A reply to a notorious libell intituled A briefe apologie or defence of the ecclesiasticall hierarchie, &c. Wherein sufficient matter is discouered to giue all men satisfaction, who lend both their eares to the question in controuersie betweene the Iesuits and their adherents on the one part, and their sæcular priests defamed by them on the other part. Whereunto is also adioyned an answere to the appendix.

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

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

After that his Hol. had well considered the little waight of reason, which these two former messengers had brought in the behalfe of their partners in England, for raising so great a sedition against the Pro∣tectors letters, and Archpriests incitation, and had giuen some due reprehension to the sayd messengers, as by their restraint, aswell in Rome, as by that they were not permitted to returne presently into England, he thought conuenient to confirme the sayd Protectors let∣ters &c. In these few lines it is to be noted first, how that his Holinesse is sayd to haue restrained the priests (who went to Rome) vpon consideration of the little waight of reason, which they brought, and permitted them not to returne, or (as we say

in English) banished them, not onely England, but Scotland also, and Ireland, yea and confined them to seuerall Countreys, with∣out allowing them any thing for their maintenance. Second∣ly, how his Holinesse confirmed the Cardinals letters. Tou∣ching the first, it is knowen to all the world, or at the least in those parts, which this author calleth corners, those are England, Flanders, France, and Italie, where their bookes haue been pub∣lished, or sent, that the two priests were restrained before they deliuered any reasons of their forbearance, to subiect themselues to the Archpriest, and as yet no one part of their relation hath been prooued faulty. They haue layd downe an orderly narration of their messengers disorderly restraint, through the false & wicked suggestiōs of their aduersaries, be∣fore that they had any audience, and thereby haue made it eui∣dent, that his Holines did not restraine them, vpon any consi∣deration of their reasons, because he heard them not, nor any cause else, before they were restrained. Secondly, it is at large related both in the English booke pag. 97.98.104.105. and els where, as also in the booke to the Inquisition pag 77. how that when the priests came to their answere, before the Cardinals Caietane, and Burghese, they were not suffered to haue a copie of their accusations brought against them, (although it were most earnestly demanded by them) that they might make their an∣swere thereunto, but a dissembling shew was made to haue all matters taken vp in peace and quietnes. And this author not being able to gainesay any of this: how shamelesly doth he here tell his reader, that his Holinesse had well considered the little weight of their reasons: and had therefore not onely restrained them, but banished them, or (as he tearmeth it) not permitted them to returne presently into England? And although it be true which this author affirmeth, that his Holines confirmed the Card. letters: yet it is euident, that he did not vpon consi∣deration of the little weight of the messengers their reasons: for they were neuer suffred to deliuer them, as the custome of God Church was, where a matter is instituted, and some doe offer themselues (to those to whō it belongeth) to shew what they haue to say in it, before it be established. Neither hath this au∣thor shewed, or can without a tricke of his accustomed fals∣hood

say, that the two priests euer appeared in this action be∣fore any other, then those two Cardinals, vpon the 17. of Fe∣bruary 1599. or that they did not at that time make request, to haue the copie of the Libel, to make their answere vnto it. And as for their examinations, who is so simple, as to build any mat∣ter thereon, as though that were a place, or time conuenient for them to deale in the charge committed vnto them, being both asunder, and priuatly talked with, or examined by their professed enemies? The time, and place of triall was before the appointed Iudges: when, and where this author must shewe, that they did not offer to make their answere to whatsoeuer was obiected against them: and namely to that absurd Libel, which M D. Haddock, and M. Martin Array put vp against them concerning a sedition (as the Libel tearmeth it) supposed to haue bene raised in England by them, and their fellowes, by not ad∣mitting the authority vpon the sight of the Cardinals letters. Here was this author to haue shewed a defect of the messen∣gers their reasons, and not to haue ouerslipped these partieu∣lars, which passed in this time and place, being the sole time and place, in which the two messengers met, & might haue shewed their reasons, if they might haue been heard. But this author his fairest game is to slubber vp al material points, and to beare his reader in hand in generall tearmes, with testimonies of Popes and Cardinals; which indeed he bringeth some time, but not at all for the matter, in which he ought to bring his testi∣monie, or to controll any thing, which is set downe by the priest. And so doth he bring here an authenticall testimony, that his Holines confirmed the Cardinals letters. But he prooueth not thereby that the priests restraint and banishment were iust. But let vs examine this testimony, which is here brought: and wee shall finde a notorious falsifying of the Popes letters.

He (the Pope) thought conuenient, to confirme the sayd Prote∣ctors letters, and euery part and parcel thereof, with a new Breue, dated the sixt of April 1599. Affirming. omnia, & singula de ex∣presso mandato, & ordine, & cum participatione, & certa sei∣entia nostris, facta, & ordinata fuisse, & esse. That all and euery thing contained in the same letters were done and ordayned by his Ho∣linesse expresse commandement and order, and by his certaine know∣ledge,

and participation. All this is truely related out of the Breue. And had he here made a stop, he might haue been accounted an idle fellow, to cite a matter, of which not one word proued any thing at all, that the little waight of their reasons, was a cause of the priests restraint in Rome, confinement in strange Countreys, or confirmation of the authoritie. But he will goe a little further; and because if he had cited the Latine, he should haue discouered his falshood, he maketh a stop thereat, and goeth forward with an English translation of the Brene in this manner: And therefore to haue been and to bee firme, and in force and of most full validitie, &c and so to bee taken, and executed of all men &c. which couple of &c. is an argument that he went on forward citing the Breue for his purpose, but how honestly, let euery man iudge, the Latine being in this maner: Ac propte∣rea, valida, firma, & efficacia existere, & fore &c. decernimus. We decree therefore, that now (vpon this confirmation) they bee, and shalbe of force firme, and of efficacie. And who is so blinde, that doth not see whether he will or no, that these words here in∣serted by this author to haue bene, are falsly thrust in by him, to cousin his reader, and to haue him beleeue, that his Holinesse declared in this Breue, that all things were of force by the Car∣dinals letters: which besides the most grosse imposture is most absurd, and against all law and reason, as is euery where shewed (the letters being no other, then from a Cardinall for the insti∣tution of a very great authority giuen by him without shewing any commission from his Holines, by which he might doe it.) But there is no dealing for this Author, if hee should deale ho∣nestly in any one matter, concerning the question in contro∣uersie. But the Archpriest hath presumed to goe a litle further, in adding these words, ab initio. And in this Edict against the censure of Paris, he telleth his subiects, that the Pope had con∣firmed the Cardinals letters, as validas ab initio, to haue beene of force from the beginning, which if they could beate into the cares of the blind-obedient, it is as much as they desire. For they haue taken from their sight the view of all bookes, wherein they might discouer how falsly they are lead, and perswaded by guides blinder then themselues.

This declaration (saith he) and confirmation of his Holines, when

it came foorth, euery man was of opinion, that all questions, and con∣trouersies would be ended thereby: seeing that nothing was preten∣ded before by the troublesome (so pleaseth it this foule mouthed fellow to tearme the Priests) but only to haue certaine intelligence of his Holinesse will and meaning. Doubtlesse all that meant wel and honestly, thought that here would haue been an end of all controuersies, not because the priests pretended nothing els, then to know his Holinesse will, for this author knoweth the contrary, but yet must say somewhat, although contrary to his owne knowledge, manifested in the 8 chapter of the Apolo∣gie, fol. 107.108.110. where he pretendeth to giue satisfaction to the reasons alleaged by the priests, before this Breue was made, but because the priests did alwayes offer (which also they perfourmed) that so soone as they should see any Breue in confirmation of this authoritie, they would yeeld them∣selues, notwithstanding the reasons which they had to the contrary. But this fellow imagineth, that vnlesse he practiseth his trade of lying almost in euery line, he shall lose that habit, which hath, & must get him all the credit which he looketh for. The priests gaue their words both in England, & in Rome (by them whom they sent thither) that al should be quiet vpon the sight of the Breue. But the Iesuites and Archpriest did not giue their words, that the peace should endure. And thereupon was the peace broken, and not by the Priests, as is set downe in al these bookes of the Priestes, and as yet neither is, nor can bee disprooued by this Authour, who heere vndertaketh an answere vnto them. I omitte the kindenesse, which was offered vnto the two priests by F. Parsons, it is sufficiently dis∣couered in the bookes already set forth. The English Catho∣licke nation in Rome, here spoken of, vsed them indeed some∣what kindly, and friendly in all points to their power: but not for loue of the Iesuits, but vpon their owne honest dispositions: except it be meant by M. D. Haddock, and M. Martin Array, vn∣to whose lodging the two priests were sent: the one vpon the 22. of April, (for then he was set at libertie, and not presently vpon their sight of the Breue, or assurance that all would sub∣mit themselues, for this was done vpō the 8 or 9. of April, when F. Parsons did first bring them the Breue to copy it out,) the o∣ther

vpon the 6. of May, (for then, and not before was the other at libertie, & not presently vpon their assurance that all would be quiet, as here it is most falsly suggested.) And the trueth is, that this doctor, and his fellow Proctor did vse that kindnesse towards the two priests, as euery day when the priests went a∣broad, the doctor himselfe or his felow Proctor would take the paines to rig vp their chamber, that no loose paper should be lost, which they might by any chance leaue behinde them. There was also an honest man in Rome, of the Catholick Eng∣lish nation, who in respect of olde acquaintance with one, or both the priests, promised to goe with one of them to visit the 7. Churches (an act of deuotion vsed by all that goe to Rome) but when the day came, he durst not goe, fot feare lest the Iesu∣its should shew ouermuch kindnesse towards him, for this loue towards the priest. Fa. Parsons his loue and confidence speci∣ally, is not to be measured; who, as I haue bene enformed, ob∣iected to the priests, that they had brought with them a letter, which was indorsed or entituled to them in this style, To your LL. by which he, and others at that time, iested at their Lord∣ships. And F. Parsons in his letter to M. Bishop of the 9. of October 1999. vrgeth the same; as also this author in the Apologie, cap. 9 fol. 135. But when these priests desired to see that letter, alled∣ging oftentimes what comfort it would be vnto them, to see their owne Lordships (so often talked of by F. Parsons and other Iesuits) all the loue and confidence, especially which F. Parsons had, could not worke it: neither would this letter euer be shew∣ed vnto them, as M Bishop testifieth in the English booke, fol. 159. Although sayth he, it was most instantly desired, yea and said to haue been forged, as is set down fol. 127. and quietly let slip here in the Apol which vndertaketh to answere that booke.

Now follow certaine letters of D. Bishop to M. Colington, not when hee was at libertie (as here it is suggested) but a prisoner still, although at more libertie then M. Charnocke had: for hee was commanded to the Proctors house (as M. Charnocke was after his departure) and might not lie in the towne where hee would, and might haue liued without further charge, as also M. Charnocke might; for that they had agreed for their chamber, and diet for a certaine time, and payd their money beforehand;

and were caried away to prison, before halfe the time was out: and were offered afterward to haue their diet, for so many daies as were behind of the reckoning, which were more then either of them had leaue to stay in Rome, after their seuerall inlarge∣ment, out of the Colledge. And as for this glose, that M. Bi∣shops letter was written eight dayes after the Popes Breue was published, I should haue let it passe as one of this authors pety follies, this letter bearing date the 29. of April, as here is said, and the Breue bearing date the 6. of April, as in the leafe next before it is twice cited, and elsewhere often in the Apologie. But there is a further folly hereupon grounded, or at the least the like more grossely committed, to shew forth F. Parsons praises concerning a letter next following: at the end of which, thus sayth this author, Thus wrote F. Parsons, euen then when yet the Popes Breue was not come foorth: was not that kindly done and friendly of F. Parsons? But how is it proued, that this letter was written euen then? Marke how hee prooueth it: As appeareth (sayth he) for that this was written the 9. of April, and the Breue beareth date the 21. of the saidmoneth. The Breue which hath hi∣therto borne date of the 6. of April, must now for to claw Fa. Parsons, be reported, yea and beleeued also by the blind obedient to beare date the 21. of April. Is not this authour very greedy that F. Parsons should be commended, who will fetch a matter so farre off, and so farre from a knowen trueth, to further it; ergo not being more common in the schooles, then a Breue of the 6. of April for the Archpriests confirmation? This letter and other would aske longer scanning, then would recompense the paines, but to euery mans view they present an argument, that the peace was made vpon the Priests side; and therefore I will briefly goe ouer some marginall notes, which are made vpon these letters. And first I will beginne with the notes made vp∣on Master Bishops letter, whereupon Father Parsons his infor∣mation, (who was to ouersee what hee writ into England) how that he had laboured for his libertie: he saith, that hee had his libertie by F. Parsons procurement. There is this note in the margent, How then doeth hee denie this afterward; but he telleth him not where: you must go looke for that. And in the meane time you must thinke, that M. Bishop said one thing at one time,

and at another time denied the same: which hee might very well doe; speaking first according to such informations, as F. Parsons gaue him, which afterward he might vnderstand to be false. The second note is this, By this we see, how these men were pretenders, and could not expect their owne time. And this note is made vpon M. Bishops good wishes to one man, and certificate, that vpon his peaceable behauiour he should be remembred. And what doeth this proue, that the same party pretended any thing at all? vpon the next letter which is F. Parsons to M. Col∣lington, and M. Mush, there is this note, An obiection answered: and that was, Fa. Parsons is of an other body, and therefore no friend of theirs. A shrewd obiection, and how is it answered? He hath procured Seminaries for them: and if these Seminaries were for men of his owne vocation (as in deed they are, and to make his faction the stronger) yet they are all to one end, and one publique seruice of our countrey. And if no man wil this beleeue, let him looke in∣to his actions of the yeeres 1596, and 97. when diuers priests were to come in the Spanish Armadoes, vnder pretence to re∣store the English to the Catholicke religion; Let their forced subscriptions to strange titles, proue Fa. Parsons and his agents their publique seruice of our countrey. But after this letter of F. Parsons, followeth another of M. Mush to him. And where M. Mush declareth how much he hath bene bound vnto the Socie∣tie: and that it is no ioy for him to be at variance with any: much lesse with him, or any of his societie; there is this note in the mar∣gent, Exore tuo te iudico, &c. If there be any relation to that, which followeth by &c. It is but an ordinary liuery, which this author giueth at his pleasure, I iudge thee (saith he) by thine owne mouth. as though M. Mush did now professe, that hee tooke ioy to be at variance with any, or that he denied, that he hath bene heretofore bound vnto the Societie, hauing bene many yeeres ta∣ken as a member thereof, although in the ende they would not admit him, as here it is confessed fol. 107. In this same letter M. Mush requesting, that M. Bishop and M. Charnocke might be sent home from their banishment, biddeth him not to feare any di∣sturbance by them: for (saith he) their owne hands will testifie a∣gainst them, if they shall report, or attempt any euill. Whereupon there is this note made, This testimonie we accept now against

them; But he sheweth not where they haue reported, or at∣tempted any euill. Let this be shewed, and then let their testi∣mony be vrged against them. To this letter doeth Fa Parsons reply, and speaking of the returne of these two priests, he put∣teth this case, If their cooperation be vnderstood, to worke with you by their letters, as here they promised, and I cannot doubt, but they will performe. Vpon this place there is this note made, Here we see the good man was deceiued. And why so good man? did they not cooperate with the priests in England for the making of peace? Are not their letters continually vrged against the priests in England, as exhorting them to peace? did they not testifie the copy of the Breue to be a true copy thereof, by which peace was made? Is not M. Bishops letter here inserted, a sufficient te∣stimony of his cooperation; and what testimony is that, which is accepted here (in a marginal note vpon F. Parsons letter;) but of peace wrought or perswaded by them? And how then was the goodman deceiued? Perchance it was in that, which for all the rest also deceiued him; that was, hauing now gotten a Breue for confirmation of the Archpriest, he expected that his com∣pany might trample vpon the priests as them listed, and that now all the priests would be foole-ridden, or worse, and must not stirre for any iniury, whatsoeuer might be offered them; wherein in deed we may see, how the goodman was deceiued. Vpon the same letter there is a note made, that the reconciliation of M. D. Bagshaw was an outward shew. And after the letter this insinuation is giuen, that any indifferent man may perceiue how F. Parsons was desirous and carefull of peace. But of this more after∣ward when I shall discouer how he behaued himselfe for the putting all out of hope of peace.

Diuers other letters follow of F. Garnet, and the Archpriest to F. Parsons: all concluding, that there was a peace made, and that there was no doubt of any, but of D. Bagshaw, who (what cause soeuer he had to stand vpon the restitution of his good name) being accompred (as other were) for a Schismaticke, &c. yeelded himselfe. And this author confesseth here fol. 148. that it is most likely, that diuers of them ment plainly, and sincerely indeed: though of some of them it is doubted, that they made the peace only in external shew for the time, assuring themselues

(saith he) that there would not wāt some probable occasiō, afterwards to break againe, & to lay the cause of breach vpon the other side, as in effect we see it did insue. But was the heate of faction and sedition so great in the Iesuites and the Archpriest, as the priests could perceiue it, & thereupon assure themselues, that there would not want some probable occasion to breake againe? Or had Fa. Parsons so laide the plot himselfe, that there should be no peace in Eng∣land, but with such conditions as no honest priest could accept? Yet this wee haue, that a peace was made by some for peace sake, and by the rest also, at the least vpon this assurance, that afterward there would not want some probable occasion, to breake a∣gaine. But see how this fellow goeth on with his tale: For that (saith he) a new deuise being cast out shortly after, that satisfaction must be made to them for some former hard speeches vsed, or written against them in time of the contention, and that otherwise their good names should be taken from them. This was a sufficient match to put fire againe to all that, which had bene raked vp before, by the inde∣uour of the foresaid peace. But this narration wil not passe so cur∣rant. The priests haue set downe in the booke dedicated to his Holinesse, pag. 63. and in that to the Inquisition, pag. 59.60. that after the peace was made, a Iesuit Fa. Iones by name, began to raise that wicked and senselesse slander of schisme against them. And M. Archpriest published A Resolution, pretended to come from Rome in confirmation of that wicked opinion of the Ie∣suits against the priests, and that the satisfaction which was de∣manded was of this infamy raysed, after the peace was made, and not of those wicked slanders, which were raysed by the Ic∣suites, the Archpriest, and their seditious adherents against the priests, before the peace was made, as here is falsely suggested. And this relation of the priests goeth still vncontrolled, and not disprooued by this authour. And by this might this questi∣on be solued, which followeth in the Apologie. Now then, all the question standeth in this, which part hath broken the peace, or which was most like to haue desire, to maintaine and conserue the same. For by this it is euident, that the Iesuites and Archpriest did breake the same peace, and put fire againe to all that which had bene raked vp before. But marke I pray you, how substantially this question proposed is discussed by him: For discussing (saith he) of which

controuersie, we might vse that argument of Cassius, Cui bono? who are like to receiue most good or hurt by the peace kept or broken? Here you see what argument this authour might vse: you shall perchance hereafter vnderstand what argument hee will vse. For this in his owne conscience was no sufficient argument, or doubtlesse he would haue vsed it, hauing so great want of good arguments, as here he discouereth, yet the margent must cary this note. The controuersie discussed, who did breake the peace: to giue the reader to vnderstand, that here the controuersie is discussed, who perchance would thinke as litle thereof, as he who passeth through Long lane, by Smithfield, and looketh at the signe of the Booke, would thinke of the Bible if this note were not vpon the signe: The Bible. But as this authour might make this argument, so might the priests fit this answere; that such circumstances might bee iustly considered in controuersies, where no euidence is to be had which part had deserued blame, although in such also there might be iolly wrangling, euery circumstance almost being of force to make the harme or the good greater, which shold ensue vpon a peace broken or kept. But in this case there is no such want of euidence, as the matter must of necessitie be determined by any vncertaine circum∣stances. For the priests all ege and pleade, that after the peace was made, Fa. Iones the Iesuit raysed out of hell that seditious, and most wicked slander of schisme against them, in which hee affirmed afresh, that they had liued, while they differred to o∣bey the Archpriest, not yet confirmed by his Holinesse in that authority which the Cardinall Caietan had giuen him, and he had vsurped as an intruder, before he had the Popes letters for his lawfull exercise thereof. The priestes affirme also that the Archpriest after the peace made, did publish A Resolution pre∣tended from Rome, wherein the priests were condemned for Schismatickes, who were refufers of the authority appointed, as is aforsaid. And this to haue beene done by the Archpriest, was so publikely knowen, that euery man, but the wilful deafe, did heare of it: & his letters flew about with this Resolution. And wil this author that this matter cōuinced by facts, shold be dis∣cussed by cōceits & circūstances? If a man of possessions known to be very rich, should spoile a man by the high way, & should

be taken with the maner, & brought before a Iudge, why might he not affirme that the poore mā assaulted him, & plead before the Iudge, Cui bone? He was a rich man & of great possessiōs, the other was a poore mā: what reason had he with such danger to seeke the spoile of the poore man? wil the Iudge leaue the eui∣dence, and answere to Cuibono? But yet, notwithstanding that it is so euident, that the Iesuits and Archpriests brake the peace (as this author taking vpon him to answere these bookes) let∣teth the instances giuen passe by very quietly, not being able to confute them, lest hee should bring all but his like impudent companions, about his eares; the Archpriest his letters being common enough to disprooue his falshood: the petition also being extant which the priests made hereupon vnto him, that the question might be disputed among themselues, and (this being denyed) their sending to the most learned Vniuersitie of Paris, to haue it there decided: vpon the most immodest con∣tempt whereof by the Archpriest, the priests were forced to flie to his Holines, and the Sea Apostolicke for succour:) yet (I say) let vs see, how this author doth handle his Cuibono: For (sayth he) the Archpriest and the Clergie ioyned with him, enioyed by the peace all that they could desire: to wit, quiet establishment of their subordination, honour, reputation, rest, quietnesse, and his Holi∣nesse confirmation of all their doings. The Iesuits also had as much as they could desire, and were satisfied in all points, as appeareth by their owne letters aboue recited. But on the other side ensued the quite contrary in all respects, so as it could not be imagined, but that by this pacification they receiued secundum hominem, much griefe and inward indignation. See you not the pregnancie of this authors wit, & what a strong argument he might vse? A tyrant hauing obtained by such meanes as he vsed, to be admitted as a lawfull king, beginneth againe to shewe his disposition amongst his subiects; especially against such as would not at the first yeeld themselues, or acknowledge his vsurped authoritie: and when he hath destroyed them, or as many of them as he may, or hath a wicked mind to destroy, what hindereth him, that he cannot lay the blame of this breach of peace vpon those whom he de∣stroyed, and plead for himselfe, Cuibono? For he enioyed by the peace, all that he could desire, to wit, quiet establishment of his king∣dome,

honour, reputation, rest, quietnesse, his confirmation also per∣chance by some higher power. His intruders also, or setters on in that course, had as much as they could desire, and were satis∣fied in all points: but on the other side ensued quite contrary in all respects. So as it could not bee imagined, but that by this pacification, and the tyrants atchieuing the soueraignty, they receiued secundum hominem, much griefe and inward indignati∣on. Is not Cuibono a stout argument? But this comparison is o∣dious, betweene a tyrant, and a graue Catholike Archpriest. There is no comparison made betweene them, but it is decla∣red how foolish an argument this author might haue vsed, if he would haue vrged Cuibono. But yet in this narration of honor, and reputation giuen to the Archpriest, there are two things to be noted; the one is, that it is most false which is here infer∣ted, that the Archpriest, and the Cleargie ioyned with him, en∣ioyed his Holinesse confirmation of all their doings. His Holinesse confirmed the Cardinal Caietans letters, by which M. Blackwell was made an Archpriest, and a Superiour: but to make this stretch to the confirmation of all that, which hee, and others ioyned with him did in that time, is both absurd, and a most impious slander of the Pope, their doings hauing beene most wicked and scandalous, yea and most iniurious to many Ca∣tholike priests, as it was openly enough seen by diuers others, but principally by that infamous imputation of schisme, sedition, &c. The other thing, which is here to bee noted, is, that this being supposed, that all these had what they could desire, and contrariwise the other had all the contrary, the Iesuits and the Archpriest could not without an exceeding bad intentiō, raise again that slander of Schisme against the priests, after the peace was made; knowing, or being bound to know, that the priests could not in conscience put it vp, howsoeuer before they dis∣pensed for peace sake to forgiue them their first outrage.

But now followeth the argument belike which this authour will vrge: for all this is onely what he might doe. And this new argument consisteth vpon two principall points: The first is, that supposing all the foresaid honours on the one side, and the disgraces on the other side, were disgested by vertue of pa∣tience, humilitie, obedience, and mortification of minde, his

reader must consider, how matters stood with them, or some of them at the least, and with the Archpriest at the comming of the Breue. The second is, how these matters stood with them and the Councell, and some great men of the aduersary part. The first con∣sideration is so slenderly handled, and in a manner annexed with the second, as if the last were the onely thing, vpon which this authour would rely, for the declaration of this question, which he thus proposed: which part hath broken the peace?

The matters as they stood betwixt the priests and the Arch∣priest, he explicateth by an appeale, which some priests had made a little before the Breue came, which was an argument that the wound was greene: and his reader must vnderstand, that by this appeale there was an egregious faction meant: be∣cause the Appeale was made in the names of the present Ap∣pellants, and all others that should ioyne themselues vnto them. (which clause was after the Appeale, and onely in a postscript, as it is set downe in the booke to the Inquisition, pag. 52.) And to colour this matter the better, the date of the Appeale is transported to the postscript which he citeth, which is (saith he) against the nature of iust Appeales: for which you must take his credit. But let vs grant, that these Appellants had mistaken Panormitane, explicating the rubricke of the chapter, Olim de occasionibus, & had put in this clause into their Appeale, (which as is said is in a postscript after the Appeale) how is it prooued that there is an egregious faction meant thereby? How much bet∣ter might it be sayd, that there was a marueilous contempt of the Sea Apostolike committed by the Archpr. in suspending the Appellants from the vse of their faculties, after this Ap∣peale made to the Sea Apostolike? Againe, if we shall consider the backwardnesse of the Appellants, to doe or attempt any thing which might be offensiue to any (which they sufficient∣ly shewed, in that they hereupon refrained to vse their facul∣ties) and the forwardnes of the Archpr. who would vsurpe such an authoritie; before he was confirmed by his Holinesse (suffi∣ciently declared by this irreuerence, to the Sea Apostolike, in taking away from the Appellants, the vse of their faculties for Appealing) it will be euident to the indifferent iudge, which part was more likely to haue a bad meaning, for factiō or distur∣bance

of the Church. But this was deuised perhaps (saith he) vn∣derhand by the persecutors themselues &c. and so hee falleth into that point, of the standing of matters betweene the priests, and the Counsel, which I will leaue a little, and trie, whether be∣sides this coniecture already giuen, of the Archpriests mea∣ning, and his factious adherents, I can alleage any other mat∣ter, whereby it may be coniectured, that the Iesuits, and Archp. did meane an egregious faction, whatsoeuer shew they would make of peace, first occurreth a letter which was written from Rome, by M. Martin Array, one of the two Proctors appointed by the Archpr. and the Clergie vnited vnto him, and allowed by his Holinesse, as in this letter he affirmeth. Which letter, being a pretended relation of such principall matters, as you shall heare, was eyther penned by Fa Parsons, or not without his priuitie: being (as all Rome can testifie) the principall a∣gent against the priests, and one who thought nothing could be well done to his minde, vnlesse he were himselfe at the do∣ing therof, as appeared by his apprehending them, his keeping them, his examining them, and such like his charitable offi∣ces. This letter beareth date the 20. of February 1599. And herein is his deere friend certified, that the matter, about which the two priests went to Rome, was committed by his holinesse speciall commission, to Card. Caietane, and Burghese, to be exa∣mined, and heard by way of congregation at the English Coll. it selfe. And so it was (sayth he) vpon Wednesday, the seuenteenth of this moneth: when after sundry informations had from Acarisius Fiscal, of his Hol Congregation of reformation, that had taken their seuerall examinations (by his attourney Fa. Parsons) vpon their oathes. And after they (the Cardinals) had read and viewed such letters, memorials and papers, as the Ambassadours had brought with them, they came ioyntly together to the Colledge vpon the foresayd day, and with them the sayd Fiscall. And there hauing a conuenient tribunall prouided in fourme of iudgement (a couple of chaires set at a table couered with a greene cloth) they heard the whole cause, (but God knoweth who pleaded it.) And first each of the Ambassadours confession and declaration (that is, as much, and what pleased Fa Parsons) seuerally read by the Notary of the cause, (Fa Henry Tichborne a Iesuite) which were long, and euer•• one of them more then an houres reading. And therefore perchance to

auoide tediousnes, there was a little read here and there, where Fa. Parsons had turned downe a lease, and his fellow Iesuit (the foresaid Notary of the cause) was made acquainted therewith, and read accordingly. And then was each of them willed to say, if he had any thing to adde to his declaration more then hee had set downe, M. Bishop would say nothing, for which as was sayd, the Cardinals were offended with him: M. Charnocke deliuered somewhat, vntill Fa. Parsons did breake him off. And after this their letters and papers brought with them were seene againe by the aforesayd iudges, whereof the most part were translated into Latine. (Is it likely that the priests would write to his Holinesse in En∣glish? for the petitions were to him, which were brought by the two priests to Rome, and concerned their businesse) And besides that, were also Fa. Parsons, Rector of the Colledge, and Fa. Henry Tichborne Prefect of the studies willed to be present (These were besides themselues: for as hath been sayd Fa Tichborne the Iesuit was the foresayd Notary, and Fa Parsons the man that had takē their examinations) to interpret any thing that should be needfull both the Iudges and the two priests spake both Itali∣an and Latine) And after this againe were both Ambassadours cal∣led in ioyntly, (for M. Bishop was locked vp againe, as soone as he had heard his examinations read) as also M. Haddocke, and my selfe as procurators of the Archpresbyter, and of the Clergie vni∣ted to him, appointed by letters from them, and allowed here by his Ho∣linesse, with whom we had been, and had audience particular about this affaire before: And being come in, we were willed, as procurators, to speake what wee had to say in this behalfe. But you must vnder∣stand, that this charge was so secretly giuen by the Iudges, as the two priests there also present did not heare it. And these procurators being willed to speake like Proctors, sayd not one word, but Fa Parsons at their entrance began to declare vnto the Cardinals, that those two were Proctors for the Archpr. and that one of them was a Doctor of Diuinitie, and the ne∣phew of a Cardinal, and the brother of a Martyr, (agnominations able to credit the best Proctors in the world) After this pre∣amble, hee told the Cardinall, what a perillous diuision was made in England: and that these proctors, although they were very loth to deale against their brethren there present, yet for

the loue of Iustice, they were contented to be imployed in this action against them, and that they had a libell or bill of com∣plaint against them. At which words D. Haddocke (without any word speaking himselfe) deliuered vp a libell to the Card. But let vs heare what M. Array certifieth his friend of his speeches or his fellow Proctors, when (as he sayth) they were bidden to speake as Proctors. Our speech in effect was (sayth he, when they sayd not one word) that albeit it grieueth vs much to be driuen to accuse or pleade against our brethren Priests, that had beene of the same Colledge and Vniuersitie here in Rome, and had gone hence into England iointly to labour, and aduenture our liues for the same cause of the Catholike faith, though before them, (and were quickly wea∣rie thereof) yet their maner of proceeding had been, and was so pre∣iudiciall to common peace (these good Proctors were 12 yeeres be∣fore, or there about gone out of England) and vnion, and so scan∣dalous to all good and honest men, that either we must oppose our selues against them in the name of our head (they meane the Arch∣priest who was not their head, they liuing at Rome) and of all the rest of our Catholike body in England and abroad (they wil make their foresayd head a yong Pope) or els we should seeme to betray the same cause impugned by them. O scrupulous conscience! who would thinke that all his tale were onely an imagination, what might haue been sayd, neither he, nor his fellow Proctor hauing as yet vttered one word? But let vs heare this saint make an end of this lewde and lowde lie. Wherefore wee prayed their Graces (in what language?) not to be scandalized to see this diuisi∣on amongst vs, for that these were the moaths (O gentle mouthes speake) that did breed in the best clothes, and the wormes (O noble Proctor) that were commonly found vnder the barke of euery tree, if they were not looked to in time, and that this happened also in the ve∣rie primitiue Church, permitted by God for the better proofe and exer∣cise of good men. And that this was a very heresie in maners, & acti∣ons, as th'other in Protestants was in faith and Religion: & that this would breake into that in time, if that it were not looked into, as in diuers (of the Iesuits darlings) it had done already, and must needs doe: For that it was contention founded vpon the same grounds of emulation, euery ambition, hatred, couetousnes and libertie of life, as the other heresie was, and wrought a spirit conforme to that in all re∣spects

&c. This letter being written 3. or 4. dayes after that the priests had appeared before the Cardinals; and after a friendly composition demaunded by the Proctors, and pretended by the Cardinals, Can it be an argument of any other thing, then a desire to continue strife, and diuision? Could the most hate∣full professed enemy in the world haue disgorged his filthy sto∣mache in more spitefull termes? Had this bene vttered by the Proctors before the Cardinals against the two priests; with shame ynough it had bene written into England, but without the least ••ot of honesty, the Proctors themselues hauing most humbly desired a friendly composition. But the Proctors not hauing vttered one word (much lesse in these most vile termes) who may not iustly iudge, that when this letter was written (which was after the apparance of the two priests as appeareth by the date) that it was not meant by that side, that euer there should be peace? But marke I pray you yet a most wicked re∣lation, and which may conuince more euidently (if it be pos∣sible) that these fellowes would not haue peace. And then (saith he) we gaue vp a writing which before had bene exhibited vnto his Holines, & was remitted hither as it seemeth, (it seemed so indeed, for D Haddocke had it ready to giue vp to the Cardinals so soone as F. Parsons had told his tale) that these men came hither onely to trouble the peace of England, and to reuiue stirres in Rome, and that of their owne heads, as it seemeth, for that they had brought no one letter of credence with them of Superior, or other to his Holines Protector, or other man in Rome &c. wherefore we desired remedy in this behalfe, and exhibited diuers letters of the doctors of Doway, and M. Wright the deane of Cortrac, and of other graue men of our nation to this effect. All these letters here said to haue bene exhibited by the Proctors, were no other then one letter from the D of Doway, and an other from M. Wright which are set in the Apologie fol. 125, 126. whereof the first beareth date the 25. of Octob. 1598. and the second 10 Nouemb. 1598. and they were both to the Protector. Yet must M. Martins friend beleeue that he and his fellow Protector did vpon the 17. of February exhibit many other letters to the Protector, (who was chiefe Iudge, notwithstāding the exceptions taken against him at this time,) But how were these letters exhibited? In no other sort, then

as a part of that writing: for they were inserted in it, as may ap∣peare by the writing it selfe, of which I haue seene a copy. But let this passe, let vs heare what he saith was answered by the priests to all these grieuous accusations; Against all which (saith he) the Ambassadors were able to say little, and willing to say lesse, but onely excused their owne intentions, and asked pardon, if they had giuen scandall by their maner of proceeding, more then they euer meant. But put the case indeed, as it was, and as the Card. Bur∣gesius without doubt will acknowledge, and the Iesuits with all the rest of that faction then present, must auouch it one day a∣gainst their owne soules, will they, nill they, that Fa. Tichborne the Iesuit (who here also supplied the place of a publique No∣tary, and read this Libel) had no sooner done reading it, then M. Bishop required, that the Proctors might take their othes, that the Libel contained nothing but trueth. To which when the Card. Caietan would not consent, he requested that a copy of the Libel might be deliuered vnto him, & his fellow, that they might make their answere vnto it, as most false, and iniurious: whereat D. Hadd. who had giuen vp the writing, stepped to the table, & requested that it might not be deliuered vnto them, but that all things rather should be peaceably concluded. To which the Card. Caietan presently consented, the sooner per∣chance for ioy, that both the Proctors were not dumbe: for before this acte of D. Haddocke, it is most certaine that neither of them spake one word, howsoeuer that his fellow vanteth of his workemanship, when he was bidden to speake like a Proctor. Now would I aske of an indifferent Iudge, whether it were possible that there could be any desire of peace in fellowes, who in cold blood, and after three nights rest (if rancor and malice would suffer them to rest) would write thus into Eng∣land, cleane contrary to all trueth in a matter of such moment, as was the handling of the cause, concerning which all the di∣uision was which was, or was like to be in England? And if this were necessary to be done, lest that they should seeme to betray the cause impugned by the two priests, (as this fellow saith in this letter) must not consequently this cause be a most fowle cause, which must be vpholden with such shamelesse falshood? could these fellowes thinke that Master Bishop, or Master Char∣nocke,

should euer come to the sight of this relation of theirs, and helde themselues from declaring it to be (as in deede it is) a most false, wicked, and malicious information? or can these men thinke, that these means were meanes for peace, and not rather occasions to breake peace, when they should come to light? But this was not the first plot which was layd, by which their intentiō is discouered neuer to haue had peace. There is another letter written by Fa. Baldwyn (as hoat a shot, as any of the rest) dated 25. Febr. 1599. out of Flanders to Pa∣ris to M. D. Cecill: wherein also it may appeare, that these fel∣lowes meant, that there should be no peace, when they striued so greatly for the whetstone in their malitious letters against these priests. Thus he writ. I haue receiued, &c. I thinke you haue vnderstood how the Ambassadours Charnocke, and Bishop haue bene intreated by his Holinesse, their articles and cause of their iour∣ney. They were imprisoned vpon S. Thomas of Canterbury his day, and remaine yet prisoners. They haue bene examined by a Fiscall, and now they shall haue their sentence by two Cardinals, Burghese and Caietan. Their request was, there might be no subordination: and if it must be, then some one which fauoured them might be created Bishop: for which they named, D. Gifford, Bagshaw, Collington, or Bishop. They say, if they had not their request, experience would teach, quod indignabitur libertas, si prematur, (that is to say, that liberty would be offended, if it were pressed) These were their words. Now the case is altered, and they seeme changed, and sory that they tooke such a iourney in hand: seeing that nothing else, but ambition hath egged them thus farre foorth, &c. Could the spreading of these most notorious falshoods, be signes of any other thing, then of a desire that there should bee no peace? How could these fellowes thinke or perswade themselues, that when these tales came to the eares of the two priests thus abu∣sed, they would not be contradicted? was this it, which is ment by the Apologie, fol. 148. where it is sayd, that the Priests assured themselues, that there would not want some probable occasion after∣ward to breake againe? Was the authour of the Apologie priuie to these occasions? But how could these be occasions of the breach: seeing that M. Bishop and M. Charnocke knewe not of this false dealing, as being in banishment, besides that the

breach was made againe, before that these wicked dealings came to their knowledge. You are therefore to vnderstand, that these are brought to shewe that these fellowes could not haue any desire of peace, who could disperse such false & wic∣ked tales against those Priests, and in them against all the rest, by whom these were imployed to his Holinesse. And because perchance they perceiued, that these & other their plots would not fadge to their mind, and that notwithstanding the solemne inquirie of their life, and maners commanded by Cardinall Caie∣tan, 10. Nouemb. 1598. the treatise of schisme, and other iniuries offered vnto them, and to the priests imployed by them) they did all (contrary to their aduersaries expectations) submit them selues presently vpon the sight of his Holines Breue, the Iesuits were constrained to goe to worke so openly, as all the world cryeth out shame vpon them. For when peace was made, they fell to a fresh declaring, that the refusers of the appointed au∣thority had bene Schismatikes: which in all reason they thought was more then a probable occasion to breake the peace againe, and that their barbarous handling of those priests which were first sent to Rome, to haue dealt with his Holinesse, would be such a terrour to them, as they would neuer send the second time, so as they might tyrannize at pleasure, ouer whom they listed, and principally intended (perchance at the first) as not being now very likely to put vp the second time so scandalous, and vnworthy reproches: nor (as they hoped) would be for∣ward to attempt againe to get some remedy.

This first point being sufficiently declared, how matters stood betweene the Archpriest, and his adherents on the one part, and with the priests on the other part: nowe followeth this Authours information, how they stood with the counsell, and great men of the one part, and the Priestes on the o∣ther part. For out of these two considerations hee will haue his reader to gather, which part broke the peace, or was more like∣ly to keepe it. The first consideration he dispatched briefly, and declared that the wound was greene, when the Breue came: which he proueth by an Appeale made by some of the priests: for which the Appellants were by the Archpriest depriued of the vse of their faculties. The seconde hee beginneth

in shewing, howe by certaine wordes in the Appeale it may bee gathered, that there was an egregious faction, as deuised perhaps vnder-hand by the persecutors themselues. See how he falleth into the consideration with a perhaps, and then goeth thus forwards: who hauing with them at London at this time (if he were not very lately returned) D. Bagshaw, called vp as is supposed, by his owne procurement, it is very likely they agreed with him, that in no case whatsoeuer determination should come frō Rome, peace should be made, or kept with the Archpriest, and Iesuits. How many things must a man suppose, before he come to imagine, that one man meant not to haue peace with the Archpriest and Iesuits? which, if it should be graunted to this fellow, how would he hereupon inferre, that there was an egregious faction meant by those Appellants, of which this man of whome hee speaketh, was none, but rather of a contrary disposition, as this author confesseth in this place: where he addeth, which point it may be Ma. Collington and Ma. Mush, two of the three Appel∣lants, did somewhat guesse at, when they shewed so much doubt to the Archpriest, as before you haue heard, of bringing D. Bagshaw into this reconciliation? And to further this conceit, that M. Doctor Bagshaw had dealings with the Councell, there is a letter of a reuerend priest dated the 15. of April 1599. which is full of foo∣lish iealousies, and senslesse surmises, it being well knowen, that M. Doct. Bagshaw was sent for from Wisbich to London, to answer for his life, being most falsely and vnchristianlike accu∣sed, to haue had part in that Spanish treachery, for which Squire was put to death: although this author in the 13. chap. fol. 207. doth most shamelessely auouch, that as soone as euer they (the priests) vnderstood that their two messengers were restrai∣ned in Rome (which was not before the 29. of December) and not like to preuaile (which could not be so soone knowen in Eng∣land) then D. Bagshaw was sent for from Wisbich to London to treat with the Councell: and all England can witnesse, that he was sent for by the Councell about the Michaelmas before the two priests were imprisoned. But next after these authenticall surmises of one of the fellowe vnited brethren (but a reuerend one, and therefore must carry credit, howsoeuer this Apologie hath cracked it) there followed another letter of another reue∣rend

priest, who affirmeth that D. Bagshaw is at the last constrai∣ned to yeeld his obedience to their Superiour, with the rest of his confederats: If it be true (sayth hee) that M. Mush and some others affirme. And yet there is a greater argument, but it is a∣gainst M. Bluet. If (sayth this author) the said keeper of Wisbich castle doe not greatly abuse M. Bluet. And this standing vpon so nice a point, I will leaue to them, who haue will to compare their honesties together, and conclude contrarily to this au∣thors conclusion, fol. 153. for there he concludeth in this ma∣ner: By this then and diuers other wayes, which we leaue to speake of heere, (the priests are much bound to him for sparing them) it is easie to see what manner of negotiation these men had in hand, when the Breue came, and how farre they were embarked, and in∣tangled, &c. (you must cōceiue some strange linke by this &c.) with the Councell at this very time. How gladly would any blind man see this, and bragge when he hath done with the best sigh∣ted? For who, that hath his eyes, can see any such matter out of these fond surmises, out of their owne letters, and a memo∣riall of a man of whome they themselues haue some doubt, whether hee did not abuse the party, whome he tooke for his author? who doth not rather see, to what poore shifts this au∣thor is driuen, who to determine so weightie a question, as he proposed fol. 148. which part hath broken the peace, can say no∣thing, but perhaps, and as is supposed, and it is very likely, and it may be, and it is thought: with other such foolish suspicions and doubts, of which all this discourse is full, from the first entrance into the consideration of much more consequence, fol. 144. to this conclusion, By this then, fol. 153. How much more directly doe the priests in all places solue this question, affirming without any such foolish shuffling, that the Iesuits first (namely F. Iones) began this breach, by broaching afresh, that the priests were schismatickes? And the Archpriest seconded him with a most seditious letter which hee sent abroad: wherein hee signified, that he had receiued a resolution from the mother Citie, that the re∣fusers of the appointed authoritie were schismatikes. And this haue the priests set downe in their bookes, to haue beene the cause of the breach: and this cannot be denyed to haue beene done by the Archpriest after the peace was made: although this au∣thor

in chap. 11. fol. 167. taketh notice, that in the booke to his Holinesse, pa. 62. there is this marginall note, Origo nouarum contentionum fuit Archipresbyteri Epistola violenta. The beginning of new cōtentions, was a violent Epistle of the Archpriest. And vpon this note, he exclaimeth in his religious maner against the priests, that they would breake out againe vpō an angry epistle. And he runneth himselfe so out of breath, as although this note is set at the very bottome of the 62. page, he could not step ouer to the 63 page, where some part of this angry epistle is thus set downe. Ab vrbe &c. we haue receiued a resolution from the mo∣ther Citie, that the refusers of the appointed authority, were schisma∣ticks. But the marginall note was ynough for him to exercise his milde spirit against the priests: and by concealing where∣fore that note was made, and what was in the discourse, to cou∣sen his blinde reader, who must not once looke into the priests bookes, for feare lest their guides falsenesse be discouered.

And thus haue I shewed, how the Iesuits & the Archpriests want of consideration hath bene the cause of all these present broiles, and that this diuision should not onely not be cured, but be brought in time to a greater breach, as by the euent we haue seene performed. Whereby also it appeareth how false this narration is of this author. For first (saith he) vnder the fore∣said pretēce of a satisfactiō to be made vnto them of their fames woū∣ded, delay was made of reconciliation. Hath this fellow so soone forgotten himselfe what he said in this 10. Chap. fol. 147. out of M. Archpriests letter to Fa. Parsons, dated the 3. of Iune 1599? I was inforced (saith he) vpon their contentions, and contemptuous behauiour (that is their appeale from him to the Pope, as is set downe in the booke to the Inquisition epist. 52. & 53.) to suspend the vse of faculties in M. Collington, M. Mush, and M. Heburne. But now God be blessed, vpon the sight of the Breue Apostolicall, that you sent, they haue in such maner submitted themselues, that I haue giuen them restitution of their losses. The Breue also of the 17. of August 1601. excludeth al delay, affirming, that so soone as euer the priests did see the former Breue, they presently submitted themselues, yet must this fellow to keepe himselfe in vre (as if all his discourses were bastards, if they were in the beginning, middle, or ending any other then false tales) tell his Reader,

that there was delay made of reconciliation vnder pretence of hauing satisfaction; which howsoeuer the accusers of the priests shall make to God, they are neuer able to make to them. Then (saith he) new quarels pickt, new complaints fained, new exag∣gerations made, by words and writings both against the Archpriest (the causes hereof are layd downe before, and the whole story at large sent to the Inquisition) the Cardinals protections, and F. Parsons by name, especially concerning the treatie of their two mes∣sengers in Rome. Perchance Fa. Parsons letter of the 9. of October 1599, which he sent into England, France, and Flanders, and where not? came to some of their hands, and also the letter of M. Martin Array, and Fa. Baldwines bolt to D. Cicyll before ci∣ted came to be examined, and were euident arguments of fals∣hood (to say no worse) and lewd dealing, and the breach re∣newed before by the Iesuits, and Archpriest (as is shewed) might giue the priests iust cause to looke further into the mat∣ter, then they could before suspect: but when were these quar∣rels pickt? by whom? or how followed? marke I pray you how he falleth into a story impertinent to these controuersies. The peace was made by the priests in May 1599 as in this chapter is confessed, the breach was presently after made by the Iesuits, and the Archpriest, as this author doeth in a maner confesse, in that neither of himselfe, nor prouoked thereto by the priests their books he will come neere to this point, which is the most principall in this present controuersie; and now he will tel you a tale of M Charnocke his returne, which was a yeere after, to wit in May 1600. who (as he saith) was inuited to come home, and so hee did, no doubt much against this fellowes will, who (if I am not deceiued) was the cause of his banishment and confinement with∣out any maintenance, to keepe him in case for euer comming home, and to aggrauat the matter M. Charnocke is said to haue made a ridiculous appeale from the sentence of the two Cardi∣nals. But I thinke that this fellows worship did not laugh when he heard of it Yea and more then this he came to Paris, and tooke degree of Bachelor of diuinitie, which perchance troubled this fellowes worship, as much as the appeale, and thereupon he doeth so iuggle it with M. Bishop his taking degree of doctor, forbidden (as he saith) by an expresse Breue, that his Reader may

thincke M. Charnocke had committed some great offence, and yet this author meane nothing lesse, but that he layde all the offence vpon doctor Bishop, who was before, and not at that time made Doctor as he would seeme to say, and was lawfully made, and worthily, and no way contrary to the true mea∣ning of the Breue, which was gotten of the Pope not a∣gainst the doctoring without approbation, as here is most falsly noted in the margent, but against the doctoring of yong men, and such (by explication of those, who procured the Breue) as would take the degree more timely, then the ambitiō of their aduersaries could well like of. But to returne to his tale of M. Charnocke. Here then (that is at Paris) it was resolued (saith he) that M. Charnocke notwithstanding his Holines prohibition, (that is to say, the sentence of the two Cardinals, Caietane, and Burghese, from which he had lawfully appealed, which also M. doctor Ely confirmeth in his notes vpon the Apologie pag 157. and thereby set himselfe free vntill the matter were againe dis∣cussed) and his owne oath to the contrary (which he neuer tooke nor was any offered him, when the sentence here specified fol. 155 was shewed him by Fa. Parsons in forme of a letter to the same Father being then Rector, or the vice Rector of the Col∣ledge) should goe into England vnder pretence of lacke of meanes to liue abroad. (This was the cause of his Appeale in Lorraine be∣fore he came to Paris, as M. Archpr. vnderstood by a letter from M. Artur Pitts, the Deane of Le Verdun, and Chancel∣lor of the Legacion in Lorraine) and that onely for fashion sake he should aduise Cardinall Burghesius thereof, which he did by a litle short contemptious letter of the 25. of May. The letter was writ∣ten in very humble maner, as I vnderstood by those that saw it, and with the priuitie of others in Paris, who would soone haue caused any such stile to haue bene altered and as it was not per∣chance very long so (as it appeaeth by the authors relation) it was not very short (for here he sayth, that the Cardinall did answere all the obiections, or cauillations touched therein, about their hard vsage, & iniurious sentence giuen against them, and how he had appealed, which this author calleth points of the letter) nor in a∣ny such maner contemptible, for who can thinke, that this fel∣low were so modest, that amongst all his cōtemptuous tearms,

and narrow seeking for the least matters to bring the priests into contempt, he would not set downe some one phrase or o∣ther, by which it should appeare to his Reader, that the letter was a contemptuous letter. To the which (saith he) the most hono∣rable, and gracious good Cardinal answered with great patience and modestie the fifteenth of September in the yeare 1600, beginning his letter thus: Reuerend in Christ, as my brother, your letters writ∣ten at Paris the 28 of May, about your iourney into England, were de∣liuered more slowly to my hand then I could haue wished, both that I might haue answered sooner, and haue disswaded that iourney of yours, if they had come vnto me, before your departure out of France, for that I thinke the newes of your departure will bee vngratefull to his Holines, as it is vnto vs, for so much as it is both against obedience, and against an expresse prohibition, and against your owne promise confirmed with an othe, and is thought will giue occasion of new con∣tention and troubles in England &c. Thus farre in the Apologie. And afterward this author declareth how the Cardinal did an∣swere the obiections, which M. Charnocke had made, and that notwithstanding this, M. Charnocke did not onely perseuere in England in the exercise of his function of priesthood, hauing openly incurred the censure of suspension, but also returned a more vndutifull answere, then was his sonner letter, which hee prooueth by those wordes in M. Charnocks letter, Quam licet tunc cluderem fraudem, ad maiorem securitatem vter{que} ab eo absolui curauimus: although I did delude at that time the deceipt vsed in making vs sweare, to fulfill the sentence giuen against vs, yet both of vs afterward procured our selues for more securitie to be ab∣solued from this othe.

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

Most Reuerend, and most illustrious prince: your letters dated at Rome 15. Septemb. 1600. I did receiue at London in England vpon the 21. of the next moneth following. To the which I re∣turne this answer, with as great respect as the law was in which they were written: I doe not well vnderstand how the notice of my going into England, should be vngratefull, either to his Holinesse, or vnto your Highnesse, when as neither a most louing Father, nor a most iust Iudge, can be ignorant, that foode is as needfull for the liuing, as pu∣nishment for the offendor. The Rector, or Vicerector of the English College in Rome was appointed by letters of the most illustrious Car∣dinall Caietan of good memory, and of your Highnesse, dated from both your pallaces 21. of Aprill 1599. to signifie vnto vs in your names, that we should not presume for a time to goe without leaue in∣to the kingdomes of England, Scotland, or Ireland, but should liue quietly, peaceably, and religiously in other Catholike countreys, where we should be appointed by you, and that we should procure the conser∣uation of peace euery where among the English Catholickes. If either of them had signified vnto vs in your names, or in the names of any other, where banished and confined men should haue had those things which were necessary to sustaine life, and that these things had bene at hand, I might haue bene charged with disobedience, and breach of an expresse commandement, not obeying so pious an intention of the decree, which layd vpon me a most grieuous (howsoeuer vndeser∣ued) punishment, as being hereby made somewhat tollerable, and the oath had not bene a bonde of so great wickednesse, if I had taken any, not to returne into my Countrey. M. Acarisius vpon the 22 of April 1599. hauing first proposed vnto vs, not to returne into our Coun∣trey, vnder paine of suspension, did after by F. Parsons suggestion, among other things, exact also an oath of this: which deceit although then I deladed, for the greater securitie we both procured to be absol∣ued from it. Furthermore, if M. Acarisius did receiue no commis∣sion from the most illustrious Cardinall Caietane and your Highnes, or that this commission were recalled, before that he came vnto vs, I know not what promise that is, with which any man may charge me, that I confirmed it with an oath: but it is euident by the testimonie of Fa. Parsons and also by your owne letters of the 21. of April 1599. to the Rector, or Vicerector of the English College in Rome, that ei∣ther Acarisius receiued no commission from you, or that it was re∣called

before he came to vs. For in these letters the Commission is gi∣uen to the Rector or Vicerector of the College, to signifie vnto vs, as prisoners in the College, in your names what we were to doe. And so doth M. Charnocke proceede, answering euery part and parcell in the Cardinals letters, and shewing out of the most appro∣ued Canonistes, that his fact was lawfull, and that he incurred no censures, by returning into his Countrey, after his Appeale made in Lorraine. And by this it is made manifest, what the de∣ceipt was, and whose, which M. Charnocke telleth the Cardi∣nall he did delude, and the cauils are also answered, which are here made in the Apologie, where this authour would aske: who could absolue from an oath exhibited by the immediate Commis∣sary, or Delegate of his Holinesse? For to this is answered, that if the immediate Commissary, or Delegate of his Holinesse aske an oath, beyond his Commission, any man may absolue from it. But neither was here any immediate Commissary, nor De∣legate of his Holinesse, but a fellowe suborned (as it should seeme) by F. Parsons to come doe some acte at his request. For M. Acarisius seeming to read what he proposed, as sent to the Colledge by the two Cardinals, had not his lesson so perfect, as Fa. Parsons had it without the booke. And vpon Fa. Parsons after-speech, M. Acarisius repeated his lesson, and thrust in this deuise, that the priests should sweare not to goe into Eng∣lang without leaue, whereas before there was onely a censure of suspension to be incurred, if they did returne without leaue, which censure also, as M. Charnocke doeth demonstrate in his answere to the Cardinall, was suspended by his Appeale. But this matter is more aggrauated yet against M. Charnock for that the sentence was such, as otherwise they were bound to accept, and fulfill vnder paine of deadly sinne, that is to say, they were bound to goe begge or starue in some one place or other, out of their countrey, vnlesse this fellow can perswade his Reader, that they had some allowance for their maintenance, to which if any man had bene compelled to binde himselfe by oath; I would aske any in different man, whether there could be maioris iniquitatis vinculum, a bond of greater iniquitie, especially if the Iurors were neuer conuinced of any crime (as their case was) which bond all learned men doe say, is no bond. And if this

poore companion his opinion (that euery decree did binde vnder deadly sinne) were receiued, all the Canonists must goe for e∣gregious fooles, who affirme both that some decrees are ipso ture, of no force (and M. Charnocke in his answere to the Cardinall sheweth, howe that their decree was such) and also that a iust Appellation such, as M. Charnocke doeth there prooue this to be in the opinions of Innocentius, Hosti∣ensis, Geminianus, S. Antonin, Coberrubias, Siluester, Angelus, Nauar, and others, may take away the force of a decree, that it doe no way binde, vntill the cause be againe iudged against the Appellant: But this fellow speaketh according to his skill, when he telleth the Reader, that the two priests were bound vnder mortall sinne, to accept and fulfill that sentence, which the Cardinall gaue concerning the oth. There is enough said, although also it may be added, that there are certaine in all countreys, who haue very large faculties, as this author know∣eth well, who can vpon cause dispence with an oath extorted wrongfully, by a greater person then M. Acarisius is, and by the suggestion of an honester man then F. Parsons is, and the partie inueighed may with greater securitie receiue the abso∣lution. And vpon occasion giuen him to speake of the oath, as the Cardinall did here giue M. Charnocke, he may say without any bragging, that he did delude the deceit which was vsed by such cousening companions as would exact an oth where they had no commission. But neither was any oth exacted at all for the performance of this sentence, and this authour sheweth him∣selfe a notorious impostor in false translating those wordes, quam licet, &c. Here hath this author set downe the decree of the two Card, to the performance whereof he challengeth an oath made by the priests, which he saith was as cleare & reso∣lute, as might be set downe in these words. Quapropter praefatis Gulielmo & Roberto sacerdotibus, &c. Wherefore both in his Holi∣nesse and our names, wee doe ordaine vnto the foresaid William and Robert priests, and doe command them strictly in the vertue of holy obedience, vnder the paine of suspension from holy orders and exer∣cise of the same to be incurred by the fact it selfe, and vnder other cen∣sures and punishments, to be inflicted at the iudgement of his Holines, that none of them without expresse licence of his Holinesse, or Cardi∣nall

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

Protector, doe presume to goe to any of the kingdomes of Eng∣land, Scotland, or Ireland for the time, &c. This &c: cutteth off the principall point, which would here make against this authour; for in that which followeth, it is euident, that not M. Acarisius, but the Rector or Vicerector of the English Colledge, were appointed by the two Cardinals, to deliuer their commande∣ment vnto the two priests, and consequently what was before done by Segnior Acarisius, to haue beene some iugling of Fa. Parsons: for that it followeth in the decree, or letter rather, as also it is confessed in his Apologie, fol. 139. Sed apud alios, &c. Hoc{que} nostro nomine Beuerentia vestra eis significet. But liue in o∣ther countreys, &c. And this doe your Reuerence signifie vnto them in our name. And if any man should doubt, whose reuerence it was, who was to deliuer the Card. mind vnto the two priests, they may put themselues out of doubt, by looking vpon this inscription, Reuerendo in Christo Patri Rectori vel Vicerectori Collegij Anglorum de vrbe: To the Reuerend Father Rector or Vice∣rector of the English Colledge in Rome. But this and the latter part of the letter was left out, that the Reader might conceiue how that the priests had sworne to obserue, or fulfill this decree, and that this oth was exhibited by the immediat Commissarie or Delegate of his Holinesse, whereas this letter appeared not in many dayes after that M. Acarisius the Commissarie came vnto the Colledge vpon a sleeuelesse errand, as by this decree it appeareth, although it beare a date of the day before M. Aca∣risius came thither, to wit, 21. April, and M. Acarisius came not vntill the 22. of the same. And this was then vsed as an argu∣ment by Fa. Parsons, that M. Acarisius should not haue come, insomuch as hee seemed to be somewhat amazed (as I vnder∣stand) when hee shewed this letter to M. Charnocke, what the reason might be that Acarisius did take vpon him to declare the Cardinals sentence, seeing the Cardinals had committed the matter to others, as appeared by those letters. And Fa. Parsons being asked by M. Charnocke, what should be the reason, that these letters bearing date the 21. of April, were not seene in so many dayes after? answered, that they were brought vnto the Colledge the 21. of April, which was the day before M. Aca∣risius came thither, but were left in his chamber the same day,

and that hee had newly found them, when he brought them to M. Charnocke. M. Bishop was now at libertie, and had ben some dayes before, and had not seene this sentence of the two Car∣dinals, neither was it euer shewed him otherwise, then thus: Comming one day to see F Parsons, or M. Charn. who was kept stil as yet in prison, F. Parsons told him, that there lay a letter vpō the table for him to looke on, which when M. Bishop had read, he layd it downe againe, and neuer was any motion made to one, or other for any othe; for the fulfilling of this sentence of the Cardinals, which was their sentence, and no other, as is con∣fessed in this Apologie fol. 139. and is onely vrged in this place to haue bin transgressed with periurie: for so still doth this au∣thor goe forward. This was the decree (sayth he) and it is strange that any Catholike priest would aduenture, to breake it so openly, and to glory in it by writing, when he had done. This man is vilely trou∣bled that M. Charnocke did nothing but for what he was able to giue his reason, and such as when he commeth to answere, he letteth all slip quietly. Yet he wil here haue a saying vnto him, and tell his reader that M. Charnocke did glory in the breaking of the decree; which is most false: for neither did he breake the de∣cree, but appealed in forme of Lawe from the iniquitie there∣of, nor glory therein, but proued the iustnesse of his appeale out of most approued authors, as may be seene in his answere to Cardinall Burghese set in the booke to the Inquisition pag. 87. But what? (saith he) did he attend to obserue the other part of the decree, more then this, which was that they should liue quietly and o∣bediently, and to procure others also to peace, and concord? I answere, that I vnderstood by such as liued in Lorraine, that he liued very quietly, and brought with him a testimony of the same from M. Arthur Pitts, to whom he was so much beholding, as to liue in his house, vntill his breaking vp house caused M. Char∣nocke to returne into his countrey: and hee liued obediently to all his Superiours. And in this very Chapter there will be a sufficient testimonie gathered out of the 144 leafe, that he pro∣cured peace, and concord in such as loued peace. And as for the others, it was neither in his power to procure it (being ba∣nished so farre off from them) neither could any man in wise∣dome •…•…e him vnto it. But this author will prooue the contra∣ry:

but how, trow ye? Forsooth by the effects that ensued his going in. As how? For within fourteene dayes after this his letter to the Cardinall, there followed their greatest appeale from the Arch∣priest. A great matter against M. Charnocke. Might he not as∣well haue sayd, that it was about a moneth after that Cardi∣nall Burghesius letter came into England to M. Charnocke, and haue layd the blame (if appealing deserued blame) vpon the Cardinall? If any man will take the paines to looke vpon the causes of the Appeale set downe in English in Ma. Colingtons booke pag. 192. to the 202 page, he shall finde asmuch reason for the one as for the other, and that the grieuances were most intollerable which were offered them, long before M. Charn. returne into England, and were the principall causes of their Appeale. But lest that all, euen his blindest fooles, should find him to be a poore cauiller in this cause against M. Charnocke, he will tell them another coniecture, and that is, that M. Charn. sought occasion to quarrell with the Archpriest vpon his first entertainement into England. And for proofe hereof he ci∣teth a piece of a letter, which M. Charnocke writ vnto him 24. May 1600, of which letter I will set some part downe, accor∣ding to the copie thereof, as I haue seene it: Right Reuerend Sir, being returned into England, I thought it my duety in most humble maner, to salute you, hoping my returne cannot be preiudiciall to any your good courses, and desiring for your further satisfaction, to speake with you, when it shall please you. This which followeth is inser∣ted here in the Apologie. In the meane while to request of you thus much in charitie, to write to me, why sending for me to declare the authority giuen you by Cardinal Caietane his letters, you shewed me such instructions as when I came to Rome, I found were not annexed to your Commission, as you at that time sayd were annexed. Thus far in the Apologie, and then toward the latter end: Reuerend Sir, a small reason from you shall giue me satisfaction: for mine intention is not to argue any matters with you, but to take your answere simply, as you shall giue it, and rest therein satisfied. And this scruple being re∣moued, I shall the more confidently deale with you in other matters which I am to impart vnto you. Thus wishing nothing more then peace and quietnesse amongst vs, I cease to trouble you from your cha∣ritable affaires, and doe expect some answere from you at your best lea∣sure.

24. of May. But of this hath this Apologie maker culled as much as is here noted: which part if it were taken alone by it selfe, could not imply a quarrel in any honest mans iudgement, much lesse when it is taken with all these circumstances. But this author must either adde somewhat still to that which he ci∣teth, or curtall it: or els he wil shame himselfe. And as for that which M. Charnocke affirmed in his letter, it is confirmed by an other, although the Archpriests secretary gaue M. Charnock the lie fiue or sixe times in the answere to his letter, which how wel soeuer it suteth with the new religious managing of matters, did not so well become a priest to a priest: neither hath M. Charnocke so behaued himselfe, but that his credit alone with∣out any other witnesse may be thought as good as M Blackwels, or this idle authors, although he doth not enuie their worships calling. But marke I pray you how this matter would be here salued. The Archpriest denieth that euer hee sayd, that they (the fained instructions) were expresly in his instructions from Rome. By which it may be gathered, that the Archpriest did at the least propose such matters, as were not in his instructions, which were sent from Rome. But this is not the matter wherewith he is charged, that he should vse these particular words: but hee is charged directly, that pretending to shewe the instructions which were annexed to his Commission, hee shewed such as were not annexed thereunto. And being taken in the manner he confessed asmuch. And who seeth not what a poore shift this is, the Archpriest denieth that he sayd they were expresly in his instructions? who doubteth but that the man saith trueth, when answering his neighbor who calleth for him vseth these words, I say, I am not at home, although he be at home? For although it be false that he is not at home, yet it is very true that he sayth hee is not at home. And with this iest doth this fellow salue this mat∣ter; the Archpriest denieth that hee sayd that they were expresly in his instructions. Who euer charged him that he should vse these words? These poore shifts may blinde such as willingly will be blinde, and other men will soone discouer the fallacy. The ac∣cusation was and is, that pretending to shew his instructions, which his Commission mentioned, to be annexed vnto it, hee drew out false things, which were neuer annexed to his com∣mission:

and he was taken in the maner. And this is it which both M. Charnocke and M. Colington will iustifie, & many more such goodly matters, if need shall require, where these poore trickes wil not serue to any purpose, I say not thus or thus expresly. Now follow certaine exceptions against some letters written by certaine priests in Wisbich vnto the Archpriest. I haue not seene the copies to my remembrance, and therefore can say nothing of them more then this, that it is not incredible, that the Archpriest would giue cause of sharper words then are there vsed. But all serueth to prooue somewhat, namely, what course was held by the troublesome, especially after M. Charnockes returne into England. But there is not one worde, what the ma∣sters of misrule did before M. Charnock returned into England, or what cause they did giue of these troubles, to wit, the ray∣sing of the slander of schisme, and such vile imputations, as the prisoners might accordingly haue written to the Archpriest in other termes, then peripsema tuum. There must not be a word of this matter which made all the stirre: for sayth this fellow with shame enough (ca. 8 fol. 115.) of the other point of schisme we will not talke at all, and wee are sory that euer it was mentioned or brought in question: vnquiet people hauing taken occasion hereby to continue contention, and to make more brables then were needfull. How easie a matter had it been then for this author to haue sol∣ued this question proposed in this tenth chapter fol 148. Which part hath broken the peace, since that he doth acknowledge, that the bringing of schisme in question was the cause of this con∣tention, and could not be ignorant, who brought it againe in question, being tolde so often that the Iesuites did it; and the Archpriest both before and after the peace was made, and the Archpriest his letter was cited for proofe thereof in the booke to his Holines pag. 63, and in the booke to the Inquisition pag. 60? But this author must haue his Readers eares filled with o∣ther stories, such as are impertinent to his question. And when he thinketh that his Reader hath forgotten the matter which he proposed: then he slinketh away, and beginneth afresh with some other which he handleth as wisely.

But to make an end of this Chapter: here are certaine let∣ters inserted of F. Parsons exhorting to peace, as though F. Par∣sons

tricks were not knowen very well. If this author could haue brought forth any of F. Parsons letters to his fellow F. Lyster, or F. Garnet, or F. Iones the Iesuits, who were the chiefe maintei∣ners of that senselesse Libel of schisme against the priests, to per∣swade them to retract their scandalous opinions, to correct their forwardnesse in insuring Catholique priests, to exhort them to make satisfaction for their vnchristian detractions: such letters would haue bene for F. Parsons credit. But to cite a letter, or exhortation to the priests iniuried, to haue peace: what doeth it argue but an obdurate malice in him, and a wic∣ked desire, that they should desist from that, to which they were bound in conscience, to wit, the defence of their fame, and the clearing themselues from such false, but most wicked impo∣stures of schisme, rebellion, and whatsoeuer a mischieuous head could deuise, and spred abroad against them?

And so finally (saith this author) after all their former resistance, and appeales aswell of D. Bagshaw and his fellows at Wisbich, as of M. Charnocke and other abroad, they ioyned in greater number vp∣on the 17. of Nouember last, if all consented thereunto, whose names are subscribed, whereof we heare the contrary in some (some one or two, who had giuen their consents in generall, but had not seene this particuler appeale, yet afterward confirmed it, and appealed againe, for so much, as there was any need.) In all which doing of theirs one thing is especially to be noted, And what is that? That they haue neuer procured any one of all their appeales to be presented hitherto, or prosecuted in Rome as farre as we can vnder∣stand, (this last clause wil not helpe, if the proposition be gene∣rall of all the appeales: For M. Charnocks appeale was presented and prosecuted in Rome, before this booke came foorth: and this author could not be ignorant thereof, if I am not mistaken in him) which yet they ought to haue done within certaine moneths, vnder paine that all is voyd if it be not done. But how many are these certaine moneths? The Lawyers say 13. moneths, if we shall count them by the moneths: and vpon iust cause 26. mo∣neths from the Appeale, within which time doubtlesse the au∣thor of this Apologie, heard of the Appellants at Rome. And Launcelot l. 4. Instit. Iuris Canon. de appellationibus cap. accidit. af∣firmeth, Yet a longer time might haue bene granted for the

prosecution of an Appeale: But as I thinke no man doeth now doubt, but that the priests had intention to follow their Ap∣peale, and will giue this cause of their publishing of books, pen∣dente lite, that is, while the controuersies hang: for that the Arch∣priest (notwithstanding their Appeale) denounced them to haue incurred the censures, & lost their faculties, because they subscribed to a thing called an Appeale, & he kept a fowle stirre by some of his seditious Agents against the Appellants. An other reason was, because they had a desire that their cause should be knowen sufficiently abroad, which could not bee knowen too much in their conceit, who sought nothing but a trial of the trueth, and for iustice against their vniust defamers. But what this author hath to say against these bookes, you shal heare in the next Chapter: and if you wil haue an answere from him to this question proposed fol. 148. which part hath broken the peace, you must goe picke it vp where you can, now you know his worships minde.