A iust defence of the slandered priestes VVherein the reasons of their bearing off to receiue Maister Blackwell to their superiour before the arriuall of his holines breue, are layed downe, and the imputation of disobedience, ambition, contention, scandall, &c. is by able arguments and authorities remoued, the obiection of the aduerse part sufficiently answered, and the Popes sentence in the controuersie truly related. By Iohn Colleton.

The third Reason.

OVR third reason was, that supposing the informati∣on had bene true, and that his Holinesse had giuen also a plaine, and direct commaundement to the Car∣dinall to ordaine an Archpriest with like power and soueraigntie ouer vs as is challenged, and that him∣selfe likewise had nominated M. Blackwel, & appoin∣ted the Cardinall to choose him to the office, and further that all these particulars had bene cleerely and most expressely set downe in the Constitutiue Letter, as how little any of them were, the Letter it selfe doth best testifie, and the former reason hath sufficiently shewed: yet not knowing these things otherwise to be true, but by the sole testi∣monie of the Cardinals Letter, we did and do still think, that we were not bound to beleeue, in such a generall innouation and preiudice of our Church, the like vntestified, & single relation, without Canonicall certitude of such his Holinesse delegation to his Grace, or Commissi∣on by word of mouth, or other deriued authoritie, in what manner, or vnder whar title soeuer.

For who can doubt, but that it is most meete and requisite, that the greater and more strange the authoritie is, which is claimed, the more Canonicall and euident ought the proofes to be, by which it is clai∣med. To make an Archpriest superiour ouer the Cleargie of a whole Realme, to direct, to reprehend, to chastice, and prescribe as he listeth vnto them: to remoue them also from their places of residēce, the same being in temporall mens houses, and of almes: and not onely in this nature to commaund them, while they reside in the same kingdome with him, but also to hold & exercise the same iurisdiction ouer them,

if so they reside in an other kingdome, gouerned by an other Prince, and distant by many hundreth miles from the place of the others a∣bode. These are so rare nouelties without example in holy Church, as no proues, but such as are legall, can seeme warrantable or sufficient i∣nough in the case.

And because this very point which we are now entring into, is the hardest knot in the whole controuersie, & in which the principall issue most lieth, we thinke good for the more perspicuitie of the dis∣course, first to make a diuision of the meanes, by which the Cardinall might receiue authoritie from his Holinesse, to constitute such a sub∣ordination in our Church. And then, to proue that his Graces Letter (whether patent or sealed, as to my remembrance it came sealed vp according to the Romane maner with a labell) was no such proofe as could either in law or conscience bind vs to admit the subordination appointed without further specialty of such his Holines Commission vnto him, then the credence and testimonie of his Graces Letter ei∣ther patent or close sealed.

Touching the first, it seemeth cleere that his Grace receiued autho∣ritie from his Holinesse, to constitute an Arch priest ouer vs, either by way offormall delegation, or by way of Cōmission by word of mouth. This is so euident and manifest by the tenor of the Constitutiue Let∣ter (if a commaundement to make peace, be a Commission to institute an Archpriest) that if our aduersaries shall gaine-say it, they seeme not to loue truth, but rather to affect contention.

And if his Grace receiued authoritie from his Holinesse by way of formal delegation, then his Grace not shewing vs the Popes rescript, or a contestified copy thereof for testimonie of the delegation, we were not bound by law or conscience, to admit the subordination vpon the sole credence of his Graces Letter patent or close sealed.

Pope Innocentius in his decision to the Bishop of Baia registred a∣mong the Decretals, priuiledgeth all persons not to beleeue another to be a delegate, vnlesse he first proue the Delegation: his wordes be these. a Nisi de mandato sedis Apostolicae certus extiteris, exequi non cogeris quod mandatur. Except thou remaine certaine of the madate of the sea Apostolicke, thou art not bound to execute the thing commaunded. But what manner of surenesse or certaintie that is, here it resteth to be explaned, which is here vnderstood by the words (nisi certus extiteris, except thou remaine sure.) The expositors both ancient and moderne affirme, that to the making vp of this kind of surenesse, is necessarily re∣quired

either the sight of the originall of the delegation, or at least a contestified copie thereof. b Delegato non creditur dicenti se delegatum nisi id literis probet, id{que} probare debet per originale, vel per exemplum ex originali solemniter sumptum. Credence (as writeth Zecchius) is not to be giuen to a Delegate affirming himself a Delegate, vnlesse he proue the same by a rescript, and he ought to proue it by the originall, or by an example taken solemnely (that is, according c to order and forme of law) out of the originall. The very same hath Panormitane touching the meanes of prouing a Delegation. d Mandatum delegationis primo potest probari per orginale: secundo per exemplum solemniter sumptum ex originali. The mandate of a delegation, may first be proued by the originall: secondly by an authenticke copie of the originall. The like do the authorities also conclude that follow. Innocentius, e Delegatus nō probat mandatum nisi literas ostendat. The delegate doth not proue his madate except he shew the letters. Durandus, f Delegatus nihil potest facere nisi ostendat literas suae delegationis. The Delegate can do nothing vnlesse he shew the letters of his delegation. Egidius, g Delegatio Papae non potest probari nisi per literas. The Popes delegation cannot be pro∣ued but by Letters. Bouerus, h Delegatio potest probari per testes post∣quam fuerit literatoriè semel praesentata, alias secu••. A Delegatiō may be prooued by witnesses after it hath bene once shewed by a rescript, o∣therwise not. Bollemera, i Delegatus ante receptas literas suae potestatis, non potest vti iurisdictione sibi demandata. The Delegate cannot vse the iurisdiction committed vnto him before he haue receiued the Letters of his authoritie. Pope Boniface the eight. k Dicenti se delegatum sedis Apostolicae, non creditur vel intenditur nisi de mandato Apostolico fide do∣ceat oculata. Credence is not to be yeelded or his words to be harkned vnto, who shall affirme himselfe a Delegate of the sea Apostolicke, vnlesse by eye-witnesse he proue the Apostolicall mandate. The Glosse, l Nisi delegatus ostendat iurisdictionem suam, non est ei credendum si dicat se delegatum. Except the Delegate doth shew the instrument that witnesseth his iuris••iction, he is not to be beleeued if he affirme himselfe a delegate. And in another place, m Scriptura requiritur in De∣legato Papae. A Letter instrument is required in the Popes delegate for proofe of the delegation.

All which authorities, and other that might be alleaged make the case plaine, that neither credence is to be giuen to a Delegate, vnlesse he proue the delegation, nor that the delegation can be otherwise proued, but by shewing either the originall, or an authenticke

thereof, and consequently neither being shewed vnto vs, as our ad∣uersaries themselues will confesse, we were not bound to beleeue the delegation. And here we might end this member, saue that perchance our oppositors will reply and say, that we take our marke amisse, in re∣gard the partie Delegate was a Cardinall, and therefore not tied to make either of the two foresaid proofes, but that his Graces owne word was of authoritie enough to bind vs obey the ordinance, with∣out further proofe of the delegation or tenour of his Holines graunt. To which we answer.

First, that Imola and Antonius de Butrio, with sundrie others of the best writers, affirme that the aforesaid wordes of the Canon (Nisi de mandato sedis Apostolicae certus extiteris, exequi non cogeris quod manda∣tur: Vnlesse thou be certain of the Popes mandate, thou art not bound to execute the thing commaunded) haue their full force and strength, and are to be extended to the estates and personages of Cardinals, and that they as wel as other Delegates are bound by this place of the law to proue their delegation, or no tie to ensue. Which is also the o∣pinion of Benedictus Vadus. a Cardinalis qui asserit se delegatum, non cre∣ditur ei nisi ostendat literas. A Cardinal auouching himselfe a Delegate, is not to beleeued vnlesse he shew the rescript of the delegation. And it is likewise the opinion of Conradus, b Non creditur Cardinali asserenti se esse delegatum nisi ostensis literis suae delegationis. Beleefe is not to be giuen to a Cardinall, affirming himsElfe to be a Delegate, except he shew the letters of his delegation. Semblably to this also writeth Feli∣nus, c Sicut dicenti se delegatum non creditur nisi ostensis literis, ita nec Car∣dinalibus. As beleefe is not to be giuen to one auowing himselfe a De∣legate except he shew the Commission, so likewise neither to Car∣dinals.

Again the same author handling this question of purpose: whether a Cardinals word be sufficient to proue a delegation to himselfe, resol∣ueth no in the Silogismes following. d Credere alicui propter eius digni∣tatem est stare praesumptioni: sed textus in Canone dicit (nisi de mandato se∣dis Apostolicae certus extiteris exequi non cogeris quod mandatur: Ergo non sufficit iuris praesumptio. To beleeue another in regard of his dignitie, is to rely vpon a presumption: but the text of the Canon sayth (except thou remaine sure of the mandate of the sea Apostolicke thou art not bound to execute what is commaunded:) Therefore a presumption of the law doth not suffice. And in another place in words and sense al∣most coincident. e Vbi requiritur certitudo, non sufficit probatio presump∣tiua,

sed credere dignitati est adhaerere praesumptioni: ergo non satisfit isti textui (nisi certus extiteris de mandato sedis Apostolicae exequi non coge∣ris quod mandatur.) Where a certaintie is required, a presumptiue pro∣bation is not sufficient, but to giue credite to dignitie, (that is to a Car∣dinall in respect of his dignitie) is to adhere to a presumption: therefore it doth not answere or satisfie this text of the law (except thou re∣maine sure of the mandate of the sea Apostolicke thou art not bound to execute what is commaunded.)

What plainer proues can be desired, or which can more conuince the authorities being taken out of the best writers in the argument? To descend therefore to the second member.

If the Cardinall receiued authority to institute the subordination by way of commission from the mouth of his Holinesse only, and not by way of delegation in writing: yet that we were no way bound to accept of the subordination, vpon credence of the Cardinals sole letter, without further proofe of such his Holinesse commission vnto him, we declare and make manifest by the authorities following.

Panormitane a Non creditur Cardinali asserenti aliquid in praeiudicium alterius, & ideo si Cardinalis dicat Papam sibi commisisse aliquid viuae vocis oraculo, tendens in praeiudicium alterius, non crederetur sibi nisi aliter pro∣baret. Beliefe is not to be giuen to the word of a Cardinall if he af∣firme any thing to the preiudice of another; and therefore if a Cardi∣nal say that the Pope hath committed such or such a thing vnto him by word of mouth tending to the preiudice of another, he should not be beleeued, except he otherwise prooue what he affirmeth. Filinus b Non creditur etiam Cardinali quando agitur de praeiudicio tertij. Et hoc est adeo verun•• quod Papa non potest facere de potestate ordinaria quod credatur vni soli in praeiudicium alterius. Beliefe is not to be giuen euen to the word of a Cardinall, when a third person is to receiue damage thereby And this is so vndoubtedly true, as the Pope cannot appoint by his ordinary power, that credit should be giuen to one only in pre∣iudice of another. Decius c Non creditur etiam Cardinali vbi tractatur de praeiudicio alterius. One ought not to beleeue, no not a Cardinall wherein the preiudice of another is treated. The Doctors of the Rota d Non creditur assertioni Cardinalis nisi circa iurisdictionem eius. The as∣sertion of a Cardinall is not to be beleeued, but in matter belonging to iurisdiction, rising out of his office and not in other. The additions vpon the chapter, quod super de fide instrumentorum in Panormitane e dicto Cardinalis in hijs quae concernunt alterius praeiudiciū non creditur.

Beliefe is not to be giuen to the word of a Cardinall in matters that concerne the preiudice of another. Which Position the foresayd wri∣ters proue by seuerall f passages of the Canon law, specially by this that followeth g Canonica & Ciuilia iura sequentes districtius inhibemus ne vnius iudicis quantaecun{que} fuerit authoritatis verbo credatur in causis siue super testamentis, siue quibuslibet alijs contractibus quaestio agitetur, salua in omnibus sedis Apostolicae authoritate. Following the Canon and Ci∣uill lawes we very strictly inhibite that credite be giuen to the word of one Iudge of how great authority soeuer he be in causes whether the question be made vpon testaments, or vpon other contracts whatsoe∣uer, the authority of the Sea Apostolike reserued in all things. Neither is this only an ordinance of the Canon law, Ciuill, and Nationall, but a Decree beside of nature her selfe in cases of moment, as witnesseth S. Thomas and his Expositors.

Neuerthelesse because the Canonists write in the outer shew di∣uersly in this point, some that beliefe is to be giuen to the assertion of a Cardinall: other that beliefe is not to be giuen: they, meaning in matters not preiudiciall: these in matters that bring detriment with them: and in these matters also which bring detriment with thē, some write that a Cardinall his auowance is to be beleeued, some other the contrary that it is not, the former authors vnderstanding in matters of small or indirect domage, the latter in matters of great and direct preiudice. Therfore to the end that no exceptions be taken, nor place left to counterplead, we thinke good to annexe the words of Nauar, who as he caried a most singular account ouer all Christendome for learning and sound iudgement in his faculty, so doth he open this dif∣ficulty and discusseth it farre more distinctly then any other, and re∣concileth the authors in the differences aforesayd. His words be these. Credendum est Cardinali etiam in preiudicium tertij tribus concurrenti∣bus. Primum quod testetur de commissis à Papa sibi aut alijs per eum defer∣rendis. Secundū quod sint solita concedi. Tertium quod non vergant directè in praeiudicium aliorum, sed tantum indirectè & per quandam consequen∣tiam. A Cardinall is not to be beleeued yea to the preiudice of a third, three things cōcurring. First that the testimony he giueth be of things committed by the Pope vnto them. The second that his testimony be of such things as are vsually or wont to be granted. The third, that the things do not redound directly to the preiudice of others, but onely indirectly & by a certaine sequell or implication.

Of which three specified conditions, all and euery one of them be∣ing

requisite, the first onely is to be found in our case, and neither the second nor third. Not the second, because the subordination which the Cardinall by his Letter Constitutiue erected, is not a customarie kind of subordination, or which is vsually graunted, but rather an au∣thority whose like in all circumstances was neuer graunted, as is ma∣nifest by that which hath bene rehearsed in the second reason. And the third falleth in as little with our case, because liuing by the vse of our faculties, it cannot be, but a very great, direct, and immediate preiudice to be depriued of them, meerely at the arbitrary pleasure of another, without iuridicall proofe or lawfull conuiction of any condigne or proportionable demerit. Which preiudice appeareth also by so much the greater or more infinite, as the retaining and vse of our faculties, are the ablest, if not the sole meanes both of gaining and releeuing soules, the end why we tooke Priesthood vpon vs, a profession in so great dislike and persecution with the state.

Againe, what more apparant preiudice either to Priests or to the Catholike laity, then that authority should be giuen (the straight con∣dition of the lawes of our Realme considered) to change and remoue Priests from one residence to another, we being indued with no Church liuing, nor the lay Catholikes bound by as much as the least shew of charity, to maintaine any one in their houses, but such as thēselues shall chuse or cast affection vnto, in regard they must venter therein the vtter loosing of all their goods, life, state, & the ouerthrow of their whole posterity. And neither must they make this venter for a weeke, two, or three, but must set downe their dwelling in the hazards of the casualty, so long as they entertaine the Priest, and euer after du∣ring their liues, and the lawes of the present state.

Moreouer can a separation be made by authority of the Postour from the flocke: of the Guide from the charge: of the Priest resiant from his acquaintance and place of aboad, and no speeches to grow and be spread thereof? Most improbable. And not much lesse vn∣likely is it, but that the walking vp and downe of such speeches in ma∣ny mens mouthes, will quickly lay open the state of such Catholikes from whom they are, and to whom they shal be in such sort remoued, to danger, hauocke, and ruine.

Another preiudice, and which doth not so much directly follow v∣pon the subordination, as it is intrinsecall and incorporate thereunto, the preiudice being expresly and by speciall prouiso enacted in the Constitutiue Letter itselfe; to weete, that the nomination and chusing

of the Archpriest, should not appertaine (notwithstanding the large iurisdiction and commaund he carrieth ouer all) either to the com∣pany of the twelue Assistants, or to the whole body of Priestes within our Realme, who are to obey and liue vnder his rules, but that in euery change of the Archpriest, either by death, apprehension, leauing the Realme, or other accident, the successour is to be assigned by the Car∣dinals Grace onely, a forrainer to our nation, aparted by many hun∣dreth of miles from vs, a stranger to our affaires, and neither acquain∣ted with all the sorts of our pressures, nor with their measure and qua∣litie. Which prouiso seemed also the more straight and preiudicial vn∣to vs, in respect the Cardinall Protector was like to receiue no other information, to direct his honour in the election of the next Arch∣priest, but that which father Garnet and father Parsons the authours of all our troubles, and the maister parties of the one side of the diffe∣rence, should then againe suggest, and rule all in the second, third, and euery change, as they did in the election of M. Blackwell, and conse∣quently our poore cleargie neuer lacke matter of disturbance, vnlesse we accommodate and prostrate our selues to father Parsons humour and the direction of the Iesuits in all things.

And here we cannot but wish to God that father Parsons pollicie and the seeking of himselfe, would once at length redound more then it doth, to the good of our Church and Countrey: we meane his cun∣ning pollicie in preuenting that none of our nation come to prefer∣ment or credite in the Court of Rome, or haue meanes to enforme his Holines of the true state of matters, but that himselfe must be the sole agent and informer, or some such his creatures as shall not faile to se∣cond his driftes, and runne in one and his owne currant with him.

We hope none of iudgement, and acquainted with the ouer-ruling humour that raigneth in some persons, but will soone affirme the pre∣cedent inhibition of debarring vs the choise of our owne Superiour, being so many as we are in number, to be no little or light preiudice, specially if he maturely consider of the reasons that S. Leo the great, giueth in a case not vnlike to ours. Vt nullus inuitis & non p••tentibus or∣dinetur, ne plebs inuita Episcopum non optatum aut contemnat, aut oderit, & fiat minus religiosa quam conuenit, cui non licuerit habere quem voluit. That no one be ordained ouer others, whō to haue they are vnwilling or not desirous, lest the people so constrained either contemne or hate the Bishop whom they wished not to haue, & thereby become lesse re∣ligious thē is meet, in not being licenced to enioy whom they desired.

Neither can we name or report this barre, lesse then a preiudice vn∣to vs, because holy Church her selfe gouerned by the wisedom of hea∣uen, hath ordained that euery Ecclesiasticall congregation and Col∣ledge of Priests should haue the chusing of their owne Prelate: yea and that the Prelate not after this wise chosen, may be lawfully refu∣sed as one promoted contrarie to the discipline of Canonicall order. Hard, that we being so many in number as we are, and the whole Cleargie of a Realme, and neither liuing all vncollegially through our owne default, but by the necessitie of the time, should thus, both first and last, and in euery chaunge, be depriued of hauing the election of our Prelate.

At the first, whiles we liued without a Superiour, it might perhaps seeme no great disfauour to haue a Superior appointed vnto vs with∣out our assent, or priuitie, or voice, or aduice in the election: but now when we appeare in a sort collegiated, by liuing all in obedience vn∣der one Superior, and vnder a receiued and set forme of gouernement, to haue the same measure and disfauour neuerthelesse continued, yea to haue the continuance thereof expresly and by particular caution enacted, it cannot but be deemed a preiudice by any vpright iudge∣ment, and a much higher disgrace and impeachment to our whole Church, then (as we hope) our long trauailes, the burden of our po∣uertie, the waight of our other pressures, the daily venturing of our liues for the gaine of soules, the store of bloud we haue that way yeel∣ded, the fruite which hath come therof, and our maintaining the rights of the Romane sea, either haue, or by Gods grace with our wittingnes euer shall deserue of Peters Chaire, or at the hands of his Holi∣nesse.

Now if our aduersaries can answere and shew wherein we are mi∣staken, or how the precedent reasons or authorities conclude not for vs, whether the Cardinall receiued his authoritie by way of formall delegation, or by way of verball commission: we beseech them of charitie to communicate their knowledge, and we promise them, they shall find vs thankfull, and most readie to recant our errour and aske them pardon.

And this being proued, that we were not bound by law or consci∣ence (for that cannot be against conscience in which so many appro∣ued authors do agree to be lawfull) to subiect our selues to the subor∣dination his Grace erected vpon the sole credence of his Letter with∣out further testimonie that his Holinesse gaue him Commission to in∣stitute

the same in specie, with all the branches and faculties: it resteth for cleerer remonstrance of the truth and satisfaction of al doubts, that we answer the reasons which our aduersaries make for proofe that we were bound to beleeue and obey the Cardinall Protector his Letter, before the appearing of his Holinesse Breue in Confirmation thereof.

ONe of the chiefe reasons that our aduersaries bring for proofe of such our bounden dutie is, that his Grace was Lord Protector of our Nation, and the distributer of faculties to Priests in their missi∣on from Rome for England.

To which we answere: first, of the two dignities Cardinalship and Protectorship abstracted and considered apart each from other, no doubt the title of Cardinalship is the greater, and by so much, that hardly there is any resemblance to be made betweene them, as is to be seene by comparing the prerogatiues together, recounted and laid downe by Zecchius in his booke de repub. ecclesiastica. And therefore if we were not bound, (as is abundantly proued before we were not) to beleeue a Cardinals word in a matter of like preiudice, much lesse were we then bound to giue credence to the word of a Protector in the same.

But be it for further proofe-sake, and declaration of moe our ad∣vantages, that the office of a Protector doth in right challenge more beleefe, then doth the state of a Cardinall, and that the two soueraigne dignities and offices meeting and residing in one personage, as they did in Cardinall Caietane, could not but impose a straighter bond by much vpon vs to beleeue and obey the particulars of his Graces Let∣ter subscribed and signed with his own hand and seale, then could the like Letter of any other Cardinall, who was not our Protectour, nor had the distribution of faculties in the missions.

To this we say, that the authoritie of our Protector thus compoun∣ded and enlarged, remaineth neuerthelesse a definite authoritie, and falleth vnder the name of authoritie: but the text of the law aboue ci∣ted is, a Quantaecun{que} authoritatis, &c. How great authoritie soeuer the affirmer is of, he is not in things hurtfull to another to be beleeued vp∣on the sole testimonie of his owne word. And b Panormitane cited by c Syluester writeth, that quantumcunque est persona authorizabilis, what high & ample authoritie soeuer the person beareth, he is not in praeiu∣dicialibus in matters of preiudice, to haue beleefe built vpon the cre∣dence

of his owne word onely. What need moe proues? It is very ma∣nifest by the vnanswerable authoritie of the text it selfe aboue cited, salua in omnibus sedis Apostolicae authoritate, that the priuiledge of be∣ing beleeued vpon the sole warrantize of his owne word in cases of preiudice, is a respect peculiarly reserued and appropriated to the su∣preme dignitie of the Sea Apostolicke.

Or if on the other side, our opponēts wil, as a principal man among them did once boldly affirme, that the Cardinall did not so much in∣stitute this kind of subordination in our Church by vertue of any de∣legation receiued of his Holines, as he did it by vertue & office of his Proterctorship. A conceit that M. Blackwell himselfe in some of his Letters, which he wrote incontinent after the receit of the Constitutiue Letter, seemeth to beate about, if not to inferre, calling the subordina∣tion, Statuta, constitutionem, institutionem, ordinem, prudentissimam pro∣uisionem Ill^mi Domini Protectoris. The statutes the constitution, the in∣stitutions, the order, the right prudent prouision of our most illustruous Protector.

Now if our aduersaries beaten from their other holds, will retire (as some of them haue, to the succour of this poore shift) alas the fortresse they flie too is but a paper wall, a descant fit onely to deceiue the ig∣norant. For the office of a Protector consisting (as Zecchius relateth) in proposing the elections and other causes of the Prouince, or Coun∣try, whereof the partie is Protector in the sacred consistorie: and in answering the reasons, doubts, or exceptions, which the Pope, or any of the Cardinals shall there moue, touching matters by him propoun∣ded, neither did nor could impart like iurisdiction and soueraigntie to his Grace, as thereby to institute of himselfe any kind of gouerne∣ment, and much lesse so strange a kind of gouernement in our whole Church. For why, is there any kind of semblance or societie, any alli∣ance or coniunction between authoritie to propose elections, to pre∣ferre the sutes of our Country, to yeeld satisfaction to what is obiected in that most honourable assembly of the Pope and Cardinals (the offi∣ces of a Protector) and the iurisdiction of erecting a subordination, the like wherof in all points was neuer heard of in our Church before, if euer any where else in the Church of God? The sequence is so in∣congruent, that none of iudgement will make it, and none but such as are wedded to their owne folly, will euer stand therein, carrying no more coherence then that chalke being white, must needes without doubt be cheese, or because the aduocate moueth and pleadeth his

clients cause, therefore without question he hath authoritie to deter∣mine and giue finall sentence in the same.

Touching the other part or mēber of the reason, that we are bound to admit what Cardinall Caietane assigned, in respect his Grace had the distribution of faculties to our Priestes that come from thence, we thinke no answer fitter then silence, in respect it bewrayeth so great shallownesse and defect of iudgement. For if we were in this regard bound to beleeue the Cardinall on his word, because he had authori∣tie to delegate faculties, it followeth directly, that we are in like sort bound to beleeue the President of Doway, the Rectour of the Col∣ledge at Valedolid, father Parsons and so many of the Iesuits as haue authoritie to giue faculties, vpon credence of their owne word: yea the ground and respects being one, we are likewise bound if the former reason be good, to beleeue our Archpriest and his successors, of what bad qualitie soeuer they happen to be, vpon testimonie of their owne word, because authoritie to delegate faculties, is now annexed to the office: and so any of this number may at his pleasute, by borrowing leaue of his conscience, innouate, set vp, pull downe, chop and change what he listeth in our Church, by saying onely he had a com∣mandement from his Holinesse without shewing script or scrowle, or other assurance for proofe thereof, then his bare word, and we bound forsooth vnder crimes of greatest infamie, to admit the same and sub∣iect our selues: thē which, what greater folly, what fouler distain to the dignitie of our Priesthood, or what in his nature or consequence lay∣eth open a wider gap, to let in intrusion, confusion, and all vtter ha∣uocke both of order and discipline, in the house and Sanctuarie of Al∣mightie God, and spouse of our Sauiour?

ANother reason which our aduersaries vse for confirming their Position against vs, is the variety of the testimonies they shewed vnto vs besides the Constitutiue Letter, for proofe that the subordina∣tion was erected by his Holinesse priuitie and commaund: namely a second Letter of Cardinall Caietanes, signifying that his Lordship re∣ceiued a charge from his Holinesse to institute the subordination he did: a Letter of the Popes Nuntio in Flunders: a Letter of Doctour Stapletons, on other of Doctour Barrets, an other of father Bellarmines, since Cardinall: an other of Doctour Worthingtons: and two other, from our two brethren which went to Rome in the affaire, all attesta∣ting (as our aduersaries are pleased to report) the subordination to be

the commaundement of his Holinesse.

A faire shew, to carrie away the vulgar and credulous, but of too light substance by much, to perswade any of iudgement, who haue but looked vpon the Canons of holy Church, were all true that is said, as when the particulars come to scanning, we trust neither all, nor the most part will so fall out.

And first it is cleere by the authoritie aboue rehearsed out of Inno∣cetius, Panormitane, Speculator, Felinus, Egidius, Bellemera, Bouerus, Zecchius, Conradus, the very choise of both the ancient and moderne Canonists, that all Papall delegation especially communicating iuris∣diction in penall matters, must of necessitie, ere any be bound to obey, be first proued either by shewing the rescript of the delegation, or an authenticall copie thereof. Neither can such a delegation, iustly ac∣cording to the forme of the law be proued by record of witnesses, saue when as Bouerus noteth, the originall hath bene shewed before, as the originall of this delegation (if so the Cardinall his grace receiued au∣thoritie from his Holinesse by way of formall delegation) was neuer, if euer extant to be shewed. Which saying also of Bouerus is not ge∣nerally to be vnderstood in all kinds of Delegation, but in such onely, as do not deriue a pluralitie of particular iurisdictions, the contrarie whereof the new subordination doth, containing at least ten seuerall iurisdictions, and as many moe instructions. For in delegations of this sort, proofe is to be made by shewing of the original, or an authentike copie thereof, and not by the sole record of witnesses, as after the alle∣gation of a Barbatia, the Doctors of the Rota, haue b in plaine termes decided, & who also quoteth these words of Baldus for ampler proofe of the assertion. Gratia Papaefacta super iurisdictione non potest probari per testes. The grace that the Pope giueth communicating iurisdicti∣on, cannot be proued by witnesses.

And the reason is plaine and inuincible: for where many par∣ticulars are delegated, and those vndepending one of other, as in the new authoritie, there the volubilitie of humane memorie, and the strict necessity of neither adding nor detracting considered with other circumstances: namely, that wordes may often beare diuerse senses, and do take their limitation and truest exposition from that which went before or followed after in the same Commission, there we say where these thing meete, the proofe of the delegation, cannot without suspition of errour be made by report of witnesses, but ought onely to be made by shewing the originall, or a testified copie, as the authours

before cited do write.

Which reason also seemeth as strongly to conclude that the facul∣ties and iurisdiction giuen to the Archpriest, and particularized partly in the Constitutiue Letter, partly in the instructions, and partly in the additions, being many in number, and distinct without dependance each of other, cannot well for the same cause and ficklenesse of me∣morie, be proued by witnesses, but rather require for due proofe the shewing and comparing of an authenticke note, or abstract of the things in particular, which were graunted to the Archpriest or Cardi∣nall by his Holinesse, which hitherto we neuer saw, nor heard tell of, nor, which perhaps was euer extant, notwithstanding the iust necessi∣tie thereof. Neuerthelesse we wil yeeld to our aduersaries, to the end to make our iustification the cleerer, and the lesse impugnable, that the like delegation or commission may be proued by witnesses, though the originall, nor anie authenticke copie were euer shewed before. Which was neuer affirmed by any writer, or euer practised (as we thinke) no not where oppression and bondage raigned most.

Yet here we trust that yeelding thus much voluntarily, our aduer∣saries wil not (an inch so freely and friendly being giuen them) take by and by an••ell, and thinke it enough to proue the delegation or com∣mission in generall, and not also to proue the tenour in particular. For if this large scope were once in vre and admitted, the next may be to bid all order farewell, as wherein discipline is rifled, tyrannie set free, the practise of holy Church turned vpside downe, and the arayes of all Christian peace and quietnesse vtterly broken: in regard it followeth hereby, that whosoeuer can prooue a delegation or commission, may forthwith incroch and challenge therupon to order all matters, either out or in his commission, as he listeth, without restraint, limit, checke, or gainestanding of any, as hauing by the former scope authoritie for his warrant: which is so very absurd, that he scarcely deserueth the name of a man, and lesse the praise of scholership, who shall shew himselfe so very a babe as once to affirme it.

And now here we demand, who in the rankes of the foresayd wit∣nesses (which are yet all that our aduersaries themselues claime wit∣nesse of) doth in his record descend to the specifying of any one par∣ticular contained in the commission? Let the testimonies be reuiewed and compared with the Constitutiue Letter, and we are content to make the aduersary, who is most against vs, our Iudge in the case. For to begin with the first and take them all in order: The second letter of

Cardinall Caietane, which is set downe verbatim in the beginning of the booke (were it not contrary to the naturall forme of iustice ob∣serued among all nations, be they Christians, Iewes, or Pagans, for any one in the exterior Court to beare witnesse in his owne cause) nei∣ther auerreth nor specifieth any one particular of his Holinesse com∣mission vnto him, other then the commission it selfe in generall termes, as all men may be their owne informers that will reade the Letter.

Moreouer there be certaine clauses or points interlaced in the sayd Letter, which did so little inuite vs to beleeue the residue therein mentioned, or what his Grace had written before in the Constitutiue Letter, as they most mightily, more then euer before, caused vs to doubt of the processe. For some part of the contents curteously fin∣deth fault with maister Blackwell, for that he had not written to Rome of our manners or actions in so long while, and rendering his ex∣cuse, layeth it in his modesty and charitie, in that he would not be ea∣sily moued to accuse his brethren: a property wherein one of his grea∣test facilities did, and doth consist, as we then knew, and haue sithence more abundantly felt: nor can himselfe deny this much, and father Parsons letter to maister Doctor Bishop of the ninth of October 1599. and the late Apologie do verifie it apparantly.

Another peece of the letter imposeth a commaundement or two vpon our Archpriest, both to certifie the names, manners, and actions of the tumultuous, and the causes which they pretend of their relu∣ctation, for so the letter termeth vs, and the iustifiable demaund we made for Canonicall proofe of his Holinesse commission, ere we did absolutely engage and subiect our selues therunto. Iniunctions which certes we could not beleeue nor suspect to proceed from order of his Holinesse, notwithstanding so much was expresly signified in the let∣ter. [Nunc tamen S^mo id postulante, vt informatio debita de omnibus ha∣beatur faciendum tibi erit omnino. Yet now his Holinesse commanding the same that due information be giuen of all, you must needes do it.]

The reasons why we could not beleeue or suspect thus much, were: first because his Holinesse was at Ferrara three hundreth miles, or thereabout from Rome at the time when the Cardinals letter was written: for his graces letter bore date from Rome the tenth of No∣uember 1598. and his Holinesse maried the King of Spaine and the Duke of Burgundy at Ferrara on the 12. of the same moneth, two dayes after the date. Againe, his Holinesse for a good while before

had not bene in Rome, being in his iourney towards Ferrara, nor was the Cardinall one of his attendants in the iourney. And to thinke that aduertisements of like quality, and small moment, as this businesse of ours was, passed this while too, and fro, betweene his Holinesse, and the Cardinall, were a very improbable conceit, considering the con∣tinuall trauell of his Holinesse, and the hourely accesse of all sorts of people vnto him, and for that his Holinesse intended ere long to re∣turne to Rome, where the Cardinall might haue personall conference with him about the affaire, and in time conuenient inough, the mat∣ter being but onely to inquire how a few poore Priestes haue liued, and to vnderstand from their aduersaries the causes they pretend, in dislike of a gouernement already in being.

And albeit these were the respects which inclined vs to doubt whether his Holinesse enioyned any such commaundement as the letter specified, yet that which indeed farre more setled the doubt in our thoughts, was the partiality or iniustice, in that our aduersaries, and those that made a chiefe party, and were most interessed in the controuersie, should haue the certifying of what we could say either in clearing of our selues, or against them, and so haue the telling of both tales, theirs, and ours. Beside, it seemed straunge that we being de∣famed but of one crime (if it be a defamation and a crime to do as the lawes of holy Church licence and direct when doubt is made either of the commission, or of the specialties therein contained) we must haue our manners or actions without any specification of, or in that parti∣cular ransacked, and layd open to the world. The first kind of partia∣litie or iniustice not tollerated among the Heathens, and the later (if by our manners and actions the course of our life be meant, as the ex∣ception taken against the negotiators and other our brethren do ve∣rifie) as contrary as what may be most contrary to the expresse Ca∣nons of the Sea Apostolicke. Inquisitio fieri debet solummodo super illis (criminibus) de quibus clamores aliqui praecesserunt. Inquisition ought onely to be made concerning those crimes of which some clamorours reports haue gone before.

That maister Blackwell was willed to make inquisition of our man∣ners or actions by way of authority, and consequently by way of in∣quisition, the words of the sayd letter do attestate. For the Cardinall hauing before signified the Popes commandement to maister Black∣well, that he should not faile but send notice of our names▪ manners, or actions, his grace immediatly addeth: Quod vt facilius citiusque ex no∣strae

ordinationis authoritate perficias, hoc tibi caeterisque Presbyteris iniun∣gimus vt statim ac diligenter fiat. The which thing, that you may by the authority of our ordination performe with the more ease and speede, this we enioyne you and the rest of the Priestes, that it be foorthwith and diligently accomplished.

But the most we would inferre of the premises is, that these things being part of the contents of the Letter, and sounding so hardly both against the common forme of iustice, & the decrees of Gods Church, we could not imagine, either the same to be written by any order re∣ceiued from his Holinesse, or written at all by the Cardinall, but we tooke the letter for an extrauagant of father Parsons, subscribed by the Cardinall without perusing it before, only vpon confidence of father Parsons iudgement and sincerity in managing the affaire he had be∣gun. Neuerthelesse we can but muse, why father Parsons would haue other mens liues and actions informed, when if his owne life and dis∣position were vnripped, they would perchance bring as little edifi∣cation to the world, as the life and transgressions of some other. But the old saying is, Non videmus manticae quod in tergo est, we do not see the part of the wallet that hangeth behind, where, father Parsons of likelihood (as this his forwardnesse should shew) hath bundled vp the frailties of his owne life, and there keepeth them without looking on them, and thereby commeth to haue leisure and appetite to gaze vp∣pon the life and cariages of some of the secular. But to proceed in exa∣mining the rest of the testimonies.

Secondly his Holinesse Nuncio in Flaunders in his Letter to maister Blackwell, and which our aduersaries alleage as a testimony against vs, made no mention at all of the tenor of the commission, nor of any par∣ticular that should be contained therein. Our aduersaries themselues will not deny this, or if they do, we must say there is no truth in their words. The whole that his Lordships letter can be drawne to make against vs, or to testifie for them, was in that his honour writing to M. Blackwell, wrote vnto him by the name and title of Archpriest: which also hapned (as we thinke) through this occasion. After father Parsons had won the Cardinall to solicite and erect a subordination in our Church, the like as himselfe thought fittest, he sent a copie of the Constitutiue Letter to the Nuncio in Flaunders, and to others there to reade. Whereupon the Nuncio seeing maister Blackwell to be constitu∣ted Archpriest by the Cardinall, gaue him also that title. And what is this for proofe of the commission, specially for proofe of the tenour,

the thing which is to be witnessed (as is declared before) or else what is witnessed to be little worth?

Thirdly touching the testimony of D. Stapleton, the most and all that he wrote to the Nuncio concerning the authority of maister Blackwell, and which our aduersaries lay hold on for reckord against vs, was, that his Holinesse had made him Archpriest. Which thing al∣so he did neither write by way of affirmance, or to testifie so much, but onely accidentally by occasion of another matter, to weete, what he thought fittest to be done about maister Tempest. For at that time the Nuncio had sent M. Tempest vnto him with his accusers to be examined in the points, for which the Cardinall Protector had taken away his faculties, while he was in the way downwards from Rome, and giuen likewise order to the Nuncio, that he should be stayed in the Low∣countries, and not suffered to go into England.

Now when Doctor Worthington and maister Caesar Clement his ac∣cusers, had charged him before Doctor Stapletō with as many things, as they thought good, or as their instructions from father Parsons di∣rected, and he had made his answer and purgation thereunto: Doctor Stapleton aduertising the Nuncio by letter, how the matter passed be∣fore him, & withall giuing his honor to vnderstand, what he thought meetest to be done in the cause, wrote: that maister Tempest might wel be dismissed and suffered to depart into England, and as he should there demeane himselfe, so to receiue againe his faculties of the Arch∣priest, whom his Holinesse had constituted superiour in England. By all which, being the whole summe of that Doctor Sapleton wrote to the Nuncio, what more may be gathered, then that Doctor Worthing∣ton and maister Caesar Clement, relating the contents of the Constitu∣tiue Letter, or shewing a copie thereof vnto him, which at that very season was newly come to Bruxels, and made common to many, the other incidently thereupon inserted in his foresayd Letter to the Nuncio the words aboue mentioned. Which in no sence can iustly be reckened a testimony, the writer by euidence of all circumstances thinking nothing lesse in vsing the words, then as a witnesse to testifie the commission, or that the subordination was the ordinance of his Holinesse by what he did say.

But whatsoeuer Doctour Stapletons intention was therein, ei∣ther to witnesse or not to witnesse the subordination, as it could not be to witnesse it, vnderstanding the same but by report: yet our aduersaries themselues wil not say, that the good man did parti∣cularize

or testifie the tenour of the commission, or any one iurisdi∣ction contained therein. Or had he rehearsed in his letter some moe or few particulars of the commission, as he did not, yet we desire to know, what reason or fatisfaction can be yeelded, why he might not as well haue erred in relating the tenour (and consequently neither bond, nor wisedome in vs to beleeue his words) as he did in saying that M. Tempest vpon desert of his good cariage in England, might haue his faculties restored vnto him by the Archpriest, whē M. Black∣well at that time had no authority at all (as himselfe both confessed & practised) either to restore him, or giue faculties vnto any other vpon what necessity soeuer.

We will not stay here to aske the cause, why D. Stapletons letter ad∣dressed to the Nuncio vpon the aforesayd businesse, was brought ouer with other like into England, and here shewed for testimonies. But although we will not stand to demand the reason hereof, yet we can∣not but giue all men to know that our suspition, doubts, and mistrust of the validity of the new authority, were no whit lesned thereby, but very much increased, seeing what meane proues were mustered, and as it were marshalled in the forefront of the army of prooues a∣gainst vs.

Fourthly, concerning the testimony of M. D. Barret, there was yet much lesse cause why he should be brought for witnesse, vnlesse the necessity be such, that any thing must serue that can make the least shew of sounding against vs, we neuer saw or heard but of two letters that he should write, the one to the Popes Nuncio in Flaunders con∣cerning matters belonging to Maister Tempest, the other to maister Blackwell himselfe. In either of which, no other testimony was giuen, then that he named maister Blackwell Archpriest, and wished that those effects might follow vppon the authority, which the author in the institution of the authority intēded, without naming who he was. And what we pray could this possibly make to the proofe of that which was then in question, and which we stood vppon to know after an assured and requisite manner, viz. whether the Cardinall receiued a commaundement from his Holinesse to erect such a subordination with like iurisdiction in all points ouer vs. Well, it must needes ar∣gue a rich wardrope, and good proues no doubt to lye in store, where such poore stuffe is brought forth for shew.

Fiftly, touching the testimony of father Bellarmine, (of whose let∣ter our impugners seeme not to make the least account) first we

say that to this day there be very few of our company who euer saw the letter: and for certaine, neither of these two, whom Maister Blackwell calleth the Princes in the action (and hath sorest punished for defending their owne and their brethrens good names against the slaunders imposed) euer cast eye thereon, or the same euer sent by any or offered vnto them to reade, till after the arriuall of his Holinesse Breue, and our absolute admittance of the authority. And therefore whatsoeuer testimony it caried, it could little condemne or blame those, that knew no more thereof. But what might the contents be of the letter, or to whom was the same written, and to what purpose?

The letter was written to father Parsons, in aunswere of a letter of his, & to do him to vnderstand, that the two English Priests, of whom he wrote vnto him, were not as then come to Ferrara, and that his Holinesse was much incensed vpon newes of their intention of com∣ming, and determined to imprison them. Againe, that father Parsons needed not to come to Ferrara about that businesse, in respect his Holinesse intended to make no long stay there, & that if in the meane, the two Priests hapned to come, he assured that their audience should be put off, till his Holinesse came to Rome.

This for so much as our memory serueth, was the contents of the letter. And now what proofe of the tenour or any particular of the commission is there named in all this, no word, or sillable so much as pointing thereunto? Neuerthelesse we will not gainsay if father Bel∣larmine wrote such a letter, but that the displeasure which his Holi∣nesse is sayd to take for their comming (if so the cause of his displea∣sure was their comming and not rather wrong and sinister informa∣tion) may in some sort not amisse argue that his Holinesse was priuie to the erecting of the subordination, but it can no way argue that this or this was the tenour of the commission, or these the particulars of the iurisdiction giuen. A point much more im∣portant to be testified, then the commission in generall, ere any be bound to render their particular obedience. For being in possession of our particular freedomes, no reason to render them vp by constraint (as euery bond bringeth a constraint) into the hands of another, before he hath sufficiently and according to law in that matter proued his right thereunto, as was shewed at large in the eleuenth Proposition. And the same appeareth also plaine by this place in the Decretals: Antequam exprimantur res,

delegatus nequit iurisdictionem exercere. Before the things be expressed (wherein the Delegate hath authoritie) the Delegate cannot exercise iu∣risdiction: and consequently none bound to obey in the same. And what in this respect is true in Delegations, holdeth also in commis∣sions by word of mouth.

We omit to lay downe the reasons we had of not giuing ouer light credit to what was auerred in the Letter, if so it had bene shewed vnto vs before the comming ouer of his Holinesse Breue, and our accep∣tance of the authoritie. The stile sauoured little or nothing at all of the temper and mildnesse wherewith the good religious father was knowne to abound: Then the Letter was taken not to be of his hand writing: and sithence it hath bene acknowledged that it was but a co∣pie, and not the originall it selfe. Againe the contents greatly deroga∣ted from the natiue and sweete disposition of his Holinesse, as in like measure and without knowing the cause, to be offended with any, for repairing vnto him, and much lesse with Priestes comming from a Realme so farre off, and so well deseruing of holy Church, and in the generall cause of many. Lastly the Letter passed through the hands of father Parsons, and some other vnto vs, whom we accounted of no such integritie, but that circumstances considered, we might in wise∣dome mistrust least something therein might be added or altered, for making the famous Clarke to speake harder against vs.

Fiftly touching the testimonie of Doctour Worthington: none of vs know, or were euer told to this day, what he either said or wrote in witnesse of the authoritie or tenour thereof, or in commendation of our delay. Neuerthelesse let his record be what it can be, we hope by Gods grace (when one opponents or himselfe shall acquaint vs there∣with) to be able so to answere it, as that it shall neither conuict vs of the crimes obiected, nor of any other faultie transgression.

Lastly concerning the testmonie of our two brethren the negocia∣tors of the affaire: we maruel why either our Archpriest in his twelue proposed questions, or father Holtby in his discourse, should so ear∣nestly obiect their ioynt testimonie against vs, when the first Letter of all that we receiued from M. Charnocke, came to our hands toge∣ther with the Breue, at which time we presently yeelded our obedi∣ence.

We do not deny but that M. Bishop in his Letter of the 22. of Fe∣bruary 1599. according to the Romane account, which was deliuered vnto vs some seuenteene or eighteene dayes before the receit of the

Breue, made mention that M. Charnocke had written vnto vs at the same time, but we did not receiue his Lettter, before the comming of the Breue, as our Archpriest, father Garnet and some other can witnes, if they please to remember themselues. So that what testimonie soeuer M Charnock gaue in the said Letter, it maketh little against vs, because we absolutely admitted the subordination, and subiected our selues so soone as euer we saw his Holines Breue, before the reading of M. Charnockes Letter, as the Gentleman can testifie who first brought vs the copie of the Breue testified with the hands of our two brethren in Rome, M. Bishop and M. Charnoke to be a true copie, wher∣by it vnquestionably followeth, that the breach of promise wherewith father Holtby chargeth vs for not submitting our selues vpon certifi∣cate receiued from our two brethren, is an vntruth, as there be many moe in that Letter-treatise.

These notwithstanding, let vs heare what were the letters and ac∣knowledgements of our 2. hrethrē, by mean wherof they are brought for witnesses, or as a confirmation of blame against vs. They both wrote that they heard Cardinall Caietane affirme, that what was done touching the Archpriest, was done by order from his Holines: & that they heard so much also by others, not expressing the parties names of whom they did heare it. Againe that they repented themselues of ta∣king the iourney, chiefly of the inconsideration they committed there∣in, and that they requested their humble commendation and dutie might be done vnto our and their Superiour the Archpriest.

Loe the auowances and writings of them both, and which M. Bi∣shop signified in a Postscript onely, vpon occasion by like, that father Parsons reading his Letter (as he did, and prescribed or approued the points to be treated of, in all the letters that either of them wrote vnto vs, during the whole time of their imprisonment, which was full foure moneths) and finding that principall Verbe (the former sig∣nification) missing, he would not, but needes haue the said comple∣ments added in a poscript.

Certes that they repented themselues of taking the iourney, being kept before the writing of the Letters eight weekes (from the 29. of of December till the 22. of February, in close and straight durance, vn∣der the iay lourship of father Parsons their chiefe aduersarie and exami∣ner, was no strange newes, and lesse strange that they sorrowed the in∣consideration they commited, which as themselues haue sithence expounded, they principally meant in not taking the names of moe

Priests with them, or in a better forme then they did, and specially be∣cause they omitted the procuring of the King of France his Letter in their behalfe to his Ambassadour in Rome, which was promised, and another to his Holinesse himselfe for request of fauourable audience in their sute: matter of iust sorrow, they smarting after the rate they did for omitting of the helpes, vpon confidence only of the most behoue∣able and reasonable petitions they were to propose.

But of what persons, beside the Cardinall his Grace did our two brethren remaining close prisoners, heare that the Archpresbyter∣ship, and the faculties adioyned, was the order of his Holinesse? Had any of those accesse vnto the prisoners, which liued neare about his Holinesse, or were often in his presence, and so by likelihood might heare when the commission was giuen, or after talked of? Were o∣ther straungers or their countrey-men in the city allowed to come vn∣to them? Were the students of the Colledge licensed at that time to visite the prisoners, and haue communication with them?

No, no, they were alike straightly kept, as they were not suffered to consult or speake with any, nor the one of them with the other. What then? did his Holinesse Fiscall (who was appointed to examine the prisoners, but not long after surrendred the office to father Parsons) report so much vnto them? It cannot be sayd, because the same man at the end of all their examinatiōs & resiftings, told the prisoners (as they both witnesse) that the subordination was not the ordinance of his Holinesse. Of whom then had the prisoners that intelligence? vn∣doubtedly either from father Parsons or father Owen, who onely had recourse vnto them: relators that must needes haue beliefe giuen to their words, because the one was a chiefe deuiser of the authority, and his reputation lay in gage to haue it go forward: the other, a profi∣ting scholler in father Porsons studies, and his right hand in this busi∣sinesse, as the seruice following declareth.

When maister Charnocke wrote his letter vnto vs, by the appoint∣ment of the Cardinals for a finall end of their durance, as father Owen reported, and father Parsons had the perusing thereof a night and a day, it was brought againe vnto him by father Owen, with order from father Parsons to adde that the subordination erected was the order of his Holinesse, who answering he could not write so, because he knew it not, the other replied, that the Cardinall protector sayd it when he sate in iudgement in the cause, and that father Parsons affir∣med the same, and therefore he might well and truly write, that to

his knowledge the Archpresbitership was the appointmēt of his Ho∣linesse. Whereupon the prisoner being willing to giue the fathers the most contentment he could, for his speedier riddance out of prison, promised him to write in so large a maner in that point as possibly he could with any truth, and accordingly signified in his Letter, yet not that he knew the subordination to be the order of his Holinesse, but that he heard the Cardinal to affirme it, and also vnderstood it by cre∣dible relation of others. The like wrote M. Bishop, and not vnlike vp∣on the same perswasion.

But neither the one nor the other of our brethrē, nor the Cardinall Protector in the Constitutiue Letter, nor any other, of whom witnesse is claimed, did euer in the least word affirme that the faculties and iu∣risdiction annexed to the Archpresbitership, (the onely point which was most needfull of all other to be descended vnto, being the most materiall, and which alone for the amplenesse, rigour, & vnusualnesse thereof, caused our delay) were the ordinance or commandement of his Holines. A thing worthiest of special note, as that most manifesteth the headie violence of our aduersaries, and how beyond all colour of reason, they haue proceeded in their accusations and outcries a∣gainst vs.

Now touching the commendation and dutie our two brethren sent to be done, to our and their superiour the Archpriest: who could thinke, reading the passage, but that somwhat lay hid, & was insinua∣ted by the words, that they being prisoners in Rome, should as it were, hunt after so impertinent an occasion of calling M. Blackwell their Su∣periour, and direct commendations vnto him by that title, when as we were right sure, they both well knew that the Cardinals Letter made him but Superiour ouer the Priestes residing in England and Scotland only, and not ouer any, whiles they liued any other where. And one of them being sithence asked the meaning of the said words, aun∣swered, that the authoritie of the Archpriest, not stretching to any out of England, this clause [so farre as I can so farre distant] vsed in the same sentence where he rendred his dutie, did shew that he wrote it onely to make faire weather with father Parsons, and the sooner to get himselfe released of the imprisonment he indured.

But would our aduersaries indeed vnderstand the truth, how much or wherein our two brethren do either beare witnesse against vs, or condemne our standing off, to yeeld our obedience vntill the com∣ming of his Holinesse Breue? Let them reade M. Bishop his answere to

father Parsons Letter, and the censure vpon the same, both printed in the English booke, and written when they were not in hold, and then tell vs the particularities wherein they giue testimonie against vs, or find fault with our delay. In the meane, there are none but must see that all the testimonies which are brought against vs, proceeded from one head, & take their whole force from the Cardinals word, and not from his Graces word as auowing the particular faculties & iurisdicti∣on annexed to the Archpresbytership to be the command or appoint∣ment of his Holinesse, but from his Graces word onely that he recei∣ued a Commission to make peace in our Country, and that following the will of his Holinesse he decreed a subordination. We therefore be∣ing not bound to beleeue (specially to obey, as hath bene sufficiently proued before▪ the Cardinals word, himselfe writing and affirming it, we were lesse bound by al consequence to beleeue and obey the same related or witnessed vnto vs by others.

And here I thinke good to aduertise, touching the report I haue made of all the precedent testimonies, that I do not so a••••ow it, as that I engage my word, the report to be in euery iot one with the Letters themselues: for this were (the imperfection of mans memorie consi∣dered) to ground certaintie vpon vncertaintie, especially the time being long since I read most of the Letters, and neuer read them but once, nor could be admitted to copie them forth: whē also I feared no accident lesse, then that matters would fal out as now they do: or that we should euer haue had occasion to proue our selues no disobedient run-agates from the Church of Rome, or from the supreme Pastour thereof, who with semblable perill of life, and renunciation of world∣ly preferment, haue for many yeeres laboured to reduce other to the sheepfold, and due obedience of the same Church, and highest Pon∣tifex.

That which I haue said is the whole truth of my owne thoughts, and as much, and not otherwise then my memorie vpon best recalling of matter could suggest. If our aduersaries will haue the foresaid per∣sons to speake more for them, or in another tune against vs: let them produce their Letters, and out of them all, inforce the most they can against vs. The qualitie and maner of their dealing with vs hither∣to doth not put vs in hope, they will much spare vs: and we on the o∣therside, haue as little feare (truth and sinceritie encouraging) but that we shall be wel able to free our selues of as much, as all corners being sought, can be obiected in our rebuke. And certes the force of the

foresaid testimonies (if such farre off speeches from the point, vninten∣ded and accidentall, may be called testimonies which Pope Calixtus denieth) will appeare very weake, and be most easily auoided, if the ground they stand vpon be aduisedly pondered. For if any of all the parties, of whom our aduersaries claime testimonie should be de∣maunded (Cardinal Caietane excepted, who neither might fitly beare euidence in his owne cause) the reason why they so wrote, or what knowledge or certaintie they had of the thing they affirmed: would they, or could they truly, yeeld another reason for such their affir∣māce, thē that they heard it to be so by report, or that they had read the Letter Costitutiue? We beleeue verily no, & how cā we beleeue other∣wise, one liuing at the time of the grant of the Commissiō in Louaine, others in Bruxels, an other in Doway, an other we wote not where, all distant a thousand miles from Rome where the authority was granted, saue onely Cardinall Caietane and father Bellarmine, since made Car∣dinall.

And first, to heare a thing by report, is no good ground or sufficient warrantise, for any one thereupon to witnesse the same to be true. For the Ecclesiastical Canon hath Testes nō de alijs causis, vel negotijs dicant testimonium, nisi de his quae sub praesentia eorum acta esse noscuntur. Let not witnesses giue testimonie of other causes or matters, but of those which are knowne to be done in their presence. And Innocentius affir∣meth, that if one bearing witnesse of a thing, and being asked how he knew it to be so, as he witnesseth it to be: his testimonie is nothing worth, if the can render no surer cause of his testimonie, then that he heard it by report. Si dicit, ego scio quia sic omnes dicunt, non valet eius te∣stimonium, quia mal••m & insufficientem causam reddit sui testimonij. If the Testis say, I know it, because all men do so report, his testimonie is not good, because he assignes too weake or insufficient a cause or ground of the testimonie he beareth. And the same holy Father and Pope reputed the glorie of the Canonists, hath these wordes in the same place: Officium testis est propriè dicere veritatem de ijs quae percipit quinque sensibus corporis. It is properly the office of a witnesse, to tel the truth of those things, which he knoweth by one of the fiue senses of the bodie. Consonant to this is that also which Siluester writeth: Re∣quiritur quod testis testificetur de auditu proprio, scilicet quantum ad sonos, vel devisu quantum ad visibilia, & idem de alijs sensibus, non de alieno: quia non est propriè testimonium. It is required that a testis should beare witnesse of the things himselfe heard or saw, and so the same of other

senses, and not of things he taketh by report, because this kind of eui∣dēce is not properly a testimony. Neither do other authors new or old disagree in this position. Benintendus a Testis de auditu non solum non ple∣nè probat, sed etiam non facit praesumptionem sufficientem ad transferendum onus probandi in contrariū: A witnes speaking by hearesay doth not only not fully proue, but faileth to make so much as a sufficient presumption of inforcing the aduersarie to proue the contrarie. Again, & which cō∣meth a little nearer and more distinctly to our case, the same authour hath these words almost immediatly ensuing the other: b Testimonium de auditu & relatione alterius nullam facit probationem in negotio de re∣centi gesto. Testimonie giuen by heare-say and vpon report, maketh no presumption in a matter newly done. Speculum c Testimonium de auditu alieno, s••z. quod audiui dicit non valet. A witnes vpon hearesay is little worth. Panormitane d Testis interrogatus quo modo scit, debet dicere, quia vidi & audiui. A witnesse being asked how he knew the thing he testifieth, ought to be able to answer, because I saw it and heard it. For that as Barbatia recordeth e In vsu & auditu, fundatur testimonium. Te∣stimony touching mattet of fact, is founded vpon assurance of the eye and eare. The author comprising the verdict of the other three senses, vnder the noblenesse and generalitie of the eye and eare.

On the other side, if our aduersaries shall say, that the aboue named witnesses or any of them did reade the Constitutiue Letter, and there∣fore wrote as they did: we aske them what maner of ground this is, & wherein it differeth from the kind of testimonie that followeth? Iohn imagineth that Peter gaue him a boxe on the eare, and thereupon fra∣meth a bill of complaint against Peter: and when he had framed it, sheweth the same to sundry of his friends. After, the matter is brought to triall: Peter denieth the giuing of the blow, Iohn auerres it: the fact resteth to be proued by witnesses. Iohn in this meane while vnderstan∣deth, that those his friends to whom he shewed the bill, haue sithence addressed some Letters to certaine of their friends, and vttered some words concerning the contents and drift of the bill, and thereupon calleth them to witnesse, and bringeth their said Letters into the Court: and they comming to giue euidence, the Iudge asketh whe∣ther they were present, and did see when Peter gaue Iohn this blow: and they answer no. The Iudge demaundeth further▪ what then is it which they can say for testimonie of the fact. Marie quoth they, we did reade his bill of complaint before the sute was commenced, and thereupon wrote the Letters we did, thinking that Peter had giuen

Iohn the blow. Surely if such a peece of euidence and claime of testi∣mony, being one with that which is brought against vs, should come before the Iudges of the Kings Bench, or Iustices of Oyer and deter∣miner, they might perhaps sport themselues not a little at the folly. But the least cards must be all coat-cardes against vs.

For conclusion of our answer to this second obiection, and for a briefe recitall of that hath bene said before in this third reason, we be∣seech our impugners to consider vnprightly and seriously, as before God in the court of their owne vnderstanding: first, whether truth, reason, demonstratiue practise, and the voice of all lawes speake not more for vs then for them: nay whether they all do not combine and pleade wholly for vs, and altogether against them: namely that euery delegation must be proued by shewing of the Commission or authen∣ticke copie thereof, and not by witnesses, especially if the delegation or verball commission shall impart a many of particular iurisdictions, as this of his Holinesse did to the Cardinall with like number of facul∣ties. Then whether testimonies not founded vpon euidence of the eye or eare, but grounded onely vpon report or hearesay, are of any force, or make a presumption in law, in a matter lately done.

Thirdly, whether it be enough in law or conscience, when a dele∣gation or verbal commission is granted to one, deriuing many distinct and seuerall iurisdictions, each bringing their porper and increasing preiudice to others, whether it be enough we say to testifie the com∣mission in generall, and not for the witnesses to descend to the testify∣ing of the particular tenour of the commission. And if in all these three vnderstanding be conuinced by the euidence and proues aforegoing, then we instantly pray them for the loue of their owne soules, not to be ashamed to confesse the truth, and surceasse further contention, re∣membring what the holy Ghost writeth: Est confusio adducens peccatum, & est confusio adducens gratiam & gloriam: there is a confusion that bringeth sin, and there is a confusion that bringeth grace and glorie.

A Third reason that our impugners make against vs, and seeme in the force thereof to take no small contentment, is, that at our first comming ouer, we were, and are still beleeued to be Priests vp∣pon our word, without shewing our letters of orders, and that folke come to vs, without making question either of our Priesthood, or of our iurisdiction to heare confessions: and how then? our selues being in this sort beleeued vpon credit of our owne word, could we refuse

to beleeue our Cardinall Protector, vpon euidence of his Graces let∣ter, hand, and seale? Do we looke that others euen in that tribunall of loosing from sinne, should rely vpon, and trust our bare word, and vse vs without scruple in the court of their soule, and we in the sensible feeling and continuance of this supreme credence and fauour, so to forget our selues and our duty, as not to giue beleefe to the word of a Cardinall, of our Protector, of his Holinesse Counsellor in all matters incident to the gouernement of the Vniuersall Church? A fault that can no way be excused, and which cannot but condemne vs with as many as are wise. Well: let vs notwithstanding the peremptorinesse of the accusation, haue leaue to aunswere and cleare our selues as we can.

First we desire to know of what kind of fault did this our reproued demeanor condemne vs? Not of the crime which was first obiected. For to refuse to obey a Cardinall Protector his letter in matter of like preiudice, and in authority deriued by commission from his Holinesse without further proofe, then his Lordships owne letter for testimony thereof, hath no more affinitie with that crime, then white hath with blacke, or things that are lawfull with things vnlawfull. Of what o∣ther offence then, did our foresayd demeanor condemne vs? Forsooth of enormious disobedience. What, is the matter so certaine? Yea. Then against whom immediatly did we commit this enormious diso∣bedience, against his Holinesse, the Cardinall, or maister Blackwell? Not immediatly certes against his Holinesse, because there is no dis∣obedience, and much lesse that, which can be called enormious, a but consisteth in the breaking of a knowne precept: and we neither vn∣derstood at that time, nor did know before we read it in his Holinesse Breue, when we presently yeelded our obedience, that his Holinesse had giuen commaundement for such a subordination to be directed with like iurisdiction as is set downe in the Constitutiue Letter, ne did the Cardinall any where specifie or relate so much. So that we hauing no vnderstanding of such his Holinesse commandement, before the comming ouer of the Breue, and then submitting our obedience thereunto without any delay, how could our demeanor be imme∣diate and enormious disobedience against his Holinesse?

If our aduersaries will gainsay any of the premises, as we hope the euidence of the truth, nor their owne consciences will giue them leaue, it resteth (and it is our request vnto them) that they would tell vs, when, to whom, and in what forme his Holinesse gaue such a

commaundement, and that we had also vnderstanding thereof, whiles we detracted to obey the subordination. An issue, which we are sure all the world, nor the Angels of heauen can make true against vs, and which not verified, it remaineth vnpossible to proue that we were in the action of our bearing off, enormiously and immediatly disobedi∣ent against his Holinesse.

Not against the Cardinall as our Protectour, because we neither knew nor heard that his Lordship was by prerogatiue of autho∣rity, any otherwise a superiour to the Priestes in England, then as o∣ther Cardinall Protectors are ouer the Cleargy of the countries or Prouinces whereof they are chosen Protectors. Who neither practise nor claime, as all Christendom is witnes, any such iurisdiction ouer the Priests, as either to ordaine new superiorities amongst thē, or to haue the chusing of their prelate, or to increase the rules of their subiectiō, or any otherwise to alter the forme of their vsuall gouernement.

Not against the Cardinall as Delegate or Commissioner, because we were not bound either to beleeue or obey him in that place, before his Grace had shewed vs the rescript of the delegatiō, or otherwise au∣thentically proued his Holinesse commission vnto him, as hath bene abundantly declared before.

Not against the Cardinall as the distributer of faculties to Priestes in their commission for England, because the authority to institute an Archpriest with like iurisdiction as is specified in the Constitutiue Let∣ter, was not delegated in that commission, nor euer so claimed, nor yet to this day so interpreted.

Not against maister Blackwell and the twelue Assistants, because we being not obliged (as is said) to obey the Cardinal in regard of the none-proofe of the delegation or commission by word of mouth: we could not be bound to obey master Blackwell or the twelue Assistants, taking their whole authority from the Cardinall. Nemo in alium potest plus iuris transferre quàm ipse habet. No man can transferre more right to another then himselfe possesseth. And therefore being not bound as is proued before to obey the Cardinall in constituting the subordi∣nation, by reason his Grace had not first shewed or proued his com∣mission, we rested lesse bound to obey maister Blackwell & the twelue Assistants, because what was defectiue in his Grace the principall, or of no sufficient power to bind, must needes by all necessary sēquell, be as much if not more defectiue, and of lesse force to bind in the secon∣daries, or his Graces subdelegates.

Or if now our reprouers shall say that although our detracting to subiect our selues to the Cardinals order, were neither the crime they first tooke it to be, nor enormious disobedience, yet the same could not but make vs guilty of some other great offence. Of what by name? Surely of the like offence by coherence (the argument being brought à simili, of likenesse betweene matters) as those should commit, who should refuse to beleeue vs to be Priests vpon our word, and would not but vpon surer proofe, vse vs in that function.

Now then what kind of offence might this be? To heare Masse, is by the straight condition of our lawes, the forfeiture of an hundreth markes: to helpe a Priest at Masse, or to be confessed of him, is made an act of felony: to relieue, abet, harbour, or maintaine him, no lesse, What fault then not to beleeue such or such an one to be a Priest, or not to partake with him in Priestly functions, except he know him to be a Priest by other prooues, then vpon the bare reckord of his owne word? Verily the faulte is so little, as none of iudgement will take it, but for an act of prudence: and the contrary, for a faile of due con∣sideration, if not for a fact of too much aduenturousnesse or te∣meritie.

And our cōscience here prompteth that our fault-finders, as full of exceptions as they are against vs, ne haue, ne will, entertaine any one as Priest, and lesse subiect themselues in confession vnto him, of whom they shall haue no further surety what he is, a spie, or an honest man, then the parties bare affirmation of himselfe.

But we wot how our contradictors wil reply at last, when all other pretences be taken from them, to weete, that our distrust and prolon∣ging to obey the Cardinals order, was an iniurie to his Grace, and could not but derogate from the honour of his high estate. This is the most that we thinke can be obiected, and to this we answer. First, that it is a receiued proposition in the ciuill and common law, and reason conuinceth, that Non facit alicui iniuriam qui vtitur iure suo. He doth iniurie to no one, that vseth his owne right. We therefore v∣sing no more then our owne right in the aboue mentioned delay (and that kind of right too, which the Canons of holy Church, the vni∣forme consent of all writers, and the generall practise ouer all Chri∣stendome, doth absolutely affoord and assure vnto vs) can neuer ac∣knowledge, that our precedent demeanour, was, or could be possibly, any iniurie to his grace. For can contraries be both true, or one and the selfe action, be iust and vniust, right to one, and iniurious to ano∣ther?

Siluester declaring the Etymologie, or interpretation of the word [Iniuria] writeth: Iniuria, est quasi non iure. Iniurie, taketh her name of a defect of right. And the Philosopher opposeth iniurie, as a contrary to law or right. So that what is done lawfully, or by good right according to law, cannot without the abuse of the terme, be counted an iniurie.

Againe, the not yeelding of that to any man of what high degree soeuer, which the law of holy Church doth prohibite, or not graunt it should be yeelded vnto him, is neither iniurie nor the diminishing of reputation. And that our demurre to admit the new authority was of this quality, it is plaine by the authorities that haue bene alleaged, and will yet appeare more euident hereafter.

Saint Augustine writeth, and his words be registred in the Decrees, Peccat qui exigit vltra debitum. He sinneth who exacteth beyond his due. Which without peraduenture holdeth as well in points of soue∣raignty and command, as in matters of worldly substance, if not more, in respect that the abridgemēt of freedome is more irksome to man, then any meane losse of the goods he enioyeth. And therefore what∣soeuer our hard friends be pleased to deliuer abroad of his Graces in∣tention, yet we cannot thinke that he intended to exact that beliefe in vs, and obedience to the contents of his Letter Constitutiue, as vppon the sole view thereof (his honours iurisdiction being a delegatine po∣wer) we should incontinent captiuate our vnderstanding and bowe downe our neckes to the yoake, without asking for other proofe of the delegation and the tenour thereof, then the credence of his owne word alone.

Or if his Lordship had this meaning, as we shall not beleeue he had, to exact so vndue a tribute at our hands, yet that being more then our debt, and repugnant to the order in Gods Church, how could our prolonging or not taking his Graces word for full and sufficient war∣rantise of what he sayd, be either sinne in vs, or an iniurie to his ho∣nour, when the learned writ and the doctrine is receiued of all men. Quamui•• aliàs iniuria fiat ei cuius dicto credi deberet, si ab eo exigeretur scriptura: secus tamen esset in casibus requirentibus à iure scripturam. Although it should be otherwise an iniurie to exact of him the sight of his commission, whom it is meete to beleeue vpon his word: neuer∣thelesse it is not so in these cases, in which by the assignement of the law a letter or written testimony is required. And that the law not onely licenseth, but appointeth the proofe of a delegation to be made

by shewing the Delegators letters, the authorities before quoted do verie amply demonstrate▪ as also that commission giuen by word of mouth in matter of preiudice, ought and must be attestated otherwise then by the selfe and sole auowance of the commissioner, and likewise that beliefe in cases of great preiudice is not to be giuen to the word of a Cardinall.

But now let vs consider of the arguments, that our opponents make against vs. The Catholike laity of the Realme (say they) beleeue vs to be Priests vppon credite of our owne word, without shewing them our letters of orders: Ergo we were bound to beleeue our Car∣dinall Protector, affirming that he receiued a commaundement from his Holinesse, to erect a subordination. Againe, the layty beleeuing vs to be Priests vpon our word, resort in confession vnto vs without mouing question of our authority: Ergo we ought to haue subiected our obedience to his Graces order, & subordination appointed with∣out making stay, or demaund for any further proofe or confirmation thereof.

Good consequences: whether the antecedēts be true or no. What, must the fauour we receiue of the laity in not examining whether we be Priests or haue faculties or no, bring an obligation vpon vs to obey our Cardinall Protectour vpon testimony of his owne word a∣lone, and not onely in things of direct and greatest preiudice, but euen in things wherein the lawes of holy Church giue vs leaue not to o∣bey? Straunge, that the voluntarie fauour of the laity, and in a case too, wherein themselues receiue commodity, as they do by partaking with vs in the exercise of our Priestly functiōs, must be of consequence to bind vs to accept of, and endure the foresayd detriments. Surely such fauours are lesse worth then thankes, and such solide arguments or fond deductions, fitter to be vsed in a matter of sport, then for condemnation of Catholike Priests.

To beleeue one to be a Priest vppon the affirmance of his owne word, or because he saith so, is no matter of preiudice to the beleeuer, or to any third person: for neither is the beleeuer or any other brought thereby within compasse of an enforced superioritie, or of hauing their former liberty abridged▪ and penalties imposed at the arbitrarie disposition of their hard friends: but in our case, and supposed obli∣gation, it fareth much otherwise, because the preiudices that attend the Constitutiue Letter, are many, and of mightiest preiudice, as hath bene declared in the beginning of this reason. And therefore by the

rule of common wisedome, stronger and more assured proofe was both to be made and expected, for beleeuing the authority and all the particulars thereof, commaunding a present subiection, then for be∣leeuing Iohn Astile to be a Priest, so long as none are bound, but all left whol••y to their owne choise, either to heare his Masse, or receiue Sacraments, or enter acquaintance with him.

Moreouer the law of humane curtesie inuiteth to beleeue the word of another in auowances of no preiudice, the like as this is: to beleeue Iohn Astile to be a Ptiest so long as there is no band to partake with him in any spirituall or indomageable action; but neither mans law, or Gods law, celestiall or worldly wisedome, doth prescribe that we should beleeue another vpon warrantise of his only word in matters, that after, will we nill we, bring with them store of preiudice, and a constrained bond of obedience, which euermore and with all per∣sons, is reckned for most irksome. But on the other side, it cannot be shewed any where certaine, neither is there any such custome in the Church of God, as that the laity are left free at their owne choise, whether to beleeue or not to beleeue a Priest to be Priest, vnlesse he first shew them his letters of orders, this being an a exaction which only belongeth to Bishops and such Curates to make▪ as shall admit vnknowne Priests to say Masse or minister Sacraments in their Dioces or iurisdiction.

Or let vs graunt to our aduersaries, that the lay Catholikes of our Realme haue Pastorall or Episcopall authority to call vs to proue our ordination. What may they do? No more certes by the Canons of holy Church, then to examine and call such to this reckning as are b Vagi & ignoti c de quorum ordinatione non constat, wandering and vn∣knowne Priests of whose ordination there is no certainty. Lyndwood commenting vpon our countrey constitutions▪ hath these words: d vir bene not us & bonaefamae, qui vbi conuersatus est, longo tempore habitus est pro ordinato, non cogitur nec per literas nec per testes probare ordinatio∣nem suam. A man well knowne and of good fame, who in the place where he liued was a long time counted a Priest, is not to be constrai∣ned to proue his ordination either by letters or witnesses. And Pope Innocentius the third, resoluing the doubts which the patriarch of Ie∣rusalem moued vnto him touching such as came into his Dioces with∣out their Dimissories or testimoniall l••tters, writeth: e Nisi legitimè tibi constiterit siue per literas, siue per testes (f siue per idonea argumenta) de il∣lorum ordinatione canonica, qui penitus sunt ignoti, non debes ipsos permit∣tere

in tuis plebibus celebrare. Vnlesse thou dost assuredly vnderstand either by letters or witnesses, or by sufficient arguments their Cano∣nicall ordination who are vtterly vnknowne, thou oughtest not to permit them to celebrate before thy Diocesians.

Now how can it be conceiued, that we are wandering persons vt∣terly vnknowne, or that our initiation or receiuing of Priesthood ap∣peared neither by letters, witnesses, or other able arguments, being trained vp as we were in a knowne Seminarie, and taking holy orders by the appointment of the superiour, the whole house likewise wit∣nesses thereof, and many of our fellowes here in England ready from the eye to attestate the same, the frequent correspondence also be∣tweene the chiefe of the Seminaries and others in our countrey, and almost a weekely entercourse of persons too and fro, with many o∣ther pregnant and most forcible presumptions: we aske how it can be conceiued, notwithstanding the counterpleading of all these contra∣rie apparances, that we be persons vtterly vnknowne, and by sequell such as may be suspected whether we be true Priests, or but disguisers and miscreants? If our iudgement shall be taken in our owne case, we thinke there is little reason for any man to call our Priesthoods in doubt, were our owne words of no credit, and consequently the a∣uauncing of the fauour we receiue in being beleeued to be Priests v∣pon our owne relation without sight of our letters of orders, to be but an idle florish, and as weake an argument, as what is weakest to proue that we were bound to obey what our Cardinall Protector ordeined, without making question of his Graces authority, or looking for fur∣ther proofe then the testimony of his owne word for warrantise ther∣of; but such truthes must haue like proues.

To end all in few words, we aske our aduersaries what is our dutie to do if the laity shall refuse to beleeue one, two, or moe of vs to be Priestes, and will not haue communion in diuine Seruice and Sacra∣ments with vs as with Priestes, vntill we shew them our Letters of or∣ders, or shall otherwise according to law proue our selues to be men of that calling? Will they out of their wisedome, and charitie giue vs other counsell, then to haue patience in the interim, and to procure with most conuenient speede satisfaction and legall testimony to their doubts and exceptions? No truly: well, then we not holding our selues bound to admit the subordination vpon credence of the Car∣dinals word, vntill such time as his Grace had either shewed the re∣script of the delegation, or proued his verball commission, or obtai∣ned

from his Holinesse a confirmation of the authoritie erected, what was the part of our Archpriest, the societie, & their adherents to do in this point? not as ours was in the former, to patient our bearing off, and procure so soone as they could one of the foresaid proues for our due satisfaction, either a sight of the Commission it selfe, or an authentical proofe thereof, or else some Papall instrument for testimonie of that which his Grace had brought into our Church and imposed vpon vs. It cannot be denied the cases being alike, or rather our case infinitely more demaunding that right of iustice.

And if this had bene their dutie, as the lots changed, it would soone haue bene proclaimed, then what thankes did we deserue in sa∣uing them that labour and charges, and vndertaking to our great cost, the discharge of that businesse for them? We desire not to be our owne iudges, neuerthelesse can we thinke but that our paines therein craued a gentler recompence at their hands, then to imprison those that were sent about the businesse, and not only to imprison them (a thing neuer heard of as we thinke since S. Peter sate first in the Chaire, the nature of the affaire considered) but to raise most fabulous and sinfull reports of them, and dub both them, & vs, with the surnames of all impietie, as of faction, emulation, ambition, scandall, rebellion, highest sacriledge, disallegiance to the Sea Apostolicke, renegacie from the spouse of Christ, and of what not, implying turpitude in this kind? A strange requitall, and so strange, as inhumanitie it selfe could hardly deale lesse charitably, or more vnconscionably with vs, had we bene Iewes or Turkes, and the onely drosse of either nation: but our Lord Iesus giue vs euer his grace to possesse our soules in patience, and incline our di∣sturbers to reuerse at length their most vncharitable slanders, the cause and continuing occasion of all the scandalous broile among vs, past, present, and to come.

We haue bene the longer in refuting this weake and vngrounded reason, because not onely the vulgar, but father Holthy in his discourse of the 30. of Iune, 1601. and diuerse other both of the Laitie and Cleargie, Secular and Religious, haue it most frequently in their mouths, and enforce the obiection as a most mightie and choking ar∣gument to conuince what they most ignominiously burden vs withal.

A Fourth reason that our oppositours bring for proofe and main∣tenance of the crimes they impute vnto vs, is, the fewnesse of our number, being as father a Holthy writeth, but twelue or thirteene in

all, or as b other make the account but ten: and c after father Parsons manner of numbring vs, much fewer then ten.

First let vs admit that these men write a truth, as how farre their wordes swarue from all truth, it commeth after to be examined, yet we are to demaund of them and the rest of our impugners (who think the fewnes of our number, matter & euidence cleere enough to con∣demne vs by) whether the cause we stand in be naught in that we are but fiue, ten, or twelue which defend it. If they say yea, as they must, or else bewray their own reason: then must it follow by force of the same reason▪ that the cause of S. Thomas of Canterbury in defence whereof d no one Bishop adhered vnto him in the whole Realme, nay, all sub∣scribed to the Articles he stood against, was treasonable, rebellious, or vnlawfull: then the cause that Bishop Fisher died for, and the causes that infinite other of great Holinesse maintained, hauing fewer and in∣comparably fewer of the cleargie vnited to them in open defence of the same▪ then are now, or were at first of our companie, were likewise either treasonable, or rebellious, or vnlawfull: which we are sure our aduersaries will not say, and yet they cannot but say it, if they stand to the triall of the reason they make against it, or shall not acknowledge the vnsoundnesse or inualiditie thereof.

For further satifaction in this point, we refer our aduersaries to the dayly iudgement, which experience maketh the surest confutation of all other; whether the small number of open defendants (especially when the sword of authoritie is drawne against the matter or action defended, as it is in our case) be a sufficient warrantie in conscience, for any one of vnderstanding to infer that the cause they stand in, is wic∣ked or vngodly, or not meete for men of quiet natures, or Priests to be seen in. Verily the question is so cleare and demonstrated by dayly ex∣perience, as he that should make doubt hereof, might not amisse seem to haue liued out of the world, nothing being more frequent in the world, then for truth to find fewest defenders, when authoritie, hu∣mane fauour, and temporall gaine be her impugners.

But to vnderprop this weake reason, founded vpon our small num∣ber, father Holthy fortifieth and gildeth the matter in this wise. It is well inough knowne (saith he) that those who receiued the authoritie, farre exceeded the other, who deferred their obedience, not onely in number, being twentie for one, but in all things else, setting their presumptuous minds and busie heads ••side. And, it is too too cleare, that the refusall came not either of ignorance or infirmitie, but of plaine malice, of an obstinate will not to obey,

and from a proud presumptuous mind and seditious spirite. Also, it is ma∣nifest that some of the best among them, were euer noted for busie and sedi∣tious spirites, yea no one of their chiefest almost, but he was noted with some particular fault or exception: but among their brethren (who embraced their authoritie) there were many which liued without touch of discredite, and euery way better qualified then any of them. Thus much father Holt∣by. And father Parsons in the Apologie striketh this key oft, as the mu∣sicke perhaps that best contenteth his eare: yet because the vntruthes in that booke be innumerable, and because another intendeth to display them in part, we meane not here to insert any of his course reports, but will returne to father Holtby, and demaund of him the reason, why, if the ill habites and sinnes he vpbraideth vs with be no∣torious, he did not name the persons he meant, but vseth the de∣prauing wordes in such generall manner, as the Reader is left (a condemned e kind of detraction) to apply them to whom, and to so manie as he listeth of our companie. Or if the wicked qualities and enormities he obiecteth, be not commonly knowne to raigne in vs, why did the religious father (he and his complices being the f assai∣lers, and we the partie assailed, a materiall difference and which putteth great oddes in the case touching the lawfulnesse or vn∣lawfulnesse of reuealing secret sinnes) thus inordinately publish and blaze our dishonours to the world, in addressing the discourse to one, but communicating the same to many ere it came to that one bodies view.

We expect his answere, and how he will cleare himselfe of both, either being a foule transgression: and in the meane do hold this posi∣tion, that truth out of what mouth soeuet it commeth, ought to be g preferred and not impugned. A lesson of Christian doctrine and which our Sauiour in his owne fact did not let to manifest in commen∣ding the censure of h the Pharisie with a recte iudicasti, thou hast iudged aright, albeit he perfectly knew him to be most enuious and arrogant. So that how exorbitant soeuer our naturall inclination and qualities be, and with what particular faultes or exceptions neuer so greatly distaining, the chiefest of our company go marked, yet if we maintaine a truth, the maintenance is not to be calumniated, either in that we are but few, or because we are (admitting the relgious mans slaunders) busie headed, proud, and presumptuously minded, seditiously spirited, and wel knowne to be euer noted with particular faultes or exceptions. In which treatise also, the same discrupulous father forbeareth not to condemne

vs, for not yeelding our obedience at first before notice of his Holi∣nesse Breue, of (to vse is owne words) a most grieuous and damnable, most enormious, notorious, publike and hainous sinne, breeding open scandall, and making vs infamous for rebellion comming from plaine malice, and con∣uincing vs to haue a seditious and most presumptuous spirite, &c.

Touching the lesser faultes or ill properties imputed, we answere no more, but that we know now who can first throw the stone at vs: for it were indecent, or a point of hypocrisie, to twite other with particu∣lar faults, except he himself were free. And concerning the criminous, we are to put him and his Superiour in mind, that there is i satisfacti∣on due vnto vs, and we demaund it, vnlesse he shall proue (to which we challenge him) both that we were culpable in the manner he spe∣cifieth, and that the offences were notoriously knowne.

Now for the comparison, we are very sure that not all nor the most part in our Realme, do thinke that M. Doctor Bagshaw, M. Doctor Bi∣shop, M. Bluet, M. Mush, M. Taylor, so much inferiour as father Holtby maketh them to any of the elder Priests that are of the contrarie side: nor yet M. Doctour Norres, M Champney, M. Bennet, M. Drurie, se∣cond by so great oddes to any of the yonger sort in any one quality or talent soeuer: nay rather if the matter were to passe by verdite of most voices, it is certaine that father Holtby would be found partiall, if not detractious in the comparison.

And concerning the report that he and others make, and seeme to glory much therein, that we were but ten or 12. at most, who stood off, to admit the authoritie, we say no more but that fath▪ Parsons (through whose irreligious dealing our two brethren were spoiled of their notes and schedules they carried, and which he sent afterwards into England or the most part of them) can witnesse that there were thrice ten within one who gaue their names: whereof some also wrote that there were many moe of their brethren, which disliked the forme of the gouernement appointed, or rather that they were but few, which were willing to receiue it, if they might any way chuse. And indeede what one commoditie spirituall or temporall, either to Priest or lay person did the authority bring with it, to inuite any one of iudgement to like thereof: vnlesse apparant preiudices, slaunder, that the secular Priests and Laitie were at great variance, and the mightie increase of our miseries or new seruitudes must be counted commodities?

But howsoeuer our aduersaries do please themselues in our small number, yet there are few in our Realme of any acquaintance with

Priests, but know there be mo then ten inwardly for vs, for one against vs. We wish from our hearts that euery Priest would shew himselfe outwardly, as he is affected in his thoughts, and then we should little doubt but that our small number (so great a beame of the eye of our cause) would quickly waxe the greater part, and the reckning that our aduersaries make of twentie for one, to be on their side against vs, would farre fall out to be truer in the count for vs.

A Fifth obiection which our oppositours make against vs, is the grieuous condemnation that publickely passed vppon vs at Rome, by sentence of the two Cardinals, Caietane and Burghesio, and by the contents of the Breue and his Holinesse iudgement. The auow∣ances of our Archpriest in his decrees of the 29. of May, 1600. & of the 18. of October following, and in his Dimissories to me, and refutories to all the other Appellants of the 20. of December.

His wordes in the former decree are these. Whereas after the con∣demnation at Rome of the two Embassadours (he meaneth Maister Do∣ctour Bishop and Maister Charnoke) together with all their complices here, and also the Popes Breue confirming the Cardinals Letters, as, Validas ab initio, (that is of force from the beginning) and vtterly condemning and inualiditing all things done to the contrarie.

His wordes in the latter decree, these: Vt omnes occasio in posterum tollatur, vel minimae litis de hac praeterita controuersia commouendae: quoni∣am ex literis nostrae institutionis datis Romae die 7. Martij 1598. potestas nobis concessa est, de dubijs ac controuersis inter nos exorientibus determi∣nandi, eae{que} literae à S^mo D. N. die 6. Aprilis 1599. confirmatae sunt; om∣nia{que} & singula illis literis contenta de expresso mandato & ordine, & cum participatione & certa scientia sua facta & ordinata fuisse declarante, adeo vt suum plenarium effectum sortiri & plenissimam roberis firmitatem ob∣tinere debeant: atque irritum & mane sit quicquid secus per quoscun{que} com∣missarios aut iudices attentari scienter, vel ignoranter contigerit: propterea nos ex authoritrte hac nobis à S^mo D. N. commissa pronuntiamus & decla∣ramus primas illas literas institutionis nostrae omnes Catholicos in Anglia verè obligasse: eos{que} quinostrae authoritati scienter quouis modo repugna∣runt, verè inobedientes fuisse sedi Apostolicae, & in nostrum officium per eandem sedem institutum rebelles.

The English.

That al occasiō hereafter may be takē away euē of mouing the least strife of this controuersie past, because by the Letters of our institution

giuen at Rome the 7. of March 1498. authority is graunted vnto vs to determine the doubts and controuersies that rise betweene vs: and these letters were confirmed by his Holinesse the sixth of Aprill 1599. and declaring all and singular the things contained in these letters to haue bene done and ordained, by his expresse commaundement and order, and with his participation and certaine knowledge, in so much as they ought to haue their fullest effect, and obtaine greatest firme∣nesse: and that it be voide and of no validity whatsoeuer shall happen otherwise to be assaied wittingly or ignorantly by what Commissio∣ners or Iudges soeuer. Therefore we by this authority committed vn∣to vs by his Holinesse, do pronounce and declare these first letters of our institution really to haue bound all the Catholikes in England, and those who wittingly any maner of way impugned our authoritie, to haue bene truly disobedient to the Sea Apostolicke, and rebellious against our office instituted by the same Sea.

The words he vseth in the dimissorie and refutory letters, are these: Manifestum est quod ipsorum progressus etiam ante Breue Apostolicum in grauem condemnationem Romae duorum Ill^morum Cardinalium, & etiam suae S^tis iudicio prolapsi fuerint. It is manifest that their proceedings (he meaneth our delay and sending to Rome) euen before the comming of the Apostolicall Breue were sharply condemned at Rome by the sentence of two most illustrious Cardinals, and also by the iudgement of his Holinesse.

Were not our deseruings very ill if these things be true? Or being vntrue, was not our superiour forgetfull in reporting after this ma∣ner, that is: vntruly of the Cardinals, vniustly of his Holinesse, and most wrongfully against vs his subiects and brethren? None can de∣ny it. Let vs then examine the matter, and see whether the reports be true or no. And here first we protest that we cannot coniecture the reason why his Reuerence calleth maister Doctor Bishop, and maister Charnocke, two Embassadours (by which name they are also stiled in the Appendix) considering they were imprisoned before they were heard, and after exiled a part and confined in their exile, a kind of in∣treaty which was neuer vsed by that Sea towards any Embassadours if towards any other person. To thinke our Superiour vsed the word as a mocke, placing it as he did in a publike Decree, seemeth so much or infinitely to derogate from the grauity requisite, as we cannot well admit the thought, albeit we know not what other meaning he could haue.

But to let this passe and come to what is more materiall.

After the condēnation at Rome of the two Emb••ssadors together with all their complices here] we are verie sure that our greatest aduersaries themselues will not say that there passed any other condemnation v∣pon our two brethren at Rome or elsewhere, saue that sentence only which the two Cardinals Caietane and Burghesio gaue in writing vn∣der their names, and in this there is no mention made of their com∣plices, nor any word in the whole sentence that can in the least ma∣ner sound that way. And to the end we be not our owne iudges, but that other may see the truth as well as our selues, the sentence is ver∣batim set downe, and after translated into English.

R^do in Christo P. Rectori vel Vicere∣ctori Collegij Anglorum de vrbe. Decretum Ill^orum Cardinalium Caietani & Burghesij de causa Gul. Bishopi, & Rob. Charnochi.

REuerende in Christo pater vti frater. Cum audita his d••ebus atque examinata duorum sacerd••tum Anglorum causa nobis à S^mo commissa Guli. mmirum Bishopi & Rob. Charnochi, qui sanctitatis suae iussu per menses aliquot in isto Collegio detenti fuerunt, visum nobis fuisset nullo modo causae Anglicanae expedire, vt dicti presbyteri statim ad eas partes reuertantur, vbi controuersias cum alijs sui ordinis hominibus exercuerunt, idipsum modo, re cum S^m• collata, eius{que} desuper voluntate iterum explorata, decernendum atque statuendum duxi∣mus. Qu••propter praefatis Guli. & Rober, sacerdotibus S^•• suae nostróque nomine ordinamus, ac in virtute sanctae obedientiae sub paena suspensionis à diuinis ipso facto incurrendae alijs{que} censuris paenis{que} S^m• D. N. iudicio i••fli∣gendis strictè praecipimus, vt nisi de expressa S^•• suae aut Ill^•• Cardinalis Protectoris licentia, Angliae, Scotiae, vel Hiberniae reg••a pro tempore adire non presumant, sed apud alias Regiones Catholicas quibus à nobis praescrip∣tum eis suit, quietè, pacificè, ac religiosè viuent, curent{que} tam literis, quam nuncijs, alijs{que} modis omnibus quibus possunt, pax vnio{que} inter Catholicos

Anglicanos tam domi quam foris conseruetur. Quae si ipsi verè ac rebus ip∣sis praestiterint, citius deinde licentia reuertendi restitui eis poterit. Haec ve∣ro interim legitimè ab eis obseruari fidelitèr{que} executioni mandari praecipi∣mus, ho••{que} nostro nomine R^tia V^a eis significet. Datum Romae ex adibu•• nostris die 21. Aprilis 159••.

R^a V^ae Vti frater H. C^lis Caietanus Protector.

Vti frater C. Car^lis Burghesius.

The English.

To the reuerend in Christ, Father Rector or Vicerector of the Colledge of the English in the Citie. The Decree or definitiue sentence of the most Illustrious Cardinals Caietaine and Burghesio in the cause of William Bishop and Robert Charnocke.

REuerend father in Christ as our brother. Whereas of late by commission from his Holinesse we haue heard and examined the cause of two English Priests, to wit William Bishop and Robert Charnocke, which haue bene for the space of some moneths detained in this Colledge, it appeared vnto vs to be in no case expe∣dient for the English cause, that the sayd Priests should immediatly returne to those partes, where they haue bene at variance with other men of their order; and now hauing conferred the matter wi••h his Holinesse, and being againe certaine of his pleasure therein, we thinke meete to decree and appoint the very same. Wherefore we ordaine in his Holinesse and our owne name, and do strictly commaund the foresayd Priests William and Robert in vertue of holy obedi∣ence, and vnder paine of suspention from diuine offices, to be in∣curred in the fact it selfe, and vnder other censures and penalties to be inflicted at the appointment of our holy father, that without the ex∣presse leaue of his Holinesse, or the most Illustrious Cardinall Pro∣tectour, they do not for the time presume to go to the kingdomes of

England, Scotland, or Ireland, but liue quietly, peaceably, and religi∣ously in other Catholike countries, where we haue assigned them: and endeuour as well by letters, as by messengers, & by all other meanes, that peace and vnion be conserued among the English Catholikes at home and abroad. Which things if they truly and really performe, their licence to returne may the sooner after be graunted vnto them. But in the mean while we command these things to be rightfully ob∣serued & faithfully executed, & that your Reuerence signifie thus much vnto them in our name. Giuen at Rome from our Pallaces the 21. of A∣prill 1599.

Your Reuerences

as brother, H. Cardinall Cai••tane Protector, as brother C. Cardinall Burghesio.

NOw let him whosoeuer would soonest find a hole in our coate, teach vs in what part of the sentence we their complices here are mentioned, or point vs to that word in the whole Decree, which can any way iustly or colourably be stretched to such a meaning or impli∣cation. And if neither of these can be shewed, as most sure it is they cannot, how can we with any regard of truth, or moderation of speech be sayd to be condemned?

Againe delegatine Iudges of what estate soeuer they be, receiuing authority by Commission from their superiour, to heare and deter∣mine the cause of s••ch and such persons by name (as did the two Car∣dinals from his Holinesse, as their sentence it selfe beareth witnesse) cannot extend their censures & condemnation to any of the sayd per∣sons complices, not expressed in the Cōmissiō, how guilty soeuer they know them to be. The reason is, because they haue no authority nor iurisdiction ouer them, as the first, fourth and fifth Proposition teach in the second Reason, and may be further declared by this similitude of the cases. The Q••eenes Maiestie giueth a Commission to two of her priuie Counsellors to arraigne Iohn Astile and Iohn Anoke for trea∣son cōmitted: Now we aske whether these priuie Counsellors, may by vertue of this limited and particular cōmission proceed vpon and con∣demne such cōplices of the said traitors as their honors by sifting mat∣ters may find to haue had their finger in the treason, without any per∣sonall triall or summōs of thē; for thus also it fared in our case. We as∣sure our selues that none will say they can, and those that are studied in the lawes do knew they cannot; and that the lawes of our country

(reasons voice) haue prouided punishments condigne for so exorbi∣tant a presumption.

Furthermore howsoeuer the condemnation giuen by the Cardi∣nals vpon our two brethren, may be lengthned to reach vnto vs, yet the punishment imposed (a correlatiue in a kind to the condemna∣tion, and which cannot but concerne all those on whom the condem∣nation passed) ne did nor could possibly any way agree, or so much as point to their complices here. For this being, that those on whom the condemnation was giuen should not presume to go into the kingdomes of England. Scotland or Ireland without expresse leaue of his Holinesse or the Lord Protector, it could in no congruencie in the world appertaine to vs who were in England long before, and at the same time euen to the knowledge of the Cardinals themselues, when their Graces deliue∣red the sentence, if both their Graces did expressely set downe such a sentence (as the speeches and cariage of Cardinall Burghesio to M. Charnocke seeme in a sort to admit a doubt, least the inditing ther∣of were the left-hand worke of father Parsons, as the words [in isto Collegio detenti detained in this Colledge] contained in the sentence, and the sentence being dated from their Pallaces, yeeld no impro∣bable conceit, together with other grounds touched in the censure vpon father Parsons letter to M. Bishop.

Moreouer, if condemnation passed vpon vs at Rome, as complices of our two brethren, then doth it necessarily follow, that we were their complices in the crime they were condemned for. And what crime was that? for maintaining controuersies as the sentence expresseth, with other men of their order. Well, but what kind of controuersie did they maintaine? and with what men by name? and how came our partaking with them so notorious, as that we might rightfully be con∣dēned (for what was not rightfully done, can neuer be but iniuriously obiected) without summons or relation from vs, what we could say for our selues? The sentence doth neither specifie what were the con∣trouersies, nor name the men, with whom they maintained them. Wherefore it were well, and but the due tribute of charitie (conside∣ring the infamie that groweth vnto vs by so publike an affirmance of our condemnation at Rome) that declaration were made both what the controuersies were in particular. & the names of the persons with whom they were maintained, and also our notorious participation in the same that so our countrey might be informed of the particular: and our selues ••ake notice of the offence we committed, which with∣out

such helpe, we cannot hitherto call to mind.

To say that the controuersies, and the persons with whom they were maintained, was the delay which our two brethren & our selues made in admitting the new authoritie after sight of the Cardinal Pro∣tector his Letter: and in their going to Rome by our perswasion, for more certaine knowledge of the subordination, and how fully it was established, and for informing his Holinesse, aswell of the inconueni∣ences thereof, as of the needs that abound in our country, were, as we thinke, to charge the two Cardinals with ignorance or error, or both. For if this were the controuersie, and the Archpriest the partie with whom it was maintained (as if not, the whole world cānot proue vs to be their complices in any other cōtrouersie) then we must ask this que∣stion: whether M. Blackwell was at that time, when we delayed to sub∣iect our selues vnto him so authorized our Archpriest, as we were bound vnder sin or other bond to admit him before the comming of his Holines. Breue If he were not, as the foregoings shew he was not, and the ensuings God willing shall proue that we could not admit him without transgressing the lawes of holy Church, then the non∣admittance of him was not to maintaine controuersies, but to defend, we say not our freedome (though if it had bene so, the endeuour had beene most lawfull and honest) but to defend trueth, to shunne penalties, and for conseruing order and the Hierar∣chie of Gods Church inuiolated. Actions which no way approach to that degree of deformitie, as to deserue exile and also confinement in exile, and in Catholicke Priestes, that had many yeares ventered their liues in Christ his cause, and the banishment and confining therein to be inflicted vpon them by personages of Ecclesiasticall preeminence.

If on the other side, M. Blackwell was so fully and absolutely con∣stituted our Archpriest, as we could not without sinne protract the submission of our obedience vnto him: then must we craue pardon to thinke that the two Cardinals mistooke in their sentence, quid pro quo, one kind of sinne for another, the lesse for the greater. For the only and sole cause which their honors alleage in the sentence of banishing and confining our two brethren, was for that they had maintained controuer∣sies with men of their owne order.

So that if the bearing off to receiue M. Blackwel in the authority he claimed, were indeed the maintaining of the cōtrouersies which their graces meant in their sentēce (as needs it must be if M. Blackwel wrote

a truth in affirming vs to be condemned at Rome as their complices, we being at no time their complices in any other controuersie) then as we haue said, their Graces mistooke the lesse sinne for the greater, controuersie for disobedience, or truer for rebellion: a rebellion being when one will not obey, or shall impeach the iurisdiction of his Supe∣riour: or for a far greater sinne, if all be true which hath bene obiected against vs. Neither were their honours, as it seemeth, only mistaken, or spoke improperly in this, but also in another point of like moment, viz. in that M. Blackwell being lawfull Superiour to our two brethren (as it is supposed) and in manie respects of more then Episcopall iu∣risdiction ouer them, neuerthelesse their Graces did not otherwise name or more particularly stile M. Blackwell, then by comprising him vnder the general terme of other me of their own order, for so runne the wordes in the sentence, as the Reader may see: nor is there any other cause at all alleaged why they were banished & confined, but for that they had maintained controuersies with other men of their owne order, and therefore not expedient to the English cause that they should anon returne to those parts where they had so demeaned themselues.

Errours of that nature, as it were hard to thinke their graces would commit, considering their long practise and place, but chiefly in res∣pect of the vnusuall and grieuous punishment imposed, and for that by this generall or improper speech, neither the punished were let to vnderstand the nature of their offence (a default in iustice) nor satis∣faction giuen to the world, why so heauy chastisement was taken of Priests comming so farre off to the Sea of Rome.

Considerations which force vs to thinke, that their Graces meant not by the said words of the decree, the controuersie which our two brethren had with the Archpriest, in not admitting his authoritie vp∣on sight of the Constitutiue Letter, but the maintaining of some other controuersie, albeit we wote not, nor can gesse what controuersie that should be, or with whom.

Againe the wordes of the decree are for maintaining controuersies with other men of their owne order. Which being spoken in the plurall number, and none can say that either of our two brethren maintai∣ned controuersies, or had so much as vnfriendly speech with any one Priest (M. Blackwell excepted) in reproofe or dislike of his admitting the subordination. Which conuinceth except the sentence were erro∣niously giue, that their Graces could not not vnderstand by maintai∣ning controuersies with other men of their owne order, the difference be∣tweene

the Archpriest and them concerning the receiuing or not re∣ceiuing of the Subordination.

And to shew the aduantages that commonly concurre with all truth, and do abound in this, we will grant to our aduersaries that the Cardinals vnderstood no other controuersie in their sentence, then that which our two brethren had with our Archpriest about the sub∣ordination, and wherein we were their complices, and that also the punishment inflicted, was such as it might aswell appertaine to vs as to them (as how meerely impossible it was so to do, it hath bene decla∣red before) yet what sequence can be inferred either in equitie (which is iustice tempered with the sweetnesse of mercie, and euermore cha∣lengeth her due place in iudgements giuen by such personages be∣cause iustice without mercie is crueltie, as S. Chrysostome writeth) or in rigour, extending all things to the highest seueritie that can be? Must the condemnation that passed vpon our two brethren be stretched, & needes inuolue vs their complices, neither summoned to the triall, nor named in the sentence, nor specified in his Holinesse Commission to the Cardinals, or we otherwise vnder like authoritie or iurisdiction of their graces? Certes both reason, learning common sense, and the custome of all Nations, Heathen and Christian do counterpleade: nor all ages, as we thinke, can yeeld one president from the beginning of the world to this present day, where and against whom any iuridicall condemnation (as that is maintained to be which passed against our two brethren) hath bene in like sort extended, were the persons to whom it was extended of neuer so base calling, and the fact they com∣mitted neuer so notorious and execrable. Circumstances or materiall points which greatly alter our case: for Popes, Councels generall and prouinciall, and famous Emperours haue decreed sundrie priuiledges for the more iust and respectfull proceedings against men of our fun∣ction. Yea the holy Apostle for the more reuerence of Priesthood, o∣mitted not to giue direction likewise in this affaire, and the fact also wherein our two brethren were condemned not the most hainous e∣uen by that species or kind of the offence, to which the Cardinals themselues raunged, and intituled it by: viz. the maintaining of contro∣uersies with other men of their owne order.

It is a receiued Proposition among the Canonists, and alleaged by Pope Innocentius the third, and Pope Gregorie the ninth that a Regula∣riter alijs non nocet res inter alios iudicata. Regularly a matter past in iudgement betweene others, hurteth none but the parties themselues

against whom the iudgement was giuen. Which saying howsoeuer it may be vnderstood and limited (as it beareth b seuerall exceptions, and hardly can our case though racked neuer so hardly, be brought vnder any of them all) yet it is most certaine that the preiudice it can bring to their complices or fellowes in the action, is but c a presumption, or at the worst hand, according to the opinion euen of those that are most large in the matter, but d a halfe proofe.

And al learning teacheth (iudgement requiring a certitude) that not e a presumption only or half proofe, but a ful proofe, that is an euident, cleere, & open proofe, ought to go before condemnation in matter of crime, such as the edict auoweth & diuulgeth vs to be condemned of.

Or if there were no authoritie or verdict of generall practise to proue that a iudgement passing vpon certaine persons by name, he doth nor can extend it selfe to the inuoluing of their complices, yet the drift of common reason and the auoiding of seueral inconuenien∣ces ensuing thereupon, would conuince no lesse. For such a conse∣quence and order of iustice, once in vre and admitted, none that had fellowes in any action (how iust and honorable soeuer the same were) could assure themselues not to be condemned therein, or not feare probably to be condemned, in regard the aduerse part might single out one or mo of the companie (to which attempt such ministring of iustice would be a good allurement) and call them to triall who either by errour, negligence, or ill pleading, or by vnderhand packing or cousinage, might leese or betray the cause: and then the iudgement giuen vpon them▪ must by this new forme of iustice inuolue and con∣demne all the rest of the partizans or complices, neither cited to ap∣peare, nor weeting to the trial, or yet named in the condemnation. An enlargement and subintellection which the f lawes of holy Church forbid, and which going once for iustice, would soone occasion a thousand trecheries, and put out of ioynt all the common weales in the world. Which we do not say to insinuate a fault in our brethren, but to shew the non scquitur or discoherence of the inference, that be∣cause forsooth our brethren were condemned, (vpon what vnconsci∣onable information father Parsons better knowes) therefore we being their complices were also condemned, notwithstanding we were nei∣ther summoned, nor priuie to the trial, nor named at all in the sentence, nor specified in the Iudges Commission.

Panormitane the choisest expositour of the law, giueth seuerall ex∣amples

wherein the sentence giuen against one offender, doth not dilate it selfe and damnifie the complice or concurrent in the same fault, as namely g one being condemned for producing false witnesses, it followeth not thereupon that the witnesses were false. Likewise h a notarie condemned of making a false instrument, doth not inferre the condemnation of the partie through whose solicitation he did it. Againe, i two brothers by father and mother, marrying with two si∣sters of like sort, within the degrees of consanguinitie, the condemna∣tion of the one brother, doth not extend it selfe to the condemnation of the other brother, nor indomageth his cause or plea. In briefe, the condemnation k of the Adulterer, implies not the condemnation of his fellow the adulteresse, or the contrarie, but the partie not confes∣sing the fault is left to his or her purgatiō. The reason of all which is (as hath bene said before) for that conuiction might happen to passe vp∣on the suspected delinquent, either by fault of not ioyning issue wel, or by default of vnskilfull pleading, or by corruption of iustice, or by te∣stimonie of false witnesses, or by partialitie of the Iudges, or the like. But of this enough, the aduersaries assertion being alike weake, and contrarie to all forme of law.

To come now to another part of our Archpriests affirmatiō, viz. that the Popes Breue confirmeth the Cardinals Letters, as, Validas ab initio, ha∣uing force from the beginning, and vtterly condemneth and inualidateth all things done to the contrary. First, howsoeuer some of those particulars may be deduced, as illations out of the Breue, yet it is most cleare, that not all, nor the most part of the wordes are to be found in the Breue. And to the end, that all which we are to say in disproofe of these a∣uowances, may the more ealsiy be vnderstood, and that all persons may consider the inferences and maner of proceeding on both sides, we thought good to annex and English his Holinesse Breue word for word as exactly as we could.

Clemens Papa Octauus.

AD futuram rei memoriam, &c. Inter grauissimas nostrae pasto∣ralis solicitudinis curas, illae de Catholica nimirum religione conseruanda & propaganda praecipuum locum obtinet, propte∣rea quaecun{que} ad hunc finem mandato nostro per S. R. F. Car∣dinales gesta & ordinata sunt, vt debitum consequantur effectum Aposto∣licae

confirmationis robore communimus. Nuper siquidem dilectus filius no∣ster Henricus tituli S^tae Potentianae presbiter Cardinalis Caietanus S. R. ecclesiae Camerarius, ac nationis Anglicanae apud nos & Apostolicam sedem Protector, pro foelici gubernio & regimine ac mutua dilectione, pace, ac v∣nione Catholicorum regnorum Angliae & Scotiae, ac pro disciplina ecclesia∣stica conseruanda & augenda de mandato nostro dilectum filium Georgium Blacuuellum sacerdotem Anglum sacrae theologiae Bacchalaureum, ob eius pietatem, doctrinam, Catholicae religionis zelum & alias virtutes in Archi∣presbyterum Catholicorum Anglorum cum nonnullis fac••l••atibus per eum & alios duodecim sacerdotes illius Assistentes respectiuè exercendis per ip∣sius patentes literas expeditas, quarum initium est, Scitum est atque vsu fere quotidiano compertum, &c. Finis vero, vestris{que} orationibus me ex animo commendo patres fratres{que} amantissimi Christi confessores die 7. Martij, anni millesimi, quingentesimi 98. deputauit, prout in praedictis patentibus li∣teris quarum tenorem praesentibus ac si ad verbum insererentur pro ex∣pressa habere volumus, plenius continetur. Nos autem cupientes duputatio∣nem praedictam ac omnia in praefatis literis patentibus contenta tanquam de mandato & ordine nostro & cum participatione ac plena scientia nostris fa∣cta & ordinata, plenariè executioni vt par est demandari. Et vt illa omnia pleniorem roboris firmitatem obtineant, prouidere volentes motu proprio & ex certa scientia & matura deliberatione nostra de{que} Apostolicae potesta∣tis plenitudine deputationem supradictam ac praenarratas Henrici Cardi∣nalis Protectoris patentes literas desuper expeditas cum omnibus & singu∣lis in illis expressis facultatibus priuilegijs, indultis, iustructionibus, declara∣tionibus, ac alijs quibuscunque contentis, in omnibus & per omnia perinde ac si omnia hic nominatim expressa & specificata essent, authoritate Aposto∣lica tenore praesentium confirmanius & approbamus: illis{que} Apostolicae ac in∣uiolabilis firmitatis robur adijcimus, & omnes ac singulos defectus si qui in eisdem interuenerint supplemus, ea{que} omnia & singula de expresso mandato & ordine, & cum participatione & certa scientia nostris facta & ordinata fuisse, & esse, ac propterea valida, firma, & efficacia existere & fore, ac ple∣nissimam roboris firmitatem obtinere, suum{que} plenarium effectum sortiri & obtinere, sic{que} ab omnibus censeri, & ita per quoscunque iudices ac commis∣sarios iudicari definiri debere: ac irritum & inane quicquid secus super his à quoquam quauis authoritate scientèr vel ignorantèr contigerit attentari de∣cernimus: non obstantibus constitutionibus & ordinationibus Apostolicis cae∣teris{que} contrarijs quibuscun{que}. Datum Romae apud S. Petrum sub annulo pis∣catoris die 6. Aprilis, anno 1599. Pontificatus nostri anno octauo.

M. Vestrius Barbianus.

Pope Clement the eight.

FOr future memorie of the thing, &c. Among the weightiest cares of our pastorall sollicitude, that surely of conseruing and propagating the Catholike Religi∣on possesseth the chiefest place: and therefore what things soeuer are done and ordained to this end, vpon our commaundement by the Cardinals of the holy Romane Church, we, that they may take due effect, do fortify the same with the strength of a pastoricall confirmation. For as much as of late our beloued sonne Henry, presbyter Cardinall of the title of S. Poten∣tiana, Chamberlaine of the holy Romane Church, & Protector of the English nation with vs and the Sea Apostolike, hath by our comman∣dement for the happy administration and gouernance, and for the mutuall loue, peace, and vnion of the Catholikes of the kingdomes of England and Ireland, and for the conseruing and augmenting of Ec∣clesiastical discipline deputed by his letters patents dispatched, which begin in this maner, (It is knowne and almost by dayly experience found true,) and end after this sort: (And I very hartily cōmend me to your pray∣ers most louing fathers and brethren, and Christ his most reuerend confes∣sours, the 7. day of March 1598. our beloued sonne George Blackwell English Priest, Bacheler of Diuinitie, for his pietie, literature, zeale of Catholicke Religion, and his other vertues to be Archpriest ouer the English Catholickes, with certaine faculties by him, and other twelue Priests his Assistants respectiuely to be exercised, as is more at large contained in the said Letters patents, whose tenor we will haue reck∣ned or expressed, as if they were word by word in these presents in∣serted. And we desiring the foresaid deputation, and all things con∣tained in the aboue mentioned Letters patents, as done and ordained by our commaundement and order, and with our participation and full knowledge, to be put, as meete is, in full execution. And being de∣sirous to prouide that all these things may haue the greater firme∣nesse of strentgh we of our proper motion, and certaine knowledge, and mature deliberation, and of the fulnesse of Apostolicall power, do by the tenour of these presents confirme and approue with Apo∣stolicall authoritie the aboue named and rehearsed Letters patents of Henry Cardinall Protector sent from hence, with all and singular fa∣culties, priuiledges, fauors, instructions, declaratiōs expressed in them,

and other things whatsoeuer contained, in and by all respects as if all things here by name were expressed & distinguished: and we do adde vnto them the strength of Apostolicall and inuiolable firmenesse, and do supply all and singular defects if any hapned in the same, and all and singular these things to haue bene, and to be done and ordained by our expresse commandement and order, and with our participa∣tion and certaine knowledge, and therefore to be & remaine of force, firmenesse, and of efficacie, and to obtaine most ample strength, and take and hold their fullest effect, and so ought to be censured of all men, and to be sentenced in like sort, and defined by what iudges and Commissioners soeuer: and we do decree to be void and of no validi∣tie whatsoeuer otherwise in these things shal fortune to be attempted by any man of what authoritie soeuer, wittingly or ignorantly, not∣withstanding the constitutions and ordinances Apostolicall, and whatsoeuer els to the contrary. Giuen at Rome at S. Peters vnder the fishers ring the sixt day of Aprill, the yeare of our Lord 1599. the yeere of our Popeship 8.

M. Vestrius Barbianus.

TO auoide all doubtfull vnderstanding of words, and here first to agree of the issue, that when the point is debated, the difference be not found in the end to consist only in the diuerse taking of words, and in no diuersitie of matter: we request leaue of our Archpriest to moue this one question, whether by the foresayd asseueration, viz. that the [Popes Breue confirmed the Cardinals Letters, as validas ab ini∣tio, and vtterly condemned and inualidated all things done to the contrary] he meant that the sayd Breue did so confirme the Cardinals Letter Constitutiue as it had force from the beginning, to bind vs vnder the crime of schisme or enormious disobedience to accept presently of the subordination, without delaying our submission in the maner we did, that was, vntill the appearing of his Holinesse Breue; or whether his meaning by the foresayd words were onely that the sayd Letter had an obligatiue force from the beginning in it selfe, in that it was written by lawfull and sufficient authoritie, to wit, by speciall com∣maundement of his Holinesse: but yet it had no force actually and forthwith to bind vs to receiue the subordination assigned, because there wanted either some Papall instrument, or other, more authen∣tike

proofe, then the Cardinals owne affirmation for testimony of such his Holinesse commaundement, and graunt of the particular fa∣culties enacted. If our Archpriest vnderstand this latter sense in his a∣uowance (as the cause whereupon, and the ende why he vsed the words, with the circumstances of both, do all gainsay and most plain∣ly contradict that his Reuerence had any such meaning) we assent and say the same with him, that the Popes Breue confirmes the Cardinals letter as validas ab initio, and vtterly condemneth and inuali••ateth all things that from thence should happen to be attempted to the con∣trarie. But on the other side, if our Archpriest meant by his words, that the Cardinals Letter Constitutiue was of force from the begin∣ning, to bind vs to admit of the subordination appointed, without staying for further proofe or confirmation (as with no colour it can be denied but that his Reuerence had this meaning, for otherwise how could he possibly declare, especially in a publicke Decree, that all the Catholickes in England who any way before the comming ouer of the Breue had impugned his authority, were therein really disobedient to the Sea Apostolicke, and rebels against his office, and that the Pope in his Breue declared no lesse by condemning vtterly all things done to the contrary, vnder which no doubt our prolonging must needes be implied) then vnder his good leaue, we must say that he is much mistaken, and offereth wrong to his Holinesse, in reporting him to write, that he doth not, and perhaps that too, which in equity he could not. Or howsoeuer this be, yet his Reuerence may do well to tell vs and the world beside, being possessed with his former charge against vs, in what words of the Breue either expresly or implicitiuely in the sayd condemnation contained of all things done to the con∣trarie? We say done, signifying actions that passed before the pro∣mulgation of the Breue, as did our deferring, and not actions enter∣prised since the publishing thereof. For as we will most willingly graunt that his Holinesse annulleth all actions succeeding the date of the Breue, attempted by whom soeuer: so must we agnize that we can neither see nor cōiecture in what part of the Breue, or by what words thereof his Holinesse either condemned, or taxed the actions perfor∣med before the setting forth of the Breue.

If the Cardinals letter was of actuall force to bind from the begin∣ning, from whence did it take vigour? It is a generall proposition a∣mong the Canonists, that Creditur literis cuiusque de hijs quae facere po∣test vel debet ratione officij sui. Beleefe is to be giuen to euery mans

letters, in the things he can, or belongeth to him to do by vertue of the office he beareth. But it hath bene made verie manifest before, that the Cardinall could not institute such a forme of gouernement in our countrey by vertue either of his Cardinalship, or Protector∣ship: and therefore the letter his Grace wrote for enacting the same, was by vertue of some extraordinarie iurisdiction, and not by any quality of his foresayd dignities, and consequently the iurisdiction be∣ing extraordinary, we were not bound to giue such infallible credite, and height of obeysance to his Honours letter, as by and by to pro∣strate our selues to the subordination his Grace appointed, being a∣like vnprofitable, imperious, and most burthensome, before his Grace had proued the commission by other meanes, then by witnesse of his owne word. A verity so clearly shewed before, and with that force of authorities, as it were superfluous to seeke to confirme it with moe.

To say the Pope hath declared that the Cardinall his letters are from hence of force, and that all things therein passed with his Holi∣nesse full knowledge and participation, maketh no more for proofe of the crimes obiected against vs, then the promulgation of a law doth proue those to haue transgressed the law, who betweene the making of the law, and the promulgation thereof, committed such acts as the sayd law prohibited. Which is so feeble a proofe (the pro∣mulgation being of the a essence of the law, and without which the law not binding,) as none can be weaker.

And now to come to the last part of the foresaid auowance, where our Archpriest writeth, that our proceedings euen before the comming ouer of the Breue were sharpely condemned by the sentence of the two Illu∣strious Cardinals, and also by the iudgement of his Holinesse. It hath bene shewed that no such condemnation passed vpon vs, either by sentence of the two Cardinals, or by the iudgement of his Holinesse. And we further affirmed, that what condemnation soeuer passed vpon our two brethren, by sentence of the two Cardinals, yet that, that condemna∣tion and sentence cannot truly and properly be called the iudgement of his Holinesse. For although the said Cardinals tooke their authori∣tie from his Holines of being iudges in the cause of our two brethren, neuerthelesse the sentence they gaue was their owne act and iudge∣ment, and not the act and iudgement of his Holinesse, as is most ••eare by this, that their graces were delegatine iudge, in the cause, and his Holinesse the Delegator. For to delegate and to be delegated, being two distinct things, and not competible in one person, in one and

the same respect: it followeth that the sentence of the delegatine Iudge or Iudges, is not the sentence and iudgement of the delegator, as witnesseth Decius in these words, Licet a delegatus habet potestatem, à delegante, tamen iudicio suo iudicare dicitur, vt est textus in ca. Pruden∣tiam de officio deleg. Although the Iudge delegate haue his iurisdi∣ction from the delegator, yet the iudgement which he giueth in the cause committed, is his owne iudgement, as hath the text in the Chap∣ter Prudentiam de offic. deleg. Which position is also manifest, in that Appellation from the Iudge delegate to the delegator, is very fre∣quent, and holden by b all writers for the most orderly Appellation. Which could not be, if the sentence of the Iudge delegate were the sentence or iudgement of the delegator: for then such Appellations were from a sentence to the giuer of the same, neither fit, nor like to releeue; nor euer vsed, but when sentence was giuen vppon wrong in∣formation, and by the supremest Iudge only.

The inferēce we would make out of these is, that admitting the two Cardinals giuing sentence vpon our two brethren, had inuolued and condemned vs their complices in the same sentence; as there is no such thing nor by iustice could be, yet their Graces giuing that sen∣tence as delegatine Iudges, neither did, nor could but make the same sentence their own sentence, and not the sentence and iudgement of his Holinesse, and consequently we cannot but recken this auowance of our Archpriest [that our proceedings yea before the comming of the Breue were very grieuously condemned by the iudgement of his Holinesse] among the manie of the other wrongs that his Reuerence hath done vs, vnlesse he shall proue the defaming assertion otherwise, and more substantially then because the two Cardinals condemned our bre∣thren to be banished and confined.

And to end our answer to this fifth obiection brought against vs, we do most certainly assure our selues, that if his Holinesse were made acquainted with the manner and nature of things as they proceeded, he would so little giue our Archpriest and father Parsons thankes for making him the prompter or approuer of the sayd sentence against our two brethrē, as he might peraduenture sharply rebuke their bold∣nesse therein. For who can thinke that his Holinesse compassionable and bounteous nature, would not onely inflict banishment and con∣finement in banishment for an action lawfull, yea, prescribed by the Ecclesiasticall Canons, as when c doubt is made (as sincerely and be∣fore God we had great doubt of the Cardinals authority to institute

such a kind of powerable subordination in our Church) of a dele∣gates commission, then to intreate the stay of execution, till the graun∣ter of the commission might be aduertised of the matter, and the truth vnderstood. Offices, which we performed: for, both we requested maister Blackwell very earnestly to forbeare the absolute assuming of the authority, with promise notwithstanding to obey him though we would not fully and perfectly admit the subordination, before more certaine knowledge came, that his Holinesse stood priuie and consen∣ting to all and euery branch of the subordination and iurisdiction graunted to the Archpriest: and also made him acquainted with our intention of sending to Rome about our doubts. Yea maister Bishop, the Sonday before he & our brother began their iourny, went to him, renewed the petition, gaue him a note vnder his hand and name, of the particulars about which he meant to deale with his Holinesse, & receiued a counterpane or another like note of maister Blackwell (which he caried to Rome with him, and which of likelihood the Fis∣call or Fa. Pars. rather, tooke from him▪ with the other schedules, when at their apprehension he bereft them of al the writings they brought) testifying that such and such were the matters that he went to Rome for, and to propose to his Holines. What more plainer or honest dea∣ling could be desired on our part? Or what should we further adde? Maister Blackwell himselfe, in the sixth of his twelue questions which he proposed to vs to aunswer vnto, dated the fourteenth of May, ac∣knowledgeth, that, Quòd ante suum discessum agnoscere suum Archi∣presbyterum visi sunt, & quod illo conscio, & non contradicente, quamuis improbante, iter arripuerint, That both our brethren did seeme before their departure to acknowledge their Archpriest, and that they tooke their iourney with his priuity, and not contradicting though not ap∣prouing.

Another materiall euidence of disprouing that which hath bene obiected against vs was, that when our brethren were first commit∣ted prisoners, they both took a corporall oath, and one or both prote∣sted vnder the same as well for themselues as for vs their associates, that if his Holinesse thought not meete to incline to our petition for chaunging the subordination into some more profitable kind of go∣uernement, but would ratifie or confirme that which was erected, yet that we were content and ready to yeeld all obedience thereunto. We aske here againe, who can thinke that his Holinesse compassio∣nable and bounteous nature, would not only enioyne banishment, & confine them in banishment, for an action of this quality, and vested

with no other circumstances, but would also beside the nature of the punishment, which drew infamie vpon their persons, and consequent∣ly sure to alienate mens mindes and charities from releeuing their ne∣cessities, not so much as contribute one peny of maintenance▪ hauing the distribution of the fragments that remaine in the twelue baskets, we meane of all the charities abounding in Gods Church, either to carie them to the places assigned being Priests, or there to liue by after their comming. We therefore as we haue said, do most confidently assure our selues, that if his Holines should once come to know (as we doubt not but God in time will worke it) the true storie of these stra∣tagems, that his mature consideration will giue father Parsons and our Archpriest little thankes, in making and diuulging him to be the de∣creer, or director of the iudgement that passed vpon our two brethren.

A Sixth reason which our aduersaries forme against vs, and seeke to vndershore it with authoritie, is an argument they draw from this place of the glosse: Octauum priuilegium quod Cardinali asserenti se legatum creditur abs{que} literis. Dist. 27. ca. nobilissimus. It is the eight pri∣uiledge of a Cardinall, that if he say he is the Popes Legate, beliefe is to be giuen to him though he shew no letters. Out of which place father Parsons in the Apologie inferreth, that because the superioritie and iurisdiction of a Cardinall Legate is a farre greater matter, then was the authoritie which our Cardinall Protector tooke vpon him in ordaining the new subordination, and because the assertion of a Car∣dinall in affirming himself the Popes Legate, is to be credited though he shew no letters for testimonie thereof in regard of the knowne pri∣uiledge due in this case, to the highnesse of his estate, therefore our Cardinall Protectour testifying and professing to vs and the whole world in his Letters patents vnder his hand and publicke seale, that he instituted the subordination (this authoritie whereby he did it being not so great as the authoritie of a delegate de latere) ex speciali manda∣to S^mi vpon speciall commandement of his Holinesse, was to be belee∣ued without shewing the Popes Letters, or making other proofe then his Graces owne affirmation for the truth or testification of the Com∣mission.

This is the deduction & argument that father Parsons maketh, and in his owne wordes so neare as they could be vsed, the forme and strength of the argument not omitted. To which we answere, first, that the consequence is not good, then, that what is alleaged for for∣tifying

the same is either false or of no moment. For declaration. First it commeth to be noted, that the words which immediatly follow in the place where fa. Parsons taketh the foresaid passage, be these▪ Licet aliqui hoc reuocent in dubium, albeit some doubt of this eight priuiledge. And certes all men do not thinke, if the Pope should send a Cardinall Le∣gate into France or Spaine, or into any other Catholike kingdome, es∣pecially about matter disgustfull, that either of their two Maiesties most Christian or most Catholicke, would readily receiue him as such a person, and admit the execution of his office without shewing the Popes letters for testimonie of the legation. Neither in shew (be it spo∣ken vnder leaue, & with due submission to holy Church) doth such re∣fusall deserue any great censure, because seuerall a Popes beside the demonstration of dayly practise, haue testified that it is not the maner of the Apostolicke Sea to receiue an Ambassage from any person whatsoeuer without letters in the credence of the Ambassadour. And therefore that holy Sea, not accustoming to receiue or beleeue any Ambassadour without letters from the Prince or Potentate he com∣meth from: it seemeth to follow not amisse, this action of the highest Sea being as an exampler for other, that Kings or other temporall and supreme Magistrates are not bound to receiue, and giue credite to the word of a Cardinall Legate, vnlesse he shew the Popes letters for wit∣nesse of his commission. But these notwithstanding we graunt as the truth is, that a Cardinall Legate ought to be beleeued vpon his word, without shewing the Popes letters for testimonie: yet we resolutely denie, that a Cardinall delegate is to haue the like credite giuen to his word in the charge or matter committed vnto him, as father Parsons inferreth, except he first shew the Popes letter, or otherwise proue the Commission. A veritie which hath bene sufficiently, if not more then enough confirmed before by diuerse authorities out of all the chiefest writers new and old vpon the law. Neuerthelesse to abound in our proofes of this materiall point, we will adde one authoritie more, and such an authoritie as concludeth for vs & against our aduersaries, whe∣ther the Cardinall instituted the subordinatiō, as his Holines delegate by a rescript▪ or as his cōmissioner by word of mouth only. Si de magno alicuius praeiudicio agatur non creditur Cardinali testanti sibi aliquid à Pa∣pa viuae vocis oraculo mādatum, nec creditur ei asserenti esse delegatum nisi literis ostensis. If the question be (saith Zecchius) of a matter that is ve∣ry indomeageable to another, a Cardinall is not to be beleeued vpon his word, testifying that the Pope enioyned him such a commaunde∣ment

by word of mouth: neither is beleefe to be yeelded vnto him, if he affirme himselfe a delegate, vnlesse he shew the letters. And the au∣thor proues both partes of the assertion, by the testimonies of sundrie other writers which he there citeth.

Further, beside the pleading of authority, the reason is manifest why credit is giuen to the word of a Cardinall, naming himselfe a Legate, without shewing the Popes letters, and not to the word of a Cardinal affirming himself a delegate, or to haue receiued such a Cōmission by word of mouth, except he shew the Popes letter for testimonie of the delegation, or proue the verbal commission after a farre more authen∣ticall maner then by the sole record of his owne word or missiue Let∣ter patent or sealed.

For when the Pope sendeth a Legate de latere to anie Prince, Country, or Prouince, he neuer sendeth him but with the aduice and consent of the residue of the Cardinals, which maketh the mission very notorious. Againe, a Cardinall legate departing vpon like occa∣sion from the Court of Rome, taketh his dispatch and leaue of his Ho∣linesse and the other Cardinals with great solemnitie, goeth likewise towards the person and place assigned after a most honorable maner of attendance, accompanied with others of rare parts▪ and when he commeth neare to the confines of the Countrey or Prouince whereof he is made Legate, he aduertiseth the nighest Bishop of his appro∣ching at hand, who presently is to commaund his Cleargie to giue their attendance and meete the Legate on his way comming, and to bring his Grace to the Cathedrall Church or any other that is nearer, with all sutable preparation and entertainement. Which kind of cere∣monies with other complements, do euer make all laterall legations most aparant: but in delegations, and more in commissions by word of mouth, there is no such solemnity nor manifestation vsed: which yeel∣deth a most materiall cause why credite is and ought to be giuen to the auowance of a Cardinals affirming himselfe a Legate, without shewing the Popes Letters, & why the like credite is not by any bond due to be giuen to the word of a Cardinall, if he affirme himselfe a de∣legate, or shall say he receiued Commission from the Pope by word of mouth to do this or that.

To put another difference betweene the cases, a Cardinall Le∣gate receiueth the masse or body of his authority a lege communi from the supreme dignitie and office he holdeth: but a Cardinall delegate Commissioner or executor, taketh not onely the subiect, but the li∣mits

and specialties of his whole iurisdiction from the Popes rescript or verball direction, and therefore ought to proue the particular te∣nour by other meanes then by the sole credence of his owne word, es∣pecially because, as a ordinarie iurisdiction, the b like as is legation, is matter fauourable: so all delegatine iurisdiction is matter displeasant, or burdenous: and matter that is burdenous requireth in common rea∣son a more full and strict proofe then matter importing fauour. And further, that which maketh yet the case somewhat more cleare, is the receiued positiō among the Canonists, that although c a Cardinall is to be counted a Legate vpon his word, neuerthelesse if he claime any iu∣risdiction more then he hath from the constitutions of the law by of∣fice of his Legateship, he is not to be beleeued vpon his word, but must proue his claime and saying, either by shewing his commission, or by testimonie of witnesses, or after some legall maner: which ma∣keth plaine in the consequence, that where a Cardinall hath not the authoritie he claimeth by vertue of ordinarie iurisdiction founded in his person as in an ordinarie, there he is not to be beleeued vpon cre∣dence of his sole word, but must authentically proue what he affir∣meth ere any be bound to obey.

Which precedent differences and disparitie if father Parsons had considered, he would neuer haue made so ignorant inference, as he did vpon the place of the Glosse before cited: nor would he haue so weakly reasoned if the subiect he wrote of had bene matter of state, or belonged to the genealogie of Princes. Yet why say we thus, sith euen in his booke of Titles he reasoneth as shallowly or more vnaptly, ma∣king (forsooth) the successiue raigne of two Queenes immediatly one after another, a let and cause why a woman should not succede her Maiestie in the Crowne, for that as he writeth, our Nation will not en∣dure a third Queene, meaning the old Countesse of Darby who was then aliue, and ayming perchance also in the speeches at the Ladie Arbella, grosly forgetting in the meane, how the principall drift of the whole booke tended to the aduancing of anothers title, and a forrai∣ner of the same sexe. The like feeble reasons he also maketh for discre∣diting the titles of other great personages. But to proceede to answer his other former auowances in our owne matter.

He affirmeth, that to be the Popes Legate, is a farre greater case then this of ours is, meaning the authoritie of Cardinall Caietane in insti∣tuting the subordination: and we affirme that a delegate in the cause committed vnto him by his Holinesse (as the instituting of the subor∣dination

was by his owne words committed to Cardinall Caietane) is of greater iurisdiction in the same cause, then is a Legate generall. And that which we say is the expresse law d and so interpreted by the best expositors: e Is cui aliqua causa specialiter delegatur, maior est Lega∣to generali quantum ad illam. He to whom a certaine cause is delegated by speciall commaundement, is greater in the same then is a Legate generall. To which words of Durandus, f Panormitane, g Iohannes An∣dreas, and h Felinus, most agreeably consent.

Yea we adde, that the iurisdiction of Cardinall Caietane was not onely superiour and greater in the cause committed, then the iurisdi∣ction of a Cardinal Legate in the same, if there had bene any such resi∣ant in our country, but that the iurisdiction & authoritie granted vnto his Grace therein was farre more ample, then custome or the consti∣tutions of holy Church do allow to a Cardinal Legate, as is to be seen by comparing the faculties which his Grace subdelegated to Maister Blackwell with the iurisdiction that i Durandus, k Staphilus, l Cucchus, m Zecchius, and other that particularize these seuerall iurisdictions or∣dinarily belonging to a Cardinall Legate. For what Cardinall Le∣gate can giue authority to an Archpriest, to remoue Priests frō out the houses where they are harboured of charitie, & know not how other∣where to hide their heads? Againe, what Cardinall Legate can subde∣legate authoritie to an Archpriest, to recall faculties graunted by the Pope himselfe? Iurisdictions surpassing the ordinarie authoritie of any Legate. But of these and some other like, more will be said in the next reason.

Further, the religious man affirmeth, that the Cardinall testified and professed to vs & the whole world in his letters patents vnder his hand and publike seal, that he instituted the subordination by special commandement of his Holinesse. Alas, what needed this amplifying of words or vntruths rather? For first how can it well be verified that his Grace testified and professed so much to vs, and the whole world, when he neuer wrote a word of that or of any other matter vnto vs, and addressed the Con∣stitutiue Letter by name to M. Blackwell onely? Againe, how can it be truly said, that he testified and professed it in his Letters patents and vnder his publicke seale, when the Constitutiue Letter came close sea∣led, according to the Romane fashion of sealing missiue Letters with a labell? A particular which I seeme very perfectly to remember, and the more perfectly by this token, viz. that when M. Blackwell shew∣wed the said letter vnto me to reade, he bid me beware of brusing the

seale. Which wordes the Letter being foulded vp, and consequent∣ly the seale not to be seene that was put too in the inside after the sub∣scription, made me to vnderstand them, of the seale which I saw on the backe of the letter remaining (the labell being cut and the seale not touched when the letter was first opened) faire in his full print or pur∣traite.

Notwithstanding, because our memories may deceiue vs, we will not stand vpon it, nor was it alleaged to the end to weaken thereby the validitie of the contents of the Constitutiue Letter the force ther∣of being one and of equall degree, whether the same came patent or close sealed. Neither was the said Letter euer denied by any, to be the Cardinals Letter, though we al did most assuredly a certaine our selues that you father Parsons had the sole penning thereof, and not of the Letter alone, but of the instructions and additions also.

The only cause why we touch these, is, least some hearing the Con∣stitutiue Letter to be named Letters patents, may thereupon imagine it to be of such irrefragable authoritie as the word signifieth in the lawes of our Realme. And perchance not to vnlike purpose was that added, which followeth (vnder his hand and publicke seale) to the end that others reading the wordes, might conceiue the seale fixed to the Constitutiue Letter to be the seale of some publike office, and therfore great rebelliō to disobey, or except against any iot of the contēts. And as by these we wold not deny, but that the Canonists affirm the known seale of a Cardinal, to be an authentike seale, & to make the contēts of the letter whereunto it is put, of a very reuerent and singular respect: so likewise it is certain, that the same Canonists affirm, that a letter signed with a Cardinal his seale, cōtaining matter preiudicious to another, & receiued by Commission from his Holinesse, ne doth nor can claime the like soueraigne credite, as the parties preiudiced, remaine obliged either by law or conscience to obey the same. Marie, that a Cardinall his seale is called a publicke seale, as father Parsons phraseth it, is more (as we thinke) then he euer read, or Canonist euer wrote.

But the truth of the other assertion, to wit [the Cardinall testified and professed to vs and the whole world, that he instituted the subordination by speciall commaundement of his Holinesse] is more doubtfull by much as being vnder the checke and controlment of so many, as shall hap∣pen to reade the Constitutiue Letter. For in what place thereof▪ can so much or halfe so much be shewed, vnlesse the letter must be read with spectacles, that haue vertue to make that to appeare to be writtē therin

is not? The Cardinall onely affirmeth, that his Holinesse enioyned him by speciall commandement to make peace in our countrie, after the example of the peace and quietnesse made in the English Colledge at Rome. Which commission or authoritie to make peace, is (vnlesse we be infinitly de∣ceiued) a farre different thing in nature, from the authoritie to institute an Archpriest, with like ample and exorbitant iurisdiction in our whole Church. Verily the proportion seemeth to be so little, and the dissimilitude between the meanes of making peace, and it, (the quality of the subordinatiō & the maner of bringing it into our Church con∣sidered) as there could well no hope be conceiued of peace to follow, through the institution of such a subordination, except we would make the fathers of the Society our directours, and remaine euermore their obseruant pupils.

If it be replied, that the Cardinall wrote in the Letter Constitu∣tiue, how in decreeing the subordination, he followed the will of his Holines: We answere, that to follow the Popes will in doing of a thing, diffe∣reth much from receiuing of a speciall commaundement of doing the same. Neither doth it appeare in the Cardinall his Letter that his grace followed the will of his Holinesse, in erecting this subordinati∣on in specie, with the iurisdiction, faculties, and instructions adioyned: nay the contrary seemed plaine, in that his Holinesse willed the Car∣dinall by speciall commaundement (as his Grace relateth the words in the Constitutiue Letter) to labour the effecting and establishing of peace in our countrie, which standing, his Holines intention and will could not be, but that such a subordination should be ordained amōg vs, as might most auaile to the making and continuing of true peace, and in which principall qualitie, the new subordination being most defectiue (if not part of the faculties annexed of a quite contrary na∣ture) what inference more direct, then that the Cardinall only follow∣ed the will of his Holinesse in the name of a subordiuation, (a point of lesse moment) and not in the substance, matter, specialties and forme thereof, points incomparably more important? Which, how vnperfect a manner it is of following his Holinesse will, we leaue to others to iudge.

Finally, where you father Parsons do say, that his Holinesse comman∣ded the institution of the subordination in respect of the diuision and dissention raised in England betweene Priestes and Iesuites, or Priestes and Priests, we are glad to see you to correct the defaming errour (though the whole Realme could reprooue you if you did it not) which your

selfe inserted, in the Constitutiue Letter, making the cause of institu∣ting the subordination, to be dissention betweene the Secular Priests and the Lay Catholickes. And as we are glad of this, so may we not o∣mit to note the pollicie, that you, labouring to erect a subordination, concealed that frō his Holines which was true, & which most needed reformation, (to wit, great dissention betweene Iesuits and some secu∣lar Priests) and pretended other vntrue matter, viz. strife among the Secular Priests, and debate betweene them and the lay Catholickes, a most iniurious calumniation. And when by this cunning finenesse of masking matters, you had obtained your desire, that is, such a forme of gouernement as your selues made choice of, neither comprising your brethren here, as it had bene reason it should, being the more potent part of the contenders, but in steed of this iustice and equality, made you and them in truth the electours of our Archpriest, and our Arch∣priest commanded in matters of waight to seeke your iudgement and aduise: then when matters be compassed, and all things that your selues as∣signed, most strongly cōfirmed, to agnize or colour the former vntruth (which as it seemeth could not be but a studied falshood) by rehearsing many distinctiue causes, is proofe of wit, and the more, by doing it in such a language, as those who by authoritie ought most to punish and remedie the fault, cannot vnderstand the abuse.

For concluding our answere to this sixth obiection, we say no more but wish the Composer to arme himselfe with patience, by conside∣ring these words of holy Scripture, qui inconsideratus est ad loquendum sentiet mala: He that is in considerate in his speeches against another, must not thinke but to feele the rebukes due vnto his folly.

A Seuenth obiection which our aduersaries alleadge against vs, is, that we being the persons, who a went about to erect sodalities, to b ordaine new associations, to c make a certaine gouernment among our selues without consent, counsell, or notice of any Superiors, and this to the preiudice of others (the most part of our brethren reclaiming and misliking the same.) And were d so seruent in this point to haue a subordination and gouernment among our selues, as without all superiours authoritie we would haue set vp our association: Did neuerthelesse e when the institution of the Archpriest came into England, and was promulgated by the prudent and godly letters of the Protectour, and ordained for conseruation of peace by the highest au∣thoritie that is vpon earth, begin (hauing resolued to be vnquiet) first to stagger and doubt, and then to discusse our superiours commandement, and

lastly to contemne it. Which sinne of ours f can no where else be placed, but in the highest greece of disobedience, seeing it was cōmitted against the supreme Pontifex himselfe, and against the dignitie of the whole Romane Court. The obiection is laid downe in their owne wordes, as it is to be seene in the places quoted, neither haue we wittingly omitted ought, that themselues adde of waight to this purpose. And now to answere directly hereunto.

First we acknowledge, that some of our companie went about (though after, and not with like feruour, as M. Standish now an As∣sistant did, being the first motioner of the matter and chiefe prose∣cutor) to erect a sodalitie of such as would giue willingly their word and names to obserue certaine rules that should be agreed vpon and deemed fit for the good of themselues, and manie other, during the present state of things. The cause of this proiect, were certaine hard speeches which some indiscreete persons (either the too zealous fol∣lowers of the societie, or some of the fathers themselues, or both gaue forth, against the secular Priests in generall, that they liked not to liue vnder obedience, or to haue other Superiours then the direction of their owne wils. Which report (put away the working of diseased hu∣mours) grew chiefly and outwardly of this cause, for that many of our brethren in Wisbich refused to accept father Weston to their Superior▪ and to accept such orders as he the said father Weston and his partie (wherof many were secret Iesuits, and none so ancient either in yeeres or in sufferance for the cause, as were sundry of the other side, and of lesser talents also,) thought fit to appoint. To remoue this exception, and to let the authors of the report to see in our deedes, that we were no such worshippers of our owne wils, nor so auerted from the duties of obedience, but that we would in the degree that becommed secu∣lar Priests, both relinquish the one, and bind our selues to the other, and also to giue helpes and prouocation to our nature (dull by inheri∣tance) of going the more forward in vertue, we thought good, if not necessarie, to vnite our selues and agree vpon some certaine rules, and choise of a superiour, for the better obseruing of discipline and the said rules.

The rules that were set down to be obserued by the sodality inten∣ded, were first some eighteene (as M. Standish can record, who taking them to translate, shewed them to fa. Garnet, & not vnlike, to other of the societie) containing chiefly, matter of increasing sociall and mutu∣all loue: and this not onely betweene Priests that should be of the so∣dalitie,

but betweene them and all Priests, as the rules themselues yet extant in the first draught can witnes: namely of surnishing Priests at their first comming: of releeuing the needes of other, especially of prisoners and persons fallen into trouble, or decayed for harbouring of Priests: of preaching monethly or catechizing weekely: of aduentu∣ring vpon any daunger for sauing or comforting a soule in extreme necessitie, being requested thereunto: of disliking no one, for not be∣ing of the sodalitie: of declining al such occasions as might breede va∣riance with others, especially with the fathers of the societie, & if any like cause be offered by them, to acquaint the superiour of the sodali∣tie with it, that he might forthwith, before the matter grew to head, or be knowne to many, conferre with the Superior of the societie for re∣dresse, and a charitable end of the difference: of spending daily some time in meditation, or in reading some spirituall booke: of conferring about difficult and intricate cases, and neuer vpon his owne iudge∣ment to resolue such, without taking the aduice of other his brethren: of making a generall confession euery halfe yeere, for the halfe yeare past, and of other like points. And none of all the rules to bind vnder mortall sinne, saue onely, that the superior should not incorporate, or vow himselfe a member of another bodie, before such time as he had relinquished the office. If they of the North not knowing what we had done in the South, drew other rules, or moe, what skilled that, sith they stood contented to accept of those rules which most voices should approoue, and ours of the South, not theirs of the North were approoued?

And now, this being the designe intended, the cause why it was in∣tended, and the breuiate of the rules, we aske the sixe Assistants, that sent the letter of information to his Holinesse Nuncio in Flaunders a∣gainst vs, we aske father Parsons the writer of the Apologie, and (so farre as in dutie we may) we ask also their superiours, by whose allow∣ance the said Apologie was printed, what it was, that was so greatly amisse, either in the circumstances, or nature of the designe, as might deserue the reproches, which the said letter to his Holinesse Nuncio layeth vpon vs, for hauing such a purpose?

When the matter was broken to father Garnet, for vnderstanding his liking and opinion in the same: he answered, that it was the best thing which was taken in hand in all this Queenes time, if it could be effected. Likewise when the affaire was communicated to father Weston, he seemed to like it very well. And if they haue since changed

their mindes, yet we request father Parsons (the maker of the Apolo∣gie) and ou•• Archpriest (the allower of the printing thereof and of the Appendix) to shew the reason why they terme the setting downe of g Rules in Wisbich by the eighteene Priests, and the electing of father Weston for h their Iudge, Correctour, and Censurer ouer them, i a holy and quiet purpose, and so k mainely depraue and condemne the sodalitie we intended, wheras the rules of that l Academie or congregation as they call it, are neither m more easie or commodious, nor more auance honest, and ciuill conuersation among those that should liue vnder the orders (the qualities which the Apologie attributeth to the said rules) then were the rules of the sodalitie we went about to make, and perhaps not e∣quall to ours in the foresaid qualities, and incomparably behind ours in other respects, more generall, and releeuing the distressed.

Or howsoeuer their rules exceeded ours in goodnes, or ours theirs in that, and in forwarding a common good, yet it cannot be denied, but that we, who laboured, or rather proposed the instituting of a soli∣ditie, did surpasse them in this one point, viz. in desisting from prose∣cuting our purpose, assoone as we first vnderstood that some two or three of our brethren misliked our endeuors, holding it for more cha∣ritie to surceasse that for peace and quietnesse sake, which might occa∣sion good to our selues and others, then by proceeding in a matter we were not bound too, to kindle the ire or emulation of a few. The like, if the greater and better part of the prisoners in Wisbich (for so our Archpriest and father Parsons styleth them) had bene pleased to haue done, as by no perswasion they could be brought vnto: O Lord, what tumults, what broiles, what scandall, what infinite detraction had there bene left vncommitted? And it is worth the labour to note, who they were that principally opposed themselues against the institution of the sodalitie, albeit none were to be of that companie, but with their owne liking and intreatie.

Doctour Bauen the senior Assistant, stood so stifly opposite against the introduction of the sodalitie or association, as he letted not to af∣firme when his opinion was asked therein, that if the Pope should ap∣point a Bishop in our countrey, during the present state of matters, he would be one that should resist, and informe his Holinesse of the in∣conuenience and hurt, which the bringing in of such authoritie would worke in our Countrey. And M. Blackwell only of all the Priests in our contrey, wrote certaine reasons in dislike and condemnation of the Sodalitie: to wit, that as by the rules of Phisick and Philosophie, it was

no wisedom for any, who had a long while kept their health by liuing in such an ayre, or by feeding on such meates after to change the same ayre, or alter their customarie diet: and as it is a dangerous errour in ciuill pollicie to seeke to change the forme of gouernement, vnder which they haue enioyed lōg peace & happines: so is it folly, or great temeritie, hauing liued so many yeares in peace and quietnesse in our Countrey, as we haue, without any association, or other superior, to be∣gin now to set vp new authorities, and bring in innouations. Yea he added further, how vnfit, how vnprofitable, and how preiudicial it was for any one person to take vpon him the Ecclesiasticall gouernement in our Countrey, and that if he liued to the change of Religion, he would deale for deuiding the Bishopricks into moe Diocesses. Which reasons concluding directly and most strongly against the new autho∣ritie, were anon of likelihood either soon forgot, or began to appeare of no force when himselfe was chosen Archpriest.

In like manner, when father Parsons last trauelled from Spaine to Rome, he so greatly disliked the making of a superior in Englād among the secular Priests, as he made it the ordinarie subiect of his talke du∣ring the whole iourney, deuising moe and new reasons dayly for re∣monstrance and proofe of the inconueniences. But after his arriuall in Rome, and conference with M. Standish and father Baldwine (whom father Garnet had imployed as his agents in the businesse vnto him) he soone altered his mind, vnderstanding of like, by intelligence from fa∣ther Garnet, how probable it was, that in short time the Priests would agree vpon some forme of gouernement, and therfore it imported him with speede to preuent our intentions, least we hapned in the meane, to make choice, of a kind of gouernement and gouernor which would impeach their designes, and make way to the diminishing of the repu∣tation they now carried in our Country, which was and is the swaying of all things as themselues think meete.

Neither is it vnlike, the thing being constantly auerred by many, but that father Garnet sent father Parsons notice of the man whom he should promote, and of the authoritie and particular iurisdiction which he should procure vnto him ouer vs. Hence came that place of Scripture into father Parsons head, together with his analogicall ex∣position. Crescente numero discipulorum, factum est murmur Graecorum aduersus Hebraeos, &c. When the multitude of Priestes increased, and the former spirite in many of them decreased, there began presently murmura∣tion and emulation against the fathers of the society. Hence proceeded the

manifold and long faction laid downe in the eight Chapter of the A∣pology, where father Parsons cunningly fashioneth a narration lasting for foure of the first leaues, but with addition of moe vntruths then he vsed full points in the tale. Hence sodainely arose an vrgent, or as it were, a fatall necessitie in fa. Parsons conceit, of making a Superiour in England ouer the secular Priests, an affaire which himself a little before in his iourney from Spaine to Rome (as hath bene said) spake so much and often against, and from prosecution whereof, himselfe aduised vs by M. Champney to desist, as from a matter of contention. Hence final∣ly are the words of the Apologie, ^o It seemed in all good mens opinion (and in the Iesuites aboue the rest) that the onely or chiefe remedie of auoiding murmuration & emulation in the secular Priests, against the fathers of the societie, would be to haue a subordination of the secular Priests among them selues, whereby the fathers of the Societie might remaine forth of all occasi∣on of contention. Good Lord must the taking away of emulation and heart-burnings in the secular Priests against the fathers of the Socie∣tie, be made the motiue and end why this subordination was institu∣ted? Who can beleeue it, that shall looke into the particulars? or who will not but auow the contrary, that shall consider how and by whom the same was procured? For is it likely or possible in reason, that that kind of subordination should extinguish emulation, or make agree∣ment, or not increase m••rmur and debate, which the more principall and oppressing partie in the contention should deuise, and get to be ordained without consent or notice of the other partie that suffered the oppression? And who we pray, plotted this kind of subordination but father Garnet and father Parsons? Who nominated the Archpriest but they? Who deuised the iurisdiction but they? Who framed the au∣thoritie? who annexed the instructions? who made the additions? who chose the assistants but they? Who conferred with Cardinall Caietane? who informed his Holines? who procured the confirmation, but father Parsons onely, or such as himselfe did set on worke, and put in their mouthes what they should say? In briefe, who euer had part, voice, or consent in any point belonging to the particulars of the subordinati∣on, saue these two, and perhaps some other few of their consorts, whom they thought good to acquaint with the affaire?

And this which we say, is so cleere to euery one that will not blind his owne vnderstanding as the Sunne when it shineth. Neuerthelesse if witnesses be demaunded at our hands, we will name no other but father Garnet and father Parsons themselues, hauing their own words

for testimonie. For when father Garnet asked M. Iohn Benn••t for his name to olim dicebamur, that is, as hath bene signified before, to a pre∣tensed letter of thanksgiuing to his Holinesse, for institution of the au∣thoritie, and seeing him to be vnwilling to giue his name, told him that the subordination was the fact and prosecution of father Parsons his old friend, and therefore stood assured he would not denie the graunt of putting too his name. Likewise father Parsons in his speeches with M. Charnock at Rome among other things freely acknowledged, that hearing how we went about in England to make a superiour a∣mong our selues, he thought it wisedome to preuent the effecting of such our endeuours, by choosing and promoting one to the roome whom they knew to be their friend, and would comply with them. But why stand we about the proofe of these? the apparant managing of the affaire, the condition of the particulars, the manner of the pro∣cesse, the nature of the circumstances▪ the ground, the end, the scope, and all other accessaries being more euident then boldnesse (we will not say impudencie) it selfe can denie?

Neither was this forme of gouernement, deuised onely by the fore∣said paire of fathers, and by their meanes brought vnweetingly vpon vs, but they keepe themselues euermore close at the sterne directing, ruling, prescribing, guiding, as vniuersally and absolutely, as if them∣selues were the Archpriest or any other higher superiour ouer vs. And whether now this kind of subordination thus plotted, thus effected, thus executed, thus continually caried against vs, be the onely or chiefe remedie (as father Parsons auoweth) of auoiding murmuration and emu∣lation in the secular Priests against the fathers of the Societie, and whereby they might remaine forth of all occasion of contention, this we leaue to the indifferent to iudge, the contrarie appearing plainer to vs, then that a∣ny doubt can be made thereof. But to returne.

We aske of father Parsons and the sixe Assistants, who seem to haue beaten their wits for finding matter wherin and how to condemne vs, whether by seeking to vnite and prouoke our selues to vertue through the erecting of a Sodalitie, among such onely, as should like and desire to be thereof, we became thereby obliged in conscience to accept of any subordination which himselfe and his consorts should by wrong and sinister suggestion, get to be proposed or ordained against vs? If they say yea, it resteth, that they proue the bond, a worke impossible: or if they say no, then why doth he in the Apologie, and the other in their letter to the Nuncio in Flaunders of the second of May, dilate as

they do, and so iniuriously inferre thereof against vs? It hath bene e∣nough and enough declared before, that we were not bound to admit the subordination vpon credence of the Cardinals Letter, and being not bound by any vertue of the said Letter, we trow, our trauels to make a sodalitie, did not bind vs thereunto: if so, they had not bene broken off as they were, before the institution of the subordination, and we all conioyned in the sympathie or mutuall embracing of one desire to sue to his Holinesse for obtaining of Bishops in our country. We say no more, but that if father Parsons or the sixe Assistants had stood so indifferently inclined to fauour our attēpts in going about to ordaine a Sodalitie, as he sheweth himselfe prone and readie not only to excuse, but to commend and iustifie the league and orders of the A∣gency begun and prosecuted in the Castle of Wishich, calling the same p a congregation according to the fashion and example of those priuate con∣gregations of our Ladie, allowed by the Sea Apostolicke in diuers Countries: no doubt both he and they, had lessened their account in the day of their doome, when they must answere for the wrongs they do vs.

Touching the preiudice which by instituting the Sodalitie should be intended to others, we would faine know, what preiudice that could be in particular, when euery man was lef•• free to his own choice, and no one to be misliked if he would not be a member thereof, and others tied by a new obligation to loue, reuerence, and stead him wherein they could. Neither do we take it to be true, that the most part of our brethren did reclaime and mislike the institution of the Sodalitie, as may be gathered by the small number of those that manifested their dislike, being as we haue said before, but very few, three onely of note, M. Doctor Bauen, M. Blackwell, and M. Tirwit, and by the companie of those that expressed their good liking therof, which were more thē 20. times so many as those that impugned the same, by the account & reckord of such as negociated the affaire, and dealt with others for vn∣derstanding their affection or aue••sion therein.

To that wherewith the obiection chargeth vs, that [when the insti∣tution of the Archpriest came into England, and was promulgated by the prudent and godly letters of the Protectour, we (hauing resolued to be vn∣quiet) began first to stagger and doubt, and then to dis••usse our Superiours commaundement and lastly to contemne it:] we answer, that if the Cardi∣nals Letter had bene the Popes Letter, or an Apostolicall Breue or Bull, as it was not, and the degrees of beleefe due to the one excee∣dingly surmounting the degrees due to the other, yet doubting as we

did, or truer, being right assured as we were in our own vnderstanding, that the said Letter was procured by surreption or obreption, or both; what fault was it in vs to stagger and doubt, and discusse our Superiours commandement, when no writer ancient nor moderne, but holdeth the same for most lawfull? q Non negamus literas Apostolicas recognosci qui∣dem & discuti debere, cum sint dubiae. sint n••••ne subreptitiae an legitimae. It is not to be denied (writeth Azore) but that Apostolicall Letters may and ought to be considered of & discussed, when they appeare doubt∣full, whether they were procured by wrong or right information. And the same Author in another place hath these words, r Fas est etiam Lai∣co de literis pontificijs cum dubiae sint & incertae, ••ona side probabiliter, am∣bigere, disputareve. sint n••••ne Pontificiae, sint ne••ne subreptitiae. It is lawfull, euen for a lay man, hauing no corrupt intention, probably to question and dispute, whether the Popes letters appearing doubtful and vncer∣taine, were indeede his Leters, or gotten by surreption.

Againe, the Canonists note many things which may be opposed against the Popes Bull, and s Rebuffus putteth downe 29. exceptions, whereof some, if they be found in the Bull, cannot be salued, but do vt∣terly inualidate and frustrate the same: some other that may be amen∣ded, and the Bull after to be of force. Now if it were vnlawfull (as fa∣ther Parsons maketh it to be (though all the learned besides himselfe do with one voice witnesse the contrarie) to scanne and discusse the Popes Bull, how should the said defects or matter of exception be op∣posed? And if this libertie be graunted against the Popes Bull, or A∣postolicall Letters, no doubt, the same freedome or much greater, is allowed against a Cardinals Letter, instituting a strange subordination afflictiue and most rigorous. But the father would haue vs (and we commend his wit therein) to practise perfect obedience, that is, as Di∣uines teach, t not only promptly and readily to do whatsoeuer we are commaunded▪ without considering the authoritie or end of the Com∣maunder, but to preuent also the commaundement of our Superiour in all things wherein we know before, his will or pleasure. And yet, if we should follow the fathers exhortation in this point, and not content our selues with performing the obedience we are bound too, and which v sufficeth vnder tie of sin, we do not see, how, shewing this perfect obedience, we ought to haue admitted the subordmation, be∣cause the Extrauagant Iniunctae, and the x constitutions of other Popes do forbid to receiue any such superiour Prelate to the office, and dig∣nitie he claimeth, without sight of the Popes Letter for testimonie of

such his graunt, and the parties promotion. Neither can that in truth be called perfect obedience, but rather indiscreet and sinfull, which transgresseth the ordinances of holy Church, as vndoubtedly we should haue done, had we receiued M. Blackwell to the office of the Archpresbytership, before the shewing of the Popes Letters for his preferment thereunto.

No doubt▪ but the vtter face of the perswasion which the sonnes of Iacob vsed to Sichem, was good and holy, as being the act of Circum∣cision, the chiefest Sacrament of the old law, yet Sichems obedience thereunto, was the cause of his death, and of the slaughter of many mo. Againe, if we looke vpon the outside of Dauids counsell to Vrias, in exhorting him to take his ease after his wearisome iourney, there ap∣peareth nought but goodwill and kindnesse, and yet Dauid had a sub∣tile fetch therein, and more respected his owne good in the counsell, then he did the welfare of Vrias. Neither did the enemie of mankind, let to candie and cloake his perswasion to our vnfortunate mother Eue, with an outward shew of godlinesse, Eritis sicut Dij scientes bonum & malum: Ye shall be as Gods, knowing good and euill: but what drift he had therein, all her posteritie feeles. We know, how excellent a vertue obedience is, especially that kind which father Parsons would haue vs to practise, and which spirituall writers call, Caecam obedienti∣am, blind obedience, for that it closeth the eye of our will, and leadeth the iudgement of our vnderstanding, as the guide leadeth the blind man, agreeable to this saying of S. Gregorie: Vera obedientia nec Praepo∣sitorum intentionem discutit, nec praecepta discernit, quia qui omne vitae suae studium maiori subdidit, in hoc solo gaudet, si quod sibi praecipitur, operatur. Nescit enim iudicare, quisquis perfectè didicerit obedire. True obedience neither discusseth the intention of his Prepositors, neither scanneth their commaundements, because he that hath subiected the whole course of his life to the direction of his superiour, ioyeth only in this, if he do as he is commannded. For he knoweth not to iudge, that hath perfectly learned to obey.

But as we wot the thing that father Parsons counselleth vs too, to be right good in it selfe, being the perfection of the y worthiest of al other morall vertues: so do we feare, least he seeke therein the increase of so∣ueraigntie, and absolutely without contradiction to rule in our Coun∣try, as already he hath not blushed to vaunt himselfe of the commaund he holdeth in England (we speake from report of an eye and eare witnesse) as well ouer many of the Laitie, as of the Cleargie, which

vaine bragge he would easily make good with aduantage, could he once bring vs to a blind kind of obedience, neither to discusse the commandements of our Archpriest, whom he directeth in all things, nor the ordinance of any other superiour, vpon what false informati∣on soeuer the same was enacted. Volo vos sapientes esse in bono, & simpli∣ces in malo: I would haue you (sayth the Apostle) to be wise in good, and simple in ill. Which God of his mercies make true in father Par∣sons, and in vs all.

Concerning the other part of the charge, that hauing resolued to be vnquiet, we would not desist, till lastly we fel to contemne our superiours com∣mandement. Here we haue good cause to aske father Parsons how he knew, being no Prophet, nor the sonne of a Prophet, that we had re∣solued to be vnquiet, for so much was neither written in our foreheads, nor manifested in the nature of our actions, doing nothing (as we haue often sayd) more then what the Canons and constitutions of holy Church, and the vniforme consent of all writers allow and direct. But notwithstanding the iustnesse of the cause, we will not trouble him with this demaund, hauing another question of more weight to be as∣soiled, viz. that he tell vs and the world, vnlesse we and the world must hold him for more then a vaine speaker, wherein and how we contem∣ned the commandement of our Superiors, that is (as Diuines and the Sum∣mists write) in a thing z we were bound to obey them, & did not obey thē, for this respect only, because we would not be subiect to their cō∣mandements. A slander which he nor our aduersaries shal euer be able to proue, & not prouing, we trust he will make cōscience to reuerse the words, as he must needs if he loue his soule: & the sooner if by the gra∣dation and forme of speech he vsed, he intended to giue ayme to the Reader of our nigh approching or perfect arriual to that degree of sin which the holy Ghost mentioned by the pen of Salomon. Impius cum in profundum venerit peccatorum contemnit: When the wicked is sunke to the depth of mischiefe, he contemneth the commaundements of Almightie God, and of his Deputies vpon earth.

Finally, touching the remnant of the obiection vnanswered, to wit, that our sinne [in refusing to subiect our selues to ••he new subordinati∣on before it was witnessed or approued by his Holinesse Breue] can no where else be placed, but in the highest greece of disobedience, seeing it was committed against the supreme Pont••fex himselfe, and against the dignitie of the whole Romane Court: We referre the Reader (the assertion being most ignorant and vncolourable) to that which hath bene said before

in our second Reason, and in our answer to our aduersaries third obiection, and to that which God willing, we shall hereafter touch in both the Reasons that follow.

AN eight obiection or shift which our oppositours deuise for maintaining their feeble assertions, and for finding a way out of the straites, which their afterwits saw, would mightily enuiron them, if they should stil hold and maintaine as they did at first, the subordi∣nation to be the act and ordinance of our Cardinal Protector, because to acknowledge this much, did and would euer most hardly rub vpon them, either to shew the rescript of his Holinesse delegation to the Cardinall, or to proue his Holinesse verball Commission vnto him, or driue them to recall (vnles they should shew themselues of worse con∣science then they seeme to be) the temerarious and too too vncharita∣ble censures which they had most wrongfully laid vpon vs, and dinul∣ged euery where, for not yeelding our obedience (no law nor rules of conscience binding vs therunto, without proofe first made in that be∣halfe of the Cardinals authoritie) to M. Blackwell vpon view of the Constitutiue Letter: to correct this errour, father Parsons in the bill of complaint, which M. Haddocke and M. Martin Array exhibited to Cardinall Caietane, and Cardinall Burghesio the tenth of Ianuary 1599 against M. Bishop and M. Charnocke, affirmeth his Holinesse to be the institutor of the subordination, and the Cardinall a witnesse-bearer therof. His words in the foresaid bill are these: a Cum S^mu• D. N. hierar∣chiam quandam Sacerdotum saecularium inter se sub vno Archipraesbytero & duodecim Assistentibus per Ill^mi Cardinalis Protectoris Literas ordi∣nasset: b statim atque D. Georgius Blackwellus Archipresbyter constitutus, authoritatem suam Ill^mi Cadinalis Caietani literis testatam, Roma transmissam, perhumaniter vocauit ad se duos, ijs{que} exposuit quid sua S^•a• instituisset, &c. When his Holinesse had ordained by the letters of the most Illustrious Cardinall Protector, a certaine Hierarchie of Secular Priests among themselues, vnder one Archpriest & twelue Assistants, and assoone as M. George Blackwell was made Archpriest, and had re∣ceiued his authority frō Rome, testified by the Letters of the most Illu∣strious Cardinall Caietane, he courteously inuited two Priests to come vnto him, & declared what his Holines had instituted, &c. Moreouer, our said aduersarie, as he wrote these words in the names of master D. Haddocke and M. Martin Array, so keeping his old wont still, to mask and vent his vntruths vnder the persons of other men, commeth in

his Preface to the Appendix (set forth as he gloseth by the Priests that remaine in due obedience to their lawfull Supeiour,) to interlace his short notes by way of parenthesises vpō his Holines Breue, being of his own procuring and suggestion of the points. The wordes of the Breue and his parenthesis are these: Vos filij praesbyteri qui libenter institutum a nobis Archipraesbyterum suscepistis, valdè in Domino commendamus, &c. You Priests that did receiue willingly the Archpriest appointed by vs (mark how he saith not that he was instituted by the Cardinall, but by him∣selfe) we do highly commend you.

Which passages, seeming so to auow the subordination to be the act of his Holinesse, as the Cardinall was but a witnes, or at most, a meere Excecutor therof, do, no doubt, if they were true, much weaken part of that which hath bene alleaged before, as shewing it to be spoken be∣sides the matter. But let vs examine the truth of the assertiōs by the te∣nor and selfe words of the Constitutiue Letter, the rule and only touch∣stone for triall of the premisses. And to cite but one place of many for auoiding tediousnesse.

Cum igitur non parum, &c. Sith therefore some men thinke, that it would not a little auaile to the procuring of peace and concord, if a subordi∣nation were constituted among the English Priests, and the reasons yeelded by the Priests themselues for the same matter, were approued by our holy Father: we following the most pious and prudent will of his Holinesse, haue decreed to ordaine the same, and for directing and gouerning the Priests of the English nation that now conuerse in the kingdomes of England or Scot∣land, or shall hereafter reside there, whiles this our ordination shall continue, we chuse you, to whom for the time we commit our steed and office, induced vpon relation and the publicke fame of your vertue, learning, wisedome, and labours taken for many yeares in the trimming of this vineyard. And the faculties which for this purpose we graunt vnto you, are these: First, that you haue the title and authoritie of an Archpriest ouer all the Seminary secular Priestes, to direct, admonish, reprehend, or also chastise them when neede shall require: and this, either by abridging or taking away their faculties.

Now let the indifferent iudge whether the Constitutiue Letter doth more shew his Holinesse or the Cardinall to be the institutor of the Subordination, or whether it conuinceth not, that the Cardinall had a greater part in the institution thereof, then the part of a witnesse or of an Executor onely.

The Cardinal writeth to M. Blackwell: We chuse and substitute you to be our vicegerent. Ours (saith the Cardinall) not the Popes. In what?

In directing and gouerning the English Priests. Where? In the kingdomes of England or Scotland. How long? So long as this our ordination shall en∣dure. Ours, againe, not the Popes. Vpon what cause? Induced thereunto (marke who was induced, and consequently who elected the Arch∣priest,) by the common bruite of your vertue, erudition, prudence, and the long continuance of your labours, to the splendor of the English Church. To what end? To direct, admonish, and correct the seminarie secular Priestes. In what sort? By restraining or taking away their faculties. Who giueth him this power and iurisdiction ouer his brethren? The faculties which for this purpose, we (saith the Cardinall, not the Pope) graunt vnto you, are these. Ergo the Cardinall was more then a witnesser of the subor∣dination, because a witnesser hath no authoritie to delegate. And as little can the executor call the fact of his superiour his owne ordinati∣on, or yeeld the reason why he made choice of such a deputie, as the Cardinall doth both. Because as c Panormitane writeth, and other d au∣thors agree in the same: Executor est ille, qui habet nudum ministerium facti, in exequendo dispositum per alium. He is called an Executor that hath the bare ministerie of a fact, in executing things disposed by an other, that is, as the same Authour interpreteth in another place, e his Superiour.

Againe the Cardinall writeth: We following the will of his Holinesse, haue decreed to ordaine the subordination. Ergo if the Cardinal decreed it, as himselfe affirmeth, he was more vndoubtedly then a witnesser or an Executor thereof: and giuing authoritie to the Archpriest to dispose of secular Priests in our Countrey, to remoue and change them from one re∣sidence to another, to heare and determine their doubts▪ with other like fa∣culties, which without question are the substance, the principall part, the very sinewes, heart, and life of the Subordination: it followeth of necessitie, that his Grace carried another person in instituting the subordination, then the person of a witnesse or an Executor onely.

Furthermore if his Grace decreed the subordination, as nothing can be plainer spoken by himselfe, then that he did, he either decreed it without authoritie, which we trust our aduersaries will not graunt; or by authoritie from his Holinesse: because neither of his two titles, either of being Cardinall, or of being our Protector, did giue him suf∣ficient iurisdiction to institute so rare, ample, and soueraigne superio∣ritie ouer vs. And if by authoritie from his Holines, then we haue what our aduersaries would seem to flie from, and all the authorities before quoted do stand in ful force against thē, in respect that that which is in

this sort done by the authoritie of another, is a delegatine act, and bindeth the doer to shew or proue the commission ere he can compell beleefe or obeysance in the processe: f verbum [authoritate nostra] in∣ducit actum delegationis. The word [by our authoritie] induceth an act of delegation. And that the Cardinall did chuse M. Blackwell to be Archpriest, by authoritie and commission from his Holinesse, it is wit∣nessed in the new Breue (euen whence father Parsons culled the sen∣tence in which he inserted his parēthesis aboue mentioned) where the words are these, Habita iam à biennio super hac re, matura deliberatione, bonae memoriae Henrico Praesbytero Cardinali Caietano nuncupato nationis Anglorū Protectori, cōmisimus, vt virū aliquē probū, qui hoc onus ad com∣munem Catholicorum vtilitatem posset sustinere delegeret, eúmque Archi∣praesbyterum eiusdem Regni Angliae authoritate nostra constitucret. Ha∣uing had mature deliberation for two yeares space of this matter, we gaue comission to Henry Presbyter, Cardinall Caietane of good memo∣ry, that he should chuse some honest man who might beare this bur∣den to the common profite of Catholickes, and by our authoritie con∣stitute him Archpriest of the same kingdome of England.

Or why stand we to proue this euident truth by the testimonie of his Holinesse Breue, when father Parsons the drawer of the forefaid Bill of complaint against our two brethren, and the markeman and in∣serter of the parenthesis, acknowledgeth both in the first and in the eight Chapter of the Apologie, that the Cardinall instituted the Archpriest by commission from his Holinesse. His wordes in the first place are: his Holinesse gaue full commission to Cardinall Caietane the Pro∣tector to appoint the same (viz. a gouernement) with conuenient instru∣ctions, which he presently did. And in the second these: his Holinesse com∣mitted the institution of the matter (that is, of instituting an Archpriest) by speciall order to the Protector to be done in his name. Which auowan∣ces of father Parsons, whether they be true or not true in themselues (as true they cannot be, if Signior Acrisio the Popes Commissarie and Canon of S. Iohn Laterans, as he styleth him, be a true man in his word, for he told our two brethren remaining in prison, that the subordina∣tion was not the commaundement of his Holinesse, as his Holinesse himselfe newly affirmed vnto him, adding for reason, as it hath bene before specified, that his Holinesse durst not command it for feare of hauing his censures contemned by the Priestes in England) yet they manifest thus much, that euen by his own confession the Cardinall was the institutor of the Subordination.

And now if we adde to these, what it is to delegate, and who is a Delegate, there can (we hope) remaine no doubt, but that the Cardi∣nall was the Popes delegate in the erecting of the subordination, and by consequence not such a bare publisher and witnesser therof, as our aduersaries would faine haue him to be, for ridding themselues out of some narrow straits, by reason of the authorities aforegoing, that o∣therwise presse exceedingly and ineuitably vpon them, and as clearely excuse vs of all blame for not surrendring our obediēce to M. Blackwel vpō view of the Cardinals letters, before either his Holines had ratifi∣ed the fact, or giuē notice vnto vs of such his pleasure, or the Cardinall proued his cōmission after some authentike or legall maner. Of which, no one was done, so long as we bore off, and so soone, as to our know∣ledge either was done, we presently submitted our selues. g Delegare est vice sua alium dare: to delegate (saith Decius) is to appoint another in his stead. h Delegatus quoad ecclesiasticos, est is ••ui à summo Pōtifice vel ordinario, causa committitur, aut ab eo, qui extraordinaria iurisdictione a∣liquid potest. A delegate, as the word appertaineth to ecclesiasticall persons, is he, to whom a cause is committed by the Pope or Ordinary, or by him, who through extraordinarie iurisdiction can delegate or appoint that charge to another.

By which definitions it is very apparant (the tenour of the Constitu∣tiue Letter, the wordes of the Breue, and what father Parsons himselfe acknowledgeth in the Apologie, considered) that the Cardinall Pro∣tector was his Holines delegate in erecting of the subordination, and consequently we not bound (as it hath bene of••en sayd) to obey his Grace, till such time as he shewed the rescript of the delegation, or proued his Holinesse verball commission, giuing him authority to de∣legate the like ample and extrauagant iurisdiction to the Archpriest, as is specified in the Constitutiue Letter.

Neither are the distresses of our aduersaries releeued a whit, if they should contend (as what vntruth is there, which will & wit cannot in some sort flourish ouer) that the Cardinall was but an Executor in the institutiō of the subordinatiō, because i euery Executor is a delegate, & his authoritie delegatine: & therefore not to be obeyed, vnles he proue the cōmission & the tenour. And besides the authorities before quo∣ted for proofe hereof, this that followeth taken out of k the ciuill law, and recorded by l Brunorus, maketh the case plaine, and confirmeth a∣bundantly. Executori, dicenti se potestatem habere ad exequendum ex man∣dato principis, non creditur sine literis, nec sufficit exhibere literarum tran∣sumptum

sed originale exhiberi debet: Beleefe is not to be giuen to an Executor, affirming himself to haue authoritie to execute by the com∣mandement of the Prince, without shewing his letters: nor is it inough to shew the transumpt or copie of the letters, but he ought to shew the originall. Neither is the force of the authorities auoided, in that the Executor was a Cardinall, because in matters of like domage no one is bound to beleeue and subiect himselfe vpon the sole word of a Car∣dinall, as Panormitane, Felinus, Alexander de Imola, Antonius de Butrio, Benedictus Ʋaldus, the Doctors of the Rota, Nauarre, Siluester, Zecchi∣us, Lancellotus, Conradus, Bartolus, Iason, with others before cited do teach, and no author impugnes, that we can learne of.

There be other obiections which our aduersaries make, as that none but a few women adhere in opinion vnto vs, that we cannot pretend ignorance, nor except against the sufficientnesse of the pro∣mulgation, and such like, not worth the answering. Neuerthelesse con∣cerning the first, we hope the sentence of the vniuersitie of Paris, giuen in our behalfe will not admit it to be true, if so there were no other at all that did participate in the opinion with vs, as perhaps, if voyces were cast, there would be found as many for vs as against vs. And con∣cerning the iudgement of Priestes, who should best know what they did, we are right sure that we haue 6. for one, if not ten, or rather sixteen that conspire in opinion with vs for one that dissenteth. And as for the two latter and such like, we vtterly disclaime the patronage, standing more assured of the strength and iustnesse of our cause, then to flie to such pretexts for succour.

And here to conclude our third Reason, we comfort our selues in the grounds precedent, that howsoeuer the large potencie and aliance of our aduersaries may happen to ouersway, yet that the day of iudge∣ment, if not the seate Apostolicke before, will declare vs guiltlesse of the crimes obiected, and that the measure which hath bene met vnto vs, was and is most oppressing, iniurious, vio∣lent, and spiritually hurtfull to manie.

Notes

• a

  Ca. Cum in iure de offi. delc.
• b

  In sua Eo∣clesiastica rep. de iudice delegat. nu. 5.
• c

  Ca. pen. & vlt. d•• fide inst. & ca. Significa∣uit & ca. Albe∣ricus de testib.
• d

  In ca. cum in iure de offic. del. nu. 6.
• e

  In ca. cum olim ••ssemus de priuil & exces. priuil. nu 4.
• f

  I. i. 2. de. pro∣bationibus. §. 3. nu. 1.
• g

  Decisione 7. de off. deleg.
• h

  Ʋerb. dele∣gatio. nu. 10.
• i

  Conclu. 110. nu. 15.
• k

  In extraua∣gante iuncta de elect. §. Sane.
• l

  In ca. cum in iure, de off. dele.
• m

  In ca. 1. de sensibus ex∣act. li. 6. § Post∣quam verb. in scriptis casu. 25
• In ca. quod su∣per his. de fide instrumentorū. Ca cum in iure de offi. deleg.
• a

  In repertorio verb. Cardinal.
• b

  Li. 2. ca. 2. de Cardinali∣bus §. 3. nu. 22.
• c

  Ca. super his de fide instru. nu. 10.
• d

  In ca Super his. de fide instr. nu. 12.
• e

  In ca. cum in iure de offi. del. nu. 7.
• Gloss. in l. c. de fide instrum.
• a

  In ca. sicut nobis de senten∣tia excommu. nu. 5.
• b

  In eodem ca.
• c

  In ca. cau∣sam quae de off. deleg. nu. 25.
• d

  In decisio 33. de proba∣tionib in anti. nu. 1.
• e

  Sub. nu. 5. lit. ••.
• f

  Ca licet. 2. de testibus & 3 q. 9. ca. iu∣dices.
• g

  Ca. cum à nobis de testi∣bus.
• 2. 2. q. 80. art. 2.
• Lib. 3. consil. de testament. cōs. 11. ••u. 8. &. 9.
• Ca. 1. de electio∣ne, & glos. ibid.
• M. Blackwell in his 12. que∣stions to the Priests, 14. of March 1600. Fa. Holtbey in his discourse the last of lune 1601. and in the Apologie fol. 108. Destatu Ill. DD. Card. nu. 9.
• a

  Ca. cum à nobis de testib.
• b

  Inca. praete∣rea de dilat. n. 5
• c

  Verb dele∣gatus nu. 5.
• Ca cum à nobis de testib.
• To my selfe the 8. of Au∣gust, & to M. D. Bishop, and my self the 17 of Aug. 1598.
• Destat. Ill^arum D^•rum Card^in. nu. 9.
• Verb delegatio. 7. nu. 10.
• a

  In prohemio super, Clement.
• b

  Decisione quae incipit, Quod licet Ro∣mana curia.
• (c) In ca. 1. de allodijs col. 3. in tit.
• Angles. p. 2. in 4 q. de rest. leg. paenal. diff. 1. con. 1.
• Ca. si quando de potest. iudi∣cis deleg.
• Ca. inquisitio∣nis de accusat. § ad haec & ca. qualiter el. 2. eodem.
• C. 1. Pastoralis d•• rescript in fi••e.
• The 14. of March, 1600.
• The last of Iune 1601.
• 3 q. 9. testet. § si debitum.
• 4 q. 2. & 3. si te∣stes §. null. ••s i∣doneus. Siluest. verb: testis nu. 2.
• 3. q. 9. testes.
• In ca. cum cau∣sam de testi. & attest. nu. 3.
• Nu. 2.
• Verb. testis nu. 6.
• Glos. in l. in s••m. ff. de aqua pluuia, arcen.
• a

  Conclu 67. nu. 10.
• b

  Ibid. nu. 11.
• c

  Li. 1. de test. § 1. nu. 53.
• d

  In ca. ex li∣teris de consue∣tu. nu 4.
• e

  Super Clem. in rubrica de e∣lect fo. 97. col. 4
• a

  D. Tho. 2. 2. q. 105. art. 1. cor. Greg. de Ʋale. ibidem punct 3. Silue∣ster verb ano∣bedientia & omnes.
• Glos. in c. Si. cui de elect li. 6
• Ca. cum eccle∣sia de electione & l. iniuriarū § 1. ff. de in∣iurijs.
• Ʋerb. iniuria ante. §. Aristoteles. 5. Ethn. ca. 1.
• Lib. 19. contra Faustum ca. 25. 14. q. 1. quod debetur.
• Gloss. in insti∣tut. Lancelot. li. 1. de confir∣matione ele∣ctionis tit. 9. §. patet, vreb. li∣teras.
• Bart. in l. pa∣latinos cod▪ de collation fisc. l. 10. Iason. consil. 72. nu. 3. & cō∣sil. 104. Alciet. in ca. cum con∣tingat nu. 35. de iurciur. Cō∣radus li. 2. ca. 2. de Cardinali∣bus. §. 3 nu 22.
• a

  Tit. de Cle∣ricis pereg. per totum. dist. 71. & 52. per to∣tum. L••nd∣vvod, const. lib. 1 ca. cum quan∣ta de Cler. pe∣reg. Concil. Tredent. sess. 22. Decret. de obseruandis & vitandis in ce∣lebratione Missae.
• b

  Concil. Trid vbi supra
• c

  Lyndvvood vbi supra.
• d

  Lyndvvod lib. 1. in ca. cū quanta de cler. pereg verb. con∣stiterit.
• e

  Ca. tuae fra∣ternitatis de Cler. pereg.
• f

  Inter eo∣dem tit.
• a

  In his said discourse the 30. of Iune.
• b

  Doctour Haddock and M Array in the libel dated the 10. of Ia∣nuary 1599. & giuen vp to the two Car∣dinals Prote∣ctor and vice∣protector a∣gainst M. Bi∣shop and M. Charnocke.
• c

  In his letter to M. Bishop the 9. of Octo¦ber 1599. and in the Apolo∣gie.
• d

  Gulielm. Neubrigensis lib. 2. ca. 16.
• Pag. 2. & 5.
• e

  Nauar. in Man. ca. 18. nu. 18.
• f

  Sotus de inst. h. 5. q. 7. art. 3. Valenti Tom. 3 disp. 5. q. 14. punct. 3.
• g

  Gloss. in ca. quaeritur 2. q. 7. verb. praeponi∣mus.
• h

  Luke 7.
• Ioh. 8.
• i

  D. Tho. 22. q. 62. art. 2. ad 2^• Caietanus ibid. Sotus de iusti∣tia lib. 4. q. 6. art. 3. ad 4 arg. Nauar. in Man. ca. 18. nu. 45. Valent. To. 3. disp. 5. q. 6. pūc. 5 assert. 1 & 2. Bannes de iure & iust. q. 62. •• art. 2. dubit. 8. Petrus à Nauar. lib. 3. ca. 4. nu. 375. & sequēt. Salon. Tom. 1 q 62. art. 2. con∣trou. 20.
• Aggredi. Sa∣thanas non du∣bitauit, vt inter se collideret.
• Fol. 22.
• Pregnant sus∣pition of fa∣ther Parsons cloaked dea∣ling.
• a

  Panorm. in ca. s••ne 2. de of∣sic. iud. deleg. nu. 4.
• Dist. 86. siquid 2. q. 1. in multis capitibus & ea∣dem q. 7. ca. ipsi & ca. testes 15 q. 7. per totum ca. qualiter 2. de accusationib. Concil. Trid. sess. 13 de re∣form. ca. 4. 1. Tim. 5.
• a

  Ca. dilecto de prebend. & dignit. & ca. cum snp. r de sent & reiud. & eod ca. quamun.
• b

  Vide glo••••a verb. res inter alios, & leg. res inter C. quan. res iudic. non noc. & Bald i•• margarita, ad inno. verb. sen∣tentia & laso. ia li. 1. § ••••ius stadijff. de iusti. & iu. & albe∣ri. destatutis part. 3 q. 65.
• c

  Panor. in ca. quamuis des••••. & reiud. nu. 3. & Couarun. a•• pract. quaest. ca. 13. nu. 4.
• d

  Bartholus in l. admonend••ff. de iureiur Ant. de Butri. & I∣mol. in ca. sina∣li supraiureiur.
• e

  ••eut. 17. & 19. D. Tho. 22. q 70. art. 2. So∣tus lib. 5 ••le in∣stit. q. 6. art. 2. Valentia Tom. 3. disp. 5. q. 13. punct. 2. Siluest. verb. probatio nu. 1.
• f

  3. q. ••. ca. Omnia. ca. ca∣ueant. ca. absen∣te & per totam qu••stionem. ca. causam quae, de rescrip. ca. 1. & ca. susceptis de causa ••oss. & prop. ca. dilecto de prab. ca. cum super & ca. quamuis desent & reiud. Clem de verbor. sign. ca saepe contingit.
• g

  In ca. quā∣nis de sent. & re iud. nu. 25.
• h

  Nu. 26.
• i

  Nu. 27.
• k

  2. q. 4. inter∣rogatum.
• Desuper ex∣peditas.
• Speculum de probat. § 3. nu. 15.
• a

  distinct. 4. ca. in is••is. D. Th. 1. 2. q. 90. art. 4. ca. de le∣gibus l. leges & in authentica & omnes tum Canonistae tum Theologi.
• a

  Decius in ca. 〈…〉〈…〉rnimus de iud••ijs n. 35
• b

  Decius in rubrica. de of∣fic de leg. nu. 5. Siluester verb. Appellatio nu. 9. li. ff. si quis, & à quo l. prae∣cipimus. c. de Appel.
• c

  Ca. Si quan∣do de rescript.
• Agnized in the Apologie fol. 130.
• Luke 9.
• In extrauag. excerabilis Ioā. 22. de praebend. verb. sublimi∣tatem eorum. Ca. 8 fol. 108.
• Ʋbi supra & fol. 114.
• a

  Steph. Papa dist. 63. ca. le∣ctis Nicholaus Papa dist. 97. ca. nobilissimus & ca. de man. prin. l. vnica.
• Pag. 58. 59. & sequentib.
• De statu. Ill^• Cardinalium nu. 9. vers. 6.
• Zecchius de sta∣tu Ill^•i Legati nu. 2.
• Idem ibidem nu. 3. & specu∣lum de Legat. § 4. superest.
• Speculum vbi supra, nu. 14. Zecchius vbi supra. nu. 4. Siluest. verb. Delegatus. n. 22 Cucchus lib. 1. Tit. 25. de off. & potest leg. Staphilus eo∣dem tit. & alij.
• a

  Gloss. in ca. 1. de rescript. verb. proc••ssus.
• b

  ca. 2 de offi-Legat. li. 6.
• c

  Pa••••rm. in ca. quod tran∣slationē de off. leg. nu. 10.
• d

  Ca. conflitu∣isti de off legat.
• e

  Speculum de legato, § 4. su∣perest. nu. 48.
• f

  In ca 2. de offic. leg. nu. 6.
• g

  In ca sane 2 de offic. delegat. nu. 1.
• h

  Ibid nu. 1.
• i

  De Legato § 4 superest.
• k

  Titut. de le∣gato.
• l

  Lib. 1. de in∣stitu. iur. can. Tit. 15.
• m

  De statu. Ill •• Leg. nu. 4.
• Fol. 108. & 114
• Tholcsanus in Tit. de rescript. li. 1. ca. 2. nu. 13
• Panorm. in ca. quod super de fi∣d•• instrument. nu. 5. and the other Authors quoted fol.
• In the ninth instruction.
• Prouerb. 13.
• a

  In the Apo∣logie. fol. 101.
• b

  Ibidem fol. 105.
• c

  Ibid. fol. 90.
• d

  Ibid. fol. 100
• e

  Ibid fol. 104
• f

  ••n the letter of the six Assi∣st••nts to the Nuncio in Flā∣ders, 2. of May 1601. §. 7.
• g

  Fo••. 7••.
• h

  Fol. 73.
• i

  Ibidem.
• k

  Fol. 90.
• l

  Fol. 66.
• m

  Fol 65.
• Fol. 72.
• M. Blackwell, M. D. Bauine, and M. Tiruit.
• Inconstancie in the Noter of incōstancy.
• Act. 6.
• Lo, the decei∣uing and pre∣suming nature of the man. (o) Fol. 100.
• Pag. 50.
• Ca. 1. 6. & ••.
• p

  Fol. 66.
• q

  Institut. mo∣ral. p. 1. li. 5. ca. 14. quaeritur. 4.
• r

  Idem ibidem quaeritur 7.
• s

  Rebussus in p••axi. Tit. Quae apponi possunt contra Bullam.
• t

  D. Tho secun∣da secundae q. 104. art. 5. D. Bonauē. q vlt. Durandus q. 4. Cordubensis in exposit. Regulae ca. 10. q. 2. Va∣letia To. 3 disp. 7. q. 3 punct. 2. Angles. par. 2. in secundū. lib. Sent. dist. 44 q. 2 diff. 5. & Si••∣mistae verb. Re∣ligi••sus.
• v

  D. Tho. vbi supra ad tertiū.
• x

  Paulus 3. Const. quae inci∣pit, cum nobis. Iulius 2. Con∣stitut. quae in∣cipit, Romani Pontificis. Iuli∣us 3 consiit quae incipit, Sanctis∣simus.
• Gen. 34.
• 2. Reg. 11.
• Gen. 3.
• Li. 2 ca. q. in li. 1. Reg.
• y

  D. Tho. 2. 2. q. 104. art. 3.
• Rom. 16.
• z

  D. Tho. 2. 2. q. 986. art. 9. ad 3. Caiet. ibid. & in summa verb. coteptus valet. To. 3. disp. 10. q. 4. punct. 5. Sil∣uest. verb. Con∣temptus nu. 1. Archidiaco. in Ca. quicunque dist. 81. Domi∣nicus in Ca. Nullus. dist. 55. Viguerius ca. 5. § 9 ver. 1. Na∣uar. in Manuali ca. 23. nu. 42. Prouerb. 18.
• Pag. 29. & sequen ••ib.
• Pag. 85 & 86
• Our Arch∣priest in his letters in the 8. and 17. of August, see pag 67.
• a

  §. 1.
• b

  §. 2.
• c

  2 p. Consil. Cons. 11. nu. 4.
• d

  Glossan ca. super Quaestio∣num de off. De∣leg. Silu••st. ver. Executor nu. 1. Fumus ••od. v••r. nu. 1. & in l. Executorem. c. de exec. rei iud.
• e

  In ca. super Quaestionum de off. Deleg. nu. 10.
• Throughout the second Reason and in the beginning of the third.
• f

  Gloss. gene∣ral. in ca. Si eū de Praebēd. li. 6.
• Of the 17. of August. 1601: Note the wre∣sting sincerity of the man.
• Fol. 7.
• Fol. 99.
• Fol. 139. & 121.
• Pag. 34.
• g

  In rubri. de off. deleg. nu. 13 l. delegar••ff. de nouationibus.
• h

  Siluest. ver∣bo Delegatus. nu. 1.
• i

  Doct de rota decis. nou. de off. Dele. decis. 6. n. 2 & de concess. Praeb. decis 19. nu. 1. Gloss. in ca. Tibi qui, de rescrip. verbo certo. & Gloss. in ca. Si super de off. Dele. ver. Principalis. l. 6
• Pag. 58. & sequentibus.
• k

  C. de iur•• fis. li. 10. l. Sanci∣mus. ••. de diuer. rescrip. 25. quaest. vlt. san∣cimus.
• l

  In compend. Resolut. verbo Executor.
• Pag. 60. 61. 62. 66. 89.
• Father Holt∣by in his dis∣course of the last of lune.