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

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

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

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

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

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

This Authour hauing shewed (to such as must not see) how that the Pope resolued to imprison the two Priests vppon the letters here cited: now he will peswade (such as must beleeue) that it was not possible, that Fa. Parsons could be the cause of their imprisonment. It may be seene also (sayth he) how vniustly they doe calumniate, and accuse Fa. Parsons, as the cause of all their trouble, considering those letters were written from Flanders, vpon the two messengers first comming ouer, so as Fa Parsons had neither time to procure those letters from Flanders, neither is it likely, that men so graue, learned, and wise (as these are) would be induced by another mans request, to write such letters vnder their owne hands, to so great personages (the Protector, the Generall of the Iesuites, and Fa. Parsons) and that in so important a matter, except they had thought as they wrote, and their iudgements had beene conforme to their letters, and thus much of the first point about their imprison∣ment. Are not these effectuall perswasions, that F. Parsons could not be the cause of their trouble? suppose all these letters had bene written vpon the first comming ouer of the two priests (as they were not, nor the soonest of them which concerned the two priests, in almost two moneths after) let vs also suppose, that his Holines was induced to resolue vpon the imprisoning these two priests, by these letters which we haue shewed could not be (the soonest of them being written vpon the 25. of Octo∣ber 1598. as is confessed in the Apologie fol. 125. and his Holines Page  239 resolued vpon the 17. of the same moneth before, to imprison them at Ferrara, as is confessed also in the Apologie fol. 120) it was so long before their going, and it was so well knowen, that some were to goe, as one of the now busiest Agents tolde one of them for certaine, that whosoeuer went in that affaire, should at their arriuall be cast into prison. And although these Flanders men, who writ, were so perswaded in conscience to write as they did, and did therefore write, because they were so perswaded, this is no proofe, that they were not induced by others, to haue such a conscience to thinke or to write in that manner, and some of them haue acknowledged, and haue bene and are very sory, that they suffered themselues to be induced by D. Barret to subscribe vnto that letter from Doway. So that this is a poore deuise, and a silly perswasion, that Fa. Parsons could not be the cause of the two priests their trouble, who was knowen to haue his Agents in all these partes, if himselfe were ashamed to haue his letters to be seene for any such mat∣ter. And it not being prooued out of any of these letters of Flanders, that any of these great personages (the Cardinal, the Generall of the Iesuites, and Fa. Parsons) to whom these letters were sent, were perswaded by them that these two Priests were to be imprisoned, before they were heard, the authour leaueth the wound in Fa Parsons side, as wide as it was before, vnlesse to heale vp that, he will wound his Holines much deeper, as who (being reputed for a most milde, and wise man) should resolue vpon the imprisonment of a couple of Catholike priests, com∣ming (as it were) bleeding from the campe of Gods Church, to open vnto him such difficulties as were to be redressed, ey∣ther concerning their whole Church, or some members there∣of, who had lately challenged vnto them an extraordinary su∣perioritie ouer their fellow labourers, without any warrant from him; and to open vnto him what perill might thereby come to the Catholike cause: and offering themselues & their cause with all submission to his Holines, as the effect also proo∣ued (whatsoeuer this slanderous Libeller suggesteth to his blind obedient Reader) But this author sheweth whatsoeuer he saith that he careth not, if his Holinesse his sides be pierced, so that he may keepe Fa. Parsons sides whole. Now to that which ensueth Page  240 (saith this authour) there is extant a letter, written by F. Parsons to M. Bishop, of the ninth of October 1599. containing a certaine briefe capitulation of the principall points, that passed in this action of the messengers restraint in Rome, &c. To which letter there is answere made in the English booke, where this letter is set downe at large, and the answere is such, as this authour with a litle snarling onely at it, letteth it passe quietly, neither is it a cauilation, but a very material point, that the notary (so much talked of in that letter, and in a wicked false letter of the 20. of February 1599. vnder the name of M. A. as if M. Martin Array had bene the doer of it) was a Iesuite, and that he put in and out what F. Parsons would haue him, being himselfe the examiner (although the Popes Comissary did twice or thrice shew himselfe in that time) and if euery dayes examination had bene read (as it was not) in the presence of him, who was examined: yet F. Parsons might cause somewhat to be written otherwise then the prisoner did deliuer it, and to haue some∣things blotted out againe, when the prisoners answere was con∣trary to his former information, giuen by him, either to his Ho∣linesse or others; neither was euery daies examination subscri∣bed the same day for the prisoner neuer set his hand, but to the last sheete, which was of such impertinent stuffe, as it might be added to any examination, and the same hand which writ the examination, being a Iesuits hand, & at the commandement of F. Parsons he might (notwithstanding the scoring of the mar∣gent, and the after registring (if it were registred) shew what he listed, and if their examinations be extant (as here it is said) then will appeare in some of them many things blotted out, sometime some words, which F. Parsons caused to be writ con∣trary to that which the prisoner deliuered; sometime a whole question, with some part of the answere thereto, when F. Par∣sons could not obtaine of the prisoner to make such answere, as hee would haue him: for remedy whereof F. Parsons tooke al∣wayes afterward this course, that hee would neuer haue his question written downe, vntill hee had heard what answer the prisoner would make, that if the answere were such as he could wrest it to his purpose, then should the question be set downe, and himselfe would for breuities sake frame the answere, about Page  241 which there was diuers times some alteration about wordes, which the prisoner vsed not, but was often contented to let F. Parsons haue his will, when the words were such as he knew he could interpret to good sence, notwithstanding his examina∣tors false intention, hoping alwayes, that hee should haue so much fauour, when the matter should grow to an issue. And al∣though that neither all the examination was euer taken, nor that which was taken, let to stand as it was taken, but somwhat was blotted out (as is said) and many answers out off, vnder pretence sometime of breuitie, sometime that there should be another Interrogatory, to which such an answere would be more fit: the prisoners subscribed, & sware, but to what? Not that there was al which was asked, or answered, nor that F. Parsons had not dealt in this kinde, but that those answeres which were there made, were truely & sincerely giuen, which maketh no∣thing to the clearing of F. Parsons, or the proouing of his honest dealing. And now you shall heare, what matters this author hath picked out of their examinations, and thereby perceiue, what this good fellow would say.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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