie in question, You promise much, but par­forme nothing. that you theare promised. Lett the vvorld iudge, who are rather to be beleaved, they that goe plainly and simply to work, and that sett downe the questiō truly ād nakedly without pompe or florish of words? or you that promise mountaines, and do not giue vs so much as mowlehills? that make men beleue by the title of your chapter, you will goe plainly to vvorke, but in the end serue them vvith title tatle and nothing els. What appertaine all theis things recovvnted vpp before, to the controuersie in question? and yet you say nothinge els. If I haue least out any substantiall point of your first chapter chardg me hardly in your next, if it be right­fully, I will ask forgiuennes, if vniustly, I will haue my right. The first cause thē of all theis troubles, is, for that the Iesuits wrott, taught and auovved that the Priests that refused to obay the Archp. and to take him for their Superior, being only instituted by a Card. [Page 285]letters vvithout the Popes Bulles, vveare Schismaticks seditious, factious and rebel­lious, &c. but of this you will not heare. Leo est in via. You dare not come neare it.

This you confesse also your selues in say­ing. you vvill not talk of it: You vvill not meadle vvith the point in controuersie. that is as much to say, you vvill not meadle vvith the pointe in controuersie, but vvil rune at Random, and discourse and talk of vvhat matter you list, thoughe it come not noe nearer the questiō then Barwick comes to London.

The second controuersie they put downe in the same preface in theise vvords: Pag. 3. A peace was made to the great confort of all Catho­licks, vvhen his Holl. breue vvas presented to them. But this peace vvas soone after bro­ken by the meanes of the Iesuits, who revi­ved the same calumniation against the Priests and by the Archpriest vvho did not only a­verre the assertions of the Iesuits, but publis­hed also that he had receved a resollution frō the mother Cittie (to vse his termes) which avowed that the refusers of the auctoritye vvere schismaticks.

The cause then of this deuision is not for any resistaunce of the Priestes against the Archpriest but for that the Priestes vvill not acknowledg that in the time of their forbe­arance to subscribe to the auctoritye they vvere factious, seditious rebellious schisma­ticks, enormously disobedient, in continuall [Page 286]mortall sinne, practising their functions in irrigularitye, &c. Loe hovv plainly simply and truly (for any thing you say to the con­trary) they putt downe the case. You say it is sett dovvne vvholly to the contrarye, you proue it not. Vnited you are neuer [...]otouch the question. We must beleaue you, bicause you are vnited stedfastly in this, neuer to touch the question, but to evacuate the say­ing and disgrace the persones of your bre­therne all you may. You say in putting theis cases, they debase the Archpriest and the Pro­tector: but you tell vs not vvherein. You are men of vvonder full auctoritie that you must be beleaved vpon your word. Marke. I haue proued to you before, that a Card. is not to be belea­ued vpon his bare word in an other mans pre­iudice: ād why shall we beleaue you in sclaun­derīg your bretherne vvithout cause? Shewe me in your next by vvh'atwords in theis 2. cases by thē proposed, they haue debazed the persones by you named. for vntill then, you haue lost your credit with me. They haue sett it downe (you say) wholy to the cōtrary. Why are you in such hast, that you cannot stay to tell vs wherein? What Asse vvill geue credit to your bookes, vvritting so negligently and so fondly, that you are not able to shevve one reason of your negatiue doctrine. You add that in the end they lay a foundation to all disobedēi­ce. But you tell vs not in which end, either of the preface or of the book: for in the 2. cases [Page 287]proposed, there is not the least surmise the­rof. But peraduenture you meane theis ends you lay dovvne, in the vvhich, Fol. 172. b. th [...]one Thirsteth the good of his Reader and th'other biddeth you Fare vvell. A foolish toye. In deed theise be your impertinent discourses, as you note vvell in the margent, and I add to the text foolish also. No no, S. You send vs to a chapt. that hath no such thing in it. (say you) you may see more noted before in the se­cond chapter. Well in Gods name. Let vs goe back againce thither. What shall I see theare? That they haue put downe the state of the question vvholy to the cōtrary. Is it true? that vvould I faine see. Fiat voluntas tua. Fol. 10. b. for so you begine, and the Sermon contineweth vntill Card. Allens letters sent to M. Fol. 11. Mushe inter­rupted the prechear and Card. Sega his visi­tation. Fol. 12. You thirst (by all liklihood) the good of your Readers that begine so devoutly, ād goe on so honorably vvith 2. Cardinalls in the fore frōt. But bevvaire (Maisters) of your geese when the tox precheth. Then after the Cardinals march the Popes speeches sent in­to Ingland Exhorting and chardging men to liue in vnitie. Next to his Hol. marcheth Fi­shers memoriall against the Iesuits, being one of the most exorbitant disorderly fello­wes in the Romaine sturrs, and yet thought a fitt man by you to be put in your booke. Next to his Hol. after Fisher in stead of a Trumpettor marcheeh. No alas, Fol. 13. is this the ver­tue of obedience? is this humilitie? is this, &c. [Page 288]Next follovveth that vvhich I haue before confuted, so that I cann see nothing in that chapter, that proveth They haue putt the state of the question wholly to the contrary, and yet I promise you I did read it ouer with my Spectacles vvherfore I beseech some of you, that haue a cleerer sight then I haue, and that can see more vvith tvvoe eies them I can do vvith foure, to note me the leafe whe­re I may see more noted in that chapter. A suttle sen­ding. You did vvell to send your Readers from the 11. chapt. to the second, to seek for that, vvhich they shall neuer find there, and that vvhich you should haue shovvne them in this place, if you could. The force of truth. But Leo est in via. Truth lay in your vvaye, vvhich is more impregnable thē a lion, and more immovable then a Rock. If you had had a desire to instruct your Reader in good sooth, ād not to haue him deceaued: you vvould not, or at least should not, haue sent him to rune ouer a longe chapter to se­arch that vvhich vvas not to be found, but for his more ease to haue quoted the leafe of your booke vvherin he might haue found it. And vndecent shiefte for vni­ted people. But your intention vvas if not to deceiue him, yet to deliurer your self by that shifte from shevving and prouing that they put the question vvholly to the contrary. Theis fovvle shiefts may for a time hold some fooles in suspence, Fol. 168. Fol. 172. but in the end it vvill turne to the shame of the Authors.

You answered the Latine book bricflie, Tvvoe discourses ansvverd vvith tvvo [...] vvords. as before, but here you ansvvere tvvo vvhole disconrses Maruaillous Lacoanically ād very merrely. The one, with, he thirsteth the good of the Readers, th'other with Fare yov vvell. This in sooth is to play vvith your Readers nose ād shew your selues to be mo­re like Scorners then graue Priestes. Fare you vvell, and vvhy did you not add, ād I ack shall haue Gill. You are counning men that can answere twoe treatisses vvith tvvoe vvords. You should haue much a doe to ansvvere M. Watsons common vvealth, (vvhich yet is not so long as theise 2. treatisses) vvith such Scholasticall or rather sophisticall brevitie. It should seame, that either you haue great cō ­fidence in your cause, vvhen you may be ad­mitted to ansvvere your aduersaries reasons vvith a fare vvell, or els that you do not gre­atly thirst the good of your Readers ād much lesse care for their satisfaction, You should haue esnfuted the Reasons that ba in those discour­ses. that expected from graue vnited Priestes the confutatiō of Reasons laid dovvne in those discourses, and not a Iest of vvil Sommars budgett. Who is so blinded, that doth not see their Reasons to stand firme and solide, vvhich are sett dovvne both in the letter, that thirsteth the good of the Reader, as also in th'other that biddeth you Fare vvell: for all that you haue said ei­ther here, or in the second chapter noted in your margent. For of 5. considerations putt [Page 290]dovvne in the letter that thirsteth the good of the Reader, you seeme in your 2. chapt. to answere one vvhich is of the Premunire as for th'other 4. Fol. 15. your bidd them fare vvell. And so great is the thirst you haue of the Readers good, A notable cu­stome. that it is your custome through out your Apologie, to ansvvere some one argu­ment or reason, and then make him beleue you haue ansvvered them all, and so he must content him self vvith a peece, either that, or none at all.

And albeit you ansvvere nothing here to the Reasons of your namelesse frende Fa­re you vvell, yet afterwards leaping (accor­ding to your custome) disorderly from one thing to another: and after a flinge at M. Chā ­peneis letter, Fol. 174. you leape back to Fare you vvell againe to ansvvere to the ostentation of their Canon so often cited. Dist 63. can. 12. Dist. 61. can. 13. I know not hovv often they cited it, but suer I am, you cited, it once before, and their vvordes false­ly, as I haue there noated. You ansvvere not the Canon there. Fol. 18 b. But now after you haue ta­ken your breath ād bethought your self bet­ter, you vvill answere it (I trovve) very suffi­ciently: bicause any man of meane learning way dis­couer hovv litle this maketh for them. If this be true then no doubt but mē of your learning vvill discouer to vs, hovv litle this maketh for their purpose. vvhich if you performe, then will I bidd them and you both Fare well [Page 291]and meadle no further in this matter, but thirst my ovvne rest and quietnes. Well on then Maisters myne.

After you haue shevved your skill in au­tiquitie and of diuers meanes of constituting and appointing Bishopps, at last. Fol. 174. You thinck your bretherne vvill not denie the preeminent aucto­ritye of the Sea Apostolicke in all theis elections, and aboue all that he might, and hath lawfully chan­ged the same. I ansvvere for them, they vvill not denie this. But vvhat then? Mary If his Holl. can alter election in ordinary Bishopps, much more he may appoint an extraordinary Prelat as the Archpriest is, with vvhat Iurisdiction he thimketh expedient. Transeat, and therfore so much to vrge this, is great presumption to call it no vvorse. haue you said? Then say I, A foolish ans­vveare. your ansvvere is but a meere folly to call it no vvorse. for they talk of chease ād you giue them chalke. They tal­ke, speake and meane of the ordinary and ac­customable meanes of election, Distingo. constituted and appointed by the Canons and decrees of the Sea Apostolick, C. 2. de prebend. in 6. & Clem. 1. vt lite pen­dens, &c. and you talk of the su­pereminent povver or plenitudine potestatis that his Holl. hath ouer all benefices and Iu­risdictions to giue them to vvhom he will ād by vvhat meanes and order it pleaseth him. If you thinck your brethern are not ignorant of this, you might haue leaft it out, The Canon is not ansvered. for it ans­vvereth not their Canon that talketh of the ordinarie meanes by election. And so their [Page 292]Canon standeth still for them. Note heare that you your selues call this auctoritye of the Archpriest extraordinarie and that he is an extraordinary Prelate. Fol. 14. Rash reprehen­sion. Why then are you so rash I vvill not say impudēt to make your reader beleaue, your bretherne speak very con­temptuously of the dignitie, and Archpriest, bicause they call it a nevv and extraordinary auctoritye well either you speake contemptuously here in calling his dignitie extraordinary, and so fall into the same fault your bretherne did, or els if you do not, The vnited are bound to ask their brethern forgivennes. you must ask them forgiuenes for slaundering them vniustlye vvith con­tempt for saying that the Archpriest dignitie and Iurisdiction is extraordinary. This is a rule of nature quod tibi fieri non vis, alterine fa­cias. You vvould be loath to be counted to speake this in contempt, so then must you iudg of them, that they did not speake it in contempt, as in deed they did not, and ther­fore be vniustly taunted ād noted of contēpt by you for it. Gloss. 1. ad can. 13. dist. 61. The glosse is a­gainst you also. The glosse you alleadg theare is against you. for it vndrestandeth of ordina­ry election vvherein the nomber of voices carrieth it avvay, and so if the greater parte choose one to be a Bishoppe and the lesser part or fevver in nomber choose him not, he shalbe their Bishopp against their vvills, bicause he vvas canonically elected viz by the greter nomber of those that had right to choose him. So that your contradicting [Page 293]brethern nor none els comming to the ele­ction are not condempned, neither are they the lesser parte, vvhere vvas no part at all. Mary, if it had come to the election and 200. Priestes had choosen M. Blackvvell, and your contradicting bretherne vvith an hundred moe on their side had chosen an other: M. Blackwell had bine their superior against their vvills, as chosen by the greater nomber. Your error. And yet this lesser nombre had not bene cō ­dempned by the Canon as you say, but by the glosse, neither yet absolutlie by the glos­se. For if the lesser part (saith he) hath iustam causam contradicendi. iust cause to vvithstād the election. A Bishopp cannot beginen to them against their vvills. Your glosse then talketh of the ordinary way of election, and you of the extraordinary povver, and Iurisdi­ction of his Holl. you haue allvvaies good luck to alleadge lawe against your selues, as those accustomedly doe, Ignorance. Fol. 174. b. that impugne a truth as you doe. But here by the waye I must a little note your ignorance in that you say that his Holl. Legates and Nuncios often be neither Bishopps nor Archbishopps: I am suer the eldest of you all neuer savve or hard of any of the Popes Nuncios, but they vvere Bishoppes. Neither doth his Hol. make any, at least Nuncios, but such as are Bishopps. And as for Legates, for some hundreth yeres, theare hath bene neither Bishopp nor Arch­bishopp [Page 294]but alwaies Cardinalls vvhich are called Legati a Latere, per excellentiam quia sem­per mittuntur a latere Pontificis. The siege Apo­stolicke sendeth no other Legates but Car­dinalls, nor none other there is, but such as vve call Legatinati, C. 1. de offi. Legati in 6. C. pen. ext. de offic. Legati. such as is the Archbis­hopp of Canturbury in Ingland, And as his Holl. giueth more ample or more strickt au­thoritie and Iurisdiction to his Nuncios, so doth he allvvaies restraine the Iurisdiction of his Legats: for if he did not, they had de iure almost as great as he him self hath. I once saw an indult giuen to a Legat a latere vvhe­rin vvere but 4. things reserued from his povver and Iurisdiction. The first that he had no auctoritye to alienat the patrimonie of S. Peter. The second he had no povver to alienat the goods of the churches vnder his Legation. The 3. he had no Iurisdiction to conferre Bishopprickes. The 4. I do not remenbre. You may then see by this that so lardg is the Iurisdiction of a Legat a Latere, that the Pope doth dyminish his Iurisdictiō, rather then amplyfie or extend it. And so good reader fare well for we must back agai­ne to M. Champ letter, to see vvhat he can say for him self.

If he be as fond and childish, Fol. 172. b. 173. as the former dis­courses, the vvhich you neither haue nor can answere, but by a farewell. thē were you chil­dish to putt them dovvne, and by your not [Page 295]answering him, vtter your childishnes to the vvorld.

First and formost you exagitat his example of a noble man, Fol. 173. vvhich you say is no more li­ke the case in controuersie then London is to Lincolne. And vvhy so? bicause the Prote­ctor vvrott by the expresse commandement of his Holl. Hovv shall vve knovv, that? Ma­ry he saith so in his letters. But I haue proved to you before that a Cardinall be he a hūdred times Protector, is not to be beleaued abso­lutly vpon his vvorde, and letters: A false dissimi­litud. the dissi­militude (you say) consisteth in this that the Cardinall is of the Popes Counsell, ād to him is committed all the affaires of Ingland, and so vvas not the Gentleman M. You ansvvere vvas prevented Pag. 24. Champeney talketh of. Be it so, yet M. Champeney pre­uented this your ansvvere, the which you will not see, you are so vvillfully blinde. For theise be his vvords: Tvvoe disparites paraduenture they vvill alleage in the case. First, that I putt the case in ciuill gouermēt vvhereas it ought to be in Ecclesiasticall. The secōd, that I putt the case in one that is not knovvne to haue any ordinary authoritye in theise affaires, vvheras it is contrary in our affaires, the Car­dinall being Protector of our Nation. Loe here your answere sett dovvne for you in this chisdish lettere the vvhich he āsvvereth thus. I omitt the ansvvere to the first (as imperti­nent to this place) the second is as frivolous. For albeit Card. Caietane vvas our Protector [Page 296]and also Chamberlaine of the church of Ro­me: yet it is euident that by neither of theis offices had he any ordinary Ecclesiasticall Iu­risdiction (he might also very vvell haue ad­ded nor extraordinarye Iurisdiction) by thei­se offices) ouer our clergie especially to erect any nevv gouernement. And therfore if he had any auctoritye in this matter it must needs be delegat and extraordinary and con­sequently, vvas as vvell to notifie to vs the sa­me (his extraordinary auctoritye) as the Chaunceler of Ingland is to shevve his vvar­rant, The younge scholler putteth you all to schole. if he intend to take vpon him an other office, not appertayning to the Chauncellors­hipp. Thus farre this younge man come latly from schole vvho by that he hath here said, putteth you all in sooth, so to schoole, that he maketh you all as dōbe as Fishes, not saying herevnto so much as Baff: and vvhy? bicause Leo est in via. The truth vvhich he alleageth is so stronge, that it stoppeth your mouthes, so that you cannot open your lipps against it. Fol. 173. If he not the best learned amongst his fellovves be able to stopp your mowthes, so that you can­not ansvvere him, and to make you so blinde, that you will not see this reasō. What vvould his learneder fellovves doe, especially if they were vnited to writ, as you are. How say you? Hath he not cleerly shevved, that there is no disparitye betvveene the case putt in the Car­dinall, and the case he putt, &c. in the Gentle­man. All those that are cleare of sight can see [Page 297]ād vvill cōfesse it. And here by the vvay (you my bretherne) hauing read this, ād seeing he flattly and truly denieth the Protector to haue any ordinarie iurisdiction ouer the En­glish clergie, why are you so impudent in all this your booke, yea in euery leafe almost, to obiect to them disobediēce to the Protector as their superior? how are you so impudent as to tearme the Protector their and your supe­rior? yea your highest superior next his Holl. I say impudent, for if he were, and they denie it so flattly and apparently, it vvas your parte to controle them for it, and to proue the con­trarie, that he was both theirs and your ordi­nary superior, in that he is protector. But the thing being denied by them, and the contra­ry not proued by you, it is extreme impudencie so often to affirme it, Note. and to put it downe in your booke, as a thinge vndoubtable and a knowe truth, when it is kovven to all that haue but a cromme of witt and experience, Tit. ext. de off. Iud. ordinar. & tit. ext de offie. delegat. that it is starke false to say. That the Prote­ctor of Ingland is Superior to any Englishmen in the vvorld, Be he clark or lay, be he in Ro­me or in Ingland. Note beside reader, his le­arned distinction of Iudgs. That euery iudg is either an ordinary iudge, or a iudg delegat, that is extraordinary. An ordinary iudg hath iurisdiction ordinary ouer all such as are sub­iect to him: but a delegat iudge hath no iuris­diction of his owne, he hath only the vse of an other mans iurisdiction, that is to say, the [Page 298]iurisdiction of him that doth delegat him, and hath no more thē th'other doth giue him the vse of, neither must he passe the limites of his delegation, but obserue it diligently. But the Protector vvas not our ordinarie iudg. Ergo if he be at all, he must be our delegat iudge. But a iudg delegat (saith M. Champeney) must shevve his warrant, and the letters of his commission. But the Protector shevved no such letters. Ergo they were not bound to be­leaue that he was a iudg delegated to institu­te a new dignitie. In your larger Apologie, I pray you shevve your learning, Fol. 174. and answere to this youngmans argument.

Where you aske vvith vvhat modestie can he say that this gouerment of the Archp. Impudency. vvas neuer hard of before. I aske you with what brasen face you dare reprehend him for it, and with vvhat front you dare say, that this gouerment Was euer hard of before? Fol. 174. b Nay, where is your modestie and honestie to find fault with him, for saying that vvhich your selues say aftervvards? Desirr of contra­diction blindeth men. Where you affirme his Holl. May appoint an extraordinary Prelate as the Archp. is. If it be extraordinarie vvhere was it euer hard of it before? A desiere you haue of contradiciō hath so blinded you that you vt­tet infinite absurdiries, and seeme to say you care not vvhat. Yes vve say some vvhat, for vve say. That it is vvel knovvne to be an aun­cient dignitie in gods churche. In deed the offi­ce of an Archp. is an auncient (albeit a very [Page 299]lovve) office in Christes church. But o blind­nes. Is this gouerment, I say. this, Ansvvere ca∣thegoricè. an auncient gouerment in gods church? Was this, I say this, (I must often repeate it, bicause you are become deafe, dombe, and blinde, this Leo in via, hath put you in such a fright) gouer­ment vvhich the Archprist hath novv in In­gland, an auncient dignitie in Gods church? I knovv the name is auncient, you must recant or be counted liars. but this gouer­ment he hath is nevv, and therfore in your next, recant theis vvords or giue your selues the lye, for saying it is an extraordinary Pre­lacy in the place noted in the margent. Fol. 174. b And here also you confesse as much. That his or­dinary iurisdiction did not commounly extend so farre and ouer so many as this doth. An Archpriest ordinary iuris­diction goeth not out of the church dores.

Commonly (quoth you) no neuer since Christes Ascension, did it extend out of the churche dores. For sauing of your honesties, and for my learning, in your next promised larger Apologie, bring one example I pray you. you fighr still with your owne shadovve, who I pray you doth not knovv so well as you vvhat the Pope may doe? How great iurisdi­ction he may giue, and that to vvhom he ple­aseth? Theis are fonde and childish matters in deed to treat of, and not novv in question.

We are at last comme againe to M. Champe­ney vvho in effect addeth notinge to the 2. for­mer discourses but certaine bold assertiōs. What need he? when you haue ansvvered no one of all the assertions conteined in these twoe dis­courses, [Page 300] But the thristing the readers good and the farevvell? Hath he added nothinge? What is that he talketh of ordinarie and extraordi­narie iurisdiction, shewing the Protector to haue neither, M. Champeney reasones vnan­svverable. as you haue sene before. Sure he addeth enoughe for all you vnited priestes and take to helpe you all the Iesuits in Rome and Ingland, to answere to, whiles you liue. except the Pope doe chaunge the canon and Ciuill lawes to helpe you out of the mire. His argument is this, His argument. all superiors haue either ordinary or extraordinarie iurisdiction. But protect. of natiōs haue neither ordinary or extraordinary iurisdiction, as they be Prote­ctors. Ergo Card. Caietane as Protector was not the Superior to the clergie or laytie of In­gland.

But lett vs see theis bold assertions, Fovver true J sayes, ansvvered vvith you say. Which are 4. I sayes, and all true for any thinge you bring to the contrarye. For asweare therevn­to, you say, He is a younge man come latly frō te schole, and not the best learned amongst his fel­lovves. And againe, all this you say (not, bi­cause such graue men as you that hath bene so long from schoole, doe say it:) cannot but import great presumption of Spirit, and so dis­crete men (vppon your vvordes and credit no doubt) vvill iudge of him and his, and their cause accordingly. you haue so sufficiently an fvveared his I say with your you say, that dis­cret mē cānot but wonder at the order ād ma­ner [Page 301]of your vvritting. That is, to put dovvne your aduersaries vvords, which containe nought but truth it self in them, and then to make such foolish discourses as aftervvards you doe, vvithout touchinge or answearing them. you vnited lo­vve to maintai­ne contencion. Surely euery man of any discretion in the vvorld must needs iudg of you and your cause, that loue vvith vvords to mainteine contencion and quitt your cause and abandō it vtterlye, as bringing nothing either to vp­hold it, or to vndermyne and ouerthrovve the cause of your aduersaries. But is not this a bold or rather a false assertiō of yours to say: A false assertiō. Ʋ Ʋhich (I say) so often repeted against the au­ctoritie of his Superiors, When as the Protector (as he told your before) was not his Supe­rior nor the Archp. at that time when he spa­ke this, I meane before the bull came for he was no iust possessor of that dignitie, but an intruded parson, and so had no superioritie as I haue alreadie proued. You had nead to goe to schoole againe to learne to leaue falsifying, and to forget slandering and vniust imputing of vvords and sences to your aduersaries, or els to the nouiciat hovvse to purge you of theyse foule faults.

We haue (say you) answered such reasons as he brought sufficiently before. you haue not an­svvered his rea­sons at all. Ergo not sufficiently. and shevved his ignorance in diuinitie and considered of the de­cree of the Doctors of Paris. Where hare you done this doughtie deed? Mary, in the 10. ch. [Page 302]of this booke, you would say the 8. chaptre. I haue ouer vewed your 10. chapt. Fol. 107. b Where first and foremost I find your iumbling at certaine reasons brought out of the discourse that Thristeth the good of the reader, as you terme it, Fol. 108. you iumble a [...] theis reasons on­ly. thē at other words of theirs (as you say) for you haue not quoted the place) Iumbling (I say) as I haue proued there. Thirdly you heape vp many thīgs out of both bookes but especially the English. You note not the pla­ces, bicause you say they are allmost in euery page. Other reasons you alleage out of the di­scourse, which you call fare you vvell. At last in the same leafe you come to M. Fol. 110. A fitton. Fol. 174. Champe­neys epistle out of the vvich you alleage but one reason, and so you Fitton in sayinge. Such reasons as he brought whē you brought but o­ne of his reasons to ansvvere. Where I haue shewed his reason to stand firme and his diui­nitie not to haue bene spilt by ignorance as you say here. Where also is considered, hovv well you considered, Fol. 118. b VVhy did you differr to ans­vvere him thea­re. of the decree of the Do­ctors of Paris. In the end of the 8. chapt. you say: The rest vvhich he hath in this epistle shal­be considered of aftervvards againe in a devve and conuenient place. VVhy? when you vvere in hand vvith him there, vvhy did you not dispatch him and crush him in the head, and so deliuer him at once from the paine and fe­are he had how you would trovvnce him af­tervvards? or vvhy doe you not ansvvere the [Page 303]rest of his reasons here, seing the young man is vnder your ferule, and standeth quaking at the consideration he hath of your nōber ād grauitie, and that you are old schollers. But be of good cheare M. Champeney pluck vp your hart, they haue no more to say to you here, all is remitted to the 8. chap where they considered but one of your reasons, and that to their ovvne losse and discredit.

I noted this foule shist of yours before, A fovvle shift. that when you cannot ansvvere, you send your reader to an other place to seeke that vvhich he shall neuer finde. So doe you here, you sēd him to seeke your ansvvere to M. Champe­neis reasons in the plural, vvhere they shall find but one of his reasons laid dovvne in the singuler nomber.

Thow must knovv reader, Fol. 110. that beside his first reason laid dovvne by them, there fol­lovveth a second reason handled by me befo­re, vvherby he proueth the Card. Pag. 25. had no au­ctoritie to institute the Archpr. because he was neither their ordinarie nor their extraor­dinary iudge. the force of the vvhich reason, I haue laied dovvne before.

Thirdly, This yong man more resolute being come latly from the schoole, vrgeth you yet further, you mightest ob­iection is ans­vvered fourt­souldly. and presupposeth the mightest obie­ction you haue against your discontented bretherne (the vvhich in deed you haue, if not in euery page, yet in euery leafe allmost of [Page 304]your book, vvhich he also ansvvereth foure­foldly) and the vvhich he termeth your A­chilles viz: that to deeme or doubt of that vvhich the Card affirmeth is to call his credit in questiō vvhose authoritie ought to be sufficient testimo­nie for vvhatsoeuer he saieth. and shevveth that it concludeth not. If these vnited people had any desiere to opē the truth to the world and not to deceive their readers, ād still vval­lovve in contencion they should in steed of this (I say) haue taken his ansvveres made to the chiefe piller of their cause, and haue con­futed them, and so by learning and authoritie haue rebarred this youge scholler that gauleth thē so much, and shevved to the vvorld that he vvas not the best learned of his fellovves. But alas? they durst not, for Leo est in via. the roaring lion of truth made them take their heeles and rune avvaie. Fol. 173. Truth is so terrible to those that maintaine a false cause (as these vnited bretherne doe) that they dare not behold it.

After this, this young man more resolut and more peremptorie goeth forvvards vvith secondly, Pag. 26. thirdly, and fourthly. you lett him goe, for he being younge is toe quick of foote for you el­der fellovves: pursuing his matter he putteth dovvne 3. other reasones, of his not accep­ting the Archpriest. Pag. 29. The vnited broken their per­iuis and decei­ued their reder? And albeit you promi­sed to consider of the rest of his reasons, as before you haue touched but one and so haue broken your promise and deceiued your rea­der [Page 305]that expected a greater matter at your hands, bicause omnis promissio honesta est ob­seruanda. and we Canonists doe hold that nu­dum pactum producat aectionem, so that I, and other your readers may take an action against you, and call you into lavve to make you pro forme that which you haue promised vs, your reader shal be constrained to bidd you ffa­re vvell. that is: to consider of the rest of this yong scholers reasons, or els we shalbe driuē to beleue him, and bid you fare vvell, as the second disconr­ser said to his frend.

This yong scholler is so resolute and peremp­torie, that he doth that, Pag. 34. 35. which you dare not talk of, and for the vvhich you are sorrie, that euer any mention vvas made of it. What is that? Mary, to sett downe simply, M. Champeney seteth dovvne simply the cause of this last con­tencion. plainly and wit­hout shifte or fiction, the cause of this last cō ­tention, and the occasion of his and others vvritting. What is that? forsooth that the Ie­suits or Archp. renevved as it should seeme the slaūder of schisme in more intollerable maner then before: for novv they sayd, that vve vvere not only schismatiks but that vvho soeuer should dogmatizando say the contrary: should incurre the cēsures of the holy church, &c. ād a litle af­ter vvhē therfore vve perceiued our late cōposed peace cōtrary to all expectatiō to be thus quick­ly broken, and that our good names be gane to bleed a freash, the old gaules being not yet firm­ly cured, vve requested the Archp. &c. Hovv say you (my vnited bretherne) is this true or [Page 306]false he saith? If true? hovv can you in consci­ence defend so vniust and ruynous a cause? If false? you must confu­te or els confesse. Why doe you not confute it? Why is then not one worde at all of this in your boo­ke? No. And vvhy? bicause your conscience doth prick you Conscientia mille testes, You confesse it you selues, for you say, you vvill not talk of it, you are sorry it vvas euer mentioned. Hovv say you, had not your penne papier and inck bene better bestowed in cōfuting this, if it be false, then in setting dovvne his. I say it is no sinne, &c. you should haue bene better occupied also in confuting, as false the six cō ­ditions and articles (he saith) vveare on their side offred and proposed to make peace and vni­tie, Pag. 33. and by your side reiected: Then in setting dovvne either M. VVatsons common wealth Fishers memoriall and examinations, or the trouble of the Romaine colleage vvith the factions in Paris and Flanders, vvhich come as neare to this controuersie as London to Lin­colne.

You quitt M. Champeney for troublinge him or his reasons any more, bicause by all liklyhood you foūd his first to be hard of dis­gestion: and you will visitr M. I. B. his censu­res vpon Fa. Parsons letter to M. D. Bishopp. Course him lustely, I vvill not lett you. But where you talk according to your custome of this controuersie vndevvly, I vvilbe bold to rencountre you. As I must neades ask one [Page 307]question of you. Fol. 176. b Falshood. VVhy you doe so vvillingly and Franckly lett passe the 21. reasons vvhich the Censurer hath laid together by distinct nōbers to discredit the Protectors letters vvhich his Hol. confirmed. You ansvveare. ƲVe haue spoken of it before. I ask you vvhere? here you haue forgotten your old custome, vvhich vvas to send your reader to an other chapter. For you haue noted nothing in the margent but pag. 48. for vvhat cause or end, god kno­vveth, neither can I, or any man els iudge? but yet in th'end vvith much searching I haue found this before in the 2. chapt. and 18. leafe where thus you say: Fol. 18. as in one place of their boo­ke, they goe about to shevve it to be voide and of no force by 21. fond reasons deuised by thē sel­ues vvherof no one hath any force at all. This is your spoke, and therto you add, that you are ashamed here to lay open the vanitie by more particulars. then you haue by like done already. A short ans­vveare to 21. reasons. this then is your ansvveare to 21 reasōs which you in your margent call Cauillations in stead of reasōs. you are well come to the butts, hovv came this qualme ouer your stomack, as to take so great pittie of your aduersaries as to be ashamed to lay open the vanitie (of their rea­sōs) by more particulars. you mey be ashamed if you haue any shame in you, A sharmfull an­svveare. of so shamefull an answeare: and these tvvoe ansvveares are, th'one here, th'other in the 18. leafe. And why? vvhat, did you thinck that none but [Page 308]beastes and dizards should read your bookes. I thinck so, or els you would neuer haue han­dled the matter so shamefullye. Truly (my vnited bretherne) the Protector and the Ar­chp. The Protector and Archp. doe con you litle thanckes. are to giue you but litle thanckes, that taking in hand to defend them, their causeād doings, are not able to ansvveare one reason of 21. being as you say your selues, but fond, And that not one hath any force at all: truly then the more easye to he answeared. The broctors and the matter are a lock that is nothing vvorth But like matter like Procters. The matter you ha­ue to defend is nothing vvorth and you de­fend it accordingly I am sure that the simplest man or vvoman that shall read theis places, Will stay here and vvonder at your necligen­ce or ignorance, that vvill not or cannot an­svvere one of 21. fond reasons of no Force at all, being laied together by order and distinction. yea they are laid together to discredit the Protectors letters, and yet you will not do so muche for the Protectors credit, as to answeare one of them. O follie, to thinck any man so madd as to imagine you to haue a good cause in hād that cannot or dare not answere one of so many reasons that are brought against you. None but madd men can think you to haue a good cause. Here in dead Leo est in via. But who saieth so? Dicit piger. yf euer there was any slouthfull and ne­cligent writter. you may therin beare the bel.

Well? you proue heare that the Pro [...]e­ctors letters are of [...]force. his Holl. aftervvards (say you) con­firmed the Protectors letters, and therefore you lett passe the said reasons. you haue rea­son. [Page 309]If his Holl. confirmed them, then they vveare of no force before, and so you pleade for your discontented brethern, For regularly that vvhich is confirmed, vvas be­bore of no force or valewe. For if it had, it should not haue neaded any confirmacion. You conclude very substantially that one onely reason of humilitie modestie and obedience, Fol. 167. b would haue gotten them more credit then all theise 21. reasons of disobedience against their Superiors. I willingly yeld vnto you, An humble conclucion lost. if the Protector had bene their Superior? Or that you could haue proued him so. He then not being their Superior, you haue lost an hum­ble and modest conclusion and their 21. rea­sons remaine still firme and stable.

Theise cockish, schollers haue me thincks so troubled your vnited heads and braines that you writt neither rithme nor reason: Their reasons haue troubled your vvitt. ād they haue so affrighted you vvith their rea­sons, that you knovv not well on vvhich side to turne you. Here you should haue laboured and sweat to haue ouerthrovvne not one, but all all their fond reasons, and to haue proued the Cardinall to haue had sufficient auctori­tie to institute the Archp. Here you should hauc employed all your eloquence and pow­red out your skill, learning and knovvledg, in diuinitie, lawe, histories, and what els, to haue proued them if not schismaticks, yet disobedient and rebellious to god and their [Page 310]superiors. you proffes are but title tatle. Proued (I say) not by a bold and badd [...]tatle, as you endevour, but by good & solid arguments and reasons. But alas? and welladay? you yeld vp your armes, and hauing taken the foile, you giue them the victorie. For (as I haue said) seing you are not able to confute any one of their reasons, all reasona­ble readers will iudge them to haue had good reason to withstand the Institucion of the Ar­chp. by the Card. letters: and you your sel­ues against all reason (not being able to ans­were to one of their 21. Reasons) to fill their eares and feed their eies with bare words only without any reason. I haue often warned you and put you in mynde that this is the chief & principall pointe of this controuersie, and if you touch not this stringe, you labor in vai­ne, to persuade men that your discontented bretherne doe defend an evell cause, and that they be the beginners of this diuision and cō ­tenciō. What a shame is it for you, to fill your booke vvith so much impertinent matter as you doe? and vvhē you come, where you hould close Witth your aduersarie, then yovv turne your back and flye, Fy, fy vppon it.

I am also ashamed (and so may all your frends and vvell willers be) to see an nomber of vertuous priestes (if you be the Authors of this Apologie) daily fighting against the en­nemies of God and his espouse for the defen­ce of the infallible truth, so much to forgett them selues and their vocation, and to be ei­ther [Page 311]so blinded vvith mallice against their bretherne, or to be carried away with inordi­nat affection to their parte and faction, as to committ here such an exorbitant falshood as you doe in this place saying: Fol. 177. An exorbitant falshood. vvherin for that there is nothing singular from those reasones vvhich his fellovves haue alleaged before, and by vs in diuerse partes of this Apologie haue be­ne examined and shevved to be either false or feeble, vve passe them ouer in this place. The vnited ha­ue gained the vvheatstone. You will gaine the wheatstone I see well. and tru­ly I vvill leaue it vvith you, till you shewe me where, in this Apologie, you haue examined his fellovves reasons, and where you haue she­vved them to be either false or feeble. This is your third passe ouer or retyring when you should stand firme and stable. But as often as you mention their reasons, you passe away in such post hast, as in the 18. leafe, then in the 176. ād lastly here in the 177. leafe, as that with in the compasse of one leafe, you make 2. pas­se ouers. Such hast you make to the 12. chapt. there to defend F. Parsons from the iniurie done vnto him by your bretherne. I am con­tent you goe, and if you had need of myne ai­de also, I would willinglie helpe you. For I protest I doe as much mislike that kinde of writting as any man can doe: And in truth am glade and reioyce, when you paie them ho­me for it.

And as for theise faults of yours vvhich I [Page 312]haue here noted: That Authors intencion. I take god to wittnes, I haue not done it either of Spleen or mallice, nor for that I am more on their side then on your or more their frend then yours, but being indifferent betvveene both I thought friend­ly to admonish you thus much, that hereby you may amend the faults. or giue me and other you frends satisfaction in shewing the to be no saults. If you take it in euell parre, I would be full sorry for it, myne intention be­ing by this aduertisment to deturne you ra­ther frō the old troubles ād contenciōs, thē to giue any occasion of new sturres. Consider your states ād qualities. remenbre where you are, wherefore you are there, and amongest whom your are, and for gods sake, and the sa­ke of the honorrble quarrel you fight for, ād for his sake vnder whose banner you fight, ād at whose hands you looke for revvarde and recompence: for theis considerations (I say) to forgiue and forgett all that is past, ioyne in vnitie vvith your bretherne, liue in loue and peace with them, gaine them by lenitie and charitable conuersation: and then god allmi­ghtie will blesse all your actiōs. To the which I pray God bring you, your bretherne, all our frends and me my self also, Amen.