A REPLY TO A notorious Libel Jntituled A BRIEF APOLOGY or defence of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, etc. Wherein sufficient matter is discovered to give all men satisfaction, who lend both their ears to the question in controversy between the jesuits and their adherents on the one part, and the Saecular Priests defamed by them on the other part.  
¶ Whereunto is also adjoined an answer to the Appendix.  PSAL. 26. 
Mentita est iniquitas sibi.  
¶ Imprinted Anno 1603.   

¶ THE PREFACE to the Reader.  
VBi non est sepes (saith Ecclesiasticus) 
Cap. 36.  diripietur possessio. In such times we do live (courteous Reader) as no care can be too much, no diligence too great, to preserve that little, which we have, or are, from ruin, and rapine of the evil disposed mighty. How intolerable the injuries were, which some Priests once sustained, and afterward freely forgave, the whole world is now a witness, and cannot but see, how untimely these stirs were revived by the jesuits, and the Archpr. after that peace was concluded between them. Other judges, than the whole world, the Priests would have had, as appeareth by a letter of theirs to the Archpr. in their book dedicated to the Inquisition pa. 61. but their humble petition was said to be a tumultuous presumption, and would not be heard. They foreshowed what danger would grow by his denial of a home-conference, but that did nothing move him. They declared that they stood in such terms for their good name, and fame, as they must either live in perpetual infamy, or use their pens in their own defence: the first no way fitting their calling, and present state: the second very dangerous to both parts: it being very probable, that an Apology would draw on an Answer: the Answer, a Reply: and that Reply not likely to be the last, howsoever lost labour. But neither could this persuasion purchase any peace, or procure, that the Controversy might be determined at home among themselves. One way more did the Priests assay to stay the outrage of the jesuits and Archpr. and that was to send to the University of Paris, for their opinion in the matters in question, which was no sooner seen by the Archpr. and jesuits, but an Edict made, 
●9 Maij 1600.  and divulged in condemnation of their censure and great penalties threatened against those, who should either directly or indirectly maintain, or defend it in word, or in writing, whether it were truly given, or forged (mark I pray you this spirit) whether upon true information, or otherwise, as being prejudicial to the Sea Apostolic, etc.  
This headdie proceeding, and disclaiming, or rather condemning all trial (but a self will, and a dangerous obstinacy in the Archpr. and jesuits) compelled the Priests to advise upon some other course: in which consult, they resolved to appeal to the Sea Apostolic: and the better to prevent such blocks, as were before laid in their way upon the like attempt, they published certain books: some in English to satisfy such of our own Country, as were misinformed by the one part, and were not suffered to have any speech with the other: some in Latin, that the cause coming to trial, might not be heard with that prejudice, which false informations had before wrought, and would not now be wanting.  
Against two of these books there is an Apology lately come forth, to wit, against the Latin book which is dedicated to his Holiness, and entitled: Declaratio motuum etc. and again an English book entitled, The Copies of certain discourses. And at the end of this Apology there is an Appendix, wherein two other books are shrewdly threatened: the one in English, which was written in reply to a letter of the Archpriest, to his assistants, concerning the other books, and is entitled, The hope of peace: the other in Latin, which was dedicated to the Inquisition: and hath this title, Relatio compendiosa, etc. It is a world to see what shifting there is in this Apology, when a difficulty occurreth to be answered: what juggling, to have the matter on the priests side seem odious: what haste a second untruth maketh to overtake a former, which through the Author's fault only had gotten the start: how many rotten points there are, by which one story is made to hang under another: what singular devotion, and extraordinary charity is expressed in the most vile, and bitter terms, that either malice, or madness could devise: as, 
a The Epist. to his Hol.  Children of iniquity, 
b Apol. cap. 1. fol. 5.  Libertines, etc. and how true that sentence is in this Author: In oculis suis lachrymatur inimicus, & si invenerit tempus non satiabitur sanguine: 
Ecclus cap. 12.  The enemy hath water in his eyes: but if the time serve him, it is not blood will satiate him. And this other also: Caput suum movebit, & plaudet manu, etc. He will shake his head, and clap his hands: He will seem to lament the course which is taken, and in the midst of his sorrow he showeth by one, or other impertinent ridiculous matter, how glad he is of any little occasion to sport himself at the griefs of other men. Yet notwithstanding this so gross kind of dealing, as any man, who is not over-partiall, might enter into it, the applause of the ignorant (who will not either read the books which the Priests set out, or examine what is boldly, although most untruly, advouched in this Apology) demandeth an answer, which although M. Doctor Ely, and M. john Collington have largely and learnedly given to the most principal points therein handled, yet upon the earnest desire of some, who have seen this reply in my hands, I emboldened myself without the Authors privity to publish it, referring the Reader, for more satisfaction in this present controversy, unto their labours.  
The last years BREVE of the 17. of August would have cast some doubt into me, whether I might have attempted thus much, had not the Archpr. after a quarter's meditation, or more thereon, published the Apology, and immediately after an Appendix unto it. And if an uncontrolled custom may have the credit to be the best interpreter of a Law, my fear is much lessened by the breaking out of another pair of books from the same Authors since that time: In which while they endeavour to manifest the bad spirits of other men, they discover their own, by such terms, as ill beseem their profession, and pay doubly some one man's debt, to which they would falsely, and against their own knowledge persuade the Reader, that all the other Priests were liable: and if no benefit rise by this present discourse to the Reader, yet will it be another (although a needless) witness against the wilful blind, whom the holy Ghost rebuketh by the Psalmist in these words: Noluit intelligere ut bene ageret: He would not understand that thereby he might do as he ought to do.  
Yours all that he is, A. P.   

¶ A Reply to a certain Libel, lately published in Print in the name of the united Priests, called A brief Apology, supposed to be made by F. Parsons.  

CHAP. 1. How the Author of the Apology playeth at All hid, with the Reader, and while he is covered under the name of united Priests, he discovereth himself to be a jesuit.  
IT might seem a very frivolous labour, to examine the title of this Apology, if the Author thereof had not been more curious in the like, then there was just cause, and over careless also what entrance he made to this present work of his untruths, and poor shifts, when impertinent discourses do suffer him to fall into the matter in question, which as at other times, so here in the very title he perverteth, and possesseth his Reader, that an Ecclesiastical Hierarchy erected by his Holiness, was impugned by the books against which he writeth, and for his pleasure termeth (although most ignorantly) Libels: their Authors being always ready to justify them both before God and the world. And if his Reader might be so much favoured by him, as that he might have his leave to peruse those books, he would soon perceive, how falsely this title is set to this Apology: the books entreating only of the abuses of the authority, and of the just causes of the Priests their forbearance, to subject themselves to a superior of the Card. Cajetan's appointing, before any letters came from the Sea Apostolic, either in confirmation thereof: or to show that the Cardinal had any such authority, or commandment from his Holiness, to erect any such Hierarchy. This Apology is said to be written, and set forth for the true information and stay of all good Catholics, by Priests united in due subordination to the right reverend Archpriest, and other their superiors. As though those, who had appealed from the Archpriest upon just cause, did not remain in due subordination to him, and other their superiors to whom they had appealed. But to let this calumny pass: there hath been inquity made of many, who are the men here meant by these words: Priests united, etc. and as yet we cannot hear of any, who were privy to the writing of it, or setting it forth. Some there are, who confess, that their consents were asked to the setting forth of some book in their names, the contents whereof they were not to know at that time: and of most likelihood it was to the setting out of this book: but they denied to give their consents thereunto. Many suspect that this Apology was not written by those Priests, which are here made to father it: but rather by those, who have always made their commodity by the disunion of the Priests. And although it go forth in the name of many: it is very probable, that it was made by some one man. For whereas one man setting out a book may use his phrase in the plural number, when he speaketh of himself: we suppose: or, we say: it is seldom in use, that many joined together, do use in the like the singular number: as I pray you: I suppose, which here we read in the Preface I shall, in the first chapter: I think, I say, in the third Chapter: and in the sixth chapter I omit. 
〈…〉  But to let this also pass: there are no weak conjectures, that this Apology was made by some jesuite, who bewrayed himself, before he was aware, as may be seen in the 8. chapter of the Apology Fol. 180. where the author hath these words: Where about they ask this question concerning us, why should they be unwilling to procure, etc. 
Copy 〈…〉.  And if any man will take the pains to turn to that place cited by these Authors, he shall find, that the question was asked concerning no other than jesuits, and consequently, that out of this place of the Apology, there is just cause to take them for the Authors. 
〈…〉  another conjecture there is, that Fa. Parsons in particular is the author of this Apology: because in the common opinion of many, who have read his style, this is so like unto it, as it would be hard for any man to imitate it so nearly, without the very same gift which he hath. And the number of letters, and such as they are, do almost convince, that it is his doing For what occasion had any Priests here in England to enter into so many impertinent matters to their state and profession, as are here by manuscripts testified, which probably were not to be gotten, by the first of july after the publication of the books, he undertaketh to answer. And F. Garnet the head of the jesuits did almost discover as much in a letter of his of the last of july Anno 1601. to a Saecular Priest: 
M. F. B.  wherein he told him, that the two printed books (against which this Apology is written) should be (God willing) answered from Rome. Such as had read: 
Prou. 27.  Laudet te alienus, & non os tuum, Let an other man and not thine own mouth praise thee, might doubt whether F Parsons would so grossly commend himself, as here he is commended, were he not known to be one, who would not willingly, that any mouth or pen, of which he hath the government, should not show forth his praises. Some other might doubt whether it were his doing, because of the diverse Englishing of this sentence: 
Hebr. 13.  Obedite praepositis vestris, & subiaccte eye: which here is thus Englished: Obey your Superiors and submit yourselves unto them. And in his selfe-clawing Wardword (wherein he discovereth a piece of his disposition against some Catholics) he translateth it thus: obey your Prelates and lie under them. Perchance those who had the printing of this Apology, prefixed this sentence: and we will imagine, that they, in recompense of his extraordinary commendations of them, requited him in that, which he might blush to say of himself: if at any time his undeserved praises may make him blush. There is an other place of scripture taken out of the first to the Thess. cap. 5. Rogamus vos fratres, corripite inquietoes. We beseech you brethren, repress those that are unquiet amongst you, which is apparently abused in this place, both by false translation, and by being applied against Cathol. Priests: because when they saw a thief, they did not run with him, but stood, and stand still, as they are bound in conscience in the defence of their fame against those, who most injuriously had taken it away in some places, and endeavoured to do the like service elsewhere if they could. It is set out permissu Superiorum: that is, by permission of the Superiors: but as yet we cannot learn, what superiors these are, having most humbly requested the Archpriest to give us satisfaction herein, as may appear by a letter to him from M. Collington, not long after we had a sight thereof.  
It is very probable, that no superiors dare avouch it: for it containeth the most gross untruths, & idlest shifts, and those so huddling one upon another (especially where the controversy in question is handled) that it is a very hard matter to find a truth in it. And doubtless this permissu superiorum was not set here to any other end, then that the Reader might see, how the Author could lie by authority: which that it may appear more evident, I have drawn out of the Apology some of such falsehoods as are convinced to be such in the Apology itself, or otherwise publicly known to be such: without meddling with those, which otherwise are to be proved as occasion shall serve. I have also noted a few so apparent shifts, as no man of any judgement can choose but find them, and be thoroughly satisfied how this game doth go.   

CHAP. 2. A note of some notorious falsehoods and shifts which are contained in the Apology.  
IN the title of this Apology, it is said to be written and set forth by the Priests united in due subordination to the R R. Archpriest: which is proved to be false, Cap. 8. Apol. fol. 108. where it is confessed, that these Authors are those, concerning whom this question was asked in the English book entitled, The Copies of discourses, pag. 5. why should they be so unwilling to procure or suffer to be procured, etc. which question every man, who can understand English, may see, that it was asked concerning not the secular Priests, but the jesuits: and consequently the jesuits are to be taken for the authors of this Apology, and not the united Priests, as here is said.  
2 In the title of the Table of certain principal deceits, etc. he telleth his Reader, that it is a Table of principal deceits, etc. contained in two Libels: which is proved to be false both by the eye, and by this which he saith himself in the latter end of the Table. As for the second book set out and entitled, The copies of discourses, etc. we mean not to cite any thing thereof in this place, etc.  
3 In the Table number 5. he affirmeth, That the Priests did exercise Card. Allen when he lived, as now they do other good men, he being opposite unto them and their factious proceeding, especially against the fathers of the society. And this also is a notorious falsehood: the Cardinal being never opposite against the Priests or any their proceed, how opposite soever he might be against some other kind of proceed of some beyond the seas: neither was there any faction in England, against which he might oppose himself, 
The Apology contradicted by M. blackwel's letter.  as may appear by the testimony of M. George Blackewell in his letters to Card. Caietane in the year 1596. which was long after Card. Allen his death. And the letter which is here cited in confirmation of Card. Allen his being opposite to the Priests, doth show no more opposition against the Priests then against the jesuits, as may be seen where it is Cap. 2. Apol. fol. 11.  
4 Ibid. num. 6. it is said, that when the jesuits were first sent into England (which was in the year 1580. as appeareth Apol. fol. 181.) the Priests had but one only Seminary, which is proved false Cap. 1. Apol. fol. 3. where it is said that the latter began in the year 1578.  
5 Ibid. num. 13. 
A very malicious imposture.  It is said that the good and quiet Cath. prisoners in Wisbich, are compared by the Priests to Donatists, for that they retired themselves from the tumultuous & scandalous life of the other, and put themselves under rule: which is apparently false, as may be seen in the place quoted, where the Priests do not only not accuse any of Donatisme, but show how F. Weston (of whom the speech is principally in that place) by yielding to stand to arbitrement, declared himself not to be Tyronius that Donatist.  
6 Ibid. numb. 14. It is fathered upon the Priests, that they should say that one in Wisbitch Castle fell out of his wits, by reason of opprobrious letters written unto him: which is very false, as may be seen in the place quoted by this Author. The Priests there do affirm, that one in Wisbich fell out of his wits upon grief (which these Authors leave out) taken of certain letters written, which were written by himself, and as he confessed sometime, that his writing of them was such a corrosive unto him, as he should never recover it: and these words unto him are added by these fellows for their purpose, and for a brave flourish, that they might the boldlier charge the Priests with a falsehood.  
7 Ibid. num. 16. He shifteth off the assertion of the Priests, that M. Standish had given his name to be a jesuite (which was a thing to be considered of) he being the man, who was said to have solicited this subordination in the name of the Secular Priests: and it is so also confessed in this Apol. Cap. 8. fol. 98. 
A palpable shift.  The shifting of it is in this manner: All are jesuits with these men, who are not of their faction, the Archpriest and all. And thus he runneth away with the matter: which as is said, aught to be thought upon as much, as any thing here handled, for the discovery how, and by whom this subordination was wrought.  
8 Ibid. num. 23. The Priests are charged to call the authority of their superior instituted by Christ's vicar, a masking vizard, which is proved false in the same place, where the priests words are cited. For there (as any man may see) they do only affirm, that the jesuits thought to procure dominion to themselves under the mask of another man's person, which is no impeachment to authority, or immodesty against it: every man knowing, that such authority as they do acknowledge most just, may be abused, and the man who hath it, and made no better than a masking vizard under which men go, and do many things unseen and unknown.  
9 In the list of principal persons that are injuried, num. 11. it is said, that the most Reverend Father in God the Bishop of Tricarica Nuntius to his Holiness in Flaunders appointed viceprotector, and judge of English Ecclesiastical affairs, is refused by the Priests: which is most false, as their going unto him (long before this book was set out) will make evident, 
Ad Clerum Anglicanum 8. de●…mb. 1601.  and his letters do testify as much: and of their acknowledging of him in all dutiful sort.  
10 In the Epistle to his Holiness, num. 14. it is said, that the Priests had obtained liberty for four under the Queen's letters patents to ride up and down, etc. which will appear evidently to be an egregious falsehood, if the records be sought, upon which all such letters are to be kept at the L. Keeper's peril.  
11 
A whetstone.  In this place also is another notable falsehood, that few Catholics dared to deny them money, lest they should detect them to the Counsel.  
12 
The jesuits play at in and out as they list.  In the first Chapter of the Apol. fol. 2. this author affirmeth, that the principal or only ground of this our present contention and scandalous controversy, is an emulation partly of lay men against Priests, and partly of Priests against religious men, especially the Fathers of the society. And in the 11. Chap. fol. 161. he saith, that the whole world knoweth that this controversy is of Priests with the Archpriest: and that the stomach against the jesuits is for standing with the Archpriest. By which, besides the contradiction, it appeareth how this poor man's memory doth fail him, even in the deciding between whom the controversy is, which he undertaketh to handle and determine.  
13 In the same Chapter, fol. 6. and 7. the beginning of the association of secular Priests is attributed to the Priests upon their coming into England, 
A malicious devise for to discredit the association intended by the priests.  after they were frustrated of their designments by F. Parson's dealing at Rome: whereas his coming to Rome was in the year 1597. and not before, as appeareth in this place: and the association began in the year 1595. and F. Parsons was told thereof before he came out of Spain for Rome.  
14 Cap 3. fol. 20. 
The jesuits care for pure stuff to make priests of.  The books which are set out by the Priests are said to be done by such, as went over Servingmen, Soldiers and wanderers: which is most apparently false, if those were the authors which in the beginning of this Apology are held to be.  
15 Fol. 21. It is said, That the whole body, and name of jesuits is impugned: which is most false, as may appear in the book to the Inquisition, pag. 5.  
16 Cap. 6. fol. 27. D. Norden is said to have been stricken by God with a strange accident of repressing his tongue by dumbness, until he died: which is most false, he dying no more strangely than all persons use to die, according to the manner as the sickness doth take them. It is well known, that he died of a Lethargy, and that he spoke many times after he was first taken therewith, and died in all points as became a Catholic priest, as there are many to witness, who were present.  
17 Cap. 8. fol. 98. His Holiness is said to have resolved to yield to the erecting of a government in England, upon a mature deliberation taken of certain letters, which by the date there set down were written in England, after that this government was erected. Confer them with the date of the Card: caietan's letters of the institution of the Archpriest, Martij 7. 1598. and the first of these here cited, will be seen to have been written in England about a month before.  
18 Fol. 109. The falsehood which is laid to M. Blackewel in his proposing false instructions, and affirming them to have been annexed to his Commission, is shuffled over with an assertion, that his instructions came with his letters, which no man ever doubted of: The exception was against those, which were proposed for such, and were not such.  
19 In the same leaf M. Blackewell his persisting in this error, that we could not appeal from him to his Holiness, is shifted: first in this manner: We are sure he did not say it, in the sense they take it. Secondly thus: Many men in the world might say this in divers cases, wherein Appeal is cut off by his Holiness consent and order. A couple of good jests. The first is common to that sort of people, to fly to secret senses, to justify any thing, whatsoever passeth them. And it were not altogether so intolerable, if they would (under the pretence, that sometime men may equivocate, by the example of our Saviour, & other his saints) only use it to save themselves from being taken, for such, as they are: but they will pleasure their friends with the like, and be as ready to give a sense of other men's words, as their own: but with this difference, that if they can possibly devise, how to draw other men's words to an evil sense, they will peremptorily affirm, that those men spoke their words in that sense. And this their frowardness towards others is sufficiently discovered, cap 2. Apol fol. 16. where the priests assertions, that authority is not an infallible rule of truth: and that but one upon earth is warranted from error, and not he in all things, are called in question by this author upon some his imaginary senses. But in the late spritish manifestation of spirits, cap. 1. he discovereth himself egregiously in this kind: where confessing that Statutes have been made, both by our ancient kings of England, and by our protestant princes, by which they have forbidden provisions from Rome of dignities, & Benefices, he telleth his Reader very peremptorily, that they (priests) do conspire and jump with the protestant: and in a false, and heretical sense, object the statute of Praemunire. Which also he would seem to prove, by giving a reason, why the old statutes were made: as though neither the statute were to be interpreted, according to the contents thereof (whatsoever was the cause of the making thereof) nor the absolute provision of dignities from Rome forbidden: because the motive of that statute was, to keep the treasure of England within the land; which was raised by the benefices, at that time annexed to the dignities. But to make this his cavil more plain: the dignity of a legate had no spiritual living annexed unto it: and yet did those Catholic princes hold him, to have incurred the penalty of the Statute of Praemunire, who would exercise a power Legantine in England without the Sovereign's consent: as may appear by the answer of Card. Wolsey, when they endighted him in a Praemunire upon those statutes, constrained thereunto (saith the history) to entitle the King to his goods and possessions. 
john Stow, 21. Hen. 8.  My Lords judges, the King's highness knoweth, whether I have offended his Majesty or no, in using of my prerogative Legantine, for the which I am indicted. I have the King's licence in my coffers under his hand and broad Scale, for the exercising and using thereof in the most largest wise: the which are now in the hands of my enemies. Therefore because I will not stand in question with the King in his own cause, I will here presently confess before you the indictment, and put me wholly to the mercy and grace of the King, trusting that he hath a conscience, and a discretion to consider the truth, and my humble submission and obedience, wherein I might right well stand to the trial thereof by justice, etc. By which it appeareth, that although his Majesty, who then was, were moved by some of his counsel, infected with Luther's doctrine, to condemn the Cardinal, for using his power Legantine: yet it is evident by this, that when the King was most Catholic, and the Cardinal also, the Cardinal would not exercise his authority Legantine, without the King's licence, and the King gave it to him under his hand and broad Seal: which convinceth, that whatsoever was the motive of making those statutes, all provisions of dignities from Rome were forbidden, and not those only which had temporal livings annexed unto them. And hereby also may it be seen, how ready these fellows are to interpret other men's words in the worst sense, which they may, & affirm most peremptorily, that the speakers or writers had those senses, which it most pleased their adversaries to give them. And thus much for this point. Only this is to be added, that although this new manifester of spirits hath in this place recanted somewhat of his rashness, uttered in the Apol. cap. 2. fol. 15. concerning the chief purpose of those statutes of Praemunire, yet he hath left somewhat in this manifestation of spirits, which he must in some other place recant, or show himself a very obstinate impostor: that is, concerning the time of the enacting those Statutes, which were long before the time, in which he here saith they were made, as may appear by the book of Statutes.  
The second shift is as apparent, as this. For although many men in the world may say as much as the Archpriest said in divers cases, wherein Appeal is cut off by his Holiness consent and order: yet no man in the world, who professeth to be a Catholic, will say it, and stand peremptorily in it, without some warrant by this clause in their Commission, appellatione remota, or to that effect: which is not to be found in the Commission which M. Blackwell had, as may appear to those, who will read over the Cardinal Caietane his letters: by which he made him an Archpr and Superior over the Seminary priests residing in England and Scotland.  
20 Cap. 9 fol. 123. There are letters of the 18. of March 1598. from Flanders, brought out against the two Priests, that went from England to Rome, about an authority not then known in England: as by the date of the letters of institution, it may be evidently gathered, which was at Rome 7. Martij 1598.  
21 Fol. 125. 126. 127. There are letters brought out to prove, that his Holiness was provoked by them to imprison the two priests: whereas the date of the first of them is, after the date of F. Bellarmine (now Cardinal) his letter to F. Parsons, wherein he signified, that his Holiness had that resolution, if they came to Ferrara; for his letter beareth date the 17. of October 1598. as appeareth fol. 120. Apol. and the first of the other letters are from Douai 25. Octobr. 1598. as appeareth fol. 125.  
22 Fol. 132. 
A most audacious imposture.  It is said that M. Charnocke said, and swore before, that their only coming was to supplicate, etc. whereas there is no such matter said, or sworn by M. Charnocke, as may appear fol. 129. where his oath is put down without this word only, which is here thrust in by the author for his purpose.  
23 Fol. 128. 
F. Parson's exhortations were the students only informations.  The whole English College is said to have known, what passed at Rome in this matter, when the two priests were there detained prisoners, which (no one being present at any thing, which passed) is a most gross and impudent imposture.  
24 Cap. 10. fol. 141. It is affirmed, That the two Priests who were detained as prisoners at Rome, were presently set at liberty upon the sight of the Breve, and assurance, that neither they nor any of their side in England would ever stir more in these affairs. Which may evidently appear to be most false: for the Breve was brought unto them within two or three days after the date thereof, which is 6. Aprilis: and the whole College will witness, that one of them was not set at liberty, until the 6. of May following: although the other had this liberty upon the 22. of April.  
25 Fol. 143. 
A marucilous presumption of the blind reader his dullness.  There is very good use made of the false dating of the Breve, which is known to have been upon the sixth of April 1599 and not long before, that is fol. 140. it is twice so cited. Yet here, for the credit of F. Parsons, the Reader must take the Breve to bear date the 21. of the said month.  
26 Fol. 154. 
This Author should have showed what means M. Char. had to live in Lorraine.  It is said, that M. Charnock being at Paris, it was there resolved that he should go into England under pretence of lack of means to live abroad: and that only for fashion's sake he should advise Card. Burghesius: which is very false, as the principal of our Nation then living in Lorraine can testify: M. Charnock having been there almost a year, and never received any thing from them, who confined him there, nor from England, notwithstanding he had written divers times, both to Rome, and into England for some maintenance as some of them have testified in their letters to the Archpr. dated the 11. of April 1600. from Liverdune.  
27 Fol. 168. 
A shameless disse●…ling of the cause of these present controversies.  This Author inveigheth bitterly against the priests: and would have his Reader most ridiculously to think that the priests had no just cause to stir, as now they do, but that they took occasion (as he sayeth) upon an angry Epistle of the Archpriests unto them, and most impudently quoteth a place in the priest's book to his Holilines, pag. 62. where his Reader may see, that the contents of that Epistle was a publication that they were schismatics, and that he had received such a resolution from Rome, which we leave to any indifferent man to judge, whether it was a just cause for the priests to stir for the purging themselves of this wicked slander.  
28 Fol. 177. This Author boldly demandeth touching the two priests who were imprisoned at Rome, among other questions (all which will be answered in their places) had they not licence after all examinations made to go and speak with his Holiness if they would? Whereas all the English Nation then in Rome will testify, that they were kept close prisoners long after their examinations were made, and the one not dismissed out of prison, until two days after that the other was departed from Rome: by which it appeareth, that they were not together at liberty after their first imprisonment, nor licenced to go to speak with his Hol.  
29 Cap. 13. fol. 201. It is affirmed that M. Bensted was pursued so narrowly up and down London, soon after conference with D. Bagshaw, as he was taken near the Tower, and soon after made away, in recompense of this his contradiction to the D. 
A most malicious suggestion.  For so good friends (saith this fellow in this place) are the persecutors unto them, as none that dissent, or disagree from them shall find any favour. And to make this Narration seem the more probable, the priest himself is brought in, as a witness hereof by a latter letter. But this falsehood is so notorious, and known to be so great, and so wicked, as the spreaders of this libel blotted it out in some books themselves, and pasted thereon a piece of paper, as if they had been ashamed thereof. Yet did they let many books pass uncorrected perchance to such, as they presumed would believe any thing they said, without further examination. And to make some kind of recompense for this their wickedness, they have set a few lines at the end of their Appendix to the Apology: but indeed they have committed a greater wickedness by iterating the accusation in this manner. 
A new found means to defame men.  Moreover in the Apology pa. 201. the Reader is to omit the 9 lines immediately following these words, Thus far wrote that good priest, etc. for that something is therein mistaken through the mistaken date of one of M. Bensteds' letters, whereby a former letter of his was taken for a later. His first apprehension was verily thought to proceed of treachery, upon some free speeches of his with some malcontents: but his second taking which happened at Lincoln, seemeth to have been by a mere chance after his breach from Wisbich, and soon after he was put to death. What man of judgement will not discover a notorious malice in this author: who would so peremptorily affirm, that M. Bensted did testify by a later letter, that he was taken, and soon after made away in recompense of this his contradiction: and afterward seem to salve it with a mistaken date of a letter: as though the letter bearing this or that date could deceive the Reader in a matter of so great weight.  
30 
A most gross slip.  Cap. 13 fol. 207. It is said, how that as soon as ever the priests understood, that their two messengers were restrained in Rome, and not like to prevail: then D. Bagshaw was sent for from Wisbich to London to treat with the Council, etc. which cannot but be a very shameless untruth, all England knowing that he was sent for up not long after Michaelmas about Squires Spanish treasons: and it is well known that the priests were not restrained in Rome until the 11. of December, as is confessed in the Apology, cap. 9 fol. 121.  
By these few his Reader may see, how bold a face he hath to prefix in the beginning of his Apology this saying of S. Augustine: Do you know to distingui●… between true, and false; between , and puffed up; between turbulent, and quiet; between swelling, and sound; between probations, and criminations; between instructions, and fictions; between handling the cause, and running from the cause? If you know this: well, and good: if you know it not, we are not sorry that we have had this care to instruct you. For albeit your heart be not turned to peace, yet our peace returneth to us. Yet to make some flourish in this kind, and that his Reader should be possessed with a conceit of an infinite heap of slanders, calumniations, and contumelious speeches pretended to be used in the books against which he writeth, he giveth him a taste (as he saith) in some few places taken out of the books, as they do lie, by way of a Table: which he entituleth in this manner.   

CHAP. 3. An answer to those calumniations which the Apologie-maker setteth out in a Table entitled, Of certain principal deceits, falsehoods and slanders.  
PArturiunt Montes: who doth not expect some very great wonder? Who having but one ear, or a credulous head, would not at this first encounter take the Priests for no other, then strange monsters? But alas how will this good man blush (if he be not past shame) when it shallbe discovered, how little worth the noting, he bringeth forth any thing, but the fruit of an idle and distempered brain? of which in these few words he hath given a sufficient argument, knowing that this Table is not of deceits contained in the two books (as he promiseth) but only in one, and so telleth his Reader at the end of the Table: That he meaneth not to cite any thing of the other, for brevities sake. But mark I pray you, what deceits, falsehoods, and slanders are here set down for principal: and by those you may guess what he would say, if he might.  
Out of the latin book dedicated to his Holiness, pag 1. he hath found no less, than five or six deceits, shifts, and falsehoods. But if you will know what they are, you must go look in the xj. Chap. of the Apology, where we have also discovered his exceptions to be no other, than five or six fond calumniations. He would not tell you here, what they were, either because he would not so soon discredit himself: or else because (imitating Painters throughout all this work, aswell as Poets) the top of his Table shall present nothing to his Reader.  
In the second page, as he saith, where the priests complain of the persecution of the one side, and their oppression on the other side, he findeth great fault, or promiseth to prove, that few of them have been wounded or put to death, but rather cherished, to make an opposition against the whole body. He citeth cap. 10, 11, 12, and 13. But if there should be a recital made of such, as have been put to death, and the priests named, there would very few be found, that have favoured the proceed of the jesuits. And if any priests have lately found more favour, then either themselves, or other heretofore have had, it hath been (as I suppose) in regard that the Council hath lately perceived a difference of priests from Statists: and what indignities the priests have, and do daily suffer, because they will not run the lesuits courses, but oppose themselves rather against their falsehood, with all due respect to the whole body of which they are members: and the contrary is not showed in this Apology, either in the 10, 11, 12, or 13. Chapter. For in the tenth there are only a few foolish conjectures, that M. Doct. Bagshaw wrought some matters with the Council (when he was sent for up to London to his answer about the treason wrought by Squier, being by him charged therewith at Fa. Walpole the jesuits direction in Spain.) In the 11. Chapter there is scarce one word to this purpose. In the 12. there is a bare assertion, as there is here in some four or five lines. In the 13. chapter this author indeed enlargeth himself upon this matter, and is emboldened upon a letter of M. Th. Bluet, which by the contents seemeth not to be his: Bluet being therein named among others, and altogether spoken of in the third person, not in the first, as Englishmen use to speak, when they mention any thing concerning themselves and others jointly. As for example our phrase is, we shall be, not, they shall be, if the writer be one himself. And to say that he used such a phrase, to cover himself, is too gross: for if he would have covered himself, he would not have set his name down at the end of the letter, Yours Thomas Bluet. But of this we will say no more until we come to answer the 13. Chapter of the Apology, when it shall be further examined. The second demonstration which this Apology maketh of deceit, falsehood and slander, is out of this same place cited. And as for their oppression (saith he) it is none, but such as they list to imagine, when they cannot have their own licentious will in all things. What the oppression is, I leave it to any indifferent man to judge, when Catholic priests, leaving all other livelihoods, which either in England they might have had, before they took upon them this state of life, or otherwise out of England, as many have at this day, in requital of many years hazard of their lives to save men's souls, without any Ecclesiastical living, or other means for their maintenance, than the charity of such, to whom they minister the Sacraments, are turned out to go pick salads: and all Catholics, who will be accounted pious and zealous, are forbidden their company, unless the priests will yield to their own most unjust diffamations, and damn their own souls in following the licentious will of the jesuits, and Archpr. who would have them to accuse themselves, that they have lived, and ministered the Sacraments in schism. And if any thing be brought in the 1.5.6. or 7. chapter as here is promised contrary to this, it shall be convinced of deceit, falsehood or slander.  
Out of the fourth page in the Latin book, there is deceit, falsehood, or slander, proved in these words: Cogimur, etc. We are forced to fly to the feet of his Holiness, etc. But this matter is sufficiently answered by the Priest's presence in Rome: which was with as much speed as conveniently they could make. And if they had never gone, their sending of this book to his Holiness would justify as much, as is here set down, by them: and if (notwithstanding those means which the priests did use) their appellation, and consequently this book, wherein the appellation is, never came to his Holiness, it is made more evident, how necessary the printing of these books was, that some one by one means or other, might by good chance light into his Holiness hands. And by this is answer made to the next place, taken out of the 5. page, where this deceit, falsehood, and slander is found. Haecautem, etc. We are forced to divulge these things in print, where divers other causes are also given of the printing. And to this purpose there was the last year a little book printed at Paris, and dedicated to the Nuntius there residing, entitled, Rationes redditae proimpressione, etc.  
Out of the 6. page, where there is no one word spoken of Card. Allen, but how he was a common father to all the Priests, and how by his wisdom he kept all things in quiet, there is gathered by this Author a certain principal deceit, falsehood, or slander, which is proved because he was opposite unto the Priests and their factious proceeding, especially against the Fathers of the society, as by his own letters appeareth a little before his death, etc. See Apol. cap. 4. and 7. See the fineness of this fellows wit, how he can discover a deceit, falsehood, or slander. The priests do not say in that place, that he was either with them or against them, or with the Fathers or against them: but only make a plain narration of his wisdom, and the reverence which all did bear unto him. And as for the 4. Chap. (to which we are here referred) there is nothing of Card. Allen his writing concerning our matters, neither could there well be, he being dead before these begun. In the 7. Chap. there is a certain remembrance of a letter of his to M. Much, which for so much of it, as is set down in the second Chapter, it condemneth the priests no more, than the jesuits: between whom belike he had heard there was some private questions: of which, what his judgement was, it is very well known to some, and hath been confessed by other: namely Doct. Haddock, that the Card. before his death had such disgust of the jesuits their actions, as this good Doctor being told by M. Charnocke what was reported in England to have proceeded from a jesuite, took upon him perchance to save then the jesuits credit (for now they say he denieth it again) that it was he himself who had used these words after the Cardinal's death. He is well dead, for if he had lived, he had greatly dishonoured himself and his country.  
In the 7. page, there is a principal deceit, falsehood, or slander, noted in these words: Desudantibus, etc. While Seminary Priests did sweat in the harvest of England, which harvest was then well manured, and almost ripe, some jesuits were called in by Doct. Allen to help them, etc. But what are these falsehoods? and how are they proved? Forsooth, for first (saith this good fellow) how well manured and ripe the English Cath. harvest was 22. years ago, when the jesuits were first sent, there being then but few Priests in England, as having had but one only Seminary until that time, and few known Catholics, also in respect of the number, that after had ensued, this we say, is known to all men that understood our case.  
We are not here to stand upon the increase of Catholics, which hath been within these 22. years: for no doubt there have been more known, then were before. And if the jesuits will take it upon them, that they have been greater encreasers of Catholics then the Secular priests, they will discover in themselves too much both falsehood and vanity. And as for the exception which is taken against that which is said of the good manuring of the harvest in England, and that it was almost ripe before the jesuits came in, he might as well have taken exception, and proved falsehood and vanity in our Saviour his words, when he said, 
Io●… 4.  Leuate oculos vestros, & videte regiones, quia albae suntiam ad messem, etc. Lift up your eyes, and behold the country, how ready it is now for harvest. And this was spoken by Christ only upon the disposition which he saw in the Samaritans to receive his doctrine. And as the number of Priests was not so great as now it is, so was it not so small as this fellow would it should be thought, and both the Priests and laity had suffered long before the jesuits set foot into England: and there was perchance more true & sincere religion in the least household, than now is in a wider compass, what fair shows soever are outwardly made to delude the world. And whereas it is here said, that when the jesuits came into England, there was but one only Seminary, it is as false as the other was foolish: For as it is set down in the first Chapter of the Apol. fol. 2. the first English Seminary began at Douai in the year 1568. and never as yet failed, although upon occasion it hath been translated from thence into France, and back again now to Douai: so there is also mention in the same Chapter fol 3. of the beginning of the English College at Rome in the year 1578. which was before the jesuits entrance into England, as may be proved out of the 12. Chapter of the same Apology, fol. 181. where F. Parsons is said to have come into England betwixt Easter and Whitsuntide in the year 1580. where he must needs hear of some priests, who had been sent from that Seminary before him. T.W. in his disgression from 16. Martyrs in one year, pag. 52. saith, that the College of Rome was founded in the year 1575. which was five years before F. Parson's entrance into England. And as I think no man doubteth, but that Fa. Parsons, and Fa Campion were the first jesuits, which were sent into England to labour in that harvest. As for those general letters, which follow in reproof of these supposed falsehoods, they shallbe answered, where this Author setteth them down in particular.  
In the 8. page F. Heywood the jesuit is said to be falsely, and maliciously belied in these words: Ostentansse, etc. A certain jesuit vaunting himself among our people, as though he had been Legate to the Sea Apostolic, etc. But you must go for proof hereof to the 3. chap. (where there is nothing to this purpose) and to the 11. chap. where fol. 164, F. Heywood is thus cleared from this pretended false, and malicious lie. Only it is true, that some 16. or 17. Priests (whereof one chief man is said to be of their faction at this day) met together with him, (that is F. Heywood) and would have had all the Nationall customs of England about fasting (for some little diversity, and difficulties, which they found in them) to be reduced to the common order of the Roman Church, which D. Allen, F. Parsons, M. Blackwell, and others did not allow: and F. Heywood yielded unto these men's opinions. And thus much perchance should not have been said here, had Fa. Parsons, and Fa. Heywood been friends: but they being otherwise, and the good Fa. Heywood reclaiming himself, and seeking reformation of manythings in men of his order (for which cause, notwithstanding his learning and other gifts, he was made to live, and die very obscurely) the Author of this Apology is content to say somewhat of him in this case in question: although so far as it might touch the credit of the society, the blame is laid upon the Secular priests. And because perchance it is too well known, that some of those priests (otherwise zealous men, as by their death they made evident remonstrance) did long after break those fasts upon the warrant of this Provincial Council, it is said that F. Heywood yielded unto the contrary opinion, lest the society should bear the discredit of so rash an attempt. And thus is the calumniation answered, which was made against F. Heyw. and no otherwise, as the reader may see, if he will turn to the places whither this Author sendeth him. And it cannot but argue great want of shame in this Author, to run with such fowl terms upon men for saying that, which when he cometh to salve, he knoweth not almost, how to deliver otherwise with any likelihood of truth.  
In the 9 page the principal deceit, falsehood, or slander, is noted in these words: Parietiam modo, etc. In like manner the Rectors of our English Roman College did go about many things, that were grievous, and asperous to our youths. But for this point you must see it handled at large cap. 5. Apol. where also it is to be answered, or the Reader referred to some particular treatise of this matter. But in the same page, there is an other slander, that is: Conspectis, etc. Card Allen, after he had considered, and discovered the endeavours of the jesuits, was wont to say, that they sought more their own good then either that of our Country, or College. The proof here of must now stand upon the honesty of the Relators: but how justly he, or any other might speak it, I refer me to any indifferent man's judgement, when the jesuits would never suffer any to be in rest in the College, who would not suffer themselves to be drawn to the society either by them, or their Agents, who living in the College, as the other students did, had secret vows to be jesuits, and persuaded, as many as they could, to take the same course. And England having more need to be furnished with such, as were most fit to take upon them the care of souls, who can doubt whether the jesuits in seeking the most towardly youths to leave their vocation, and become of their order, sought more their own good, then either that of our Country, or College? And to the question here foolishly proposed, what private good can the jesuits pretend for themselves worth their labours, and perils in England, more than in the Indies, except the good of souls, and service of God? As though they sought somewhat else in the Indies, than the good of souls, and service of God, or at the least not so much, as in England; We answer both according to their proceed, and F. Parson's platform of Reformation, that whatsoever they pretend, they seek to keep not only the Secular priests in a servile subjection unto them, but the Bishops also, and all the whole State of England: having already in their platform or Council of Reformation set down all Ecclesiastical men, as pensioners, at the discretion of some jesuits, and some Secular priests, no doubt of their choosing, for avoiding of contention, & division. And whereas (good man) he talketh of the jesuits labours, and perils in England, who knoweth not, how deliciously they far, how gorgeously they are attired, how quietly they sleep in the best, and safest houses in England? insomuch as it is a marvelous wonder, when any jesuit is in peril. And there hath not wanted among the Lay gentlemen, that for these respects have wished themselves jesuits, notwithstanding they have lived with wife, children, great friends, and as great contentment, as this world can yield to wealthy protected Catholics.  
In the 11. page is this falsehood noted or slander against Card. Tolet, in that he is said to have been a favourer of the Troublesome against their superiors: the words are these: I am tum, etc. At that time both the College, and all the scholars had been undone, if Car. Toledo had not opposed himself, as a wall for the said scholars. This is justified by many: and in the particular discourse of the troubles in Rome, it will be showed, notwithstanding this vaunt here of all Rome, and his Holiness, as though they would witness the contrary.  
In the 12. page this Author hath noted great falsehood in the narration of the stirs of Wisbich, and telleth his Reader in his religious terms, how the priests do calumniate Weston, and the bigger and better part, because they lived in order, and retired themselves from these men's licentiousness, and for more proof hereof his reader must go look in the 6. chapter of the Apology, where he is like to find many untruths uttered by his Author, which are already discovered in a relation set out of those matters.  
In the 15. page (which he calleth the 13.) he noteth this falsehood, that the priests called themselves united: Laicorun, etc. The jesuits did alienate Lay men's minds ab unitis sacerdotibus, from the united priests: note (saith he) the phrase of united, they being far the less number, and divided both from their head, and the rest of their body the English Clergy. It is as the Hollanders do call their rebelled states against the King, The united Provinces, etc. Note, say I, how this fellow abuseth his reader, by tellinghim of a division against a head, where there was none, but voto only, that is to say, by a religious desire, which was in Fa. Weston the jesuite, who would be director of all the priests in Wisbich, to which because some would not consent, he and his company divided themselves from them, which being an unjust, and a scandalous separation, the other priests, who remained in their former course of life, might justly call themselves united, as men, who properly kept the union, when the other made such a division as they would not have any commerce with them, upon their idle toy of Reformation, under pretence whereof the jesuits having gotten the superiority, the priests must yield to what conditions they would offer, or the whole country must be in an uproar: yet will these men challenge the name of united. But let every indifferent man judge, which part did most lively represent a rebellious state. And for the further proof of this fellow his malicious impostures (for it is not possible that he should have hereof any ignorance) let any indifferent reader look upon that discourse cited here by him out of the Latin book, and it will be as clear as noon day, that there is no mention of any other matter, then of the division wrought at Wisbich by the jesuits and their faction, some years before the Archpriest was instituted, and consequently before there was any other head or whole body of the English Clergy, then that, from which the jesuits and their factious adherents divided themselves.  
In the 16. page this Author discovereth another principal deceit, falsehood, or slander, in these words: Ticonius ille Donatista, etc. That Ticonius the Donatist, etc. Note (saith he) the spirit of these men, they compare all the good, and quiet prisoners in Wisbich Donatists, for that they retired themselves from these men's tumultuous, and scandalous life, and put themselves under rule. See cap 6. Apolog. Are not these words, Ticonius ille Donatista, shrewd words, that do infer such large consequences? are not rather these tumultuous, and scandalous terms, and irreligious exceptions against the life of Catholic priests, and some of them long prisoners for the Catholic faith, an evident proof of most lose and large consciences? But to make this matter more plain against this impostor, what if there were no speech of any of the Priests? What a malicious Comment is this upon those three words, Ticonius ille Donatista, That Ticonius the Donatist. Is it not most evident that the speech there used, concerned no one, or other more than Fa. Weston the jesuit? But yet this was too much to compare him to a Donatist. Well, but then what if neither he were compared to a Donatist, nay further yet, what if in that very place F. Weston is showed not to be Ticonius the Donatist, or a follower of him? how then can the indifferent Reader, but judge the Author of this Apology past shame, who will lay it to the Priests charge, that in this place cited, they compare all the good, and quiet prisoners in Wisbich to Donatists? And for what cause? Forsooth, for that they retired themselves from these men's tumultuous, and scandalous life, and put themselves under rule. Let us therefore now see what there is in that 16. page concerning Ticonius ille Donatista: That Ticonius the Donatist, etc. Thus we read in that 16. page. Tandem verò aliquando, ut invidiam leniret, quam sibi, suisque non mediocrem conflaverat, ne revixisse videretur Ticonius ille Donatista (cuius illud erat, Quod nobis placet, sanctum est) promisit, se boni viri arbitrio rectenè an illicitè separationem feeisset staturum: That is to say, In the end to mollify somewhat that great envy which he (Fa. Weston) had gotten to himself and his followers, he promised to stand to the judgement of any honest man, whether he had lawfully, or unlawfully made the separation, lest that Ticonius the Donatist should seem to have been revived, whose saying this was, That is holy which pleaseth us. So that by this it is evident, that not only the priests are not compared to Donatists, but F. Weston the jesuite is showed not to be, as that Donatist, because he promised to stand to the judgement of another: which as here is avouched Ticonius the Donatist would not do: but would have, that which pleased him, stand for good.  
In the same page, there is another principal deceit, falsehood, or slander, noted in these words, Quorum unus, etc. which this Author translateth thus. One in Wisbich Castle fell out of his wit, by reason of opprobrious letters written unto him, etc. Now he hath made his tale, as he list: see what he adjoineth. How egregious an untruth this is, the whole company will testify. And if their words will not satisfy a reasonable man, he shall have more witness. For it is most untrue, that he fell out of his wit by reason of opprobrious letters written unto him: but by reason of opprobrious letters which himself had written by persuasion of Fa. Weston the jesuite, and other of his faction against the other Priests, as himself in lucidis intervallis confessed: and asked pardon of some of them, whom he had so injured, as they are ready to testify: and these two words unto him are added to the text in this place by the Author of the Apology, as every Grammar boy may see, who will turn unto it.  
In the 17. page, a malicious devise is noted in these words, Hanc verò, etc. This sodality of them that lived under Rules in Wisbich, (besides many stumbling blocks, which it brought into our Church) was vehemently also suspected by the Queen and Council. But if those words of them that lived under Rules in Wisbich, be fraudulently thrust into the text by this Author, in whom is the malicious devise, (for so it is put in the margin) deceit, falsehood, or slander? The words are no other than these. Hanc verò sodalitate●…, praeterquam quod offendicula multa inveheret in Ecclesiam nostrem, pacique funesta esset, & vehementer principi, magistratibusque suspecta, quod patribus jesuitis alias, atque alias invasiones hostiles continuò machinantibus in regnum plus aequo tribueret, & quasi totum Clerum ijsdem subderet, videbat ille arbiter nullam habere benè institutae Communitatis formam, monstrique simile esse, ut unus pater jesuita, membrum unius corporis, caput fieret alterius, etc. That is to say, This sodality, besides the many impediments it brought into our Church, and was incompatible with peace, and vehemently suspected by the Prince, and Magistrates, in that it gave more, than was fit to the Fa. jesuits, who sundry ways busied themselves in hostile invasions of our Country, and as it were made all the Clergy subject unto them, the arbiter saw, that it had no form of any well framed Community, and that it was like unto a monster, that one Fa. jesuite, being a member of one body, should be made the head of another body, in which some were, who in regard of their more ancient order of Religion, some in regard of their degree of Doctorshippe, some for their venerable age, many for their wisdom, learning and virtue, far his betters, etc. By which it may appear to the indifferent Reader, how careless this Author is, what he saith, so he may make somewhat sound for his purpose. And to the end he might bring the Priests into obloquy, he will for a colour bring some two or three of their own words, and join somewhat thereunto of his own, and then run a while upon that: as in this place, having thrust in those words, Of them that lived under Rules in Wisbitch, he maketh this Comment; Great stumbling blocks, that a few pious Rules of modest life in a few prisoners could bring into our whole Church. Whereas the place here cited by this Author, giveth him no occasion to frame such a conceit, but pleadeth the judgement given against that sodality by him, who was chosen arbiter in the cause.  
And whereas he also affirmeth, That if this sodality were suspected by the Prince, it must needs be that the Priests had maliciously persuaded, that it (as also the institution of the Archpriest) was not for Religion, but for matter of state, The jesuits known practices against the State, mentioned in the place, which is cited by this Author, convince, that there was no such need, that the Priests should use any persuasions to the Prince, or Magistrates: and that no plot in gathering a head under a jesuits direction, could be free from suspicion, as shall be showed more at large, where the Author shall find his place in the Apology to give other colour to the jesuits actions.  
In the 19 page upon those words: Dom. Standisium, etc. M. Standish, who had given his name to be a jesuite, This Author inferreth a pretty conclusion. All are jesuits with these men, who are not of their faction, the Archpriest and all: in which (to omit his folly) how doth he show in that place any principal deceit, falsehood or slander? or not being able to gainsay that, which the priests said: how shamelessly, or rather childishly doth he shift it?  
In the 20 page there is exception taken against that which is mentioned of F. Weston his being taken dumb, and falling down: and it is called an impudent fiction, refuted by authentical testimonies of all the quiet prisoners in Wisbich: and you must go look for this in the 6. Chapter of the Apol. where you may find it contrary if you can. For answer to this, we are to refer the Reader to the particular narration of the stirs in Wisbich.  
In the 21. page the principal dece it, falsehood, or slander, is showed in these wores, Consilium inivimus, etc. We took a counsel together for appointing provosts and superiors over us in opportune places of the kingdom etc. It was death for this good fellow to go any further in the narration, which here he doth calumniate: for if he had added these words (which are part of the sentence cited by him with an etc. all which Provosts and superiors should have been chosen by the free suffrages of the Priests, his falsehood would have been discovered, which he showeth here in these words. This was the work of their (the priests) association, whereby a few busy and ambitious men took upon them to be Counsellors of State without Commission, or consent of the rest of the Clergy, or licence of their superiors, to appoint dignities to themselves, and others at their pleasures, and to make a new sedition. And if the reader will vouchsafe to turn to that 21. page, he shall see that this author is little to be credited in his relations, and may wonder, that he will so shamelessly behave himself, as every indifferent man must condemn him of exceeding great falsehood, and direct intention to deceive his reader. And because he referreth his reader to the letters of the assistants, and other proofs, cap. 8. & 9 there we will make our answer unto them for so much as is there touched in this matter.  
In the 23. page these words are cited, Quid interea P. Parsonius, etc. What did F. Parsons in this mean space, the Author, incensor and actor of allour perturbations, etc. But nothing being in this place answered to that which in the 23. page is said against him, we are not to stand upon those other matters which are here mentioned. It sufficeth that there is nothing convinced of deceit, falsehood, or slander: to which end the table maker brought this place out of the latin book.  
In the 26. page M. Blackwell is said to be slandered, and that these were spiteful speeches against him: Videns autem D. Blackwell, etc. M. Blackwell seeing this, etc. where in the Latin book mention is made of a letter he writ to the Card Caietane: the letter is out in print, and whosoever will take the pains to read it shall see, that there is nothing but the truth set down in the place here cited by this author. And whereas here it is urged, that he is named every where without any reverence at all, they will hardly since him named, but Master Blackwell, which is as much reverence as is due unto him for any thing the Priests know. And if he be sometime called the Archpriest, it is as much as this Author giveth him, as may be seen in many places. Moreover, if there be any thing to the contrary in the 4, 10, or 11. chap. of the Apology, it shall be there answered.  
In the 27. page, a principal deceit, falsehood, or slander is noted, where it is said: Cum omnes, etc. Whereas all jesuits almost in England be children of poor parents, etc. And to this, what answer is here made? Forsooth how manifestly false and shameless this is, there needs no other proof but to know the parties: and to consider also, what manner of children, and of what parents they be that do object this, etc. But alas (good man) were they much worse than they are, who are said to object this, they are by many degrees his betters, who is taken to be the Author of this Apology. And if the priests had as impertinently spoken so of the jesuits, as this good fellow speaketh of the priests, his folly might have been in some sort excused: but it being evident, that this fellow his speech proceedeth of spleen, and without either any necessity to enlarge himself so far, or any furtherance to his cause, (for what doth the quality of this or that man, make better or worse the quality of another?) the place noted in this 27. pag. doth show a just cause, why the priests did say the truth in that cause. For whereas M. Blackwell (to the ignominy of the Catholic gentlemen) did most ungratefully suggest, and most untruly to the Card. Caietane, that the jesuits did marvels in England in the relieving of all sorts of people distressed, and that they did it out of their own patrimonies, because they were minimums, not worth the speaking of, which they received of alms from the Catholics: the priests, to show how palpable this flattery was, affirmed (as they might justly) that all the jesuits almost in England were children of poor parents: and consequently not like to do so much, & in that sort, as M. Blackwell did most grossly suggest. And let this be sufficient for this time upon this occasion, to prove that it is no calumniation, as the margin would have the reader to think it, nor deceit, falsehood, or slander, as this table is entitled.  
In the 29. page are divers things noted, as that Pope Xistus was termed a Wolf by the jesuits, and defamed as a most wicked man, and certain propositions maintained about the Stews, which will be justified to have been uttered by F. Weston the jesuite in defence of M. Archer one of his principal confederates in his faction at Wisbich, and generally taken for a jesuite, and cannot therefore but appertain to the jesuits, between whomsoever the controversy first began.  
In the 30. page the priests are said to call the authority of their superior, instituted by Christ's vicar, Laruam: that is, a masking vizard: which is very false; and no modest man would have avouched it out of that place, it sounding no otherwise, then thus: ad dominium comporandum alienae personae larua utendum putabant: that is, they (the jesuits) to get dominion, thought they must use a mask of an other person; which can bear no other sense then this: that they would rule, and an other should bear the name: and if aught were done amiss, it should never be known who were the actors. But this man must be seen in it: and they must be covered by him: which every man knoweth to be a very ordinary course in the world, & cry out shame upon it, without any touch to authority, but to the abuse thereof. And whereas Fa. Parsons memorials are here said to be yet extant, intrearing for obtaining of Bishops, it is no disproof to that, which is avouched by the priests: it being so possible for the same man to urge mightily the very same matter, which he will, by some means, or other, cross. And there is sufficient proof of this kind of dealing in F. Parsons: as for example. At the parting of some students from Rome, he writ a letter of commendations in the behalf of one of them, and at the very same time he writ as much to the contrary to the very same place: insomuch as they to whom those letters came, conferring them together, could not but marvel much at this falsehood in him. Likewise when M.D. Bishop was to departed from Rome to Paris, in the way of great friendship and confidence, F. Parsons requesteth him, that there might be intercourse of letters between them: Mary one thing above the rest he earnestly commended unto him: and that was, to certify him from time to time of M.D. Cecil his carriage, and at the same time he writ to M. D. Cecil to do him the like favour for M.D Bishop. And not long after he solicited M. Shelborne (a reverend priest then abiding in Paris) to certify him against them both: and very likely it was, there was some other appointed to pay his debts. But imagine what sport there was when these letters came forth: and how peevish they are, who will not believe that F. Parson's can play all manner of plays for his purpose.  
In the 33. page the principal deceit, falsehood, or slander is gathered out of those words, Nullo etc. no respect being had to the most Catholic Archb. of Glasco. I would ask this good fellow what respect was had unto this Bishop, when the Archpriest was made superior without his privity or consent over all the English priests which then were, or after should be resident in his diocese? And if there were no respect had unto him, what deceit, falsehood or slander was there in saying so? But listen I pray you to the conceit which is made hereupon. See (saith he) the strange desire of these men to set strife every where. They would stir up the Archb. of Glasco residing in Paris for above 30. years against the Protector: for that he giveth jurisdiction to the Archpriest upon English Priests in England, Scotland and Ireland, and yet these men do ask faculties for these three countries, but would be under no authority in any. Now alas (good man) where hath he his ground concerning this last point, that the priests would not be under authority? so often as he doth urge the association intended in England by the Priests, he convinceth himself of this falsehood: And if he were set to find, where the Priests asked faculties for those three countries as superiors there, he would be sorely troubled. But the Reader must take all this upon his word: as also that the Priests minded to set the Protector, and the Bishop of Glasco together by the ears, when they said that in the institution of this authority over all the English priests in Scotland, there was no respect had to the Catholic Bishop of Glasco. How much better might it be said that F. Parsons and his confederates meant to set strife between them, when so unadvisedly they procured the Protector to give such jurisdiction to a strange Archpriest within the diocese of a Bishop in another Nation, and no way subject to any prelate of England? In this foolish fury also, how forgetteth he that he often saith that the Cardin all did but witness the authority by his letters, and setteth it down in plain terms, that the Priest would stir up the Bishop against the Protector, for that he giveth jurisdiction to the Archpriest? In the Apology almost in every place, it is said that there was in the Priests at the first coming of the Cardinal's letters no less, than a resistance against the Pope's order; and how then was not the danger of stirring up the Bishop against his Holiness, but against the Protector?  
In the 35. page and so forward to the 59 many things are noted, for which the Reader must go look in the Apology.  
In the 61. page a principal deceit, falsehood, or slander is noted in these words. His visis, etc. As soon as we saw the Apostolical letters of the new Breve for confirmation of the Archpriest; we all presently submitted ourselves etc. This is so manifest and so often acknowledged by all from the highest to the lowest, as there shall need no further justifying thereof: But this author would have his reader conceive that this submission was feigned and forced, and that the event showed so much: and that it could not be otherwise, the Priests having entered with the Counsel so far, as they had done, as is showed Cap. 10. & 13. where (saith this fellow) we show, by their own letters, their conspiracy with the persecutor. But in conclusion if you do not trust him upon his words more, then upon his proofs which he bringeth either in the 10 or 13 Chap. you must hold him still for such as he is. We have already said enough hereof in the defence of that, which he commenteth upon those words, Hinc à communi etc. p. 2. as he hath cited it in the beginning of this his table of deceits, to which we remit you for this time; and omitting that which here he saith, that the submission of the priests was forced: which implieth a true submission (nothing being enforced, but their will to accept of him against whom they had many just exceptions) I will only note how falsely, and deceitfully this good fellow useth this place, which thus he hath cited, out of the 61. page. His visis etc. As soon as we saw the Apostolical letters of the new Breve, etc. what can his reader think of these words, the new Breve; but that there was some former Breve, which was not obeyed by the priests? And to this purpose, as in other places, so in his first Chap. of his Apol. fol. 8. he useth the same deceit, He (the Pope) confirmed all that was done already by the Card. with a new Breve: where also in the margin this note is made, A new Breve 1599 lest any man should think it a word spoken by chance, and not of purpose, and it is the more apparent in this place, which now we handle, because he hath falsely translated the priests words, and made them to talk of a new Breve. For thus he allegeth them. His visis etc. As soon as we saw the Apostolical letters of the new Breve for confirmation of the Archpriest, we all presently submitted ourselves to him: where His visis, that is, these being seen, is only referred to these words, Sanctitatis tuae literae: that is, the letters of your Holiness: And there is no other mention, of any other Apostolical letters, or any other Breve, much less any Apostolical letters of a new Breve, as it may be seen by them, who will turn to the place.  
In the 69. page a principal deceit, falsehood, or slander, is gathered out of those words, archpresbyter, etc. The Archpriest denieth access unto him, he will not be seen, he doth disdain to talk with his brethren, etc. But how is this proved deceit, falsehood, or slander? Forsooth thus. All things are rhethorically exaggerated, yet it is no marvel though the Archpriest do use some moderation, and circumspection in admitting those men to speech, whom he knoweth to have an evil mind towards him, and to deal with the Council, and Bishop of London, and to seek his speech only to brawl, and to take some advantage at his words: as two of them did, who accused him of an heretical proposition in talking with him presently upon the arrival of his first commission. Had this fellow only given a cause, why the Archpriest would not talk with the priests, without any more ado, it had been a little sign of some small grace in him: but to bring that in for a deceit, falsehood, or slander, which he cannot deny, but must confess to be true, and straineth himself to give a cause thereof, it is too shameful. It being then evident, that the Archpriest will not speak with the priests, let us see how good these causes are, and how true, which are here alleged. The first is, because he knoweth that the Priests have an evil mind towards him: but this savoureth too much of malice. The second is, he knoweth that they deal with the Council and Bishop of London: but alas this cause cometh too late, as may appear by comparing the times together in which the Archp. hath denied to speak with them, with the times in which it hath pleased the Counsel as he supposeth to show them some favour by means of the Bishop of London, having conceived some hope of their loyalty towards their prince and country.  
The third cause here alleged is, for that the Archpriest knoweth, they seek his speech, only to brawl and to take some advantage at his words, as two of them did, etc. and in the margin M. Collington and M. Charnock are named. It is very likely, if the Archpriest would be so resolute, as he would agree to no reason, but run on the course he hath begun, the priests might have parted from him, as little edified as M. Collington and M. Charnock did, when he sent for them & M Heburne to speak with them, presently upon the arrival of his first commission, that is, the Cardinal's letters unto him, or convented them, as M. Standish gave it out in the Clinke not long after, whereupon M. H Henslow, who before was taken for the Archpr. messenger, was called his Sumner, and was very angry at it. And this particular is brought that it may appear, what a bold face that fellow hath, who in the Appendix fol. 7. affirmeth, that it seemeth they (M. Collington, and M. Charnocke) were sent to him of purpose to catch him in his words. And if where difference is, there must of necessity be brawling, I think no man doubteth, but he is the brawler who offereth the injury, not he who useth necessary defence. And if moreover M. Collington and M. Charnocke have accused the Archp. of an heretical proposition (as this Author in this place insinuateth) I do verily persuade myself, that they will prove it so far forth as two men of their quality may prove it, which would be little for M. blackwel's credit, notwithstanding the slight reckoning which is made of their two relations only, Cap 8 fol. 109.  
In the 83. page a principal deceit, falsehood, or slander, is noted in these words, Plura, etc. The jesuits do brag, that many more Seminaries have been erected by them, etc. The Priest's words are these: Plura numero, more in number. This is very calumnious (saith this good fellow) but if they should speak of any such matter compelled by your slanders, should they not say truth, seeing five or fix partly Seminaries, partly residences, have been erected by them? etc. Well good sir, not to divine here what slanders they were, which so happily compelled the jesuits to speak of their so great benefits unto the priests, I will keep mine eyesight for the 3, 5, 10, and 12. chap. where I am told, I shall see more of this most insolent ingratitude: And in the mean while I will hope that the jesuits of their charity, will forgive them all, who compelled them to speak so much of their own great good deeds, which, were they a thousand times more than they are, the jesuits ought not to embolden themselves, or challenge thereby a greater liberty to abuse men at their pleasure: and it is a silly proof, that they have not abused men in one kind, because that they have done them a good turn in another. And with this the table was taken up: for the author had no other meaning when he set you to this table of principal deceits, falsehoods, and slanders, then to let you have a taste of those two libels, which the discontented priests did set forth, to wit, the book dedicated to his Holiness, entitled, Declaratio motuum, A declaration of stirs, etc. and the English book entitled, The Copies of certain discourses.  
But alas (poor man) either his wits appear hereby to be very shallow, who out of an infinite heap of slanders, calumniations, and contumelious speeches, which he saith are contained in the priests books, could no better furnish his table with deceits, falsehoods, and slanders, which here he undertook: or his malice extreme great, to make such a vainglorious show, where the principal stuff was of no more moment, then is already showed in these 28. picked points, to discredit the Latin book and the authors thereof, who always have, & will show, that they mean better than he doth, and tend to that place to which honest priests should tend, and hope to arrive in the end: whence it is to be feared, they shall behold the Author of this Apology lying, and too late repenting this, and other his misdeeds.  
The rest that followeth in this Latin book about the Appellation (saith this Author) as also about a fond and seditious Latin letter of M. john Much thereon ensuing, are sufficiently examined, Cap. 10, and 11. Apol. But unless the 10, and 11. Chap. be too too much overseen, there is no one point of the Appellation examined. There is somewhat said to M. Much his letter in the 11. Chapter, which is little to the purpose. The examination of the English book, entitled, The Copies of discourses, is for brevity sake put off to the 1, 2, 7, and 11. Apol. where it is to be defended, not to have any thing in it worthy the name of a scandal, but to a Pharisie: and thereby it will be showed to be a work, fit for Catholic priests to write, and publish to the world, their case standing as than it did. And their fact will appear the more justifiable, by how much it will appear by the answer to this Apology, that they cannot be disproved, but by manifest falsehoods, deceits, and slanders. After these notes, or exceptions against the Latin book, which was dedicated to his Holiness under this title, Declaratio motuum, etc. march certain principal persons, which the Reader must believe, are injuried by the priests, and are defended by the Apology: amongst which there are such placed, as the Authors might with more honesty have made two lists: one, of those most honourable personages; the other, of the rest: but since that they have put them all in one company, one answer shall serve to the whole list: that howsoever his Holiness is here abused in the Epistle, and the honour of the honourable is touched in this Apology, the priests at no time have injuried either them, or any the other byhangers: neither can the contrary be showed, as any man (who knoweth what use this author will make of a little) may justly imagine, in that there is no one place cited out of the book written by the priests, or in this Apology, where any abuse is convinced. And although sometimes in this Apology the author putteth his reader in mind of such matters, he doth discover nothing, but his own desires in some, and folly in other his exceptions, as shall be showed when occasion is offered. And in the mean while, the discreet reader may judge, whether this author or publisher were not past shame, who could not but know, that the priests had been with the Nuntio in Flanders, and acknowledged his authority. And to that end, that no principal thing be hidden from his reader, he hath after principal deceits, and principal persons, set down the principal authors & spreaders of the books, wherein these principal deceits are contained, & the principal persons injuried. And in naming those which he doth name for the principal authors, he hath committed a very gross error in his Preface, where he seemeth to doubt who were the authors. And in the end he concludeth thus, So as these books must needs be presumed, to have been published either by some one, or few discomposed passionate people, or by some heretic or other enemy, to dishonour them all; and discredit our cause, and nation: and so as to such we shall answer, etc. what man of judgement will not say, that either the memory of this fellow is very short, or his honesty very small, who having named, whom he thinketh to be the authors, maketh his answer, as to heretics? And if to these be added those disgraceful speeches, which are used in the beginning of the 3. Chap. fol. 20. against the Authors of the books, impugned by the Apology, his most audacious friends will blush at his folly, for there very contemptuously he affirmeth, that some of them went over poor serving men, other soldiers, (what an ingratitude, and dishonour is this to Fa. Ignatius Laiola, the soldier, and jesuits founder?) other wanderers in the world, etc. Possibly this good man's wits are not always at home, and they should do him great injury, who should look for one wise word from him, which is not put into him by some other. If he had not named those six for the principal authors of the books, he might with less shame have uttered his foul conceit: but having named them, he cannot avoid the note of a most malicious false companion, what godly pretences and promises soever he maketh of modesty in this Apology.   

CHAP. 4. How the author of this Apology followeth that counsel which Achitophel gave to Absalon, 2. Reg. 16. that other seeing how he abused his Holiness, might the more desperately adhere unto him.  
THe Epistle which followeth to his Holiness, and is said to be translated out of Latin into English, after some time of probation expired, was admitted, and annexed to the Apology. It had been very great pity to have left out so memorable an abridgement of so many impertinent, and false matters, and so well suiting with the Apology. I call all that impertinent, which concerneth any division, either of jesuits, and other Catholics of the Clergy, or of the Laity, before the coming of the Cardinal Cajetan's letters, for the institution of the Archpriest in the year 1598. or the ambitious attempt of the known, and covert jesuits in the scandalous division in Wisbich. For upon the not yielding of some secular Priests, to subject themselves, first to the jesuits in direct terms, and the not admitting of an authority procured by them afterward, for their indirect sovereignty, this present controversy began, and being once ended, at the sight of a Breve, it was renewed again by the rashness of the jesuits, and the indiscretion of the Archpriest, as it is proved at large in the books set out by the Secular priests, and promulgated in the latter Breve, dated the 17. of August. 1601. as shall hereafter be showed. I affirm the rest to be false, because so it shallbe proved, for so much as is touched thereof, either in the Apology, or in this Epistle. Omitting therefore, what is here propounded to his Holiness, concerning the Catholics their going to the Protestants Churches, at the beginning of her majesties reign, who now is: (a thing which would not have been published to the world by any, who tendered their honour, unless there had been some greater cause for it) the subornation of some by the Counsel to poison D. Allen (afterwards Cardinal) and the Students, & raising of sedition among the Catholics beyond the Sea, the evil success, which some had about the Queen of Scots, and divers Gentlemen (which is here attributed to their secret keeping of their practices from Fa. Parsons, and other) the inducing of two Priests, to write two books in favour of heretics, as it were by reason of State, and to become spies, the one in France, the other in Spain.  
Lastly to let pass, that which is here said, that Car. Allen perceived, that there was a faction begun in England by the same act (of the Counsel) against the Fathers of the Society, and writ most earnestly against it, & that Card. Sega had found out, that a few unquiet spirits were set on craftily, by the subtle instruments of the Counsel, & were the cause of many troubles in that College at Rome, we will here only touch such points, as do concern ourselves, and the matter now in controversy. Your Holiness therefore (saith this Author) seeing prudently these causes and effects, and having put a final end to the long, and fastidicus troubles of the English Roman College, & given your strait commandment by words of mouth, to such persons of the tumultuous, as departed into England in that year 1597, to be quiet for the time to come, & to have peace with all, but namely with the Fathers of the Society, and hearing notwithstanding the next year after, by divers letters out of England, that this was not observed, but new means rather devised of further division, and sedition; your Holiness did upon these considerations, and upon the letters, and requests of divers of the gravest Priests of our nation, which after we shall cite, ordain by the Card. Protector his letters an easy, and sweet subordination, etc. If we had no other proof of this fellows falsehood, then might be made apparent in this second point of the Epistle, it would give every honest man sufficient satisfaction. His Holiness is here put in mind of such strange matters, and his wisdom very highly commended upon so false grounds, as if this Epistle had been ever delivered unto him, he would speedily have discovered a notable sycophancy. He is here told of two principal motives, for his ordaining our easy, and sweet subordination. The one were certain letters, which signified, that between the tumultuous who departed into England in the year 1597, and the Fathers of the Society, there was not that peace, which he had commanded, but new means rather devised of further division, and sedition. The other were other letters and requests of divers of the gravest priests of our nation, which after (saith he) we shall cite. Concerning the first, lest there should be any error in judgement, what those new means of further division should be, there is this note in the margin, The new association; which conceit is delivered in plainer terms, and more at large in the first Chapter of the Apol. fol. 6. in this manner, But the relics of those, that had been troublesome, and unquiet before their coming into England, and conferring again with their consorts of their former actions, and designments, frustrated (as they thought) by F. Parson's dealing at Rome, resolved to begin again, but after another fashion, To wit, by devising a certain new Association among themselves, etc. And in the 2. Chapter fol. 13 his Holiness hearing of certain new Associations begun in England soon after the tumults ended in Rome, etc. These (to omit other places in the Apology) are sufficient to show, that his intention is, to make the Pope believe, that the Association which was begun in England by the Secular priests, was a new devise of those, who were sent from Rome in the year 1597, as tumultuous, and unquiet persons. That this is a mere deluding of his Holiness, all who were then in England can very well testify: yea F. Parsons himself will do us the favour (I am sure) to say this is a very false tale, who understood at his first coming to Rome by M. james Standish, that such an Association had been long before intended, and consequently could not be a device of such, as thought themselves frustrated of their designments, by his dealing in Rome.  
The 6. assistants in their letters of the 2. of May 1601. do testify, that this association began four or five years since, Cap. 7. Apol. fol. 90. and that must needs be before those priests came into England, on whom it is fathered, if it be true, which is said Cap. 2. Apol. fol. 12, that they were not gone from Rome at the beginning of September 1597. It may also be gathered out of the same Chapter fol. 89. that this association very probably was begun long before by others: for there we find this story. But (M. Much) returning into England, as he went forth, and the Cardinal soon after dying (in the year 1594. as appeareth Cap. 1. Apol fol 6.) he joined with another of his own humour etc. And they two, with some few other, determined to make a certain new Hierarchy of their own, calling it an association of Clergy men etc. The truth is, that M. Much, and M. Dudley having made the peace at Wisbich in the year 1595. (as appeareth Ca 6. Apol fol. 79.) returned to London, and there dealt with M. james Standish, a man growing in deed into that humour (to wit of being a jesuit, which M. Much was then leaving) and not with M. Colington (as is here falsely noted in the margin, for about that time M. Collington lay very little at, or near London) and they, and some others thought it very fit, that there should be an association of such priests as would live under rule, to take away that slander, which the jesuits, & their favourites (to further their ambitious attempts) had generally spread abroad against the priests, to wit, that they lived not under rule. And thus much concerning this first falsehood, and the deluding his Holiness with this tale, that the association was a new devise of such as were in those broils at Rome, and would not remain in that peace which was commended unto them, and commanded by his Holiness in the year 1597.  
The second falsehood is more deceitfully (although as grossly) conveyed, in putting his Holiness in mind, what was his second motive, in the ordaining our easy and sweet Subordination: forsooth, the letters and requests of divers of the gravest priests of our nation, which after we shall cite. And because he will seem to deal faithfully in this cause, he putteth this note in the margin, Ca 9 10. Apol. by which his Hol. is given to understand, that those letters and requests of the gravest priests, by which he was induced to make this subordination, are to be found in the ninth and tenth Chapt. of the Apol. But now what if there be not any letters, or requests in the ninth or tenth Chapt. concerning any such matter, what a shameless fellow is this informer? In the ninth chapter fol. 125. begin certain letters of some priests, and others follow: but these are not, neither can be the motives of his Holiness to make this Subordination: they are written particularly against M. D. Bishop, and M. Charnock: because they presumed to go to his Holiness about this Subordination, already made as it was: And this is evident to those, who will vouchsafe to turn unto the chapters. In the tenth chapter there is less matter, if less may be, for this purpose; that I cannot but marvel how this fellow durst tell his Holiness such a lewd tale: But perchance this good fellow had this policy: he set in the margin the 9 and 10. chapters, hoping that his Holiness, if he should chance to cause them to be turned into Latin, would be so tired with seeking in the ninth, as he would rather believe, they were in the 10. chapped. then be so troubled again: perchance this marginal note was set but in the English Copy, where it would serve well enough for those, which have such a facility in believing such like fellows as this is, as they will run riot with them, howsoever their conscience disclaimeth it. Perchance it was mistaken, and this 9 and 10. chapters were put in the margin in stead of the eighth. And this we are induced to believe the rather, because at the beginning of the eighth chap. this very matter is handled, and some letters cited: and for the better satisfaction of the reader, I will here set down the place at large, to which (as I suppose) this fellow alludeth, and had rather his Reader should miss the place than hit it, because retaining a confused remembrance of such matters he should run away with it, without further examination of the truth, or the likelihood thereof. These are the words in the Apology, cap. 8. fol. 98. When his Holiness heard the former state of the matters in England, Flanders, and other places, and of the murmurations of some against the Fathers of the society, set down aswell in the foresaid contumelious Memorial, as by divers other letters and relations which came to the Protectors sight, and by him was related to his Holiness, and namely when he received great store of private and public letters out of England against the said Memorial of Fisher, and some one with above an 100 hands at it, other with 40, and 50, all in favour and commendation of the Fathers their labours, and behaviour in England, against the said slanderous Memorial, and many other in several letters of principal men, which are yet extant: when also divers of these did expressly demand some Subordination and government of Secular priests, to take away this emulation of some few against the Fathers, and that two lately came out of England at that very time: one a jesuite, the other a secular priest, each of them urging the same in the behalf both of the one, and the other order; his Holiness after mature deliberation resolved to yield thereunto, hoping thereby to quiet all, etc. And so he goeth forward, and showeth how it was consulted upon, and of whom opinions were asked, to wit, of F. Parsons, F. Baldwin, who was one of the two, which lately came out of England, as appeareth by the marginal note in that place, M. Doctor Haddock, M. Martin Array, M. james Standish, who was the other which came out of England, as appeareth by the same marginal note, although falsely said to be a secular priest, having given his name long before to become a jesuite, and gave it out here in England, that his going over was to enter into their order, & others that had laboured in the English vineyard, perchance Fa. Warford, another jesuit, & such like: but those matters we shall handle there in that place. Here only we have noted this relation out of the 8. chap. to help the favourers of this Apology, that they wander not through the woods to no purpose, if they follow not the path which their author showeth them, and so bring them where they may find somewhat, (although not that which they look for) after a long seeking, where there is nothing at all of this matter. And if this be not the place, which is meant in this Epistle, there is none in all the Apology. For this quotation in the margin fol. 101. in the same chapped. See the letter of 6. ancient priests, the 13. of September 1597. is a poor proof, and to say the truth it would be more for the others credit, if there were none at all cited in the Apology. For if any man will be so indifferent in this case, as but to look unto the dates of the letters here cited in the beginning of the eighth chapter in the Apology, (which by the Contents seemeth to be the place, which must justify as much, as is suggested in this Epistle) and confer them with the date of Cardinal Caietane his letter, by which this Subordination was appointed in England, he shall find that they were all written after the Cardinal's letters, some longer, some less while, and consequently after his Holiness his determination, to make this Subordination, and therefore could not be any motive thereof. The letter of the Card. Caietane by which the Subordination was appointed in England, beareth date the 7. of March 1598., as appeareth in that 8 chapter, fol. 102. And the letters by which his Holiness is said to have been moved to make this Subordination in England, and are cited in this 8. chapter, fol. 98, bear date, some the 27 of March, some the 20 of April, some the 18 of May, some the 30 of july, the soonest the four and twentieth of March 1598.: all which must needs argue not only an egregious falsehood in this Epistle-maker, but a notorious impudency, in telling his Holiness to his teeth, that he did make an easy and sweet Subordination upon the letters, and requests, which he had never heard of, nor possibly could, they not having been written or thought upon by the Inditors, long after his Holiness is said to have thought upon the Subordination, and caused it to be made by the Card Caietane. And as for the note in the margin, fol. 101. it is not probable that a letter of that moment would not have been set in the book much sooner than any other.  
With the like liberty this Epistle is continued: His Holiness is told, that all good and obedient Catholics were much contented and comforted with this subordination: which is a most injurious insinuation against many, who (to make no odious comparisons) have showed themselves in all points, as hath become the best, & most obedient Catholics. Neither are there any letters at all in the 9 Chap. of the Apol. of this thanksgiving, as the Pope is here told, and those which are in the 8. cha. are not from any of the Laity, but from some priests, all whose names are for some causes omitted in this Apol. except the first subscriber, & the last, which perchance was therefore thought necessary to be set down, to prove that at the least there were two to a letter: and that the middle names might be as many in number, as are here supposed. But it was a marvelous good chance, that the first subscriber, and the last were such, as their names might be known. But perchance, under the name of all good, and obedient Catholics, the English Clergy is also to be understood, of which a few (saith this Epistle-maker) not the twentieth part, and those for the most part such, as had been troublesome before in Rome, presumed to impugn the same subordination, calling first in question the said Cardinals letters, etc. Fa. Parsons was told in Rome, that doubtless the greater part of the priests was not contented with this subordination, & when for his purpose he urged further, how many the messengers did certainly know, to approve their mission (as appeareth Cap. 9 fol. 131.) they (not being willing to depose for more in this kind, than they had either spoken withal, or received letters from them to this effect) answered accordingly that they had certain knowledge of some 14. or 15, which number is now deceitfully tossed up, and down, as though they had no knowledge of any more, or did come in the name of so few against all the rest; yet where there was just cause if they had been fewer, yea if there had been no more but those two, who went to Rome, they had been enough, because justice hath always more with it, then against it. But to this purpose, if those 14, or 15, which were named by M. Charnock in his examination, were here set down, the falsehood of this fellow would be evident to those who know the men, when he suggesteth to his Hol. that they were for the most part such, as had been troublesome before in Rome. Concerning the calling this subordination in question, how it was procured, how far forth it did bind, before the Breve came, and other difficulties which the priests had, they have not desired to have them muttered in corners, as may appear by their books: to which their adversaries silence would have been somewhat more for their credit, than their shuffling answer. And as for the evil success, which their two messengers had, whom at the first they sent to Rome, all the world knoweth, that not long after his Holiness coming thither, they were infamously apprehended by jesuits and Sbirri, all their writings were taken from them, they were kept asunder in close prison, and were not suffered to speak with any to ask counsel, nor to see the Copy of such accusations as were put up against them, at such time as they did demand it, to make their answer before the two Cardinals, Caietane and Burghesius 17. Feb. 1599 and yet they were kept afterwards close prisoners until the 8. of April, by which time all matters were concluded as their adversaries would, as appeareth by the date of the Breve which was the 6. of April 1599  
The notorious falsehood also which here is suggested to his Holiness in these words, Who (that is the two Priests) finding not such success 
* At Rome.  there, as they required, their fellows in England for remedy, began to deal more closely with the Counsel, telling them (as hath appeared since by the event, and by their latter books) that this subordination was not for Religion, but for State practices, as in this Apology is declared more particularly: And in the margin is set this note, Apol. cap. 10.12.13. But whosoever will examine the tenth Chapter, he shall find a few idle, and doubtfully proposed assertions, or rather foolish conjectures, which are in as great need to be proved, as this is here. In the twelfth Chapter there is not one word, wise, or other to this purpose. In the thirteenth Chapter, there is some proof brought for that, which is here proposed to his Holiness. But the proof is such, as it would have made a man of little modesty to have blushed with the very conceit thereof. Mark I pray you, what a narration there is, fol. 209. For this is it, which is meant, as may appear by this marginal note, D. Bagshaw. But above all other means the foulest is, and aught most to move a good conscience, their joining secretly for a time, but after, more openly: and now, most evidently with the common enemy, and persecuter. First (as before you have heard) as soon as ever they understood, that their two messengers were restrained in Rome, and not like to prevail, then D. Bagshaw was sent for from Wisbich to London, to treat with the Council, etc. The Pope is told in this Epistle, that the Priests deal closely with the Council: but in the Apology, the Catholics are told, that it hath been secretly for a time, but after, more openly, and now, most evidently. The Priests have always been ready to give an account, in what, and how far, they have used that favour, which her Majesty, and the honourable Council are said to have shown unto them: and all men are to think, that they would not have gone to Rome, if they had done any thing, which Catholic priests might not do. But mark, I pray you, the substantial proof to which his Holiness is referred: and let it be duly examined: As soon as ever they understood, that their two messengers were restrained in Rome, and not like to prevail, then D. Bagshaw was sent for from Wisbich to London, to treat with the Council, etc. If we look into the Apology, we shall find, that the two messengers came to Rome upon the xj. of December 1598. cap. 9 fol. 121. and they were imprisoned upon the 29. of the same month. And M. D. Bagshaw his sending for was not so secretly done, but that all England may quickly understand, that he was long before this time at London, and that he was either returned again to Wisbich, or upon his returning, before it was known in England, that the two Priests were restrained in Rome. And yet his Holiness must needs be told, that upon their restraint in December, and by reason thereof, D. Bagshaw was sent for from Wisbich, to treat with the Council, in the month of October. Can any thing make this fellow blush, who is so generally careless, what he publisheth to the world? or can the Cath. expect, that he should deal more faithfully with them for their instruction, who will so boldly abuse his Holiness?  
All that also which followeth in the 13. point, touched in this Epistle to his Holiness, consisteth upon divers untruths shuffled in one upon another: as first, that the two Cardinals, Caietane and Burghesius, did duly examine all matters. Secondly, that the Priests did but make a show to obey the Breve (as having engaged themselves before with the Council to the contrary) and thereupon sought occasions to break again. Thirdly, that they sent not any to prosecute their appeal. Fourthly, that they did not expect his Holiness sentence or definition, but proceeded by secret favour, and intelligence with the Council, and Bish. of London, to print and set forth erroneous libels to the detraction of divers venerable men, and of a whole order of Religion, and of their immediate superiors, and of the sea of Rome itself, of his Holiness, and the Protectors proceeding in this matter. To the first it is answered, that all matters were not duly examined, when the two Priests were not suffered to deal, neither as plaintiffs, nor as defendants, being clapped up close prisoners, all their instructions taken away from them, not suffered to speak one with another, or to confer with any man else about those matters, for which they came: examined by F. Parsons, who made such Interrogatories as were for his purpose, being the principal adversary on the other part, and curtailed their answers when it pleased him, or blotted out both Interrogatories and answers when they succeeded not to his mind: being brought before the two Cardinals, Caietane and Burghesius, where after they had heard severally some part of their examinations read, they were admitted to come together to hear a libel read jointly against them both, but were not suffered to have the copy thereof, to make their answer thereunto, as they desired: and being friendly dismissed for that instant, were afterwards kept close prisoners seven weeks longer, and not suffered to come together, until the Breve was out in confirmation of the authority. And thus much for the due examination of all matters, which is here suggested to his Holiness. To the second it is answered, That the Priests made an unfeigned peace for their parts, and sought divers ways to have all such questions ended, as might be cause of contention between them, as may appear both by their offer of disputation, and their sending to Paris for their further resolution, and satisfaction of their ghostly children, after their offer of disputation was rejected by the Archpriest. It is also well known, that the Counsel was not so informed at that time of the difference between such men, as they took to be dangerous to the State, and others, neither had any priests as then more favour than the other had. And where it is said here, that the Priests sought occasions to break again, it is most untrue: the contention was renewed by the jesuits, who after the peace was concluded, gave their censure, that those Priests were schismatics, who had deferred to subject themselves to the new authority before they saw the Breve. And this contention was increased through the default of the Archpr. who being certified of the jesuits rashness in their speeches concerning this point, did show himself to be of the same opinion: and furthermore gave direction, that the priests should make account of their being schismatics, and satisfy, before they should receive the benefit of absolution, as appeareth by the resolution divulged by him from the mother city. Of all which, the Breve dated the 17. August. 1601. taketh notice. And in the relation thereof, his Holiness useth these words: Quod dolentes referimus, that is to say, which with grief we relate. And therefore it must be great want of shame, to tell his Holiness in this Epistle, that the Priests either made a show to obey, or sought occasions to break again. And this testimony out of the Brief is of the more force, if it be true which is said in the Preface to the Appendix, that his Holiness had not understood of any of these scandalous books (for so it pleaseth this author to term the books which the Priests set out) when he wrote the Breve, and therefore could not receive any such information by them, as he doth follow in the Breve.  
The third matter is now answered by the Priests, there present in Rome.  
To the fourth it is answered, that notwithstanding the Appeal, the Archpriest proceeded against the Appellants, and principally because they had appealed; as may appear by many acts which he did: and for this in particular, there is yet his own hand to show, to a lay gentleman of the 16. of April 1601. This I writ unto you, to make you privy of the great spiritual danger, wherein you, and all that receive any sacrament of M. Osw. Needam, may be, if it be so, that he hath subscribed to a seditious pamphlet coloured with the name of an Appeal. And in respect that the Archpriest did in this manner proceed against the Appellants, without expecting his Hol. sentence and definition, which they might have procured, notwithstanding his most irreverent refutaries, the Appellants proceeded to publish their cause in print without detraction, or defamation, more than is requisite for the following of the cause in question. And whereas it is here said, that a whole religion is defamed, it is most untrue: as appeareth by the book to the Inquisition, pag. 5. the Sea of Rome is no way dishonoured, but rather maintained, and all lawful superiority: neither were these books printed by secret favour and intelligence with the Council and Bishop of London: For which this only argument might satisfy an indifferent man, that they would have had a more skilful man to have printed them, and not to have one to work, who (as the Latin book doth very well show) did not understand one word in Latin.  
His exceptions against certain propositions, as scandalous, and temerarious, leave some doubt in a man of judgement, whether this fellow be more ignorant or more malicious. He referreth his Holiness to the 2. and 11. Chap. of the Apol. where he doth toomuch discredit himself, as shallbe there showed. But lest the Reader should conceive, according to the broadness of these terms, we will here only note the propositions, which he termeth scandalous, and temerarious, and so leave them, until their place come to be defended. Authority is not an infallible rule of truth in all, who have authority. No man is bound in all things to believe or execute, what every man in authority over him shall put upon him. Archpriests, and their superiors also the Archdeacon's, and other of higher degree have done amiss, and swerved from the truth; and who upon earth is warranted from erring, but one, and not he in all things. These propositions are put in the second Chapter of the Apol. fol. 16. and in the margin, there is this note: Dangerous, and offensive doctrine. And in the same Chap. fol. 19 there is exception taken at this proposition, The sacrament of Confirmation is either most necessary in time of persecution, or altogether vain, and as a superfluous ceremony in God's Church. And in the margin there is this note set, A very temerarious proposition: and he proveth it, because it is not absolutely necessary to salvation. If this fellow had ever been a Soldier, he would have conceived the necessity perchance, of Armour, and weapons in wars, although no man will say, that armour, or weapons are absolutely necessary to the getting of a kingdom. In the 11. Chapter here quoted, there is nothing but a certain remembrance of this point, with a reference to the 2. Chapter, where what is said, shallbe discussed, and answered with less danger of the Inquisition, than this good fellow is in. And whereas here also it is said, that by the Priests their own letters it may be proved, that they have dealt expressly with the Queen and Counsel against the Fathers of the Society, and such as stand with them: It is a false brag, and will be taken for such, unless some other letter be forged, then that which is cited in the 13. Chap. For this doth not prove any such matter, as any man may see. These are the words in that letter fol. 210, I have in some sort pacified the wrath of our Prince, conceived against us, and of her Counsel, and have laid the fault, where it ought to be, and proved that the Secular priests are innocent for the most part. Which words cannot import, that he, who writ this letter, had dealt against any, but only that he had dealt for some, who were before thought to be as deep in matters displeasing to the State, as others: the State being before out of doubt, that there were such plots, as were not beseeming subjects, & much less beseeming men of our calling, and so much the more odious, by how much the show of piety is dangerous, for the effecting of any stratagem; And the Counsel thought, that all had been of one stamp: wherein the Inditer of that letter affirmeth, he hath otherwise informed them, and freed the innocent. Now we will see, how this Author beginneth to close up his Holiness mouth with as notorious a falsehood, as any of the rest.  
They have obtained (saith he) that four of their seditious company, that were in prison before, have liberty under the Queen's letters patents, to ride up and down all England for a time, to gather money, and letters, which few Cath. will dare to deny them, lest they detect them to the Council, etc. This also is a meditation upon the same letter, which is before cited, and is to be found in the 13. Chap. of the Apol. fol. 210. wherein are these words: I have (by opening the case unto their Honours and to Caesar) obtained that four principal men shallbe banished after a sort, to follow the appeal, D. Bagshaw, Bluet, Champney, & Barneley, all prisoners: they shall be here with me on Wednesday next. A month they shall have within the Realm, to ride abroad for money amongst their friends, and then choose their port, etc. And from hence perchance this fellow had some part of his intelligence: but how cometh he to enlarge himself so far, as to say, that these Priests had her majesties letters Patents? upon what record hath he found this? or doth he mean thereby to draw the Lord Keeper into question, as though he stood now in his light for some what, which he hath to effect, (all Letters patents being at his peril upon record?) or doth he know any Cath. who in such quandaries did give these Priests any money? we know some, who, notwithstanding the great bond they had to some of them, would not see them, neither would the priests press upon them. Some again we know, who were requested to give somewhat to their journey to Rome, if not for love of the men, yet for the love which they pretended to peace, and to have a final end of the controversy, which could not be had but at Rome: and nothing would be given. But this fellow careth not, what he saith to the Pope, presuming perchance, that by some way or other, all access should be shut, and his falsehood should never be discovered. And thus forgetting that which he saith in the Apology cap. 11. fol. 162. that the intention of the Priests seemeth not to be, to inform his Holiness, but to make a noise in England, and to gain time of liberty, and to preoccupate some men's minds, by making a show, that they appeal to the highest in this their controversy, but yet indeed would be loath that he should know it, and much loather to answer it before him, especially this Pope, etc., Here he telleth the Pope in this Epistle, that the Priests are to pass into France, and there, by the help of the Queen's Ambassadors, and other means, to procure (if they can) his most Christian Majesties letters to your Holiness in their favour, pretending that they can get the Queen of England to give liberty of conscience, to some Catholic, under certain conditions, whereof some must be, that the jesuits must go forth of England. All this is in handling (most holy Father) by the children of iniquity, against God's cause, and his servants, and will no doubt, bring forth lamentable effects, if your Holiness do not speedily put your hand thereunto. In this Apology we do lay down, by clear historical narration, and authentical testimonies, the grounds of all. Christ our Saviour inspire your Holiness, etc. In the 10. Chap. of the Apol. fol. 147. there is a prayer made to God, by the Archpr. to give him his grace, so to use Fa. Parson's benefits, as that never he abuse them, and that never he fall into any ingrateful behaviour, etc. And in the margin there is this note, A prophecy of the Archpriest to Fa. Parsons. How much more worthily doth this place in the Epistle deserve to be noted for a prophecy? but perchance he was loath, that there should be any such prophecy, as that any good, or ease should come to the Catholics, by the absence of the jesuits in England. Wotteth he not, that his Holiness knoweth, that no evil is to be done, although good should ensue thereon? If it be a sinful act, to call the jesuits out of England, what fear is there, that his Holiness would do it? If it be no sinful act, to call them out of England: and that thereupon may come ease, and quiet to the Church, which hath been a long time in the more grievous persecution, in regard of the hard opinion, which our Prince, and Counsel have had of their statizing, under a colour of piety, and Religion: how far are these fellows from that Spirit of jonas, who willingly yielded himself rather to be thrown out of the ship into the sea, then that through his default those, who were in it, should perish? But of these matters we shall have cause elsewhere, to delate more at large. And in the mean while we make humble request to the indifferent Readers, to note well throughout the Apology how far this Author is from all Authentical testimonies, in laying down the grounds of all such matters, as are now in question: for we are not here to stand upon such impertinent stuff, as he thrusteth into his book, to the end, that by shuffling in sometime some part of our matters, he might make them odious to such, as will run over his packs without searching into them, what is therein belonging to our controversy, and how little coherence it hath with that other, with which it is joined.   

CHAP. 5. How the Apologie-maker by the same reason which he giveth for the publishing of his Apology, doth give light to his reader to conceive the just cause which the Priests had to print their books.  
THe Preface of this Apology is to the Catholics of England to forearm, & forewarn them, what is meant thereby, lest the matter being otherwise taken, than it ought to be, should yield to scandal, and thereby overthrow (saith he) and work your ruin which is intended, and permitted by Almighty God, Father of all mercies to your trial, and greater merit, etc. But this forearming of the catholics is such, as they ought all to be forewarned, what is meant by this his forearming. For what Catholic, or worthy servant of God (as he termeth them) hath ever before this time believed, that either scandal, or their ruin hath been intended, howsoever it hath been permitted by Almighty God upon some cause best known unto his divine Majesty? For how far off is this forearming, or forewarning from his doctrine, who saith, that the betraying of Christ was God's act in judas, aswell as repentance in S. Peter? But I pray you see how he goeth on, affirming that Christ sent adversaries to afflict his Church: and which is most ridiculous, he avoucheth that he sent a new kind of adversaries never heard of in the world before, named heretics, that took unto themselves the name of the best sort of Christians etc. If there were no heretics before, what were the pharisees, and Sadduces? Of whom joseph lib. 18. Antiqui. jud. cap. 2. affirmeth, that the pharisees held opinion that those souls, who after the separation from the body were found good, did return again to some other bodies. And that the Sadduces did think that the soul died with the body. And doubtless this was the cause, why it is so precisely recorded in the second book of the Macchabees cap. 12. that judas did think piously, and religiously of the resurrection? For about this time did these people rise, and fell very quickly into these heresies, perchance the sooner for their very great pride, which they took of their over selfe-weening religious course of life. Of the Saducees we have many testimonies in the new Testament, and of their error, as Math. 22. Mar. 12. Luk 20. and Act 23. but two notable places there are in the Acts of the Apostles, which show not only, that these were errors, but heresies, and that they were Heretics, who are related by the Evangelist, to have assaulted our Saviour. We read in the 5. chapter a company thus described: Quae est heresis Saducaeorum, which is the heresy of the Saducees. And in the 24. chapter: Tertullus the orator accuseth S. Paul before Foelix the Precedent in this manner, invenimus, etc. We found this pestiferous fellow both raising contention against all the jews in the world, and broaching the sedition of the sect of those of Nazareth. And for that word sect there is in the Greek copy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, heresy. And in the same chap. S. Paul answering for himself acknowledgeth, that he served God in that way, which his accusers called heresy. Can there be any plainer Testimonies, that there were heresies among the jews, and so accounted by them, and the men accused thereof, who held such opinions? But this good fellow writeth to such, as he thinketh will not be evil conceited of him, howsoever he abuseth them, or himself, but will rather take his words for oracles, how contrary soever they are to truth. Hereupon also he emboldeneth himself to cast many doubts, and suspicions into his reader's head, against the priests whom he calleth Libelers. First because (as he saith) There is no certain author of their books named. Secondly, because no licence of superiors for printing is named. Thirdly, because worthy men are defamed by name without intention, or possibility to prove it by lawful means. To the first I answer, that the author's names are as legibly set down in the books, which the priests set out, as the author's names of this Apology. That book which is dedicated to his Holiness is set out by the priests under their own names, as appeareth by the title of the book, where it is said to be given to his Hol. by the priests who were most unjustly defamed of schism and other crimes. And in the appeal their names are particularly set down who they are, Pag. 119. and the other are set out in the same manner. And this Apology is said to be written, and set forth by priests united in due subordination to the Archpr. but the reader must go look, who they are. This exception therefore against the priests books is very absurd, and proveth that the Apology cometh nearer to the nature of a Libel, than the Priests books. To the second I answer, that in case the Superior be a party & laboureth what he may with all men, that the truth of the question be not known, and to that end forbiddeth, that any thing be written, or read, which may give satisfaction to indifferent men, it is not necessary to expect his licence, neither is it a note of a Libel to print without it.  
To the third I answer, that there is no man touched in these books, but for such matters, and upon such ground, as the authors of them are ready to justify, and have already showed, that they have intention to prove them. In which this Apology failing, as it must needs do, the author hath already given judgement against himself, that he is a notorious libeler, and that he hath brought all his followers, and furtherers herein, (whether consenters, or spreaders of it abroad) into a heavy case, God amend them. But let us, I pray you, examine the cause, why this Apology was written: (the author thereof blaming so often the Priests for writing) divers points (saith he) you know already, and some more you are like to perceive by this our Apology (being driven thereunto) but not all, for avoiding further scandal: which respect of scandal should have withheld us wholly from putting pen to paper in this cause, if the intemperance of some persons (given over as it seemeth to choler and revenge, and forgetting both themselves and others, and the times wherein they live) had not broken forth of late to such excess, as we are forced against our wills, to put some stop, or bridle to so licentious and scandalous proceed, lest it infect even the good, and trouble the strongest, when they see such enormous matters pass without controlment. In this justification of his setting forth this Apology we gather, first that scandal is not always to be avoided: For as he saith: The respect of scandal should have withheld him wholly from putting pen to paper in this case, if the intemperance, etc. so that the intemperance belike of some persons may excuse a man doing that, whereupon scandal may arise. Note I pray you, how this fellow can change his hue, when it shall make for his purpose. When he will write himself, than the intemperance of some persons is a sufficient excuse for him, although scandal arise thereon. And when he would have others blamed, who were more grievously injured, and provoked thereby to write then he is: he can preach unto them, that S. Paul was of a spirit and judgement contrary to theirs, 
1. Corinth. 8.  who doth so greatly exaggerate the danger of scandalising any one of our brethren for whom Christ died (as he said) that he would rather never eat meat, then do it. Thus saith this Apologie-maker in his Appendix, fol. 16. And there he goeth on also, and showeth what Christ himself said: 
Matth. 18.  That it were better suffer death in most hideous manner (to wit, with a millstone at our necks to be cast into the sea) then to scandalise the least of them, that believe in him, that be our Christian and Catholic brethren. And then he concludeth in this manner: So as this other divinity, that it may be done for saving of our credits, maintaining our good names, and other commodities, was not then known, and cometh now down from a contrary spirit, and Master, to Christ and S. Paul.  
By this than it followeth, that howsoever the Priests can avoid blame, this Apologie-maker is in the lurch, who (having so great skill, not only in the sayings of S. Paul, but of Christ also, and in divinity, and the true meaning of it) notwithstanding he thought that some scandal would grow by this his act, adventured contrary to true divinity to write this Apology. The divinity which the priests do profess, teacheth them that the scandal of little ones is to be avoided: and the scandal of pharisees is to be contemned. And as they read in one place: 
Matth. 16.  Qui scandalizaverit etc. Whosoever shall scandalise one of these little ones, which believe in me, it were better for him that he had a millstone hung about his neck, and he drowned in the bottom of the sea. So in another place they find, that Christ (when his disciples told him that the pharisees were scandalised at that which he said) answered, 
Matth. 15.  Sinite illos, etc. Let them alone, they are blind, and guiders of the blind. There are divers reasons set forth by the Priests, to justify their publishing of their books: but to an indifferent Reader this place of the Preface is warrant enough, since that in this author's opinion, there needeth no other cause, then to put some stop or bridle to so licentious and scandalous proceed, lest it infect, even the good, and trouble the strongest, when they see such enormous matters pass, without controlment. Was there ever any so licentious and scandalous proceed, as have been against the Priests? Can Fa. Listers, the jesuits treatise of Schism be matched for excess, and passion against Catholic priests? was there ever such an outrage committed in Christendom by any Catholic to another, as this is, hearken, O ye factious, ye are Rebels, ye are Schismatics, and fallen out of the Church, and spouse of Christ, ye have trodden under your feet the obedience which ye own to the highest Bishop: ye have sinned against all human faith and authority, by rejecting a moral certainty in a moral matter: ye have violently run into excommunication, & irregularity: ye have lost your faculties, by which you should have gained souls to Christ: ye have so scandalised all the godly, as now ye are generally become infamous? What shall I say more? ye have sinned against Christ his chief Vicar, and Christ himself the judge and justicer, by your disobedience, that with Samuel the Prophet we may say: Quasi peccatum, etc. as a thing of soothsaying it is, to repugn; and as the offence of Idolatry, not to be willing to be quiet. See I pray you, that ye are nothing better than Soothsayers and Idolaters. And because ye have not heard the Church, while she spoke unto you by the chiefest Bishop, ye are as Ethnics and Publicans. And here I make an end, earnestly desiring the very mighty God, that he will yet at the last give you his grace, lest that being thrust into sempiternal destruction with Ethnics and Idolaters you suffer immortal pains for this your disobedience and scandal. Thus far F. Lister the jesuite. And was it not necessary, that there should be some stop put, or bridle to this licentious and scandalous proceeding? was there not danger that the good might hereby be infected? nay is it not evident, that many a good soul hath been infected, and many also of the strongest troubled hereby? and had not then the Priests just cause to declare unto the world, how the case stood with them in England: and to publish some reasons of their actions, especially when after the peace made, and all injuries forgiven by them, the Archpriest did not only not check these licentious and scandalous proceed of the jesuits, broached afresh by them, but gave them his hand in this action, and incontinently published this licentious and most scandalous libel, which neither hath the author's name, nor is likely ever to be justified. We have received a resolution from our mother city, that the refusers of the appointed authority were schismatics. And surely I would not give absolution to any, that should make no conscience thereof, etc. And therefore my direction is, that they make account thereof, and do make satisfaction, before they receive the benefit of absolution. Can this Apologie-maker find any such matter in any of the books, which he doth impugn, and term licentious and scandalous proceed? or can he show, how the good could be so dangerously infected, or the strongest so greatly troubled by any thing which the priests have written, as they may be with these treatises, resolutions, or libels of the jesuits and Archpriest? with what face doth this author carp at the priests books, and say, that the style is most bitter and opprobrious, and nothing savouring of that spirit, that should be in the servants of one God? Can there be more bitter speeches, than these before uttered against the priests? or is there any one in those books which he impugneth, comparable to those which this fellow himself useth against the priests in this Apology, calling them children of iniquity, in the Epistle to his Holiness; sometimes Libertines, and other such like, as the spirit moveth him? But these his tricks, not being to be taken by any man of judgement, but to proceed out of great excess and passion, & himself thereby more likely than the priests to be condemned, he proposeth certain general considerations to trouble his discreet Reader: For example: What manner of men these be, that have adventured to be the authors of so intolerable a scandal in our English Church: what may be their motives: what their ends: what their means, by secret combining themselves with the enemy, for defaming such, as they most fear and hate: and finally, what may be doubted in the sequel: & how disunited these men be from their lawful superiors, and consequently from God also, as justly may be suspected: yet for better informing the Reader of divers particularities falsely and unjustly set down in their late books, or infamatorie libels, which I suppose the more pious sort of men will have scruple to read or look upon, we are, etc. A notable insinuation, that every man must listen to him and his partners, and must not once look upon any thing which the priests allege for themselves. And this caveat was very necessarily put in here, and conformable to that policy, out of which the Edicts proceeded, that no man must see, what the priests could say for themselves, lest that the juggling of their adversaries should be seen by the Catholics, and they reduced to those, to whom in the end they must adhere, when the true causes of all this division are to be ripped up and judged.  
But if the discreet reader would but enter into the first consideration, which is here proposed unto him, that is, what manner of men these be, his discretion will enforce him to hear them. For some of them are of the most ancient Priests in England: some have suffered long imprisonment, & were never touched with any thing blameworthy, before this controversy began. In the time of greatest need these men have been of those, who have most employed themselves in all parts of England, and what hath been praiseworthy done in any disputations at any time with the Protestants, it hath been by some of them. This therefore, and the like contemptible speeches, as Cap. 9 fol. 119. such as they be, and such like, do argue nothing, but an intolerable pride in this Author: who being inferior to many of them for many good parts in them, useth a little liplabour (the best quality which he hath) to disgrace them. In which doubtless he will have bad success with a discreet Reader, and will discover himself and his fellows, to have been the Authors of this intolerable scandal in our English Church. The second consideration here proposed to the discreet Reader is; what may be their motives. And for this the discreet Reader, if he will (as discretion would lead him) look into their books, he will find that their motives were, to show how badly the jesuits, and Archpriest have dealt with them; and how unjustly they have been defamed of schism, and other enormous crimes, as before is showed: and that the end which they desire is, peace, when the truth shallbe known, which so long as it is smothered up, can never breed peace. And thus is the next consideration at an end, which was what their ends were. Now followeth, what their means are, by secret combining themselves with the enemy. But first he must have told the discreet Reader, what enemy this was. The priests never took other for enemy, than what they judged error, having always honoured the personages of such, as to whom they do owe honour. And if this have been now lately perceived by our Prince, and the State, and thereupon they have showed such favour unto them, as faithful and loyal subjects do, or may deserve (notwithstanding the controversy in Religion) how doth this fellow call it a combining with the enemy? If the priests had at any time done any thing, which they are not ready to justify at the feet of his Holiness, this good fellow might have cast some odd surmise into his Readers head: but the contrary being so evident, as the world is now a witness, the discreet Reader need not stand any longer upon this consideration, nor upon the next: which is, what may be doubted in the sequel: they having in this aswell as in any other thing, behaved themselves no otherwise, then hath become Catholic priests. Lastly the discreet Reader must consider how they are disunited from their lawful Superior, and consequently from God also. A simple consequence: but well beseeming the charity with which this Apology was written. What bad man in authority will not think himself much bound to this Author for this his consequence? Must he consequently be justly suspected to be disunited from God, who shall not run wholly with his superior? Cannot a lawful superior do amiss? and in that misdoing may he not be forsaken by those, whose superior he is, without incurring a just suspicion, that they are dsunited from God? Have not the priests oftentimes offered to have these matters scanned and determined (by which the disunion hath grown) with all submission? And hath not the Archpriest refused this offer, and written back again unto them, that their petition is a tumultuous complaint? And how then can they be said, to be disunited from their superior, and not rather the superior from them? and he in refusing to do that which is honest and just, is more disunited perchance from God, than he taketh himself to be, or those who direct him in these his strange courses. After these considerations followeth a fair promise to bring forth authentical proofs of such matters, as are, or should here be handled. But, they being not yet ready, the Reader must content himself, with what this Author can at this time afford him, and hope to see somewhat in a larger Apology. And he will perform this in a far other style, than the priests used in their books, if God assist us (saith he) with his grace and holy Spirit. A very good condition, and such as would gladly be seen in any of his actions, and his fellows: who (both in their Libel, which was spread abroad under F. Lister the jesuits name, & in this Apology, yea almost immediately after this godly resolution) are so far from Christian spirit, or ordinary modesty, as it could not but be an exceeding joy to all their friends, to see any jot of God's grace or assistance of his holy Spirit in them. But as it seemeth by the latter end of this preface, there is some kind of resistance made against this assistance of God's grace and holy Spirit. Where this author feigning unto himself, that these books against which he writeth, could not be published in the style they go in, by any modest and Christian spirit, he concludeth that they are published by some one, or few discomposed passionate people, or by some heretic, etc. and so as to such, we shall answer (saith he) and not to our brethren: yet doth his answer throughout all the Apology light upon the Priests, although indeed the terms which are used, would much better fit an heretic against an heretic: so little do they savour either of modesty, or Christian spirit.   

CHAP. 6. How this present controversy about the abuse of this new subordination is deduced from john of Gaunt, and other matters most impertinent thereunto. Apol. cap. 1.  
Having showed through how foul, dark, uneven, and ill savouring an entry this author hath lead his devoted to this Apology, the indifferent reader may probably conjecture, that in the end there will be nothing to be seen, but a boldness in averring any untruth: a sleight in casting mists before his eyes, to hold him still in ignorance of the truth: a defect of plain dealing, when he is driven to say something: and a heap of slanders, with most odious insinuations, to bring the Secular priests into contempt, and obloquy.  
In the first chapter of the Apology, entitled, What great hurts have come to England by emulation of the Laity against the Clergy, and of Secular priests against religious, and of the state of the present controversy in question, he maketh an abridgement of the whole book following, and contriveth it in such manner, as whereas he beginneth at john of Gaunt, he might as much to the purpose have begun at the division, emulation, and contention, which the enemy raised in Cain against his brother Abel. For although he entitle the Chapter, of hurts come to England by emulation, and therefore a story of emulation in England may seem to come nearer to his purpose: yet his discourse being of emulation, by which the reduction of England to the Catholic faith hath been hindered, he might aswell have applied the story of Abel and Cain, as that of john of Gaunt, and john Wickliff, who were dead, and buried, 
I●…. Stow. in vita Ric. 2. An. 1384.  and this last also had his bones taken up, and burned above 40 years after, to wit in the year 1425. by commandment of Pope Martin the 5. which was an hundredth years before the discontinuance of the Catholic faith in England, or the least declining thereof, as may appear by the most zealous disposition of K. Henry 8. who in Anno 1521. deserved that most glorious title, Defender of the faith. But let us see how handsomely he patcheth his gear together: thus he beginneth the first chapter.  
If ever the enemy of mankind did bestir himself, and all his power to let any public good of the English nation, it hath been in this, of the reduction of the Catholic faith. For hindering whereof, he hath tried all his possible means, as before we have noted: but especially that of division, emulation, and contention hath been his chiefest. For by emulation of the Nobility against the Clergy, and of Secular priests against religious, he raised john Wickliff above 200. years past, whom john of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, son to King Edward the 3. together with the residue of his faction (upon emulation he had with B. Arundel of London, B. Wickam of Winchester, and others) did set up, and maintain against those and the rest of the Clergy: especially against religious men, that had possessions: Wickliff being a Secular priest himself. Thus saith this author: and then he goeth forward, affirming how that certain motions were made concerning the taking away of the Abbey lands, & giving them to the Crown: which motions were made upon the same emulation under the Kings, Richard 2, Henry 4, Henry 5, and others: and took effect in the time of King Henry 8. And in the end concludeth, that the want of restitution of Abbey lands was the hindrance of reconciliation in Queen Mary's days. But this doubtless argued rather an unwillingness in the Laity to part with the Church livings, of which they were now in possession, than an emulation in them against the Clergy, or religious. And therefore in this conclusion the Author doth seem much to forget himself, who undertook to show that emulation, and not want of restitution of Church livings hindered the reduction of England to the Catholic faith. It seemeth that he aimed only at this, that (the controversy being now principally between some Secular priests, and some religious) he might drive into his Readers head some sinister conceit of the Secular priests: and to that end telleth a tale of the enemy of mankind, and how he raised a Secular Priest against religious: and how that malice took effect in K. Henry the 8. days, and the Laity would not restore the Church livings in Q. Mary's days.  
And if the Reader can put all this together, and cry out against the Secular Priests, habetur intentum, as truants use to say in the schools, when they know not how to deduce the conclusion to their minds in form out of the premises, without laughter in the hearers. We have before showed, how that neither by Wickliff nor by john of Gaunt, there could be any hindrance of the reducing of England to the Catholic faith: and consequently how impertinent this story is to that, for proof whereof it was brought. But for the better discovering of this fellow his falsehood and sinister dealing, you shall understand that this john Wickliff was a Secular Priest. And although in receiving that holy Order, he also received so indelible a character, as he must be still a Priest, how wickedly soever he behaved himself: yet he did not receive any confirmation in grace, but might fall into most great enormities, as the most holy (not confirmed in grace) may do. And entering out of a melancholy humour, which grew upon him, by being deprived of a benefice which he had, into a good conceit of himself, that he was not sicut caeteri homines, as other men were, he changed his life from the ordinary life of the Secular Priests, into a straighter rule, and took another habit. 
Io. Stow in Ed. ●. An 1377.  He and all his followers went barefooted, and in course russet garments down to the heels, and in contempt of temporal goods, his conversation was with those Religious that had no possessions, and joined himself unto the begging Friars, approving their poverty, and extolling their perfection: Evident tokens that he had left the state of a Secular Priest, and ascended to some higher degree of perfection. But as it should seem, he was neither Monk nor Friar, but talis qualis, such as he was, or as other perchance who came after him, although they follow him not in all things: For as it appeareth in our Chronicles, he preached against Monks and other religious men that had possessions, and taught such doctrine, as he was condemned for it in the Council of Constance as an heretic, and his bones were taken up and burned, as is beforesaid. Whereby also this author is proved to forget himself very much, to number him amongst the Clergy, which is generally taken for such, as are not only in Orders, but live also in unity of the faith. Wherefore purposing to tell a tale of emulation in the Clergy against the Religious, he should have taken some other to have proved it, than Wickliff, who also (by his pretence no doubt of greater perfection) had forsaken the state of a Secular Clergy man, as appeared by his habit, and conversation. To these falsehoods, and covert calumnies against the Secular Priests, this deceit of this author may be added, That whereas the Chronicles do mention, that not only john Wickliff, but four doctors of divinity also (one of every Order of the begging Friars) joining with him, were employed by john of Gaunt in his grudge against Bish. Wickham of Winchester, in whose defence the B. of London (not Arundel, as this author affirmeth, but Courtney) speaking as became him to do, john of Gaunt threatened him also, and swore, that he would pull down both the pride of him, and of all the Bishops in England: this author mentioneth only the Secular Priest (as he termeth him) without any mention of the orders of Religion, which were also employed. Moreover, it soundeth very foolishly, that john of Gaunt would set john Wickliff against the Monks, upon an emulation which he had against the Bishops, their estates depending so little upon the estate of the Monks: as when all the Abbeys in England were put down, the Bishops remained in as great honour as ever they did. And whereas it is further said, that the Abbey lands were taken from the Monks, and given to the maintenance of the crown by the same emulation of the Clergy against the Religious in the time of K. Henry the eight, it is most false: the Abbeys being then put down by a change of Religion, which had not the beginning upon any such emulation as this author affirmeth, but upon the persuasion of Longland B. of Lincoln, the King's confessor, fortified by Card. Wolsey, viz. that his highness marriage with the Lady Katherine his brother Prince Arthur's wife, was unlawful and against the word of God: whereby the King being induced to seek a divorce, but crossed therein with the Pope by Charles the fift, nephew of the Lady Katherine, and some others, as well of the laity as the Clergy, both Secular and Religious here in England, it wrought in the King such a dislike of his Holiness, and others, as it procured not only the overthrow of the Abbeys, but such a change in Religion, as since the world hath seen. Of this alteration therefore, if any emulation were the beginning, it was an emulation in the Cardinal (who dealt with B. Longland, to persuade the King, as is mentioned, and afterward did second him with all his might himself) against the Emperor, for hindering him of the Popedom: and neither the sister, nor the mother to ambition (as this author would have it) but her daughter.  
But the greatest folly committed by this author in this his exordium is not yet touched: and that is, that among all other histories impertinent to the controversy in question, he would make his choice of one wherein himself (if we are not deceived) is notoriously deciphered. john Wickliff was a Secular priest: being a priest, and neither Monk nor Friar: and no Secular priest as differing from them in habit, and conversing with the religious Mendicants, under pretence of greater perfection. His followers took no name of him, as both Monks and Friars do of their founders, and Sectaries of their Masters: but went under the name, which the common people gave them, to wit, Lollards. He was used as an instrument by john of Gant, to bring that to pass which this Duke had long conceived in his mind. For he saw (saith the History) 
joh. Stow. sup.  that it would be hard for him to obtain his purpose, the Church standing in his full state, etc. Wherefore he laboured first to overthrow aswell the liberties of the Church, etc. And to this end did john Wickliff bestow his talents: for he was not only eloquent (saith the history) but also seemed to contemn temporal goods for the love of eternal riches, etc. This author, being in a state which once was of Secular priests, now no state of Secular priests: not because he will be taken for either Monk or Friar, or go barefoot as john Wickliff did and his followers, or basely clothed (for these are outward mortifications) which of what edification soever they are, yet are not worthy of that honour, which is due to the inward mortifications, which lie hid, and are not seen by the corporal eye. But because Pope Gregory the 13. hath so declared it: yet so as he being filius populi (as people say) hath no other name, but what the people give him, he is employed not by john of Gant himself in his own person (for this great Duke died above 200 years since) but by john of Gant in some of his posterity, who hath somewhat to bring to pass, which he hath long conceived in his mind: for the effecting of which, this godly Father is busied in the corrupting the Clergy of England, or the utter ouerthowing it: which at this present, he and his do work by taking from them their good name and fame, and making them odious without just cause, to the people. And to the end that he would be known not to have spent his time idly in Wickliff his school, he hath not only employed his tongue, but his pen also: and in his first platform of Reformation hath ordained, that none of the Clergy shall possess any temporal livings, but shall live upon such pensions, as shall to certain of his company and some secular Priests (joined with them) in their wisdom seem necessary for their maintenance. But let us now see whether this author can fit himself better in the next point.  
In the beginning also (saith he) of this Queen's days, the little affection which the Laity did bear unto the Clergy, procured by some unquiet spirits, as also the small union of divers Clergy men among themselves, some holding with the heretics and politics by beat of faction, was a great occasion of the total overthrow of religion, whereupon also the same devil brought in the division of opinions, about going to the heretical Churches and service, which most part of Catholics did follow for many years: and when the better and truer opinion was taught them by Priests and Religious men from beyond the seas, as more perfect and necessary, there wanted not many that opposed themselves, especially of the elder sort of Priests of Q. Mary's days. And this division was not only favoured by the Council, but nourished also for many years, by divers troublesome people of our own, both in teaching and writing. See how shamefully he followeth still this bug emulation. If the little affection in the Laity towards the Clergy, and little union amongst the Clergy themselves, were then culpable, what reward must they have, who now have effected the same to the overthrow of religion, which by the great pains of many religious Priests, hath gotten root in many? But to our purpose. It is evident that no emulation was cause of the change of the Catholic Roman religion, professed in her sister's time, but her majesties conscience, I must think: her Highness having been ever trained up, both in her fathers, and brother's times, in the religion of the Protestants, and following to that purpose the counsel of such as thought not so well of the Church of Rome, as of the Religion that is now professed, 
Io. Stow. in Eliz. An. 1. 1559.  as may appear by such acts as are registered to have been done presently upon her majesties coming to the Crown. But as for the Catholics their going to the Church, it was somewhat more to be lamented perchance, then to be blamed, before it came to be a sign distinctive, by which a Catholic was known from one, who was no Catholic. For this consideration only in the judgement of the jesuits in their Roman College, made the going to Church unlawful in England, as we have heard M. james Younger (afterward Doctor of Divinity) affirm, who presented unto them the discourse, which Bell made in defence of going to the Church with a protestation.  
It is also well known that Fa. Bosgrave the jesuite, at his first coming over into England, went to Church, until he understood, that now it was become a sign distinctive, and was excused for that fact by his ignorance of the then present state of our Country: himself coming from such places, where it was not taken for so heinous a matter to go to the Protestants Church. F. Alexander & his fellow jesuite may much more fitly be said in the spirit of this author, to be the devils instruments in Scotland, by bringing in a division of opinions about going to the puritanical assemblies, after that the Catholics there had been instructed by the secular priests of the danger thereof, & forbore those meetings: whereby it was become also there a sign distinctive. But whensoever any troublesome of any sort hath either in teaching, or writing nourished this, or any other division, bending this way, the Secular priests have showed themselves most vigilant & constant in the defence of unity, and the safety of our English Church: as it very well appeared by M. Io. Much his labours against Bell in the North: his & M. watson's confirmation of the Catholics in Scotland against those jesuits, Fa. Alexander & his fellows: & the standing against Fa. Walley and Fa. Southwel, (two jesuits) in the South by M. Collington, and M. Charnock, when these jesuits did teach the Catholics (who were called to the bar openly at Assizes or Sessions, in the year 1591.) that they might lawfully (to keep themselves out of prison, for not going to the Church) yield to go to this or that learned Protestant to confer with him in matters of their faith: which could imply no other (at the least in the face of the world) than a doubt of their faith, or a contentment to be instructed in their faith by such, as in their conscience they took for heretics: and consequently it was a denial of their faith before men, if this axiom keep his old authority: Dubius in fide est infidelis: He that is doubtful in his faith is an infidel. But after all this trouble was ended, Fa. Southwell (as we understand) employed M. Standish to tell M Charnocke, that he was now of mind, that it was a thing unlawful. And Fa. Walley told M. Collington that his meaning was only, that the Catholics should go to the houses of the learned Protestants, not to confer with them, but rather as a temporal punishment, to quit them from going to prison: which how ridiculous a shift it is, any man of mean understanding may easily perceive, and also what kind of people they were, whom it was likely the Council did most favour, if they would debase themselves to deal in such offices, as the Author of the Apology doth here affirm. And thus much for his second passage.  
The third matter which here he affirmeth is, that certain Catholics liked not, that the Catholic English Clergy should be restored at the least by way of a Seminary, which was begun at Douai. which because it passeth my capacity, I will not enter into, further than this; that they were strange Catholics, of what nation soever they were (that Seminary not having any rule, by which the Students were bound to any thing more, then to study Divinity, after which they might dispose of themselves as they would) but this Author saith, that those Catholics their letters are yet to be seen: and perchance they will come forth with the larger Apology, and give credit to this so strange an assertion. In the mean while this Author will go forward with the narration of those hurts and difficulties, which upon emulation have fallen out in this our English cause under the Queen that now is, especially concerning the Seminaries, etc. But first as it should seem the Gentleman must have a pipe of Tobacco, for that his stomach is marvelous full: and before he can come to this narration, he must disgorge himself. Having therefore told his Reader, how that some Catholics were against the restoring of the English Clergy (as is before showed) thus he easeth himself: And forsomuch as the principal and only ground of this our present contention, and scandalous controversy, is the very same disease of emulation, partly of Lay men against Priests, and partly of Priests against religious men (especially the Fathers of the Society, with whom at this present they have to do) and that this emulation is accompanied with apparent wicked sisters and daughters, as Ambition, envy, hatred, contention, malice, pride, malediction, and other like: it is an easy thing for our brethren and others, to discern, from what root these buds do spring: and consequently, either to avoid them in themselves, or that other men be careful to take heed of them.  
See I pray you, what loathsome stuff here is: and so peremptorily set down, as it doth most lively represent the known old medicine to kill fleas, by putting dust in their mouths. If but half of these matters here alleged were proved against the Priests, doubtless they were to be avoided by Catholics, as such as wanting no faults in themselves, would hardly instruct others in virtue. But this Author being not as yet settled to his Apology, without doubt discovereth that he is not free from all those vices, which he hath reckoned (if he want any of them) who upon so small, or rather no cause, or evidence, would have his Reader to enter into so rash, and vile a judgement of the Secular priests, as though his Apology were to no purpose, unless his Reader would carry such an uncharitable conceit of them, as there should be no need of any Apology, or defence of those who are their adversaries. But now to his ground of this present contention.  
The principal, or only ground (saith he) of this our present contention and scandalous controversy, is the very same disease of emulation, partly of Lay men against Priests, and partly of Priests against religious men: especially the Fathers of the Society, with whom at this time they have to do, etc. We have before showed that the emulation of the Laity against the Clergy (of which he speaketh before) was, for that the Clergy were thought to be an hindrance to some designments of the Laity: and thereupon some few devised how to indomage the Clergy. The emulation also which was said to have been in the Clergy against the religious, 
Io●…. Stow in Edw. 3. Anno 13●7.  hath been showed not to have been in the Clergy, but in Wickliff and his society, surnamed by the people Lollards. And if any of the Clergy may be said to have joined with Wickliff in that his insolent and heretical attempt, they were of the Religious clergy, and not of the Secular. And this emulation was against the religious who had possessions. Now then (good sir) if the principal or only ground of this our present contention and scandalous controversy is the very same disease of emulation: you must show what like cause the Lay men have found in the Clergy, or the Priests in the Religious, especially the Fathers of the Society, who by their rule have no properties, nor can possess any thing, 
T.W. in his Di●res●…on from the 16. Martyrs. pag 63.  as M T.W. would have us to think. We have given a cause before of the contrary part, why the Lay men (who follow the jesuits) and the jesuits also may be thought to stir up themselves against some Secular Priests: to wit, because that some of the Secular Priests cannot be brought to like of such plots, as the jesuits have laid for the invasion of our Country, in which they have employed themselves oftentimes, and thrust also some Secular Priests into the action (although most grievously against their wills) namely in the year 1596. And if this Author had not used this parenthesis speaking of Religious men (especially the Fathers of the Society, with whom at this present they have to do) we should never have dreamt, that this digression from hurts done in this Queen's days, had been made against the Priests, who stand upon their defence, against the impostures of the jesuits, and their adherents, because so small a number of the Laity, do stand with those priests, and the priests themselves are so few, (by this good fellow his account) as he disdaineth much, that they are called the priests. And in the 11. Chap. of the Apol. fol. 162. he allegeth it for the second abuse, sleight or shift, which was used towards his Holiness in the title of the book dedicated unto him: wherein it is said, that the troubles were between the jesuits on th'one side with the Archpr. etc., and the Seminary priests on th'other side. But no doubt herein this fellow his memory did fail him, as also in another matter there mentioned: For whereas here he affirmeth, that the principal, & only ground of this our present contention, and scandalous controversy, is the very same disease of emulation, partly of Lay men against priests, and partly of Priests against religious men, especially the Fathers of the Society: In the 11. Chap fol. 161. & 162. he affirmeth, that the Priests their controversy is with the Archpr. etc. and that their stomach against the jesuits is for standing with him, and for him. So as by this reckoning the case is plainly altered: For if the principal, and only ground of this our present contention, and scandalous controversy, be the very same disease of emulation, partly of lay-men against Priests, and partly of Priests against religious men, especially the jesuits: to which of these two members will this Author bring this controversy, which in the 11. Chap. he saith is between Priests, and their Archpriest? he cannot bring it to the first, which is of Lay men against Priests, for than he must account the Priests (between whom, and the Archpr. the controversy is) or the Archpr. among Lay men, which I trust he will not. He cannot bring it to the second, which is of Priests against Religious. For then the Archpr. (between whom, and the priests is the controversy) must be confessed to be religious: which also (as I ween) he will not say: especially, that he is a jesuit, as he expoundeth himself, or a Father of the Society, with whom at this present (as he saith here) they (the priests) have to do. For at this he laughed, Num. 16. in his table of falsehoods. But perchance his straining to disgorge himself, caused a lightness in his head, that he knew not well what he said. The filth then before showed, being now out of his stomach, For better declaration of this matter (saith he) I shall go forward with the narration of those hurts, and difficulties, which upon emulation have fallen out in this our English cause, under the Queen that now is, especially concerning the Seminaries, and the reduction of England by that way, and mean procured, for these 20. years, and more: to wit, since the beginning of the Roman English College, which was in the year 1578. at what time a contention began between M. Doct. Lewis then Archdeacon of Cambray, but after B. of Cassana, and the English scholars, about the manner of government, and governors of that house, erected especially by his procurement, and industry.  
He hath showed you before, what hurt came to England by the emulation which some Catholics had against the restoring of a new English Clergy at Douai, which notwithstanding, the Seminary there flourished: and afterward also at Rheims in France in such sort, as England (thanks be to God) did not feel that hurt, until new Lords came, who were of the jesuits faction, and were forced sometime to run with them, for some respects, how small soever their inward devotion was unto them. Now he will give you to understand what great hurt our English cause hath had by emulation, which was at Rome. And because he will take all before him, he saith that Doctor Lewis (after B. of Cassana) and the scholars fell out about the manner of government and governors of the house, which doubtless if this fellow had any respect to the good reputation of the Scholars, he would have concealed, the house being erected, especially by that man his procurement and industry, as here it is confessed. For in reason, who would not have expected, to have borne some sway in that of which he might justly have been called in some sort a founder, being moreover a man of great wisdom and integrity? But this Author thinketh it good policy, to conceal Fa. Parson's presence at Rome at that time, lest that the riddle should be read otherwise then he would have it, and the cause of dissension deciphered. The truth is, that F. Parsons was there, and there needeth no more to be said. And he did deal with the scholars under hand, & as secretly as he might, but failed of the Rectorship, if he sought it: although T.W. in his digression from the 16 martyrs, pag. 53. amongst other his follies doth affirm, that the first Rector of this College was F. Robert Parsons, etc. And to say that the Council did lay hands presently, hoping thereby to keep a perpetual division in our nation, is to argue the Council of a great oversight, and want of consideration, that a division in a nation proveth oftentimes a desolation or utter overthrow thereof. But let us see what substantial proof there is of this assertion: For which cause (saith this Author) divers spies were sent over to nourish the said division, as namely one Van (if we remember well) who died in the Inquisition at Rome in the year 1581. and soon after they used another named Solomon Already, a Tailor by his trade, and married first at Lions in France: but after getting acquaintance at Rome, and Milan, he became a statesman, went in and out divers times to the Council of England, until at last being discovered, he remained for servant with Sir Fran. Walsingham the QUEEN'S Secretary: and lastly, professed heresy. Van is said to be employed by the Counsel, to nourish this division in our nation; but what he did, it is not said: this the reader himself must imagine: neither is it said, with whom he joined, when he came to Rome, or with whom he dealt: only it is said, that he died in the Inquisition; which argueth that he was some obstinate heretic. And this example is as foolishly brought, to prove emulation in the laity against the Clergy, as that of Wickliff was to prove emulation of the Clergy against the religious, both being heretics: and consequently neither of them of that body, of which we are to understand this Author when he talketh of the laity and Clergy, unless he will also take that word Religious to extend itself to such Apostata jesuits, as are either at Geneva, or elsewhere. And then will he make himself ridiculous in affirming, that emulation against such religious should hinder the reduction of England to the Cath. faith. Solomon Already was a Catholic, and a great devote of the jesuits, both at Lions in France and elsewhere. And if by his peuking, he did at any time discover what he received of them, this author (who neglecteth the credit of all whatsoever, to save the jesuits credit) should have covered it, not having named any place of this man's conversation, where he should become a Statesman, but such as where the jesuits were his directors, as Lions in France, Rome, and Milan. And if after the edification he had of the jesuits, he returned into England, and offered his service to Sir Francis Walsingham her majesties Secretary, Sir Francis had little reason to refuse him, or not to employ him, although we cannot learn that ever he did any harm in the English College at Rome. And therefore this example of emulation in the laity against the Clergy, is as small to the purpose as the former. His being a Tailor might perchance make to the purpose in this author's conceit; but his being a married man, is doubtless here mentioned, for no other end then to put us in mind, that married men can play the merchants as well as others: as if we had forgotten, that as the Council did second the jesuits (who were not married) in the first division at the College of Rome by sending Van thither, (as this author saith) who was an unmarried man, so did the jesuits second the Counsels employment of this Solomon Already, (who was married) in the furthering of their faction in the same College at Rome, by entertaining Pierce amongst some other stragglers, who was also a married man, and his wife known to be living, to make up a small number of 8. or 10. pious youths, (as the jesuits did term them) to stand with them against all the rest of the students in the College: yet in this one trick the jesuits went beyond our Council, in that they made their married man Cornutus, by putting him in a square cap, the better to effect that which they did by his means. For this was he, who after many devices, prevailed at the last with three of the Students, to go to a Tavern to drink, where they were no sooner set, then apprehended by the Sbirri. And the matter was made so odious, as hereby they lost the favour of his Hol. & were brought into a most servile subjection to the jesuits, not without the great grief of their friends, who long after complained, that they had very evil handled a good cause. And although these were the first stratagems, which were laid open to the world: yet were divers causes given of disquietness, even from the first foundation of that College: For the jesuits having gotten the government thereof into their hands, and in such sort, as they were most earnestly requested thereunto by such, as (howsoever this Author doth brag of them, 
Chap. 5. fol. 28.  and their petitions to his Holiness) confessed not long after, that they knew not what they had done; they began to strike (as we say) while the iron was hot, and laboured a couple of the Students to become jesuits, to wit, Thomas Wright, and john Barton, who were well esteemed of for their towardliness. And although both of them did afterward leave the society of the jesuits: yet their present example, together with the jesuits bad endeavours, was occasion of much disunion of minds in the College: which when it was perceived, the jesuits the better to nourish this division, & to cover their own dealings, employed such of the Students in that office, as had already devoted themselves unto their society: and did countenance them against those, who complained thereof: insomuch as it was too apparent, that some were of purpose deferred, or kept from going into the society of the jesuits, to the end they might persuade others to the same course, which was in deed the undoing of that College. For now the Students did not know, how to discern one of their own fellows from the jesuits, which began to swarm amongst them; and grew in the end to that malapartness, as they laughed, and jested at the Students to their faces: yet must all be accounted the work of the spirit. And if this spirit were at any time found, then to blear the Students eyes, it was devised, that no man did persuade any to leave the College, to become jesuits: but did only elevate the minds of such good wits, as were capable thereof, to a desire of some higher state of perfection: In which when they had once prevailed, and that the student was now resolved thereupon, and consequently to leave that course in which he was, by being a member of the College, they did the more boldly ask this question, why the Student, minding to leave the College, and betake himself to a state of greater perfection, or security, might not be exhorted to be a jesuite rather than of any other order of religion. By which poor shifts the jesuits were often discovered, that they sought their own honour more, than the good, either of the College, or of our country: both which, through these occasions, have come prettily forward to utter ruin. And these were the troubles, which this Author mentioneth in this Apology, cap. 11 fol. 170. although he would seem to smother them under a much-making of M. Much, who was a principal instrument of the jesuits in this disturbance of the College, and he is not ashamed to object to the Fathers (saith this author) their partiality towards some, more than towards other, and all this to draw young men to their society, whereas in the former we know by experience, and can testify that no other thing ever wrought the Father's more trouble in the College, while this man was there, then their over much love and favour to him above his merits, as other men thought, and yet was not this to draw him to their society, seeing they would not admit him in so many years, as he pretended to enter, foreseeing (as may be thought) his perilous nature, etc. His service we may see how much it was worth unto him: he was kept out, as many are, in all places where there are jesuits; because being jesuits, they cannot but with too great a wrack of modesty, so inordinately commend them, as they must be commended, nor, without demonstration of excessive desire of riches, importunate others, to give them such lands, and goods, as are not to be lost for want of ask, which while no jesuits do hunt after, they are thrust upon them (good men) and with all charity are embraced, with most godly intention, to be bestowed in pios usus. But it shall be always in the jesuits choice, to receive such a purveyor into their order: and he must during life be in a servile estate, ready to attempt, what they shall command him (for their entreaties are also commandments) or else he shall be turned going with his livery. They would not admit him, foreseeing (as may be thought) his perilous nature. But to leave such fools in their expectation of a like reward, after so many years better service to them, then unto their Country (although we make no doubt, but some think they do well, and that all is gold that glistereth) we will return to examine that which followeth concerning the great harms, which this author hath espied to have come to England, through emulation (as he pretendeth) of others: but least these two, to wit, Van and Already, should not seem enough, to convince the great hurt, which hath come to England by emulation of the Laity against the Clergy, this author inculcateth to his reader, that the Council still pursued this office of stirring division between the followers of D. Allen, and D. Lewis, for both whom he doth here give his word, that it was much against their wills, although not long after fol. 5. he calleth the one an emulator of the other. But to let this pass, and to bear with this poor man, whose memory seemeth to be very greatly overcharged with this Apology, we must also understand, that this plot of the Council was much helped by a new accident: and that was, that certain Gentlemen, having once joined (as it should seem with D. Allen, Fa Parsons, and Sir Francis Inglefield, and the rest of the body of Catholics at home and abroad, in certain affairs of our Country, parted sometime from them: and by going another way, among other inconveniences thereupon ensuing, overthrew the Queen of Scots. A proof to serve a poor turn, & very impertinent in this place: yet such, as were it not a discredit for wise men to take advantage of a mad man's words, it were sufficient to call all Cath. in question, and those affairs, what they were, in which the whole body of them aswell at home as abroad, were united, especially it being here mentioned, that the going of some another way was the Queen of Scots her overthrow. But rather than these fellows will lack matter, they will tell a hundredth idle tales, with little regard what danger may come to those who are upon ignorance wholly devoted unto them.  
About this time also, (saith this author) and soon after, divers impugnations were attempted at Rome against the Seminaries and missions of England by men of opposite spirit and emulation. But here is not showed, what hurt came upon this emulation, but rather contrariwise it is showed, that there came no hurt. And if there had come any, yet had this been far from his purpose, unless he did show it to have been an emulation in the Laity against the Clergy, or in the Clergy against the religious. And not only lay men, but divers Priests also, brought up in the Seminaries (saith he) were drawn by little and little to be of this faction against D. Allen, Fa. Parsons and the jesuits: and namely some in Rome, as appeareth by a visitation, yet extant sent to the English College by Pope Sixtus in the year 1585., etc. At this time, as we are informed, there was a visitation. And if those men should be named, who were then noted for factious, the jesuits would startle, and many of their friends. But unless some cause be given of descending to more particulars, we will say no more, then that the principal (then accounted) of the faction, coming afterward into England, and not finding amongst the secular priests any, who would consent with them in such their factious humours, are become jesuits: in which estate they may hope to keep themselves at the least in ure for that humour. Other some although they do not profess to be jesuits, yet they stick so close unto them, as aio doth to aiunt, nego to negant. And for so much as we can learn, that emulation was not against D. Allen: for as it appeared very well, he was so much honoured by them all, as at his word the principal of them, and who is now a jesuit, made public submission, and in express words acknowledged his error, in that he had not so long a time observed that saying, Qui nescit dissimulare, nescit vivere: he that knoweth not how to dissemble, knoweth not how to live. How far forth M.D.B. (noted in the margin) was a cause of that visitation, I know not: but if we do not mistake the man, he was sent into England long before this visitation came to the College. And as for the other two Priests, whose names are set in the margin in this sort, G G.E.G. who are said to have conspired with the Council in England, and for more grace, and gratification, have writ two mischievous books, the one (saith this author) against D. Allen, the other against F. Parsons and the jesuits, giving them up to Walsingham the Queen's Secretary, affirming also among other points, to make the parties more odious (as our men their successors do at this day) that these men depended of Spaniards, and were enemies to their Country: We hearty wish that this author may live in as good credit as the one of them liveth, after all his trouble in Italy, or elsewhere, and die as penitent as the other died, after his troubles in France. He who writ against the jesuits, was too privy to their actions, aswell in England, as elsewhere to be deceived in them. And if the Appellants be the men, whom here this author meaneth by these words, their successors, they may purge themselves very well from any offence in having the like thought. For it is well known, that Fa. Parsons in Spain caused many aswell others as Priests to subscribe, as priests, to the title of the Infanta, now Duchess of Burgundy. Fa. Tancard also hath made many to set their hands to three blanks, although some refused to do it, as they have themselves reported, at their return into England. We have moreover understood, that Fa. Parsons was a chief dealer in the sending of those Armadas which the Spaniards have set out for the invasion of our Country: and there are in England, with whom he dealt most earnestly, to go in the Navy which was set out in the year 1596. who, refusing to be employed in any action against their Country, were for that cause sent away from the College, & told, that it was not convenient that they should stay in the College, where they had given example of such repugnance. There is moreover sufficient proof, that after the evil success of the Spanish attempts, Fa. Parsons carried a youth to the king of Spain, who pronounced a certain speech for the purpose, which being ended, Fa. Parsons began to urge the king to give one attempt more, affirming that he (silly fellow) would write his letters into England, and nothing doubted to effect, what should be to the great furtherance of such a journey. We have also certain intelligence, that the jesuits had devised a means, to have had the tower of London seized into their hands, and how they would have it held until the Spaniard came to rescue them. divers of their letters have been showed to divers prisoners for proof against them, when they have answered in defence of the jesuits, that they thought them free from such stratagems. And amongst the rest, there is one of the 10. of june 1596. wherein there are these words: It may be, if the king's faintness and pusillanimity hinder us not (as heretofore it hath) the Armado will be with you about August, or September. This is one good help, Ireland willbe only for us. The Earl of Tyrone and Odonell would gladly have help from hence, and they are well contented to let the Spaniards have certain holds and forts for their uses. This will greatly pleasure to trouble and disquiet England, and in the mean time serve for harbour for the ships, that shall pass that way, etc. It were necessary you should make it known aforehand, that no Cath. man or woman shall take harm, either in body or goods. Let every man be quiet till the Spaniards be landed, then shall there presently proclamation be made of all security. 
There were 200. copies of these proclamations printed in Spain.  Certain other letters also have been seen of Fa. Parsons to his fellow jesuits in England, wherein he hath wished, that the Catho. would unite themselves together, & set up a king of England. And in his letters of the 24. of janu. 1600. to the Earl of Anguise, he confesseth that he dealt in such matters for 8. or 10. years. But if all these, and many other, as infallible proofs did fail us, F. Parson's book of Succession would so far convince his dealing in State matters, in the behalf of Spain, as the Appellantes may without scruple charge him with it, yet without any intention to make him more odious, knowing it a thing very impossible, if they were so minded. And thus much concerning this author his folly in endeavouring to gall the Appellantes with the name of Successors to such as affirmed that the jesuits depended of the Spaniards, and were enemies to their Country.  
The next fit of emulation here mentioned is against D. Allen, when he was to be made a Cardinal, and it is set out with a very rich margin, and much to our present matter in controversy I warrant you.  
But not being able to prevail in this against the Card himself, (saith this author) they began to set more earnestly against the jesuits his chiefest friends and constant defenders, as well in stirring up the scholars in Rome against the Fathers that governed them, as also to make a faction against them by Secular Priests in England; as may appear by a letter of the Cardinals own, written most earnestly not six months before his death to a priest named Much, etc. There is a special Treatise coming forth, of the troubles of that Roman English College, to which I am to refer the Reader, and to note no other thing in this place, then that the misdemeanours of the jesuits was the cause of all those troubles. But concerning this foolish assertion, that there was a faction against the jesuits by Secular priests in England, the contrary is most clear as all England may witness: and there is a letter extant of M. George Blackwell (the now Archpriest) wherein he inveigheth mightily against those, who had made the report, that the priests and jesuits were at strife. 
january 1596. to th● C. Caietane.  And this letter is kept in the English College at Rome, & registered as an Oracle, although perchance not for this clause so much, as for the immoderate, but false extolling of the jesuits, in doing infinite deeds of charity out of the profits of their patrimonies, nam minima sunt, etc. (saith M. Black.) it is not worth the speaking of, which they receive of alms, etc. And whereas the Card. Allen his letter is here brought to testify a faction of either the scholars at Rome, or the Secular priests in England against the jesuits, it is a mere mockery, as may appear by the letter itself, for so much as is set down to this purpose in this Apology, cap. 2. fol. 11. where we find these words: I have heard to my great grief, that there is not that good correspondence between the Fathers and other priests. I cannot tell upon what discontentment, etc. But whereof soever it cometh, it is of the enemy, and with all possible discretion and diligence by the wiser sort on both sides to be rooted out, or else it will be the ruin of the whole cause, etc. And therefore in this point (especially M. Much) be earnest and peremptory with all parties, and every one in particular, etc. By which we understand not, how it may rather be gathered, that there was a faction by the Secular priests against the jesuits, then that there was a faction by the jesuits against the Secular priests: neither is here any relation to any former speech had with him, as doubtless there would have been, had M. Much given any such information to him, but rather the contrary, as may be gathered by these words: I have heard to my great grief, etc. which argueth, that this was put into his head by some other, that this being before laid for a ground, they might afterward build thereon to their own best liking, nothing at any time being accounted so much their honour and glory, as others falling out: which howsoever they do underhand nourish it, while they would seem to remedy it, maketh them wise and charitable purveyors for the common cause, and what not (good men) being as innocent of these broils and divisions, as Sinon was of the betraying of Troy. Moreover, it may appear by this letter, that the Car. had a very great good conceit of M. Much, who would employ him in a matter in which lay the ruin of the whole cause: and therefore willed him to be earnest, yea and peremptory with all parties. His good affection was also showed, in that at his coming into England, he persuaded the Pope, to give unto him very special faculties and power to name, at his return into England, to a certain number, who hoc ipso should have the like. And yet this author is not ashamed in this place, to set down to his discredit these words: Having been with the Cardinal at Rome, and having done some evil offices, as is presumed, etc. the Card. perceiving his humour, wrote most effectually to him, and by him to others against this division and faction, but little prevailed. And in the margin there is a note of the above cited letters, which as they are set down in the Apology, are a most absurd instance to prove thus much, as is here presumed of the Cardinal's sinister conceit of M. Much, as that it was far from truth, which was avowed, that the Cardinal was disunited from the Fathers before he died. For thus this author maketh his tale hang together: But it little prevailed, as now appeareth: only it may serve to prove how false and far from truth it is, which he (M. Much) and others of his faction do avow in their books, that the Cardinal was disunited from the Fathers before he died: for that he said, as they relate, that when he should be dead, far greater troubles and oppositions would fall out against the jesuits: which may be true, for that he saw so much emulation against them, by Libertines and factious people, already begun in his time, which yet were retained somewhat from breaking forth by this authority while he lived. But the Cardinal living yet six months longer, what proof could this letter be, that he was not disunited from the jesuits before he died? Or what proof is it of any such union to the jesuits, when he writ it, as it could not be likely, that he was disunited, before he died he willeth Master Much to be earnest and peremptory with all parties: in which words the jesuits are included, aswell as the Secular priests, and consequently the Cardinal was peremptorily conceited, that somewhat was amiss in the jesuits, or else he would not have been so bold with them, as he might (upon any small occasion) with the Secular, of whom he had a particular charge. To our remembrance also the words of the Cardinal related unto us, were not those which are here cited, to wit, that when he was dead, far greater troubles and oppositions would fall out against the jesuits; but, that there would be very great troubles by the jesuits their ambitious courses & bad carriages towards the Secular priests. And this gloze, that he foresaw so much emulation against them by Libertines and factious people, is piously made by this author, that the reader should be out of doubt what spirit it is which doth assist him in the making of this his necessary Apology.  
But the good Cardinal being dead in the year 1594 all factions (saith this fellow) broke out together against the jesuits, destitute now of the Cardinal's assistance, etc. This Author mistaketh the matter: For after the Cardinal's death, the jesuits began their reign in every place, where any English were resident, as at Rome, and in England, especially at Wisbich, where, through the folly of the Lay Catholics, they had greatest hope to prevail first, and afterward to have an easier conquest of the rest. The stirs & troubles of Rome are particularly to be set down in a discourse thereof, whither we are to refer the Reader. The stirs in England began at Wisbich by the insolency of the jesuits there in durance, F. Weston, F. Buckley, F. Bolton and others, who had devoted themselves particularly to their order, or passed their vows in secret. And to effect this the better, the Lay gentlemen, by whose charity the Castle had been relieved, were dealt withal by the jesuits, or their factious adherents, to withdraw their charity from all those, who would not subject themselves to F. Weston the jesuit, by whose instructions it is most falsely here avowed, that the company had lived a Collegiall and religious manner of life: for before he came thither they lived indeed in such sort, but after his coming, his ambitious humour disturbed the whole house, as it is set down in a book already published of The stirs at Wisbich. And as for the stirs, which were in the Low-countries, the cause is here in part set down by the Author of the Apology, to wit, that Fa. Holt, and M. Hugh Owen were deemed partial against some, and did not further them for the getting of their pensions. But as it should seem these two had some intent, in which because those other would not join with them, they were accounted as factious, and not worthy of the Spanish charity. F. Holt was sufficiently known to have been a notorious actor in the year 1588. and was not without cause thought, through his folly, to have been the cause of the death of the duke of Parma. His treachery was afterward better discovered, in his employing of Hesket, who was executed at S. Alban's for his service done to the same F. Holt the jesuit, and other the plotters of the raising of the noble Ferdinand Earl of Derby to the Crown of England, by the assistance of Sir William Stanley, and other such like. After which the good Earl likewise enjoyed his life but a little while, but died an untimely death in the prime of his age. How far forward this Owen also, mentioned here, might be in these actions, we leave it to men of understanding; he being pewfellow with F Holt in the English affairs, as it should seem by this Author. And certain letters of his of the 5. of April 1596, do show evidently, that he was a dealer with the Spanish faction against England. And whereas this Author, among other his impertinent stuff, doth here gird at the dismission of M.D.B. out of the English College at Rome, to quit perchance the story of that infamous expulsion of F. Parson's out of Balliol College in Oxford: he hath made his answer to this, and set it to M. D. Ely his notes upon the Apology. But this is also here to be noted, that he was sent into England very honourably, and was admitted into the sodality of our Lady, which was at that time a favour so joined with those, who were esteemed well of by the jesuits, as if any of that sodality had been factious, or behaved themselves contrary to their liking, they were expelled, or reduced to a kind of Noviceship, as some jesuits in England can testify. This also is certain, that the visitation, of which there is mention made in this Apology to have been about that time, was long after his departure, upon an open breach, and parts-taking in the College, between the jesuits, and many of the Students.  
And thus much concerning john of Gaunt, john Wickliff, the dissolution of Abbeys in the time of King Henry the 8: the Q. Mary Priests: the going to Church: the emulation against the institution of the Seminaries: the dealings of the Counsel by spies, to further the division begun in, and for the Seminaries: the parting of some Gentlemen from D. Allen, F. Parsons, Sir Frances Englefield, and the whole body of Catholics united in certain affairs of our Country: more matters against the Seminaries: the writings of G. G. and E. G. against D. Allen, F. Parsons and the jesuits: the hindrance of D. Allen, when he was to be made Cardinal, and the setting up of his emulator: and the breaking forth of all factions against the jesuits in Rome, Flanders, and England. Now we shall come to more domestical affairs. And first of all we must understand that Fa. Parson's coming to Rome in the year 1597, made an end of those stirs, which were between the English students, and the jesuits: which we are not here to examine, but refer the Reader to the particular discourse, which is made thereof. That which concerneth us here, is the bold and unshamefast assertion of this Author, who to make a lewd entrance into a like relation, he telleth his Reader that the association which was begun in England by the Priests, was devised by the relics of the troublesome, which F. Parsons had after his coming to Rome acquieted. These are his words, But the relics of those that had been troublesome, and unquiet before coming into England, and conferring again with their consorts of their former actions, and designments frustrated as they thought by F. Parson's dealing at Rome, resolved to begin again, but after another fashion, (to wit) by devising a certain new Association among themselves, with offices, and prelacies of their own institution, where unto meaning to be chosen by voices of such as they would procure to favour them, his Holiness should be enforced afterward to confirm them, etc. What is it upon which this audacious companion will not adventure, who so shamelessly will report a matter controllable by all the Catholics in England, who can witness, that this Association was begun long before the year 1597, and consequently before Fa. Parsons came to Rome, as may apparently be gathered out of this place of the Apology? Yea Fa. Parsons himself (as good proof will be made) had understanding of this Association, when he was in Spain, and M. james Standish, who was one of the first dealers therein, was at Rome before Fa. Parsons came thither. And could this fellow without a vizard publish, that it was devised by the relics of those troublesome (as he termeth them) whose designments were frustrated (as they thought) by Fa. Parson's dealing at Rome? Is it not easily seen with what spirits assistance this is written, when as this very same Author in the same book Ca 7. fol. 89. turneth this matter to M. Much, and an other upon his return from Rome, & the death of the Card. which was in the year 1594 and fol. 90. bringeth witness of his own, that it begun about 4. or 5. years before a letter dated the 2. of May in the year of our Lord 1601? And fol. 96. the examination of Fisher convinceth most plainly, that it was begun before his being returned back out of England in the year 1597 as appeareth fol. 93. Moreover, that which here in general terms he calleth offices and prelacies of the Priest's institution, in the 7. Chap. fol. 90, he calleth a superiority, as it were of Archbishops, the one for the South, the other for the North, which if it had been so, was no prelacy of these Priest's institution, as all Christendom will witness. But there was no such matter, as M. Blackwell his pen will witness, which was used to prove, how inconvenient it was for one to have so great a charge: neither can this Author prove, that ever there was any thing intended, but an order or rule, under which who would, might live, and those who would not, might choose. And there is as much confessed in this Apology, Cap. 7. fol. 90 where we find in the letters of the six Assistants to the Nuntius in Flanders of the 2. of May 1601, that there were Chapters in the new constitutions of the Association of those that are to be admitted, or expelled; Which is a demonstration that this fellow enlargeth himself too far beyond the truth in this point, as also when he affirmeth that those relics of the troublesome at Rome devised a new Association in England with offices and prelacies of their own institution, as if they were Archbishops, the one for the North, the other for the South, as Cap. 7. he explicateth himself, and addeth here in this place a stranger conceit, than was in all the rest, that is, that his Holiness should be enforced afterward to confirm them. For how this force should be offered to his Holiness, we do not understand: especially if it were true (as it is as far from the truth, as that which we have already showed) which fol. 90. is said, that this Association was to the prejudice of others. And that the most part of our brethren reclaimed, and misliked the same, as savouring both of presumption, and ambition. But let us suppose, as the truth was, that as many, as were moved in the matter (either jesuits, or Secular priests) liked so well of it, as some of them affirmed, that the only fear they had was, that it was too good a motion to go forward (having perchance had some experience of their own perverseness, or of others, who now exclaim against it) some that it was the best plot that ever was devised: yet could not this be any enforcement to his Holiness to confirm it, unless this author will acknowledge such a right in the priests to choose their superior, as the thrusting one upon them, without their privity, must be taken for a wrong done unto them, which (we hope) he will not say. But we will leave this fellow to explicate himself how his Holiness should have been enforced to have confirmed such as the priests should have chosen to the offices or prelacies, and as it were Archbishops, and we will examine that, which followeth, and is peremptorily affirmed, that the priests were working against the jesuits, whom (saith this author) they had procured at the very same time by a man sent over to this purpose into Flanders, to be accused to his Holiness in a most odious, and infamous Memorial, as ambitious men, that will govern them against their wills, etc. But this could never be proved as yet against those, who were the beginners of the association, although perchance some of those in Wisbich might send over such informations, as the ambition of Fa. Weston the jesuite, & others his partners might give cause in that insolent agency which was to be erected in Wisbich, whereunto many in England cannot, without a desperate impudency deny, that both they were solicited, and persuaded, that when they sent their alms to the relief of the prisoners in Wisbich, all those priests who would not subject themselves to Fa. Weston the jesuite, should be excluded from having any part of their charity (as they wrongfully termed it) And one of this godly agency at Wisbich (breaking forth with the consent of the rest, to employ the utmost of his talon in this their negotiation) being asked by a Gentleman, with whom he had dealt to this purpose, what should become of those who would not subject themselves to the jesuits government, made this answer, Starve them. The lamentable division which was made by the jesuits, and their associates in that action, to the public scandal of all our Country, doth also convince, that the jesuits, as ambitious men, would govern the priests against their wills: there being no other cause of that public separation both at board, and in their other conversation, than the not yielding of some to become subjects to Fa. Weston the jesuite. By which it appeareth that the Memorial in this part was neither slanderous, nor any way false, as here it is affirmed, but most true and justifiable, and no priest who had any care of his credit, or conscience, could write otherwise to his Holiness. True it is, that the jesuits laboured mightily to have all the priests to set to their hands to certain letters or propositions framed by them against a Memorial, which they themselves spread abroad here in England, and translated it into English, that all sorts of men, women and children might see their goodness. And they got many priests to set their hands, some to a letter to this effect, that upon their own knowledge all was false, which was contained in the Memorial: (a testimony, which none but God himself could give, if it had been so, for it required that such a witness was to be present at all times, in all places, with not only one of those jesuits, but with them all, in how several, or distant places soever they were, and must be privy to all their actions) others the jesuits got to set to their hands to this point, that not knowing any of these articles to be true, they did think that all were false: An act both of exceeding pride, and rashness in prejudice of such as were said to have been the authors of that Memorial, to wit, M. D. Gifford, and M. Charles Paget, and such like, to whom these subscribers & the solicitors were much inferior for their reputation, and place in the world, and could not without great injury (being so informed) give such a testimony, especially upon so weak a ground, as not knowing: being bound in modesty to know, that there were many things, both true and justifiable, which they did not know, and how easily all malefactors would be clearly purged from all heinous crimes whatsoever, if the witness of all, who could not, or would not accuse them, were to be regarded, or taken as currant, against a far less number of accusers. But neither were these subscriptions voluntarily made: for they were exacted with grievous comminations and threatenings: yea, and some must subscribe without reading that to which they were willed to subscribe, or their subscriptions deferred until the time would better suffer the gatherer of the hands, to let the subscriber see, whereunto he must set his hand: which what could it argue other, then that there was somewhat to be testified, which they, who demanded it, thought in their own consciences, the Priests would not testify, if they might be suffered to read it? And in this sort was M. johnson solicited to subscribe, as himself did at that very time relate to some of his brethren. And it is very probable, that Fa. Garnet the jesuit intended some such matter, when writing to M. Collington to request him to set his hand to a letter, which M D. Bauand had written, and to procure likewise M. charnock's hand, and M. Heburnes to the same, he would not let them see what M.D. Bauand had written: but being asked the letter, to which he would have had these set their names, he returned answer, that it was already sent away: which could argue no other than a fetch to get their consents to subscribe to such a letter, by virtue of which consent, he would have set their names unto it, and they should have testified, they knew not what. The good dealing also in gathering names against this Memorial was presently after showed, by the falsifying of the Archpriests instructions. For in this heat the authority was procured and appointed, as may be proved by the date thereof, which is 7. Mart. 1598. Apol. cap. 8 fol 102. And the first of these testimonials beareth date 24. Mart. 1598. fol. 98. Fa. Garnet failing of his purpose, of getting these men's hands in that sort, as he wished (for although he gave them liberty to pen a letter of their own, if they would, yet his request to have their hands set to a letter already drawn, but not to be seen by them, as the event proved when they sent for it, bewrayeth his good meaning what it was:) there was (amongst other forged instructions, and falsely inserted among those which were sent unto the Archp. from Rome) this instruction made, that every one should set his hand against that Memorial. And this did the new Archpriest, even when he was taken in the manner of falsifying his instructions, so urge upon M. Collington & M. Charnocke when he sent for them, to make known his authority, as he threatened them grievously, if they would not subscribe against it, affirming that they should answer this their bearing off from that action, in some public Court, where they should repent it. Afterward also it was so followed, as M. Henry Henslow was employed to persuade them, where M. Collington was then resident, to turn him out of their house. And he performed his office with such immodest terms, and with such extreme fury, as he well discovered, whereunto this new authority did tend. And thus much to show, that it was far enough both from slander and falsehood, which was said of the jesuits their endeavours, to govern the secular Priests against their wills, and how they did canvas for names against the Memorial, and pressed the Priests so far, as they were constrained to use figures (as some of them have since confessed) to satisfy the importunity of the jesuits and their factors. This also is here to be remembered, that the man named to have been sent over by the Priests into Flanders to accuse the jesuits, was not sent by them, but returned thither, from whence he was sent into England, to understand whether the jesuits did use themselves no better in England among the Priests, than they did at Rome among the English Students: for to this end he was employed by the Card. Toledo (as he affirmed) and had letters to that effect of the Cardinal, who was much aversed from the jesuits their actions in the College. And although he brought not these letters with him into England (which was a cause that many give no credit unto him) yet he brought some testimony thereof, and that he was employed into England by the Cardinal, and could not return any other answer, than what was most apparent by the division at Wisbich, that the jesuits as ambitious men would govern the Priests against their wills.  
When his Holiness saw this manner of proceeding, saith this author, (that is to say, how he should be enforced to confirm these Prelates which the Secular priests would have chosen, and how the jesuits were slandered and purged by the most of the Priests in England) he willed the Card Protector, to call unto him F. Parsons, and other Englishmen in Rome, to see what remedy was best for these disorders. They answered, that the only way which seemed good to them was, to give them a Superior, or Prelate of their own Order, and to deliver thereby the jesuits from these calumniations, which his Holiness yielded unto, after divers months consultations, etc. Here than we are solicited to conceive that the ground of this new authority, was his Holiness care to remedy the disorders which he perceived to be in England, by such letters as were written unto him: namely against this Memorial, and that after divers months consultation, it was appointed. But we have already showed sufficient to prove this a notorious falsehood. For as we have proved out of this Apo. fo. 98 the first letters which were written to this effect, were written the 24 of March. 1598. which was after the Cardinal's letter of the institution of the Archpriest, as appeareth by the date thereof, which was the seventh of March, 1598. as it is to be seen fol. 102. and consequently divers months after that his Hol. is said to have entered into this consultation, as appeareth in this present place of the 1. chap. and in the 8. Chap. fol. 98. But perchance we took this author at the worst, when we construed his words in this manner, as though he had said, that his Hol. had upon these letters advised upon some subordination, & after divers months resolved upon this: whereas this author, after mention of these letters, and other matters, saith only in this sort, When his Holiness saw this manner of proceeding, he willed the Cardinal, etc. We are therefore to request the indifferent reader to turn to the 8. cha. of the Apol. where no such shift can be used to avoid this foul dealing. The cha. beginneth in this manner. When his Hol. heard the former state of matters in England Flanders, and other places, and of the murmurations of some against the Fathers of the society, set down aswell in the abovesaid contumelious Memorial, as by divers other letters & relations, which came to the Protectors sight, and by him was related to his Holiness, and namely when he received great store of private and public letters out of England against the said Memorial of Fisher; and some one, with above 100 hands at it, other with 40. and 50. all in favour and commendation of the Fathers, etc. his Holiness after mature deliberation resolved, etc. And because he will not come without his proof, what cause his Holiness had to institute this subordination, or rather to give order to the Cardinal for it, as he saith, he hath set down in the margin a note of the letters, which caused this consultation. See (saith he, in the margin) the letters of the Northern Priests, 24. Mart. 1598. and others 20. Apr. and others after 30. Iul and others of the South in great number 18. Maij, and of the quiet sort of Wisbich 27. March 1598. and who without blushing can read this, and take it as a cause of a determination upon the 7. of March 1598. for then was the authority instituted, as is acknowledged, fol. 102. & much less of a consultation divers months before, as is here said, fol. 7. And thus he goeth forward with a certain shameless boldness, not caring what he saith, knowing belike that his favourites will swallow any thing easily, which he proposeth unto them: yet doth he too much forget himself in this place, where he saith, that it was not thought expedient for his Holiness to write himself, for avoiding suspicions and troubles of the state of England: for by this he will sufficiently purge those priests of all disobedience to the Sea Apostolic, who did not subject themselves to the new authority upon the coming of the Cardinal's letters, by which the authority was instituted. But this is elsewhere sufficiently handled, and proved to be free not only from schism or disobedience, but from all sin also, yea though it were true, that his Holiness gave full commission (as here it is said) to the Card. Caietane the Protector, to appoint the authority with convenient instructions. For his Holiness not writing himself, as here it is confessed, how should the Priests take notice thereof, that it was his act? which, together with the Archpriests misdemeanour, in the promulgation of his new authority, & other matters also, was the cause, why the Priests did at their great charges send to Rome two of their brethren, to have dealt with his Holiness about it.  
But their Ambassadors coming thither (saith this author) and showing no desire of peace or union at all, or to accept of any good condition to live in obedience, etc. And thus he runneth with a free pen to avouch any thing which is for his purpose, how contrary soever it is to truth. But because this matter is at large handled by this author in the 9 Chapter of the Apology, where also we shall declare how these matters passed at Rome, we will only note here, that the two Priests had little reason to determine their business with F. Parsons, D. Haddock, or M. Martin Array, who perchance are the others which are here meant, and as it is here confessed fol. 99 were actors or consultors in the constitution of this authority, and parties directly opposite against the Priests in England. Besides that, the condition which was offered by F. Parsons, was very ridiculous, to wit, that the two Priests, who with so great danger and charge were arrived at Rome in the behalf of many other, should return again into England with letters to the Archpriest and jesuits, to amend what should be yielded by them to have been done amiss: & to give satisfaction unto all men, where it was due: which if the Archpriest and jesuits would not perform, the Priests might come again out of England to Rome. And how subtle soever F. Parsons thought himself in this devise, the two priests could not but think it would have been a great folly in them, to have accepted this condition of peace, although perchance if they had understood his Holiness mind, that he would have entertained them, as they were entertained, with close imprisonment, and other such favours (as shallbe showed as occasion serveth) possibly they might have returned again into their country, and have contented themselves until it had pleased God, to have taken some pity upon their miseries. But to prove how falsely this fellow affirmeth, that the two Priests showed no desire of peace and union, their going to the Cardinal Caietane (whom they took to be the ordainer of the new authority, as these words of his letters did import) Dum haec nostra ordinatio duraverit: so long as this our ordinance shall endure: and there offer to bring him in writing, what they had to say, will be a sufficient argument: which as it should seem, the jesuits, and their faction, fearing least by this means their dealings might come to light, procured (contrary to the Cardinal's honour, who had entertained the Priests in this cause) that they should be committed close prisoners, & not suffered ever after to come together to deal in any thing, until some two or three days after, that there was a Breve given, in confirmation of the Archpriests authority: which being obtained upon the 6. of April, as the Breve beareth date, the two Priests were suffered upon the 8. of the same month to come together, & the Breve being presently brought unto them, they yielded themselves, as well in the name of their brethren, as in their own, promising to obey it, & doubtless were ready enough to have sworn it, if his Holiness had exacted any such thing at their hands, after that he had declared what his will was should be done, what reason soever the priests had to the contrary. But the truth is, that there was no oath taken, nor any demanded. This might therefore have been left out with more truth then inserted in this Apology, to wit: this was promised at that time of all hands, and the two messengers did swear it also by a corporal oath: as also that epitheton to the Breve, to wit, new: for what doth this import other, than another Breve, as though some Breve had been before made, and refused by the priests? which is a most untrue conceit, yet necessarily to be made upon these words of the Apology, He (the Pope) confirmed all that was done already by the Cardinal with a new Breve. This was promised at that time (saith this author) of all hands, and the two messengers did swear also by a corporal oath, and hope was, that all would be quiet hereupon, to which effect Fa. Parson's also wrote very courteous and pious letters unto M. Collington, and M. Much, and they accepted kindly of the same, as after we shall have occasion perhaps more particularly to set down. But now Satan being loath to have sedition ended, began again to set them out in England, and to put them in worse case than ever, by the industry of certain seditious humours of the chiefest contenders, whereof some devised new injuries offered them by the quiet, some required satisfaction for the old etc. until in November last 1600. divers of the discontented made a general appeal etc.  
Thus far doth he embolden himself, as who having no intention to be any way accounted a changeling. We will here omit, that which he affirmeth of Fa. Parson's pious letters to M. Collington, and M. Much, which seem here to have been written upon the promises and oath (as he saith) of the messengers, to be at peace, when they saw the Pope's Breve, which letter's Cap. 10 fol. 143. he saith were written even then (to use his own words) when yet the Pope's Breve was not come forth, as appeareth, for that this was written the ninth of April, and the Breve beareth date of the 21. of the same month. What need was there of this so palpable a falsehood? Cannot Fa. Parson's praises even in matters of smallest moment be sounded by lip, or registered by pen, but with most gross falsehood, thus wrote F. P. (that is, a courteous and pious letter, as here it is declared fol. 8. for it beareth the same date, and is written to the same men as may be seen) even then when yet the Pope's Breve was not come forth. And lest any man should doubt of this Fa. Parsons his courtesy or piety, before that time of the coming forth of the Breve, he proveth it by the date of his letters which he saith is the ninth of April, and the date of the Breve which he saith is the 21. of April. A manifest falsehood, as may be seen both by the Breve itself, and by many places in this Apology: where it is set down to bear date 6. April 1599, as in the same tenth chapter fol. 140: and immediately before in the end of the ninth chapter, and else where. So that I cannot but marvel at the foolish greediness of this author, in taking every occasion to commend Fa. Parsons, how untowardly so ever it fadgeth with him. But Satan being loath to have sedition ended, began again to set them out in England, and to put them in worse case, than ever, by the industry of certain seditious humours of the chiefest contenders etc. These were the jesuits and the Archpriest: first the jesuits, namely Fa. jacob, who after the peace made, gave out, that they, who should hold opinion dogmatizando, that the priests were not schismatics, should incur the censures of holy Church, which the Archpriest did not only not control being told thereof, but bare the jesuit out in his wicked assertion. And furthermore published a resolution, which he said he had received from the mother city, by which the priests were condemned, as schismatics. and it was high time for the priests not only to complain of intolerable injuries, but to seek for satisfaction also in such places, where they were by these means defamed, which when it would not be granted, they made an offer to come to dispute the case, with promise most humbly to ask pardon of the Archpriest, and the jesuits, if it could be proved, that they had been schismatics, and desire to be restored to their good name, if in case they could not be proved to have been such. But this offer of dispute was also rejected, and they were threatened, who should go about to defend their good names, thus most unjustly harmed. whereupon they sent to the University of Paris, that by the resolution of learned men, such as they imagined a company of puny fellows would have regarded, this question might have been ended. But when these silly men saw this resolution for the priests, they were worse than ever they were, and the Archpriest did forbid all sorts upon grievous penalties to maintain that resolution by word, or writing, directly, or indirectly, whether it were given upon true information, or otherwise. as though those learned men having true information (as the Archpriest here supposed) were so much to be contemned, as no man without incurring grievous censures, might defend their opinion, in the question proposed: for these are the words of the decree, made by the Archpriest 29. Maij 1600 whether it be truly given, or forged, whether upon true information, or otherwise. And these proceed of the Archpriest compelled the priests to make their Appeal to his Holiness, which beareth date the 17 of November 1600. And it was made not only for them who set their names unto it, but for others also, who seeing the affliction which hung over the secular priests, and fearing (not without just cause) that their turn would come afterward, were desirous of redress, but dared not to show themselves in the action, in respect of the hard measure which they saw offered to their brethren, who were in actual persecution by the jesuits, and Archpriest. And when this Apology was published in England, it was known, that long before the publishing thereof, the priests were gone over to prosecute their Appeal; and had presented themselves before the Nuntius in Flanders, who was in commission, as they understood, to determine this matter.  
And whereas it may be said, that the book was printed, before thus much was known, this answer also may be made, that in the like case, where an untruth was printed in the 12. Chapter fol. 201. they did find a means to clap on a piece of paper, that it should not be read, being a relation no more false, than this was. But if they should have taken this course throughout the book, to have pasted paper, where there were untruths uttered, there would have been very little to have read in the Apology. And therefore perchance they resolved rather to adventure all their credit at once, by letting the book go uncorrected of those falsehoods, which are contained in it, than not to do the harm which they intended. The like folly and falsehood also is that, which is here inserted of M. Charnocks Appeal: for as we had sufficient testimony from beyond the seas, his Appeal was prosecuted in due time: and moreover, that he was long since freed from the sentence of the two Cardinals.  
And whereas it is furthermore said, that M. Charnocke appealed from the sentence of two Cardinals, after that he had accepted it, and sworn to the observation thereof, it is most untrue; for no oath was ever demanded of him, concerning that sentence. It was only showed by Fa. Parsons first to him, and afterward to M. Bishop, who had his liberty four or five days before this sentence was seen. And all the oaths, which were taken, were taken by Acarisius the fiscal, when M. Bishop was delivered out of prison: which act of the Fiscals was of none effect, as not having Commission to do any thing in that cause, as Fa. Parsons affirmed, when he showed this sentence of the Cardinals, alleging for proof, out of the same letters, that the declaration of the Cardinal's mind was committed to the Rector, or Vicerector of the English College. But of these matters, and the falsehood used therein, we shall have occasion to write more at large in answer to the ninth chapped. And while these Appeals did and do hang, all obedience is showed, which may be showed without prejudice of the Appeal, or which is to be used to notorious detractors, and unconscionable defamers of Catholic priests. Neither is there any other liberty, or freedom sought for by any, than such liberty as belongeth to Christians, and of the which Catholic priests are most unchristianly deprived, and they only seek to live in reputation due unto their estates, and to maintain the same by all lawful means. How falsely also this is inserted by this author, that liberty is sought, and not trial of the cause, I commit to the judgement of all men of any sense, who understand how that the priests are gone to Rome to his Holiness, to have the case decided. But nor resting here, nor contented with this freedom during the dependence of the said Appeals, they have proceeded (saith this author) to greater disorders, which is, to publish in print most injurious contumelious, and infamatory books, and libels, (as before hath been said) without particular name of author, without licence of Superior, and other circumstances of modesty, right, and conscience required in such attempts, etc.  
This good fellow presumeth much of his reader's ignorance, favour or patience. For, as it appeareth by the Archpr. his letters to M. Collinton, he rejected the appeal, & by other his acts he hath declared, that those, who had put their names unto it, had incurred the penalties of his decrees. He also hereupon solicited some not to receive the Sacraments at the appellants hands, as may appear by his letter of the 16. of April 1601. to a gentleman, where thus he writeth, This I writ to make you privy of the great spiritual danger, wherein you and all that receive any Sacraments of M. Oswald Needam may be, if it be so, that he hath subscribed unto a seditious pamphlet, coloured with the name of an appeal. With what face then doth this fellow, in the Archpriests behalf, urge the dependence of the appeal? or what freedom is that, with which he would that the appellants should have been contented? if there was just cause to appeal, in what a poor case would the Archpriest be, if that there were put in execution against him, which is due unto the refusers of just appeals, and contemners of the sea Apostolic, whither the appeal was made? And if the appeal were not a just appeal, how foolishly is it here urged, that the Priests not resting here, nor contented with this freedom, during the dependence of the same appeals, they have proceeded to greater disorders? which is to publish in print most injurious, contumelious, and infamatory books, and libels, without particular name of Author, without licence of superior, etc. The causes of this publishing have been diversly touched by many, who have proved, that it was most necessary, for the procuring of an unfeigned peace, lest matters being shuffled up, as once before they were, the jesuits should break out at their pleasure (as they did once before, not long after the peace was concluded) And being backed with the authority of the Archpriest, bring new quarrels every day worse, and more grievous, than the former. And whereas here it is particularly urged, that during the dependence of the appeals these books were published, it is easily answered, because the archpriest showed no reverence to his Holiness, and to the sea Apostolic, but denied the dimissory letters, which were demanded of him, rejected the appeal, as a seditious pamphlet, and proceeded against the appellants, as if the appeal were no otherwise to be esteemed: as we have immediately before proved, and all Catholics can testify as much, who have been warned not only from receiving Sacraments of the appellants, but also from being present at their sacrifice, because they set their hands to that appeal. And therefore it was judged necessary, that all Catholics should be informed of the truth, and how the case stood in this present controversy, which, without printing, could not conveniently have been declared, especially where the matter is so hardly followed, that no one of the Priests may be suffered to speak for themselves. And to this effect also were the Latin books printed, that the Priests making their cause generally known in Christendom, they might (maugre their adversaries) come to have audience, where they desired, and had once before failed: when, for avoiding of too much speech of strangers, they went in a more private sort for a remedy of home miseries. Neither ought any man to wonder at this good fellow, when he calleth these books Libels: for the spirit moved him in hope at that time, that the Priests should be sufficiently debarred from coming to the place, where now they are, and being there ready to prove such things, as are here to be objected, they do convince the understanding of him, who hath any, and knoweth what belongeth to a libel, that these books are no Libels, against which this author inveigheth in these hot terms, injurious, contumelious, and infamatory books or libels. But by that which followeth, he doth more discover his folly. He saith, that the books were published in print, without particular name of Author, without licence of superior, and other circumstances of modesty, right, and conscience required in such attempts. Alas good sir, to omit in this place, what want there is of other circumstances of modesty, throughout all the Apology, if it be a necessary circumstance of modesty, right, and conscience, to put to a book some particular name of Author, where was your modesty, right, and conscience, when you published this Apology? what particular name of Author hath your book? Have you not set it out in these general terms written and set forth by Priests united in due subordination to the right reverend Archpriest, and other their superiors? And I pray you (sir) what particular name is here, and of what author? Good sir turn once again the books against which this Apology is written: and find this circumstance of modesty, right, or conscience more wanting in their books, then in the Apology, and then with less shame upbraid the priests that they published in print without particular name of Author, and other circumstances of modesty, right, and conscience.  
But to give a fuller satisfaction to our Reader, We affirm that the books which were published by the Priests, were published with more particular name of author, than this Apology was, if the particular name be that which bringeth the author to be known who he was. For first the Latin book, which was published in print, and dedicated to his Holiness, is said to be exhibited by those Priests who were accused of Schism, and other crimes. The English book also which is entitled, The copies of certain discourses, carrieth as particular a name of author, in these words, which were extorted from divers, as their friends desired them, or their adversaries drive them to purge themselves of the most grievous crimes of schism, sedition, rebellion, faction and such like. Now good sir, I do appeal to the indifferent Reader, whether the authors of these two books (for this Apology meaneth none other, as appeareth by the whole discourse thereof, and particularly fol. 8.) were more known by this description accused of schism (they showing themselves publicly in their own defence) than the authors of the Apology by this description, Priests united in due subordination to the Archpriest, all the rest keeping their consciences to themselves, that no man almost is sure, who can be meant by this name. And some of them, who were so firmly reputed for such, as the Archpriest and jesuits adventured to ask their hands or consents to somewhat, which some do think should have been used, for the authorizing or giving their consents to the setting out of this book, they took this priestlike courage unto them, as to deny to set their hands to that, to which they were not to be made privy. And many more there are (as many do know) who go for such as are here set down for authors of this Apology, who perchance have their hands as deep in the answer, as any of the other. But we will let this slip go, hoping that this good fellow will be better advised in his next book, how he taxeth men for that, in which he doth offend himself, if the fault which he findeth may be called an offence. But now concerning the other circumstance, that the books were printed without licence of Superior. If this author will tell us, whither we should have gone near hand to have found an indifferent Superior, we will acknowledge that there was some error. The Archpriest was not an indifferent Superior in this case, because he was a party, against whom the books were to be published so far forth as they concerned the controversy between himself and the Priests, and therefore he was not likely to give them licence to print An other Superior they know not where to seek in any reasonable distance, to demand their licence. Besides that, to their remembrance, they do not find any authority in his Commission, to licence books to the print being no Ordinary, but a Subdelegate, and for certain purposes, among which this is not reckoned for any. And perchance this was the cause, why being solicited by M. Collington upon the coming forth of the Apology, to certify him what Supertours did licence the printing thereof, he knew not what to answer. And if these words, permissu superiorum, be proved a necessary circumstance of modesty, they shall be used hereafter in our books also: Much idle stuff followeth to make an end of this chapter, as that the Priests do go about to disguise matters by laying the fault upon M. Archpriest and Fa. Parsons, as though they did not descend to such particulars, as cannot be applied unto any other, but unto them. They labour to purge themselves from schism, in their forbearing to obey the authority appointed by his Holiness, before they did see some instrument from his Holiness, in testimony that he had instituted, or given authority to another, for the institution thereof. They complain of hard dealing used towards the students, and particularly against the two Priests, who were not suffered to come to his Holiness, being sent unto him to deal concerning this new authority. And whereas the Priests are here charged to contemn the Cardinal Farnesius his doing, or writing, or procuring for the Archpriest a Protonotariship: This fellow seemeth to take it for a disgrace, not to make some sport among all his big words. For how would a man think, that he proveth this negligence or contempe; as he termeth it? Forsooth the Cardinal procured the Archpriest to be protonotarius apostolicus. And what then? doth it follow, that the priests do neglect and contemn, whatsoever the present Protector, Cardinal Farnesius hath done or written, or deferred to the Archpriest, because the Cardinal procured him to be a Notary? But perchance the book is falsely printed, and that which followeth, as another contempt, is to be understood to be the only proof of the contempt, of which here is mention. These are the words, Neither do they give him the title of Reverendissimus due to that degree, and used towards him by the Cardinal himself in his letters. We will leave it to this author to explacate himself, whether this word neither implieth a second or one only contempt. We will only excuse the Priests for not giving him the title of Reverendissimus, until they did know some cause why. For as it is to be supposed, the priests did not see, what Cardinal Farnesius writ unto M. Blackwell. Neither yet have they seen any thing, why he may not challenge to be called Illustrissimus. And yet, I think, it were a wonderful folly, if they should give him that title, and he could not but take it as a flout, or a mock to be so called. The reason then being all one, the Priests knowing no more of the one, then of the other, it is an argument, that this author wanted both matter, and wit to devise matter. For who would have used so great terms against priests, for not giving a title to one, to whom a Cardinal gave it in a private letter? In what fear may we be stricken, lest that some Cardinal had also written to this author, and given him some title, which we know not? Or if any Cardinal would bestow any honest title upon him, yet this kind of Reverendissimiship, being a matter of twenty or forty crowns, he might easily procure it: and we might be condemned for neglecting or contemning somewhat, which is not in use, where as skilful Protonotaries, as any are in England do keep open shops in every good town, and are known amongst their honest neighbours for such. But we will let this idle exception go, among the other, as idle & railing speeches, with which this author endeth the first chapter, and closeth up his reader's stomach with them, who cannot but see what spirit, and in what sort it moveth him.   

CHAP. 7. How this Author of the Apology while he would inveigh against dangerous and temerarious propositions, engageth himself further than becometh a Catholic. Apol. c. 2.  
IN the second Chapter of the Apology, this Author purposeth to treat of three things: first, of disobedience: secondly, of undutiful behaviour to superiors namely his Holiness: thirdly, of scandalous and temerarious propositions.  
Concerning the first, he bringeth some Scriptures, with if, and and's: as if his reader should provide himself to hear of a great plump: If all this be so as it is (saith he) alas in what case, etc. And so proceedeth to a lamentation over his brethren, supposing that the scriptures he brought were as truly applied, as they were true in themselves. And to prove the stubbornness in the Priests, which the good man seemeth to lament, he bringeth a clause (as he termeth it) of a letter of Card. Allen to M. Much, dated the 16. of March 1594. whereby he would have his reader conceive very strange matters, and wrongfully informed himself of any evil affection or hard opinion of the Cardinal towards the Secular priests. And lest we should be thought to blame this author's folly without cause, we will set down his own words as they lie after his exordium, together with the Cardinal's letter. These are his words.  
For first of all to begin with Cardinal Allen, of whom these men would seem to make most account now he is dead & gone, as though he had favoured them when he was alive, which yet (as we shall show) is quite contrary: for he in his foresaid letter of the 16 of March to M. Much, doth most earnestly give in charge to him and to all other Priests, to live in great union with the Fathers of the Society, yielding for his reason the singular obligation they had to their manifold benefits. His words are these: I have heard (saith he) to my great grief, that there is not that good correspondence between the Fathers and other priests. I cannot tell upon what discontentment, etc. But whereof soever it cometh, it is of the enemy, and with all possible discretion and diligence by the wiser sort on both sides to be rooted out, or else it will be the ruin of the whole cause, etc. Therefore in this point especially (M. Much) be earnest and peremptory with all parties, and every one in particular. And tell them, that I charge and advise them by the blessed blood and bowels of God's mercy, that they honour, love, and esteem one another according to every man's age, order, and profession: and that those of the Secular order, especially those that have been brought up under the Fathers, and have found so great love, charity, and help in all places at their hands, that they be correspondent in all gratitude and thankfulness, reverencing them in word and deed, as is requisite to their merits and calling, etc. Thus wrote the good Cardinal not above half a year before his death. And by this we see, both what his love & opinion was towards the Fathers, and what his commandment and order was to all those priests, he being superior to them all, appointed by his Holiness, that now are so contentious against the jesuits. What would the good man have said, if he had lived till this day, to see his request and commandment so contemned by them? And how can M. Much and others name so often the Cardinal without blushing, when they break so earnest an exhortation, and order of his in so great a matter?  
The contents in this letter are so plain, as I cannot but marvel at this fellow his boldness, and how without blushing he can make that descant which here he doth.  
The letter (as all men may see) was written upon a suggestion made unto the Cardinal, that the Priests and jesuits were dangerously fallen out, as may appear by those words, I cannot tell upon what discontentment. And afterward, Therefore in this point especially (M. Much) be earnest and peremptory with all parties, and every one in particular. Thirdly the charge and advise which was given, was as deeply given to the jesuits as to the Priests, as may appear by the words immediately following those which we last cited: And tell them that I charge and advise them, by the blessed blood and bowels of God's mercy, that they honour, love, and esteem one another, according to every man's age, order, and profession. Fourthly, the particular exhortation to the Secular priests to be correspondent in all gratitude and thankfulness to the jesuits love, charity, and help, with reverence in word and deed, not only as was requisite, but as was above their merits and calling, was long since prevented, as appeareth by a letter of F. Campion to F. Euerard the general of the society (with whom there was no cause why he should dissemble) as may be seen in the Epistle of pious grief, fol. 6. & 7. These are his words there cited: Tanta est aestimatio, quam de nobis concitarunt Presbyteri, ipsietiam piissimi, & doctissimi, ut nisi timidè commemorandum sentiam: The Priests here, who are most learned and holy, have raised such an opinion of us, as I cannot speak it without fear: which saying of F. Campion proving nothing but a correspondence in all gratitude on the behalf of the priests for the love, charity, and help, which they had or might have of the Fathers, I cannot but wonder at the Epistle maker, who bringeth it to prove a correspondence in the behalf of the jesuits, unless perchance he mean, that no other gratitude is to be expected of a jesuite, then that he will tell his general, what benefits he receiveth. This correspondence of the Priests was so followed still by them, until the jesuits grew so insolent, as those, who brought them into credit, were forced to stand at their reversion, and without respect either to age, order, or profession, they went about tyrannically to have the government over the Priests, as may be proved as well by their attempt at Wisbich, as by the beginnings abroad, where Catholics had no entertainment for Priests of what age, order, or profession soever, unless they did come by order of a jesuite, and so would the Cardinal have said, if he might have lived till this day: notwithstanding his request and commandment given as well unto the Secular Priests as jesuits, in these words: Tell them, that I charge and advise them by the blessed blood and bowels of God's mercy, that they honour, love, and esteem one another according to every man's age, order, and profession: yet this fellow, without blushing, citeth this letter to prove the Cardinals more special affection before his death to the jesuits, then unto the Priests, wherein he giveth a like round charge to them both: and in that he gave this commission to a Secular priest, to be peremptory with all parties, this letter doth rather prove, that he favoured the Secular priests than the jesuits. And thus much concerning those fond collections which are made out of this letter by the author of this Apology.  
Our author having showed (as he supposeth) that the priests have disobeyed this the Cardinal Allen his commandment, (whereas indeed the jesuits did break it, and drove the priests to stand upon their own necessary defence) he pretendeth to show the priests their progress from worse to worse: but in very deed discovereth his own in the same kind. And first he outrunneth his reader, by briefly touching (but untruly, as will be showed in the particular treatise of the Roman stirs) the breaking forth of the students in Rome with the jesuits: and as if his words were Oracles, he applieth some places of Scripture (as he knoweth who did to our Saviour in the desert) than he pursueth his former confuted falsehood, of the beginning of new associations in England, after the aforesaid tumults ended in Rome, & telleth his reader that his Holiness perceiving the same to tend to a new division and contention, as well by the laws and rules thereof, as by a certain new, contumelious, and most enormous Memorial, sent over against the jesuits, he appointed them (the priests) a superior of their own order, as you have heard, and such an one, as their own two ambassadors sent to Rome, confessed under their own hands and oaths (as appeareth in their examinations) that he had been the likeliest man of all others to be chosen by voices, if the election had been permitted unto them. And so he goeth on without any new matter, or any thing that needeth new answer: only this we are to note (for so much as we can learn) that neither of those two Priests (whom here he calleth the two ambassadors) did ever say or swear so much, as here they are charged: neither can it be proved out of their examinations, unless the jesuits have showed their skill in corrupting, or falsifying those examinations, as they have done in other writings. The challenge also which followeth, that the Priests did not obey the Archpriest at the sight of the Cardinal Cajetan's letters, is often, but now lately by M. Collington sufficiently answered. And if the Cardinal had upon his own proper motion, expected an absolute blind obedience unto him, it had argued too great a want of consideration in him.  
There is also a full satisfaction given, that what the priests did, might very well stand with obedience, and with humility, and was not against any oath which any took, when they were scholars of the Seminaries: that oath being no other, then to take orders, when the superior would have them, and to return into England, when they should be sent, ad lucrandas animas: to gain souls to God: which they did perform until this new authority, pretending power to take away their faculties (by which they laboured in their vocation) solo nutu (to use M. blackwell's words to M Charnock, in his letters 17. Junii 1600.) at his beck did make them cease (for scandal sake) to do that, to which by oath they were bound. By which it may appear how foolishly this oath of the Seminaries is urged, against those, who did not become blind obedient at the sight of the Cardinal's letter to M Blackwell. And if any have since promised obedience to the Archpriest, when they received their faculties, they are ready to give a reasonable cause, why in such and such particulars they did not obey him. For as I take it, this fellow will not stand obstinately in this heresy, that a superior cannot do any thing, or command any thing amiss, wherein a subject may refuse to obey him, although he were sworn to obey him, as now many are. For such oaths are always to be understood, to be observed in just and lawful matters, or at the most in such, as are not to be proved most unjust, and unlawful, as these are, which the Archpriest doth command, to wit: that they shall not defend themselves, nor be defended of other from the infamy of schism, sedition, faction, rebellion and such like, whereof they know themselves to be most clear, and that the suffering of such slanders to go uncontrolled, would be most injurious to themselves, prejudicial to God's Church, in which they live as pastors, and dishonourable to God himself, to whose service they have, with their uttermost peril, devoted themselves. But to make all apparent in one word: the priests obeyed so soon as they knew it to be his Holiness will, that it should be so, as appeareth by the second Breve, dated 17 August 1601 if there were no other proof for it. These are the words of the Breve: Quae nostrae literae, simulatque promulgatae advestram (filii presbyteri) notitiam devenerunt, omnem illico sedatam fuisse discordiam, & summam pacem (reconciliata inter vos gratia, depositisque odijs, & simultatibus) initam fuisse, magno nostro cum gaudio cognoutmus: Which letters of ours (the Breve) so soon as they were promulged, and came to your knowledge, we perceive to our great toy, that all discord was presently appeased, and that a full peace was made by a mutual atonement, and a laying apart all hatred, and private grudge. So that we do not a little marvel at this fellow his boldness, who without any regard of so many testimonies, as would be brought against him, or of this Breve, would set forth to the view of the world this untruth, concerning the priest's obedience at the sight of the Breve, to induce his Reader to a contrary conceit of the priests actions. For thus he telleth his tale: But at length his Holiness to resolve all doubts declared by his Breve, that all, and every point of the former institution by the Cardinal was by his order, consent, knowledge and commandment, and should not this have brought some remorse to good and tender consciences, of all the broils, and turmoils raised up before about this unnecessary doubt? Or at least wise should not this have so appeased men for the time to come, as that whatsoever the superior had been for his person, yet should his authority never more have been called in question? But what ensued? Truly we are afraid to recount it, remembering that dreadful saying of the Apostle, Mali autem homines proficiunt in peius. Evil men shall go from worse to worse. And it seemeth to have come to pass, for that divers of these chief heads of this sedition, seeming to have lost much of God's grace, in not obeying promptly that Apostolical declaration, & determination, have run since to far greater contempt, and perturbation of mind etc. Can this fellow have used himself more malapertly against the Pope's Breve, then after his wont and graceless conceits and insinuations, to tell his reader that the Priests did not promptly obey that apostolical declaration, whereas the words of the Breve are most plain to the contrary, Quae nostrae literae simulatque promulgatae ad vestram (filii presbyteri) noticiam devenerunt, omnem ilico sedatam fuisse discordiam, etc. So soon as our Breve came to your view, presently all discord was a appeased, and peace was made etc. which peace is in divers discourses showed to have been broken by the Archpriest, when complaint being made unto him by the priests, of that audaciousness of Fa. jones the jesuite, in renewing his fellow Fa. Lister's absurd, and seditious assertion of schism against the priests, he did not only avouch as much now a fresh, but published a resolution, which he said he had received from Rome, to the same effect: and with such appurtenances as might well declare how deep a root the infection had taken.  
The other two points, to wit, of undutifulness and of scandalous & temerarious propositions, are handled somewhat confusedly: But for the fuller satisfaction of the Reader, they shallbe answered as they lie. And whereas this author doth first begin to except against some speeches, uttered by letters, contained in the English book, as contemptuously spoken of the dignity, and office of the Archpriest, and also of the manner of the institution thereof by his Hol. the reader is to understand, that in this there is very evil dealing, considering that those speeches, which were used, were used before it was known, that his Holiness had his finger in it. And they were the more boldly used, because it was presumed, that the authority was not instituted by his Holiness, but by the Cardinal Caietane, who in his letter constitutive affirmeth, that this was his own ordinance: although he saith in one place in general terms, that he was commanded to make a peace in England upon the false suggestion, that the priests and catholics were at wars. And in another place that he followed the Pope's will, who thought it meet that there should be a subordination in England, being induced thereunto by reason given him by priests: whereas to this day neither were the reasons ever heard, nor what priests they were who gave them, except perchance a few jesuits, who are exempted from the authority. Nothing then being known to the contrary, but that it was a devise of the jesuits, and an institution of the Card. Caietane by their means, without any letters to one effect, or other from his Holiness, as is here confessed in this Apol. Cap. 1 fol. 7. the priests might the more justly term the authority by such names, as to them it seemed then to deserve, to wit a new, and extraordinary authority unpleasing, obtruded, disorderly procured government, exorbitant and altogether dissonant from reason, & the accustomed practice of God's Church, and that it was already thought by the Council, to be of purpose erected, not for Religion, but for the better effecting of plots and designments of State. For although neither the title of an Archpriest be new, nor the authority of an Archpt extraordinary, yet may this authority be termed both new and extraordinary being such as was never heard of, to have been before given to so mean a Prelate. It was called an unpleasing authority, for that it was merely affective, as may appear by the constitutive letters: and if it have now any power to do any good to any, the Prelate is to give thanks for such thanks for such his authority to those priests, who found the fault. It was said to be obtruded, for that neither the priests knew, that it came by any lawful authority, nor itself brought any grateful thing with it, but rather did grace and strengthen the faction of the jesuits against them, the Archpr. being commanded in his instructions to do nothing of moment, without the advise of the jesuits, who had already begun a most scandalous sedition in England. It was said to be disorderly procured &c. both in respect of the false suggestion, which was the mother thereof, (as may appear by the constitutive letter) and also in respect that the principal actors in the procuring thereof were men of an other order, who were not only free from being subject unto it, but must be directors also in it, especially in matters of moment, as appeareth by the Archpr. his 6 instruction. All which manner of proceeding being right well known, and that these principal procurers, and counsellors were such, as were also known to the Counsel to be more meddling in matters of State, than became them, they could not shoot very wide, who affirmed that this authority was already thought by her majesties Council to be of purpose erected, for the better effecting of such designments. Neither was this to bring the archpr. or any good Cath that should obey him, within the compass of treason, for matter of State: but a reason which all good Catholics might take, why the priests were not ever forward, to run after the novelty, having no other warrant for it, than a letter of a Cardinal, who under colour of piety might easily be carried by the jesuits known Statesmen) to do any thing, which might further their designments. And the Counsel being known to be thus possessed, the priests had no reason to run further into displeasure of her Majesty, & her Hon. Council: but rather seek to be well assured, that the ground thereof was no State plot, but Religion, for which they have been, and are most ready to shed their blood, when it shall please God to suffer it. But where doth this good fellow show, that the priests would bring all good Catholics, that should obey the ordination, & the Archpriest, within the compass of treason for matter of State? See I pray you how he choppeth Logic: which point these men, to work more mischief, do teach the persecutors in plain words: again a little after in the same page in these words. Besides all this by the opinions of divers men in the Laws of our Country this our cause may, and willbe drawn within the compass of an old Law enacted as well by our Catholic Bishops and Prelates, as by the Prince above 300. years ago, viz. the Law of Praemunire, because it is an external jurisdiction brought into this Realm, against the will, & notice of the prince and country: which made the late reverend Bishop of Lincoln, D. Watson, to refuse all external jurisdiction offered him over his fellow prisoners, although once he had lawful Episcopal jurisdiction within the Realm, & was unlawfully deprived thereof. Thus much doth this author cite out of the English book, to prove that the priests, to work mischief do teach the persecutors in plain words, that all who obey the archpriest, are within compass of treason. Is this fellow in his right wits trow ye? or must not his Reader be very credulous, or at the least very forgetful, who being told, that he shall see how the Priests to work mischief teach the persecutors a lesson to bring the obedient within compass of treason, must be served with an example of a Praemunire? But neither do the Priests affirm in this place, that the Archpriest, or those who obey him, incur the Statute of Praemunire, but say only, that by the opinions of divers men in the Laws of our Country, this our cause may, and will be drawn within the compass of an old Law, etc. And in that they say of divers men, they leave a scope for others to be of the contrary opinion. And if the matter were so clear, as all men were of that opinion, there being as expert Lawyers of the Privy Council, as any other are, how can they be thought to be taught by the Priests, that there is here in our case any danger of a Praemunire? Who can judge whether the folly of this author or his malice were greater, when he alleged this sentence out of the Priests their book, to prove that they to work more mischief, did hereby teach the persecutors in plain words to bring all good Catholics that obey this ordination and the Archpriest appointed by his Holiness, within the compass of treason for matter of State?  
Let us put the case that there were no danger of a Praemunire in this our case: yet if by the opinions of divers men in the laws of our Country, it might, or would be drawn within the compass of such a law, it had been wisdom to have paused upon the matter, and not to have run over headlong into so great a danger upon a letter of a Cardinal: which added affliction unto affliction, without any good, or ease to men otherwise afflicted, and might very well have been omitted, and God much better served, except only in the trial of his priests, who have ever since the institution of this authority, lived under a grievous yoke, and most extreme persecution, under the Archpriest, jesuits, and other their over forward, and busy adherents.  
And whereas this author noteth, that the Priests would have consent of the prince (though different from them in religion) to be needful for legitimation of this authority, he doth but show how his pen can play the Gentleman usher to his wit. The less the likelihood is, that the Prince would legitimate this authority, the greater was the reason, which the Priests did use for their forbearance to yield unto it. It is very well known, that when the prince did not differ in religion, the statutes against the provision of dignities from Rome was sued. And can any man of reason hope for more favour at the hands of a prince, who doth differ in religion? If this Archipresbyterie could be proved so necessary, as without it the Catholic religion could not stand in England, this glanse were to some purpose, and the Priests no doubt, would have been as resolute in the behalf of the Catholic faith, as they are not sparing their lives in the defence thereof, which they daily give for it, although through the business of a few untimely Statesmen, they are all generally taken for such, and are put to death as traitors. But the Archipresbyterie being no way so necessary, but that it might with much more profit to God's Church have been wanting, the Priests most resolute to die in defence of the Catholic faith, might advise themselves whether it were wisdom, to run needelesly into an other danger, and of such quality, as if the magistrate had no way differed in Religion, he would have put the law in execution against them.  
another note, which this author maketh, is, that by the Country, the Priests must needs mean themselves only: that is to say, some five or six that opposed themselves at the beginning, for that his Holiness had not asked their consents. See I pray you, how this fellow still thrusteth in his Holiness in this action, who was not known in 12. months after, to have dealt therein, except what might be gathered by the imprisonment of the two Priests, who went out of England to Rome, to have showed what they, and others thought meet he should understand; although this their imprisonment being such, and in such manner, before they had audience, was an argument to some, that it was not his action, and that aswell his Holiness in particular, as that Sea, and those who did fly thither for succour, were too too much abused: and this imprisonment of the two priests was about ten months after the institution of the Archipresbyterie. How handsomely would this fellows music sound, were this string in tune, upon which he harpeth so often? But it being so generally known, that his Holiness was not seen in the action until his Breve came, which was above a year after the institution of the authority, no man but he, who is past shame, would so often urge his Holiness, or disobedience to his Holiness. And in this place he giveth this cause in mockage, why five or six opposed themselves at the beginning, for that his Holiness had not asked their consents. Alas poor man, how feign he is of any foolish conceit, to bring the priests into a contempt with the Catholics? Whose consent did his Holiness ask, when he confirmed the authority by his Breve? I am well assured that he asked not the consent of any of them: and yet if the Pope be of any credit, or his Breve of the 17. of August 1601. they did all presently without delay yield themselves. So that this absurd fiction of this fellow is too too apparent. I would also demand whether his Holiness had the consent of any of the Secular priests in England, when this authority was first instituted, and of how many? If he had not the consent of them, as doubtless he had not, more than what M. Standish a jesuit by promise (abusing the priests) gave for them, & in their names, who sent him not: why is this urged against five or six, as though all the rest had given their consents to the institution thereof? If he had the consent of the priests, why was there such canvasing for voices, or hands to be set to a letter which began thus: Olim dicebamur? Why were so many threatened? Why were others (who were not to be threatened) solicited, with, Now it is Fa. Parson's devise, you must not deny your hand? Again to an other: you shall not deny me, to set your hand unto it: And afterward his hand was set to it, and he knew not thereof, nor gave any consent thereto. And in this kind did the jesuits labour, and posted from one to another, to get consents, after that they saw some to forbear to yield themselves unto it. What devices were used to others for their liking hereof, may also be gathered by M. blackwel's behaviour in this point: who sending for M. Collington, and M. Charnocke, urged them to like thereof, and threatened them, that unless they would positively affirm, that they did like thereof, he was to send information to Rome, that they did dislike thereof: notwithstanding they would give no other answer, than this unto him: that they did neither like, nor would dislike, but would bear themselves as became Catholic priests to do. And this was all the opposition which was made at the beginning, and it was by fewer than 6. or 5. for it was by these two only, which were enough, and are as many, and perchance one more than at the beginning use to oppose themselves against springing heresies, errors, falsehoods, or the misdemeanours of such, as adventure to show themselves in private, before they appear more openly to the world. The causes of this opposition (as this fellow termeth it) are discoursed upon at large by M. john Collington, in his book lately set forth of this argument. And thus much in answer of that which this author noteth upon the priests words, which he citeth in this place.  
After these notes taken upon the priests words, he declareth his opinion of the statute of Praemunire, in this manner. And as for the Statute of Praemunire by them mentioned, it is not so ancient as they make it, but was begun to be treated, about the time that Wickliff rose up, when emulation was in heat against the Clergy: and the chief purpose thereof was, at the beginning to prohibit appellation to Rome in the first instance, under the pains aforesaid: and the worst kings of England ever since have most urged it, and it was not made (as these men say) by our Catholic Bishops, and Prelates, nor could in conscience, but sorely rather against their wills was it passed in Parliament by the stream of Temporal power, and emulation against them, etc. If the priests did speak of a Statute of Praemunire, according to the opinions of men well seen in the laws of our Realm, how impertinent is this to tell us, what the chief purpose thereof was at the beginning? and this being so, that the chief purpose thereof was to prohibit appellation to Rome in the first instance, and therefore no Catholic Bishop, or Prelate could in conscience agree to the making thereof: doth not this fellow show himself to be past shame, in bringing in this conceit, to the infinite discredit of the Archpriest and his tutors? We will here omit, how the Archpriest (who according to his sixth instruction, is to do nothing of moment without the advise of the jesuits) when he sent first to speak with M. Collington and M. Charnocke, stood very stiffly unto it, 
In his letters to M. Collington.  that we might not appeal from him to Rome, until it was often inculcated unto him, how dangerous that proposition was. We will also here omit his commandments unto us, not to go to Rome, first to plead our cause in hand: for to this perchance answer may be made, that he had procured, that it should be first heard in Flanders, before his Holiness his Nuncio: to whom when our brethren presented themselves, and showed themselves ready to have their cause heard, no one appeared for the Archpriest, although he had before given out by his letters, what potent adversaries the priests should there find in this behalf: 
The Nuntio his letter to M. Blackwell.  and the Nuntio himself had written unto him, to come or send some instructed in his cause. We do here ask, with what conscience have his godly tutors advised him, and he attempted to punish such as have appealed to Rome, because they have appealed to Rome, as his own hand will justify it against him: namely in his letter to a lay gentleman dated the 16. of April 1601. where he affirmeth, that he writeth unto him, to make him privy of the great spiritual danger, wherein he, and all that received any sacrament of M. Oswald Needam might be, if it were so, that the said M. Needam had subscribed unto a seditious pamphlet (these are his words) coloured with the name of an Appeal? And having denounced M. Robert Drewrie to have incurred the penalties of his Decrees, for subscribing to the same Appeal, he sent unto him a form of submission, which he was to make, or not be restored. And this was the form of that submission. Ego N. confiteor, etc. I do confess and acknowledge, that without any just cause I have complained of grievances, and many injuries offered me by the most Reverend archpriest, and have cast upon him the blame of these dissensions, tumuls, and deadly wars, and that I have transgressed his wholesome Decrees, of all which I humbly crave pardon, restitution of my faculties, and the removing of Censures, if I have incurred them. And I recall all these aforesaid, and do greatly wish, that I had never spoken, written, or approved them. Moreover, I do swear that I will hereafter behave myself peaceably, and obediently towards this my Superior, and will procure according to my bounden duty what lieth in me, that others do the same. At London. March. an. 1600 according to our English account.  
The decree which the archpriest made, and by the subscribing to the appeal was, and is judged by him to be broken, and these grievous penalties thereby incurred by those, who subscribed, beareth date 18. Octob. 1600. The words of the decree are these Prohibemus autem sub poena suspensionis à divinis, & amissionis omnium facultatum, ne quis sacerdos ullo modo suffragia vel scripto, vel verbo danda ambiat, vel det, ad quamcumque causam, quam antea nobiscum, vel cum duobus ex Assistentibus nostris non constet fuisse communicatam. We forbidden under pain of suspension from divine offices, & of loss of all faculties, every Priest to go about, to take any suffrage, or voice, any manner of way, either by writing, or by word of mouth, or to give any such suffrage, or voice to any matter whatsoever, which is not known to have been before communicated to us, or unto two of our Assistants. This is the decree, & by virtue hereof the Appellants so setting their hands, or giving consent, that their hands should be set to the Appeal, are said to have lost their faculties, and incurred the consures, which, were the Law a just Law, is not true, the penalty not being inflicted therein, but only threatened. And whereas the Archpriest, and his adherents, to save him from those penalties, which are due, and are ipso facto incurred by those who forbidden Appeals to Rome, affirm, that there was a Libel and an Appeal, & that his decree was broken, and the penalties therein contained, were incurred by subscribing to the Libel, and not to the Appeal; it is a poor shift, and to be used but in a few corners: for in his letter before cited, he maketh no difference, but in the name only: For these are his words, concerning M Needam, If it be so that he hath subscribed unto a seditious pamphlet, coloured with the name of an Appeal. So that now it is too late, to make two things of that, to which the priests did subscribe. Secondly it is a very gross ignorance, to make two matters of that Appeal, all writers affirming that Appeals made à gravaminibus, from grievances, must expressly contain them. For brevity sake Lancelot L. 3. Instit. juris Can. tit. de Apella. writeth thus, Multum autem interest, ab interlocutoria, vel alio gravamine, an à definitiva: nam primo casu, & causam &c. There is a great difference between appealing from an interlocutory sentence, or other grievance, and a definitive sentence. For in the first case the cause of the Appeal must be put down in writing, etc. Yea it is so essential a point to such an Appeal, as no case can be pleaded, which is not expressed in the Appeal, as is showed in that Clementine, Appellanti de Appellationibus. Thus saith the Pope, Appellanti ab interlocutoria, vel à gravamine judicis, non licet alias causas prosequi, quam in Appellatione sua nominatim duntaxat expressas etc. It is not lawful for the Appellant from an interlocutory sentence, or from a grievance of a judge, to prosecute any causes, but such only, as are by name expressed in his Appeal etc. If then there be nothing in that, which he calleth a seditious pamphlet, or a Libel, but an Appeal, containing (as it ought) the causes thereof, what a poor shift is this, to say that the Archpriest punisheth, or denounceth none to have incurred his penalties contained in his Edicts for subscribing to the Appeal, but only for their subscribing to a seditious pamphlet, or a libel, coloured with the name of an Appeal, or prefixed to an Appeal? The whole Appeal is now set forth in English by M Colington in his late book, that every man may see, whether there is any other thing, than we have said: that is, an Appeal, with the causes thereof expressed, as it ought to be, and as we have sufficiently proved, it being so evident a truth, as no man may without blushing deny it. And to conclude this point; if we should attribute so much ignorance to the Archpriest, and his busy adherents, as that they would separate the Appeal from the causes thereof, being an Appeal a gravaminibus, from grievances (as it lieth open to all men's view to be such) then there is a much greater deformity in his actions, who proclaimeth, that the Priests have subscribed to a seditious pamphlet, or a Libel annexed or prefixed to an Appeal: and that they have thereby incurred the censures, and other penalties contained in his Edict of the 18. of Octob. 1600. because there is not one name subscribed to any thing, but to that, which he must confess is really the Appeal, if he make such a distinction between the Appeal, and that, which he saith is prefixed unto it. And consequently, he must confess that he hath incurred the censures of holy Church, and the judgement given against the Bishops in this place of the Apology. Those Kings of England, who had the will to prohibit by Statute Appeals to Rome, doubtless had never the grace to go to Goose fair, where not only they, but their Nobles also, aswell the Spiritual, as the Temporal might have learned, how they might with conscience have enacted, or consented to the making of such a Statute. But this one thing was wanting to make perfect their felicity in this world: they never eat a goose at that fair, where the courtesy is to minister geese to all comers gratis, and the Host will not receive any money for them: only they must pay for the sauce, which (according to the custom of the fair) they must have, or else they must have no goose. O happy day, wherein that fair was first instituted, and a secret discovered; which no Catholic Kings or Prelates could ever attain unto. And thrice happy are they, who by the light (as it should see me) of that day did see to make that Statute in the third year of the Archipres byterie of M. George Blackwell, vidi prevaricantes, etc. 18. Octob. 1600, wherein, all right to appeal to Rome being most catholicly conserved, the penalties therein contained do only light upon such as have set their hands to that, which is prefixed to the Appeal, which is nothing else, but the causes thereof: without which (according to the custom, and Canons of holy Church) the appeal is of no force, and are therefore by name to be expressed, as we have before showed out of the Clementine: Appellantide Appellationibus. Now it remaineth, that we show when, and upon what occasions the Statutes were made, by which the provisions from Rome, and some Appeals to Rome were forbidden.  
First concerning these provisions, there was a statute made, either in the 30. or 35. or as some other affirm 25. Edward 1. which was above 300. years since, wherein it is agreed, and established, that they should not be suffered. There was also the like statute made in the 25. year of Edw. 3 to the like effect, by which it was forbidden, that any should be placed in any dignity, without the assent of the King. The same is also forbidden in the Parliament holden in the 38. of the same King. The occasions of enacting these statutes are set down, as well in that of the 25. of Edw. 1. as elsewhere: & the justice of those, which were made in the time of Edw. 3. is the more apparent by a letter, which he and his nobles sent in the 17. year of his reign, to his Hol. to have redress for such defaults, as were in that kind committed. The Letter was to this effect.  
King Edward and his Nobles perceiving the derogation that was done to the Realm, by such reservations, provisions, and collations of benefices, as the Pope practised here in England, wrote to him, requiring him, that sith the Churches of England had been founded and endowed by noble and worthy men, to the end the people might be instructed by people of their own language: and that he, being so far off, could not understand the defaults: yet his predecessors, and he more than had been used, by divers reservations, provisions, and collations made to divers persons, some strangers, yea and some enemies to the Realm, whereby the money and profits were carried forth, their Cures not provided for according to the founder's minds: they therefore upon due considerations thereof, signified unto him, that they could not suffer such enormities any longer: and therefore besought him, to revoke such reservations, provisions, and collations, wholly to avoid such slanders, mischiefs, and harms as might ensue; and that the Cures might be committed to persons meet for the exercises of the same, beseeching him further without delay, to signify his intention, sith they meant to bestow their diligence to remedy the matter, and see that redress might be had. Given in full Parliament at Westminster 18. of May Anno Dom. 1343. Thus far out of john Stow 17. Edw. 3. where he also citeth Auesburie and Honingford.  
Secondly, concerning the forbidding of the appeals to Rome, we find a Statute made in the 27. of Edw. 3. against those who shall draw any person in plea (out of the Realm) of a thing whereof the knowledge appertained to the King's Court, or of such things whereof judgement was given in the King's courts, or should sue in any other courts to defeat or let the judgements given in the King's Court.  
To these, and other Statutes to the like effect, the author of the Apology affirmeth, that the Catholic Bishops neither did nor could assent. But whatsoever may be said for or against this position, concerning the appeals, no man can in reason think, but that they both might very well, and did assent to those statutes, which were made against the provisions, or bestowing of dignities in England, without the king's consent, the causes are so apparently laid down by the King and the Nobles, for that abridging of his Holiness his promoting whom he would, and to what dignities he would in England. And thus much may be alleged in the behalf of the consent of the spiritual Lords to the statute against those appeals, That in the new great abridgement printed Anno 1551. there is this clause set to the end of some statutes, But the spiritual Lords assented not to this statute. And there is no such note set to any of these Statutes which we have here cited.  
It is also evident, that these statutes were not made upon any heat of emulation against the Clergy: for as we find that in the 38. year of King Edw. 3. the statutes against those provisions made in the 25. and 27. of the same King, are confirmed, although there be some favour given to the Lords and Prelates offenders: so in the 39 year of the same King (which was the next year after) we find that the Clergy in England was in as great honour, as any Clergy in the world, as may be showed by the offices which the Bishops and Priests had then in England. For the Bishop of Canterbury was Lord Chancellor of England: the Bishop of Bath was L. Treasurer: the Archdeacon of Lincoln was Lord privy Seal: the Parson of Somersam was master of the Rolls: ten beneficed Priests were masters of the Chancery: the Dean of S. Martin's le grand was chief Chancellor of the Exchequer, Receiver, and Keeper of the King's Treasure and jewels: the Archd. of Northampton was Chancellor of the Exchequer: a prebendary of S. Martin's was Clerk of the privy Seal: a prebendary of S. Steuens was Treasurer of the King's house: the Parson of Auon or Oundell was master of the Wardrobe: the Parson of Fenny Stanton was one of the Chamberlains of the Excheq. and Keeper of the King's Treasury and jewels. Other of the Clergy are noted to have been in office also in France, & in Ireland, as well as in England.  
john of Gaunt Duke of Lancaster, the fourth son of King Edward 3. having the government of England committed unto him in the time of his father's last sickness (which was in the 50. and 51. of his reign) disposed so far of matters and offices, as he conceived some possibility to attain to the Crown, and to deprive his nephew, Richard of Bordeaux, who was son to the Black prince Edward, the eldest son of King Edward the third. But perceiving that it would be hard for him, to obtain his purpose, so long as the Church stood in that estate it did, and the citizeens of London enjoyed their liberties, he laboured to overthrow them both. For the ruin of the City liberties, he devised that it should no more be governed by the Mayor, and Aldermen, but by some Captain, appointed for the purpose: And that the Marshal of England (who then was a trusty friend of his, and placed in that office by him) should use his authority, as well in London, and the liberties thereof, as else where: which the Commons taking in evil part, rose together in great multitudes, and in heat of emulation (to use this author's words) sought the Duke, and the Marshal with such fury, as if the Bishop of London had not happened to appease them, the Duke and the Marshal had not escaped them. But when all was quiet, and the best of the City (for the common sort would not obey it) had given such satisfaction, as the king commanded, the Duke took exceptions thereat, affirming that they knew his mind, and were not ignorant, how to make satisfaction: with which words (saith the history) the citizens were much troubled: for, quoth they among themselves, he would have us to proclaim him King, but this shall never be done.  
The way, which he took to overthrow the estare of the Church, was by countenancing john Wickliff, who, by reason of an hypocritical demeanour among the Common people, had gotten an opinion of holiness. He had lived as a secular priest; but afterward he changed his habit, and conversed with the Friars mendicants. He and his company went bare footed, and in course russet garments down to the heels. They preached especially against Monks, and other religious men that had possessions: and for this cause got in some favour with the Religious, who had no possessions, and were assisted by them in that cause. This Wickliff being called before his Ordinary, to answer for certain words spoken by him, was brought in by the Duke, and the Marshal into S. Paul's Church in London, and was bidden by them to sit down, as having much to answer: which when the Bishop Courtney of London understood, he countermanded it. Whereupon the Duke and the Marshal took occasion of anger against the Bishop: and the Duke threatened to pull down both the pride of him and of all the Bishops of England. He had before caused all the goods of the Bishop Wickham of Winchester to be seized on, and would not suffer him to make his answer, and had persecuted others, who had been most used by his father in the government of the Realm. But shortly this Bishop had his temporalties restored unto him by king Edward against the Duke's will: and presently after, the Duke and he were made friends at the very beginning of the reign of King Richard the second, who succeeded King Edward the third. And this accord was not only made between them, but also between the Duke, and the city. And thus ceased that heat of emulation, so soon, as it was begun, and yet it began not, until the 50 or 51 year of K. Ed. the 3: in whose 17, 25, 27, & 38 years of his reign, the statutes before cited were begun to be treated of, & made, concerning the abridging of provisions for dignities from Rome, and the forbidding of Appeals in some cases to Rome: besides what we brought, concerning the first of these two points out of a statute made above 300 years since: to wit in the 25 of Ed. the first. By which it may appear that it was treated, concerning these points, before Wickliff rose: & how deceitfully these matters are laid upon a heat of emulation against the Clergy.  
And although in the 9 year of the reign of K. Rich. the 2, there was a Bill put up in the Parliament, against the Clergy for their temporalties: the King hearing (saith the story) the inordinate cry out of the Laity, & the just answers of the Clergy, commanded that the bill should be canceled, & such inordinate petitions to cease: & affirmed, that he would preserve the church, during his time, in as good state, as he found it, or in better. And the king, being than not past 20 years of age, no doubt but his nobles counseled him in this his answer: which is an argument, that at that time the adversaries of the Clergy did bear no great sway in England. In the 18. year also of his reign, the Clergy and religious men being oppugned by certain favourers of those hypocritical Lollards, the King being in Ireland, & certified thereof, hastened home, and threatened those fellows, that if they did from thenceforth favour the Lollards, or in any wise comfort them, he would extremely punish them. By which it is evident, that what was enacted; or confirmed by him in the 16 year of his reign, which was two years before this, or at other times concerning those points, cannot be construed to have been done by heat of emulation against the Clergy.  
King Henry also the fourth, who was son of john of Gaunt, and succeeded King Richard the second, was so great an enemy to these Lollards, as in the beginning of his reign at a Parliament held in London, he made a statute against them: wherein it was enacted, that they should be apprehended, and delivered to the Bishop of the Diocese: and if they were found obstinate, they should be degraded, and committed to the secular jurisdiction, to be executed. And in the fifth year of his reign, when some to relieve his want, made a motion in the Parliament, to have the Clergy deprived of their temporalties, and Thomas Arundel Archbishop of Canterbury had given his reasons to the contrary, the king and his Nobles stood for the Bishops, and those knights of the parliament, who were actors against the Clergy, were brought to confess their offence, and to ask forgiveness thereof.  
To conclude, no one of these statutes were ever repealed by any of our princes Catholic, or other, which concerned those prohibitions of provisions from Rome, or pleading of matters out of this Realm, the knowledge whereof did appertain unto the king's Court, although some particular clause concerning the punishment of the offenders hath been repealed. As for example: where it was lawful for any man, or at the least not punishable by our laws, to kill such, as were out of the king's protection, or to be taken as the King's enemies, by offending against these statutes. And in the first year of Queen Mary, whom the Author of the Apology will be ashamed to number amongst the worst kings, (for according to the statutes of our Realm, what prerogatives soever any kings have had, they are to be understood to be fully, and wholly in the Queens, who come by succession to the Crown) when no doubt these statutes were in mind, it was enacted, that all offences made felony, or limited, or appointed to be within the case of Praemunire, by any act, or acts of Parliament, statute, or statutes made since the first day of the first year of the reign of the late king of famous memory King Henry the eighth, not being felony before, nor within the case of Praemunire: and also all, and every branch, article, and clause mentioned, or in any wise declared in any of the same statutes, concerning the making of any offence, or offences to be felony, or within the case of Praemunire not being felony, nor within the case of Praemunire before; and all pains and forfeitures concerning the same or any of them should from thenceforth be repealed, and utterly void, and of none effect. King Henry the eighth also when he was so devoted to the Catholic faith, and particularly to the Sea of Rome, as he gave monthly 60000 angels, towards the pay of an Army under Mounsieur de Foy for the delivery of Pope Clement the 7, when he was holden prisoner in the castle Angel in Rome, by the Duke of Bourbon his Army, and the prince of Orange: Yea, when Pope Leo the the tenth esteemed of him, as of the best prince in Christendom, and either to his deserts, or under them, gave him this glorious title Defender of the faith: he did so far forth execute the law of Praemunire against all foreign provisions of dignities, and authority, to be practised within his Realm, without his assent, as the Cardinal Wolsey, notwithstanding an extraordinary affection in the king towards him, dared not to exercise his power Legantine, until he was licensed thereunto by the king, under his hand, and broad seal: 
Io Stow. 21. Hen 8.  which he pleaded, that he had when he was indicted afterward in a Praemunire, for his exercise thereof. And yet was the king himself a suitor to the Pope, to give that authority to the Cardinal, as may be seen in the tenth year of his reign: which was about three years before he was entitled, Defender of the faith. But all aswell princes, as other must stand to this good fellow his check: and if they displease him, it is enough to have them accounted in the highest degree of badness, how pious, and godly soever he esteemed them before with the same breath.  
But now concerning that which is said by the Priests, of Bishop Watson, that he refused, upon these statutes, all external jurisdiction offered him over his fellow prisoners, this good fellow saith, that it is most contumelious and false. Whom shall we believe in this case? those who were Priests, and fellow prisoners with him, and were present at the offer, and his refusal, and are ear witnesses thereof; or this peremptory fellow, who careth not what passeth him? But perchance his reason may overpeaze the relation of these witnesses, although for many respects most reverend. For (saith he) that had been to deny his Holiness Ecclesiastical jurisdiction in England. Mark (I pray you) this reason, and weigh it with that which is before said and showed concerning this point. Card. Wolsey would not exercise his power Legantine in England, until he had licence of his Majesty, as appeareth by his plea before cited: and yet neither the king nor he denied his Holiness Ecclesiastical jurisdiction in England; as appeareth by that the king of England made request to Pope Leo, to constitute Card. Wolsey his Legate in England, and behaved himself so catholicly, as he was called defender of the faith. Also the most Catholic Bishops, who lived in the times of many, and those most Catholic Princes without all doubt observed the law, yet no way were to be touched, as this peremptory companion would have them, with a denial of his Holiness jurisdiction in England. And in the Parliament holden 16. Rich 2. the Bishops do make a difference between authority in the Pope to excommunicate, and the execution thereof in England. Moreover, this Doctor Watson when he was made a Bishop, he had licence of her Majesty, who then was, before he would take upon him to use his Episcopal jurisdiction in England; as he related himself to some yet living, & of credit. And no doubt this was done upon the same ground (that law of Praemunire standing in full force in her time, as being never repealed, but rather suffered voluntarily to stand in full force) as may be gathered by an act primo Mariae: yet no Catholic doubteth, but that her Majesty did acknowledge the Pope's authority in England, as appeareth by her repealing divers statutes made by her father, to take away the Pope's authority in England; Anno 1. & 2. Philip. & Mariae. So that the folly of this fellow is exceeding great in giving this reason, why the Bishop could not refuse all external jurisdiction offered him from his Holiness.  
Again, although Doctor Watson were Bishop of Lincoln, and had used his jurisdiction in that Diocese by the licence or permission of Queen Mary: yet he was never Bish. of Ely, in which Diocese these prisoners lived, who offered him that external jurisdiction: so that his refusing all external jurisdiction over his fellow prisoners, is no way to be brought within the compass of denying his Holiness Ecclesiastical jurisdiction in England. And if his Episcopal jurisdiction were so enlarged by his Holiness, that he might have used it over all England, yet might he most justly have refrained from the present exercise thereof in that ample manner, having never had any such licence, or assent from his Sovereign, according to that Statute, which was made 25. Edw. 3. wherein it is enacted, that first the King's licence, to choose, was to be demanded, and after election, his royal assent was to be had. And as he was not to expect, that a Prince of a contrary Religion should legitimate any such authority in him, so he was to assure himself, that a Prince of a contrary Religion would take hold of that Statute against him: seeing that Princes, who were of the same Religion, did both enact it, and cause it to be most strictly observed, and yet they never denied his Holiness Ecclesiastical jurisdiction in England. And by this it is made most manifest, how Bishop Watson might acknowledge his Episcopal jurisdiction from Rome, and yet refuse to exercise the same, without denial of the Pope's Ecclesiastical jurisdiction in England any more, then for 200. years together all the Catholic Bishops in England did before him.  
But I cannot a little marvel, that this author would compare the association (intended in England) with this Archipresbyterie, which is so pontifical or majestical, as the Title (which by virtue thereof he useth) is enough to make such mean men as his fellows are, not to know which way to look. For thus he writeth himself: George Blackwell by the grace of God, and the ordinance of the Sea Apostolic, Archpriest of England. We will put the case, that the association intended had gone forward: but then how (saith he) would that have stood without external turisdiction, seeing that one of these two points they must confess, that either they would have asked confirmation thereof from Rome, and consequently it would have been an external jurisdiction as well as this of the Archpr. or else they would have governed absolutely of themselves, without any dependence or approbation of his Holiness? And this had been a far worse inconvenience, to exclude wholly the Sea Apostolic, for avoiding the statute of Praemunire. Wherefore whither this spirit tendeth, all men do see. But few men yet do see, whither this spirit tendeth: neither must they so much as ask a question. which may imply a doubt of any thing which this author affirmeth. If the Priests must confess, that either they must have asked a confirmation of their association from Rome, or else have excluded wholly the Sea Apostolic, what must the eighteen (so often surnamed quiet Priests of Wisbich) confess, who sought no confirmation of their enforcing and violent agency or government under F. Weston the jesuit? Must they confess, that they did wholly exclude the Sea Apostolic? or had they any privilege above other Priests, to confess that it was not of any necessity for them either to seek a confirmation from the See Apostolic, or to exclude it wholly? Had it not been a sufficient acknowledging of the authority of the See Apostolic, if they had always been ready to have dissolved their association, upon notice from his Holiness, that he would not have any such association in England? Is every dutiful respect, which one man or two will carry voluntarily to a third, to be confirmed by the See Apostolic, or else that See to be thought wholly to be excluded? It is most certain, that the association intended, was of no other, than such as would voluntarily subject themselves to a course of life for their own both spiritual and temporal good, and to do what good they could to all others, although they would not be of that company, as their rules did show. Cannot this good fellow make a difference between the sending in of an authority, which must imply necessarily an external jurisdiction, and include the accepters thereof within the Statute of Praemunire (unless the prince had accorded unto it) and the sending out to have a liking of a confraternity of priests, or association, which might have been, whether the Pope had liked it or no, until he had forbidden it, it having no such title of dignity, as required necessarily any act of the Pope, or external jurisdiction to erect it, or her majesties allowance, licence, or assent, if she had been of the same religion? If there were no other, this title of the Archpriest would make a great difference: George Blackwell by the grace of God, and the ordinance of the See Apostolic, Archpriest of England.  
This author having pleased himself in proving a contempt (as he weeneth) in the priests concerning this authority, he still inculcateth, that it was instituted by his Holiness, and confirmed afterward by an express Breve, as though it had been known before the coming of the Breve, that his Holiness had any part in it, or that any of these forementioned matters had been first, or formerly urged by the priests, after that they had full notice of the Pope's mind therein, and not rather been only published afterwards, to the end that all might see (who would) what reason the priests had to forbear, to subject themselves unto the authority, at the sight of the Cardinal Cajetan's letters. And whereas he would after show out of the priests their own words, how dangerously they do teach disobedience to this authority, and to all other, which they mislike: and in the margin putteth this note: Dangerous and offensive doctrine: he doth infinitely discredit himself: the doctrine as he hath here delivered it, being so sound and Catholic, as whosoever shall gainsay it, will prove himself an Ass or an heretic. Neither can his malicious descant upon these words, which he citeth, prevail in the judgement of any, who hath judgement. As for example, that by this doctrine men are taught, to examine every thing, coming from their Superiors, by their own judgements, and to admit, what they please, and leave the rest: For the discourse, from whence these words are taken, which are here cited, doth plainly show, that the priests relied upon the judgement of many learned men from beyond the Seas. And whereas the priests their words are these: that no man is bound in all things to believe, or execute what every man in authority over him shall put upon him: he perverteth this sentence, and telleth his reader, that the priests do teach that every thing must be examined: which the priests never affirmed: or that which pleased them should be admitted. And in this matter of schism, which was not every thing, but one special thing, and of great importance, they relied upon the censure of Paris as all men do know, which cleared them from it, and also from sin: from which also his Holiness hath now declared that they were free, notwithstanding that M. Blackwell was an Archpriest, & a Superior, and stood most peremptorily in that error: And by his being in authority, countenanced such his forward adherents, as by their audaciousness in this present controversy have given earnest, that they will be most ready, if occasion be offered, to raise a most dangerous faction against the Clergy, without all respect of duty, or correspondence in good desert toward them. And to the question moved here in the Apology, what other way did heresy take at the beginning against Ecclesiastical governors, or what other gate did some unquiet and disobedient Catholics in those days open to heresy: who being offended with their superiors, taught, that their subjects in conscience might dissent from them, and disobey them in divers cases? I answer that heresy never found her way into the world by truth, or Catholic doctrine, (as that is which is cited here in the Apology, out of the priests books, and most ignorantly (to censure it no worse) oppugned by this author) but by falsehood, after that the people were carried away with an opinion, that this or that man could not err, and that all must be true, which this or that man said. And perchance the foulest block, at which many heretics at this day do stumble, is a supposed doctrine, which (until this Apology came forth) was never favoured by any Catholic, and that is: that there are some, who in respect that they are in such place of authority, cannot err in any thing; which being so apparently absurd, as all Catholic histories may convince the contrary, some that hear it, do resolve themselves, that all the rest is nought. Neither is the exception just, which is here taken against the priests: to wit, that they did teach this doctrine in general without any particulars, although they might have done it, without offence to any (but to such as hope by their egregious flatterly & sycophancy to prevail in that, after which they have long gaped) for the priests delivered this doctrine upon occasion of the controversy of schism, and proved by this doctrine, that the credit of the Archpriest, as Archpr. was not sufficient to convince, that it was schism: and added in most plain and particular terms, as much as was needful for this place, for the credit of the chief pastor in these words: And who upon earth is warranted from erring, but one? To which, to take away the scandal, which upon some speeches of such sycophants, as this author is, hath grown in Christendom among the simpler sort of people, these words are most catholicly and truly added, and not he in all things.  
The exceptions which afterward are taken for unkindness towards the Cardinal Caietane, are very foolish: and those that are for irreverence are as false; the priests having always showed as much reverence, as the Cardinal did deserve, or they could do: saving their duty to the Cardinal's superior and theirs, and the liberty which the Clergy hath in all places of Christend●…e, and yet deserve not the name of libertines, as this godly author out his great charity, and assistance of the spirit, which guideth him, termeth them in this place, upon occasion of some words which he saith are under the hands of six prisoners of Wisbich, and were to be showed to his Holiness, to wit: citò indignabitur libertas, si prematur: that is to say, oppressed liberty will not long bear it. For after that he hath showed that the priests dealt unkindly with the Cardinal Protector, who now he saith is gone to God (and perchance had left a greater hope of possibility, of some peace in our afflicted Church, if he had taken some of these godly with him) he would persuade his Reader, that the priests do not spare the Pope himself, & for proof he citeth one place, where they speak of their boldness, in repelling injuries, as though this did any way concern the Pope, and that other place before cited, which he saith should have been showed unto him: and then he falleth from this to prove a haughtiness in the priests, in that they would not suffer themselves to be accounted all the world over for schismatics. Other sentences also are cited out of their books, where they endeavour to prove, how convenient it had been, that they had had the choice of their Superior, according to the decrees not only of Popes, but also of the Emperors: at which this Author glanceth, and useth these words: as though this were more: as though this were not more, although the one be of a higher order than the other: as when we say, that such a thing is of force by law divine and human, when no man is so absurd, as not to think that the law divine doth far excel man's law. But for our purpose, and to prove, that it was always more to have a liberty by the temporal Prince his law, over and above the liberty which the Clergy had by the decrees of holy Church: see I pray you, how this was thought on, when it was granted by a Parliament, 
47 Edw. 3.  that the Cathedral Churches should enjoy their elections, and that from thenceforth the King should not write against the elected, but should by his letters help toward their confirmation. But (saith john Stowe) this statute took small effect. By which it is evident, that the Clergy did find, that it was more to have the decrees of the Pope and King, than the decrees of the Pope alone. But if this fellow will say, that two are not more than one, his Reader must take it for an Oracle, and by virtue of blind obedience believe it undoubtedly.  
In the next point, this author juggleth up two matters together: the one that the Priests do call into suspicion of forgery the Pope's Breve itself: the other is, that they draw his Hol. pious meaning into matter of State. For proof of the first he citeth these words out of the English book: that it was procured God knoweth out of what office: which words cannot by any, but an evil disposition be brought to an accusation of forgery: The most that can be made of it is, that Fa. Parson's might be suspected to have procured it, where he might have his will perchance more than was convenient; and yet the Breve not forged. For as Rebuffus in praxi beneficiorum, de brevi Apostolico numero 16. doth note: an Apostolical Breve, solet concedi & à Papa, & à Cancellaria, ac à summo paenitentiario, & horum quodlibes dicitur Apostolicum, & sic Brevia dicuntur literae Apostolicae. It useth to be granted by the Pope, and by the Chancery, and by the high penitentiary, and every one is called Apostolical, and so the Breves are said to be Apostolical letters.  
Having then thus showed that Breves may come from divers Courts, and yet be true Breves, we have also showed, that the Priests are here falsely accused, where they are said to bring the Breve in suspicion of forgery, by making a doubt, out of what court it was procured. But to give further satisfaction to the curious. The cause why a doubt was made of F. Parsons his carriage in this matter, is (as we have set it down in the book dedicated to the holy Office pag. 59) for that the Breve affirmed that M. George Blackwell was appointed by the Cardinal's letters of the 7. of March 1598. Archp. of the English Catholics, for the better union of the Catholics of the kingdoms of England and Scotland; whereas in these the Cardinal's letters he is not made archpriest of the English Catholics, but only of Priests, and not of all the priests, but only of the Priests of the Seminaries. And we did more easily give consent to think, that Fa. Parsons had busied himself more than became him, because his Holiness, as no doubt he is careful, that no errors or show of errors should be in the Breves, so he hath no custom to look upon them, but only giveth his consent that they be made. Which consent although sometimes the chief of that office doth take in presence: yet sometime he giveth credit to those, who say, that they have his Holiness consent thereto. And although he, who is chief in that office, must give also his consent or warrant for the making of the Breve: yet he taketh all his information of him who asketh for it, and seethe not the Breve, but only a small abstract thereof, and leaveth it to other inferior officers to draw it as it must be, seal it, and deliver it to them, who are the procurers thereof. All which is expressed by Zecchius in his book de republica Ecclesiastica tract. de prelatis Cap. 9 Brevium vero officio praepositus est unus Cardinalis iurisperitus, qui habito vivae vocis oraculo Papae perseipsum, vel alium facto, absque alia Papae signatura, omissa etiam porrectione supplicatoris, sed sola Brevium minuta ab Abbreviatore recepta, videt formam Brevis, addit & minuit pro eius arbitrio, & revisam, minutam, & subscriptam ab ipso, solicitatoribus restituit, quae postea apud expeditores fidem facit, & inde litterae in forma Brevis in tenuiori pergamena scribuntur, & scriptae sub annulo Piscatoris dominico sub cera expediuntur apud Secretarios domesticos, & corum scriptores fere semper, & expeditae, expectantibus, accepta earum taxa pro rei natura, & scripturae mercede restituuntur. There is a Cardinal skilful in the Law (saith Zecchius) who is appointed over the office of the Breves, who having leave immediately from the Popes own mouth, or by the relation of some other, without any other warrant from him, and without the supplication, but only having a small abbreviation of the Breves, vieweth the form of the Breve, addeth or diminisheth thereof, as it shall please him, and when he hath viewed his small abbreviation of the Breve and set his hand unto it, be delivereth it back to those, who presented it unto him, and so it is carried as warranted, to those to whom it belongeth to make the Breves. Hereupon are letters framed in form of a Breve, and written in thin parchment, and being written, they are sealed with wax under the Pope's scale called annulus Piscatoris, by the domestical Secretaries, and their writers almost always; and being dispatched, they are given back to those who wait for them, paying the duties according to the nature of the matter, and the hire or reward for the writing.  
Let us now lay these matters together: first how that Breves be made, and his Hol. never readeth them, nor yet the Cardinal who is precedent or chief in the office, after that he hath given his warrant for the drawing of the Breve, according to that which was showed to him by the abbreviator, nor knoweth aught of the matter, but what the procurer thereof suggesteth. Secondly F. Parsons industry to further the plots, which he hath laid. Thirdly the credit which he hath in Rome, by reason of the Spanish faction, which he hath many years blinded in such sort, with putting so great an Island as England, or Ireland, or both in their eyes, as they cannot see how vainly they wast themselves upon the foolish promises of so mean a man. Fourthly the fault which seemeth to be very great in the Breve, where it referreth us for proof of a matter to a letter, which doth not contain that which the Breve saith it doth. Fiftly that it may come from divers offices, and no man can with reason blame the priests if they have some doubt of the manner of procuring this Breve, and also affirm thus much, God knoweth out of what office it was procured: Not accusing it notwithstanding of forgery, as this author most injuriously, and falsely taxeth them.  
Concerning the other accusation, that the Priests do seek to draw his Holiness pious meaning into matters of State: I answer, that his Holiness pious meaning was not known, or that he had any part in the institution of this authority, until his Breve came. And if since this time, by the jesuits means, or any others, his Holiness hath by any act in Ireland or otherwise, given the Council cause to think that he dealeth in State matters, the priests in England are not to be charged with that which may thereupon fall out. And it is said that it hath been confessed by some, who are in hold now in England, that such a conceit was currant in Spain, that this Archipresbyterie was made for the furtherance of some State plots against our Country, which at that time perchance was concealed from his Holiness, and a fairer tale told him of piety, to win him to institute it at their instance: who hoping to get thereby, what they desired, would in time bring the Church government into a company of blind-devout-obedient children under some elder, or some Agent, which had been to take away all Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, and ancient approved government in our Church. But as it hath been often said, and is confessed in this Apology, the Breve came not in a year after the institution of this authority. And therefore these are very malicious accusations, and constructions of the priests their words, which were written or spoken, when they knew no other, then that all proceeded from the Cardinal Caietane at the instance of the jesuits, whose troublesome and seditious State-humors were too well known in England, and gave too much cause to say more than ever the priests as yet have said in this kind.  
But now to make an end of this second chapter, this author citeth an other proposition out of the English book, that is: that confirmation is either most necessary in time of persecution, or altogether vain, and as a superfluous ceremony in God's Church. Upon which assertion thus he runneth: which is a very temerarious and scandalous speech, not to censure it any further, but to leave it to whom it belongeth. But yet he will have a blow or two at the legs of it at the least. Let us see his play, for that the words vain and superfluous ceremony, are contemptuous phrases of the heretics. In good time good sir: and you by this have given us some light, how it could be possible, that you should go so far out of the way as you do, not only here, but every where in this Apology. You have read, as we take it, that saying of Elias, Siautem Baal, sequimini illum. If Baal be God, follow him. Those latter words do best serve your turn, the whole proposition is too heavy for you. Can you find in any of the priests books, where they say, that the sacrament of confirmation is a vain and superfluous ceremony? If you can, then cite the place, and you shall have humble thanks for your pains, and shall thereby also put the priests in mind of such their temerarious, and scandalous propositions. If you cannot (as we are most sure that you cannot) then must you not be offended, if we think that you set up your rest upon Sequimini illum, the following of Baal, and that your company will suit better with beasts, then with men, upon whose last words, none but such senseless echoes do take advantage. His Reader being prejudicially possessed by a comment upon the last words, he imboldneth himself to say somewhat of the whole sentence, to wit: Neither doth it follow, that albeit his Holiness and predecessors hitherto, have not thought the use of this Sacrament necessary in England, during the time of our persecution (as indeed to no man in any time is it absolutely necessary to salvation) therefore good Catholics should esteem it for a vain and superfluous ceremony. Note I pray you, the pretty sleights which he useth. The priests did say, that this Sacrament was either most necessary in time of persecution, or else a vain ceremony. And he telleth us, that albeit his Holiness hath not thought it necessary in England, during the time of our persecution, as though his Holiness could not think, that this Sacrament of confirmation was most necessary in the time of persecution, and yet not judge it necessary here, and now in our persecution by reason of such misinformations, as might be given him: as if for example, any should say unto the Pope, as Fa. Parsons said to M. Charnocke at Rome, Why can they not now do aswell without it as heretofore? Or some other perchance might put into the Pope's head, that which some jesuits put into some of the Catholics heads in England: it cannot last long now, the next year we shall have Mass openly in Paul's: or as a jesuite having once promised a gentleman, in recompense of an injury done unto him, to get him a dispensation to marry his kinswoman: and being sued unto to remember his promise, answered, that he understood that the Card. Allen was now upon his coming into England, and would be here shortly, and dispatch by himself this, and many other such cases. Upon how many motives may a thing, from one small time to an other, be deferred, which notwithstanding might be thought necessary? Can any Catholic think, that amongst all Countries christened, only England must be deprived of the benefit of this Sacrament, and that the Sacrament, which is as properly instituted to strengthen Christians in persecution, as Baptism is to make Christians, must not be granted to the English, as their case standeth? For what else can these his words imply: albeit his Holiness, and predecessors hitherto have not thought the use of this Sacrament necessary in England, during the time of our persecution? Belike than it is necessary in time of persecution: but we in England must not have it. Hath he not well helped the matter? and as for that foolish parenthesis (as in deed to no man in any time it is absolutely necessary to salvation) to what end is it here brought? who hath ever said that it is at any time absolutely necessary to salvation? Baptism by water is not absolutely necessary to salvation, as some Martyrs have proved, and yet our Saviour saith, 
john. 3.  Unless a man be borne again by water, and the holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. The like phrase of speech, implying necessity, is used by our Saviour concerning the receiving of the Sacrament of his body: and yet no man doth say, 
john 6.  that it is absolutely necessary to salvation. This question was not, whether the Sacrament of confirmation was absolutely necessary to salvation: for this must have set a stint upon the power of God: but the question was, whether that confirmation were necessary in time of persecution in Spain (if you will) when God shall suffer it, or in Italy, if in England and in the English persecution it be not thought necessary. And if it can be proved, that at the least somewhere this Sacrament is necessary in the time of persecution, the proposition, which the priests did make, is neither scandalous, nor temerarious, nor false doctrine: it being evident to all men of sense, that the one part of a disjunctive proposition being true, the whole proposition is true. As for example, if a man say of a Swan, this Swan is either white or black: His proposition is so true, as no man of any sense can deny it: although it were a most ridiculous assertion to say, that the Swan were black. If then we can prove, that confirmation is most necessary in time of persecution, he would be proved to have been over hasty, who snatched so greedily at this proposition: It is either most necessary in time of persecution, or a vain and superfluous ceremony in God's Church.  


The necessity thereof in time of persecution is thus proved.  
That by which only a special grace is given, to strengthen a Christian against the assaults of the persecutor, is most necessary in time of persecution.  
The Sacrament of Confirmation, is that, by which only a special grace is given, to strengthen a Christian against the assaults of the persecutor.   Therefore, 

The Sacrament of Confirmation, is most necessary in time of persecution.    
The first proposition is evident by light of nature. The second proposition is so generally received of all Catholic Divines, as they do anathematize whosoever denieth it, and it is made plain by induction: For in Baptism we receive grace for remission of original sin, and all other, if we have any at the receiving of that Sacrament: but we do not receive any special grace to resist the persecutor: and so likewise do we receive grace to such, and such particular end, by all the other Sacraments. But the grace by which we are strengthened to combat with the persecutor, is only given, & under this name, by the Sacrament of Confirmation. And for this cause doth Pope Urban, as he is cited de Consecra. dist. 5. cap. 1. affirm, that all Christians must be confirmed: and in the same place Melchiades the Pope is cited, who affirmeth, that the helps, which we have by Confirmation, are necessary for those who live: for in his time all Christians lived in persecution. Hosius citeth this Epistle of Melchiades more at large in his book entitled Confessio Catholicae fidei Christianae, cap. 38. where the Pope compareth the Sacrament of Baptism, to the admission into a warfare; and the Sacrament of Confirmation, to the furniture for the battle. And to show further how necessary this Sacrament is in time of persecution, he applieth to it that saying, Nisi Dominus custodierit civitatem etc. unless the Lord keep the city, he watcheth in vain who keepeth it. And afterwards to this doubt, what did the coming of the holy Ghost profit the Apostles, after the passion and resurrection of Christ? He maketh this answer, that thereby they were made able to that, to which they were not before: for that before the coming of the holy Ghost, the Apostles for very fear denied Christ: but after that the holy Ghost was come unto them, they were armed to suffer martyrdom. And to conclude, this Pope telleth us, that by this sacrament we obtain, amongst other gifts, that gift of understanding, of which it is said. Intellectum tibidabo, etc. I will give thee understanding, and instruct thee in this way in which thou goest. The same Hosius in the same Chapter citeth S. Clement, who succeeded S. Peter; and Cornelius, who attributeth the fall of Novatus the heretic, to the want of this Sacrament of Confirmation: for Novatus falling dangerously sick, after that he was dispossessed, was baptised, but not confirmed, as he ought to have been, according to the rule of the Church. This Epistle is in the 6. book of Eusebius his Ecclesiastical history. cap. 43. By these and other the like doth Hosius prove, that baptism is for those that come in; confirmation, for those who fight. King Henry the 8. in his book against Martin Luther, having discoursed upon this Sacrament, citeth those words out of Hugo de S. Victore. Illic gratia tribuitur adremissionem peccatorum, hîc gratia datur ad confirmationem: Quid autem prodest si à lapsu erigeris, nisi ad standum confirmeris? That is, There (that is, by baptism) is grace given for the remission of sins: here (that is, by confirmation) is grace given for strengthening: For what profiteth it you to be raised after a fall, if you are not confirmed or made strong to stand? And a little after saith the King: Ad hoc enim ordinatur: It is ordained to this end, that a man may boldly confess his faith before the persecutor. And to make here an end of this discourse, Pope Leo the 10 gave unto the King for this book, this Title, Defender of the faith. And if there were no other proof of the necessity of this Sacrament in time of persecution, that which is here cited out of Hugo, and so highly commended by Pope Leo, were sufficient for a far better man than the faultfinding Apologie-maker: and to convince him, that the proposition which the priests used, was neither words of great excess, nor contained false doctrine, nor was reproachful to his Holiness, or his predecessors: who could not but know, that confirmation was most necessary in time of persecution, howsoever they were persuaded by some our backe-friends, that it was not necessary in England, during the time of our persecution. And thus much in answer to the second Chapter of the Apology, wherein the author doth sufficiently discover by his proud and peremptory judgements, whither his spirit tendeth: and that his hope to prevail with his reader, is founded more upon contumelious words and false imaginations, then upon sound discourses.   

CHAP. 8. How this Author layeth his plot for the disgrace of Secular Priests, and draweth on his reader with divers idle stays. Apol. cap. 3.  
IN the third Chapter this Author intendeth, first, to show the great injuries and ingratitude offered to the whole body of the society: secondly, how pleasing and profitable this is to heretics: thirdly, how prejudicial and dishonourable to all our Catholic nation and cause: three very material points, were they performed. The priests do show all these things most plainly against the jesuits and their adherents in this action. For whereas the Priests did raise a very reverend opinion of the jesuits in the hearts of the English (as Fa. Campion in his letters to his general, confesseth) and such, as without fear he could not recount it, the jesuits being by these means wrought into credit, wrought the priests out so far, as in many places no priest was welcome, who came not by order of a jesuite: and having gotten an advantage (as they thought) of the Priests, followed it to the priests great disquiet, although in the end it will turn to their own utter discredit, as already it beginneth, and their best friends do see it, and wish too late, that their treatise of Schism against the Priests had never been written. The commending of which treatise by their fellow jesuits, or the not punishing of so famous a libeler, hath justly drawn on a hard conceit of the whole body, especially the superior of the society, who in conscience should have corrected so foul a fault, and chief root, from whence doth spring the present disquietness in England among the Catholics, and a very profitable pleasure to the Protestants, who cannot but laugh at this sinful folly of the jesuits, while by libels they would possess all Catholics, that the priests, who reconciled them to the union of God's Church, were now themselves become Schismatics, the most prejudicial and dishonourable calumniation, that ever was raised against our Catholics, and the Catholic faith.  
And for the further vexation of the priests, this author proceedeth in this third Chapter, to bring them into the highest degree of contempt and hatred: he endeavoureth to bring them into contempt, by telling his reader, that they went over-sea some of them poor serving-men, other soldiers, other wanderers in the world; good stuff to make priests of, whom catholics are to reverence, and at whose feet Princes are to kneel. And although our Saviour made his choice of his Apostles out of the meaner sort of men, to give us to understand that it was their function which was honourable in them, yet these words in this place might for divers respects have been spared. First, for that if any such be among them, it is little for the jesuits credit, who procure them to take orders. Secondly, because these who are named to have been the authors of the books, against which this Apology is written, and seem by this discourse to be here girded at, have some of them left more, to betake themselves to that calling, in which they are, than all our English jesuits have done: others are so abundantly provided for out of their own patrimonies, as they do maintain divers others of their friends: Others (if all their worshipful friends should have failed them) were so well placed in the Universities of Enggland, as they needed not to have come to any such bare estate as to become poor serving men, soldiers, or wanderers: And he, who was worst of them all provided for, was a scholar of good fame, and so might have lived in such sort, as he neither needed to serve in this manner, or to wander in a strange country. Thirdly, the author of this Apology (if he be not mistaken) had he not helped himself with his pupil's money, with which he was put in trust for his pupil's use, might have been a poor serving man in some strange country, or a soldier, or a wanderer, not having any honest place of abode in England. For being expulsed with infamy out of his College at Oxeford, and thereby made destitute where to become in England, resolved to travail and to study Physic in Padua, where in a short time his money failing him, which his pupils lent him against their wills, want wrought such a devotion in him, as he was contented to be beholding to the jesuits in such sort, as here in general terms he affirmeth of the priests. Fourthly, if the remembrance of sir William Stanley, and of other good soldiers, and zealous men for the jesuits, could not have obtained of this author, not to have spoken so contemptuously of soldiers, and to discredit some of his closest adherents; yet the remembrance of F. Ignatius Loiola, the founder of the jesuits, should have made him bear a greater reverence to the name of a soldier. But perchance he meaneth to keep himself well enough out of his sight, and we fear it greatly, that F. Ignatius will have little joy to look upon him, unless he fall to repentance of these his bad dealings.  
And whereas he affirmeth, that probably some of those which he calleth heads of the faction, had never been men of learning, or account, or able to write books, if the jesuits had not been: It is well known, that some of those whom he by-nameth were never the better by the jesuits: some so little, as little might be: and all of them might have been probably men of more learning, & account, & better able to write books, if they had never known the jesuits, than now they are: having had more hindrance by them, than furtherance, while under colour of prudent and necessay mortification, those who would not listen to the spirit which called them to be jesuits, were enforced to spend their time with less quietness, and consequently with less profit, than otherwise they might. Neither is it here needful to stand upon the catholics their blushing, to ask help now of the jesuits: for their helps are, as they have been a long time (as we fear) upon such conditions, as all honest men must blush, if they do ask them, and those, who are as ready to further the jesuits plots; as themselves (a notable abuse of the Catholic King his charity to poor Catholics) are neither driven to ask help, nor to blush, when they take it: although their help is so prudently offered, as few do surfeit upon it.  
Having thus laid his plot to bring the priests into contempt, now he employeth himself to bring them into hatred with the Catholics, by affirming, that they conspire with the very enemy against their own. which is most false: For if matters of Religion be in question, the priests are ready to join rather with the lewdest Catholic in the world, then with the Protestant: although when matters of treachery against their Prince and country be handled, they are as ready to defy the plotters thereof, were they the most zealous Catholics in the world. Sure we are, that this author cannot justly challenge us, that we have swerved one jot from the Catholic faith: and his accusation must needs sound evil in the ears of upright judges, when he saith we conspire against our own. I wish also that it were not too sure, that the jesuits & their adherents have thrust themselves into conspiracies against their own, if either their Prince and their country, or Catholic priests be their own. For it is so palpable as every man may feel it, how they have thrust in not only their advise, but their persons in actions against their Prince and country, & against Catholic priests. What greater conspiracy could have been made, then hath been by their slanderous tongues, and infamatory libels of schism, dispersed against them? whereby they have declared, that they have given hands to all sorts of enemies, aswell ghostly, as visible, against their own, in which their union the priests have no reason to join themselves.  
Now do follow certain exceptions against some marginal notes made in the book dedicated to his Holiness. For example in the 23 page, there is this note in the margin, Iesuitae quaesua sunt quaerunt, which this author Englisheth thus, jesuits seek their own, and not those things which are of jesus Christ, which is more, then is in the Latin, or perchance more than was meant by that Latin, or could be honestly gathered, the priests not citing the place of Scripture to which this author alludeth. And upon his own addition he discourseth somewhat in the end of this Chapter, & concludeth, that they have sought those things which are of jesus Christ. The error than was, that the priests put this word sua, where they should have put jesus Christi & have made the note more true in this manner: the jesuits seek those things, which are of jesus Christ: for belike the jesuits have no list to busy themselves, where nothing is to be had, which they must do if they seek sua, their own. They do rather seek, where there are some great sums of money to be bestowed upon the poor Catholics & priests, who are in want: which alms are jesus Christi, belonging to jesus Christ; and the note had stood very well to this sense, Iesuitae quae jesu Christi sunt quaerunt. The jesuits do seek those things which are jesus Christ's. The other notes this fellow calleth them trifles, & he might very well have left them, as many other: For he doth but stir up a desire in the Reader to look upon the book, whence these notes were taken: where he shall find matter enough, to make more displeasing notes, than these are which are here picked out. Yet that note, concerning the Seminaries, must in no case be omitted, although it hath been often answered, that they are more to the benefit of the jesuits, then to England; having therein such, as they use, or abuse rather, for the furthering of their present state-plots, & a good assurance, that the Colleges in Spain are to fall to their share hereafter. The lamentable state, into which the college of Rome is brought, will be declared at large in a treatise thereof: The college of Douai is brought into these terms, under pretence of poverty, as no man is to be admitted thereunto, of whom there is not great hope, that he will become of the jesuits faction. The Cardinal Protector willed perchance, that there should be a stint until the debts were paid: & this is used for a colour, to admit, or reject, whom the jesuits list. If one be presented thither, whom the jesuits like not, than the college debts are to be paid: if it be one, who is likely to be factious for them, the College hath credit for his admittance. And if he be one whose friends will maintain him, than he shall go to S. Omers after some circumstances, where the jesuits will have care for the pious distribution of that which he hath: and nothing is aught worth, which hath not some great providence, or piety at one end thereof.  
To conclude, In this chapter the author doth little other then weary his reader, with those idle matters, which he hath before brought, to prove emulation and faction in all places, and actions, where jesuits have had any thing to do: and to the ostentation of the jesuits actions, he addeth some little of the zeal of the priests, which would prove, that the good priests dwelled far from good neighbours, if I think fol. 21, and such like slips, did not discharge the united Priests from all the suspicion of writing this Apology, as by the title he would that the Reader should believe,   

CHAP. 9 How this Author pursueth his impertinent discourses of troubles among the English in Flaunders, France, Italy, and Spain. Apol. cap. 4.  
IN the fourth Chapter of this Apology, the Author intendeth to show how greatly the Card. Allen, and others of our nation are injuried, by being said to have been against the jesuits, and what injury is also offered to the Cardinals Borromaeo and Toledo, and his Holiness himself. And for his exordium, he declareth how all sorts do seek company, to approve and authorize their actions. Belike it was not forgotten as yet, how the jesuits have canvased, not only in Flaunders amongst the soldiers, religious women, and artificers, for voices in commendation of themselves, but also here in England: hoping that the number of such as can be gotten by bribes, flattery, or threats, may in time overpease the truth of the cause now in controversy. The first proof which is here brought to declare the Card. Allen his love and affection to the jesuits, is out of his letter written to M. Much: of which we have discoursed before, and showed how little it can make for the jesuits. All the other also here cited make as little to the purpose, this present controversy being long after the Cardinal's death: to wit, whether the priests (who would not be blind obedient upon the sight of Card. Caietane his letters for the institution of the Archpriest) were schismatics, factious, seditious, rebellious, fallen from Christ and his spouse, excommunicated, irregular, witches and Idolaters, and as Ethnics, and Publicans? In which controversy, if any of those stand with us, who showed themselves contrary to the Cardinals proceed, while he was seduced by the jesuits, and brought into dishonourable actions against his Prince, country, and friends, what reason have we to reject their help? And if they had been as bad as heretics in those actions, why should we be charged as partners in that action, more than any Catholic prince may be charged to be a favourer of heretics or miscreants, who should have any such joined with him in his army, either for love or money, when he fighteth against some other Catholic prince, upon injuries offered by the one to the other. Those Noble men, Gentlemen, and others whilst they lived, were ready to give account of their actions in those times, and some will yet perchance upon this occasion, say somewhat therein: and the Cardinal might show himself very contrary unto them in those actions, and yet be very favourable to the students in Rome, towards the latter end of his life, when time let him see those things in the jesuits proceed, which either affection would not let him see before, or little hope to amend them, made him dissemble, which perchance he did the rather, because by the jesuits means with the King of Spain, he came to that preferrment which he held, and could not so suddenly go about to reform, what he saw amiss in their government of the English College, and their general carriage in English affairs.  
The fears and doubts which F. Parsons showed in his letter to M. Tho. Fitzherbert do discover, that D. Stapleton dissembled with them, as may be gathered by the bold carriage of such, as stand with them and their impatient violence, which leaveth no doubt to any how they are carried: and this doctor having been once of their society, and going out from them, might justly fear that it would have been laid wholly in his dish, if he had declared his mind in any public sort, as he did often privately to such, as he thought he might complain unto, without harm to himself. He was also a man of that mark and merit above all the rest of our nation, as it was expected he should have come to some great preferrment, which he was sure that his manifesting himself would have hindered. And this was also an occasion of Do. Barrets dissembling, of whose mind there are many witnesses in England: and of his lamentations, for his opposing himself against such, as he confessed were the only men with whom he durst deal confidently. And although it pleaseth this devout spirit, to tax such, as he saith are of the faction, that they are a few of the meaner sort of our nation, and that they carry their known notes of discredit with them, if they be examined: he who shall examine it shall find the clean contrary both in England and out of England: and that the jesuits faction is held up by such only, as seeing the liberty which the jesuits & their adherents do use against the priests, or hoping of some reward by them, do fear to displease them. Which folly, were it once removed, the jesuits and their adherents would appear to be sicut caeteri homines: as other men are: (notwithstanding this pharisaical contempt of the priests) and perchance much worse, even to the equalling of the author of this Apology, who carrieth his openly known notes of discredit, for the which he was expulsed the University of Oxford, and are not yet displayed as they may be hereafter, as occasion may be given; but are as much laughed at in private by some, as his counterfeit holiness is admired by other.  
The injury which the priests are said to have done to the Card. Borromaeo, Archb. of Milan, consisteth in their affirmation, that he took the government of one of his Seminaries in Milan from the Fathers. This might be an injury to the Fathers, if the Card. did it without just cause: but being done, the case is to be discussed whether it were just or no. And the Cardinal being known to be a most devout Bishop, and not likely to have been carried away with any foolish passion in a matter of so great moment, the priests have laid the blame upon the jesuits their misgovernment. And further they say wherein, to wit, because the Seminary instituted by that devout Bishop, for the maintenance of able persons for the Church under his charge, the jesuits took their pleasure, and choice of such as they thought would be some credit unto their own order, and thereby endeavoured to furnish themselves rather then the Church, for which the Seminary was instituted. And they who gave this cause of the jesuits their remove, were well acquainted therewith, and with those jesuits, which were thus alured from that state of life, for which they had maintenance of the Cardinal. But let us see how this author shuffeth off this matter. The Fathers of their own will, and upon their own earnest suit, left the said government for the great labour and trouble thereof. Good charitable people, who challenge unto them a particular vocation to bring up youth, and labour it in all places where they come, as the best policy they can devise to bind men unto them, without respecting how themselves are maintained for that purpose in the Country, or the College, as many other would, and do in Universities much better cheap, where any Lecture is founded for all comers unto it. The second shift which is here used, is far worse, although in an other kind: for thereby they draw the Cardinal or themselves into discredit. Forsooth the matter was, the Cardinal would have had those his scholars more bare in their diet and apparel, than the Father's order in their Seminaries did permit, seeing they were to be sent afterwards abroad to poor benefices among country people, where they must far hardly. If the Cardinal did allow sufficient for them, than had the jesuits no cause to give it over, unless perchance they could not content themselves with that which was sufficient. If the Cardinal did not allow that which was sufficient, than was he not of that wisdom, of which he was reputed to be, neither could any benefice in all his Diocese be so beggarly, as that it would not maintain the Pastor in such diet, as is ordinarily used in the jesuits Seminaries: neither could the Cardinal be so ignorant, but he knew he might, nor so careless of the credit of a pastor, but that he would unite two benefices in one, where one could not suffice to maintain the pastor, at the least after so mean a rate, as we do conceive in is kept in diet and apparel in the jesuits Seminaries. And this dislike in the Cardinal, of the jesuits government of his Seminary, might stand with an opinion, that many of them were good men, and to be used otherwise. As also the Cardinal Tollet might conceive of them how evil soever some of them behaved themselves in the government of the English College at Rome. Lastly, whereas the priests are here challenged to have done injury to his Holiness, for that his exhortation to the jesuits in their general congregation is remembered by them, is a very foolish conceit of this author, as also that he would have us to think, that his Holiness did exhort the Capuchins to lay down their pomp, who are generally known to use none. But as this author said at the beginning of this chapter, All sorts seek company, and of all other, the jesuits love the Capuchins, because they desire nothing.   

CHAP. 10. How the stirs in the English College at Rome began, the cause whereof this Apologie-maker doth seek to colour, and to lay it where it should seem it was not. Apo. cap. 5.  
IN the fifth chapter this Author treateth of the great troubles which were raised in the English College at Rome, after the Card. Allen his death, and challengeth the priests of imprudency, for bringing them in now again, and defending them in their books. And forsomuch as this chapter doth wholly consist of this point, here is little to be said thereof, the story being particularly set down by such, as to whom these things do principally appertain: only these few matters are to be noted, that whereas this Author would make show, that the jesuits were drawn into the government of that College; there are priests yet living, who will justify, that they were solicited by the jesuits to take them for governors: which how willingly soever, and sincerely the Students then performed, being carried away (as many yet are, though not so faultily, as those who are now deluded therewith) with the religious name of some, who little deserve it: M. Sherwine who is here named in this chapter, said not long after in the presence of some, from whose mouth we writ it, that they had done they know not what. What would he have said if he had lived to see this love unto the jesuits, used by the same jesuits to bring the Secular priests into hatred, even with such, as will they, nill they, must take them for their pastors, as all the world doth, and hath done, and have prospered in soul's health for the space of 1500 years, and more, before this society surnamed of jesus was begun? And whereas there is a touch here also, of some troubles raised in that College, not long after the foundation thereof: it is well known, that they grew upon the jesuits their dealings with the students to become jesuits: which how pious soever the desire was in the one to dispose, or in the other to attain to a higher perfection, was a trouble to the rest, who grew in contempt with the new inspired, and were much less regarded of the jesuits.  
But these troubles were quietly ended within the College, after that the Students perceived that the jesuits notwithstanding their public protestations to the contrary, did underhand practise themselves, & bore some others out, which were their chief instruments in this action. And this is the true solution of that riddle, which is in more general terms related in the second chapter of the Apology, fol. 170 where (speaking of M. Much) the author affirmeth, that no other thing ever wrought the father's more trouble in the College, while this man was there, than their overmuch love and favour to him above his merits, as other men thought: to wit, when the Rector was informed, that (having at that time devoted himself to the jesuits, as also there it is sufficiently insinuated) he used to persuade the Students to become jesuits, and the profess were very evident, the jesuits would never believe it: and their trouble grew by devising sleights to save him from blame, having offended in that, for which in public sermons, the jesuits would often protest, whosoever he were that should use it, he should be the same day turned out of the College. These troubles being ended, and the scholars acquieted (as seeing no remedy without further trouble) and contented to bear what was offered them by this new spirit, which first began to be the overthrow of that College, and now of England: Other began in the time of Pope Xistus of holy memory, and then there was a visitation made in the College. But what the causes were thereof, we do not understand. If this author could do any thing impudently, doubtless he showeth his weakness in bringing this matter. For as we are informed, those who were reputed the chief in that faction, since they came into England (not finding belike such among the Secular priests, as could sort with that humour) have betaken themselves to the jesuits order, and some of them, who are now in England, are as factious in their Religious humour, as they were busy before against the same religious order.   

CHAP. 11. How this Author bestirreth himself to lay the fault of the scandalous division in Wisbich upon those Priests who would not subject themselves to that insolent agency of the jesuits. Apol. cap. 6.  
THe sixth chapter of the Apology is of the troubles, which were raised among Catholic prisoners in Wisbich: the beginning whereof this author affirmeth, that the priests do declare in the Latin book, pag. 11. to have been a repining in themselves, that their fellows would have certain rules of orderly living: which is most false. For they have always attributed the cause of these stirs, to the separation, which the jesuits, and their adherents made from them, because they would not subject themselves to F. Weston the jesuite, as a new illuminate, under the name of an Agent, which I leave to those, to whom it appertaineth to discover, if this Apology minister occasion, to say more than hath already been said of these matters. And whereas this author promiseth, to put down authentical informations, and originals against the narration which is already made of these stirs, he bringeth his proofs only out of the letters of the jesuits, and their faction, who are, and were parties in the controversy. And although the testimony of Fisher may seem to some to be of some weight against the Priests, as having been sometime an enemy to the jesuits: yet it ought not to move any man of discretion, what he said against them. For if the author of this Apology be of any credit, Fisher mst be of no credit. For in the seventh chapter fol. 93. Fisher is said to have been one of the most exorbitant disorderly fellows in the Roman stirs: and professing to have been now more, then half converted fol. 94. what is to be looked for of him, but the like behaviour against the other part upon this his conversion? yea in the very point, for which Fisher is brought as an authentical witness or informer, he is discredited by this Author. For fol. 95. speaking of Fisher, thus he saith. And albeit we will not affirm all to be true, which he said: yet many things are such, as they could not be well feigned (perchance that they had a swan to dinner at Wisbich, which was a most necessary circumstance to be noted, and put in print) and are confirmed otherwise, and the speaking voluntarily (see Fishers relation to D. Bagshaw at Paris, set out by the same Doctor, with M.D. Ely his notes upon the Apology) upon his oath, must be presumed to have had some care also of his conscience, etc. This etc. were enough in this place, to make a man doubt what care he was thought to have of his conscience. But such testimonies must be taken for authentical against the priests. And if there be an original brought out against a priest, it is enough: it is no matter, how many untruths be in it: for it is an original.  
The extraordinary commendations here brought of F. Weston we wish he might deserve them: and if his life were so exemplary in the Clinke, the man had an evil chance to be removed to Wisbich, where his actions are blamed, and proved blame worthy, at the least in this point very manifestly: that seeing what stir was likely to grow upon his agency, he would not give it over, but would prosecute it, it being a thing which if it had never been thought upon, might very well have been miss in God's Church, and no way necessary for the reformation intended by him and his fellows (as F. Weston himself confessed in his letter to his General 27. March 1598., and is here to be seen fol. 77.) especially without their privity, whom he would should become his subjects, or pupils, or how the good man would have had them called, who (setting passion aside) were much fit to govern him, than he them. The cause of the breach when peace was once made amongst them, was in the lesuits; for that they would not stand to such rules, as were made, but when they listed; which D. Norden taking (as he had just cause) in evil part, got away the copy of the rules which the jesuits had, and their faction, and would not restore them again unto them: And for this is he challenged to have broken the peace, which in truth they did break: and if he tore the paper, or burned it, they tore the rules, and canceled them before, when they refused to stand to judgement, according as the rules between them had ordered it. But of this there is not a word spoken.  
This authors meaning is, to prevail if he can by falsehood and cozening of his Reader, & laboureth to make him merry with now and then some foolish impertinent matter, as here fol. 82. he telleth him how that there were six or seven butterics for 13. persons, they not suffering the 20. to have any. And further (saith he) the party that directed him (M. Much) after he had showed him all these, he brought him to a chimney where also there was good ale, and said, here is another buttery: nay said M. Much, there is the devil, whereof that place was called afterwards merrily by some, the devil in a corner. And verily it was a matter worth the laughing at: whoreson devil, the chimney was too good a place for him, under correction of that zealous company, the other 20. that would have all things in good order, and every one in their due place, as seemed them. For these good and virtuous (as they say of themselves in this chapter fol. 65. and therefore may be believed in this point, unless perchance they will now disclaim the company of the united to the Archpriest, which are said to be the authors of this Apology) brought their devil and placed him in the chapel: where what worship they did unto him, either merrily, or more seriously, we leave it to their own godliness to explicate. For we should be loath to say any more, than what all the world talked: that is, that they made a buttery of the chapel, which is in the castle of Wisbich. Other many things there are here touched in this chapter, wherein folly and falsehood strive for the mastery. As where this author telleth his Reader, that the jesuits and their faction at Wisbich forced none, but such as would willingly put themselves into their Academy, or congregation according to the fashion, and example of those private congregations of our Lady, allowed by the Sea Apostolic in divers Countries. A strange liberty doth this author take to fitton, seeing that all men do know, that the cause of breach was, for that some would not subject themselves unto that Academy, which was devised by the jesuits and their faction: and that this Academy would not eat and drink with their brethren. Whereupon the breach was first made publicly known, an unusual fashion, or example in any private congregations of our Lady, or any honest company, and never perchance heard of before, but among the impurer sort of heretics: to which separation, because the lesser part would not agree, they are charged fol. 67. that they were so divided among themselves, as in the year 1597. as one writeth, that they did eat and take their diet in four several places, having notwithstanding driven out of the common hall by help of the jailor, the other part, though far the greater. But the manner of driving them out was no other, then that least these (the lesser number) should seem any way to accord to the separation, made by the greater number, they did sit some of them at every table in the hall; and not upon any division, which was amongst themselves, as it is here falsely suggested. For had the jesuits faction had but so much against the lesser number, that they had flocked together at one table, the separation should have been fathered upon them, although they never dreamt thereof: and this humour of the jesuits being known unto them, they used to sit at every table some, because it should be manifest, that the other made the separation. Yet was not this altogether done of purpose to this end: for they used before to sit at the same tables, at which now they sat But if they had now left those places, and have sitten together at any one table, this circumstance would have been evidence enough for their adversaries against them. There is also a notorious falsehood in the 68 leaf, where these priests of Wisbich are said to have been the first that appealed from his Holiness Breve, by which the Cardinal caietan's letters were confirmed: whereas they never appealed from the Breve, but from such grievances as they have set down in their Appeal, among which the Breve is none, as there may be seen. And fol. 76. there is a scornful speech of the degree of Doctor in Divinity: where speaking of Master Doctor Bagshaw, thus he saith: and all this stir to make room to his Doctourship: (a degree wont to be honoured among honest Catholic priests) which God knoweth in what corner of the world he got it, and how worthily: but certain it is, as far as we are informed, by ordinary commendation of his Superiors he had it not. God and the world knoweth, that he had his Doctorship, at which this silly fellow gybeth, in no corner of the world, unless one of the most famous Universities in Italy, be to be termed a corner of the world. For it is well known, that he took his Doctourship in Padua, and he took it so worthily, as this poor fellow might come learn divinity of him these many years: although his gravity perchance would think much thereof. And it is certain also, howsoever this fellow is informed, that he had it by the ordinary commendation of his Superior, who at that time was no other, than his Holiness, who in his predecessors time, admitted all into the degree of Doctourship, who should be judged worthy thereof, by such as were in office for that purpose in that University, aswell as in all others: and the most injurious Breve, which afterwards the jesuits procured against all Englishmen, aswell Divines, as Lawyers, was not as yet procured by them. But this fellow his grief is, that he, or any other should take degrees, unless they would become of their faction, which maketh them to have so many venerable Doctors for them, and so forward, as some of them have not blushed to take upon them to hear and determine the matters of such learned men, as were judged most worthy of that degree, and had it, and other honourable places in God's Church, when these were blockheaded boys: and cannot but move wonder and also laughter to those who knew them, to think in what corner, or how they came to be made Doctors. But they were the fittest subjects for jesuits to work upon, and stood most in need of extraordinary commendations from such Superiors, as here this Author would that M. D. Bagshaw should have had for the taking of his degree.  
As for the other points touched in this sixth chapter concerning the stirs in Wisbich, I am to refer the Reader to a relation set out thereof, before this Apology appeared, and to that which M.D. Bagshaw hath set forth already at the end of M. D. Ely his notes: and what others, now touched here, shall hereafter say of these matters.   

CHAP. 12. How this present controversy is dissembled and fetched from a head in Flanders by the Apologie-maker. Apol. ca 7.  
IN the seventh Chapter of the Apology, the Author intendeth to show the general troubles and disquietness, which were raised among the English Catholics in Flaunders and England, during the former stirs in Rome and Wisbich, and how the one gave hand unto the other, & that all proceeded from different members of the self same faction. And this his narration of the Flemish troubles, he beginneth at the year of our Lord 1588. and continueth it with many idle discourses, and altogether impertinent to the present controversy. But when he hath told his tale of those matters, than he patcheth thereunto the stirs in England, with an As in the controversy against F. Holt, & others in Flanders, these few had against them all the body of our Cath. nation, etc. So fareth it now in England, where a very few at the beginning, partly upon stomach and aversion, or rather discontentment, partly of ambition, unquietness of spirit, and desire of contention (as by their doings may appear) they began to oppose themselves against the whole stream of other Catholics, devising particular ways for their own preferment. The admirable mildness of this Apologie-maker, and his true religious piety! But it is great pity to interrupt him, for he meaneth to show his reader the true state of the question; and thus he proceedeth, And since that time have drawn in divers other, one upon one motive, another upon another, some for preferrment, some for discontentment, some for other occasions, to take their parts: and being once engaged, to leap with them from an inch to an ell, & from a little slide to a headlong precipitation. A godly procession, but where is the true state of the question? Forsooth, and this is the true state of the question. Happy is he who can understand it: A few discontented, upon such causes as this author affirmeth, began to oppose themselves against the whole stream of other Catholics, but you must go look wherein: and those few made some other to leap from an inch to an ell: and this is the true state of the question. How have we hitherto been deceived, in taking the true state of the question, to be in matters principally between the Secular Priests, and the jesuits, as sometime we are told in this Apology, namely in the first Chapter fol. 2. or between the Secular Priests, and their Archpriest principally: as other sometime we are told in the same Apology, cap. 11. fol. 161? Now we must believe, that the true state of the question, is between some few, and the whole stream of other Catholics: But what skilleth it, since that every thing is used in his place to some good purpose, for the bringing about that, which is principally intended by the authors of the Apology? The opposition then against the whole stream of Catholics, and particular devices for preferment, with the making divers other to leap or slide, must here be suggested to be the true state of the question, which how deeply it may touch the jesuits and their factious adherents, is, or will be declared elsewhere; to wit, with what ambition they sought their own preferment in the castle of Wisbich, and with what scandal they wrought it, by a most wicked separation or schism, at what time the true state of the question was: whether the jesuits and their fellow-factious committed any sin, or did like Christians, in making that division in Wisbich from their fellow prisoners, and priests as they were, suffering all under that name of Catholics, and Catholic priests. Secondly, with what ambition, unquietness of spirit, and desire of contention, the jesuits began to oppose themselves against other Catholic priests, when they writ that wicked and senseless libel of schism, omitting no name of disgrace which a jesuits malice could devise, at what time the true state of the question was: whether the priests were bound to subject themselves to an authority procured by falsehood (as the letters of institution showed) proposed with falsehood, as then the Archpriest, being taken in the manner, could not deny, put in execution contrary to the tenor thereof, having no letters from his Holiness; besides whom, the Priests had no known Superior, either for the erection of that authority, nor any testimony, that any other had power given unto them by him to make that subordination. Thirdly, with what stomach, and aversion from all Christian peace the jesuits proclaimed (after that the peace was made) that they all incurred the censures of holy Church, who should dogmatizando, maintain, that those Priests were not schismatics, who forbore to subject themselves unto the authority, before they saw his Holiness letters in confirmation thereof, and the Archpriest published, that he had received a resolution from the mother City: which afterwards he explicated himself to some, that it was from a pair of young jesuits: to wit, F. Warford & F. Tichborne, or from one of them. The contents whereof were, that these priests were schsmaticks, which is now the true state of the question, (as none but most impudent companions can deny) and the original of these present stirs. And this the Archpriest his fact, the author of this Apology in the 11. chap fol. 168. calleth an angry Epistle, and challengeth the priests in terms best fitting his Religious humour, that for an angry Epistle they would break out into such scandalous tumults, and so leaveth the matter without telling, what this angry Epistle was, and that it was a proclamation, that the Priests had lived a long time inschisme: and what other matters must thereupon necessarily ensue, not only to the discredit of those priests, but also to the disturbance of many devout Catholics, whose ghostly fathers they had been, during that time. But since that this author hath proposed the true state of the question, as he saith, to be an opposition of a few against the whole stream of other Catholics, devising particular ways for their preferring, and there causing some to leap, and slide: Let us do him the favour to hear how he proceedeth with this his imagination. And this (saith he) is the true state of the question: let us declare briefly the way, and path how they came into this pit. Thus he beginneth this declaration.  
We have understood by Card. Allens letters before mentioned, written to M. Much the year that he died, how he had understood of a certain emulation, and division begun in England by some priests against the Fa. of the Society, and perhaps he perceived the same by no means more, then by himself, his speech and behaviour, while he was at Rome with him the very same year. I do nothing marvel that this good fellow, would feign have his Reader conceive, that the Priests began a division against the jesuits. For if he could persuade this, he would not doubt, but to deal well enough with such fools, as cannot think, that the jesuits can give any just cause, why the Priests should break with them. I marvel much, that he is not ashamed so often to inculcate this letter of the Cardinal; which if it make any thing in this matter, it maketh against the jesuits, as we have often showed. For first concerning the division, the Father's want of good correspondence is first placed, the cause of discontentment not known, and M. Much a Secular Priest put in commission to be peremptory, aswell with the jesuits as the Secular Priests, with whom the Cardinal knew he might be bold, especially in so good an action, as was the furthering of a peace, where he was informed there was want. And for the better satisfaction of such as will be satisfied, we will once again repeat the Card. letter, as it is set down in the second Chap. of Apology fol 11. I have heard (saith he) to my great grief, that there is not that good correspondence between the Fathers, & other Priests. I cannot tell upon what discontentment, etc. But whereof soever it cometh, it is of the enemy, and with all possible discretion, and diligence, by the wiser sort on both sides to be rooted out, or else it will be the ruin of the whole cause, etc. And therefore in this point especially (M. Much) be earnest, and peremptory with all parties, and every one in particular, and tell them that I charge, and advise them by the blessed Blood, and bowels of God's mercy, that they honour, love, and esteem one another, according to every man's age, order, and profession. And then he exhorteth those of the Secular order, which is an argument, that what went before did principally concern the jesuits. The manner also of the Cardinal his writing doth show, that what he conceived of the division here supposed, was by other means then by M. Much: For had he understood it (as this Author saith) perhaps by no means more, then by himself, his speech, and behaviour, while he was in Rome, without perhaps the Cardinal would not have written unto him, after his departure in this manner: I have heard to my great grief, that there is not that good correspondence between the Fathers and other Priests, I cannot tell upon what discontentment: but rather have put him in mind, what he had told him, and would not have been left ignorant of the true cause, or some colour of cause, if M. Much had discovered any such matter unto him: And whereas here is mention of M. Much his behaviour while he was in Rome with the Cardinal, we may verily believe, that it was such, as became an honest priest, and that he gave very great satisfaction, not only to the Cardinal Allen, but also to many other, having those graces, and favours at his return, which no man ever had before him: to wit, authority, not only for himself in divers reserved cases, but to give to a certain number of other priests, whom he would name at his return into England. But mark, I pray you, what moveth this author to say; that the Cardinal writ his letter upon M. Much his behaviour, when he was with him at Rome the very same year. For albeit (saith he) this man gave out every where, that he went to Rome, to enter into that order, which many years before he had pretended: yet others that knew him better, did soon discover his alienation from them, and that he pretended perhaps by his journey to Rome, to get some other dignity. Here there is another Perhaps to help the former. For first it was perhaps that the Cardinal perceived a certain division, by no means more than by M. Much his behaviour and speech at Rome: and now it is perhaps that he went to Rome, for to get some other dignity. Good meditations for such spiritual guides, and very charitable. We will not here cite M. Blackwell his letter, which was written in the year of our Lord 1596, which was two years after the Cardinal's death: wherein he taketh on marvelously against all those, who did affirm at Rome, that there had been strife, or any falling out here in England, which was worth the talking of: although neither he, nor any man else can deny, but that the scandalous separation in Wisbich was begun by the jesuits and their faction, long before, and is not to this day ended. We will only request the religious spirit of the author of this Apology, to let us understand what reason he had in this place, to make this note in the margin, How this last sedition in England began, showing nothing in the text, but his general conceit of an emulation and division begun in England, by some Priests against the Fathers of the Society: and bringeth no other proof thereof, than the Card Allen his letter above mentioned, wherein there is no more mention of any division by Secular priests against the jesuits, then by the jesuits against Secular priests, as hath been showed. And if by this note we are given to understand, How that this last sedition in England began before this letter of the Car. Allen was written: then at the latest this last sedition must have his beginning in the year of our Lord 1594 or before For in that year the Cardinal died, as it is here confessed in the Apol. fol. 6. Now than if this last sedition in England did begin in the year of our Lord 1594, or before, what was the secret intention which this Religious spirit had, when in the 9 Chap. of this Apology fol. 131. it made this marginal note, The first beginners of the sedition M. Collington, and M. Charnocke by his own confession; how could these men be the beginners of this sedition by an act done in the year of our Lord 1598. at the soonest (for so the letter constitutive beareth date, about which this confession is said to have been made) when this author affirmeth that this last sedition was begun in the time of Card. Allen, who died in the year of our Lord 1594. But as the goodwife of an Ordinary saith, A joint is a joint, so with this good fellow, A book is a book And it is no great matter how one piece is patched to another: the fools who are devoted unto him will take all with blind obedience: and for the rest there will be some other devise: as to stand stoutly to the averring of any thing, which may further his cause, or the denying whatsoever may hinder it.  
Having thus far presumed upon the simplicity of his Reader, he proceedeth in his declaration of the way or path, or the supposed true state of the question, and continueth his tale of M. Much his negotiation. But returning (saith he) into England, as he went forth, and the Cardinal soon after dying, he joined with an other of his own humour, that had left another religion, namely the Carthusians (and in the margin he setteth M john Collington) and they two with some few other, determined to make a certain new Hierarchy of their own, calling it an association of Clergy men with two Superiors, as it were Archbishops, the one for the South, and the other for the North, with certain Rules and devices impossible to be observed in England, while times and matters do remain as they do, etc. It is very well known that M. Much returning into England, employed himself in more offices of charity, than all the jesuits in England. And all the North parts of England will affirm it: especially those who were in durance for their conscience. And when the spirit of the jesuits moved them, under pretence of reformation in Wisbich to make their scandalous separation and schism, he went thither accompanied with M. Dudlie, where after that they had spent some days, and perceived that there was no hope of any accord, but by the commandment of him, who was Superior to F. Weston, who canvased in Wisbich for a superiority under the title of an Agent, he came to London, where he found this Superior, and after long conference with him about it, as one, who was loath the matter began should go backward, he promised at the length to send such letters unto Wisbich by them, that at the sight thereof his subject Fa. Weston should surcease from that intended agency, and all should be well. But M. Much and M. Dudlie were compelled to send for these letters, and if they had not urged the matter in such sort as this Superior could not any longer halt with them, they had departed with such letters, as had been to no purpose, and the time was differred until it was so late, as he hoped they would not have stayed for any other.  
The peace being in the end made, such as it was, and not without this underhand condition, that the jesuits & their faction might afterward break off, when they would, M. Much, and M. Dudley at their next return to London, if not before, dealt with M. james Standish for the erecting of an Association of such priests, as would voluntarily subject themselves to live under such a superior, and such rules as they should among themselves agree upon. M. Standish communicated this matter to other priests, who liked well thereof, & as yet M. Colington (not being near London) knew nothing of this intent: & howsoever it hath pleased this author now to except against it, there will be good proof made, that the Superior of the jesuits was so far from speaking against it, as he did seem to take great joy in it, until he perceived, that he was not likely to have the government thereof, as his fellow had in Wisbich of the greater part of the Catholic prisoners: And if the united priests were the authors of this Apology, how ridiculously are six of them brought in here to credit it, as though there were more honesty in these 6. alone, taken singly from the rest, than 16. in the whole company of those united brethren, when those six also are among them, but it shallbe well seen in a particular answer to their letter, here cited, that whosoever were the authors thereof, those six, who subscribed unto it, had small cause to do so, or to thank them, who eased them of the labour to pen it.  
But now remitting the reader for M. Collington his just causes of leaving the order of the Carthusians (in which he never was, but only in probation, which argued a most religious mind in him, and was crossed only by the disablements of his body) to the last point handled by himself in his late book of Reasons entitled A just defence etc. And for M. Much his leaving the jesuits, to the eleventh Chapter of the Apology, fol. 170, where it is plainly said, that they would not admit him, we will see how this Apology fitteth his Reader.  
First, by this narration in the Apology, it is evident, that the association, of which here is mention, was not devised by such as thought their designments frustrated by Fa. Parson's dealing at Rome in the year 1597, as the author of this same Apology affirmeth cap. 1 fol. 6. & 7. Secondly, it is untrue, that these two determined upon any such matter. Thirdly, there was never any determination to have two Superiors, much less, as it were Archbishops: For as may appear by the rules made in the North, the very first rule, De rectoribus, is this: There shall be chosen every year one Father, and two assistants, by the consents and most voices of the brethren. And under another title afterward there is this rule: When in any Country the multitude of the brethren are increased to the number of eight, and cannot conveniently resort to the consultation of this confraternity in the Country where the Father and the Assistants abide, they shall at their own discretions choose a father, etc. But neither in the rules made in the South is mention of any more than one Superior. And these divers rules were made, not that one form should be of force in the North, & another in the South, but that one form should be drawn for all England out of such rules, as were thought fit by the priests, which lived either in the South or North parts of England. And the form which was drawn in the South, was accepted by those in the North with some few rules added, or altered. And this was so well known abroad, and confirmed also by that, the two priests carried no other form with them to Rome, as I cannot marvel enough at the author of this Apology, that he will cite the rules which were made in the North, yea and take his arguments (although foolish) from them against the priests, as here he doth fol 91. where first he argueth out of them negatively, that there was no mention made at all in their constitutions, that the same should be confirmed by his Holiness: as though the author of this Apology did not know that Fisher under his oath at Rome had affirmed, that the priests determined to send some to his Holiness for this purpose, and named the persons: and if this testimony were not, many are yet living, who made their petitions to his Holiness under their own hands for the confirmation thereof. And these petitions were taken from M Bishop and M. Charnocke, among other their writings, when they were apprehended at Rome by the jesuits. The second advantage which this Author would scrape out of those Rules of the North is: that they left no appeal to Rome, or other place: and this he would prove out of their Chapter (as he saith) of Appellations, and then he setteth down almost all the Chapter in this manner, That no appeal shall be made from the sentence of one company to them of an other Country: but all the brethren shall content themselves with the judgement of the Fathers, and assistants, or more part of the company, where he shallbe, etc. Thus far in the Apology. Whereby he would prove that the priests would debar appeal to Rome. Can any man think his wits were at home? is there any mention of any, but of the several companies under diverse Fathers, or Superiors here in England? and how doth he draw it to a debarring appeal to Rome? But mark I pray you this fellows falsehood: to help himself to make this foolish calumniation, he hath cited the rule or decree, as he calleth it: but he cited it with an etc. Whereby his Reader should understand, that somewhat did follow, although he said not what. And in that he would have his Reader know thus much; it is likely he knew it himself, and what it was: and moreover that if he had set it down, he had discovered himself to have been a notorious calumniator. And the indifferent cannot but note him, for a very false fellow in his dealings. The rule beginneth in this manner: No appeal, and so forth as he set it down unto these words: where he shallbe, and then it goeth on thus: for the present, unless it seem otherwise more convenient, by the most voices of the company. So that there is appeal left from those of one company to them of an other country, if it be thought convenient by the most of them. And whereas he would hereupon infer an absurdity against the Priests, like to that, which the Archpriest committed, when he would not admit appeal to Rome, he committeth as great folly, as in any of the other. For the Archpriest stood peremptorily in it in plain terms, that we could not appeal from him to Rome, and this rule was only for such, as would in such manner voluntarily subject themselves to their superiors. And as it appeareth by the rule, there was no mention of Rome. But put the case that the priests had debarred themselves of appealing to Rome, is it all one thing in this Author's conceit, for a man to be content, to part willingly with that which he hath, and to have it unjustly taken away from him? If the priests had made such a Rule, as that they would have debarred themselves thereof, was this any warrant for the Archpriest to obtrude such a matter upon them against their wills, having no such commission from any that could give it unto him, which is also to be understood in frivolous matters? But the goodman must play at small game, or else he must sit still.  
That calumniation also is hereby answered, which is laid to D. Bagshaw, that he thought it not fit for them, to be tied to Rules at Wisbich: For the difference is manifest: for that the Association was free for all who would, and who would not might continue, as they did, without any impeachment, either of same, or what else soever: those Rules at Wisbich were to be accepted of all so necessarily, as the not accepting thereof was deemed by the rest a sufficient cause, to make that scandalous schism, which was there made, and remaineth as yet, and to defame all those who would not subject themselves to the jesuits who were the devisors, and must be superiors also, under the title of Agents.  
Touching the detestable Memorial here mentioned (saith this author) drawn out, and published, etc. Here is nothing to be said of this Memorial, more than that the jesuits were the first publishers thereof in England, (so far as we can learn) and translated it into English, for women to see it, and understand it. The contempt of University men, and graduates, of which the jesuits are said to be accused in the Memorial, is not obscurely signified in this Apology, cap 6 fol. 76. where speaking of M. Doct. Bagsh. thus the author saith, And all this stir is to make room for his Doctorship: being a Doctor of Divinity, and proceeding in Padua with the applause of the University. And in this 7. Chap fol. 93. he putteth this limitation of the jesuits their esteem of university men and graduates; If their virtue answer to their degrees: that is, to speak the true English, if they will be wrought to be jesuits, or factious for them. And whereas it is said, that jesuits are more hurtful to Catholics then heretics, let indifferent men give their verdict, after due considerations of the divisions made by them. And as for this author his certainty, that these articles of the Memorial came from D. Bagshaw, (whom he here insinuateth to have been expelled the College at Rome for his troublesome spirit, with a reference to Card. Sega his visitation, which is well known to have been long after the Doctor his departure from Rome) his persuasion is upon a very weak ground. For although such articles might be given or sent to M. Charnocke under his hand, to carry to Rome: yet these articles might come from some other, the Memorial being long before made, and at Rome, as appeareth in this Apology, fol. 94. where also Do. Barret affirmeth, that he found a little compendious note of all their articles against the jesuits at Rome, which (saith he) he (Fisher) carried with him to dilate to the faction in England: and for proof hereof he addeth: as appeareth; for it is very old, and almost worn out.  
All the foolish story of Fisher, we here leave out, as not worth the noting, he having been in the judgement of this author, fol. 93. one of the most exorbitant disorderly fellows in the Roman stirs. And fol. 95. albeit (saith this author) we will not affirm all to be true which he said: yet many things are such, as they could not be well feigned, and are confirmed otherwise: and the speaking voluntarily upon his oath must be presumed, to have had some care also of his conscience, etc. or of his sides, as himself confessed at Paris. But I pray you let there be care of conscience at the lest with an etc. in such matters as may make for the jesuits. Some things here set down are not only false, but so impertinent to the matter, as we cannot but judge, that there was much good juggling between him, & his examiner: as that which is affirmed, fol. 96. At London I lay commonly with M. Charnock, otherwise called Long, and M. Medcalfe: whereas the poor man was never in any such credit with either of them, as that he was acquainted where either of them lay: yet some things at the least could not be well feigned: perchance that being bidden to a banquet at Wisbich he had a swan, which was the more to be noted, because it was a very unusual dish at a banquet, unless we turn the banquet into a dinner, and then the grace of this relation is marred. For the reader must conceive that the priests in Wisbich did not dine, (that is, too gross) but they did banquet: and he must understand, that the Priests had a Swan, at that banquet. Certainly either Fisher did herein show himself to be too weak a man to be brought here for an authentical witness, unless some such particular question as this is, was demanded of him, What good cheer had you? or else the examiner was exceeding foolish, who in a serious matter would fall into such questions, and set down such stuff in an examination. But had not such folly been to be uttered, we should have had no Apology. One thing more is here to be noted, that fol. 96. this author relateth out of Fisher's examination, that there passed eight or nine months in diversity of opinions: and that he went seven or eight times from the North parts to Wisbich, Cambridge, and London, about an affair which would not well stand with the association then begun. Which being compared with that which is also affirmed fol. 97. where it is said, that it was not known at his departure from England, that peace was made at Rome, or that Fa. Parsons was come thither: albeit M. Bagshaw and his friends seemed to fear it much: This author must wipe his mouth, for his false tale told in the first Chapter, fol. 6. and 7. where he affirmeth, that the relics of those that had been troublesome, and unquiet before, coming into England, and conferring again with their consorts, of their former actions and designments, frustrated (as they thought) by Fa. Parson's dealing at Rome, resolved to begin again, but after another fashion: to wit, by devising a certain new association, etc. Did these men (who were thus frustrated at Rome by F. Parsons his dealing there) know that Fa. Parsons was come to Rome, trow ye? If they did know thereof, and were in England before Fisher's departure from England, how was it unknown there at his departure thence, that F. Parsons was come to Rome? If they knew thereof, but were not as yet come into England, before Fisher's departure from thence, how did Fisher go seven or eight times from the North parts to Wisbich, Cambridge, and London, about the affair he speaketh of, in which the association had caused diversity of opinions? For if this author be an honest man, those men, who were said in his first Chapter fol. 6. and 7. to have been frustrated (as they thought) by F. Parson's dealing in Rome, resolved to begin again by devising a certain new association, etc. But perchance Fisher dreamt, that he was employed in such business in England, and how that he had a swan at a banquet in Wisbich, and lay at London with M. Charnocke and M. Heburne, and much other good news. And this author putteth down his dream, as an authentical testimony, for want of other stuff. And if he had not dreamt himself, when he set it down, doubtless he would have omitted so much at the least, as (if one dreamer may convince another of falsehood) convinceth him most manifestly of fault in his relation of the beginning of the association, set down in his first chapter, as we have noted. But by this (saith the Apology) any indifferent man may see, how matters stand, and where the ground of all troubles and dissensions lieth. All is but a conspiracy of evil humours, against them that do better than themselves, and every man that loveth his soul will soon descry the same. Religion is not sought by this faction, but revenge and satisfaction of bad appetites. This wrote he, who knew well what he said, although his ungraciousness would have his reader apply it to others, and not to him, who deserved it, as hath been showed: and will still appear in every chapter more clearly than other. And in this vain he telleth his reader, that his Holiness clearly perceiving, took order first in the Roman college (which belongeth to another place) and then in England for remedy thereof, as hereafter you shall hear. And so he setteth himself to the eight chapter, where at the very first he doth notably abuse his reader, as shall be showed, and he convinced of most manifest falsehood, and to be a chief man in the conspiracy of evil humours, against such men as sought religion with the greatest hazard of their lives, when he and his fellows were idle lookers on, and would be no actors, until room was made for their fatherhoods.   

CHAP. 13. How the Author of the Apology to cloak the jesuits their dealings concerning the institution of the new Subordination, persuadeth his Reader that his Holiness was moved thereto by certain letters which were long after written. Apol. cap. 8.  
IN the 8. Chapter of the Apology the author proposeth to handle how his Holiness hearing of the former disorders, and contentions, did resolve to make a Subordination in England, and how it was ordained, and intimated by the Protector, & called in question by some discontented brethren, without reason, or authority: and how great troubles have ensued thereof. And first he beginneth to declare the motives, or causes of this Subordination in this manner.  
When his Holiness heard the former state of matters in England, Flanders, and other places, and of the murmurations of some against the Fathers of the Society, set down as well in the aforesaid contumelious Memorial, as by divers other letters and relations, which came to the Protectors sight, and by him was related to his Holiness, and namely when he received great store of private, and public letters, out of England against the said Memorial of Fisher, and some one with above 100 hands at it: other with 40. and 50. all in favour, and commendation of the Fathers, their labours, and behaviour in England, against the said slanderous Memorial. And in the margin there is this note: See the letters of the Northern Priests 24. Martij 1598. and others 20 of April, and others after 30. july. And others of the South in great number 18 of May, and of the quiet sort of Wisbich. 27. of March 1598. it followeth in the text, and many other in several letters of principal men, which are yet extant, (but are not yet to be seen) when also divers of these did expressly demand some subordination, and government of Secular Priests to take away this emulation of some few against the Fathers, (as though all but a few, would have had them to have been their masters) and that two lately came out of England, at this very time, one a jesuit, the other a Secular Priest (bate me an ace, quoth he, for M. Standish had given his name before, to become a jesuite, and therefore a vassal of theirs, although he retained still the habit of a Secular priest, that under that habit he might the more cunningly deceive his Holiness) each of them urging the same in behalf of the one, and other order, (a couple of fit Proctors for the purpose.) But when all this was done, What then? Forsooth his Holiness, after mature deliberation resolved to yield thereunto, hoping hereby to quiet all, as well for that the Secular priests should by this means, have governors of their own, as also for that the Fathers by all likelihood should remain free from all matter of calumniation about governing Secular priests for the time to come. How currant would this tale be, if one of the most necessary matters there, were not, that the Archpriest must advise still with the jesuits in his greatest affairs? for so he is commanded in his instructions; and consequently, the Fathers by all likelihood, do not remain free from all manner of calumniation, as he termeth it, about governing Secular priests. And doubtless if it be a calumniation, to say, the Fathers do govern the Secular priests, what is it when they are not said to govern, but do really govern, by order as is said from his Holiness in great matters, and of their own great devotion in all other by the Archpriest his blind obedience unto them?  
But now to the main motive of this Subordination, and that which caused his Holiness to consult for some months, and to seek for informations out of England (of the quiet at the least) for the fittest men for government, (as this author immediately suggesteth) we must conceive some such strange miracle; as that there was some extraordinary day, week, or month, in which this motive was made, consultation had, and information given. In this chapter fol. 102. it is confessed: and if it were not, it would be otherwise proved, that the Cardinal's letters, by which the authority was instituted, did bear date the seventh of March, in the year 1598. This then being dispatched at that time, what time would a reasonable man have allowed for the travailing of the motives thereof out of England to Rome? How many will he guess those months to be which are here said by this author, that his Hol. took to consult, and to have intelligence from the quiet in England, of the fittest men for government, and could hear but of seven in all England, whereof one was dead, to wit, M. D. Henshaw? The sun, who kept his course in England, and saw how the jesuits were calumniated, as men, that would govern the Secular priests, stayed his course at Rome, for the space of five, or six months.  
And whereas the Romans had gotten the start of us in England for some ten days in the course of the year, now the English had gotten the start of them, and made their seventh day of March, come many months after ours. For as it is said, this authority was made at Rome upon the seventh of March 1598.: and it was made upon certain informations (as appeareth here in the margin fol. 98.) which were sent out of England, some the 24 of March, some the 27, some the 20 of April, some the 18 of May, some the 30 of july, in the same year 1598., to which if we should allow a time for the motives to travail to Rome, and some months for his Holiness to consult, and send back again into England for informations of the fittest men for government, I trow the same would have rested himself well at Rome, (howsoever he laboured elsewhere) to have an authority instituted upon these motives, consultations, and informations, upon the seventh of March, at Rome in the same year 1598. And lest that they should be idle at Rome any time of this long day: In Rome also (saith this Author) the opinions were asked by the Protector of the principal English, that resided there, and could best inform: as namely Father Parsons that had often advice from thence, (from his fellow jesuits, and therefore could the better inform for his own purpose) Fa. Baldwin, lately come from England (a jolly bold young fellow, but a jesuite, and therefore a principal man) M. D. Haddock, M. Martin Array (whose fairest game was to please the jesuits) M. james Standish (who had given his name to the jesuits to become one of their Order) and others that had laboured in the English vineyard, (perchance Fa. Warford, who was become also a jesuite, and helped to make up a very fit jury to pass upon the priests) as also M. Thomas Allen, nephew to the late Cardinal, and divers else (not worthy the naming, yet might very well be of the Council, the plot was so wisely cast) who concurring with the opinion of letters coming out of England (he hath before told you what letters, and when they were written: some of them in April, some in May, some in july) as also with divers other principal men that wrote thereof from Spain, Flanders, and other places (some divine intelligencers) both of the necessity of some Subordination to be made (they had belike understood of the jesuits their ambitious humour wherewith they had begun to trouble all England: namely about their insolent agency in Wisbich, where who would not subject himself to a jesuite, was to be defamed as a lose companion, or libertine, and be flarued to death, and sufficiency of M blackwel's person, with the help perchance of the jesuits, for such is his sixth Instruction. Et licet Superior ille ex consultoribus Archipresbyteri non sit, quia tamen summopere expedit, sua Sanctitas id omnino cupit, atque precipit, ut inter patres, & sacerdotes summa sit animorum unio, ac consensio: Et quia dictus Superior pro sua in rebus Angliae experientia, pro eaque, quam apud Catholicos habet, authoritate, plurimum poterit ad omnes Sacerdotum consultationes adiumenti afferre, curabit Archipresbyter in rebus maioribus judicium quoque eius, conciliumque exquirere, ut omnia evidentius, ac maiore lucc ac pace ad divinam glorinam dirigantur: That is, And although that Superior (of the jesuits) be none of the council of the Archpriest, that is, of his twelve assistants, who were appointed to advise the Archpriest, but are used only as informers, and are furthest off from him, yet because it is very expedient, his Holiness also doth altogether desire, yea, and command, that there be the greatest union that may be, and agreement between the Fathers (the jesuits) and the Priests. And because this said Superior (of the jesuits) both by reason of his experience in the affairs of England, and of the authority which he carrieth among the Catholics, can very much further all the consultations of the priests, the Archpr. shall have care to seek for his judgement, and counsel in matters of greatest weight, to the end that all things may more ordinately, and with greater light, and peace be directed to the glory of God (almost a threedbare worn cloak to cover any disorder) Now that he hath declared upon what motives his Holiness resolved to make a Subordination, he descendeth to more particulars, and telleth his Reader that upon the advise of these jolly Counsellors, (all jesuits, so far as we know, except M. Thomas Allen, whose name is here set, for the more credit of this consistory, because he was nephew to the late Cardinal) his Holiness resolved according to their opinions and informations in these two points, (mark I pray you, what this author attributeth to his Holiness in this subordination) to wit, to appoint a government: and that this man should be the governor: though for the third point (that is) about the kind or manner of government, he judged not expedient for the present, to appoint any other but an Archpriest, an ancient dignity in the Church of Christ. This then, by this author's relation, was the utmost which his Holiness resolved, to wit, that the kind or manner of government, should be no other, than what is under that ancient dignity of the Church: namely of an Archpriest. Consequently his Holiness appointed no other subjection or subordination, than such as is to an Archpriest: we are therefore to see, what belongeth to the office of an Archpriest, and in that only (according to his Holiness appointment) we are to obey M. blackwel's person, and in no other. For such are this author's words: though for the third, about the kind and manner of government, he judged not expedient for the present to appoint any other but an Archpriest: whose office whosoever will seek in the Canons of the Church, he shall find to be in another kind, than this of M. Blackwel's is, as it is instituted by the Cardinal in his Holiness name: for so also is it here confessed in the words immediately following, Lest if he (the Pope) should have begun with Bishops, he doubted very probably, that it would have caused some great motion in England: for avoiding whereof, he resolved also for this first time, not to write himself any Apostolical letters (note here the folly and malice of the jesuits and others, who writ or approved that scandalous Libel of Schism: in which the Priests were condemned of schism, sedition, faction, and denounced to be excommunicated, irregular, fallen from the Church, as Soothsayers and Idolaters, Ethnics and Publicans: and for what? For resisting Apostolical decrees, when there was none, but to commit rather the institution of the matter by special order to the Protector, to be done in his (the Popes) name. And how agreeth this with the Cardinal's letter, where we read these words in the Cardinals own name: Dum haec nostra ordinatio duraverit; so long as this our ordinance shall remain? And all that followeth concerning the Archpriest his subdelegation, and faculties, or form, which he was to keep in the exercise of his subdelegation. But his Holiness saith afterwards in his Breve of the sixth of April, that all was done by him. Be it so. What is this to the purpose? the priests do not now call that in question, nor ever did since the time, that they first saw that Breve. Where is then the difficulty? Whether the priests were Schismatics, seditious, factious, excommunicated, fallen from the Church, as Ethnics, Publicans, Sorcerers, and Idolaters, in that they did not yield their obedience to a Superior, said to have been instituted by his Holiness: but not proved otherwise then by the bare testimony of a Cardinal in a letter to the same man, who was to become a Superior: which letter beareth date the seventh of March 1598.: and it was more than a year before the Pope's letters were written, as appeareth by their date, which is the sixth of April 1599 And the foolish blind obedient must believe you, and use Catholic priests like schismatics, who in the space between the seventh of March in the year 1598., and the sixth of April 1599, did resist (as they are told, and will not understand any other) the Pope's order, and decrees.  
Lo here then (saith this author) the grounds of this his Holiness resolution, so far as we are informed by them, that were privy thereunto. Lo then say I, how sottishly the jesuits urged a resisting of Apostolical decrees, before the Pope resolved to write himself any Apostolical letters. And by this (saith he) are overthrown all these cavillations. And by this (say I) is overthrown that malicious Libel which was fathered by jesuits, and fostered by the Archpriest, and all his seditious adherents, wherein the priests were concluded to be Schismatics, excommunicated, fallen from God's Church, etc. as resisters of the Pope's decrees, when there was none made, as here it is confessed in the Apology: And suspicious conjectures (saith he) which our discontented brethren in their last books have set forth, about this meaning aswell of his Holiness, & the Protector, as of those also that gave informations for procuring of this authority, sinisterly interpreting the one, and the other. There could be no suspicious conjectures of his Holiness meaning. For as here it is confessed, his Holiness declared nothing in a year after, that he had any meaning, or knowledge of this Superiority, instituted by the Cardinal: the Protectors meaning not being known otherwise, then by his proceed in the institution of this authority, did minister cause of suspicion, that he knew not what he did. The meaning of the informers, for procuring this authority (being not known to be any other men, then jesuits, & confessed to be those fol. 99 by this author, to wit, Fa. Parsons, F. Baldwine, D. Haddock, M. Martin Array, M. james Standish) might without offence be subject to a suspicious conjecture; considering the canvas, which the jesuits had made for a Superiority over the priests in Wisbich, under the name of an agency. And whereas here is mentioned sometime, that Catholics desired some subordination, sometime that the priests, there are no other particulars set down, then certain letters, which were all written long after, that the Subordination was instituted: neither can they bring any, as in reason may be judged, by their so long concealing them, (the sight of them being more material, than all their Apology) unless they will bring forth some of those letters, which were taken from M. Bishop, and M. Charnocke at Rome, & abuse them: affirming, that they were sent before by some others for such a purpose. For when the priests determined upon the erecting of their Association, they had the petitions to his Holiness of many aswell of the ancientest priests, as other: some in general terms for some Subordination, some to have his allowance for their joining particularly in that manner, as they wished, under a head, and such Rules as were proposed: and some of these were written before this Subordination was made, as is confessed in the 5. article of the Libel, which was put up at Rome to the Cardinal Caietan, and Burghesius upon the 17. of February 1599 in the English College, which also demonstrateth, how false the imputation is fol 100, that without all Superiors authority, they (the priests) would have set up their Association.  
But mark, I pray you, how this fellow goeth onwards in this narration, and you shall quickly find where his shoe did wring him. For so long (saith he) as our Clergy proceeded in the Spirit of humility, obedience, peace, & unity, there was no need of Superior▪ for that every one was a rule, and law to himself. Where was this defect of humility, obedience, peace, & unity? or in whom? If contention for superiority be an argument of pride, than was this defect in the jesuits and not in the priests. For as all the world knoweth, the jesuits sought a Superiority in Wisbich over the Secular priests. Or if they will stoutly stand upon it, that it was thrust upon them: yet they must confess, that it was most followed by such as were secretly jesuits, as F. Bickley, F. Bolton, F. Archer, and who else. And that when it grew to a marvelous tempest, the jesuits persisted still in their course, or canvas for the superiority, under the title of an agency; neither was there any disobedience ever noted in any of the priests, but to F. Weston the jesuit, and first usurper in Wisbich, which was not to be called a disobedience, but a resisting rather of his ambitious humour, and his fellows: who laboured, notwithstanding the scandal which came thereof, to make him Superior over the Secular priests living then in the Castle: by which, peace was broken, and a most sinful division begun, so far forth, as those factious innovators would not eat with those priests, who would not subject themselves unto the jesuit. But (saith this author) crescente numero discipulorum, factum est murmur Graecorum adversus Hebraeos, etc. when the multitude of our priests increased, and the former spirit in many of them decreased, then begun presently murmuration, and emulation against the Fathers of the Society, as though they only did hinder us, who indeed were, and are the men, that do principally help us both in word, & life; so long as we were content to learn. Hinc illae lacrymae, We would not be contented to learn any longer of the jesuits. If this fellow had meant honestly, he would have cited a little more of the text of Scripture. But then perchance it would have made against him more, than he would his simple Reader should understand. He taketh as much as he listeth to apply, & leaveth out the rest: yet doth he falsely apply also that which he bringeth. For in our case the Priests were the Hebrues, for they came first into this harvest: and the jesuits must be these murmuring Grecians, who came in after us: and the jesuits not being contented with their fellowlike State with the priests, must become forsooth, M. Agents, and take charge of the priests, whether they will or no; as in their uproar at Wisbich was manifest to all the beholders. But now to that which this author concealed under an etc. In the text it followeth, eo quò despicerentur in ministerio quotidiano viduae eorum: because their widows were despised, or contemned in the daily service, which used to be performed by widows in those times. And by this it would have been apparent, that the pride of the jesuits had been the cause of this murmuration, and our peace broken upon their foolish self conceit, that they were not sicut caeteri homines, as other men. But note I pray you, how the text is turned, from a despising or contemning, to a conceit, that the priests were hindered by the jesuits. It is also further to be observed, that when the multitude of Priests were great, and the number of the jesuits very small, the Priests and the jesuits conferred together, and great peace was between them. But when the number of the jesuits increased, that they began to conceive a hope of Superiority, & to bring the Secular priests into a slavish bondage under them, they began to take exceptions against the priests, and the more wicked and sinful the slanderer was, the more united he was to the jesuits. And no other remedy must be used, but a Subordination to a jesuit, to keep the priests in order. And this was thought fit, to be first attempted at Wisbich, where the priests living upon the alms, which Catholics sent thither, might be enforced thereunto by the Catholics there, withdrawing their charity from them: to which purpose the jesuits friends employed themselves abroad. But some coming out of the Seminaries (saith this Author) where they had lived under the jesuits, with less, or worse Spirit, than were to be wished, drew other to emulate them, whom before they had obeyed. This emulation would be expressed: The Priests affirm, that the jesuits pride and ambition was the cause of all the stir in England, and for proof they bring their attempt at Wisbich, before which time all was in quiet. And as some priests did sometimes obey some jesuits, as Rectors of Colleges, where they were brought up: so are there many in England, who never obeyed any jesuite. Neither doth this argument prove, that they should ever after obey the same men, much less that they should obey all other, who are of that order: yet must this be the argument, which is foolishly here insinuated by this author, or else none. For of all the jesuits in England there are none, whom these priests obeyed at any time, in any place. Besides that they are all of them inferior to many priests, both for age, learning, wisdom, government, and what else belongeth to men. But by this hath this author showed, what his meaning is: that forsooth, because some Priests have obeyed some jesuits, therefore all priests must be obedient to any of the jesuits: yea although he be one, who immediately before he became a jesuite, had scant the wit to keep himself clean. But for the avoiding of this emulation it seemed (saith this author) in all good men's opinions, and the jesuits above the rest (or else all is marred, when you talk of good men) that the only, or chief remedy would be, to have this subordination of Secular priests among themselves: but so as the Superior must be at the jesuits direction, as both his instructions, and his practice declare. And then followeth a proof out of a letter of 6. Assistants, to clear the jesuits from the procuring of this subordination, against or without the will of the Secular Clergy, which testimony, if the united Priests were the authors of, the Apology is as clear, as that, of which one requested to have, either his fellow asked, or himself, if he were a thief. This testimony also harpeth upon the long day at Rome, of which we spoke before, and of the wonders wrought thereupon the 7. of March, by certain letters dated in England in April, May, and july following. Of this letter we shall have occasion to say more in a particular answer thereunto. And here we will leave the Reader to wonder only at this marginal note, fol. 101. See the letter of six Ancient priests the 17. of September 1597. For he telleth not, where this letter is to be seen, but rather leaveth a suspicion, that it is yet to be devised, unless he thought it too worthy a thing to be inserted among so many foolish and frivolous impertinencies, as with which this Apology doth swarm. The proof also which followeth, that Fa. Parsons laboured to have Bishops in England, is most absurd in their understanding, who know how he can play on both sides, and impugn that in which he would seem to be most forward: he can send notes of such things, as he would pretend a desire should be kept secret, and send them round about the world with the same desire of secrecy. He can write his letters in exceeding great commendations to one of some one man, and at the same time write to another, in the dispraise of the same man. And is it a sufficient disproof of his backwardness of having Bishops, that he laboured with some to have them in England? Can Fa. Parson's so far overshoot himself, as to make his credit so small in the Court of Rome, as that any thing can be denied him, being assisted by such as expect from him a kingdom or two for their service?  
Well (saith the Apology) this then being resolved by his Holiness, that he would have an Archpriest appointed in England, whom all the rest should obey, he gave commission to the said Cardinal Protector to institute the same in his name. How was this made known to the Priests? Forsooth the Cardinal showed, that it was his Holiness especial order and commandment by these words, Speciali mandato nobis iniunxit; his Holiness hath ordained this unto us by a special commandment. What silly boy would thus have Englished iniunxit in this place? or what is that This, which his Holiness ordained by a special commandment? the institution of this subordination with these faculties etc. could this man imagine, that the Cardinal's letters would never again be looked on? or if he could fear that, could he be so impudent, as to cite this part thereof, for to prove his Holiness special commandment for the erecting of the Archpriest? And to prove, that his Holiness was moved by the aforesaid reasons, alleged by him, to wit, emulation, and what else pleaseth him: he citeth these words out of the same letter of the Cardinal: Rationes abipsis sacerdotibus redditae, etc. the reasons alleged by priests for this matter, were allowed by his Holiness: and afterwards he citeth a great part of the letter, for so much as concerneth the commendations of the jesuits: and the desire which the Pope hath, that the jesuits, and the Priests might live in peace together. Which (saith he) coming from so high a superior, and directly from Christ's vicar himself, we do wonder, how it took no more effect within the hearts of our brethren, that impugned the same. And our brethren wonder, that any man can be so impudent, as to make such a wonder; confessing so often as he doth in this Apology, that Christ's vicar himself would not write at all: whereby neither his letters appeared for the institution of this Archpriest, nor any commission by which the Cardinal had power to do it. But the Cardinal his word was sufficient (saith he) and our brethren say no, and prove it by the testimony of all men of knowledge in the Canon and Civil laws: who say, that the sole testimony of a Cardinal, is not necessarily to be credited in any matter prejudicial to a third person: yet must the blind obedient believe, that the priests in not obeying the Cardinal's letters, did directly withstand Christ's vicar himself. But after he hath cited a part of the Cardinal's letter, he affirmeth, that all was confirmed afterwards by his Holiness own Breve: and that all written by the Cardinal, and every parcel there of, was by his order, consent, proper motion, and commandment, written, ordained, and sent into England. And to this our brethren answer, that so soon as they saw this, they did presently submit themselves unto the order. And say moreover, that this is very foolishly brought in, to prove a disobedience in them, before this Brcue was written. And by this is answer made to the question following. But what? did this satisfy or quiet them, that had resolved to be unquiet? For the priests perceiving such a devise of the jesuits, & foreseeing how hereby the jesuits might under a mask play their prizes more boldly than before, sent to Rome, as became Catholic priests, to know his Hol. pleasure, & in the mean while, these who were resolved to be unquiet, spread Libels abroad against the priests, and condemned them of schism, & much more such religious stuff. The causes which moved the priests to demur upon the matters, until they saw his Haul Breve, are set down at large by M. Io. Collington in his book entitled A just defence etc. whither we are to refer our Reader: and as for the letter of the 6. Assistants, it shall have his place elsewhere, to be answered, & for now, we let it pass, as a base proof of any thing, which is therein affirmed, it being (no doubt) penned by those, who are interessed in this Apology. Neither do the letters of forty or fifty priests in England egged on, and in a manner compelled thereunto by the jesuits and Archpriest, to approve his authority, or give thanks to his Holiness for it, prove any thing, but a lightness in them, to give credit where it was not due, even in a most prejudicial matter against themselves. The praises which are here attributed to M. blackwel's person, no man wisheth more he may deserve, than I do: but the testimony which is brought of his false dealing, when he first manifested his authority, will go hard against him: and the harder, for the poor shifts which are used in this Apology, fol. 109. to salve them. This author having proved a resolution in the Pope, and laid down the supposed reasons of the institution of this subordination, and concluded, that the priests were disobedient to Christ's Vicar himself, yet not having the wit to conceal, that his Holiness did not write himself any thing, until a year after, and more: (at the sight of which letters, the priests did instantly submit themselves) he goeth about now to salve the reasons which the priests have given in their books, of their forbearance, until they saw his Holiness Breve: and telleth his Reader, that he hath gathered them out of both the two late books, the one in English, the other in Latin, though confusedly and tumultuously set down in both; and in no one place distinctly and in order: whereby perchance he might have deserved some commendation for his good will, had he not marred all himself in this Apology, chap. 2. fol. 18. where he taketh notice of one and twenty reasons, which are distinctly and in order set down in the English book, and citeth the pages 84, 85, 86, & deinceps: and chap. 11. fol. 176. he acknowledgeth the same 21. reasons to be laid together by distinct numbers.  
The first reason which this author impugneth is, that it was gotten by wrong and false information, by the instance of the adverse party only, against their wills, and without their knowledge, contrary to all equity and justice: And this he impugneth, by affirming, that he hath already showed it to be false, but you must go look where. The reason is defended by M. Doctor Ely in his notes upon the eight chapter of this Apology, pag 226. and other following; and by M. john Collington in his first reason.  
Secondly (saith this author) they allege, that they doubted whether this ordination came from the Pope himself or no, seeing there came no Breve, nor Bull. Their reason is, for that the Pope useth to send his Breves or Bulls in matters of less weight than this is, as appeareth by that extravagant Iniunctae nobis, de electione: where all men are forbidden to receive less prelacies than this was: although this were the meanest title that any prelate hath, as is handled at large by M. Collington in his 4. Reason, pa. 138, 139, and 140: and M. Do. Ely, pag 141. to 149. whereabout they ask this question concerning us: Why should they be so unwilling to procure, or suffer to be procured, some Bull or Breve for the confirmation thereof, if it came from his Holiness? Here were so many tales told of the united Priests, which labour well and zealously also, chap. 3. fol. 28. and chap. 8. fol. 105. but what now, the good and obedient: and such like arguments of the quiet, their dwelling far from good neighbours, that the rope broke, and down fell the jesuits. Whereabout (saith this author) they (the priests) ask this question concerning us: we must go see concerning whom this question was asked, and assoil this riddle, Who is the author of this Apology? and for the greater evidence, we will set down the priests words, in the place cited by this author out of The copies of discourses, pag. 4. and 5. And more to show their (the jesuits) intentions in this matter, what interest they seek and challenge in this authority (though indeed nothing concerning them, because a distinct society and body from us) one of them (and in the margin we read Fa. Garnet) in a letter he wrote unto one that would not subscribe, confesseth and acknowledgeth, that whatsoever is opposite to the reverend Archpriest, must of force be consequently opposite and against them; which thing must of necessity import an extraordinary tie between the authority of the Archpriest and them: either of the subordination of them to the Archpriest, which they disclaim from and deny; or contrariwise of the Archp to them: Fls how must it of necessity follow, that he which is opposite unto the Archp, authority, must of force be opposite to them, as though a man might not resist their superior of an order, but he must needs thereby oppose himself against the whole body of another order? Furthermore if their interest were not great in this authority, why should they be so unwilling to procure, or suffer to be procured some Bull, or Breve for the confirmation thereof? Now tell me, Concerning whom is this question asked? If ye be Ies●…ts (who are authors of this Apology) why do ye mask yourselves with the name of Priests united in due Subordination to the Archpriest? If ye are secular priests, tell me, How doth this question concern you? The author of this Apology was not mindful of the weakness of the Rope, by breaking whereof he catched so foul a fall. The matter being laid down so plain before you assoil this hard riddle, concerning whom is this question asked? Why should there not &c. Will you for shame answer as the poor fellow did to this question, Who was japhets' father? being no plainer taught, that No had three sons, Shem, Cham, and japhet, than you are taught in this place by you cited, that this question was asked concerning the jesuits? Well then, hereafter we must take either the jesuits to be meant by your words concerning us, and consequently one of them to have made this Apology, or Troll, Tom Miller's bitch. But what? doth this author's folly cease with this? no God wots, (to use his own phrase fol. 104.) but he giveth a like answer to the question which the priests did ask, and this is it: but this question, and reason thereon depending is now answered: and how? for that a Breve was procured: but when? above a year after, as appeareth by the date. but when the priests did ask the question, how was it then to be answered? they know now, that there is a Breve procured, and they all submitted themselves readily unto it, as is witnessed in this Apology. And in the last Breve of the seventeenth of August 1601, to the manifest reproving of this author's falsehood, who in this place affirmeth, that it was not much more esteemed by these men (the priests) than these the Cardinal's letters. but mark I pray you this proof, as appeared by the effect: what effect? forsooth, the priests would not suffer themselves to be abused, and reported to have been schismatics as the jesuits published, after the coming of the Breve, and the peace made: and the Archpriest did not only not control this seditious attempt of the jesuits, but furthered it by promulgating a resolution which he said he had received from the mother City, that the priests were schismatics, who refused to obey the authority before they saw the Breve. And what else? And that they in this very book do call it in question also, how it came forth, saying, that they do not know out of what office it was procured by Fa. Parson's means. Is this to call the Breve in question, or rather the manner of procuring it? He who used the words, out of which this clause is gathered, declareth in the Pamphlet, entitled, The hope of peace pag. 23 that a Breve may come from divers places, & be called an Apostolical Breve: and pag 24. he giveth a cause why there might be some jealousy had of indirect dealing, in the procuring of this: to wit, a manifest mistaking of the Cardinal's letter, which is also noted in the book to the Inquisition pag. 59: a thing not unufuall in his Holiness Breves.  
Other reasons of theirs are (saith the Apology) that the Cardinal's letters Patents are not sufficient to give the matter credit: and this is sufficiently proved by M. Io B. in The hope of peace pag. 32 33. and since by M. john Collington in his third reason, pag. 60.61. and other following. M. Doctor Ely also, Doctor of both laws, and professor in Pont à musson in Lorraine, in his notes upon the Apology from the 116 page to the 137. proveth this point: where also that foolish objection of the eighth privilege of a Card. here cited in the Apology, is answered: as also by M. john Collington pag. 114. and the author of the Apology justly reproved for his false dealing in citing this impertinent gloss: for he leaveth out a part of the sentence, which marreth his market, and maketh it evident, to what poor straits he is driven, that must cite such a place for himself: which besides that it maketh not for his purpose, it maketh altogether against him, in calling that in doubt, upon which he would build his argument which he would frame in this manner: The credit of a Card is so great, that if he should say, he is the Pope's Legate, he is to be believed, though he show no letters: ergo in this, as a matter of less moment, he is to be believed. If a debtor tell his creditor he is a Christian, his creditor will believe him: but if he telleth him that he oweth him nothing, I doubt whether he will believe him, notwithstanding he believeth him in a far greater matter than forty shillings, to wit, that he is a Christian. But to their argument. First it is to be seen, that it is not infallibly true, nor so taken generally, that such credit is given to a Cardinal: For the same gloss in the same place affirmeth, that some do doubt thereof. And M.D. Ely affirmeth, that it may be better said, that all do doubt thereof, and so he goeth on pag 125. upon this point, showing upon how weak a proof this Apology standeth. and M. john Collington proveth pag 118. that he to whom a cause is delegated by special commandment, is greater in the same, then is a Legate general, and by this is that supposition also maimed, that in our case (where the Cardinal is said to have affirmed, that what he did, he did by special commandment) he was inferior to a Legate, although in very truth he saith not so, but only that he had a special commandment of his Holiness, to do what he could, for the making up the breach, which was suggested to the Pope, to have been in England between the Seminary priests, and Catholics, as may be seen in the letters constitutive, prefixed to M. Collingtons' book. And yet to blind such as take pleasure therein, this author speaking of the Cardinal, demandeth, who doth not know what a Cardinal's test money in any Christian Catholic Court is worth: especially a Protector, testifying, and professing in his letters patents, to do it exspeciall mandato Sanctissimi, at this man doth in his letters? As this man doth not in his letters, more than we now have said: which was no commission, to make his Subordination. Let the letters be sought, and it will soon be seen, that this fellow used these Latin words of his own, and not out of the Cardinal's letters: and that the like words are referred by the Cardinal to some other point, than the making of this Subordination. But to omit the juggling which is used between the Cardinals doing it sometime, as here fol. 108. and his witnessing sometime, that his Holiness did it: as it was said in the Libel which D. Haddock, and M. Martin Array put up against M. Doctor Bishop, and M. Charnocke at Rome the tenth of january 1599, and all with the same letters, commonly called the Constitutive letters. This circumstance of being Protector doth little help the matter: for that, as is said in The hope of peace pag. 33. this act of the Card. was a subdelegation, as appeareth by those words of his letters, Te deligimus etc. We make choice of you, whom for the time we subdelegate in that charge which was committed to us, and not an act of Protectorship. And pag. 34. it is showed that the office of a Protector stretcheth itself no further than the Court of Rome. For so doth Zecchius set it down in his book De repub. Christiana: De statu iii. Dom. Card. Nu. 9 In hoc Consistorio quaeque provinciae, & regularium congregatio, ac reges habent suos patres tutelares, qui Protectores dicuntur: qui electiones, & alias causas provinciae sibicommissaes, in Consistorio proponunt, & oppositoribus respondent. In this Consistory every province, congregation of Regulars, and kings have their Fathers, who have care of them: and these are called Protectors: these do then propose elections, and other causes of the province, committed unto them, and do make answer to such, as oppose against them. This point is also handled by M. Collington pa. 6●. and by M D Ely pa 163. & 164.  
But not to stand upon these matters (saith this poor man who in truth can find no footing in this his cause) it is a foul thing; what? for birds to defile their own nests: as these united priests do oft in this Apology, if they are authors thereof? you mean some other matter; Let us hear it: when for covering our own wills, of not obeying, we seek holes in the coats, and authority of our Superiors. I will show you what is a fowl thing; when for covering the lewdness of others, who shot at nothing else, then to have you, and all the Secular clergy of England under them as punies, and boys, you will take upon you to patronize and make their actions to be yours: that if through your folly, and their foul dealing they could prevail, in their most unjust, and wicked attempt, you shall feel the smart of your blindness in which now you glory. And if they do not prevail, you must bear the shame of your wicked enterprise▪ But what holes are those, which these men are said to seek in their superiors coats? and what superiors are they? Mark I pray, how this author dischargeth himself of this matter: as these men do both against the Cardinal Protector his authority, and person, as also the Archpriest; yea and his Holiness also in covert words, & so far as they dare. What, man? so far, is they dare? what is that, which they would dare against his Holiness? Forsooth persuading the people, that he hath believed false information: did any man ever dare to say: what? and persuade the people also, that the Pope could believe false information? marry sir, here was such a noll found in his coat, as himself could never have seen. Here was Christ's vicar himself very strangely abused: and thereby appointed a subordination most inconvenient. Were all those Pope's fools, whose letters are cited in the common Law, de rescriptis, & the Bishops also, to whom they did write in such form, as they did acknowledge, they might be, and were often misinformed, and did many things otherwise, than they would have done, if they had been truly informed? Si quando (saith Pope Alexander the third, to the Archbishop of Ravenna. cap. si quando de Rescriptis) aliqua tuae fraternitati dirigimus, quae animum tuum exasperare videntur, turbarinon debes. Et infra. Qualitatem negotij, pro quo tibi scribitur, diligenter considerans, aut mandatum nostrum reverenter adimpleas, aut per literas tuas, quare adimplere non possis, rationabilem causam pretendas, quia patienter sustinebimus, sinon feceris, quod prava nobis fuerit insinuatione suggestum. That is, If at any time we direct any things unto your brotherhood, which seem to exasperate your mind, you ought not to be troubled thereat. And afterward, Having diligently considered of the quality of that business, of which we writ unto you, either fulfil our commandment reverently, or pretend some reasonable cause, by your letters, why you cannot fulfil it. For we will patiently bear, that you do not that, which was by bad insinuation suggested unto us. Other Chapters there are there to be seen to this effect, which in this place would be needlessly cited; Only this will suffice, to show that it hath been long since seen, that Popes could be falsely informed, and thereby also appoint a matter most inconvenient. And yet this was never taken for a hole in the Pope's coat. But what more is there concerning this hole, not heard of in the Church before? The day would blind Hugh feign have seen, and those, that are deaf, would gladly hear, when it was ever heard of in the Church before, that an Archpriest was made Superior over all the Secular clergy of two whole kingdoms, as now M. Blackwell is of England and Scotland. And that it is against all equity and justice, and that his Holiness could not lawfully appoint it without their consents. The accepting of the authority at the sight of his Holiness Breve doth convince, that the priests never stood upon his absolute authority, but upon the custom, which by Law is also confirmed, that they should choose their superior, which M. D. Bishop touched, and proved in his reply to F. Parsons pa. 151. and it is handled since more at large by M. D. Ely pag. 190. to 196. And that the means by which he had appointed, is insufficient, binding no man to obey it. If this man do mean, that the priests did not take the Cardinal's letter, as sufficient to bind them to obey it, it is very true, that they thought those means insufficient, and they have given divers proofs of the insufficiency thereof. If he mean any other matter, he must explicate himself. For other means the priests did not know, until they saw the Breve: at which time they did all submit themselves unto it: All which must argue great insufficiency, defect, and lack of consideration in his Holiness proceeding. They should have had more honesty, who gave the false information: and their fault was the greater, because so great a trust was reposed in them by his Holiness. And to mend these holes in the Pope's coat I would gladly understand, why the two priests, who were first sent to his Holiness, were clapped up close prisoners, before they could have access unto him? If his Holiness could not believe wrong information, then might the jesuits, and the Sbirri with more credit have been at their jails, then seeking to imprison such as came to inform his Holiness. If his Holiness could believe wrong informations, and that these good men therefore joined together to apprehend, and imprison the two priests: then is this hole in his Holiness coat patched up again: that the Priests dared to persuade the people, that he hath believed false informations: for this implieth that he could. And thus much for the holes in his Holiness coat: a pretty slubbering kind of answer to the priests reasons. The Protectors turn should be next, but this author will owe him the patching up of his holes, and will go help the Archpriest. And as for the Archpriest their immediate superior (saith he) though in words they acknowledge his authority, etc. yet do they seek by all means possible, to discredit both him, his authority, and person. The first matters seem to concern him, and his person; as that he is charged about his doubling in his instructions, and about an heretical proposition. But how are these things answered? the first is thus awarded, We cannot apprehend how it could be spoken: the second thus. If M. Blackwell should say, as we are sure he did not in the sense they take it: two poor shifts. But to the Apology as it lieth. And here in this place they will needs raise a certain cavil against him (the Archpriest, or his person) saying that he doubled in his speech with M. Collingt. and M. Charnock: for of their two relations only all these matters are raised against him (ut in ore duorum, vel trium testium saith our Saviour Matt. 8.) stet omne verbum, that every thing be tried by two or three witnesses) when at the first coming of the Cardinal's letters and instructions, he conferred them confidently with these two (but this his confidence wrought in him a marvelous confusion, when he was taken tardy upon too great a confidence of an uncleanly conveyance) who so dutifully interpreted his speeches, as first they said he was contrary to himself, and affirmed his instructions to have come from Rome together with his letters, which is most true, and they are to be seen under the Cardinal's hand and seal, etc. Mark how this matter is shuffled up: He was never blamed for saying his instructions came from Rome, which were under the Cardinal's hand and seal, but for saying that those instructions came from Rome which he showed, and were never to be seen under the Cardinal's hand and seal, but were of his own making as he confessed, being enforced thereunto, when so much was convinced by the contents, and that he had counterfeited them, which at that time was no little confusion unto him. And thus may any reasonable man apprehend, how it could be spoken, which (this author saith here) we cannot apprehend how it could be spoken. We do further apprehend how it could be spoken, and to what end, that he had authority to excommunicate, and send priests to their answer to the Court of Rome, and how a nod could be given toward the next chamber, to insinuate that there was his commission for this also: and yet never a word true of all this which he spoke. And the thing being apprehended, how it could be, and two priests ready to depose, that it was so, we do further apprehend, that the Archpriest or his person deserved a greater punishment, than his factious adherents would should light upon him, especially if his instructions, which he had so falsified, were sent by his Holiness, and only testified by the Card. as sometimes for an advantage this fellow will urge. But whither do we wander, that this fellow understood not, how it could be spoken? For the Archpriest himself could not well tell what he said, as it should seem by a letter of his of the second of March following, being charged with these matters: Sir (saith he) the Archpresbyter hath to do about excommunications, and the sending to the Court of Rome. But what? can he excommunicate, or hath he any power to send priests thither? no such matter. What is it then, that he can do? Mark I pray you his own words, and how he answereth that which was laid to his charge: For by his commission he is charged to specify all such rebellions and contumacies, as are too familiar with you, if they cannot be suppressed, with his authority at home, and to intimate the same to the Card. Protector his grace, and so by his means to procure excommunication, or the sending for to Rome, for the redress of such licentiousness. By this logic then, a power to excommunicate, is a power to write to those who can procure it. And he that cannot write to any, that can procure an excommunication, is not worthy to be said, to have the power himself to excommunicate. But for the instructions, note I pray you how he would shift the matter: And for the particular instructions, he never said they were all made at Rome. Indeed there was no cause, why he should use those particular words neither is the charge so to be understood. He is thus charged by Master Collington and M. Charnocke, that after the Cardinal's letter was read, he put them in mind, that the letter did mention certain instructions, which should be annexed thereunto: and therewithal drew a paper out of his bosom, which he did not deliver unto them to read (as he had done the letter) but kept it still in his own hands, affirming that those were the instructions which were meant in the letter, and he read them as such: and being taken in the manner, and convinced, that they could not be such, he confessed that some of them were of his own making. And this will the two priests above named justify before God and the world, where this poor shift will not serve: he never said they were all made at Rome, nor this new devise: But that his instructions made at Rome, gave him authority to set down Rules, about all particular matters and cases of such quality.  
Moreover (saith he) they gave out amongst their friends, that he had spoken an heretical proposition: whereupon M. Bishop told the same in Rome, as appeareth in his examination, affirming to have heard it of his fellow M Charnocke, who yet as far as we understand, did set down nothing thereabout in his depositions. Perchance Fa. Parsons was loath to trouble M. Charnocke with any such interrogation: for doubtless, if he had been asked this question, his answer would have been here also inserted, especially if he had denied it. The avoiding then of such a question to M Charnocke must needs be suspicious, his examination both being begun before M. Bishops, as appeareth in the 9 chapter of this Apology fol. 129. and ended some 9 or 10. days, after M. Bishop's examination, as appeareth in the same chapter fol. 134. And in this latter English Libel, again divers times mention is made thereof by a certain censurer entitled, M. I. B. comenting upon a letter of Fa. Parsons, but nothing affirming or denying, but only entertaining the speech, that an heretical proposition had been objected, or spoken of at Rome against the Archpriest, There was no place for to handle any proposition in that censure, more than the letter of Fa. Parsons gave cause, And he gave no other cause then in these general terms: you took the way first to discredit so much as in you lay, M. Blackwell, etc. yea in the very matter of his faith: for that an heretical proposition was laid to his charge 
* Copies of Discourses.  pag. 62. The censurer perchance did not know thus much but upon Fa. Parson's word: to which he gave little credit, and therefore used those words, pag. 88 if it should be true which Fa. Parsons saith in the 17. paragraph, that M Blackwell was touched in the very matter of his faith, and offereth to prove it by certain depositions, yet extant at Rome, that an heretical proposition was laid to his charge. I doubt their ground for going to Rome will hardly be shaken. And this is the oftener inculcated, because Fa. Parsons in the same letters where he mentioneth this deposition, doth often affirm, that there was nothing of substance brought against the Archpriest pag 55. And a little after that their enterprise of contradiction was without foundation at all. pag. 59 And again, that his Holiness and the Cardinals were ashamed, to find them to have come so long a journey with so little to say, pag. 58. And the censurer thought, that he had discharged himself sufficiently in that action, when he showed how unadvisedly F. Parsons still ran upon this point, that the two priests had nothing to say worth the handling, and yet confesseth that they had to touch, yea and touched M. Blackwell in the very matter of his faith, pag. 62. But now this author will set it down more particularly, and answer for Blackwell.  
And the proposition forsooth was, that M. Blackwel should say unto them, that they could not appeal from him to the Pope himself: well good sir, how do you answer for M. Blackwell? which if M. Blackwell should say, as we are sure he did not in the sense they take it. In what sense do they take it which the plain words do not give? what a poor shift is this to say, if he should say it, as we are sure he did not, in that sense they take it? Then you are not sure, that he did not say it, but that he did not say it, in the sense they take it. If you should complain that you were stricken, would you take it for an argument, that you were not stricken, because the striker did not strike you, in that sense that you take it? He spoke it, and stood peremptorily in it, after that he was often admonished of the danger thereof, by M. Collington, and M. Charnocke: and this flying to senses, which are so secret, as they may not be known, nor can be imagined to be other, than the words do give, bewrayeth too much guiltiness. But mark, I pray you another shift, at a dead lift. If M. Blackwell should say it, etc. yet many men in the world may say this in diverse causes, wherein appeal is cut off by his Holiness consent, and order. Doth the power which is in other men in the world, give M. Blackwell a warrant, to say this or that, because they can say it? If many men in the world may say, that appeal is not to be made from them to the Pope himself, many men in the world may say more than becometh them, but in such cases, as wherein appeal is cut off by his Holiness consent and order. Which consent and order they are to show, or to be taken for such, as M. Blackwell was taken; that is, either very ignorant, or a worse thing. Such Commissions are commonly granted with this clause appellatione remota, or some other equivalent, which can not be found in the Cardinal's letters, or his instructions, which were all the commission which he had, when he stood upon this point: nor to this day is appellation from him to the sea of Rome cut off by any consent or order of his Holiness, although the Breve of the 17. of August 1601. doth not admit of the Appeal, his Holiness being persuaded, that it could not be followed without further trouble. And if he had this clause from his Holiness himself in any commission Appellatione remota, yet would no man of understanding affirm, that the Priests could not appeal from him to the Pope himself, according to that chapter. Pastoralis de officio & potestate judicis delegati. Si Papa scienter commisit appellationem interpositam à suo delegato dato cum clausula appellatione remota, iurisdictio primi delegati est interim suspensa, quoad executionem, etc. If the Pope hath wittingly committed an appellation, which was made from his delegate, who was delegated with this clause appellatione remota, (without admitting any appeal) the jurisdiction of that first delegate is the mean while suspended from any execution: Donec (saith Pope Innocent the third, out of whose words the Rubric is made) appellationis merita plenius sint discussa: until the causes of the appellation be discussed. And Lancelot lib. 3. tit. de Appell. Interdum non obstante prohibitione appellari poterit. Sometime it is lawful to appeal notwithstanding the prohibition. And he putteth some cases for example. Licèt causa (appellatione remota) commissa fuerit: although the cause were committed with this clause, appellatione remota, without admitting any appeal: so that whatsoever this author of the Apology saith, few men will say so much, as M. Blackwell said: Although appellation from them be sometimes cut off with his Holiness consent, and order: and much less where there was no such cutting off, as may be seen in his letters by which he was instituted Archpriest. Besides that, these were not his Holiness letters, but the Cardinal Caietan's: and therefore as yet was there less cause to stand so peremptorily upon this point, as M. Blackwell did, after that he was told of his error. And if M. Charnocke in conscience had thought this to have been heresy, or heretical, he was bound under pain of excommunication (especially being in Rome) to have prosecuted the matter, etc. M. Charnocke might have thought that it was heresy or heretical, and might have had the purpose to prosecute it in Rome: who can say the contrary? But then why did he not? perchance because it ran in his mind, as good never a whit, as never the better. Perchance he might dream that M. Blackwell had some secret sense, contrary to the purport of the words, and say, that he meant all well. What if it were set down in writing among those notes, which the Pope's officer took from him, as Fa. Parsons insinuated in his letter to M D. Bishop, which is in The copies of discourses, in these words, pag. 62. Moreover it appeareth by your papers and depositions yet extant, that you took the way first to discredit (so much as in you lay) M. Blackwell etc. yea in the very matter of his faith. And if M. Bishop did depose, that he heard such a matter of M. Charnocke, how far were the examiners bound, especially at Rome, to prosecute this matter, it being there deposed in that manner? Or where should M. Charnocke have prosecuted it, being close prisoner, and committed to his adversaries to be kept, examined, and have all his words and actions interpreted by them, and was debarred of conference with any but them; whereby he might well perceive there was no fit place for him to deal in any matter, but what the jesuits would like of, and their adherents: in so much as if Fa. Parsons have any truth in him, the Pope was hardly brought to think, that M. Bishop & he were Catholic priests? And was this (trow you) a convenient place, or time for him to enter into any course (had he been otherwise bound thereto) against another, especially such a man, as whose discredit would be so great a blow unto M. charnock's jailor, as he could not have had the like in the Court of Rome? But how hangeth that together which followeth; and not having done so (that is, prosecuted this matter at Rome) and yet procuring in these late libels to renew the speech thereof again. How is this proved? It is easily seen, that their intention: now he is fallen from M. Charnock's supposed act, to their intention: as though, if it had been true, that M Charnocke had procured to renew those speeches, and that all those friends had forgotten it, amongst whom in this place the Apology confesseth it was given out, the intention of the rest could be discovered to be only to discredit the person of their superior in what they may, which (saith he) is a bad kind of obedience. He may swear it, for it was never heard that the act of discrediting of a man, was an act of obedience, unless the Superior would give such a foolish commandment against himself, which M. Blackwell will never do, as we hope. And although that these books were printed, as here it is urged, after that M. Blackwell was made a lawful Superior, (to wit by his Holiness Breve) yet these matters were touched (as long passed before the Breve came, and at such time, as he was deemed to be intruded, without his Holiness knowledge) to show what just causes the Priests had, to be advised before they should resolve, to subject themselves unto him.  
After this long pain, to find holes in Superiors coats, the author is fallen again into the priests reasons, among which he citeth those, which we have now once already answered, to wit, that his Holiness could not do it lawfully without their consents, and that the election pertained unto them, and the like. One new devise he hath for some variety, as for that it is a foreign authority and subject to danger of Praemunire, which is answered before, that the priests did not plead this, or give it as a reason against the authority, but alleged it as the opinion only of divers men of judgement in the laws of our country, as may be seen in the sixth page of the English book, and proved thereby, that in wisdom they might pause upon their submitting themselves unto the authority, seeing no other warrant for it, than a Cardinal's letter, to whom they knew no tie of obedience, much less in a matter of so great moment. And that this was all which they did, it is evident in that so soon, as they did see his Holiness letter (whom they knew to be their Superior) they all yielded themselves. And as it is said before, if our princes of the same religion, of which we were, did punish such as accepted of any dignities by provision from Rome, without their consents, the priests might assuredly expect some severity of a prince of a contrary religion. And as they were not bound to accept thereof, before it was confirmed by his Holiness, so did they think it great folly to exasperate the state any more against them, by accepting of so strange and needles a novelty.  
And these reasons (saith the Apology) are set down and printed in two of the first treatises of this English book entitled, Copies of discourses, which were written before the Breve came forth for confirmation of the Archpriest: and therefore they ought to have been answered according to that time, not with this idle shift: His Holiness Institution. For as then it was not known, that it was his Holiness Institution, as here is confessed in these words, Before the Breve came forth. And consequently it seemeth strange to us, why they were now permitted after the Breve is forth, and hath not wrought that effect for quieting them, which then they promised What then will this fellow say to all the testimonies brought by himself, to prove the peace was made at the sight of the Breve Cap. 10. Apol? what will he answer to his Holiness Breve of the seventeenth of August 1601, where his Holiness avoucheth it that all was presently ended upon the sight of his Breve of the sixth of April 1599 His riddle then is thus read: that the Breve did work that effect in the priests, which they promised, as we have now showed. But not long after the jesuits began to spread abroad, and that the priests, who obeyed not, before they saw the Breve, were schismatics: and the Archpriest was so far from controlling this revived faction of the jesuits, as he published a resolution pretended to come from Rome, that the refusers of his authority were schismatics. And now it will not seem strange to a reasonable man, that these discourses were now printed, for that now there was need to persuade Catholics, that the priests were not then schismatics: which persuasion the priests thought it fit to further, by declaring the true state of matters, how they then stood, and upon what reasons. And these were best, and most sincerely to be showed by the letters, which passed at that time to and fro, and by laying down the causes, which then they had, and might have, to defer their obedience, until they saw the Breve: and thereby give satisfaction to Catholics, that they had not been schismatics, as the jesuits and Archpriest began now again after the peace made, to publish against them.  
But now after these treatises (saith this author) ensueth an Epistle of M. Anthony Champneys, which we would hardly believe to be his, if he had not suffered his name to be put down in print to the same. For we had greater opinion both of his discretion, learning, and modesty, then that he would utter such things as in this epistle are contained: especially matter of so much gall against the Fathers of the society, under whom he hath been brought up, and of whose order for divers years (as we are informed) he sought to be, Note this author his opinion of M. Champneys discretion, learning and modesty, and how that this opinion must no longer last, because he maintaineth his good name against the slanderous tongues of the jesuits, and their associates, in their unjust accusation of Schism, and disobedience. And whosoever shall read his Epistle, which is here mentioned, shall perceive great cause, why that good and reverent opinion was rather to be still kept by that Epistle, than the least jot diminished, as having showed very discreetly, learnedly, and modestly, how wrongfully he, and other grave and reverend Catholic priests were charged by the jesuits and their adherents. But this seemeth very strange to many, that there being so reverend an opinion of his discretion, learning, and modesty, as this author affirmeth, they would not admit him into their order, having sought it for divers years, as here is affirmed. Will he perchance have his reader to understand, that a man of discretion, learning, and modesty, cannot well suit with that religious order? or that such men are not thought fit for such purposes, as the master of misrule would effect in our country, who now hath the disposing of our English jesuits, and is of opinion perchance, that the further off a man is from discretion, learning, and modesty, the fit will he be to further his designs, and hath for the instruction of his novices, or encouragement to other, written this Apology, and showed that he himself hath neither discretion, learning, nor modesty, or else that his instruments must have defect at the least in some one or two of these three virtues, as the author of the Treatise of Schism, and his abettors therein, who were thought to have had some learning, but they have given an earnest penny in that Treatise, that they neither had discretion, modesty, nor learning? And M. Champney might be thought to be highly favoured of God, that he escaped so great a danger, seeking it himself for divers years (as here is said) although no doubt he might have been of the society, and have taken such good and religious courses, as we doubt not but that many of that order do. But those commonly (saith this author) are worse when they lose their spirit, seeking to pacify the remorse of their own conscience, by devising defects against them whom they left. See how this fellow doubleth in his tale. If M. Champney sought for divers years to be of the society, why was he not admitted, they having an opinion of him to be of discretion, learning, and modesty? could he do any more than to seek it, and to persevere in seeking it for divers years, as here is confessed? how is he charged to have left them? Is it not rather evident that they would not admit him? Again, I would feign know what remorse of conscience it is, which a man of discretion, learning, and modesty, can have, for missing that, for the effecting of which he did the uttermost, which he could morally do. He sought it, you say, for divers years: and is he to be charged with any thing, of which he should have remorse of conscience: he should perchance have continued still that mind to be a jesuite, but must have deserved it by some employment under you; in which if he had not had that plausible success which you desired, the Secular priests must have borne the shame thereof, because whatsoever he was in desire, or in the adventure, yet in his state he had been no other than a Secular priest. And so by this Epistle he payeth all his former obligations unto them, by as hateful speeches as commonly any enemy could utter. This author hath showed you the obligations which M. Champney had unto them, which perchance were obligations in them toward him, in that he persevered divers years, seeking to be of them, and was likely to have been a greater credit unto them, than any of our nation, which have been employed here in our English affairs, being accounted a man of discretion, learning, and modesty. And can any man think, that if there were any hateful speeches in his Epistle against the Society, that this author would not mention them? But leaving this (saith he) we come to the point itself, wherein he showeth as little sound judgement of learning, as any other that had his hand in the book. Provided always, that it be remembered, how that this author dealeth against a man, who otherwise hath been esteemed discreet, learned, and modest, which qualities were never known to have had greater adversaries than indiscretion, ignorance, and immodesty. And here these show themselves now against M. Champney his learning, discretion, and modesty. For first (saith this author) he will needs take upon him in this Epistle to prove, that he and his fellows had great reason in doing as they did, and that it neither was nor is any sin or disobedience at all: for (saith he) to disobey, is to resist, contemn, and impugn the known commandment of a Superior. His reasons (good Sir) you are contented to let them rest for this time: and you employ your talon against this definition of disobedience, in which you have offended against modesty, as we take it, in that you would so boldly relate his words with falsehood. Is it all one with you, It is midday, or midnight; and, it is midday, and midnight? His words are, resist, contemn, or impugn: and you cite them, resist, contemn, and impugn. And in the margin you make this note, The large definition of disobedience, devised for excuse of the troublesome. Know you what you say? If this be the large definition of disobedience, how do you here exclude out of it the disobedience of Adam, Saul, and Achan, whom you confess to have disobeyed, and sinned by their disobedience? yea you deduce the matter in such sort, as you prove this definition to be only of that disobedience, which is the sin against the holy Ghost. For thus you argue speaking of Samuel: He did not say to Saul, why didst thou resist, contemn, or impugn, which is not only disobedience, but rebellion and obstination, of which obstination S. Thomas in the question by M. Champney cited, affirmeth to be the sin against the holy Ghost? And yet in the margin, you will make a note, That this is a large definition of disobedience, devised for the excuse of the troublesome. For which he (M. Champney) citeth S. Thomas (saith this author) 2.2 quaest. 104. art. 1. & quaest. 105 per totum. But here we would ask M. Champney, that came so late from his study, whether to every sinful disobedience, yea mortal sin, it be needful that the disobedient should resist, contemn, and impugn, or whether S. Thomas in these places by him alleged, doth define any such thing, and not the plain contrary? In the absence of Master Champney, who perchance at his return will give some larger satisfaction, it is for this time answered: First, that here is a juggling of mortal sin, and disobedience, as if M. Champney did undertake to define every mortal sin, and not the sin of disobedience. Secondly, it is answered directly to the question: first, concerning every mortal sin, that to every mortal sin it is needful that the disobedient should resist, contemn, or impugn, according to the doctrine of S. Thomas here cited, quaest. 104. art. 3. in corpore. These are his words: Sicut peccatum consistit in hoc, quod homo, contempto Deo, commutabilibus bonis inhaeret: As sin consisteth in this, that man (God being contemned) doth follow such a good as is subject to change. And now concerning disobedience, it is also answered, that the disobedient, not as an adulterer or a thief, but as disobedient doth resist, contemn, or impugn, not only virtually (as every sinner doth, according to S. Thomas cited immediately before, and which were enough to justify M. Champneys words in every mortal disobedience) but actually. And in this sense doth Navar. in his Manuel. cap. 23. nu. 35. define disobedience. Inobedientia (saith he) prout est speciale vitium, est vitium inclinans ad non faciendum, quod iubetur, eo principalitèr, quòd iubetur: Disobedience as it is a special vice, (that is, as disobedience) is a vice inclining not to do that which is commanded, principally because it is commanded. And for this he citeth S. Thomas 2.2. quaest. 104. and then he addeth this: Ita quod ex duobus conficitur inobedientia specialis, scilicet ex non faciendo iussum, & ex animo non faciendi illud, eo principalitèr quòd iubetur: So that disobedience (as disobedience) consisteth of two things, to wit, of not doing that which is commanded; and of a mind not to do it, principally because it is commanded. S. Thomas quaest. 104. ar. 2. ad primum, saith directly of disobedience (as it is a special vice, that is, as disobedience.) Ad inobedientiam requiritur, quod actualiter contemnat praeceptum: In disobedience it is to be required, that the commandment be actually contemned. And quaest. 105. ar. 1. ad primum: Nec etiam omne peccatum mortale est, inobedientia propriè, & per se loquendo, sed solum tunc, quando aliquis praeceptum contemnit, quia ex fine morales actus speciem habent: Cum autem facit aliquid contra praeceptum, non propter praecepti contemptum, sed propter aliquid aliud est inobedientia materialiter tantùm sed pertinet formaliter ad aliam speciem peccati. That is, Neither is every mortal sin a disobedience, if we speak properly, but only then when the commandment is contemned, because moral actions take their nature of their end: But when a man doth any thing against a commandment, not upon contempt of the commandment, but upon some other motive, it is only materially a disobedience, but formally it appertaineth to another kind of sin: and is called for example, pride, covetousness, theft, or such like not disobedience. By this it appeareth, that M. Champney is unjustly blamed: & that the author of the Apology may as yet go to M. Champney his lecture: and in the mean while if he would be silent, he might be taken for a jolly fellow. But who is so bold as blind bayard? And thus he runneth on. For if it be true that no man doth sin by disobedience, but he only who doth resist, contemn, and impugn, (M. Champneys words are, or impugn) his superiors commandment, how was Adam's offence so greatly punished in him, & his posterity? wherein yet we do not read, that he did resist, contemn, or impugn the Commandment of God Almighty about the apple: but only did simply disobey by eating the same which was forbidden. We might here make answer out of S. Thomas, that there was a contempt: for so he saith, Quest. 104. ar. 3. in corp. peccatum consistit in hoc quod homo contempto Deo etc. Sin consisteth in this, that man (God contemned) doth follow such a good as is subject to change. And if reply be made, that it is no actual contempt; I will ask where they read this word actual in M. Champneys definition of disobedience? But to make this matter more clear, I demand of this author whether that this sin of Adam were a sin of disobedience formally; that is, the same which is called peccatum inobedientiae or no? If he answer affirmatively, than he must confess, according to the doctrine of S. Thomas quest. 104 ar. 2. ad. 1. that there was an actual contempt. If he answer negatively, and that it was some other sin, as S. Thomas affirmeth quest. 150. ar. 2. ad 3. that it was pride and not disobedience, otherwise then every sin may in a general term be called disobedience, then is not this example to the purpose. For M. Champney did not define pride, but disobedience, and not disobedience in the largest manner as here it is foolishly noted in the margin (which as S. Thomas saith quest. 104. ar. 2. ad. primum, is a general sin, as obedience may be a general virtue if obedience be taken for an execution of any thing, which may be commanded, and disobedience for an omitting to do the same, upon whatsoever intention) but disobedience (as disobedience,) to which S. Thomas saith in the same place is necessarily required, that the commandment be actually contemned. The same answer is to be made to the next instance, which this author giveth against M. Champney his definition of disobedience. Neither do we read (saith he) that Achan in the spoil of jericho did resist, contemn, or impugn the commandment of joshua, that nothing should be touched, or saved of the goods of that town, but being delighted with some part thereof, held it to himself. See how this fellow minseth the matter, being delighted with some part thereof, held it to himself. Whereas the words of Acan Ios. the 7. are these, concupiscens abstuli, coveting them I took them away. By which it is evident, that his sin was covetousness, and not disobedience, but in that large manner, in which the pride of Adam, and every mortal sin according to S. Thomas might be called disobedience. And if this author will avouch, that it was formal disobedience, that is, the special vice of disobedience, then do we say according to S. Thomas before cited, that there was an actual contempt. The third instance is of King Saul for his sparing the Amalekites, and retaining some part of their goods: for the which (saith this author) Samuel said unto him, Quare non audisti vocem Domini? why didst thou not hear, or obey the Commandment of God uttered to me? He did not say, Why didst thou resist, contemn, or impugn? which is not only disobedience, but rebellion, and obstination; of which obstination S. Thomas (in the question by M. Champney cited) affirmeth to be sin against the holy Ghost: Non omnis, etc. I first demand of this author, what he thinketh of this sin of Saul, what kind of sin, or what name it had in special? S. Thomas above cited saith, that the name of Adam's sin was pride, and Acan confessed that his sin was covetousness. Now are we to find out the name of saul's sin. If credit may be given to Lyra at the very beginning of his Comment upon the 15. Chap of the first book of the Kings, whence this story is taken, the transgression of Saul was, Ex cupiditate, & superbia, upon covetousness, and pride, so that then this must be the name of his sin, and then is the same answer made to this instance, which was made to the other. And if this author will contend, that his sin was neither pride, nor covetousness, he must tell us, what he will have it called. And if he will have it to have no other name, but disobedience, and that it was that special sin, which is called disobedience: then do I say according to S. Thomas, quest. 104. ar. 2. ad. primum, that there was an actual contempt. But the Prophet did not say, Why didst thou resist, contemn, or impugn? How then good Sir, I perceive the spirit is not clean gone from you as yet, in which you offered to take your oath, to a Gentleman in the Temple a little before your going over, that you neither than were, nor ever meant to be a Papist. You cannot be ignorant what sort of people do ground their arguments against the Catholics, upon such negative propositions. The Prophet (say you) did not say, why didst thou resist, contemn, or impugn? But if it also be found, that the Prophet did say thus much, where then will ye say your spectacles were, if you did read out the Chapter? or if you did not read it out, what blind bayard would have been so bold as to affirm peremptorily that the Prophet did not say so? I read in the 23 verse, Pro eo quod abiecisti sermonem Domini etc. Because thou hast contemptuously cast away the commandment of God: & verse 26. Etait Samuel ad Saul, non revertar tecum: And Samuel said unto Saul, I will not return with thee. Why so? Quia proiccisti sermonem Domini: or Quia sprevistiverbum Domini, (as Lyra saith according to another edition) because thou didst despise the commandment of God. You could content yourself with those words, Quare non audisti? Why didst thou not hear? and dissemble those which followed in the same chapter, which do imply a contempt. But yet make your answer, whether you will have this act of Saul, a formal act of disobedience, and then you are told, that according to the doctrine of S. Thomas, here must be an actual contempt, or some other mortal sin. And then, although according to the doctrine also of S Thomas, it includeth at the least a virtual contempt: which if you confess, you cannot impugn M. Champney his definition, yet is not your instance ought worth against the definition of disobedience as it is a special sin, which and no other sin was defined by M Champney. But mark I pray you another point of this author's divinity: He (Samuel) did not say, why didst thou resist, contemn, or impugn, which is not only disobedience, but rebellion, and obstination, of which obstination S. Thomas in the question by M. Champney cited, affirmeth to be sin against the holy Ghost: Non omnis inobedientia (saith he) est peccatum in Spiritum sanctum, sed solum illa cui obstinatio adhibetur: Not every disobedience is sin against the holy Ghost, but that only whereto is adjoined obstination. Is every sin of disobedience, I say not of theft, nor murder nor such like, but of disobedience formally taken, as here M. Champney doth define it) a sin against the holy Ghost? This is a very strange doctrine, that a man that obeyeth not, because he will not obey, shall be said to sin against the holy Ghost: yet doth this follow of this doctrine in the Apology: for (saith he) to resist, or to contemn, or to impugn, is rebellion and obstination, of which S Thomas saith is a sin against the holy Ghost: but as S Thomas affirmeth quest. 104. art. 2. ad primum. Ad inobedientiam etc. It is required to disobedience, as disobedience, that there be an actual contempt, therefore every disobedience, as disobedience, is a sin against the holy Ghost. A very fair piece of divinity; yet well fitting the divine author of this Apology, who, had he had the least honesty, although he had no divinity, he would not have used S. Thomas in this sort: For in the very place where he had his divinity, of the sin against the holy Ghost, S. Thomas teacheth him (if he had had the wit, or the grace to have learned) that not the contempt of every hindrance of sin, doth make a sin against the holy Ghost (by which also he explicateth what he meaneth by obstination) for then the contempt of every thing that good is, should be a sin against the holy Ghost, because by every good thing a man may be hindered from sin. Sed bonorum illorum contemptus facit peccatum in Spiritum sanctum, quae directè ducunt ad poenitentiam, & remissionem peccatorum: But the contempt of that good doth make a sin against the holy Ghost, which good doth directly lead to penance, or repentance, and remission of sins: So that the general doctrine here set down in the Apology, that a contempt is a sin against the holy Ghost, and fathered upon S. Thomas, is showed out of S. Thomas to be very false doctrine, and only that contempt is to be accounted a sin against the holy Ghost, which is a contempt of such goodness, or good things, as directly do bring a man to penance, or repentance, and remission of his sins. These good prefaces being made by the author of the Apology, he would seem to draw to some point: in which if you mark him, you shall find his error: Wherefore (saith he) according to S. Thomas doctrine, declared also by other schoolmen, and most briefly and clearly by Caietane in his Sum, a man may commit damnable sin by disobedience two ways. First, formally and properly, when he resolveth not to obey, which includeth contempt. And of this meaneth S. Thomas, when he saith: Ad inobedientiam requiritur, quod actualiter contemnat quis speciale preceptum. It is required to inobedience formally taken; that a man do contemn actually the particular precept of his Superior. quest. 105. ar. 2. ad prim. Now then there wanteth nothing but for this Author to show, that when M. Champney did define disobedience, he did not define disobedience, as disobedience, and as it is formally taken, but for example theft, murder, or some such other sin. His plain words are of disobedience precisely, and nothing else, and all his discourse is to prove that there was no disobedience. And will any man doubt, but that he defined disobedience as disobedience? Hath not this author brought himself into a good case, that after all this girding at M Champney for saying that disobedience (he said not theft nor murder, but disobedience) did include a contempt, and now this author confesseth so much, and can bring S. Thomas to prove it, (although he mistake the question; for it is in the 104. quest.) whom M. Champney cited, and this author affirmed before very boldly, that S. Thomas did not only not define any such thing, as M. Champney cited, but the plain contrary?  
But let us see how this author proceedeth in his discourse against the definition given of disobedience; wherefore (saith he) according to S. Thomas doctrine (but you must go look where) declared also by other Schoolmen; and most briefly and clearly by Caietane in his Sum, (in the margin is this note, Caietane in summa, verbo Obedientia,) A man may commit damnable sin by disobedience two ways, First formally, and properly, etc. And so he goeth forward & proveth no more than M. Champney affirmed, to wit, that there is an actual contempt in disobedience, as disobedience is of itself a sin. But when he cometh to the other way of sinning by disobedience, (which is some two leaves after) he changeth his terms, and telleth his tale of a material disobedience, and flieth off from the sinning by disobedience, which he should have followed: for so are his words. A man may commit damnable sin by disobedience two ways, First formally, and properly. This is one way: the other then belike must be materially and improperly, which member is of his own devise. And neither S. Thomas his doctrine, nor Caietans in the place which he would cite, (for his note book, as it should seem deceived him, not only in coating the question wrong, and the sentence also out of S. Thomas, which here he citeth, but Caietane also) who verb. Inobedientia, (and not Obedientia, as he citeth him) saith, Inobedientia dupliciter incurritur, velperse, hoc est, ex intention, i. Disobedience is two ways incurred. First, as it is a disobedience: that is, when there is an intention not to obey, and this he calleth afterward, a formal disobedience. Incurritur autem inobedientia materialiter, quandocumque non ex intentione inobediendi, sed alia intention, contra precepta Dei, vel Superiorum homo facit. A material disobedience (or disobedience materially taken) is incurred, whensoever a man doth against the Commandments of God, or his Superiors, not with intention of disobeying, but upon some other intention: & tunc inobedientia non est speciale peccatum, sed concurrit generaliter cum omni peccato, in quantum in eo est inobedientia Dei etc. And then disobedience is not a special sin, but concurreth generally with every sin, forasmuch as disobedience to God is in that sin. So that according to Caietane, a man doth not commit damnable sin two ways by disobedience, but one way only, that is, when he doth sin with intention not to obey. And when he sinneth against some Commandment of God, he sinneth by some other sin, and not by disobedience, although in the committing of that sin, he is disobedient to God. As for example: A thief is disobedient to God, but this sin is by stealing, and not by disobedience, unless he make it a formal act of disobedience: for than he sinneth two ways: one way by stealing, another way by disobedience. As if a thief steal, because he will disobey this commandment, thou shalt not steal, he sinneth both by theft, and by disobedience, and more by disobedience, then by theft. But if a thief steal, because he will steal, then although he commit a disobedience, he sinneth by stealing, and not by disobedience, and his act is not to be called an act of disobedience, but an act of theft, quia ex fine morales actus spectem habent, saith S. Tho. quest. 105. ar. 1. ad. 1. because moral actions take their nature of their end, for which they are done. And M. Champney did well define disobedience when he said, It was to resist, contemn, or impugn the known commandment of a Superior, and he defined it according to S. Thomas doctrine, who quest. 104. ar. 2. ad. 1. affirmeth that, ad inobedientiam requiritur, quod actualiter contemnat preceptum: To disobedience it is required, that a man do actually contemn the precept. But yet mark (saith the author of the Apology, after that he hath cited a place out of S Thomas, which as I think should be this, which I have cited, and he hath mistaken the question, and the sentence) how Caietane doth explicate these words, (and in the margin he referreth his Reader to caietan's Sum, as before) Idem est, (saith he) contemptus praecepti, & nolle ex intentione obedire praecepto: It is the self same thing to contemn the precept of our Superior, as to have intention not to obey his commandment. First it is evident that Caietane doth not take any sentence out of S. Tho. to explicate, but explicateth himself according to the opinion which S. Tho. held of disobedience. Secondly there is very deceitful dealing in the translation of Cajetan's words, where nolle ex intentione obedire, are construed to have intention not to obey, whereas the words imply a formal resistance, or repugnance to obey. And thus by degrees he would conclude somewhat against that which is said of disobedience, as disobedience. For in this manner he proceedeth. By which we see, that neither in this proper, and formal kind of disobedience, is it needful, that a man do openly resist, contemn, or impugn. But it is sufficient that by one way or other, he hath an intention not to do that which is commanded; So that M. Champney teacheth us very absurdly, that no man disobeyeth sinfully, except he resist, contemn, and impugn. See to what he hath brought this matter. Disobedience, which hath hitherto according to S. Thom. been taken for a sin, which doth contain an actual contempt of precept, now requireth no such matter. But it is sufficient for disobedience properly and formally taken, that by one way or other, the offender have an intention, not to do that which is commanded; and consequently according to this doctrine of the Apology, every mortal sin almost which a man committeth, must be two double sins, one in the kind, in which it is, as theft in stealing, murder in killing, and so forth: and it must be disobedience also formally taken: that is, as it is a special vice, in that by one way or other, he must needs have an intention, not to do that which is commanded, to wit, to refrain from stealing and killing For this, saith the author of the Apology, is sufficient to make a proper and formal disobedience, whether it be done in secret, or openly, which word I know not how he hath thrust it in, or to what purpose, the doing a thing openly or not openly, being nothing to the nature of the sin, but to the scandal which may grow upon an openly committed sin. So that not M. Champney (as he concludeth) but himself teacheth thus very absurdly, and M. Champney doth according to S. Tho. teach us, that to disobey (not to steal or kill) is to resist, contemn, or impugn the known commandment of a Superior.  
The author of the Apology proceedeth to the other part of the definition which M. Champney gave of disobedience, and approveth it, to wit, That it must be a known precept, and thereupon concludeth, that it doth go hard with the fact of priests, but doth not show how they did disobey any known precept of any Superior. He commendeth also the preventing of an express commandment, by obeying, which no doubt is commendable: but if he infer, that they do sin who do not obey, until they are commanded, he will teach an absurd doctrine. And this is (saith he) S. Tho. doctrine of this first kind of formal disobedience, whereby let any man consider the different spirit of S. Tho. about ready, willing, and simple obedience, from these our brethren, who in their first preface to the Reader, do make a long speech, that authority of Superiors, is not a sure rule of truth to be followed without examination etc. What do we here with any & c? go on I pray you, and let us hear out the sentence if there be any such sentence there: but the etc. came to stop this fellow from further falsifying the words cited out of the preface to the Reader. Can any man but this Apologie-maker, find this sentence there, that authority of Superiors is not a sure rule of truth to be followed without examination, etc. as here it is set down in a different letter to deceive the Reader? and in the margin there is this note to help it, A perilous and scandalous doctrine of our brethren about obedience. But because this fellow telleth his Reader, that he hath treated hereof before, in his second chapter, I refer the Reader to the answer there made unto it, here only repeating that which is there affirmed, and will be justified; that whosoever he is, that shall go about to disprove that doctrine which is there given of obedience (as he calleth it) or of the fail which may be of truth in a Superior, will prove himself an ass or an heretic. And the foundation at the which he immediately after throweth his cap, to wit, that it is neither piety, nor true obedience, at the first sight to admit any authority, but such as is orderly procured, and lawfully promulgated, is no whit weakened with this idle question, Who shallbe judge of this? For it is easily answered, that men of understanding and learning may judge, whether a thing be orderly procured, and lawfully promulged: and the judgement was given for the priests, who not trusting to their own learning, sent to Paris, where their judgement was confirmed, and hath since also been determined by his Holiness, that howsoever it was procured, it was not promulged so as it bond the priests to obey it. Neither doth it therefore follow, that every subject is to examine his Superiors ordinances, nor is it absurd, that men seeing cause why they should doubt, should seek to help themselves by dealing with their Superior as the priests did, who presently upon the first knowledge of this authority, perceiving what they did, sent to Rome to his Holiness from whom it was said to come: when contrary to the custom and laws of holy Church, it came without any his Holiness letters, as it is after confessed in this Apology.  
Here he might allege (he saith) the whole course of ancient holy father's sayings, about prompt, ready and simple obedience, most opposite and contradictory to this vain doctrine of these our brethren. But if he mean the vain of doctrine which he saith is in the Preface to the reader, and is impugned by him as perilous and scandalous doctrine, then doubtless he cannot bring the saying of any ancient holy Father against it, nor of any Catholic new father. If he mean that the priests do argue against prompt and ready obedience, as a matter not worthy commendations, he doth but mock his reader: for the priests do highly commend it, as a most rare virtue. If he mean that the ancient holy fathers did so highly commend prompt obedience, as they did condemn all delays to obey the commandment of a Superior, upon what cause soever, as sinful; he is in a very gross error. For as we have before cited out of the chapter, Si quando de Rescriptis, Pope Alexander the third, writeth this to the Arbishop of Ravenna. Qualitatem negotij, pro quo tibi scribitur, diligenter considerans, aut mandatum nostrum reverenter adimpleas, aut per literas tuas, quare adimplere non possis, rationabilem causam pretendas, quia patienter sustinebimus, si non feceris, quod prava nobis fuerit insinuatione suggestum. Having considered upon that for which we writ unto you, either with reverence fulfil our commandment, or pretend some reasonable cause, by your letters, why you cannot fulfil it. For we will bear it patiently if you shall not do that, which was suggested unto us with evil information or insinuation. By which & other such authentical warrants would all the corrollaries of Gregory of Valencia be answered, if we should agree, that the priests were commanded any thing by a Superior, which they did not obey. But this can never be proved: for so soon as they did see his Haul letters, they did obey, as it is said in the Pope's own letters, or Breve of the 17. of August 1601. And other Superior they know not, that could make an Archpriest among them, with these appertenances. Whether then it be said, that the Cardinal did it himself, or that he said the Pope did it, it is not greatly material. For if it be said, that the Cardinal did it of himself, we ask by what authority? if you say by his own: we say that he had none, or if he had, and had showed it, he had been obeyed. If it be said that the Pope did it; we ask how this appeareth? If you say, by the Cardinal's testimony, we say it was not sufficient to bind under sin to obey it. And this is proved by M. I.B. in The hope of peace pag. 32. and 33 and by M. john Collington at large in his first reason: and by M.D. Ely in his notes upon the Apology, who handleth this question from the 117. pag. to 233.  
It followeth in the Apology. And all this now is about the first kind of formal disobedience wherein there must be some actual contempt with reflection: which is, as out of Caietane you have heard, an intention not to obey: and would to God this also were not too openly seen in this fact of our brethren, and their perseverance therein. From this kind then of disobedience it was for the priests to purge themselves, and from the imputation thereof. How unjustly then is M. Champney blamed, who to purge himself of this kind of disobedience did first show what this disobedience is? Why is his doctrine carped at, when his adversaries are forced to say no less than he said? That disobedience, as disobedience, or disobedience, wherewith he was charged, did imply contempt, resistance or impugnation etc. And to what end have we now a tale of a material disobedience, which is only committed by stealing, or coveting, or by such like? Listen I pray you to another strange Lecture, which this Apologie-maker will give you. But now besides this (formal kind of disobedience) there is another kind of material disobedience, when a man leaveth to do that which is commanded, not with intention, or reflection, he will not obey, or doth contemn his Superior, but only that he doth either omit that which was commanded, or do some other thing contrary thereunto. And in this kind is it to be presumed, that the disobedience of Adam, Achan, Saul, and others were. We do commonly understand sins of omission, to be against affirmative precepts. It would therefore be explicated, what affirmative precepts were given to Adam, Achan, and Saul: or else this first kind of material disobedience might have been spared, it being no more proper to material disobedience then to formal. And so doth Gregory of Valencia affirm of formal disobedience. Disp. 7. quaest. 3 puncto. 3. Frequenter autem eiusmodi in obedientia formalis per omissionem accidere potest etc. altera inobedientia formalis est per commissionem: Formal disobedience may often be committed by omission etc. And the other formal disobedience is by commission. But to return no more to this, It is evident that the commandment which God gave to Adam concerning the apple, which commandment this author saith Adam did simply disobey, was a negative precept in this manner: De ligno autem scientiae boni & maline comedas. Eat not of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Likewise the commandment given to Achan was a negative precept. Vos autem cavete ne de hijs, quae precepta sunt (vobis) quicquam contingatis. Take heed you touch not any of those things which you are forbidden.  
The precept likewise which Samuel gave to Saul, was a negative precept: Non parcas ei, & non concupiscas ex rebus ipsius aliquid: Spare them not (the Amalekites) neither covet any thing which is theirs. And consequently these sins were sins of commission, and not of omission, unless we take omission so generally, as it may include all the sins in the world, for that by sinning, a man omitteth to fulfil that which he is commanded. In which sense, there is no sin, but there is an omission, as a condition included in it: as Gregory of Valentia speaketh of material disobedience in the place cited, Quae-materialis inobedientia nihil aliudest, quàm transgressio cuiuscunque praecepti, in materia cuiusuis virtutis, atque ita non distinguitur ab alijs peccatis, sed est conditio quaedam generalis, inclusa in omnibus peccatis, hoc ipso, quod peccatum omne est contra praeceptum. Material disobedience is nought else, but a transgression of every precept, in the subject or matter of every virtue, insomuch as it is not distinguished from the other sins, but is a certain general condition, included in all sins, in that every sin is against the commandment. Therefore although there be an omission included in every sin, and the sinner may justly be said to have omitted, as there is a disobedience in every sin, and the sinner may be said to have disobeyed, yet is he no more to be said, to have sinned by omission, then by disobedience, but by doing this or that, for example, by theft, or murder, and such like. This part then of material disobedience, as our author calleth it, or as Gregory of Valentia saith of formal disobedience, is showed, not to have place in the sin of Adam, Achan, & Saul: let us see how handsomely their sins will be deduced to the other branches of material disobedience, which here this author spreadeth: or do (saith he) some other thing contrary thereunto, that is, contrary to that which is commanded. Now we are to ask how, or in what sort a man is said to do some other thing contrary to that which he is commanded. If a man be bidden to go upon the right hand, he is properly said to do some other thing contrary to that he is commanded, if he go upon the left hand; for it is another thing, and it is contrary to the commandment. Likewise if a man be bidden to stand still, and not move, if he do run, he doth some other thing contrary to the commandment: or if any other man can better explicate what it is, to do some other thing contrary to a commandment, I will willingly learn of him. This author then, when he would reduce the sin of Adam to this kind of material disobedience, who is to do some other thing contrary to that which was commanded, in my understanding he knoweth not what he saith. Adam was commanded, that he should not eat the apple: now I would know, what was Adam's disobedience. This author, fol. 111. affirmeth, that Adam did simply disobey by eating the apple which was forbidden. But now what will he say? for he hath brought Adam's offence in the roll of doing some other thing contrary to the commandment. And if Adam's sin were nothing, but a simple disobedience by eating the apple, as he saith fol. 111. then was not Adam's sin a material disobedience in that kind which here he putteth, because he did no other thing contrary to that which was commanded, but did the very same thing which he was commanded he should not do. Such likewise was the sin of Achan, who being commanded not to touch any thing which belonged to the Amalekites, he did the very same thing which he was commanded he should not do: and so did Saul likewise the very same thing, which he was forbidden to do. So that the sins of Adam, Achan, or Saul, were not material disobedience, unless this author can find better means to prove it, or to reduce them to some other branch thereof, then here is specified, to wit, that he committeth a material disobedience, who only doth either omit that which was commanded, or doth some other thing contrary thereunto. And thus doth he leave the sins of Adam, Achan, and Saul, and neither will have them to be sins of formal disobedience, nor is able to show, how they were sins of material disobedience. And yet he goeth on, and talketh, what divines do hold. Mary if you will have this fellows favour, you must always remember with S. Thomas before cited, that it is sufficient the superiors will do appear quocunque modo, by what means soever: that is, (according to this author's conceit) if you be told it, although it be in such sort, as you are not bound to give any credit unto it: which hath been proved very often to have been in our case, and also that by an insufficient testimony the will of a Superior cannot by any means appear. And thus much in defence of M. Champneys definition of disobedience, with which he and his fellows were charged.  
The author of the Apology, being (as it should seem) driven to a desperate point, beginneth to advise the priests in this manner: Well then, all this being presupposed, (a hot piece of service) and all heat of partiality and passion laid aside, we would ask our brethren in their consciences before God, and as at the day of judgement they will and must answer truly and sincerely, when they had seen and read over Car. Cajetan's letters patent, wherein under his hand and seal, he testified to them and the whole world, that in respect of the division and dissension raised in England between priests and jesuits (I pray you bid the jesuits welcome into the lists, although they seem to have stolen in here at the latter ending of the fray) or priests and priests, upon that or other causes, and for continuation of discipline, union, and concord, his Hol. had resolved to make a subordination, and had by a special commandment enjoined the same to him to be performed by his letters. And knowing further, that his Hol. not many months before (which the Card. repeated in his letters) had told the very same tale unto divers of them, at their departure from Rome, about these divisions, exhorting and charging them most straightly, to have union and peace with all, & namely with the Fathers of the Society, making the very like exhortation to them, which now the Cardinal did. All these things we say concurring, and many others, as well letters from Rome, as men that came from thence, testifying this act, and meaning of the Pope: and the very probability and moral evidence itself, being so clear, that no Card would ever dare presume to do, or attempt so public an act under letters Patents, and that expressly in the Pope's name, without sure commission: Here we say, let our brethren tell us sincerely, and without passion, was this moral certainty of the Pope's will or not, or was this sufficient knowledge to bind, under sin to obedience, or no? Was a Card. Protectors letters Patents, testifying his Hol. commandment therein enough to the condition required by S. Tho. ut superiorum voluntas quocunque modo innotescat, That our Superiors will do any ways appear? But we will not urge this any further here, especially seeing Fa. Valent. his doctrine set down before out of S. Thomas, doth most clearly convince them. And therefore we leave that to God, and their consciences, to answer one day before the high judge, where shifts will have no place. A condition, which I doubt not, but the author of this Apology would gladly for this time should be agreed upon, howsoever when that day shallbe present, he would be willing to have the hearing of the matter further deferred. For if we do but reflect what means have been made, to have it heard in this world, and have been crossed by him, and his faction, we shall easily conceive how unwilling he will be to come to the trial in the next, where he must come to the naked proof of right, or wrong without his cloak, which now covereth all his falsehood.  
To this adjuration the priests will answer in their consciences afore God, and at the day of judgement, where shifts will have no place, that when they had seen & read over the Card. caietan's letter, which he testified not to the whole world (as here it is most falsely suggested) but only to M. Blackwell, being a letter written particularly to him, and to no other (as appeareth by the letter extant both in the books dedicated by the priests to the Inquisition, and at the beginning of M. Colingtons' book lately set forth) and written by one, who was not known to have any authority in England, neither did he make it known, that he had any authority delegated unto him for that which he had attempted but only by his own bare words, which no man in this case was to believe under any sin; Notwithstanding they had heard that his Hol. had given a charge to some in particular, to have peace with the jesuits (a very impertinent matter, and as foolishly here urged, for the band to accept the Subordination at the first coming) or had seen other letters testifying the same, as a hearsay (as M Colington doth particularly prove, from the 68 page to the 80. or that he was a Cardinal who writ his letters (it being evident, in the opinion of the chiefest Canonists, that a Card. may do more sometime than needeth, or else they would never accord, that credit is not to be given to him unless he show his commission,) whereupon your brethren do answer sincerely and without passion, that it was no moral certainty of the Pope's will, and that they had not sufficient knowledge to bind under sin to obedience, and that no Superiors will did by any means appear unto them, but rather a very bad part of their adversaries to cross them for a time, until they could work the Pope to confirm the plot which they had laid, to bring the priests into a slavish bondage under them: neither can they once be convinced of the contrary, as may in part appear by that their reasons of their refusal before the Breve came, do stand firm as yet unanswered. And thus omitting to conjure the jesuits, & Archpriest for their false dealings in this action, for which assuredly they must come to an unpleasing reckoning, I will briefly touch what is here said of the censure of Paris, and make an end of this Chapter, referring the Reader for a larger satisfaction to M.D Elie his notes upon the 8. Chapter of the Apology pag. 245. and to M. john Colington in his 4. reason pag. 153.  
The decree of the doctors of Sorbon in Paris consisted of two parts; the one was that the priests who deferred to admit of the authority upon the causes alleged, were not schismatics, the other was that the priests, (the fact of itself considered) did not any way offend, or commit sin. By this definition of Paris (saith this author fol. 118.) cometh very little relief unto the priests, and it was printed only to make a vain flourish with the ostentation of an Academical sentence. Th●s very word Academi● sticketh marvelously in this authors stomach, and his fellows. But let us see how he will show that this decree of these doctors did very little relieve the priests. To the first point that it was no schism, what saith he? mark I pray you his words fol. 115. for of the other point of schism we will not talk at all, & am sorry that ever it was mentioned, or brought in question. But will you see this good soap of milk turned down with a foul pair of heels? Note that which is behind. Unquiet people having taken occasion hereby to continue contention, and to make more brabbles, than were needful. They were much to blame belike who would speak being publicly defamed for schismatics, and what else a quintessence of malice could devise, as may be seen in the treatise of Schism written by the jesuits, and approved by the Archp. and yet to this day maintained in corners, where any of that seditious crew can have any hope to increase the schism (or division, or what else it may be hereafter called) in God's Church by persuading now some, now othersome, not to communicate in Prayer, and Sacraments with those who are the true members of God's Church, & for a cause in which these members do in here, and plead the commandment of the head of the Church, against a private letter, from a private Cardinal to a private man, as may appear by the letter itself. Were shame of that most wicked and senseless slander, the cause of sorrow or silence in this author, concerning this point of schism, what hope might there be that he had some grace? but his sorrow and silence grow both out of a spleen, that his, and his fellows slanderous tongues had not that success, which he and his froward malicious adherents hoped for.  
The submission which the priests did make at the sight of his Holiness first Breve of the 6. of April 1599 (acknowledged in his later Breve of the 17. of August 1601.) convinceth all but contentious, & brabblers, that the priests were further off by much from any touch, or any suspicion of schism, than their adversaries here, ever since their first dividing themselves from them in prayer, and communion of Sacraments. But seeing he will say no more of schism, we will omit it, and come to the question, which this author meaneth to handle. Our question (saith he) is then only, whether any sin were committed, whereof also we will not presume to determine any degree of sin, but leave that to God, and to the offenders consciences. Now that the priests here be published for rebels, seditious, factious, excommunicate, irregular, fallen from the Church, to have lost their faculties, scandalous, infamous persons, no better than soothsayers, and Idolaters, disobedient to the Church, and therefore as Ethnics and Publicans, the author of this Apology will not presume to determine any degree of sin.  
Our question (saith he) is, whether any sin were committed: but he giveth no answer to this question, but wrangleth a little about the censure of Paris in this manner. First, there was no man to inform the Doctors for the Archpriest: As though the Doctor's censure had not passed upon those informations, although no one of any side had been present. The case was propounded, and they gave their judgement upon the case, and not upon any particular person. If any, that might have been then present for the Archpriest, could have proved the case, to have been wrong put, let it now be done, and it shall be all one: For as it is said, it was the case, which was censured, which might have come out of Moscovia, for any thing that was set down to the contrary, in the information. And the decree being given, according to the information, will be justified, notwithstanding this senseless and shameful Edict. 
29. Maij 1600.  We George Blackwell Archpriest of England, and protonotary apostolical etc. do strictly command in virtue of obedience, and under pain of suspension from divine offices, 
A notorious usurper.  and loss of all faculties in the fact itself to be incurred, all ecclesiastical persons, and also all Lay Catholics under pain of being interdicted likewise in the fact itself to be incurred. Is not this a strange charge considering the state, in which as well the Lay Catholic, as the Ecclesiastical person now liveth in England? Who is it that doth not expect a prohibition of some grievous crime? You have heard the charge, Now listen to the matter forbidden: That neither directly nor indirectly they maintain, nor defend in word, or writing, the censure of the University of Paris, whether it be truly given or forged. Was there ever in Christendom heard the like presumption, that a man of some two or three years study, and in no Catholic Academi● of fame should condemn the censure of the most famous University in Christendom? But will you hear him excel himself, who hath excelled the most proud, and temerarious censurer in the world? Note that which he addeth, whether upon true information, or otherwise the Sorbonists have spun a fair thread, when what informations soever be given unto them, their censure is not to be regarded.  
The second exception which this author seemeth to take, is that the Doctors did lightly pass it over, and defined the matter in the signior beadle's house, which such as have studied in Paris, do know to be the usual place of their meeting, as standing most commodiously for all those, who are chosen to meet upon all causes, coming to the University to be determined, they themselves not living in any one place, but scatteringly in the City: Religious men in their Covents; Pastors in their parishes; Readers, and other Doctors in their several houses, or Colleges. How lightly they passed it over I know not, neither is the matter of any such difficulty in itself, that it should ask great study. But it is an argument that they were not over careless, what they said, who commanded the Bedell to write it down, as their definition in such wise, as every thing else doth pass them, in their consultations of greatest matters.  
The third exception is, that it was given upon some sinistrous information: and that therefore the Doctors did prudently give their censure in this manner: They committed no sin at all in that fact in itself considered. And that they added these words, for that they knew not what scandal, evil example, sedition, and contention and hurt to the common cause had ensued thereof. Had this author in place of this word thereof put after, he had done more wisely, as I think: for in that he useth this word thereof, either he declareth himself to be very sottish, or else that the University was very unadvised in adding these words: that fact in itself considered, for which words this author commendeth their wisdom: for if the fact in itself, were such, as so much hurt did ensue thereof, how could the fact in itself be cleared from all sin? True it is that scandal followed after. But it yet remaineth unproved, that it ensued upon the priest's fact: doth not much hurt come after much good? and shall we say that the harm ensued upon the doing of the good, in such sense, as that the good which is done, must be a necessary cause of the evil, which had not perchance otherwise been? The fact then in itself considered being without sin, we are to seek who sowed the Zizania, which perchance had never been sowed where it was, had not the husbandman sowed good corn before.  
The priests perceiving what was intended, and was likely to fall upon them, if they sought not some means to prevent it, sent two of their brethren unto his Holiness, to prevent it if they might (for contrary to all custom in Christendom, there was a superiority challenged over all England and Scotland, as derived from the Sea Apostolic, without any letters from the said Sea for warrant thereof) and in the mean time the priests deferred their submission to the authority, as well upon this cause as other contained in the information to the Doctors of Sorbon.  
The jesuits and their faction (of which the Archpriest being now become the head) were impatient of delay: and because the priests did not subject themselves in this interim, but stayed their submission until they did see the Pope's letters, they first used their tongues, than their pens, and both writ, and approved seditious libels against the priests, terming them therein Schismatics, excommunicate persons, irregular, fallen from the Church of God, and what not, that malice itself could devise: from which slanders, while the Priests sought to defend themselves, great troubles have risen in England. Now than the question must be, whether the Priests were the sinful cause of these contentions, by this their forbearance, to subject themselves before they saw the Pope's letters, or rather the jesuits and Archpriest by those their seditious and sinful tongues, and libels? The fact of the Priests in itself considered, that is, their forbearance upon such causes, say the doctors, and prudently (saith this author) was no sin at all, but the doctors were not truly informed (saith this author) and therefore their sentence was of no force.  
But what then were the defects in the information given to the doctors, through which the doctors are thought to have erred in their sentence? Forsooth, first the priests did not tell them, that the Card. was Protector of the nation. What if the priests did not know, that he was Protector of the nation, when his letters came into England, but only Protector of the English College at Rome, as his predecessor was entitled, and never known by any other title, as may appear by the Bull of Pope Gregory 13. for the institution of that College, and the Thesis either in Philosophy or Divinity, which were in the public exercises dedicated unto him? Moreover, it is evident, that this which this Card. Protector did, he did it by a delegation from his Hol. and not as a Protector, and therefore it had been impertinent to have said, that he was Protector, and neither titles do multiply the person, nor any one person carrieth that credit, that in all like cases he must be believed, except his Hol.  
The second defect which this author findeth, was, that these doctors were not told, that the Card. did all this expresso mandato, by his Holiness express commandment, which (saith this author) the Card. setteth down clearly in his letters. To this I answer, that the Cardinal setteth down such words in his letters, but he setteth them down only in that place, where he is commanded to labour or endeavour, that there should be peace in all other places, as there was at that time in the English College at Rome. And he that should have informed the doctors of Sorbon, that the Cardinal's letters do testify either clearly, as is here said, or obscurely, that he did all which here he did, concerning this subordination or institution of this Archpresbyterie, expresso mandato, by an express commandment of his Hol. had been similis vobis mendax, and there had been no truth in him in this point.  
The third defect which this author noteth, was, that they concealed another thing uttered also (saith this author) in the Cardinal's letters. And what was that? to wit, that a subordination was demanded by priests letters to his Holiness, and that his Hol. had allowed of their reasons. To this I answer, as to the former, that the Card. did not utter this in his letters, as may appear also by the letters themselves, but by this he giveth his reader to understand, what substantial informations some agent for the Archpriest should have given at Paris in his behalf against the priests, and how shamelessly these and such like would have been there uttered, which are without all shame set forth in print for all posterity to see, that their surest ancre by which they hold, is a graceless boldness to aver any thing, and a blinding their adherents, that they shall not find their false dealing.  
The fourth exception which this author taketh at the information, is, that it was given, that many refused to subscribe, whereas they were not the twentieth part. This difficulty we will entreat some Grammar boy to assoil, and to put it into the author of the Apology, in what number may be many. But in the mean while, we shall consider how the jesuits flattered with some, threatened other some, and yet were forced to presume upon others, and thereupon set others names to bills, without their consent or privity. And if to this I shall join the course which the Archpriest took to compel men, to take him for their Superior at the first, when he had no other warrant for it then a Cardinal's private letter, and particularly directed to him only (as may appear by the letter itself) and compare this part of subscribers, with those whose unreadiness in this action, was a sufficient argument of their minds, the number of the willing subscribers will be found much fewer than the other: yet was not the information given at Paris in any such sort, as this author enlargeth himself, to wit, as though they had been a great multitude, or the mayor part, as the information itself doth show. Neither did the Doctors clear the priests, in any consideration of multitude, but in consideration of the fact in itself as appeareth in their decree, which consideration dependeth not upon how many, or how few, but upon the lawfulness of the fact itself. And whereas this author addeth, that if the Priests have increased their number since, it hath been by false information, as this was to the Doctors of Sorbon, and by persuading them to the participation of their liberty, and freedom from all government, which is a sore bait for young men, as all the world knoweth. If the Priests have not increased their number, or were not known (when this Apology was written) to have increased their number, how can he so peremptorily affirm, that those, who refused to subscribe at the first, were not the twentieth part so many, having set their hands to the appeal? And yet many more standing firm with them, whose names are not there expressed, and yet are so many more, (if they knew how to live in any reasonable sort, without holding with the jesuits and the Archpriest in this controversy) as they would leave a very poor many to stand against the Secular priests: Such the baits are, and so unpleasant which are laid to draw them to the priests side, as they have no list to bite at them. The priests have for God's cause, put themselves in such state of life, as they stand in need of the charity of Catholics, who being abused by the jesuits and the Archpriest, to disfavour all such as they dislike, and to relieve only those, who shall stand with them: It is easily seen where the bait is, at which a young man will bite, besides the infamy which is continually spread abroad against the Priests, that were it not, to betray God his Church, and their own souls, no doubt they had rather themselves bite at the golden bait, and worldly favour which the jesuits and the Archpriest do lay, to catch young and old, both of the laity and the Clergy, then at a crust, as some of them do call it: and to live so obscurely as many of them do, yea and in great want, which patience only doth often supply (a sorry bait for young men) as all the world doth know. And this is a silly disposition to be persuaded by any false information, especially in such matters, as of which they are themselves eye-witnesses, how they are handled, and cannot easily be deceived.  
The fifth exception is against the information, where it is said, that the priests refused only to subscribe to the authority of the Archpriest, before he had obtained letters from the sea apostolic for his confirmation: as who would say, that this being done, they meant to be quiet. This good fellow should have disproved this and that, at the sight of his Holiness Breve, of the 6. of April 1599 all matters were not appeased, and that the Priests did not (according to this information given) submit themselves. But this he can never do, for he will be disproved by his Holiness himself, who in his Breve of the 17. of August. 1601. affirmeth it. And their behaviour in the mean time, was as became Catholic priests, who had care to preserve their credit, in such sort as they were bound to do, without persuading any against the Pope's ordination, or discrediting any letters of the Protector, more than this, that they would not give any such credit unto the Protector, that they would without his Holiness letters subject themselves to an extraordinary superiority; to which without grievous penalties, no Covent or Clergy are to subject themselves, as may appear in that Extrauag of Bonifacius the eight Iniunctum de electione, which is afterward extended by Pope julius the third in his constitution which beginneth thus, Sanctissimus, etc. to all Prelates. Although also in far lesser matters than this was, no Cardinal will challenge any such prerogative to himself, that his word or his letter should stand for a law, to bind all men to whom the matter appertaineth, to yield their obedience under sin. And both falsely and foolishly it is here urged, that it was the Pope's ordination. First because the Cardinal affirmed in his letters, that it was his own ordination, as may appear in those words of his letter, Dum haec nostra ordinatio duraverit, so long as this our ordination shall endure. Secondly because although his Holiness did declare, that it was done by his commandment, yet this declaration came not in a year after, and could give no more notice to the Priests before that he did any thing therein, than this author of the Apology hath knowledge at this present, by any lesson which may be taught him a year hence, and yet cannot but think it great folly, to be charged for not believing that, at this present, of which he is not like to have sufficient knowledge, any time these twelve months following. But now to the terrors which the priests are said to have cast into Lay men's heads, of admitting sorraine authority from the Pope: I answer that the priests did only cast, as in wisdom they might, whether it were convenient for them upon so small a matter, as was a Cardinal's letter, to incur the penalties of such laws as were before of force among the Catholics. For their submission to the Breve (so soon as they saw it) proved their ready obedience, and reverence to the Pope's authority, which they are often, but falsely charged to have resisted.  
The sixth is, that the doctors were told, that it might be seen by the Card. letters, that the Archpriests authority was granted by false information; A point largely proved by the priests & the place of the Cardinal's letter, quoted in all their books, and that partiality was used in the choice of him and his assistants. Which clause this author hath set down in such sort, as his reader must conceive, that the priests had informed the doctors, how that this also might be seen in the Card. letters; which is a false imputation: for the priests did not inform the doctors, that any such thing appeared in those letters, but only that they had noted that there was such a partiality used (as may appear in their informations) without any relation to the Cardinal's letters. And no man can better justify this to the doctors to be true, than he to whom in presence M. Blackwell took exceptions, for wishing some matters were amended in the jesuits, and told him that it was the only cause why he miss an assistanceship. And F. Garnet dissembled not the matter in his letter of the 11. of November 1598. to M Collington; where he maketh this conclusion about the middle of the letter, So that if they would have themselves, or others that do not affect us, (though otherwise seeming never so virtuous) to be chosen heads, let them first affect us so far, as in virtue they ought, that they may be worthy of government. And at the beginning of this Chapter of the Apology, fol. 99 the principal counsellors in this action, are said to have been F. Parsons, and F. Baldwin open jesuits, M. james Standish a secret jesuit, or one at the least, who had promised to become a jesuit, M. Haddock, and M Martin Array, who having forsaken their course of life in the help of their country, lay to defer some preferment by the jesuits their procurement, and have since been paid their hire, the one with the deanery of Dullin, and the other with a provostship in Spain. And doth not this confirm that which the priests did most justly suspect, to wit, partiality in the choice of the Archpriest, and his assistants? The readiness of the priests to obey (here again objected to have been a false information) is proved by the Pope's Breve of the 17. of August 1601. The matters concerning the two priests their journey, their restraint, the judgement of the two Card. against them, the breaking forth of these present troubles after the peace made, are to be handled in the Chapter following, and are here very impertinently brought by this author, as also that it was said (God knoweth out of what office,) when speech was of Fa. Parsons his procuring the Breve of the 6. of April, which words, as it hath been showed, were no discredit to his Hol. Breve, it being acknowledged by the priests out of what office soever it was gotten, and the words imply no more, then that it might be gotten out of divers offices, and that Fa. Parson's might use his talon, to have matters set down therein for his best advantage, whereupon perchance it fell out, that the letters of the Cardinal were mistaken in the Breve, as all the world may see, and it is particularly said where, in the book dedicated to the Inquisition pag. 59  
After this exception, there is yet again a refreshing of the memory of the priests their pride and arroganty, (for he draweth now to an end of his question which he proposed fol. 115. to wit, whether any sin were committed by them, whereof (he saith) he will not presume to determine any degree of sin) their making a dangerous division among Catholics, in the sight of the common enemy, and in time of persecution, and would not be brought from it by authority, or gentle persuasions, whereof infinite hurts, scandals, and other damages, have and do daily ensue. And if any man had proposed the state of the question in this sort, is it likely (saith he) that so learned, & godly Catholic men, would have defined, that their fact had incurred no sin at all? Is not this a pretty resolution of the question, which he had promised, pag 115. that is, whether any sin were committed by the priests their forbearance to yield their obedience, at the first sight of the Card. his letter? I would ask this question, when M. Blackwell himself sent first for M. Collington, and M. Charnocke, and could not with all his threatenings, obtain of them to say, that they did like of that which was done; what of all these matters here rehearsed by this author, were then to be objected against their fact? If answer be made, that afterward these things chanced, which would not have chanced, had all submitted themselves at the first: This answer is not to the matter: For we ask the question of the fact in itself considered. And before these divisions among Catholics began, what was to be thought thereof? Will you hear this author his own confession in this place. And yet (saith he) is their (the doctors of Paris) definition so limited, that they determine only of the fact in itself, and this also, according to the present information given them, excluding all other circumstances and considerations, that do or may aggravate the same. But what were these circumstances, and considerations? Were they any other than the tumults which are here so often inculcated? If they were, let them be specified, and they shallbe answered If they were not any other than these stirs, then how could these vitiate an act before they were; the act in itself considered, was not vicious, but lawful, (as here is avouched by the doctors) and lawfully done; and consequently (to end this Chapter) all the evil which followed, was by the misgovernment of the Archpriest, and the business of his adherents the jesuits, and such as stood with them, to defame the priests. And so for this matter, as the Apology saith, We end.   

CHAP. 14. How this Apologie-maker persuadeth his reader, that his Hol. was moved to imprison the two priests who went first to Rome, by certain letters which were written long after his resolution to imprison them, and how he iugleth about that which chanced unto them in Rome. Apol c. 9  
IN the ninth Chapter of the Apology, the author thereof promiseth to show, how after the first contradiction made by the priests, against his Holiness ordinance (as he falsely termeth it, if the Cardinal said true in his letters, Dum haec nostra ordinatio duraverit: So long as this our ordinance shall endure) the Priests went forward, and sent a couple to Rome: and what happened unto them: (in which the poor man committeth very gross faults) and how his Holiness confirmed the aforesaid ordinance, and Protectors letters with a new Breve, (which is an argument that the ordinance was not his Holiness ordinance, for than should it not have needed any confirmation) he beginneth his ninth Chapter in this manner. We have showed (a brazen face) in the former Chapter, with how great singularity and little reason (and yet not one answered) our discontented brethren (not without just cause) being so few, and such as they were, yet so many, and such, as their adversaries as yet never durst adventure to buckle with them in the matter in question, holding it greater wisdom for them to keep silence, then bewray their ignorance and folly, as this author hath adventured in this Apology, opposed themselves at the beginning to the first institution of this hierarchy, ordained by his Holiness; a point often urged, but never proved, there being nothing but the Cardinal's bare testimony, and some hearesayes, which the priests have showed was not sufficient, to prove that it was the Pope's ordinance. Besides, (as it is said) the Cardinal took it upon himself, as may appear by his letters: and against the whole body of our English Clergy, besides themselves, admitting the same, believing the protestations of some that it was his Holiness ordinance, not having seen themselves the Cardinal's letters, and being put in a fright to be excommunicated, if they would not yield themselves. Now it remaineth to consider with what resolution and obstinacy, they have prosecuted this their division, (the priests affirm, that this is the jesuits division, and the faction adhering unto them) notwithstanding all the means used to divert them from it, and quiet them, both by superiors commandments, and friends persuasion. These friends perchance were they, who divulged them to be schismatics, and the superior commanded them that they should not defend themselves, and their fame, (special means for quietness.) And first of all, about this point is to be noted, that if our said brethren had meant plainly and sincerely (as often they do profess in the two first discourses of their English book, entitled, Copies of discourses, etc. and in their Information to the doctors of Paris, they do avouch the same:) to wit, that their scruple was only, whether this matter came from his Haul or no? And whether Card. Caiet. the Protector (abusing the Pope's name) had appointed it of himself, and that they deferred only to concur with the rest of their brethren, until they might be acertained of this point. Well, good sir, if all this had been so, as so it was not, but the priests professions in the places cited, are either ignorantly, or maliciously misreported, as shall be showed, It had been a very easy matter to clear the doubt by many ways, yea without sending any to Rome, for that so public an act as this, under a Cardinal's letters patents, might have easily been inquired of without messengers. To what purpose should they have inquired at Rome for the Cardinal's letters, which they saw here in England? patents, that is to say, private letters, directed to a private man, for so were the Cardinals: the priests had no doubt of the Cardinal's good will, to further any design of the jesuits, neither did they ever doubt, but that he had instituted the authority, and therefore this was not the cause of their sending to Rome, to be informed, whether the Cardinal had done any such matter, for it was very credible, that he would have done much more than he did (if he had known how) at the jesuits request: but what were the other means? One letter of their own either to his Holiness himself, or to Card. Adebrandino his nephew, or any acquaintance of theirs that was in Rome, might soon have procured them a certificate of this matter, if they had been desirous to have known the truth; yea further, no man was there of the contrary part itself, which in this behalf would not have endeavoured to have procured them satisfaction. Good natures, who would so friendly have used the priests letters, & yet did cause the priests to be cast into prison: and lest that they should have miss of their purpose, they came themselves with the Sbirri, but they were the chief captains, and apprehended them, and were their guard to their prison: What if the Priest's letters to his Hol. or his nephew, had miscarried (as ordinarily it is ominous to all such letters as pass by the Post, and are suspected not to be to the jesuits liking) might not his Holiness have been induced to confirm the Cardinal's act, as a matter applauded by all the Priests in Englannd? If (saith this author) our brethren had meant plainly and sincerely (as often they do profess in the two first discourses of their English book, entitled, Copies of discourses, etc. and in their Information to the Doctors of Paris, they do avouch the same; to wit, that their scruple was only, whether this matter came from his Holiness or no, etc. Hath this author too soon forgotten his pain and travail taken in the precedent Chapter, where he brought divers scruples by way of arguments, for the proving of the Priests their delay to be lawful, of which fol. 110. this he affirmeth: And these reasons are set down and printed in two of the first Treatises of the English book, entitled, Copies of discourses, etc. Hath he not spent paper and ink, and a great deal of foolish labour, in going about (fol. 116. to the end of the Chapter) to disprove, and cannot, the scruples which were suggested by the priests to the doctors of Sorbon, and will he now tell his reader, that the priests do profess, both in these Treatises, and in their Information to the doctors of Paris, that their scruple was only, whether this matter came from his Holiness or no? Is his memory so short? or is his presumption such of the blind-obedient, that he may say what he list, and contradict it at his pleasure? yet with all these arguments to the contrary, the priests as well in these Discourses, as in their Information to the doctors of Sorbon, affirmed, that his Hol. commandment lawfully made known unto them, should end the matter: which was no proof, that they had no other scruple, but rather of their ready obedience to the Sea Apostolic, notwithstanding any difficulties, which did or might occur, and were specified in these Discourses, and in the Information to Paris: and they performed it with all humility and charity, by submitting themselves, and forgetting those most impious slanders, which had been spread against them of schism, etc. by the jesuits, and had lain still to this day in their grave, had not the jesuits raised them again, and the Archpriest given them free scope, to range in every seditious mouth without controlment, and for the greater encouragement to such overforward Amalekites, he published a Resolution, which he said he had from the mother City, that the refusers of his authority were schismatics.  
This then which this author affirmeth to have been the only scruple of the priests their delay, being proved not to have been the only scruple, but that there were many more, which this author took notice of in the places cited in the 8 chapter: it is evident, that the sending of letters to Rome had little availed the priests, the letters themselves (if they had been delivered to his Holiness hands) not being able to have answered to the devices of such adversaries, as they had there found, and consequently it was necessary, that some priests should be sent to deal with his Holiness in such doubts, as they had, with this resolution, that they would stand to whatsoever his Holiness should judge convenient for the present. And in this manner did the two priests go to Rome. And now followeth the story of their apprehension there by the jesuits and Sbirri, and what chanced unto them, while they were under the jesuits safe keeping. And because the blame of that which deserveth blame, is laid to Fa. Parsons; as that they were imprisoned before they were heard, and such like, this author to save Fa Parsons his sides (of which, by his running so quickly out of the fire of persecution in England, he knew Fa. Parsons had a very great care) goeth about to prove, that the two priests, there imprisoned in Rome (before they were heard) did not proceed from Fa. Parsons; and if he had gone no further than this, he might have left the matter in some suspense, and men might have beaten their brains in conceiving how such an injustice should have come into his Holiness head, but he will demonstrate how it came, and thereby prove that Fa. Parsons was no meddler in it, to wit, that divers did write to his Holiness against them, but alack their writing, although it might have somewhat excused Fa Parsons: yet doth it not show that F. Parsons was clear. He argueth, as though it had been an impossible matter for him to have dealt in this action, because so many other did write: but what if all these writers writ nothing concerning that point, with which Fa. Parson's is charged; to wit: the imprisonment of the two priests before they were heard, to whom shall this fact be attributed? to his Holiness, who is known to be both of mild, and most religious disposition, or to one of a clean contrary spirit, but in that place, and credit, as he hath been trusted, both by his Holiness, and used by the Cardinal Caietane, Protector, as a chief director in all our English affairs? But of this there can be no doubt, but that many did write to some, or other, and those letters were perchance showed to the Pope, or else he heard somewhat of them. Let us then examine this matter. The first place of the letter writers is given to his Holiness Nuntij in France and Flanders. But in this he hath not done wisely, they being both strangers, and likely to have had little commerce with the English, especially he in France (if then there were any) and as for him in Flanders, I am certainly informed from his own mouth, that he never writ against these Priests, much less would he suggest, that they were to be imprisoned before they were heard, and be used, as shallbe declared. The next letters here mentioned (although not for such as should persuade his Holiness to that course, which was taken) were written by Fa. Bellarmine, wherein he certifieth Fa. Parsons, that his Holiness so greatly misliked their troublesome fact, that he had told him, that if they came to Ferrara he would cause them to be imprisoned: who gave these informations to his Holiness, that without more ado he was resolved to imprison them, if they had come to Ferrara? If the memory of some, who read the letter, do not extraordinarily fail them, this was an answer to Fa. Parson's letter, which he had written to Fa. Bellarmine, concerning the Priests coming towards the Pope: But yet there is a starting hole left, and where is that? the letters of many of our nation, some of the principal, some of the most zealous, and here-hence the Pope took his motive to imprison the priests. If this than be so, then must these letters be written at the least, before that his Holiness could by these writer's persuasions determine, to cast the two priests in prison, and yet not so long before, as it should be impossible that the writers could understand of any such attempts, against which they are said to write, or to persuade his Holiness to this or that course in this or that matter, but neither of these chanced in our present case. For all the letters (at the least brought here for proof or instance) were written either after that his Hol. was induced to make this resolution, or else so long before, as it was impossible the writers thereof should have knowledge of any such attempt.  
The first in the rank of writers is D. Stapleton, who (as this author thinketh) was dead before the two priests came into Flanders (he forgot himself that he had said fol. 120, that the priests came not into Flanders, but passed by France. But (alack) the good man's memory doth much fail him.) How then? what is to be said of him, and his opinion, concerning these two priests, and their attempts against the Subordination? and how was he one, upon whose information, or instigation his Holiness resolved to imprison the two priests? marry sir, you must go look in the 4. Chapter fol 40. a piece of a letter of D. Stapletons' to Fa. Parsons which was written the sixth of july 1597. but what doth, or can this concern the priests coming to his Holiness, toward the later end of the year 1598., to deal about a matter which was not before the 7 of March in the same year 1598., as appeareth by the date of the Cardinal's letter, Apology ca 8. fol. 104? There is also a piece of another letter of the same man to to the Cardinal Protector, of the first of May 1598., which although it were written after that the Subordination was instituted, yet it was written before that it was known in England: for (to our remembrance) we had no knowledge thereof, until it was May here with us. But howsoever this was, it was impossible, that it could concern the two priests their coming to his Holiness, for this was not so suddenly determined in England, although upon the first sight of the Cardinal's letter the Archpriest was told, that there was just cause for them, to go to his Holiness. By this than it appeareth, that D. Stapletons' letters, which were to Fa. Parsons and to the Protector, could not induce his Holiness, to imprison the two Priests, who came to deal about the Subordination. Let us now see what the second testimony availeth him. This testimony was of principal men, who writ some months (saith this author fol. 124.) before these two messengers came over into Flanders (he said France 120.) but their negotiations in England were heard of, and known, and these principal men (of whom the most principal standeth for the priests, and is joined with them in affection, and action in Rome at this present) writ their letter to the general of the jesuits upon this voice, which they heard, when you do justice, you shall make also peace, (a heavy saying for such as will be proved to have done as great an injury as may be, by a public diffamation of schism, and what not, against Catholic priests, without just cause.) But what is this to the purpose? how was his Holiness upon this letter resolved to imprison the two priests, who were in the way to him, for and concerning the Subordination which was made? the General perchance of the jesuits did show this letter to his Holiness, and thereby the negotiations of these two, and their fellows came also to be known to his Holiness: all this goeth very currant. But what if those men (now become principal) neither heard of these 2. priests (as dealers in this action) nor of any other, not only not in particular, but neither in general? What if they could not possibly hear, that there was any Subordination known in England, and much less, that any did delay to admit thereof, when they writ this letter to the General of the jesuits? How shameless will this author be judged, who would bring these principal men their letters, as a motive to his Holiness, to imprison these two priests, before he would hear what they had to say? This Subordination was made at Rome the seventh of March in the year 1598., and if the messenger had stridden a black horse to bring it into England, yet could there not be any negotiations in England conveniently either by these two priests, or others concerning the same, in so short a time, as that these 17 principal men (unless they were altogether attending, as it were to have entertained the same messenger in Flanders) considered maturely of the negotiations, which were in England, could burnish up a letter, and dispatch it upon the eighteenth of March, in the same year 1598., as here is cited in the margin fol. 123.  
Now follow the letters of divers zealous men. When (as this author saith) these messengers were in their way indeed for the other were written, especially those of the 17. principal men, when the priests were in their negotiations, before they set forward, as it is said fol. 124.) & these men writ indeed very sharply, and with such confidence, as they might give some suspicion to a wise man, that all was not well in England, but yet there is no persuasion to have the messengers cast into prison, until they were heard: a duty which they might challenge, if in no other respect, yet at least for their travail in God's Church, for which they deserved a good opinion of the governors thereof. The first here cited are from Douai 25. Octob. 1598. to the Protector; to which some have acknowledged their error in subscribing. These letters do not clear Fa. Parsons for being the cause of his Holiness resolution to imprison the two priests: for in this Apology it is confessed fol. 120, that his Holiness was resolved upon the 17. of October 1398. to cast them into prison, for such date doth the letter bear, which F. Bellarmine (now Cardinal) is said to have written to Fa. Parsons, to inform him, that his Holiness so greatly misliked their troublesome fact, that he had told him, that if they came to Ferrara, he would cause them to be imprisoned. If these then of the 25. of Octob. came too late, to put such a resolution into his Holiness head, what shall we say of these which came after? for the next letters are from M. D. Worthington to the Protector, and these bear date the 30. of October from Brussels. Next March D. Peerse (who was the first in the rank of the 17. principal men, but now God knoweth, what place he shall have, and among whom, for that he is joined with the priests in Rome, and in that action) D. Caesar Clement, that succeeded D. Stapleton in the office of assistanceship to the Nuntius in Flanders, in all English affairs (a man that was never in England, but (to give him his right) the fittest man for that purpose, as matters go, and worthy to succeed D. Stapleton, or any far greater man than he, in that kind of managing English affairs) D. Richard Hall, three doctors, but what these, or other writ most earnestly, and gravely to the same effect, as the other did, by all likelihood this author knoweth not: For (as he saith) he had not the copies of their letters, when he writ this Apology, but he met with a letter of M. Licentiat Wright, deane of Cortrac in Flanders to the Protector, which is here set down in the Apology, wherein this deane hath little cause to thank this author, who would discredit him so much, as to set down his judgement of two priests, whom he never saw. And although his letter do exceed the limits of all modesty, yet doth it not any whit avail this author for proof of that, for which it is brought, that is, that his Holiness was thereupon resolved, to imprison the two priests: for this letter beareth date 10. Novembris 1598. as appeareth here fol. 126, which was a fair while after his Holiness had that resolution, as appeareth by F. Bellarmine (now Card.) his letter of the 17. of Octob. 1598. cited by this author fol. 120. yet goeth this fellow on very smoothly, and not without great applause of the blind obedient in this manner.  
By this then (saith he) and other letters that came to his Holiness (as you must suppose) or to the Protector (he should have added, or to the general of the jesuits, or to Fa. Parsons, for all these here related, are to some of these, and not one to his Holiness, nor all to the Protector, nor about these matters, as in their places it is confessed in the Apology) about this time, and were related to his Holiness by him (his Holiness being all this while at Ferrara, and the Cardinal at Rome, or at some place of recreation in those parts) every man may see, whether he had just cause to be moved, or no, and to resolve to restrain them at their arrival (you must understand at Ferrara from whence Fa Bellarmine, now Card. is said fol. 120. to have certified Fa. Parsons by his letter of the 17. of October, that the Pope had told him, that if they came to Ferrara, he would cause them to be imprisoned) but much more when after 17. or 18. days stay in Rome (as before hath been said) they could not be induced by the Protectors persuasion, to any quiet course at all. That which was before said, was said fol. 121. which must be one day unsaid: for there he affirmeth, that the Card. Caietan, and Burgesius said, and did many things to the Priests, which are most falsely related. For the Cardinal Burgesius entertained them very friendly, and being certified upon his earnest request (set on by Fa. Parsons, to know it at that time) what was the cause of their coming to Rome, he promised them according to their request, to procure them audience, before they should be judged, which they did the more earnestly request, for that they had understood by Fa. Parsons (who was then immediately departed from the Cardinal, but was before certified, that the two priests attended his departure) that his Holiness was incensed against them, & nothing else passed between the Card. Burgesius and them at that time, and after this they went to the Card. Caietan so soon as they could, after that they understood of his return to the city, and he was also very importunate, to know the cause of their coming to Rome, which when they discovered, he seemed to be much troubled, especially when they talked of the Subordination, as his fact: yet concluded thus with them, that they should bring in writing what they had to say concerning the Subordination, & the appurtenances to which they accorded, offering to have the matter (as belonging properly to him) ordered by him (if so it could be) without troubling his Holiness therewith, and requesting his furtherance in such other matters, as were only in his Holiness to grant; And thus they departed with resolution to return to the Card. with their difficulties in writing, and agreed with one, who should have written for them the copy which they were to present to the Card. but they were intercepted by the jesuits and Sbirri, of which F. Parsons was the chief leader. And this was all which passed between the Card. Caietan and them, as the Card. well knoweth, and this was upon the feast day of S. Thomas the Apostle, when the waters had begun to rise in Tiber, which overflowed the city, and upon S. Thomas of Canterbury his day, about the first or second hour in the night, the two priests were carried away to prison, perchance for the solemnizing of that feast in some reformed godly manner.  
This Author having showed (to such as must not see) how that the Pope resolved to imprison the two Priests upon the letters here cited: now he will persuade (such as must believe) that it was not possible, that Fa. Parson's could be the cause of their imprisonment. It may be seen also (saith he) how unjustly they do calumniate, and accuse Fa. Parsons, as the cause of all their trouble, considering those letters were written from Flanders, upon the two messengers first coming over, so as Fa Parsons had neither time to procure those letters from Flanders, neither is it likely, that men so grave, learned, and wise (as these are) would be induced by another man's request, to write such letters under their own hands, to so great personages (the Protector, the General of the jesuits, and Fa. Parsons) and that in so important a matter, except they had thought as they wrote, and their judgements had been conform to their letters, and thus much of the first point about their imprisonment. Are not these effectual persuasions, that F. Parson's could not be the cause of their trouble? suppose all these letters had been written upon the first coming over of the two priests (as they were not, nor the soonest of them which concerned the two priests, in almost two months after) let us also suppose, that his Holiness was induced to resolve upon the imprisoning these two priests, by these letters which we have showed could not be (the soonest of them being written upon the 25. of October 1598. as is confessed in the Apology fol. 125. and his Holiness resolved upon the 17. of the same month before, to imprison them at Ferrara, as is confessed also in the Apology fol. 120) it was so long before their going, and it was so well known, that some were to go, as one of the now busiest Agents told one of them for certain, that whosoever went in that affair, should at their arrival be cast into prison. And although these Flanders men, who writ, were so persuaded in conscience to write as they did, and did therefore write, because they were so persuaded, this is no proof, that they were not induced by others, to have such a conscience to think or to write in that manner, and some of them have acknowledged, and have been and are very sorry, that they suffered themselves to be induced by D. Barret to subscribe unto that letter from Douai. So that this is a poor devise, and a silly persuasion, that Fa. Parson's could not be the cause of the two priests their trouble, who was known to have his Agents in all these parts, if himself were ashamed to have his letters to be seen for any such matter. And it not being proved out of any of these letters of Flanders, that any of these great personages (the Cardinal, the General of the jesuits, and Fa. Parsons) to whom these letters were sent, were persuaded by them that these two Priests were to be imprisoned, before they were heard, the author leaveth the wound in Fa Parsons side, as wide as it was before, unless to heal up that, he will wound his Holiness much deeper, as who (being reputed for a most mild, and wise man) should resolve upon the imprisonment of a couple of Catholic priests, coming (as it were) bleeding from the camp of God's Church, to open unto him such difficulties as were to be redressed, either concerning their whole Church, or some members thereof, who had lately challenged unto them an extraordinary superiority over their fellow labourers, without any warrant from him; and to open unto him what peril might thereby come to the Catholic cause: and offering themselves & their cause with all submission to his Holiness, as the effect also proved (whatsoever this slanderous Libeler suggesteth to his blind obedient Reader) But this author showeth whatsoever he saith that he careth not, if his Holiness his sides be pierced, so that he may keep Fa. Parson's sides whole. Now to that which ensueth (saith this author) there is extant a letter, written by F. Parsons to M. Bishop, of the ninth of October 1599 containing a certain brief capitulation of the principal points, that passed in this action of the messengers restraint in Rome, etc. To which letter there is answer made in the English book, where this letter is set down at large, and the answer is such, as this author with a little snarling only at it, letteth it pass quietly, neither is it a cavillation, but a very material point, that the notary (so much talked of in that letter, and in a wicked false letter of the 20. of February 1599 under the name of M. A. as if M. Martin Array had been the doer of it) was a jesuite, and that he put in and out what F. Parsons would have him, being himself the examiner (although the Pope's Commissary did twice or thrice show himself in that time) and if every days examination had been read (as it was not) in the presence of him, who was examined: yet F. Parsons might cause somewhat to be written otherwise then the prisoner did deliver it, and to have somethings blotted out again, when the prisoners answer was contrary to his former information, given by him, either to his Holiness or others; neither was every days examination subscribed the same day for the prisoner never set his hand, but to the last sheet, which was of such impertinent stuff, as it might be added to any examination, and the same hand which writ the examination, being a jesuits hand, & at the commandment of F. Parsons he might (notwithstanding the scoring of the margin, and the after registering (if it were registered) show what he listed, and if their examinations be extant (as here it is said) then will appear in some of them many things blotted out, sometime some words, which F. Parsons caused to be writ contrary to that which the prisoner delivered; sometime a whole question, with some part of the answer thereto, when F. Parson's could not obtain of the prisoner to make such answer, as he would have him: for remedy whereof F. Parsons took always afterward this course, that he would never have his question written down, until he had heard what answer the prisoner would make, that if the answer were such as he could wrest it to his purpose, than should the question be set down, and himself would for brevities sake frame the answer, about which there was divers times some alteration about words, which the prisoner used not, but was often contented to let F. Parsons have his will, when the words were such as he knew he could interpret to good sense, notwithstanding his examinators false intention, hoping always, that he should have so much favour, when the matter should grow to an issue. And although that neither all the examination was ever taken, nor that which was taken, let to stand as it was taken, but somewhat was blotted out (as is said) and many answers out off, under pretence sometime of brevity, sometime that there should be another Interrogatory, to which such an answer would be more fit: the prisoners subscribed, & swore, but to what? Not that there was all which was asked, or answered, nor that F. Parsons had not dealt in this kind, but that those answers which were there made, were truly & sincerely given, which maketh nothing to the clearing of F. Parsons, or the proving of his honest dealing. And now you shall hear, what matters this author hath picked out of their examinations, and thereby perceive, what this good fellow would say.  
First then, to talk of substantial points (saith this author) the examination of M. Charnocke beginning the 4. of january, and that of M. Bishop the 10. of january 1599, and passing over all other demands, which these men call impertinent, they were asked, what was the cause and reason of their coming to Rome: who sent them, etc. To this M. Charnocke being first examined, answered in these words: Causa adventus nostri haec fuit, ut rogaremus humillimè, etc. The cause of our coming to Rome was this, that we might beseech most humbly, and with all obedience the Sea Apostolic, that this order appointed by Card. Caietan (for composing controversies in England, and to make peace) not being hitherto confirmed by his Holiness (as we understood it is said by divers priests, and namely Fa. Sicklemore, and others) might be mitigated or changed, or some other order appointed with it for satisfaction of very many priests, who do think (reserving notwithstanding due honour to the Sea Apostolic) that by this way appointed only, the strises begun cannot so well be ended, etc. But if it should please his Holiness to confirm this authority, and to admit no other, then are these priests content to yield all obedience, etc. and as for the Superior appointed, ●… spoke with the Archpriest before I came forth, and desired him not to be offended with me, if I went to Rome about this matter, and he gave me leave to go to deal for the change thereof. Thus far the Apology, by which it may appear, what cause there was of the Priests so long trouble in Rome, their apprehension by jesuits, and Sbirri, upon the feast of S. Tho. of Canterbury, the most principal feast of any particular in all our country, their keeping so close by the jesuits, as they might not go out of their several prisons, to hear mass upon some of the most principal feasts in God's Church; their being debarred to speak, not only one of them with the other, but also with any, to ask council (except the jesuits,) their being debarred to come to the altar otherwise then lay men, until the 7. or 8. of February, notwithstanding they had by virtue of a jubilee received absolution, by the same jesuits from all censures, which it was supposed that either they had, or might have incurred by this journey to Rome, their continuance in close prison, until the 8. of April (notwithstanding they had so discharged themselves before the two Card. Caietan and Burghesius, upon the 17. of February in the English College, as both they themselves and the whole College were told, that they should within two or three days after, have their liberty) their being afterwards (although somewhat more easily) imprisoned, the one until the 22. of April, the other until the 6. of May: their being banished their country, and confined the one to France, the other to Lorraine, without any one penny, or pennyworth allowed them, for their maintenance in those places.  
By this also it may appear, how injuriously they were accused of schism, etc. and with what wickedness this matter was prosecuted in England against them. but to this deposition, what saith this author? Thus he said (saith he) which how true or probable, or coherent it is to that, which since they have said, done, and set forth in their books, I will leave to the reader to judge: and all the readers could never as yet find any particular, more than this author doth, in which they have been contrary thereto: but how doth this answer suit with the rest of this Apology, which referreth the reader to the priests their books, to see what he would have them understand, and yet hath he taken such order, as no man must read them?  
The principal matters being then answered by this author in this manner, that the Reader may see, where he is forbidden to look, he will answer to one point, or two in M. Charnocks deposition. The one is where he said, that the Archpriest gave him leave to go, which (saith he) the Archpriest denieth, for that he saw no just cause. M. Charnocke affirmeth it, and can put the Archpriest in mind thereof, and of the cause that moved him thereto: to wit, when M. Charnocke told him, that the matter concerning himself in that kind, it were a necessary point of modesty, to give leave: upon which he was bidden to go, if he would; Neither doth the Archpriest his answer to M. Bishop here cited, make any thing against this. For there passed some months between, in which space he might alter his mind by the advise of his privy Counsel. Yet this much is here affirmed by M. Bishop under his oath, that he did not prohibit him: which is an argument, that it was not a thing impossible for him, to bid M Charnocke go, although no doubt he had rather they should both have stayed at home.  
The second point is, that M. Charnocke said: Quam plures sacerdotes, Very many priests were not satisfied with his Holiness order. Where did M. Charnocke affirm this? Is it not possible for this fellow to deal truly in any one thing? Hath not M Charnocke expressly called it An order appointed by the Cardinal Caietane, and must we now have a trick to cousin the Reader, & make him believe that M. Charnocke should say, that very many priests were not satisfied with his Holiness order? But let us see how like he is still unto himself; which speech of very many priests (saith he) he doth explicate afterward, what number it might import in particular, being pressed thereunto by an Interrogatory in these words, Interrogatus, etc. Being asked, what the number of priests now in England seemed unto him, he answered, that he could not tell for certain: but he thought 300. more or less. Then being asked, how many of these he did certainly know to approve this their mission, and to be privy to the matters that should be proposed, and would stand to those things, that these two should handle, and conclude in their names: He answered, I do know for certain 14. or 15, albeit I have not had conference with them all myself. Thus far the Apology.  
How feign would he play at some game, who stretcheth his point thus far? M. Charnocke used these words, Very many priests, and M. Charnocke declared what he said to be true, by avouching the letters, which he brought with him: whereof some did testify, that the priests thereabouts residing were of such mind; other residing in other places, witnessed as much of the priests who passed by them. M. Bishop remaining in a third place, could testify for the priests which were near unto him: and himself remaining in a 4. place, could say somewhat concerning them that were there resident. And thus was it explicated, how he said, Quam plures sacerdotes, very many priests. But now note, how this author would patch up some matter. F. Parsons not being content with this answer, urged M Charnocke as it is here confessed; how many he did certainly know to approve this their mission. To which M Charnocke (as I understand) made this answer: that he would not depose upon any certainty for more than those, with whom he had talked, or had some particular message, or notice from them, which were to such a number. And this is that mystery unfolded, even by the Apology itself, how that very many might be said to be of such, or such disposition, and yet but few to be named, for whom, upon certain and proper knowledge, a man may depose; as the question is here confessed to have been asked. And in the same sense is M. Bishop's answer here also acknowledged in these words, Puto me certè scire plus minus 12. I do think, that I know for certain 12. priests more or less to be of our opinion and privy to these matters. And besides this changing of the case to a certain knowledge, it is otherwise also altered. For the question was not only for, how many do you certainly know? but for some particulars, which perchance were not necessary for all to talk upon, who notwithstanding might give their full consent to have matters altered from that they now were: and reposed a trust, aswell in the messengers, as others who were privy to all the circumstances. So that notwithstanding this oath that 14. or 15. were thus far forward in the action, there might be the better part of the 300. who were said not to be satisfied with this order (most falsely and fraudulently suggested here, to have been known to be his Holiness order) appointed by Cardinal Caietan, as M. charnock's words are a little before acknowledged fol. 129. But yet there is an other proof of the small number of contradictors: and what is that? Mary sir, M. Charnocke confessed that the first to his knowledge, whom the Archpr. called to confer his new authority withal, was M. Collington and himself, which answer is here both falsely and fraudulently said to have been made to this interrogatory, who were the first beginners, abetters, and setters on in this contradiction against the Cardinal's letters. It is very true that F. Parson's would sometimes use these words: and the bauble that every one of the blind obedient are still playing withal, the faction. But against these did M. Charnocke always except: and F. Parsons was to change his lewd terms before answer would be made. But how doth this prove any thing to this author's purpose? Would he have his Reader to think, that a matter first proposed privately at the courtesy of the proposer (for his letters were to him in private, and not to the priests) to such as he should pick out for his purpose (suppose it were the most wicked thing that could be devised) should displease, or could be contradicted by more, than were called, or sooner than by the first that heard it? The marginal note I take as his cognizance to know him, and his fellows: The first beginners (saith he in the margin) of this sedition M. Collington, and M. Charnocke by his own confession. He might better have made this note in the margin, The first finders out of this most wicked, and seditious plot of the jesuits, M. Collington, etc. They (as is said) were first called, and in post haste they were sent for, and M. Heburne to give their liking. And we (saith the Apology repeating M Charnocks answer) having read the Card. Protectors letters, began to doubt not so much of the authority itself (that is, that the Cardinal had appointed such a thing: for so doth this Apology confess fol 129. that M. Charnocke acknowledged this order, to have been appointed by Card. Caietane, neither do M. Charnocke his letters of the 20 of February cited, and abused by these fellows, prove that after he thought any other, then that it was the Cardinals doing: Notwithstanding that the jesuits laboured to have him write, that it was the Pope's order, and would sometime make bold with this, where the law was in their own hands) as of the good manner of procuring it. They perceived that it was got by surreption, which is a sufficient cause to except against it: whereby also it may appear, how ignorantly this fellow cumbereth his margin, where he hath made this note, Ergo not doubting you are bound to obey. For first M. Charn. doth not say, that they had no doubt of the authority itself, but that they doubted not so much of the authority itself, as of the good manner of procuring it. For they saw it evidently, that it was an ordinance of the Cardinal under his hand and seal, though in a private letter to M. Blackwell, and his words were plain: Dum haec nostra ordinatio duraverit: so long as this ordinance shall endure. Yet knowing how this Cardinal was carried in our English affairs by the jesuits, it was neither felony nor treason, to think he might stretch himself to pleasure them. And if the matters had been handled with any indifferency, doubtless neither these two, nor any other would ever have called the matter in question: but there being a notorious partiality descried in this order, and such as might be the overthrow of our afflicted Church in England, the Priests had reason to make some stop at the first discovery thereof, as justly they might have done, although they had not doubted at all, but that it was ordained by his Holiness appointment, or by his Holiness letters, there being sufficient cause to persuade them, that it was gotten by surreption, which doth vitiate or make void his Holiness letters: as M. Collington proveth evidently in his first reason: and consequently the priests were not bound to obey it: and the less for that they prepared themselves to go to Rome to deal with his Holiness thereabout; and in such manner as is set down and acknowledged in this Apology fol. 129. out of M. charnock's examination. And the partiality which was urged by M. Charnocke, as justly feared by M. Blackwell, is declared every where by the priests to be this: that the jesuits who were the chief head of sedition and faction in England against the priests, were now become their judges and executioners in the shape of a Secular priest, and no way subject to any order, which was pretended to have been taken for peace between them & the priests: and these to their judgements seemed serious and grave causes, not to yield themselves at the beginning: which their not yielding this author termeth an opposition. Here we see (saith he) how serious and grave the causes were of this opposition at the beginning: and how at the first they did not doubt of the authority itself, nor of the Popes will therein, as after they have pretended. Where is this seen? or where is any mention of any such persuasion, that the Pope's will was known therein, or that the priests did not doubt thereof? This fellow must needs borrow leave now and then to play with his blind obedient, and make them believe that they do see that, which himself doth not, nor can see: for in this answer of M. Charnocke, there is nothing concerning the Pope, but only the Cardinal Protectors letters, by which the authority was instituted by him, and might have been thought to have been authentically done (if he had any Commission from his Holiness) or not authentically done (if he had none) so that no Commission appearing, the priests might justly doubt thereof, although not so much as of the other, to wit, the manner of procuring it, which they might perceive was by surreption. And for this cause M. Charnocke said not, that they doubted not at all at the first of the authority itself, nor of the Popes will therein, as this author doth most falsely suggest, but this only, we having read the Cardinal's Protectors letters began to doubt, not so much of the authority itself, as of the good manner of procuring it, as in the same page this author himself setteth down M. charnock's answer. But yet note another slippery part of this fellow. He citeth M. charnock's answer concerning what was done the first day, that the authority was made known unto them, in which you see how he abuseth his Reader, in proving thereby the smallness of the number of the priests. But he ceaseth not here: for he concludeth in this manner, We see also, that the Priests could not be many, nor of great account, that resolved this embassage to Rome. And good sir, how do you see this? Forsooth M. Charnocke said, that the chief priests that dealt with him and M. Bishop, were M. Collington, M. Cope, M johnson, M. Monford, and others; and could not many be included in that word others, nor men of great account? if these that were named, were of no great account, were not this apparently an odious manner of writing? I could retort the phrase, and show that some of these that are named, and others not named yet, comprehended in this word others, were such as for their merit, and labours in God's Church can hardly be matched by all the faction which is against them: but we will leave this fellow tumbling in his own dirt, and pleasing himself in his folly, howsoever he displeaseth men of judgement, who have often difficulties, whether they may better lament him (who by this continuance therein giveth an earnest penny, that others lamentations will nothing profit him) or laugh at him (whose folly is without measure, and still proceedeth from folly to folly.) But now that he hath properly let his Reader see that they could not be many nor of great account, that resolved of the embassage to Rome, he will prove, that the mission and commission was not authentical, because M. Bishop, who was one of them that were sent, affirmed that he did not know, who was the first author of this mission, nor why they two were chosen above the rest for this mission: As though a matter might not be as lawfully taken in hand by one, who knoweth not who first did motion it, or why he was requested to it, rather than another, as by one who knoweth both the first motioner, and why he was employed, yet his Reader must hereby perceive, what authentical mission, and commission it was, and yet is there much bad dealing in the relation of M. Bishop's answer, as appeareth in a treatise joined to M.D. Ely his notes upon the Apology, fol. 13 But yet further (saith he) to say a word or two of the very chief point of their commission, and cause of coming to Rome, you have heard, that M. Charnocke saith, and sweareth before, that their only coming was to supplicate most humbly to the sea Apostolic, etc. he hath made his blind reader believe, that he hath seen, and perceived; now his Reader must in like sort believe, that he hath heard; what? M. Charnocke say and swear that their only coming was to supplicate, etc. if his reader's memory will serve him so far, as to remember what he hath lately read, concerning this point, or turn back some two or three leaves, he shall find this word only foisted in by this author, to make his Reader believe in the next page, fol. 133 that M Bishop and M. Charnocke did scarce seem agreed in the causes of their coming to Rome.  
After this boldness, to abuse his reader for his purpose, he saith a word or two of the very chief point of their Commission & cause of coming to Rome, which he thus abridgeth, to supplicate most humbly to the Sea Apostolic, that if the foresaid order of the Archpriests authority, were not yet confirmed by his Holiness, as they had heard Fa. Sicklemore, and some others had reported, that then the same might be either mitigated, or changed, or some other order appointed together with it. Thus hath he laid down the priests their plain song; now mark what descant he hath made thereon: so as now (saith he) our brethren seemed not to doubt of the truth or value of the Cardinal's letters, nor were not yet grown to be so bold, as to affirm that his Holiness could not do it without their consents, except he violated the Canons; nor that it was aforreine jurisdiction subject to treason, and Praemunire, if it were acknowledged: and other such like devices.  
Our brethren never grew to any such boldness (as he termeth it) as to affirm any thing of Treason, or Praemunire, but only showed, that they had just cause to forbear to admit the authority, both in regard that by the opinions of divers men of judgement in the laws of our country, this our case may and will be drawn within the Compass of an old law, etc. viz. the law of Praemunire, as it is set down in the English book pag. 6. where also is showed, that by the accepting hereof the priests might be taken, for to comply with the chief authors thereof in all such state matters, as were practised by them. And these were rather causes for them, why they were not over hasty to admit of this authority, than arguments urged against it: And yet neither of these causes have or can be proved insufficient. And for more proof, that these causes were not given in any other sort, the priests did submit themselves, when they did see his Holiness letters in confirmation thereof. But now let us hear the first part of this man's descant. So as now (saith he) our brethren seemed not to doubt of the truth, or value of the Cardinal's letters, nor were not yet grown to be so bold, as to affirm, that his Holiness could not do it without their consents, except he violated the canons. How doth this fellow upon M. charnock's answer gather this? If there were no doubt of the truth, and value of the Cardinal's letters, why is it here said, that M. Charnocke put this doubt, if the foresaid order of the Archpriests authority were not yet confirmed by his Holiness? Did this speech imply a doubt or no? if it did, how boldly doth this fellow descant upon a doubt, and say that it was no doubt? if it did not imply a doubt, let him tell us, how a man may more properly make a doubt, then by this word if? Perchance he may mean, that the priests did not doubt, but that those letters were the Cardinal's letters, and then he saith well: but he doth not descant right: for the question was, whether that the Card. letters had received any force by his Hol. confirmation, as may appear by that, which is here by himself set down: and whereas he saith, that the priests were not so bold, as to affirm at that time, that his Holiness could not do it without their consents, except he violated the canons, the priests were bold to affirm (with humility, and reverence to the Sea Apostolic) as much. But how doth he prove, that they were not yet grown to that boldness? Forsooth because no such matter was set down in this point of M. Charnocks answer; as though every thing must of necessity be set down, which the priests had to say, or could say▪ but this is perchance an idle shift & now devised by the priests, and coined for the purpose: Listen then to that, which is set down by this author in the Epistle to his Holiness past the middle thereof: Yet a few not the twentieth part of our English Clergy, and presumed to impugn the same, (the Subordination) calling first in question the said Cardinals letters, their truth, faith, and integrity, the indifferency of his person in judgement, and affection. Then also your Holiness meaning, yea your authority itself, whether you could do it without them or no, (the canons of Holy Church observed) with other like unseemly oppositions for prosecution whereof they sent two of their company to Rome. But this was forgotten when the author of the Apology came to this Chapter. Furthermore it was objected against the two priests at Rome, that they had there given out, that they doubted whether his Holiness could appoint them a Superior without their privity and consent (observing the laws of holy Church) as may appear by the libel Master Doctor Haddock, and Master Martin Array delivered up to his Holiness (as was said) 10. january 1599: for there in the second Article are these words: Ipsi verò nihil credere, nec acquiescere, sed haesitare ad omnia, non admittere authoritatem, vocare in dubium an vera essent, quae literis illis continebantur; Sanctissimi jussu hanc esse constitutam, & si verum id erat, dubitare tamen, an pontifex facere possit, ut ipsis inconsultis, ac invitis, superiorem ijs constituerit, quod postea etiam quum Romam appulerunt dicere, ac saepius etiam repetere non sunt veriti, ut per testes idoneos probare possumus. That is, but they (speaking of M Collington and M. Charnocke) when the Archpriest first sent for them, would believe nothing nor obey, but did stick at all things: they would not admit the authority: they called it in doubt, whether those things were true, which were contained in these letters (of the Cardinals) namely, that the authority was constituted by his Hol. commandment: and if it were so, yet they doubted, whether his Hol. could appoint them a Superior, unwitting, and unwilling thereto: which afterward they feared not to say, when they came to Rome, yea and repeated it often, as we can prove by convenient witnesses. And yet would this fellow persuade his reader, that the priests did first contradict, or oppose themselves against the authority, and then afterwards find some reasons for it, yea after the two priests were gone to Rome, notwithstanding these plain testimonies of his own, that the priests had these difficulties at the beginning. But perchance M. charnock's answer put all these things out of his memory: & non putarat, he thought not upon it. How so? Forsooth M. Charnocke said, that the cause of his coming was to supplicate most humbly to the Sea Apostolic, that if the aforesaid order of the Archpriests authority were not yet confirmed by his Holiness, as they had heard that Fa. Sicklemore, and some other had reported, that then the same might be either mitigated, or changed, or some other order appointed with it, thus he collecteth M. Charnocks answer: and thereupon cometh with a, so as now our brethren seemed not to doubt etc. nor were yet grown to be so bold, as to affirm that his holiness could not do it without their consents, except he violated the canons, etc. The humble spirit of the priests (who having many and most just causes to deal in other manner then by way of supplication) being measured by his own proud humour of wrangling where he had no just cause, brought him into this error. Next follow the reasons or causes, which moved M. Bishop to come to Rome, which were six, and he here setteth them down, and proveth that he, and M. Charnocke did scarce seem to agree in the causes of their coming. And how so? Forsooth M. Charnocke said, and swore, that his only coming was to supplicate etc. fol 132. But whosoever will turn to M. Charnocks oath set down fol 129. shall find this juggler, and how that this word only is here foisted in by him for this purpose.  
And so much (saith he) of this, for that it were overlong to run over all points (and not find one for his purpose, without a little of his art, which will serve him no longer, then until it cometh into the air; for then all this painting and false colours will easily be descried, and himself worthily laughed at, for his so gross counterfeiting:) yet this in brief they affirmed both of them, that as for the Archpriest, they brought nothing lawfully proved against him, either in learning, life, or manners: and the like they affirmed of the jesuits. An evident argument even to F. Parsons and the rest, that they went to Rome, to deal in peaceable manner with his Holiness concerning these matters; being able to bring more matters under the hands of sufficient witnesses, than the Archpriest will be ever able to answer, and which in any court of justice would have hindered his confirmation. But this author setteth down his matters somewhat warily: the priests brought nothing against the Archpr. lawfully proved (as for the jesuits, let any indifferent man judge, whether the priests were in place to have meddled with them further, then that the jesuits were their jailors) somewhat belike they could have said, but they brought nothing lawfully proved: M. Bishop (saith he) said he heard his fellow Rob. say, that M. Collington and himself had heard the Archpriest utter an heretical proposition: which was, that they could not appeal from him to Rome. They both affirm, that he stood very peremptorily in it, after that he was warned thereof: and if M. Bishop did affirm, that this proposition was heretical, or the author of the Apology do think so of it himself, I wonder that M. Bishop's fellow Rob. was not asked the question, his examination not being ended in some 6. or 7. days after that M. Bishop was dispatched, as appeareth here, fol. 134. and this is one special matter which this author choose out of many, over which it had been overlong to run over. Will ye hear another in brief, as he saith? M. Charnocke being asked, what money they had, made answer, for 30. crowns more than M. Bishop took notice of: which perchance this author here inserted, that his reader might give credit to M. Bishop, when he said, as is extant in the English book, pa. 171. The examinations were: what is your name: how old: where remained you in England: how and which way came you over: what money brought you over with you, etc. and much such like impertinent stuff to fill up the papers, that when we came to the matter itself, they might be brief, taking barely what we came about, without the reasons & persuasions of it: yea objecting against it, and perverting it what they could.  
The third principal point which (notwithstanding the haste) was in no case to be overslipped, but rather run over, is a disagreement between M. Bishop and M. Charnocke about one point of their commission. And thus forgetting how he had before foisted in this word only to make a disagreement between them, in that the one should say, that their only coming was to supplicate, etc. fol 132. and the other allege six causes of his coming: Now he is contented, that M. Charnocke should say, that he had divers points in commission: and how cometh this kindness over him? forsooth he would feign find another disagreement betwixt M. Bishop and M. Charnocke, and for this purpose, he must entreat his reader to forget, that he had before made him believe, how that he had heard, that M. Charnocke said and swore, that their only coming was to supplicate, etc. and now that it will please him to understand, that Master Charnocke said, that he had in commission amongst other points for to procure, that no books should be hereafter written by Catholics, that might exasperate the state of England: M. Bishop said, that he liked not that commission, but rather it should be left as hitherto, to the discretion of the writers: adding further, that in his opinion such books, as before had been written, had rather done good then hurt. M. Doctor Ely hath noted upon the Apology, that the author thereof is much troubled with the chincough: which in his relating this point, may be very easily seen, by his leaving out of certain words at the end of the point, avouched by M. Charnocke to have been in his commission. The words are these, sine necessitate aut utilitate: without need or profit: which words being added unto the point (as he calleth it in M. Charnocks commission, or the petition of the priests, as they termed it) maketh the matter so just a request, as no man of sense can dislike thereof. But the very thing indeed which troubled this author was, that F. Parson's urging very much to know, whether that the book of succession were not one of these, which were within the compass of this petition, was told directly by M. Charnocke, that it was, and thereupon grew a little alteration between them (to fill up the papers perchance, as M. Bishop saith) and as for M. Do. Bishop it is so plainly set down what he answered concerning this book of succession, or titles, in the answer for M. Doct. Bishop, fol. 16. (which answer is annexed to M. Doct. Ely his notes upon the Apology) that I cannot but wonder at this fellows greediness to forge matters, to make some show at the least, that M. Doctor Bishop and M. Charnocke disagreed. For first, M. Doct. Bishop was not asked any question concerning this point, as there it is affirmed, but had some private talk concerning the books of titles. And the effect of his answer is, that the book is so penned, as that while many by warrant thereof may justly strive for the crown, a stranger may come in, and take it from them all: and how this agreeth to that which the Apology saith, of a difference betwixt Master D. Bishop and M. Charnocke, an indifferent reader will quickly judge.  
Now followeth a contemptible repetition of tickets and scrolls, the least whereof was bigger, than any by which this subordination was requested (unless we should say, as the author of the Apology would persuade us, cap. 8 fol. 98. & 104. that the 7. of March endured at Rome until many months passed in other countries) and many of them were directed to his Holiness as humble supplications, to which according to the old fashion men did not use to set any seal, but their names only: and so were these subscribed in the best manner, that the writers could, and the papers were of purpose so small, for the better conveyance of them, if the bearers should have chanced to have been searched (as this author's wit might have taught him) and not only the names were to the petitions, but the matters which were demanded: by which these foolish doubts here made, are easily solved: what manner of commission these men had, or could have? from whom? by what means? for what matters? & whether they in England would stand to all points which these men here should conclude in their behalf? and whether these men's authority were general, or limited? For by these letters it was seen, that they had such commission as many could give, where there was no one in authority; the Archpriest not being as yet confirmed, nor (if he had any) likely to have given any commission to any, whom he should imagine liked not of such his preferment. It was also seen, from whom they had the commission, for that the priests names were to their petitions. The means likewise were fair, without threatenings of execution and such like, as were used to make the priests subscribe to the Archpriest. The matters also were specified in their petitions, and the priests in England committing their matters to these two, there needed no great doubt to have been made, whether they would have stood to that, to which they had agreed in that behalf, as they did, when (receiving the Breve signed by their two hands, of which otherwise perchance there might have been some doubt, unless the original had been sent) they all submitted themselves. It was also evident by the points set down in particular, what they had to deal in, in the names of the rest, although they were not thereby debarred any way, to deal as they saw cause, or had hope to effect any good for their country. So that his endless folly might have been left out, where he concludeth finally that the priests did only agree in contradicting, and pulling down, but nothing that was probable or facible for setting up, and so their examinations were ended etc. A very good conclusion, and well deducted out of his principles.  
All this being done (saith he) and the whole process considered, and weighed well by the Cardinals, and after related to his Holiness: it was resolved, that the said Cardinals, with his Holiness Commissary Acarisius, should go to the College themselves, and to see whether they had any thing else to say, or write. Who doth not now prepare himself to hear some matter to some purpose? For all which hitherto hath been touched in the Apology, seem to be but praeludia, or an entrance to this act. Here was it to be tried how justly, or injustly the priests had done, and to be showed, how worthily they had been imprisoned with infamy, kept close so long, debarred all help, one of the other. Here was the proper place for this author to have answered the English book, which was one of the two for which this Apology was written (this appearance of the two priests before the Cardinals being set down so particularly in the English book entitled The copies of the discourses pag 95 96. 97. 98.) But alack the good man had not what to say, but that which would have cleared the priests, nor was able to control any part of the narration, which is made in the places cited, but turneth off his reader with certain general terms, to which he first disposeth him with as idle discourses, First taking occasion to exclaim upon D Bagshaw, for that he thought it requisite, that the Archpresbytership should be recalled, as being neither requested by us, nor any way profitable: and that some Hierarchy were instituted, which were to be approved by the free suffrages of the priests only of the Seminaries. And for this this author exclaimeth, Lo what a resolute lawmaker here is, who recalleth the Pope's Subordinations in a word, & setteth up another of his own making with as great facility. Lo what a resolute ly-maker here is, who affirmeth that which is most false, and can no way follow of the doctor's words. For the Archpresbytership was not the Pope's Subordination, but the Cardinals, as than it was manifest by the Cardinal's letters, where he said, Dum haec nostra ordinatio duraverit, so long as this our ordinance shall endure. Neither doth the Cardinal in any place of those letters affirm (as this resolute ly-maker doth often inculcate in this Apology) that he did it expresso mandato Sanctissimi, By express commandment of his Holiness. Neither doth the doctor recall it, but signify unto such as were going to Rome, what his and others opinion was of the unprofitableness thereof. And being thrust upon them unasked, that it was to be recalled by his Holiness, in whom the author (as I trow) will acknowledge a power to do as much as this was.  
Lo likewise what a resolute lye-maker here is, who affirmeth that the doctor setteth up another Subordination of his own making with as great facility, whereas the doctor writeth in the same kind to have some other by his Holiness appointment, of which he desireth not, that himself should be the setter up, but the priests whom it shall concern, which was according both to the Cannons of holy Church, and his Holiness meaning, as divers priests can witness, the Pope having always borne that special favour unto the priests. But what else was discovered in those papers of the doctors? Forsooth the changing of the government of the Seminartes, especially that in Rome, yea the change of the Protector himself. Very true, For that the unquietness which the jesuits made in Rome among the students, was a great cause of the unquietness here in England; And seeing that there was no hope of any quiet so long as the jesuits had the government, what evil request was it to have them removed thence? Neither was the request of the doctor, and some others joined with him, for the change of the Protector absolutely: but that there might be some other, or some joined with him in regard he was known to be one, who in the jesuits quarrels took part always very partially with them against the students, and the students appeal from him, or their declining from his judgement had been in former times admitted by his Holiness, who now is.  
And further it was ●…uered by the same papers (saith he) and other letters out of England, that they had particular designments, to make themselves Bishops and Archbishops. And how was this discovered, or what proof hath this author of this? whereupon (saith he) in some letters it was written, To your LL. This is all the proof, that those to whom this letter was written, had particular designments to make themselves Bishops and Archbishops. If one should write to Rome to Fa. Parsons, and direct his letter in this manner, To your Grace: of what could F. Parson's be convinced, others so writing unto him? But Fa. Parsons in his letter of the 9 of October 1599 to M. Bishop, making mention of this jest, is answered in the English book, pag. 127. and is told, that M. Charnocke hearing thereof at Rome, did there challenge it as a feigned matter. And there it is showed at large, in what sort it might be forged. And this Apology being made to answer that English book, letteth all that discourse go quietly: the author having taken good order that his lewdness should not be known among these blind-obedient: and hath the less shame to iterate any falsehood without disproving that which hath been before directly said against it. And a particular discourse being divulged at this time, under the hand-writing of one of their chief followers named M. Watson, was sent to Rome, whilst these men were there: Whereunto was subscribed by another in these words, Sic sentio W.B. By this discourse also this author would prove, that the priests that went to Rome, went with hope of reward: to wit, to be made primates themselves; and to make other Bishops of their partners at their return: yea notwithstanding their oath which they took, that they never heard of any discourse, this author emboldeneth himself to burden them with it, or at the least with the knowledge thereof. For such are his words, though these messengers in Rome would not seem to acknowledge it, Fa. Parsons told M. Bishop that such a letter he had, and requested to know, whether it were not his name, that was subscribed in this manner, Sic sentio G.B. not W.B. as here is most falsely suggested, perchance to take away the suspicion from such as were the authors thereof for the disgrace of M. Bishop, and M. Charnocke (as M. Bishop toucheth it in his answer to Fa. Parsons, set down in the English book, pag. 159) To which demand of Fa. Parsons, M. Bishop made answer, that it was not his name: and that he never had heard of the discourse before. Moreover, he said that those letters might stand for Geor Blackwellus, as well as Guliel. Bishop. By which it is evident, that this author dealeth falsely in setting down the letters W.B. For who is so foolish, as to think, that M. Bishop would plead, that George was spelled with W? This is also particularly set down in the answer made in the behalf of M. Bishop, which is annexed unto M. D. Ely his notes upon the Apology fol. 17. where also it is affirmed that D. Bishop's answer for M. Watson was far otherwise, than this author pretendeth: and is therefore challenged to have no tender conscience in this dealing. But (as it seemeth) this author intended to disgrace M. Watson all that he could: and at the first discrediteth himself in objecting, that M. Watson was a servant in the English College at Rheims, as though that were so great a blot (many most worthy men having been of as mean, or meaner condition.) And this being truly considered, maketh more for M. watson's commendation, that he would live in so mean estate out of his country for the cause he did. And if this common wealth, here by a foolish digression inserted, (being a matter as Fa. Parsons took upon his conscience before the Cardinals, to which the two priests were never privy) were of M watson's making, as he doth utterly deny it: as also that either he sent any such to Rome, or was privy to the sending thereof, but rather thinketh, as others also, that it was sent by the contrary part to Fa. Parsons for some policy: yet he had not been more idly occupied, then was the plotcaster of Reformation, the absurdities whereof, were they yet perchance after so many alterations laid down, would far surpass these of this common wealth, which is attributed to M. Watson.  
This digression being made, and more seriously handled then any material point in this controversy, this author falleth again into the Cardinals coming to the College, together with the Commissary. And to proceed (saith he) more substantially they heard first the aforesaid depositions read, (that is to say some part of them, as is noted in the English book, pa. 95) as also the procurators of the Archpriest, what they could say or demand, who bringing forth the foresaid letters of the most grave of our Nation (that is to say, the letters of D. Barret, subscribed by D Webbe, D. Worthington, and D. Kellyson: and also the letters of M. Wright, the Dean of Cortrac: all which, and only these were inserted into a Libel, which these Proctors for the Archpriest put up to the two Cardinals against M. Bishop, & M. Charnocke) against this new sedition begun, made supplication that some effectual remedy might be put thereunto. Very well, good sir, thus much is confessed in the English book, pag. 96. that M D. Haddock, and M. Martin Array delivered up in a dumb show a Libel, or bill of complaints, or accusations against M. Bishop and M. Charnocke. But what answer made those priests unto that bill? The messengers also were heard what they could say, or answer. But now in a little honesty what said they? or what answer did they make to these matters? Is it not possible, that any thing did pass worth the relating? was all this preparation fetched from john of Gaunt for no greater satisfaction, then to say, when it cometh to the chief point: that the messengers were heard, what they could say, or answer? If there hath been found so much waste paper in this Apology, for to entertain by-tales, and nothing to the purpose, could there not be some spared, for the setting down of so necessary a point, as this is, and such as was most likely to have benefited a just cause, more than twenty tales of john of Gaunt? would not a discourse of what passed between the Cardinals, and the two priests with the Proctors, have been more grateful to the reader, after that the Cardinals coming to the College was mentioned, than a relation of M. watson's common wealth? In the English book to which this Apology pretendeth to answer, it is set down pag. 97 and 98. that the messengers were not heard, what they could say or answer, and it is not set down in general terms, but particularly, in what sort they were not admitted, to say what they would, or to answer: to wit, that the Libel being read, the priests requested, that the Proctors might be put to their oaths, that no falsehood was contained therein: and the Cardinal Caietane answered for the Proctors himself, that it was not needful, and furthermore affirming (for the poor dumb men who as yet had not discovered themselves, whether they could speak or no) that they should prove what was denied: the whole Libel was denied, and a copy thereof demanded, that answer might be made unto it. This was it that the messengers did say, and the jesuits gave this for one cause afterwards, why the two priests were not set at liberty the same day, that M. Bishop had showed too much earnestness in this very point, for which he was to be kept close some two or three days more, and M. Charnocke likewise: but yet for no other cause, then that it was not convenient, that he should be at liberty, until the other had satisfied by a longer imprisonment, for his quickness of spirit, in demanding the Libel to answer it. But the Proctors having before their lesson, what they were to say, or do, as it should seem, the one of them stepped presently (without making his fellow acquainted therewith at that instant) between M. Bishop, and the table, whereat the Cardinal sat: and made humble request, that the copy of this libel might not be delivered unto the priests, but rather that a peaceable conclusion might be made. Of which the Cardinal taking present hold pursued that motion, and would not deliver the Libel to the two messengers (whereby it is evident, that this author followeth his old trade in this place, where he affirmeth, that the two messengers also were heard, what they could say, or answer) but showed a good face to the priests, and used them so friendly as they expected not to return to their prisons, especially being cleared from all matters by the Cardinals, excepting this only, that many were scandalised in England at their journey to Rome: which was a thing, that they could not help, nor were justly to be blamed therefore: yet notwithstanding thinking it fit, to keep the Cardinal in that good and friendly humour, the two priests made this answer: that if by their journey to Rome, they had given cause of scandal to any, they were very fory for it, and were ready to give satisfaction, and so were dismissed, and all was well until the Cardinal Burghese was departed. But soon after his departure, the jesuite, who for this time had supplied F. Parsons (the head jailers) place, locked them up again in their several prisons, but for two or three days, as was pretended upon the foresaid cause: & for that M. Bishop by his silence when he was bidden to speak, after his examination read, did discontent the Card. somewhat. This author having told his reader of the coming of the Cardinals to the College, and of the Proctors demand of remedy against the new sedition: also how that the messengers were heard say what they could (which as it is said is most false) he concludeth this matter as if some great act had been made, and the Proctors had had some great day against the Priests. And finally (saith he) after divers grave speeches used by the Cardinals against this division in our nation, they departed, promising (perchance to F. Parsons) to relate all unto his Holiness, and to take his resolution for the final sentence, which they sent afterward sealed and signed by their own hands, and several seals, bearing date the S. of April 1599 (upon which day in the morning the two priests their close imprisonment first ceased) In which sentence for that divers things were inserted in the narration, which might seem gricuous, (which were perchance according to F. Parson's informations, but not to be known abroad, lest his doings should have been known) & the decree itself, which is yet extant to be seen, appeared somewhat severe, (against men who were not suffered to make their answer) Fa. Parsons as we understand (to the perpetual discredit of the Cardinals (howsoever the infamy would have been wiped away from his Holiness, if it were true which here is said, that the Cardinals took his Holiness resolution for this final sentence) procured the said sentence to be detained, until he had entreated the said Cardinals, to mitigate somewhat that sentence, and to give another more mild of the 21. of the same month, not so much by way of judicial sentence, as of a letter (to wit, to the Rector, or Vicerector of the English college, F. Parsons or the minister) under their hands and seals, appointing that the said two messengers should return the one to Paris, and the other to Lorraine, as they had requested. (They both had requested to be in Paris, being both to be banished their country) but this not being to be granted, request was made for the other to be in Lorraine, a place that F. Parsons dreamt not of, when he debarred him not only Paris, but all other parts of France, notwithstanding he urged that France was big enough to hold him and his fellow. And these places are said to be appointed by the letter Interpretatively (for neither of them are named in the Letter) but not into England (he should have added, Scotland nor Ireland, for so runneth the sentence) without special licence of his Holiness, or the Protector, under pain of suspension, and other censures, etc. But wherefore was this sentence given? True it is, that the two priests were banished not only their own country, but Scotland also and Ireland, and confined in other countries, where they were less likely to have wherewithal to maintain them, and had not any thing given them to keep them in these strange countries from begging or starving: (a bountiful consideration of the Church, for so it must be taken, towards priests who had left their right and possibility of all preferments, to serve the Church with continual and evident peril of their lives; and one of them had suffered imprisonment for the Catholic faith:) which sentence (saith this author) they accepted, and confirmed also by a corporal oath. This fellow forgetteth himself: This sentence he saith was by way of a letter (to F. Parsons, who was Rector, or to the Vicerector) and by F. Parson's only was this sentence showed first to M. Charnocke, who was yet in prison: then afterwards to M. Bishop, who was at liberty, and had been so some certain days. And neither did F. Parsons exact any oath of them, neither did they take any unto him. And in the tenth Chapter, fol. 155. it is urged, that this oath was exhibited, by the immediate Commissary or Delegate of his Holiness, which titles belonged not to F. Parsons, to whom this letter was directed by the two Cardinals, as shall hereafter appear. The truth of this story, and how this letter lay hid (as was pretended) in F. Parson's chamber, for certain days (as he told M. Charnocke) is set down in the book dedicated to the Inquisition, pag 88 and it goeth uncontrolled and untouched, which in the judgement of any indifferent man it should not, if any just exceptions could be taken against it. Yet must his Reader be told, that this author proceedeth no otherwise, then in such sort as must satisfy all men: for this he saith, fol. 126. speaking of himself, offering for proof either the public testimonies of his Holiness, the two Cardinal's Protectors, Acarisius the Pope's Fiscal, and other parties that were actors, or privy to the cause: or else the depositions of the said messengers themselves, under their hands and oaths: or finally the witness of the whole English College and nation, that know what passed in this matter, which is another manner of proceeding, then to publish things in corners by way of libels, without any further ground of truth, than the will or malice of the publisher. But these testimonies so much vaunted of, are loath to come to light, or are carried into some far countries, as disdaining to be in corners, such as England, Flanders France, and Italy: for these were the corners, in which the priests books were published: and in these corners have the priests justified their books, which this poor fellow calleth libels, to shift them off by one means or other. And the priests were never so dainty of their books, but that they who opposed themselves against them, might have God's plenty for their comfort: whereas contrariwise this miserable Apology, had a quartan every time that it came to any of the priests hands: and when it was to be seen by them, it was by stealth, and but for an hour or two, so did it quake, for fear of being found to be such stuff, as since it hath been sufficiently discovered. Yet to encourage the blind-obedient, it telleth them of Popes, and Cardinal's testimonies, and authentical matters, and bringeth nothing which can please these blind affectioned, but some railing words against Catholic priests, as though if it could persuade the reader, that they were most wicked by often inculcating it unto him, the cause were won: and a railing word of this author's mouth, would be of more weight to determine a controversy, than all possible right in the part oppressed. But the indifferent reader will weigh his reasons, and not his foul words; and judge of matters, not as they are said to be, but as they are proved. And thus much in answer to the ninth Chapter.   

CHAP. 15. How this Apologie-maker shuffleth off the true cause of this present controversy, and layeth the blame thereof upon the Secular priests. Apol. cap. 10.  
IN the tenth chapter of the Apology, the author thereof intendeth to show, how that all controversies were ended upon the publication of his Holiness Breve: and how that a new breach was made. He promiseth also to handle some excesses of his brethren, and of their dealings with the Counsel. The first point he handleth very slenderly (as it should seem) for he forgetteth often that ever the controversies were ended. The second he layeth falsely to the priests as shall be showed: and in the rest he only showeth his merchandise. And thus he beginneth this Chapter.  
After that his Hol. had well considered the little weight of reason, which these two former messengers had brought in the behalf of their partners in England, for raising so great a sedition against the Protectors letters, and Archpriests incitation, and had given some due reprehension to the said messengers, as by their restraint, aswell in Rome, as by that they were not permitted to return presently into England, he thought convenient to confirm the said Protectors letters etc. In these few lines it is to be noted first, how that his Holiness is said to have restrained the priests (who went to Rome) upon consideration of the little weight of reason, which they brought, and permitted them not to return, or (as we say in English) banished them, not only England, but Scotland also, and Ireland, yea and confined them to several Countries, without allowing them any thing for their maintenance. Secondly, how his Holiness confirmed the Cardinal's letters. Touching the first, it is known to all the world, or at the least in those parts, which this author calleth corners, those are England, Flanders, France, and Italy, where their books have been published, or sent, that the two priests were restrained before they delivered any reasons of their forbearance, to subject themselves to the Archpriest, and as yet no one part of their relation hath been proved faulty. They have laid down an orderly narration of their messengers disorderly restraint, through the false & wicked suggestions of their adversaries, before that they had any audience, and thereby have made it evident, that his Holiness did not restrain them, upon any consideration of their reasons, because he heard them not, nor any cause else, before they were restrained. Secondly, it is at large related both in the English book pag. 97.98.104.105. and else where, as also in the book to the Inquisition pag 77. how that when the priests came to their answer, before the Cardinals Caietane, and Burghese, they were not suffered to have a copy of their accusations brought against them, (although it were most earnestly demanded by them) that they might make their answer thereunto, but a dissembling show was made to have all matters taken up in peace and quietness. And this author not being able to gainsay any of this: how shamelessly doth he here tell his reader, that his Holiness had well considered the little weight of their reasons: and had therefore not only restrained them, but banished them, or (as he termeth it) not permitted them to return presently into England? And although it be true which this author affirmeth, that his Holiness confirmed the Card. letters: yet it is evident, that he did not upon consideration of the little weight of the messengers their reasons: for they were never suffered to deliver them, as the custom of God Church was, where a matter is instituted, and some do offer themselves (to those to whom it belongeth) to show what they have to say in it, before it be established. Neither hath this author showed, or can without a trick of his accustomed falsehood say, that the two priests ever appeared in this action before any other, than those two Cardinals, upon the 17. of February 1599 or that they did not at that time make request, to have the copy of the Libel, to make their answer unto it. And as for their examinations, who is so simple, as to build any matter thereon, as though that were a place, or time convenient for them to deal in the charge committed unto them, being both asunder, and privately talked with, or examined by their professed enemies? The time, and place of trial was before the appointed judges: when, and where this author must show, that they did not offer to make their answer to whatsoever was objected against them: and namely to that absurd Libel, which M D. Haddock, and M. Martin Array put up against them concerning a sedition (as the Libel termeth it) supposed to have been raised in England by them, and their fellows, by not admitting the authority upon the sight of the Cardinal's letters. Here was this author to have showed a defect of the messengers their reasons, and not to have overslipped these partieulars, which passed in this time and place, being the sole time and place, in which the two messengers met, & might have showed their reasons, if they might have been heard. But this author his fairest game is to slubber up all material points, and to bear his reader in hand in general terms, 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 testimony, or to control any thing, which is set down by the priest. And so doth he bring here an authentical testimony, that his Holiness confirmed the Cardinal's letters. But he proveth not thereby that the priests restraint and banishment were just. But let us examine this testimony, which is here brought: and we shall find a notorious falsifying of the Pope's letters.  
He (the Pope) thought convenient, to confirm the said Protectors letters, and every part and parcel thereof, with a new Breve, dated the sixth of April 1599 Affirming. omnia, & singula de expresso mandato, & ordine, & cum participatione, & certa seientia nostris, facta, & ordinata fuisse, & esse. That all and every thing contained in the same letters were done and ordained by his Holiness express commandment and order, and by his certain knowledge, and participation. All this is truly related out of the Breve. And had he here made a stop, he might have been accounted an idle fellow, to cite a matter, of which not one word proved any thing at all, that the little weight of their reasons, was a cause of the priests restraint in Rome, confinement in strange Countries, or confirmation of the authority. But he will go a little further; and because if he had cited the Latin, he should have discovered his falsehood, he maketh a stop thereat, and goeth forward with an English translation of the Brene in this manner: And therefore to have been and to be firm, and in force and of most full validity, etc. and so to be taken, and executed of all men etc. which couple of etc. is an argument that he went on forward citing the Breve for his purpose, but how honestly, let every man judge, the Latin being in this manner: Ac propterea, valida, firma, & efficacia existere, & fore etc. decernimus. We decree therefore, that now (upon this confirmation) they be, and shallbe of force firm, and of efficacy. And who is so blind, that doth not see whether he will or no, that these words here inserted by this author to have been, are falsely thrust in by him, to cousin his reader, and to have him believe, that his Holiness declared in this Breve, that all things were of force by the Cardinal's letters: which besides the most gross imposture is most absurd, and against all law and reason, as is every where showed (the letters being no other, then from a Cardinal for the institution of a very great authority given by him without showing any commission from his Holiness, by which he might do it.) But there is no dealing for this Author, if he should deal honestly in any one matter, concerning the question in controversy. But the Archpriest hath presumed to go a little further, in adding these words, ab initio. And in this Edict against the censure of Paris, he telleth his subjects, that the Pope had confirmed the Cardinal's letters, as validas ab initio, to have been of force from the beginning, which if they could beat into the cares of the blind-obedient, it is as much as they desire. For they have taken from their sight the view of all books, wherein they might discover how falsely they are lead, and persuaded by guides blinder than themselves.  
This declaration (saith he) and confirmation of his Holiness, when it came forth, every man was of opinion, that all questions, and controversies would be ended thereby: seeing that nothing was pretended before by the troublesome (so pleaseth it this foul mouthed fellow to term the Priests) but only to have certain intelligence of his Holiness will and meaning. Doubtless all that meant well and honestly, thought that here would have been an end of all controversies, not because the priests pretended nothing else, then to know his Holiness will, for this author knoweth the contrary, but yet must say somewhat, although contrary to his own knowledge, manifested in the 8 chapter of the Apology, fol. 107.108.110. where he pretendeth to give satisfaction to the reasons alleged by the priests, before this Breve was made, but because the priests did always offer (which also they performed) that so soon as they should see any Breve in confirmation of this authority, they would yield themselves, notwithstanding the reasons which they had to the contrary. But this fellow imagineth, that unless he practiseth his trade of lying almost in every line, he shall lose that habit, which hath, & must get him all the credit which he looketh for. The priests gave their words both in England, & in Rome (by them whom they sent thither) that all should be quiet upon the sight of the Breve. But the jesuits and Archpriest did not give their words, that the peace should endure. And thereupon was the peace broken, and not by the Priests, as is set down in all these books of the Priests, and as yet neither is, nor can be disproved by this Author, who here undertaketh an answer unto them. I omit the kindness, which was offered unto the two priests by F. Parsons, it is sufficiently discovered in the books already set forth. The English Catholic nation in Rome, here spoken of, used them indeed somewhat kindly, and friendly in all points to their power: but not for love of the jesuits, but upon their own honest dispositions: except it be meant by M. D. Haddock, and M. Martin Array, unto whose lodging the two priests were sent: the one upon the 22. of April, (for then he was set at liberty, and not presently upon their sight of the Breve, or assurance that all would submit themselves, for this was done upon the 8 or 9 of April, when F. Parsons did first bring them the Breve to copy it out,) the other upon the 6. of May, (for then, and not before was the other at liberty, & not presently upon their assurance that all would be quiet, as here it is most falsely suggested.) And the truth is, that this doctor, and his fellow Proctor did use that kindness towards the two priests, as every day when the priests went abroad, the doctor himself or his fellow Proctor would take the pains to rig up their chamber, that no lose paper should be lost, which they might by any chance leave behind them. There was also an honest man in Rome, of the Catholic English nation, who in respect of old acquaintance with one, or both the priests, promised to go with one of them to visit the 7. Churches (an act of devotion used by all that go to Rome) but when the day came, he durst not go, for fear lest the jesuits should show overmuch kindness towards him, for this love towards the priest. Fa. Parsons his love and confidence specially, is not to be measured; who, as I have been informed, objected to the priests, that they had brought with them a letter, which was endorsed or entitled to them in this style, To your LL. by which he, and others at that time, jested at their Lordships. And F. Parsons in his letter to M. Bishop of the 9 of October 1999. urgeth the same; as also this author in the Apology, cap. 9 fol. 135. But when these priests desired to see that letter, alleging oftentimes what comfort it would be unto them, to see their own Lordships (so often talked of by F. Parsons and other jesuits) all the love and confidence, especially which F. Parsons had, could not work it: neither would this letter ever be showed unto them, as M Bishop testifieth in the English book, fol. 159. Although saith he, it was most instantly desired, yea and said to have been forged, as is set down fol. 127. and quietly let slip here in the Apol which undertaketh to answer that book.  
Now follow certain letters of D. Bishop to M. Colington, not when he was at liberty (as here it is suggested) but a prisoner still, although at more liberty then M. Charnocke had: for he was commanded to the Proctor's house (as M. Charnocke was after his departure) and might not lie in the town where he would, and might have lived without further charge, as also M. Charnocke might; for that they had agreed for their chamber, and diet for a certain time, and paid their money beforehand; and were carried away to prison, before half the time was out: and were offered afterward to have their diet, for so many days as were behind of the reckoning, which were more then either of them had leave to stay in Rome, after their several enlargement, out of the College. And as for this gloze, that M. Bishop's letter was written eight days after the Pope's Breve was published, I should have let it pass as one of this authors petty follies, this letter bearing date the 29. of April, as here is said, and the Breve bearing date the 6. of April, as in the leaf next before it is twice cited, and elsewhere often in the Apology. But there is a further folly hereupon grounded, or at the least the like more grossly committed, to show forth F. Parsons praises concerning a letter next following: at the end of which, thus saith this author, Thus wrote F. Parsons, even then when yet the Pope's Breve was not come forth: was not that kindly done and friendly of F. Parsons? But how is it proved, that this letter was written even then? Mark how he proveth it: As appeareth (saith he) for that this was written the 9 of April, and the Breve beareth date the 21. of the saidmoneth. The Breve which hath hitherto borne date of the 6. of April, must now for to claw Fa. Parsons, be reported, yea and believed also by the blind obedient to bear date the 21. of April. Is not this author very greedy that F. Parson's should be commended, who will fetch a matter so far off, and so far from a known truth, to further it; ergo not being more common in the schools, than a Breve of the 6. of April for the Archpriests confirmation? This letter and other would ask longer scanning, then would recompense the pains, but to every man's view they present an argument, that the peace was made upon the Priest's side; and therefore I will briefly go over some marginal notes, which are made upon these letters. And first I will begin with the notes made upon Master Bishop's letter, whereupon Father Parsons his information, (who was to oversee what he writ into England) how that he had laboured for his liberty: he saith, that he had his liberty by F. Parson's procurement. There is this note in the margin, How then doth he deny this afterward; but he telleth him not where: you must go look for that. And in the mean time you must think, that M. Bishop said one thing at one time, and at another time denied the same: which he might very well do; speaking first according to such informations, as F. Parsons gave him, which afterward he might understand to be false. The second note is this, By this we see, how these men were pretenders, and could not expect their own time. And this note is made upon M. Bishops good wishes to one man, and certificate, that upon his peaceable behaviour he should be remembered. And what doth this prove, that the same party pretended any thing at all? upon the next letter which is F. Parsons to M. Collington, and M. Much, there is this note, An objection answered: and that was, Fa. Parsons is of an other body, and therefore no friend of theirs. A shrewd objection, and how is it answered? He hath procured Seminaries for them: and if these Seminaries were for men of his own vocation (as in deed they are, and to make his faction the stronger) yet they are all to one end, and one public service of our country. And if no man will this believe, let him look into his actions of the years 1596, and 97. when divers priests were to come in the Spanish Armadas, under pretence to restore the English to the Catholic religion; Let their forced subscriptions to strange titles, prove Fa. Parsons and his agents their public service of our country. But after this letter of F. Parsons, followeth another of M. Much to him. And where M. Much declareth how much he hath been bound unto the Society: and that it is no joy for him to be at variance with any: much less with him, or any of his society; there is this note in the margin, Exore tuo te judico, etc. If there be any relation to that, which followeth by etc. It is but an ordinary livery, which this author giveth at his pleasure, I judge thee (saith he) by thine own mouth. as though M. Much did now profess, that he took joy to be at variance with any, or that he denied, that he hath been heretofore bound unto the Society, having been many years taken as a member thereof, although in the end they would not admit him, as here it is confessed fol. 107. In this same letter M. Much requesting, that M. Bishop and M. Charnocke might be sent home from their banishment, biddeth him not to fear any disturbance by them: for (saith he) their own hands will testify against them, if they shall report, or attempt any evil. Whereupon there is this note made, This testimony we accept now against them; But he showeth not where they have reported, or attempted any evil. Let this be showed, and then let their testimony be urged against them. To this letter doth Fa. Parsons reply, and speaking of the return of these two priests, he putteth this case, If their cooperation be understood, to work with you by their letters, as here they promised, and I cannot doubt, but they will perform. Upon this place there is this note made, Here we see the good man was deceived. And why so good man? did they not cooperate with the priests in England for the making of peace? Are not their letters continually urged against the priests in England, as exhorting them to peace? did they not testify the copy of the Breve to be a true copy thereof, by which peace was made? Is not M. Bishops letter here inserted, a sufficient testimony of his cooperation; and what testimony is that, which is accepted here (in a marginal note upon F. Parson's letter;) but of peace wrought or persuaded by them? And how then was the goodman deceived? Perchance it was in that, which for all the rest also deceived him; that was, having now gotten a Breve for confirmation of the Archpriest, he expected that his company might trample upon the priests as them listed, and that now all the priests would be foole-ridden, or worse, and must not stir for any injury, whatsoever might be offered them; wherein in deed we may see, how the goodman was deceived. Upon the same letter there is a note made, that the reconciliation of M. D. Bagshaw was an outward show. And after the letter this insinuation is given, that any indifferent man may perceive how F. Parsons was desirous and careful of peace. But of this more afterward when I shall discover how he behaved himself for the putting all out of hope of peace.  
divers 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 soever he had to stand upon the restitution of his good name) being accompred (as other were) for a Schismatic, etc. yielded himself. And this author confesseth here fol. 148. that it is most likely, that divers of them meant plainly, and sincerely indeed: though of some of them it is doubted, that they made the peace only in external show for the time, assuring themselves (saith he) that there would not want some probable occasion, afterwards to break again, & to lay the cause of breach upon the other side, as in effect we see it did ensue. But was the heat of faction and sedition so great in the jesuits and the Archpriest, as the priests could perceive it, & thereupon assure themselves, that there would not want some probable occasion to break again? Or had Fa. Parson's so laid the plot himself, that there should be no peace in England, but with such conditions as no honest priest could accept? Yet this we have, that a peace was made by some for peace sake, and by the rest also, at the least upon this assurance, that afterward there would not want some probable occasion, to break again. But see how this fellow goeth on with his tale: For that (saith he) a new devise being cast out shortly after, that satisfaction must be made to them for some former hard speeches used, 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 again to all that, which had been raked up before, by the endeavour of the foresaid peace. But this narration will not pass so currant. The priests have set down in the book dedicated to his Holiness, pag. 63. and in that to the Inquisition, pag. 59.60. that after the peace was made, a jesuit Fa. jones by name, began to raise that wicked and senseless slander of schism against them. And M. Archpriest published A Resolution, pretended to come from Rome in confirmation of that wicked opinion of the jesuits against the priests, and that the satisfaction which was demanded was of this infamy raised, after the peace was made, and not of those wicked slanders, which were raised by the Icsuites, the Archpriest, and their seditious adherents against the priests, before the peace was made, as here is falsely suggested. And this relation of the priests goeth still uncontrolled, and not disproved by this author. And by this might this question be solved, which followeth in the Apology. Now then, all the question standeth in this, which part hath broken the peace, or which was most like to have desire, to maintain and conserve the same. For by this it is evident, that the jesuits and Archpriest did break the same peace, and put fire again to all that which had been raked up before. But mark I pray you, how substantially this question proposed is discussed by him: For discussing (saith he) of which controversy, we might use that argument of Cassius, Cui bono? who are like to receive most good or hurt by the peace kept or broken? Here you see what argument this author might use: you shall perchance hereafter understand what argument he will use. For this in his own conscience was no sufficient argument, or doubtless he would have used it, having so great want of good arguments, as here he discovereth, yet the margin must carry this note. The controversy discussed, who did break the peace: to give the reader to understand, that here the controversy is discussed, who perchance would think as little thereof, as he who passeth through Long lane, by Smithfield, and looketh at the sign of the Book, would think of the Bible if this note were not upon the sign: The Bible. But as this author might make this argument, so might the priests fit this answer; that such circumstances might be justly considered in controversies, where no evidence is to be had which part had deserved blame, although in such also there might be jolly wrangling, every circumstance almost being of force to make the harm or the good greater, which should ensue upon a peace broken or kept. But in this case there is no such want of evidence, as the matter must of necessity be determined by any uncertain circumstances. For the priests all egg and plead, that after the peace was made, Fa. jones the jesuit raised out of hell that seditious, and most wicked slander of schism against them, in which he affirmed afresh, that they had lived, while they differred to obey the Archpriest, not yet confirmed by his Holiness in that authority which the Cardinal Caietan had given him, and he had usurped as an intruder, before he had the Pope's letters for his lawful exercise thereof. The priests affirm also that the Archpriest after the peace made, did publish A Resolution pretended from Rome, wherein the priests were condemned for schismatics, who were refufers of the authority appointed, as is aforesaid. And this to have been done by the Archpriest, was so publicly known, that every man, but the wilful deaf, did hear of it: & his letters flew about with this Resolution. And will this author that this matter convinced by facts, should be discussed by conceits & circumstances? If a man of possessions known to be very rich, should spoil a man by the high way, & should be taken with the manner, & brought before a judge, why might he not affirm that the poor man assaulted him, & plead before the judge, Cui bone? He was a rich man & of great possessions, the other was a poor man: what reason had he with such danger to seek the spoil of the poor man? will the judge leave the evidence, and answer to Cuibono? But yet, notwithstanding that it is so evident, that the jesuits and Archpriests broke the peace (as this author taking upon him to answer these books) letteth the instances given pass by very quietly, not being able to confute them, lest he should bring all but his like impudent companions, about his ears; the Archpriest his letters being common enough to disprove his falsehood: the petition also being extant which the priests made hereupon unto him, that the question might be disputed among themselves, and (this being denied) their sending to the most learned University of Paris, to have it there decided: upon the most immodest contempt whereof by the Archpriest, the priests were forced to fly to his Holiness, and the Sea Apostolic for succour:) yet (I say) let us see, how this author doth handle his Cuibono: For (saith he) the Archpriest and the Clergy joined with him, enjoyed by the peace all that they could desire: to wit, quiet establishment of their subordination, honour, reputation, rest, quietness, and his Holiness confirmation of all their doings. The jesuits also had as much as they could desire, and were satisfied in all points, as appeareth by their own letters above 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 received secundum hominem, much grief and inward indignation. See you not the pregnancy of this author's wit, & what a strong argument he might use? A tyrant having obtained by such means as he used, to be admitted as a lawful king, beginneth again to show his disposition amongst his subjects; especially against such as would not at the first yield themselves, or acknowledge his usurped authority: 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 upon those whom he destroyed, and plead for himself, Cuibono? For he enjoyed by the peace, all that he could desire, to wit, quiet establishment of his kingdom, honour, reputation, rest, quietness, his confirmation also perchance by some higher power. His intruders also, or setters on in that course, had as much as they could desire, and were satisfied in all points: but on the other side ensued quite contrary in all respects. So as it could not be imagined, but that by this pacification, and the tyrants achieving the sovereignty, they received secundum hominem, much grief and inward indignation. Is not Cuibono a stout argument? But this comparison is odious, between a tyrant, and a grave Catholic Archpriest. There is no comparison made between them, but it is declared how foolish an argument this author might have used, if he would have urged Cuibono. But yet in this narration of honour, and reputation given to the Archpriest, there are two things to be noted; the one is, that it is most false which is here inserted, that the Archpriest, and the Clergy joined with him, enjoyed his Holiness confirmation of all their doings. His Holiness confirmed the Cardinal Cajetan's letters, by which M. Blackwell was made an Archpriest, and a Superior: but to make this stretch to the confirmation of all that, which he, and others joined with him did in that time, is both absurd, and a most impious slander of the Pope, their doings having been most wicked and scandalous, yea and most injurious to many Catholic priests, as it was openly enough seen by divers others, but principally by that infamous imputation of schism, sedition, etc. The other thing, which is here to be noted, is, that this being supposed, that all these had what they could desire, and contrariwise the other had all the contrary, the jesuits and the Archpriest could not without an exceeding bad intention, raise again that slander of Schism against the priests, after the peace was made; knowing, or being bound to know, that the priests could not in conscience put it up, howsoever before they dispensed for peace sake to forgive them their first outrage.  
But now followeth the argument belike which this author will urge: for all this is only what he might do. And this new argument consisteth upon two principal points: The first is, that supposing all the foresaid honours on the one side, and the disgraces on the other side, were digested by virtue of patience, humility, obedience, and mortification of mind, his reader must consider, how matters stood with them, or some of them at the least, and with the Archpriest at the coming of the Breve. The second is, how these matters stood with them and the Council, and some great men of the adversary part. The first consideration is so slenderly handled, and in a manner annexed with the second, as if the last were the only thing, upon which this author would rely, for the declaration of this question, which he thus proposed: which part hath broken the peace?  
The matters as they stood betwixt the priests and the Archpriest, he explicateth by an appeal, which some priests had made a little before the Breve came, which was an argument that the wound was green: and his reader must understand, that by this appeal there was an egregious faction meant: because the Appeal was made in the names of the present Appellants, and all others that should join themselves unto them. (which clause was after the Appeal, and only in a postscript, as it is set down in the book to the Inquisition, pag. 52.) And to colour this matter the better, the date of the Appeal is transported to the postscript which he citeth, which is (saith he) against the nature of just Appeals: for which you must take his credit. But let us grant, that these Appellants had mistaken Panormitane, explicating the rubric of the chapter, Olim de occasionibus, & had put in this clause into their Appeal, (which as is said is in a postscript after the Appeal) how is it proved that there is an egregious faction meant thereby? How much better might it be said, that there was a marvelous contempt of the Sea Apostolic committed by the Archpr. in suspending the Appellants from the use of their faculties, after this Appeal made to the Sea Apostolic? Again, if we shall consider the backwardness of the Appellants, to do or attempt any thing which might be offensive to any (which they sufficiently showed, in that they hereupon refrained to use their faculties) and the forwardness of the Archpr. who would usurp such an authority; before he was confirmed by his Holiness (sufficiently declared by this irreverence, to the Sea Apostolic, in taking away from the Appellants, the use of their faculties for Appealing) it will be evident to the indifferent judge, which part was more likely to have a bad meaning, for faction or disturbance of the Church. But this was devised perhaps (saith he) underhand by the persecutors themselves etc. and so he falleth into that point, of the standing of matters between the priests, and the Counsel, which I will leave a little, and try, whether besides this conjecture already given, of the Archpriests meaning, and his factious adherents, I can allege any other matter, whereby it may be conjectured, that the jesuits, and Archp. did mean an egregious faction, whatsoever show 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 Clergy united unto him, and allowed by his Holiness, as in this letter he affirmeth. Which letter, being a pretended relation of such principal matters, as you shall hear, was either penned by Fa Parsons, or not without his privity: being (as all Rome can testify) the principal agent against the priests, and one who thought nothing could be well done to his mind, unless he were himself at the doing thereof, as appeared by his apprehending them, his keeping them, his examining them, and such like his charitable offices. This letter beareth date the 20. of February 1599 And herein is his dear friend certified, that the matter, about which the two priests went to Rome, was committed by his holiness special commission, to Card. Caietane, and Burghese, to be examined, and heard by way of congregation at the English Coll. itself. And so it was (saith he) upon Wednesday, the seventeenth of this month: when after sundry informations had from Acarisius Fiscal, of his Haul Congregation of reformation, that had taken their several examinations (by his attorney Fa. Parsons) upon their oaths. And after they (the Cardinals) had read and viewed such letters, memorials and papers, as the Ambassadors had brought with them, they came jointly together to the College upon the foresaid day, and with them the said fiscal. And there having a convenient tribunal provided in form of judgement (a couple of chairs set at a table covered with a green cloth) they heard the whole cause, (but God knoweth who pleaded it.) And first each of the ambassadors confession and declaration (that is, as much, and what pleased Fa. Parsons) severally read by the Notary of the cause, (Fa Henry Tichborne a jesuite) which were long, and every one of them more than an hours reading. And therefore perchance to avoid tediousness, there was a little read here and there, where Fa. Parsons had turned down a lease, and his fellow jesuit (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 add to his declaration more than he had set down, M. Bishop would say nothing, for which as was said, the Cardinals were offended with him: M. Charnocke delivered somewhat, until Fa. Parsons did break him off. And after this their letters and papers brought with them were seen again by the aforesaid judges, whereof the most part were translated into Latin. (Is it likely that the priests would write to his Holiness in English? for the petitions were to him, which were brought by the two priests to Rome, and concerned their business) And besides that, were also Fa. Parsons, Rector of the College, and Fa. Henry Tichborne Perfect of the studies willed to be present (These were beside themselves: for as hath been said Fa. Tichborne the jesuit was the foresaid Notary, and Fa. Parsons the man that had taken their examinations) to interpret any thing that should be needful both the judges and the two priests spoke both Italian and Latin) And after this again were both Ambassadors called in jointly, (for M. Bishop was locked up again, as soon as he had heard his examinations read) as also M. Haddock, and myself as procurators of the Archpresbyter, and of the Clergy united to him, appointed by letters from them, and allowed here by his Holiness, with whom we had been, and had audience particular about this affair before: And being come in, we were willed, as procurators, to speak what we had to say in this behalf. But you must understand, that this charge was so secretly given by the judges, as the two priests there also present did not hear it. And these procurators being willed to speak like Proctors, said not one word, but Fa Parsons at their entrance began to declare unto the Cardinals, that those two were Proctors for the Archpr. and that one of them was a Doctor of Divinity, and the nephew of a Cardinal, and the brother of a Martyr, (agnominations able to credit the best Proctors in the world) After this preamble, he told the Cardinal, what a perilous division was made in England: and that these proctor's, although they were very loath to deal against their brethren there present, yet for the love of justice, they were contented to be employed in this action against them, and that they had a libel or bill of complaint against them. At which words D. Haddock (without any word speaking himself) delivered up a libel to the Card. But let us hear what M. Array certifieth his friend of his speeches or his fellow Proctors, when (as he saith) they were bidden to speak as Proctors. Our speech in effect was (saith he, when they said not one word) that albeit it grieveth us much to be driven to accuse or plead against our brethren Priests, that had been of the same College and University here in Rome, and had gone hence into England jointly to labour, and adventure our lives for the same cause of the Catholic faith, though before them, (and were quickly weary thereof) yet their manner of proceeding had been, and was so prejudicial to common peace (these good Proctors were 12 years before, or there about gone out of England) and union, and so scandalous to all good and honest men, that either we must oppose ourselves against them in the name of our head (they mean the Archpriest who was not their head, they living at Rome) and of all the rest of our Catholic body in England and abroad (they will make their foresaid head a young Pope) or else we should seem to betray the same cause impugned by them. O scrupulous conscience! who would think that all his tale were only an imagination, what might have been said, neither he, nor his fellow Proctor having as yet uttered one word? But let us hear this saint make an end of this lewd and loud lie. Wherefore we prayed their Graces (in what language?) not to be scandalised to see this division amongst us, for that these were the moths (O gentle mouths speak) that did breed in the best clothes, and the worms (O noble Proctor) that were commonly found under the bark of every tree, if they were not looked to in time, and that this happened also in the very primitive Church, permitted by God for the better proof and exercise of good men. And that this was a very heresy in manners, & actions, as th'other in Protestants was in faith and Religion: & that this would break into that in time, if that it were not looked into, as in divers (of the jesuits darlings) it had done already, and must needs do: For that it was contention founded upon the same grounds of emulation, every ambition, hatred, covetousness and liberty of life, as the other heresy was, and wrought a spirit conform to that in all respects etc. This letter being written 3. or 4. days after that the priests had appeared before the Cardinals; and after a friendly composition demanded by the Proctors, and pretended by the Cardinals, Can it be an argument of any other thing, than a desire to continue strife, and division? Can the most hateful professed enemy in the world have disgorged his filthy stomach in more spiteful terms? Had this been uttered by the Proctors before the Cardinals against the two priests; with shame enough it had been written into England, but without the least ●ot of honesty, the Proctors themselves having most humbly desired a friendly composition. But the Proctors not having uttered one word (much less in these most vile terms) who may not justly judge, that when this letter was written (which was after the appearance of the two priests as appeareth by the date) that it was not meant by that side, that ever there should be peace? But mark I pray you yet a most wicked relation, and which may convince more evidently (if it be possible) that these fellows would not have peace. And then (saith he) we gave up a writing which before had been exhibited unto his Holiness, & was remitted hither as it seemeth, (it seemed so indeed, for D Haddock had it ready to give up to the Cardinals so soon as F. Parsons had told his tale) that these men came hither only to trouble the peace of England, and to revive stirs in Rome, and that of their own heads, as it seemeth, for that they had brought no one letter of credence with them of Superior, or other to his Holiness Protector, or other man in Rome etc. wherefore we desired remedy in this behalf, and exhibited divers letters of the doctors of Douai, and M. Wright the deane of Cortrac, and of other grave men of our nation to this effect. All these letters here said to have been exhibited by the Proctors, were no other than one letter from the D of Douai, and an other from M. Wright which are set in the Apology fol. 125, 126. whereof the first beareth date the 25. of Octob. 1598. and the second 10 Novemb. 1598. and they were both to the Protector. Yet must M. Martin's friend believe that he and his fellow Protector did upon the 17. of February exhibit many other letters to the Protector, (who was chief judge, notwithstanding 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 appear by the writing itself, of which I have seen a copy. But let this pass, let us hear what he saith was answered by the priests to all these grievous accusations; Against all which (saith he) the Ambassadors were able to say little, and willing to say less, but only excused their own intentions, and asked pardon, if they had given scandal by their manner of proceeding, more than they ever meant. But put the case indeed, as it was, and as the Card. Burgesius without doubt will acknowledge, and the jesuits with all the rest of that faction then present, must avouch it one day against their own souls, will they, nill they, that Fa. Tichborne the jesuit (who here also supplied the place of a public Notary, and read this Libel) had no sooner done reading it, then M. Bishop required, that the Proctors might take their oaths, that the Libel contained nothing but truth. To which when the Card. Caietan would not consent, he requested that a copy of the Libel might be delivered unto him, & his fellow, that they might make their answer unto it, as most false, and injurious: whereat D. Had. who had given up the writing, stepped to the table, & requested that it might not be delivered unto them, but that all things rather should be peaceably concluded. To which the Card. Caietan presently consented, the sooner perchance for joy, that both the Proctors were not dumb: for before this act of D. Haddock, it is most certain that neither of them spoke one word, howsoever that his fellow vaunteth of his workmanship, when he was bidden to speak like a Proctor. Now would I ask of an indifferent judge, whether it were possible that there could be any desire of peace in fellows, who in cold blood, and after three night's rest (if rancour and malice would suffer them to rest) would write thus into England, clean contrary to all truth in a matter of such moment, as was the handling of the cause, concerning which all the division was which was, or was like to be in England? And if this were necessary to be done, lest that they should seem to betray the cause impugned by the two priests, (as this fellow saith in this letter) must not consequently this cause be a most fowl cause, which must be upholden with such shameless falsehood? could these fellows think that Master Bishop, or Master Charnocke, should ever come to the sight of this relation of theirs, and held themselves from declaring it to be (as in deed it is) a most false, wicked, and malicious information? or can these men think, that these means were means for peace, and not rather occasions to break peace, when they should come to light? But this was not the first plot which was laid, by which their intention is discovered never to have had peace. There is another letter written by Fa. Baldwyn (as hot a shot, as any of the rest) dated 25. Febr. 1599 out of Flanders to Paris to M. D. Cecil: wherein also it may appear, that these fellows meant, that there should be no peace, when they strived so greatly for the whetstone in their malicious letters against these priests. Thus he writ. I have received, etc. I think you have understood how the Ambassadors Charnocke, and Bishop have been entreated by his Holiness, their articles and cause of their journey. They were imprisoned upon S. Thomas of Canterbury his day, and remain yet prisoners. They have been examined by a fiscal, and now they shall have their sentence by two Cardinals, Burghese and Caietan. Their request was, there might be no subordination: and if it must be, than some one which favoured 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 seem changed, and sorry that they took such a journey in hand: seeing that nothing else, but ambition hath egged them thus far forth, etc. Can the spreading of these most notorious falsehoods, be signs of any other thing, then of a desire that there should be no peace? How could these fellows think or persuade themselves, that when these tales came to the ears of the two priests thus abused, they would not be contradicted? was this it, which is meant by the Apology, fol. 148. where it is said, that the Priests assured themselves, that there would not want some probable occasion afterward to break again? Was the author of the Apology privy to these occasions? But how could these be occasions of the breach: seeing that M. Bishop and M. Charnocke knew not of this false dealing, as being in banishment, besides that the breach was made again, before that these wicked dealings came to their knowledge. You are therefore to understand, that these are brought to show that these fellows could not have any desire of peace, who could disperse such false & wicked tales against those Priests, and in them against all the rest, by whom these were employed to his Holiness. And because perchance they perceived, that these & other their plots would not fadge to their mind, and that notwithstanding the solemn inquiry of their life, and manners commanded by Cardinal Caietan, 10. Novemb. 1598. the treatise of schism, and other injuries offered unto them, and to the priests employed by them) they did all (contrary to their adversaries expectations) submit themselves presently upon the sight of his Holiness Breve, the jesuits were constrained to go to work so openly, as all the world crieth out shame upon them. For when peace was made, they fell to a fresh declaring, that the refusers of the appointed authority had been Schismatics: which in all reason they thought was more than a probable occasion to break the peace again, and that their barbarous handling of those priests which were first sent to Rome, to have dealt with his Holiness, would be such a terror to them, as they would never send the second time, so as they might tyrannize at pleasure, over whom they listed, and principally intended (perchance at the first) as not being now very likely to put up the second time so scandalous, and unworthy reproaches: nor (as they hoped) would be forward to attempt again to get some remedy.  
This first point being sufficiently declared, how matters stood between the Archpriest, and his adherents on the one part, and with the priests on the other part: now followeth this Authors information, how they stood with the counsel, and great men of the one part, and the Priests on the other part. For out of these two considerations he will have his reader to gather, which part broke the peace, or was more likely to keep it. The first consideration he dispatched briefly, and declared that the wound was green, when the Breve came: which he proveth by an Appeal made by some of the priests: for which the Appellants were by the Archpriest deprived of the use of their faculties. The second he beginneth in showing, how by certain words in the Appeal it may be gathered, that there was an egregious faction, as devised perhaps underhand by the persecutors themselves. See how he falleth into the consideration with a perhaps, and then goeth thus forwards: who having with them at London at this time (if he were not very lately returned) D. Bagshaw, called up as is supposed, by his own procurement, it is very likely they agreed with him, that in no case whatsoever determination should come from Rome, peace should be made, or kept with the Archpriest, and jesuits. How many things must a man suppose, before he come to imagine, that one man meant not to have peace with the Archpriest and jesuits? which, if it should be granted to this fellow, how would he hereupon infer, that there was an egregious faction meant by those Appellants, of which this man of whom he 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. Much, two of the three Appellants, did somewhat guess at, when they showed so much doubt to the Archpriest, as before you have heard, of bringing D. Bagshaw into this reconciliation? And to further this conceit, that M. Doctor Bagshaw had dealings with the Council, there is a letter of a reverend priest dated the 15. of April 1599 which is full of foolish jealousies, and senseless surmises, it being well known, that M. Doct. Bagshaw was sent for from Wisbich to London, to answer for his life, being most falsely and unchristianlike accused, to have had part in that Spanish treachery, for which Squire was put to death: although this author in the 13. chap. fol. 207. doth most shamelessly avouch, that as soon as ever they (the priests) understood that their two messengers were restrained in Rome (which was not before the 29. of December) and not like to prevail (which could not be so soon known in England) then D. Bagshaw was sent for from Wisbich to London to treat with the Council: and all England can witness, that he was sent for by the Council about the Michaelmas before the two priests were imprisoned. But next after these authentical surmises of one of the fellow united brethren (but a reverend one, and therefore must carry credit, howsoever this Apology hath cracked it) there followed another letter of another reverend priest, who affirmeth that D. Bagshaw is at the last constrained to yield his obedience to their Superior, with the rest of his confederates: If it be true (saith he) that M. Much and some others affirm. And yet there is a greater argument, but it is against M. Bluet. If (saith this author) the said keeper of Wisbich castle do not greatly abuse M. Bluet. And this standing upon so nice a point, I will leave to them, who have will to compare their honesties together, and conclude contrarily to this author's conclusion, fol. 153. for there he concludeth in this manner: By this then and divers other ways, which we leave to speak of here, (the priests are much bound to him for sparing them) it is easy to see what manner of negotiation these men had in hand, when the Breve came, and how far they were embarked, and entangled, etc. (you must conceive some strange link by this etc.) with the Council at this very time. How gladly would any blind man see this, and brag when he hath done with the best sighted? For who, that hath his eyes, can see any such matter out of these fond surmises, out of their own letters, and a memorial of a man of whom they themselves have some doubt, whether he did not abuse the party, whom he took for his author? who doth not rather see, to what poor shifts this author is driven, who to determine so weighty a question, as he proposed fol. 148. which part hath broken the peace, can say nothing, but perhaps, and as is supposed, and it is very likely, and it may be, and it is thought: with other such foolish suspicions and doubts, of which all this discourse is full, from the first entrance into the consideration of much more consequence, fol. 144. to this conclusion, By this then, fol. 153. How much more directly do the priests in all places solve this question, affirming without any such foolish shuffling, that the jesuits first (namely F. jones) began this breach, by broaching afresh, that the priests were schismatics? And the Archpriest seconded him with a most seditious letter which he sent abroad: wherein he signified, that he had received a resolution from the mother City, that the refusers of the appointed authority were schismatics. And this have the priests set down in their books, to have been the cause of the breach: and this cannot be denied to have been done by the Archpriest after the peace was made: although this author in chap. 11. fol. 167. taketh notice, that in the book to his Holiness, pa. 62. there is this marginal note, Origo novarum contentionum fuit Archipresbyteri Epistola violenta. The beginning of new contentions, was a violent Epistle of the Archpriest. And upon this note, he exclaimeth in his religious manner against the priests, that they would break out again upon an angry epistle. And he runneth himself so out of breath, as although this note is set at the very bottom of the 62. page, he could not step over to the 63 page, where some part of this angry epistle is thus set down. Ab urbe etc. we have received a resolution from the mother City, that the refusers of the appointed authority, were schismatics. But the marginal note was enough for him to exercise his mild spirit against the priests: and by concealing wherefore that note was made, and what was in the discourse, to cousin his blind reader, who must not once look into the priests books, for fear lest their guide's falseness be discovered.  
And thus have I showed, how the jesuits & the Archpriests want of consideration hath been the cause of all these present broils, and that this division should not only not be cured, but be brought in time to a greater breach, as by the event we have seen performed. Whereby also it appeareth how false this narration is of this author. For first (saith he) under the foresaid pretence of a satisfaction to be made unto them of their fames wounded, delay was made of reconciliation. Hath this fellow so soon forgotten himself what he said in this 10. Chap. fol. 147. out of M. Archpriests letter to Fa. Parsons, dated the 3. of june 1599? I was enforced (saith he) upon their contentions, and contemptuous behaviour (that is their appeal from him to the Pope, as is set down in the book to the Inquisition epist. 52. & 53.) to suspend the use of faculties in M. Collington, M. Much, and M. Heburne. But now God be blessed, upon the sight of the Breve Apostolical, that you sent, they have in such manner submitted themselves, that I have given them restitution of their losses. The Breve also of the 17. of August 1601. excludeth all delay, affirming, that so soon as ever the priests did see the former Breve, they presently submitted themselves, yet must this fellow to keep himself in ure (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 under pretence of having satisfaction; which howsoever the accusers of the priests shall make to God, they are never able to make to them. Then (saith he) new quarrels picked, new complaints feigned, new exaggerations made, by words and writings both against the Archpriest (the causes hereof are laid down before, and the whole story at large sent to the Inquisition) the Cardinal's protections, and F. Parsons by name, especially concerning the treaty of their two messengers in Rome. Perchance Fa. Parsons letter of the 9 of October 1599, which he sent into England, France, and Flanders, and where not? came to some of their hands, and also the letter of M. Martin Array, and Fa. Baldwines' bolt to D. Cicyll before cited came to be examined, and were evident arguments of falsehood (to say no worse) and lewd dealing, and the breach renewed before by the jesuits, and Archpriest (as is showed) might give the priests just cause to look further into the matter, than they could before suspect: but when were these quarrels picked? by whom? or how followed? mark I pray you how he falleth into a story impertinent to these controversies. The peace was made by the priests in May 1599 as in this chapter is confessed, the breach was presently after made by the jesuits, and the Archpriest, as this author doth in a manner confess, in that neither of himself, nor provoked thereto by the priests their books he will come near to this point, which is the most principal in this present controversy; and now he will tell you a tale of M Charnocke his return, which was a year after, to wit in May 1600. who (as he saith) was invited to come home, and so he did, no doubt much against this fellows will, who (if I am not deceived) was the cause of his banishment and confinement without any maintenance, to keep him in case for ever coming home, and to aggravat the matter M. Charnocke is said to have made a ridiculous appeal from the sentence of the two Cardinals. But I think that this fellows worship did not laugh when he heard of it Yea and more than this he came to Paris, and took degree of Bachelor of divinity, which perchance troubled this fellows worship, as much as the appeal, and thereupon he doth so juggle it with M. Bishop his taking degree of doctor, forbidden (as he saith) by an express Breve, that his Reader may think M. Charnocke had committed some great offence, and yet this author mean nothing less, but that he laid all the offence upon doctor Bishop, who was before, and not at that time made Doctor as he would seem to say, and was lawfully made, and worthily, and no way contrary to the true meaning of the Breve, which was gotten of the Pope not against the doctoring without approbation, as here is most falsely noted in the margin, but against the doctoring of young men, and such (by explication of those, who procured the Breve) as would take the degree more timely, than the ambition of their adversaries could well like of. But to return to his tale of M. Charnocke. Here then (that is at Paris) it was resolved (saith he) that M. Charnocke notwithstanding his Holiness 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 upon the Apology pag 157. and thereby set himself free until the matter were again discussed) and his own oath to the contrary (which he never took nor was any offered him, when the sentence here specified fol. 155 was showed him by Fa. Parsons in form of a letter to the same Father being then Rector, or the vice Rector of the College) should go into England under pretence of lack of means to live abroad. (This was the cause of his Appeal in Lorraine before he came to Paris, as M. Archpr. understood by a letter from M. Artur Pitts, the Dean of Le Verdun, and Chancellor of the Legation in Lorraine) and that only for fashion sake he should advise Cardinal Burghesius thereof, which he did by a little short contemptious letter of the 25. of May. The letter was written in very humble manner, as I understood by those that saw it, and with the privity of others in Paris, who would soon have caused any such style to have been altered and as it was not perchance very long so (as it appeaeth by the author's relation) it was not very short (for here he saith, that the Cardinal did answer all the objections, or cavillations touched therein, about their hard usage, & injurious sentence given against them, and how he had appealed, which this author calleth points of the letter) nor in any such manner contemptible, for who can think, that this fellow were so modest, that amongst all his contemptuous terms, and narrow seeking for the least matters to bring the priests into contempt, he would not set down some one phrase or other, by which it should appear to his Reader, that the letter was a contemptuous letter. To the which (saith he) the most honourable, and gracious good Cardinal answered with great patience and modesty the fifteenth of September in the year 1600, beginning his letter thus: Reverend in Christ, as my brother, your letters written at Paris the 28 of May, about your journey into England, were delivered more slowly to my hand then I could have wished, both that I might have answered sooner, and have dissuaded that journey of yours, if they had come unto me, before your departure out of France, for that I think the news of your departure will be ungrateful to his Holiness, as it is unto us, for so much as it is both against obedience, and against an express prohibition, and against your own promise confirmed with an oath, and is thought will give occasion of new contention and troubles in England etc. Thus far in the Apology. And afterward this author declareth how the Cardinal did answer the objections, which M. Charnocke had made, and that notwithstanding this, M. Charnocke did not only persevere in England in the exercise of his function of priesthood, having openly incurred the censure of suspension, but also returned a more undutiful answer, than was his sooner letter, which he proveth by those words in M. Charnocks letter, Quam licet tunc cluderem fraudem, ad maiorem securitatem uterque ab eo absolui curavimus: although I did delude at that time the deceit used in making us swear, to fulfil the sentence given against us, yet both of us afterward procured ourselves for more security to be absolved from this oath.  
This letter of the Cardinal Burghese is set down at large in the book to the Inquisition pag 84. 85. 86. and 87. and immediately doth M. Charnocks letter follow, where who will may see them. I will here only touch so much of M. Charnocks letter, as is in answer to that part of the Cardinals here cited, leaving the rest to men of judgement; to consider whether M. Charnocke did not what he did, upon sufficient ground to save himself harmless from all censures, and blameless in the opinion of any honest man. Thus he beginneth his reply, which this author taxeth so deeply for undutifulness.  
Most Reverend, and most illustrious prince: your letters dated at Rome 15. Septemb. 1600. I did receive at London in England upon the 21. of the next month following. To the which I return this answer, with as great respect as the law was in which they were written: I do not well understand how the notice of my going into England, should be ungrateful, either to his Holiness, or unto your Highness, when as neither a most loving Father, nor a most just judge, can be ignorant, that food is as needful for the living, as punishment for the offendor. The Rector, or Vicerector of the English College in Rome was appointed by letters of the most illustrious Cardinal Caietan of good memory, and of your Highness, dated from both your palaces 21. of April 1599 to signify unto us in your names, that we should not presume for a time to go without leave into the kingdoms of England, Scotland, or Ireland, but should live quietly, peaceably, and religiously in other Catholic countries, where we should be appointed by you, and that we should procure the conservation of peace every where among the English Catholics. If either of them had signified unto us in your names, or in the names of any other, where banished and confined men should have had those things which were necessary to sustain life, and that these things had been at hand, I might have been charged with disobedience, and breach of an express commandment, not obeying so pious an intention of the decree, which laid upon me a most grievous (howsoever undeserved) punishment, as being hereby made somewhat tolerable, and the oath had not been a bond of so great wickedness, if I had taken any, not to return into my Country. M. Acarisius upon the 22 of April 1599 having first proposed unto us, not to return into our Country, under pain of suspension, did after by F. Parson's suggestion, among other things, exact also an oath of this: which deceit although then I deladed, for the greater security we both procured to be absolved from it. Furthermore, if M. Acarisius did receive no commission from the most illustrious Cardinal Caietane and your Highness, or that this commission were recalled, before that he came unto us, I know not what promise that is, with which any man may charge me, that I confirmed it with an oath: but it is evident by the testimony of Fa. Parsons and also by your own letters of the 21. of April 1599 to the Rector, or Vicerector of the English College in Rome, that either Acarisius received no commission from you, or that it was recalled before he came to us. For in these letters the Commission is given to the Rector or Vicerector of the College, to signify unto us, as prisoners in the College, in your names what we were to do. And so doth M. Charnocke proceed, answering every part and parcel in the Cardinal's letters, and showing out of the most approved canonists, that his fact was lawful, and that he incurred no censures, by returning into his Country, after his Appeal made in Lorraine. And by this it is made manifest, what the deceit was, and whose, which M. Charnocke telleth the Cardinal he did delude, and the cavils are also answered, which are here made in the Apology, where this author would ask: who could absolve from an oath exhibited by the immediate Commissary, or Delegate of his Holiness? For to this is answered, that if the immediate Commissary, or Delegate of his Holiness ask an oath, beyond his Commission, any man may absolve from it. But neither was here any immediate Commissary, nor Delegate of his Holiness, but a fellow suborned (as it should seem) by F. Parsons to come do some act at his request. For M. Acarisius seeming to read what he proposed, as sent to the College by the two Cardinals, had not his lesson so perfect, as Fa. Parsons had it without the book. And upon Fa. Parson's after-speech, M. Acarisius repeated his lesson, and thrust in this devise, that the priests should swear not to go into Englang without leave, whereas before there was only a censure of suspension to be incurred, if they did return without leave, which censure also, as M. Charnocke doth demonstrate in his answer to the Cardinal, was suspended by his Appeal. But this matter is more aggravated yet against M. Charnock for that the sentence was such, as otherwise they were bound to accept, and fulfil under pain of deadly sin, that is to say, they were bound to go beg or starve in some one place or other, out of their country, unless this fellow can persuade his Reader, that they had some allowance for their maintenance, to which if any man had been compelled to bind himself by oath; I would ask any in different man, whether there could be maioris iniquitatis vinculum, a bond of greater iniquity, especially if the jurors were never convinced of any crime (as their case was) which bond all learned men do say, is no bond. And if this poor companion his opinion (that every decree did bind under deadly sin) were received, all the Canonists must go for egregious fools, who affirm both that some decrees are ipso ture, of no force (and M. Charnocke in his answer to the Cardinal showeth, how that their decree was such) and also that a just Appellation such, as M. Charnocke doth there prove this to be in the opinions of Innocentius, Hostiensis, Geminianus, S. Antonin, Coberrubias, Silvester, Angelus, Navarre, and others, may take away the force of a decree, that it do no way bind, until the cause be again judged against the Appellant: But this fellow speaketh according to his skill, when he telleth the Reader, that the two priests were bound under mortal sin, to accept and fulfil that sentence, which the Cardinal gave concerning the oath. There is enough said, although also it may be added, that there are certain in all countries, who have very large faculties, as this author knoweth well, who can upon cause dispense 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 party inveighed may with greater security receive the absolution. And upon occasion given him to speak of the oath, as the Cardinal did here give M. Charnocke, he may say without any bragging, that he did delude the deceit which was used by such cozening companions as would exact an oath where they had no commission. But neither was any oath exacted at all for the performance of this sentence, and this author showeth himself a notorious impostor in false translating those words, quam licet, etc. Here hath this author set down the decree of the two Card, to the performance whereof he challengeth an oath made by the priests, which he saith was as clear & resolute, as might be set down in these words. Quapropter praefatis Gulielmo & Roberto sacerdotibus, etc. Wherefore both in his Holiness and our names, we do ordain unto the foresaid William and Robert priests, and do command them strictly in the virtue of holy obedience, under the pain of suspension from holy orders and exercise of the same to be incurred by the fact itself, and under other censures and punishments, to be inflicted at the judgement of his Holiness, that none of them without express licence of his Holiness, or Cardinal Protector, do presume to go to any of the kingdoms of England, Scotland, or Ireland for the time, etc. This &c: cutteth off the principal point, which would here make against this author; for in that which followeth, it is evident, that not M. Acarisius, but the Rector or Vicerector of the English College, were appointed by the two Cardinals, to deliver their commandment unto the two priests, and consequently what was before done by signor Acarisius, to have been some juggling of Fa. Parsons: for that it followeth in the decree, or letter rather, as also it is confessed in his Apology, fol. 139. Sed apud alios, etc. Hocque nostro nomine Beverentia vestra eis significet. But live in other countries, etc. And this do your Reverence signify unto them in our name. And if any man should doubt, whose reverence it was, who was to deliver the Card. mind unto the two priests, they may put themselves out of doubt, by looking upon this inscription, Reverendo in Christo Patri Rectori vel Vicerectori Collegij Anglorum de urbe: To the Reverend Father Rector or Vicerector of the English College in Rome. But this and the latter part of the letter was left out, that the Reader might conceive how that the priests had sworn to observe, or fulfil this decree, and that this oath was exhibited by the immediate Commissary or Delegate of his Holiness, whereas this letter appeared not in many days after that M. Acarisius the Commissary came unto the College upon a sleeveless errand, as by this decree it appeareth, although it bear a date of the day before M. Acarisius came thither, to wit, 21. April, and M. Acarisius came not until the 22. of the same. And this was then used as an argument by Fa. Parsons, that M. Acarisius should not have come, insomuch as he seemed to be somewhat amazed (as I understand) when he showed this letter to M. Charnocke, what the reason might be that Acarisius did take upon him to declare the Cardinal's sentence, seeing the Cardinals had committed the matter to others, as appeared by those letters. And Fa. Parson's being asked by M. Charnocke, what should be the reason, that these letters bearing date the 21. of April, were not seen in so many days after? answered, that they were brought unto the College the 21. of April, which was the day before M. Acarisius came thither, but were left in his chamber the same day, and that he had newly found them, when he brought them to M. Charnocke. M. Bishop was now at liberty, and had been some days before, and had not seen this sentence of the two Cardinals, neither was it ever showed him otherwise, then thus: Coming one day to see F Parsons, or M. Charn. who was kept still as yet in prison, F. Parsons told him, that there lay a letter upon the table for him to look on, which when M. Bishop had read, he laid it down again, and never was any motion made to one, or other for any oath; for the fulfilling of this sentence of the Cardinals, which was their sentence, and no other, as is confessed in this Apology fol. 139. and is only urged in this place to have been transgressed with perjury: for so still doth this author go forward. This was the decree (saith he) and it is strange that any Catholic priest would adventure, to break it so openly, and to glory in it by writing, when he had done. This man is vilely troubled that M. Charnocke did nothing but for what he was able to give his reason, and such as when he cometh to answer, he letteth all slip quietly. Yet he will here have a saying unto him, and tell his reader that M. Charnocke did glory in the breaking of the decree; which is most false: for neither did he break the decree, but appealed in form of Law from the iniquity thereof, nor glory therein, but proved the justness of his appeal out of most approved authors, as may be seen in his answer to Cardinal Burghese set in the book to the Inquisition pag. 87. But what? (saith he) did he attend to observe the other part of the decree, more than this, which was that they should live quietly and obediently, and to procure others also to peace, and concord? I answer, that I understood by such as lived in Lorraine, that he lived very quietly, and brought with him a testimony of the same from M. Arthur Pitts, to whom he was so much beholding, as to live in his house, until his breaking up house caused M. Charnocke to return into his country: and he lived obediently to all his Superiors. And in this very Chapter there will be a sufficient testimony gathered out of the 144 leaf, that he procured peace, and concord in such as loved peace. And as for the others, it was neither in his power to procure it (being banished so far off from them) neither could any man in wisdom ●…e him unto it. But this author will prove the contrary: but how, trow ye? Forsooth by the effects that ensued his going in. As how? For within fourteen days after this his letter to the Cardinal, there followed their greatest appeal from the Archpriest. A great matter against M. Charnocke. Might he not aswell have said, that it was about a month after that Cardinal Burghesius' letter came into England to M. Charnocke, and have laid the blame (if appealing deserved blame) upon the Cardinal? If any man will take the pains to look upon the causes of the Appeal set down in English in Ma. Colingtons' book pag. 192. to the 202 page, he shall find as much reason for the one as for the other, and that the grievances were most intolerable which were offered them, long before M. Charn. return into England, and were the principal causes of their Appeal. But lest that all, even his blindest fools, should find him to be a poor caviller in this cause against M. Charnocke, he will tell them another conjecture, and that is, that M. Charn. sought occasion to quarrel with the Archpriest upon his first entertainment into England. And for proof hereof he citeth a piece of a letter, which M. Charnocke writ unto him 24. May 1600, of which letter I will set some part down, according to the copy thereof, as I have seen it: Right Reverend Sir, being returned into England, I thought it my duty in most humble manner, to salute you, hoping my return cannot be prejudicial to any your good courses, and desiring for your further satisfaction, to speak with you, when it shall please you. This which followeth is inserted here in the Apology. In the mean while to request of you thus much in charity, to write to me, why sending for me to declare the authority given you by Cardinal Caietane his letters, you showed me such instructions as when I came to Rome, I found were not annexed to your Commission, as you at that time said were annexed. Thus far in the Apology, and then toward the latter end: Reverend Sir, a small reason from you shall give me satisfaction: for mine intention is not to argue any matters with you, but to take your answer simply, as you shall give it, and rest therein satisfied. And this scruple being removed, I shall the more confidently deal with you in other matters which I am to impart unto you. Thus wishing nothing more than peace and quietness amongst us, I cease to trouble you from your charitable affairs, and do expect some answer from you at your best leisure. 24. of May. But of this hath this Apology maker culled as much as is here noted: which part if it were taken alone by itself, could not imply a quarrel in any honest man's judgement, much less when it is taken with all these circumstances. But this author must either add somewhat still to that which he citeth, or curtal it: or else he will shame himself. And as for that which M. Charnocke affirmed in his letter, it is confirmed by an other, although the Archpriests secretary gave M. Charnock the lie five or six times in the answer to his letter, which how well soever it suiteth with the new religious managing of matters, did not so well become a priest to a priest: neither hath M. Charnocke so behaved himself, but that his credit alone without any other witness may be thought as good as M Blackwel's, or this idle authors, although he doth not envy their worship's calling. But mark I pray you how this matter would be here salved. The Archpriest denieth that ever he said, that they (the feigned instructions) were expressly 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 use these particular words: but he is charged directly, that pretending to show the instructions which were annexed to his Commission, he showed such as were not annexed thereunto. And being taken in the manner he confessed as much. And who seethe not what a poor shift this is, the Archpriest denieth that he said they were expressly in his instructions? who doubteth but that the man saith truth, when answering his neighbour who calleth for him useth 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 saith he is not at home. And with this jest doth this fellow salve this matter; the Archpriest denieth that he said that they were expressly in his instructions. Who ever charged him that he should use these words? These poor shifts may blind such as willingly will be blind, and other men will soon discover the fallacy. The accusation was and is, that pretending to show his instructions, which his Commission mentioned, to be annexed unto it, he drew out false things, which were never annexed to his commission: and he was taken in the manner. And this is it which both M. Charnocke and M. Colington will justify, & many more such goodly matters, if need shall require, where these poor tricks will not serve to any purpose, I say not thus or thus expressly. Now follow certain exceptions against some letters written by certain priests in Wisbich unto the Archpriest. I have not seen the copies to my remembrance, and therefore can say nothing of them more than this, that it is not incredible, that the Archpriest would give cause of sharper words than are there used. But all serveth to prove somewhat, namely, what course was held by the troublesome, especially after M. charnock's return into England. But there is not one word, what the masters of misrule did before M. Charnock returned into England, or what cause they did give of these troubles, to wit, the raising of the slander of schism, and such vile imputations, as the prisoners might accordingly have written to the Archpriest in other terms, then peripsema tuum. There must not be a word of this matter which made all the stir: for saith this fellow with shame enough (ca 8 fol. 115.) of the other point of schism we will not talk at all, and we are sorry that ever it was mentioned or brought in question: unquiet people having taken occasion hereby to continue contention, and to make more brabbles than were needful. How easy a matter had it been then for this author to have solved this question proposed in this tenth chapter fol 148. Which part hath broken the peace, since that he doth acknowledge, that the bringing of schism in question was the cause of this contention, and could not be ignorant, who brought it again in question, being told so often that the jesuits did it; and the Archpriest both before and after the peace was made, and the Archpriest his letter was cited for proof thereof in the book to his Holiness pag. 63, and in the book to the Inquisition pag. 60? But this author must have his Readers ears filled with other stories, such as are impertinent to his question. And when he thinketh that his Reader hath forgotten the matter which he proposed: then he slinketh away, and beginneth afresh with some other which he handleth as wisely.  
But to make an end of this Chapter: here are certain letters inserted of F. Parson's exhorting to peace, as though F. Parson's tricks were not known very well. If this author could have brought forth any of F. Parson's letters to his fellow F. Lyster, or F. Garnet, or F. jones the jesuits, who were the chief maintainers of that senseless Libel of schism against the priests, to persuade them to retract their scandalous opinions, to correct their forwardness in insuring Catholic priests, to exhort them to make satisfaction for their unchristian detractions: such letters would have been for F. Parson's credit. But to cite a letter, or exhortation to the priests injuried, to have peace: what doth it argue but an obdurate malice in him, and a wicked desire, that they should desist from that, to which they were bound in conscience, to wit, the defence of their fame, and the clearing themselves from such false, but most wicked impostures of schism, rebellion, and whatsoever a mischievous head could devise, and spread abroad against them?  
And so finally (saith this author) after all their former resistance, and appeals aswell of D. Bagshaw and his fellows at Wisbich, as of M. Charnocke and other abroad, they joined in greater number upon the 17. of November last, if all consented thereunto, whose names are subscribed, whereof we hear the contrary in some (some one or two, who had given their consents in general, but had not seen this particular appeal, yet afterward confirmed it, and appealed again, 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 have never procured any one of all their appeals to be presented hitherto, or prosecuted in Rome as far as we can understand, (this last clause will not help, if the proposition be general of all the appeals: For M. Charnocks appeal was presented and prosecuted in Rome, before this book came forth: and this author could not be ignorant thereof, if I am not mistaken in him) which yet they ought to have done within certain months, under pain that all is void if it be not done. But how many are these certain months? The Lawyers say 13. months, if we shall count them by the months: and upon just cause 26. months from the Appeal, within which time doubtless the author of this Apology, heard of the Appellants at Rome. And Lancelot l. 4. Instit. juris Canon. de appellationibus cap. accidit. affirmeth, Yet a longer time might have been granted for the prosecution of an Appeal: But as I think no man doth now doubt, but that the priests had intention to follow their Appeal, and will give this cause of their publishing of books, pendente lite, that is, while the controversies hang: for that the Archpriest (notwithstanding their Appeal) denounced them to have incurred the censures, & lost their faculties, because they subscribed to a thing called an Appeal, & he kept a fowl stir by some of his seditious Agents against the Appellants. another reason was, because they had a desire that their cause should be known sufficiently abroad, which could not be known too much in their conceit, who sought nothing but a trial of the truth, and for justice against their unjust defamers. But what this author hath to say against these books, you shall hear in the next Chapter: and if you will have an answer from him to this question proposed fol. 148. which part hath broken the peace, you must go pick it up where you can, now you know his worship's mind.   

CHAP. 16. How the two books against which the Apology is written, are slightly run over with a few cavils against them. Apol. cap. 11.  
IN the eleventh Chapter the author of the Apology intendeth to show, how false, slanderous, and injurious the two books are which the Priests set forth; whereof one was in Latin to his Holiness, the other in English, entitled, The Copies of certain Discourses. He will also show how highly the writers and publishers offended God, and all good men thereby. Lastly, he will defend certain particular men, that are slandered therein. And first he beginneth to show, how God was offended, supposing still, that credit must be given unto him in all which he saith, Now (saith he fol. 160.) are we come (gentle Reader) almost to the last, but the most loathsome part of all our answer, which is to handle and examine in particular, the two contumelious libels, etc. And after a holy protestation against so base and wicked a spirit, never so much perchance as imagined, that it should be so manifest in himself, doth here, and since in his Manifestation of spirits, and a certain Latin libel, entitled, Appendix, etc. he telleth his gentle Reader, that the sin of libeling is to be considered, how grievous it is in the sight of God, how great censures are laid thereon, etc. O how would this man make a saint with a little help? but his gentle Reader demandeth of him, where all these considerations were, when the jesuits writ their discourse, adversus factiosos in Ecclesia: against the factious in the Church: where were these considerations, when this libel was generally approved by their fellow jesuits, the Archpriest, and all that seditious crew, which adhered unto them in this sinful act, whereby many Catholic priests were most maliciously, and most unjustly defamed, and (to omit other most malapert and scornful speeches) were in spirit exclaimed against in this sort, Vos rebels estis, etc. Ye are rebels, ye are schismatics and fallen out of the Church the spouse of Christ, you have trampled under your feet the obedience which is due to the sea Apostolic, ye have rushed into excommunication and irregularity, ye have so scandalised the godly that ye are every where infamous, ye have by disobedience sinned against the chief Vicar of Christ, and against Christ himself the judge and justicer. See, I pray you, how that ye are nothing better than Soothsayers and Idolaters, and as Ethnics & Publicans, because you obeyed not the Church when it spoke unto you by the highest Bishop. And all this stir was, because the priests did not accept of the new authority upon the sight of a letter written by one that was neither the highest Bishop, nor the lowest, nor yet any Bishop at all, nor of any such credit, as he was to be believed in this matter, as hath been sufficiently proved by M. Doctor Ely in his notes upon the Apology, and M. Collington in his defence of the slandered priests, and was diversly touched before in other their books. But where were these godly considerations, when this libel, so senseless, false, and scandalous, was written and published? how was God offended hereby, or was he not in your pious wisdom? were any censures incurred hereby of the Church, or any punishments deserved which the civil law inflicteth upon Libelers? In whom was that base and wicked spirit, against which you so godly inveigh in this place, when jesuits, the Archpriest, and their faction were authors, spreaders, or approovers of such things? where were these godly meditations, when the Archpriest after the peace made did spread and approve that scandalous libel, or resolution (as he termed it) from the mother city, that the refusers of the appointed authority, were schismatics? I will omit to speak of that base and wicked spirit, which carried certain gentlemen from house to house (as he doth the mountebanks from town to town) with certain libels against particular men, where they seem to strive whether they can excel those mountebanks in shameless and ungracious relations. I will here say nothing of that base and wicked spirit, which maketh every one of the factious adherents to the jesuits and Archpriest, a most infamous and scandalous Libeler against such priests, as did delay to accept of the Archpr. before they saw just cause, and denied afterward that they had been schismatics during the time of that delay. I will not urge this fellow his Manifestation of spirits, in which all his holiness (which he pretendeth many other ways) is discovered to be nothing but hypocrisy. I will only stand upon this Apology, in which I have showed, and shall yet discover so many falsehoods and slanders, as no man of indifferency can deny, but that it is a most notorious libel, and proceeded of a most base and wicked spirit. And so I will leave it to the author his own judgement here given, what sin it is to libel, how grievous in the sight of God and man, and how great censures and extreme punishments are due unto him for it, when he shall come to his answer, as the priests have been in the face of the whole world: which in the opinion of all learned men, hath freed their books from the ignominious name of libels.  
But here are certain circumstances, which aggravate the matter against the priests: as first, that a religious community is here defamed: but this is false, for the society is not touched by the priests, but certain men of the society, such as we hope the whole society will not bear out in their wicked courses. And if they should bear them out therein, and thereby make themselves a party, then must the religious community expect no other privilege, than any other irreligious company. And I cannot but marvel, how M.D. Ely in this Epistle to M. D.W. (prefixed to his notes upon the Apology) blameth the Priests for opposing themselves (as he mistaketh them) against the whole society: for they have not in all their books used any such general terms, as may include the whole body of the society when they have spoken of jesuits: but in handling particular matters have sufficiently discovered whom they have meant, when they have spoken of jesuits, yea they have in plain terms, and particularly affirmed, and published in print, that they do not touch the body of the society, but some particular men, as may be seen in their preface to the book dedicated to the Inquisition, pag 5. where they make this protestation, Neque quae de societate hîc dicentur, in universam societatem dicta velimus, cui tantum tribuimus quantum eius virtus, & doctrina postulant, hic tantum particulares quorundam actiones conquerimur, etc. Neither will we, that what is said here of the society, be said of the whole society, to which we do attribute as much as their virtue and learning deserve, we do complain here of the particular actions of some only, etc. And as it should seem, this matter troubleth the author of this Apology much more, as it is against a few jesuits, then as it is against all the rest, which causeth himself still to forget himself, or his matter rather, when any occasion occurreth as it doth often to speak of the jesuits, and here he runneth along after them with these admirations, what manner of people they be for divers respects, that are here discovered, although they were not the same men, which are here discovered: and of what account with our very enemies themselves, of what other than hypocrites, matchivilians and traitors to their Country? some of them being Superiors (as every parish in London hath schoolmasters, yea and some in higher offices) some of singular merit towards the common cause, such cause perhaps, as to which the infamy of Catholic priests must be judged most necessary: others notorious for their known virtues, how gladly would blind Hugh see some of them here in England, for then, neither should the good have cause to grieve, nor the bad be conformed in their naughty course, who seeing the supposed best to be so bad, they do rashly conjecture, that there is none good, for which folly of theirs, they and their bad guides must answer at the last day, and smart long before, unless they repent themselves while they have time to repent. Thus much concerning this authors conceit of the sin of libeling retorted upon himself and his partners in this Apology, and other his Libels, which he will never be able to justify. Now follow his exceptions against the two books, which he termeth Libels, wherein he purposeth to discover foul faults to have been, as falsehood, deceit, malice and slanderous calumniations. Always provided, that whereas the Reader hath still expected, and lived in hope to see somewhat to the purpose, now he must take this cold comfort to be remitted back to the Chapters before handled for a larger proof of what is to be said. First he beginneth with the latin book, which is dedicated to his Holiness, whose title is, Declaratio motuum, etc. A declaration of the stirs and troubles that have risen in England between the jesuits on the one side, together with M. G. Blackwel Archpriest in all things favouring them, and the Seminary Priests on the other side, from the death of Cardinal Allen of pious memory, unto this year 1601. In this very title (saith he) and first page 5. or 6. abuses and sleights and shifts may be noted to be used towards his Holiness etc. for first whereas the whole world knoweth, that their controversy is with the Archpriest as appeareth by their Appellation to his Holiness, an. 1600. 17. Novemb. and others before, and that their stomach against the jesuits is for standing with him, and for as by the whole discourse of both these books appeareth, here they change the whole controversy, and do say, that it is with the jesuits and M. Blackwell, that favoureth them so as he is put here, but as an Appendix in the cause which is plain falsehood.  
This is the first fault which is found in the Latin book: & all things considered, it will not prove a fault, much less so foul as this author would it should seem to be: the appellation was made from the Archp. & not from the jesuits, because appellations are made from such only, as are and take upon them to be superiors. Such are not the jesuits over the Secular priests, neither doth the appealing from the Archpr. clear the jesuits, who in the appellation itself are proved to be the chief fountains of all these broils, as all the world may see in the Appeal. And he doth very falsely affirm that the whole discourse showeth no other, as himself can remember, when he listeth: Namely in his table prefixed to his Apology num. 23. where he citeth this sentence out of his Latin book pag. 30. Iesuitae etc. The jesuits despairing to be able to get superiority to themselves by way of voices or suffrages (of the priests) and on the other side hating and flying to admit episcopal dignity (into England) thought to procure dominion to themselves under the mask of an other man's person, etc. Hath this fellow now forgotten what his own judgement was there of the priests their conceit of this matter? hath not he persuaded his reader, that the principal and only ground of this our present contention, and scandalous controversy, is the very same disease of emulation partly of Lay men against priests, and partly of priests against religious men, especially the Fathers of the Society, with whom at this present they have to do? Apol. cap. 1. fol. 2. And would he now have his reader believe, that the whole world knoweth the contrary, and that it is not principally against the jesuits? And whereas it is here said that the Archpr. is put as an Appendix, some indeed do think, that he hath bound himself Apprentice to the jesuits: but I do not hear that the priests do talk of th'one or th'other.  
The second foul fault which here is found is, that the priests of the Seminaries residing in England, are put for the opposite part, of which, saith he, these contentions are not the twentieth part, and this is proved by their own confessions, in the former chapter. Perchance this fellow hath relation to the question made to M Bishop, and M. Charnocke, How many they did certainly know to approve this their mission, and to be privy to the matters, that should be proposed, etc. Chap 9 Apol. 131. To which these priests made their answer according to their own certain knowledge, which answer is there deceitfully inserted, as hath been showed, and is here as deceitfully again brought by him for his purpose, their confessions being, that there were Quàm plures sacerdotes, Very many priests, as appeareth where M. Charnocks examination is set down fol. 130, which he there proved by certain letters, which he brought with him, which testified as much. And by their answer of their certain knowledge, which they could not have, but by present or particular letter: this fellow taketh a silly advantage to prove that they were not the 20. part by their own confession. The priests did call themselves priests of the Seminaries, because they were so, and by this name are distinguished from the jesuits, who are the principal faction against them, and are priests, who sooner or later for the most part did forsake the Seminaries.  
Thirdly, they say in this title (saith he) that their contentions against the jesuits began from the death of Card. Allen. They neither challenge unto themselves any contentions against the jesuits, neither do they say when any begun, but only entitled the book in this manner, A declaration of stirs and troubles which are or were between the jesuits and them, since the death of the Cardinal, unto such a year. If a man should write of the wars in the Low Countries from the death of the Prince of Parma, until this present year, must he be said to affirm, that the wars began then? yet cannot this author prove, that there was any public opposition, or common stirs in England before the Cardinal's death: but that rather what was begun, (as he saith Cap. 2. fol. 85. in the Cardinal's time by Libertines, and factious people,) was retained somewhat from breaking forth by his authority while he lived, and this is most true: for the jesuits who lusted after a superiority over the priests, were afraid to make this their pride known, either by themselves, or by their factious adherents, so long as he lived; But the good Cardinal being dead in the year 94, all factious brake out together; Fa. Weston the jesuit, and his factions begun a common wealth in Wisbich, and under a colour of a stricter rule, all the priests there must become his subjects, or live in perpetual infamy, some jesuits abroad took order for the priests their welcome to all such places, whither they were not directed by them. The matters of Rome I leave to them to whom that belongeth, and although this fellow is so impudent, as to allege the Cardinal Allen his letter to prove that some of the seditious (as he termeth them) had begun to stir against the Fathers in England in his days, his reader may easily discover his falsehood if he will turn (not to the place by him cited, to wit, the 4. Chapter, for there is nothing to be seen) but to the second Chapter, for there he shall find that the priests are no more charged for any stir against the jesuits, than the jesuits for their sedition against the priests, and moreover that what difference there was, could not be but some private quarrels between some private man, and not any such public difference or dislike, as this is of which the book entreated which was dedicated to his Holiness, as I have showed where this letter is set down by this author.  
Fourthly they said, Ad S. D. N. Clementem 8. exhibita ab ipsis sacerdotibus, that this declaration was exhibited by the Priests themselves to our most holy father Pope Clement the 8. This word was is of his own addition. It is said to be exhibited, in that it was presently to be sent by them; And if it came not to his Holiness his hands so soon as they intended, the fault was not in them who took all such means for it as they could, so that they might justly use the phrase, which they did, without deserving any blame therefore. And the priests are said to exhibit it themselves, for that they writ it, and were to present it in their own names, and the not coming of it to his Holiness view will justify their printing of many copies, that some one, by one or other, might come into his hands, and the shamelessness of this fellow may the more now appear, who would so peremptorily inform his reader, that the priests were loath, that he should know of it (having by printing taken a most certain way for it) and much loather to answer it before him, before whom the whole world will witness for them, that they have been to answer it. The fifth cavil is at the sentence of Scripture, which the priests put to their books, as though they had abused it in using it in that place; But galled nags must have pardon, if being touched they winch. The justness of the priests their cause, will bear them out against all heretics, hypocrites, and Atheists, and will stop the mouths of them, how potent soever they either are, or would seem to be among their like. Thus much is implied in that sentence, and no less was in the priests their meaning when they prefixed it to their Book.  
Sixtly and lastly it is said in this first page (saith he) that it was printed Rhotomagi apud jacobum, etc. At Roan in France in the house of james, etc. And hereupon he keepeth such a foul stir, as if it had been a whole halfpenny matter, where the book had been printed, or that the Pope might have thought the priest's cause to be the more just, if the book were printed at Roan. I pray you good sir tell me, what doth the being here or there printed, help or hinder the matter in question? what if it be printed at Constantinople or at Cosmop? If this fellow could show what avail may come to the priests, or what prejudice to the other part, by having their book go forth as printed at Roan, he might have bestowed a little of his pains, taken here about it, to some good purpose: but his exception being so absurd as it is, I will turn him to the Printers boy to reason this matter with him, who, for any thing that I can as yet learn, set this (which he citeth) to the book, and the boy finding this fellow some equal match for him, will perchance spur him this question, Why he should construe Rhotomagi, Printed at Roan, rather than to be ●olde at Roan; or why he should interpret Rhotomagi, at Roan in France, rather than at Roan in England, there being in England divers places named by as strange names as Roan is, as Scotland, jury, little Britain, and such like; yea the little boy will remember perchance that some of F. P. books, which were printed here in England, are said to have been printed at Douai, and yet I trow this author will not say for a hundred pound, that F. P. can lie, or at the least, that he abused any man in saying so. But I will leave this author and the Printers boy together, for they seem to be very well coupled to argue this matter: only I wish, that this author would beware, what terms he doth use in his anger: for it may be, the Printer will call him twice or thrice by his name, if he be miscalled himself, or perchance the Printer or his boy will tell him, that there are as good Printers in London as in Roan, although they themselves were not so expert, and put him to a nonplus, for saying, that the book was printed under the protection of my L. of London.  
Well then (saith he) these six absurdities, shifts, and falsehoods, being discovered in the very first page of the book, as a preamble to the rest, and used even to his Holiness himself, we may imagine what the remnant will be. The reader may imagine, that it is not worth the stooping for, which this man letteth lie, if it be not too hot, or too heavy for him, as here also he excepteth against the priests their printing of their books: notwithstanding the scandal which may grow by the coming abroad of these dissensions: to which, answer is made, that they must look to it, who drive the priests to this course, having no other way left for them to recover their fame, which was most injuriously taken away from them. He excepteth also against that which is said of Card. Allen his favour towards the priests, which he saith he hath refuted in the third and fourth Chapter, in which this author hath committed (as often he doth in this kind) a more gross fault, then if he had said, that his book had been printed at Roan in France: for this would have troubled none, but some cavilling fool: and these tricks to refer his reader so often to such places, where he shall find nothing of that matter for which he is sent hither, may trouble even his gentle reader's patience. Well yet you must go look in the third Chapter for a matter, which is not there touched by him: there is in the fourth Chapter some proof, that the Cardinal disliked some actions, in which were some temporal men, and some priests, long ago, many years before these stirs began, which belong nothing to the controversy now in question, which is, whether the priests were schismatics, who deferred to accept the Archpr. before they did see the Breve, or to these private quarrels, of which it seemeth (by a letter of his set in the second Chapter) he was informed before his death: or thirdly to the stirs which the jesuits began in the College about the same time. To conclude, there is nothing recited there, which is here affirmed; neither is that which is laid to Fa. Heywood his challenging of legantine power in England any way solved, but in this manner: and this is all the difference, that ever was between F. Heywood and F. Parsons: as if the question had been, which is the way to Poplington? yea there is as much confessed, as F. Heywood was charged with for the particulars, as any man may see in this 164. leaf. The readers must go look here and there for divers other matters: but D. Haddock and M. Martin Array are here to be defended by the author, for that poor resistance which they made unto the two priests. Indeed these good Proctors came unto the two priests within two days, or three of their arrival at Rome, and were so hot with them, as M. Martin Array stirred not out of his chamber above a fortnight after: he had been all that while possessed with an ague, which some of his friends said, that he had before he took that heat, but a sudden joy perchance, that the two priests were that day to be apprehended, put life and health into him upon the feast day of S. Tho. of Canterbury, and made him come abroad: and what these Proctors did after, at the appearance of the two priests, I have before showed, and what M. Martin writ into England thereof.  
The particulars which touch these Proctors their persons I know not, and therefore I leave it unto them to declare, who thought it expedient to make them know in this cause: yet do I not well understand, how there was any affinity between Cardinal Allen and D. Haddock (which this fellow will needs have for the Doctor's credit) neither of them having been at any time married, and I have heard that M. Martin Array was extraordinarily favoured by Sir Francis Walsingham, by whom he was admonished to departed out of England, before some matters should chance, which would shortly chance, and would be some let to his passage: which kind of usage at that time, to wit, when the great trouble was in the year 1586. being laid together with his being then set at liberty, might give suspicion to some, that all was not as it should have been, although in times of less trouble some men have found the favour by extraordinary means to have their liberty at the intercession of some great men, or some highly favoured friends. Now followeth his defence of M. Standish, and divers other. And whereas the priests have set down in their books, that Master Standish had given his name to become a jesuite, and therefore no fit man to deal for them in the procuring of this subordination, which is pretended to have been made, to take up controversies, which were between jesuits and priests, as cap. 8. fol. 124. this author affirmeth, or priests and priests, and yet was the principal instrumentas is well known to all men) and it is confessed in the same chapter fol. 98. and 99: this author letteth that go without any word to the contrary, for intrueth he cannot deny it, and taketh occasion to say somewhat, touching that which the priests affirm of M. Standish, that is, that he did use the name of the priests, as if he had been sent by the priests, whereas indeed he was not, and that he himself said at his return (in the hearing of divers priests, who will justify it) that he had their interpretative consent, and that he presumed that they would consent to that which he did. But when this author cometh to prove, that M. Standish did nothing without the priests their consent, in the procuring of this Subordination, he returneth his reader to the eighth Chapter for divers priests letters, which already I have showed were all written after that this Subordination was made, which argueth a notable impudency in this author, that he will so peremptorily affirm, whatsoever may sound any way in the ears of those, whom affection blindeth, to make for his purpose, although in the judgement of the indifferent he worketh his confusion. For other disproof also of M. Blackwel's, and the Cardinal Cajetan's ignorance in our English affairs, his Reader must go back to the eighth and ninth Chapter: he sendeth also his Reader to the third Chapter, to see how falsely the jesuits are said to seek their own, and that they trouble the peace of England, and persecute more than heretics. To the which it hath been answered, that they do seek their own in some sort, for so much, as pride and what else followeth thereon, may be called theirs, and that also it might be said that they seek quae jesu Christi, (as this author doth there challenge) those things which are belonging to jesus Christ: for so much, as the alms of Catholics for relief of priests and other Catholics may be said to belong to jesus Christ; and that they labour by infamy to seduce the Catholic Laity from that love, and reverence, which they own unto Catholic priests, which is a persecution against the priests more grievous, than any that hath been raised by any heretics against them. For whereas there hath been a most charitable correspondence between the Catholic laity and the priests: now the world is come to this pass, that he is no zealous or godly Catholic, that will not run from place to place to disgrace all such priests as refuse to be guided by the jesuits, or in this present controversy will not acknowledge, that they lived in schism, and deserved eternal shame and reproach, because they deferred their obedience to an authority, until they did see, what was their Superior his will concerning it: at what time they all submitted themselves unfeignedly, whatsoever this author most wickedly suggesteth to his reader in this place, without any proof at all, upon certain of his most absurd surmises; for which also he sendeth his reader to the former chapter, where he shall see perhaps, and as it is supposed, and it is very likely, and such like stuff, as a man who esteemed of his credit would be ashamed of in so weighty a matter. And for his foolish assertion, that if it had been unfeigned, it would have wrought some permanent effect, there is an old saying, that there must go two words to a bargain, and so say I, that if there must be peace between two parts, both the parts must do their parts to preserve it: for who seethe not that it is a most absurd jest, that if peace be broken by the wickedness of the one part, the other should be blamed for not dealing sincerely, and unfeignedly? the priests have said, that the jesuits and the Archpriest did break the peace, and they have showed how, and that which they have said herein, cannot be controlled, and that is, that Fa. jones the jesuit, after the peace made, fetched out of hell itself (as by the event it appeareth) that most wicked paradox of his fellow jesuit Fa. Lister, concerning schism, and the Archpriest also after the peace made, broke the same peace by publishing a resolution from the mother city, that the refusers of the appointed authority were schismatics, which resolution he affirmed he had either from F. Warford, or Fa Tichborne, a pair of young English jesuits, and this is the Epistle which is not only mentioned, but set down in the book to his Holiness pag 63, and which this author slily overslippeth, and stoppeth his reader's mouth with the marginal note, which is put by the priest, to wit; origo etc. The beginning of the new contention was a violent Epistle of the Archpriests, which here this author citeth, and runneth in his new found mild and religious terms upon the priests; because they would break out for an angry Epistle, and so laughing in his sleeve, to think how he can cousin the blind obedient, which must believe any thing that he telleth them, he shutteth up this matter, without telling them what this angry Epistle was, or that it was set down in the book to his Holiness, lest that he should have discovered the weakness of his cause, and consequently his own wickedness, who in so weak a case would use so wicked terms against Catholic priests.  
This you see how this fellow hath answered the book which is dedicated to his Hol. and what poor gear he picketh out, sometime out of the discourse, sometime out of the margin, and letteth this discourse go quietly by him, and with all this niceness, and choice of some place, to which he might make colourable show of answer, he bringeth nothing, but what being examined will breed his own shame and confusion.  
The Appeal (he saith) shallbe answered by the Pope, who in a brief of the 17. of August. 1601. refused it for peace sake, as there is said, being induced thereunto perchance by such, as were loath to hear these matters come in question: yet since this Breve, all the world is made a witness, that these matters have been handled at Rome, and that there was just cause to appeal notwithstanding the fine gloss here made by this author, who wisheth perchance by this time that he had not so much commended this Pope.  
Lastly he agitateth a letter of M. Much his writing to Mon Signior Morto, a Bishop in Italy who was joined with Doctor Lewes Bishop of Cassana in many affairs of the Church: which letter is said in the priests their books, to have been sent by the two messengers unto him. And in reason the Priests (who said so) should have had credit, until the contrary could have been proved (which can never be) with more substantial arguments, then are here brought: To wit, it was not found among their papers, as though they (having been 17. days in Rome, before that the jesuits and the Sbirri carried them to prison) could not convey it (as it was directed) before that their papers were seized on, or secondly the two messengers never spoke to Fa. Parsons of such a letter, ergo they carried no such letter with them, as though Fa. Parsons were the man, that must know all things, and was not rather kept so short, as divers in the City noted, how he was troubled for that he could get no other answer of the priests to his curious question, than that time and place should discover what they had to say. And although afterward he was admitted by them to be their examiner, it was not without the condition, that they should not be bound to answer to his questions, which condition the fiscal did take, and agree unto, before he could obtain of them to let Fa. Parsons be the examiner: and it may be thought, that when they were asked such idle questions, they did use this licence, or their own rights, no oath in this kind binding any man to answer to all things proposed unto them, and Fa. Parson's may call to mind, if it please him, that to some questions he was directly denied an answer. The matters contained in M. Much his letter, are there so sufficiently handled, as this author saith nothing thereof in this place, but referreth his reader back to foam places already handled, and answered; he glanceth at that which is there said of the necessity of the sacrament of confirmation in England, for which all the Catholics (if they will) may see his eagerness against their good and comfort in this time of persecution, that he cannot hear of any who shall say it is necessary, but he is strait on his jack for it. And because one said once that it was either most necessary in time of persecution, or a vain, and as a superfluous ceremony in God's Church, because there only is the proper use thereof, he playeth upon the latter words, as if they had been affirmed by any one, and applieth them to such as speak for the necessity of the sacrament. He excepteth also against that which M. Much affirmeth of Fa. Parsons his State books, and is aggrieved, that he only is named among such as have written of such a subject. And for the love he beareth to Cardinal Allen, and other of our Nation, he setteth down in print, what they have written concerning such matters, as though their fact did excuse Fa. Parsons. but why is Fa. Parson's only named? because Fa Parsons being only alive of those writers, of which M. Much spoke, was consequently more likely than any of the other to write again of such matters, and also because Fa. Parsons his books of Titles, are professedly State books, and (being writ in favour more of the Spanish faction, than any other) were the more likely to bring affliction upon Catholics, (the Spaniards having given so often attempt to invade our Country.) Fa. Parsons his dealings with the Students in Spain to come in those Armadas, are evident proofs of his meaning, and consequently his books might be judged most hurtful to Catholics. This author also would persuade his reader, that there was some great matters between Master Much and M. Collington, and others, and that they were discontented either with others actions concerning the association, because they had divers conceits for the proceeding in it: which suspicion ought to be taken away from every indifferent man, that shall understand, that they all came to a conclusion, what was fit to be done, as in all orderly proceed it falleth out, where divers men at the first utter their divers conceits. M. Much is also here taxed for his letter to F. Parsons, which is set at the latter end of the English book, and the matter is made very holy, that a cow should give a good soap of milk, and kick it down afterward with her heels, and so having commended F Parsons for his writings, pertaining to devotion, and controversies, for which, and his good will, as I think, all the priests do thank him, as also for what other good deeds he hath done, and for reward pray to God for him to send him his grace, this author setteth himself to answer the English book entitled, The Copies of certain discourses, which also is here to be defended: but first this author is to be told, that he doth over lash too much, when fol. 171. he affirmeth, that neither M. Much nor his fellows have ever written any books concerning devotion, or controversies, for they have written much in both kinds, although they had not that means which F. Parsons had, to set them forth: and M. Much in particular put his pen to paper against M. Bell, now an enemy, as now he hath done against these factious jesuits, which have attempted to trouble God's Church here in England. This author beginneth his answer to the English book with as foolish an exception, as he took to the Latin, to wit, that it is said to be printed at Roan: to which the answer is already given, as also to that false tale devised by him, that their books were printed under my L. of London his protection. The Meditation is as foolish, which he maketh upon the sentence of Scripture prefixed to the English book, Dicet piger, etc. The slothful excuse themselves, saying, there is a Lion in the way: which carrieth his sense with it so plain, that it needeth no such comment as this fellow maketh; it being well known, that many priests and lay men do stand for the jesuits and Archpriest in this their faction against the priests, which would not if they feared not the like hard measure to that, which is meated to the priests He stumbleth very grossly at the Preface, and the two first letters, with references where his reader should find them confuted: but there he giveth them small comfort, as may be seen: he would seem a little to canuace M. Champneys letter, which followeth, and frameth his adversary to his mind, finding fault where there was none, as any man may see that wil That which Ma. Champney calleth an extraordinary authority; this author turneth it to an extraordinary dignity, as if the priests had pretended, that they never heard of an Archpriest before. Then he cometh on to prove the absolute authority of the Pope, to give the Priests a Superior, which the priests did always acknowledge, as appeareth by their yielding unto it when they saw his Holiness Breve, before which time it could not be proved to be his Holiness order. That which the priests alleged out of the Canons, was brought to prove what was the order of God's Church, which order was broken by the appointing of a Superior among priests, without their privity or consent. The letters which are cited in the 8. Chapter to prove the consent of the priests, or desire to have a subordination, are there showed to have been written long after the Archpriest was appointed by the Cardinal Caietane. In fine, M. Do. Ely in his notes upon the Apology, doth defend M. Champney against this Libeler, in so ample manner, as it were superfluous to say any thing more thereof.  
Next unto M. Champney his letter the priests set F. Parsons his letter to M. B. upon which there is a censure by M. I. B. which sorely troubleth this good man's patience, especially for that F. Parson's letter is divided into 24 parts by the censurer, and so (saith he) leapeth from one to the other, forth and back, referring you now to this, and now to that, etc. This man knoweth well his own disease: he would go on still, and tell his reader now this, now that, as it cometh into his head, and if his reader should fall to conferring one place of his discourse with another, then is he utterly shamed, his sly tricks are found, his falsehood is discovered, his contradiction laid open, and whatsoever an evil cause needeth to colour it, is showed to be in his: yet lest he should seem to say nothing, he will show, that there was a contradiction found in F. Par. letter, which he saith was no contradiction. And how doth he prove this: F. P. saith, that from May to November, is more than half a year; A jolly wise saying of so grave a father. But where, or when did this said saw pass him? Or how doth this alter the case more than if there were but two days between May, and November? The contradiction was, that F. Parsons said in his letter, that no letter had yet appeared from M. Bishop, or M. Charnocke. And in the same letter he confesseth that he received a stolen letter from M. Bishop. The next point for which the censurer deserveth blame is, for that he affirmeth that F. Parsons said, that an heretical proposition was laid to M. blackwel's charge, and would not himself affirm so much: he knew nor perchance, what Fa. Parsons meant. F. Parsons said it, and Fa. Parson's must prove it. And whereas it is here said, that M. Bishop affirmed it at Rome, and proved it by a hearsay from M. Charnocke, but M. Charnocke said nothing of it: I wonder why M. Charnocke was not asked the question, but if it had been so, Ma Charnocke would have said so unasked; And so he must have done, if he had spoken of it: for as it seemeth Fa. Parsons had no will to have the matter brought in question, and as it is to be thought not for any good will he bore either to M. Charnocke, or any of his fellows. This author is also contented to let go the 21. reasons given in the censure for the justifying of the priests their forbearance to admit of the authority before the Breve came. His reader must take his word, that he hath assoiled all these difficulties before: he was a cockish scholar, that made them, and there is an end of a lubberlike answer to the censure, and the 21. reasons contained therein, and to the particulars also, there discovered of the two priests their entertainment in Rome, and what chanced to them there, and afterwards: to wit, the jesuits and the Proctor's inpostures to give a pious colour to their wicked actions against the two priests.  
There followeth last (saith this author) the answer of M. Bishop to the same Epistle (F. Parsons letter) containing two parts: the first about the justifying the causes of their not yielding to the Card letters, wherein for that there is nothing singular from those reasons, which his fellows have alleged before, and by us in divers parts of this Apol. have been examined, and showed to be either false, or feeble, we pass them over in this place. His reader must have a strong faith that he hath seen wonders in the Apology; And that he needeth no note in the margin, to direct where any thing hath been proved false or feeble, he must remember, if he can: if he cannot remember, yet he must make himself believe, that he doth remember it, or else he shall be accounted among the factious.  
The second part treateth of their usage (saith he) in Rome, wherein divers particulars are said by him with such passion, as men that knew him before do wonder at him, seeing the contrary may be proved by most authentical testimonies & witnesses yet alive. But until these authentical testimonies be produced, M. Bishop's credit will overpass this author's impostures, why were not these testimonies and witnesses produced? wherefore are they kept, as though they were ashamed to be seen? how could the story of their usage be set down more in particular, then is set down in the books published by the priests? and what one particular is proved to be otherwise, then there is said? And as for the exception against M. Bishop for a passion: that is a most foolish exception; for M. Bishop having showed how falsely he was accused and slandered, useth these words, pag 174. This fellow miscounteth the page, and the sentence. What an irreligious and damnable slander than was that invented of purpose, to have us taken, and shut up before we were heard, that they might have the delivery of our message, and be our interpreters & Proctors, and so make us say what they listed, and our matter to be such as they would have it? This fellow citeth his words in such sort, as if he would have his reader not only to think, that M. Bishop was in a passion, but out of this sense also, that an irreligious and damnable slander was invented of purpose to have us taken and shut up before we were heard, etc. As though Ma. Bishop had called his restraint an irreligious and damnable slander. For by this means will this author turn away his reader's conceit from consideration of the slander, to consider only of the restraint, as if that were the slander mentioned, which is a most absurd thing. Yet must his reader so conceive of it, and this author in this 177. leaf (having played some of his old pranks,) concludeth in this manner; How then do they exclaim, and call this restraint of theirs an irreligious, and damnable slander? But for the justifying of the restraint, note I pray you, how this author bestirreth himself.  
But to this (saith he) we ask him (M. Bishop) again, is this so heinous, or damnable, or unusual a matter to restrain a couple of Priests, where so many complaints had been written of their presumption and contempt, and of the scandal raised by their contention, as we have set down before? And doth not every Prince thus to greater men than they are, committing them first, and after hearing their cause? To this question I answer, that the two Priests coming to the judge at their great charge, and with great pains (as a winter's journey from England to Rome, will prove to an indifferent man) were not to be thought either that they would run away, or hide themselves from the judge, neither doth any Prince commit any man, that offereth himself uncalled to his trial, unless the subject be such, as the King may fear him, that he will raise strength against him, as may overthrow him and justice. How many do we daily see, that are subject to the law, even of life and death, who go at liberty upon their friends bonds, that they shall appear before the judges at the time appointed, to answer to what shall be pleaded against them? Prisons are only used for such, as of whom there is cause of fear, that they will not come to their trial. these Priests came to Rome voluntarily, and being dealt withal very earnestly by Fa. Parsons to return into England with letters from the general of the jesuits and the Protector to the Superior of the Fathers, and the Archpriest (himself confesseth in his letter of the 9 of October 1599 which is set in this English book) it is an argument, that they had no will to start, but to go forward in the business, for which they voluntarily went. But besides all this, whereas this fellow talketh of informations given against them, and citeth in the margin, cap. 9 we have proved, that all these letters were written long after that his Holiness was induced to restrain them: for as there we have showed, his Holiness was resolved upon the 17. of October to restrain them, and the first letters, which are brought there by this author, and could concern the two priests, were not written until the 25. of that month, & were to go to Rome to the Protector, and from him back again to Ferrara, where his Holiness lay, and was long before resolved to restrain the two priests, as the letters of F. Bellarmine (now Cardinal) do prove, which are cited by this author in his 9 Chapter 120.  
Further (saith this fellow) we would ask them, Were not they heard afterward so much, as they would say or write? No good sir: for when they demanded the copy of the libel which was put up against them, before the two Cardinals, Caietane and Burghese, by which occasion was given them to say and write, they might not have it. And if their earnestness to have that libel to make their answer, had not been so great, there would have wanted matter and cause to have kept them prisoners afterward: for this was the cause why M. Bishop was committed again to prison, for that he was over earnest (as they said) in this point: and being demanded why M. Charnocke was also committed, there was no cause given but this, that he and M. Bishop were fellows, and for good fellowship they must be kept a while longer in several prisons close, as they were before, that neither of them might come to the other, but at the jesuits (who were their jailers) pleasure, which within a week after this their appearance, were once suffered to salute each other, and to recreate themselves at such sport as the Students made, but the two priests were guarded by the jesuits M. Bishop was guarded by Tremaine, who was Minister, or Vicerector of the College, and F. Tho. Owen, who was the Confessarius in the College, and M. Charnocke was guarded by Fa. Parsons and Fa. Tichborne, who was the Perfect of the studies, and then were these carried into the hall, where the Sudents were to recreate themselves, and were set one in the one side of the hall, the other in the other side between their guard, for an hour or more, and afterward were committed, as before: but they were told, that this was the beginning of their liberty, yet were they kept close prisoners about six weeks after this: and this I have set down, as I find it written in the story, which I have seen of their usage, to show that they were not heard, what they would have said, and written, and that they were committed again, and kept in prison, because of their earnestness to say, and write more than their adversaries had willed they should. And to this second question, Had they not their papers brought unto them, to see, read, and interpret? I answer, that in the time of their examinations, the petitions of the priests, which they carried with them, were brought unto them to see, and set down in their examinations, what they were, and for what end they brought them, but no other papers were ever brought unto them, neither could they obtain to see any of them, after that they were taken from them, although they stood earnestly to the denial of some matters, which were said to be in their papers, namely where it was said that they brought a paper with them, which was directed unto them in England, in this manner, To your L L. of which forgery there is enough said in the censure pag. 127.128. Had they not licence (saith this author) after all examinations made to go, and speak with his Holiness if they would? No indeed: For as it is here confessed in the Apology cap. 9 fol. 134. M. Bishop's examination ended 25. january, and M. Charnock's 4 February, and M. Bishop was not set at liberty, until the 22. of April following, nor M. Charnock until the sixth of May, to wit, two days, or three after that M. Bishop was commanded away from Rome. So that they were never at liberty together after that they were imprisoned, were they abridged of any lawful justification, that they would make for themselves, or was ever any petition of theirs, or demand not heard, or considered of? Yes marry Sir: for whosoever did hear of their petitions, and demands, or considered of them privately, it is most certain, that they were neither suffered to confer one with another about those matters in which they were joined, nor to have the advice of any advocate or Lawyer, as they desired, when they were cast into prison they knew not why: neither was the exception liked of, which they took against the Cardinal Caietane, as being no fit man to be their judge, in a matter concerning himself, to wit, the institution of this authority made by him, neither were they suffered to have the copy of the Libel, when they demanded it of the Cardinal Caietane, to make their answer thereunto. And if this were not an abridging of lawful justification, I confess I know not how a lawful justification may be abridged. And thus with judgement that the priests will abide no government, he endeth this chapter, and proveth his suspicion out of an answer which M Bishop made, Sunt Sacerdotes, etc. they are secular priests, and will live freely, as it becometh priests, and will not be bound to Rules: for this indeed sticketh in the jesuits stomachs, that they are not esteemed of all men as their Masters, Directors, Lawmakers, and Rulers, and for that cause, under pretence of good order, they do deface all those who will not subject themselves unto them. If the priests determine to live as becometh priests, they do as much as belongeth unto their estate, which if other men would so have done, these stirs had never been in England, howsoever they deceive the ignorant with a false show of holiness, and the name of living under Rule. But now we come to the principal part of all this Apology, and that is to maintain Fa. Parson's credit, in which the twelfth chapter is almost all spent.   

CHAP. 17. How this Author busieth himself to purge Fa. Parsons of his expulsion out of Balliol College at Oxenford and other matters wherewith he is charged. Apolog. cap. 12.  
IN the twelfth chapter this author handleth the accusations (which he calleth calumniations, and slanders) which he saith are laid upon Fa. Parsons without all foundation of truth, or regard of Christian and priestly modesty: hurtful to the Catholic cause, and grateful to the enemy: Such a good conceit hath this author of Fa. Parsons. He will also here set down a letter of a blessed Martyr, touching one of the chief calumniations: which letter he confesseth in the end of the Appendix, he did mistake, and hath for shame pasted on a piece of paper, where else all the world would have discovered him, to have been a most wicked calumniatour: Thus he beginneth.  
By no one thing more do we think our discontented and deceived brethren, to discover the lamentable spirit, whereunto they seem to be given over at this present, then by their passionate proceeding toward this Reverend religious man, whose merits towards them, and theirs, and us all are not unknown. He might have added, nor unrequited in all such sort as honest priests may: who are always ready to discharge themselves in all grateful manner towards him, or any other, who shall deserve it, which doubtless he doth not, who for less than a mess of pottage, looketh for more than a large inheritance, and under colour of doing well for some, doth mischief to all, and layeth a plot only for his own preferment: as hath been showed by the attempts which have been made by him, and his officers in the Colleges erected by his means, where priests and others have been induced to subscribe to foreign titles, yea and to come in person against their own country: for which in common sense he looked for a reward at their hands, in whose behalf he had thus seduced those, who were under his charge: which maketh me marvel more at the boldness of this fellow in his applying of Scriptures against the priests in the behalf of Fa. Parsons, especially at his blasphemy, where he saith that F. Parsons (a most wicked, and sinful wretch, and in whom it is well known there is over much possibility to deserve a far worse death, than stoning) may say with Christ himself, and to his imitation, multa bona opera ostendi vobis, propter quod eorum opus me lapidatis? They have returned me hatred for my love toward them: they have hated me with unjust hatred, they have paid me evil for good, I have procured them many benefits, for which now they go about to stone me. And when poor fools do see such a conglomeration (to use his own word) of Scriptures, they never reflect, how the devil himself, and other to his, imitation doth cite Scriptures, and set a better show of matters, than these men yet have done, who never came to the point of this controversy, but bear off still. And when they say any thing concerning it, they fetch it so far off, as a thing done in this month, must stay to be thought upon, by occasions offered many months after, as is showed in the eighth and ninth Chapters which this author here quoteth in the margin for his readers great comfort, and edification: But he will pass to the particulars.  
The first particulars are, that Fa. Parsons is called Parsons, alias Cowbucke. And this is taken in very evil part, notwithstanding divers in England are called so alias so. And this being so ordinary a matter in England, many do doubt that this author knoweth some cause, why he should winch at it, as he doth. And whereas he saith, that no one of the kindred were ever so called: it is certain that a brother of his, who lived in a house with M. Brinkly here mentioned fol. 183. was called Cubbucke. And whereas it hath been said, that by occasion of his dealing, in some matters the capital laws were made in England, his letters are showed of the 24 of january to the Earl of Anguise, which do testify how he busied himself in State matters, upon his first coming into England, although he would cloak his dealing with Religion.  
The second imputation (as he calleth it) that Fa. Parsons came away, is evident, neither is it to be excused by his general care of the cause: for as the priests say, and M. Do. Ely confirmeth it in his notes upon the Apology, pag. 211. the two elder Seminaries did send into England more priests, and nourished in them greater numbers of scholars at one time (as he thinketh) than these new Seminaries with the old now decayed will furnish to send into England in divers years. And for the number of students, priests, and proper youths, there were more for many years together (so long as D. Allen governed) in these Seminaries at one time, then are now, or hereafter like to be in all the Seminaries, put them all together. I have seen (saith Do. Ely) fifty priests in one year sent out of Rheims, and yet fifty other priests remain in the College st●ll. Have all the Seminaries so many in them now? no, no. And the Catholics in Scotland have had more increase by the Seminary priests, then by the jesuits, whatsoever this author affirmeth, fol. 185. For the jesuits taught the Scottish nation how to keep their consciences locked up, and to go without any conscience to the protestants Churches, as good proof will be made. But after all Fa. Parson's good deeds, for which (for so much as they may be called good) he hath and shall have many thanks, this author enlargeth himself very far, when he saith, that without these good deeds it is like, that the priests had not now been priests, neither without nor within England. And why so? you shall find that many of them were sent in by him. This is true, and more than a good many have been sent by him. And if we would wrangle with him, we might say, that he sent some to disgrace the whole body of Secular priests, or else they had never been made priests by him, he being told before such particulars of them, as if he had had any care of the Church, he would not have made them priests. But put the case, that the Seminary of Rheims, had not decayed by the erection of the new Seminaries, why might not these, and many more than now are, be priests, both within and without England? Can this author say so much of all the new Seminaries together with the old also, as M. Doct. Ely hath testified for that of Rheims only? But if this author can deceive his reader, it is as much as he desireth, which he thinketh will take best effect, if he could persuade him, that the Seminaries have more flourished since F. Parson's going out of England, then before: although nothing so many priests have come into England, as did before, according to the rate of the time.  
The third accusation against F. Parsons is (saith this author) that after his going out of England, he never ceased to exasperate the chief magistrates with libels and factious letters.  
This accusation dependeth in the proof upon the testimony of such, as to whom his letters have been showed: and by his Greenecoat, and such like pamphlets, but especially his book of Titles, wherein he discovereth his intention for the translation of the crown of England to the Spaniard, which also his treacherous attempts in Spain among the students, have made more manifest, by having them to subscribe to that title, and by thrusting them into the invaders ships: and all which here is saidin commendation of that book, is and will be sufficiently answered by those, who have undertaken to answer it. And thus also is satisfaction given to the fourth matter, against which this author taketh exception, as against a manifest calumniation; for his letters have been intercepted and showed to divers, although they are not put in print. And in a late book, entitled, A Manifestation of spirits, there is some fear showed, that his letter to the Earl of Anguise is intercepted.  
The fift calumniation (he saith) might be divided into many parts: But to quit the accusers he telleth his readers, that the Temporal magistrate doth not press the priests, but favour them rather: which of late is very true, since they have known the difference between priests and Statists, although the favour be not so great, as it might be and may be, when her Majesty may be thoroughly informed of the priests their truth and loyalty to her person, crown, estate, and dignity, yet have not the priests used this little favour, which they have had, to the afflicting any of their Catholic brethren in durance, as here it is most maliciously suggested, but to the comfort of many.  
For answer to the sixth accusation against F. Parsons, the reader must go look in the eight Chapter, whither we also do refer the Reader for answer, to what is there brought by this author.  
Now followeth a defence of Father Parsons against what is related in the Latin book of the usage of the two priests that went to Rome. And this fellow saith all out of authentical informations. As first that Father Parsons did entertain the two priests kindly in his own chamber. They confess they were entertained after a long difficulty. But what authentical proof is there, that he did it kindly, or that it was done without difficulty? He told them, that they might not talk with any of the scholars, and no one of the scholars can say, that ever they did talk with any of them, but one, whom M. Bishop was very desirous to see: and he was brought to M. Bishop by the Confessarius of the College, who stood by, and heard all which passed; M. Charnocke did know, that there was one in the College, whose mother is his cousin german, and never coveted to talk with him. The quarrel which was against these two priests, was for talking with such as were appointed by Fa. Parsons to attend them in the hospital, whereof he, who is here said to be the virtuous priest, was a jesuit in a Secular priests coat, and shortly after wore a jesuits coat, and died among them. And the occasion of this talk was ministered by this virtuous priest, and it was not of this present controversy, but about M. Edward Tempest, concerning whom it was said, that he was hardly dealt withal, in regard that such as used to entertain priests at their first arrival in England, were persuaded not to entertain him; And that some of his nearest friends were told, that in conscience they could not relieve him. An other was a jest, which had chanced about 20. years since in the College of Rome: which because it concerned one, who was chosen in England for an assistant, the matter was taken heinously, yet was the occasion hereof also ministered by tha● virtuous priest, and the matter itself was but a merry tale. And this is all, which was alleged by F. Owen the jesuit in the name of F. Parsons, against the two priests: yet doth this author most shamelessly relate, that the two priests had talked that, which might raise or renew sedition among the scholars. But this, and all which followeth, is doubtless brought in this place, that this author might show, how he could gall his reader with his own tale, as an authentical testimony, for other testimony there is not. That also which is here gainsaid of Cardinal Bellarmine's letter, was said upon the relation of those who saw it, although they have not the copy to show. And for so much as concerneth the principal point of F. Bellarmine's letter, to wit, the imprisoning of the two priests, it is confessed in his Apology Cap. 4. fol. 120. out of the same letter. The priests there being imprisoned in the College, is reputed a great benefit unto them. They thought it not so, but only in this respect, that they thought their lives were more in safety in the College, then in a common prison: But in respect of the common cause without doubt it had been a great prejudice, had they had any hope of justice. But their hope was small, when they saw that they were to be infamously carried away to prison, before they could get audience. But it troubleth this author much that Fa. Parson's should be termed a jailor: especially there being another, who had the keys of their chambers to bring them meat, and all other necessaries: but he telleth not who had the keys all the rest of the day. If F. Parsons had not been seen to wear them at his girdle, this matter might have been somewhat cleanlier carried: but it was too open to be excused.  
Next followeth a defence of F. Parsons for his showing of M. Charnocks handkerchiefs, and night coifs, which (this author saith) were so wrought with silk, and gold lace, is they might seem to serve for any Secular prince in the world, and the socks for his feet were of so fine Holland, as the Commissary said he was well assured, that his Holiness never wore such for his shirts. You must imagine, that this relation is very authentical, although M. Charnock had neither handkerchief, nor night coif, that any jesuite in England would vouchsafe to wear, they were so mean: I have seen the night coif, and it is wrought in deed with silk. For it hath a border of black silk about it 3. fingers broad: and all the rest of the cap is plain Holland, it hath some 6. pennie-worth of gold, and silver edging, and as many as have seen the cap wonder at the impudency of this Author: who perchance did think the cap would not have been kept. The conceit which is made of his handkerchiefs is much more ridiculous. And by the tale of his socks this Author bringeth into my mind a tale of a preacher, who told his parish, that Christ fed five hundred with such a small quantity, and being told softly by the Clerk, that they were five thousand, he bade him hold his peace like a fool, and told him, that if he could persuade the people, that they were five hundred, he had done a good days work. I understand that the Commissary said, how that his Holiness did not wear so fine cloth in his bands. But this author thought this was too much to be believed, and therefore he set it down, the Pope's shirts. Whereupon (saith he) conferring with M. Charnocke himself (in the presence of Fa. Parsons and M. Bishop, upon the 8. of April, when they were to have the first favour to speak together, and to walk at liberty in the College at certain times) when answer was made, that priests now a days for dissimulation are forced to use such things in England: he replied that at the leastwise it was not needful to bring such strange delicacies to Rome, and that albeit in some external apparel, dissimulation might be tolerable in English Priests at home in respect of the times, yet in such thing whereof their use was only in secret, as night-coifes, and socks, and the like, he saw no need of excess, or dissimulation. And this was all that passed in this matter, upon the faith of such an honest man, as writ this Apology. But now sir, one tale is told, the other is not told: which is that M. charnock's answer was to this effect, that Priests traveling up & down in England, were to use such things as were fit for such persons, as they bore in their travail, especially when they lay not in Catholic houses, where they were known, but in common Inns, where neither night-coifes, not socks were used in secret. And for his bringing those things to Rome, his answer was, that he had necessary use of them at his coming out of England, & making account to return again, he had little reason to throw those things away, after that they had the first time served him. And if it had pleased them at Rome to have left his Trunk unsearched, the cap had never been seen in Rome. And M. Bishop being requested to say what he knew of this strange delicacy, affirmed that he had never seen it before. But if M. Charnocke had either worn it by the way, as he travailed in England to the sea coast, or at sea, where he was not known, nor willing to be known for such as he was, what an absurd exception was this, that he did bring such things to Rome, as though he ought to have cast them away? But this fellow careth not what half tales he telleth, to make his Reader believe any thing, which might any way tend to the discredit of a Priest.  
The long tale which this author telleth of Fa. Parson's departure from Oxford I will omit: because it runneth into many particulars, of which I have no knowledge. But the truth is, he was expelled, and the bells were rung at Magdalene College for his expulsion. And this author his charging the fellows with the breach of oath, when they made known his expulsion, is very ridiculous.  
The causes of his expulsion I omit to set them down in this place, as they are delivered unto us: only this I note, that it was not for religion, howsoever he might have an inclination thereunto, and might be the worse liked of therefore by some: for of this imputation or slander (as he called it) he offered to a Gentleman of the Temple to clear himself by oath. But when the fellows proceeded to his expulsion, and no man stood for him, he requested that he might resign: to which the fellows yielded. Then did he write in this manner: Ego Robertus Parsonus socius Collegij de Baliolo, resigno omne meum ius, titulum, & claimeum, quem habeo vel habere potere, societatis mea in dicto Collegio, quod quidem facio sponte, & coactus die decimo tertio mensis Februarij, Anno Domini 1573. I Robert Parsons, fellow of the College of Balliol, resign all my right, title, and claim which I have, or may have, of my fellowship in the same College: which I do of mine own accord and compelled thereto the 13. of February, in the year of our Lord, 1573. This being done, he made request that this might be kept secret for a time, and that he might keep his chambers and scholars as a fellow of the house, which was also granted unto him: and thereupon was this decree written as followeth. Eodem tempore decretum est unanimi consensu Magistri & reliquorum sociorum, ut Magister Robertus Parsonus nuperrimè socius retineat sibi sua cubicula, & scholar's quousque volucrit, & communia sua de Collegio habeat usque ad festum Paschatis immediatè sequentis: That is, It is dereed at the same time by the general consent of the Master, and the rest of the fellows that M. Robert Parsons late fellow, do retain his chambers and scholars, as long as he will, and have his commons of the College, uniill the feast of Easter next following. But F. Par. perceiving shortly after that his knell had been rung at Magdalene College, and how he was mocked by some in the house, he left the College and went to London, where he conferred with a Gentleman of the middle Temple about his travail to study physic, to whom he offered to take his oath, that he was slandered with the name of a Papist, and that he neither was a Papist, nor ever meant to be one. But withal this is to be noted that this author appealing fol. 193. to the Registers of Balliol college: the Registers have been sought, and there is some little difference in the words of the Resignation: for where we have cited it sponte & coactus, now there is a dash through &, and this word non, written over head, a manifest sign of some false dealing. For it is not likely that & in that place would have been written for none: it maketh a clean contrary sense. Neither is the objection well solved fol. 197. which brought F. Parsons in suspicion of bastardy: for there are divers, who confirm as much as the priests said: that is, that it was the common opinion through out the whole Country. His quarrels with divers of his order, and others, will be justified: and the letter of M. Benstead will also be proved to be falsified. But the patch which is clapped upon the 201. lease, argueth how forward these fellows are to discredit the priests with most false and scandalous imputations, when they themselves are ashamed thereof. That which concerneth M. D. Bagshaw is to be answered by himself: who no doubt knoweth in what cases doubtful answers and equivocations are to be made to curious questions: neither is it to be thought, that he disallowed thereof, but only of the liberty which is in the jesuits, and their adherents, in all their dealings with other men, through which all confidence is taken away among men, as not knowing what senses these fellows will allege, that they had in their speeches and actions.   

CHAP. 18. How the Secular priests appealing to Rome, and going to his Holiness for justice against the unjust slanders of the jesuits and their adherents are falsely, and with great ignominy to the Sea Apostolic, compared by this Apologie-maker to Alcymus and to Simon, who went to Demetrius and Apolonius, heathen persecutors of God's people and his priests. Apol cap. 13.  
IN the 13. Chapter this Author useth gentle persuasions to his discontented brethren, and proposeth certain considerations, and a better way for reunion again, as he supposeth. In the first consideration occurreth nothing worthy noting, his railing speeches excepted, & huddling up of scriptures one upon another, against the disobedient to their Superiors, which concerneth the priests nothing at all, who never disobeyed their known Superiors, but always submitted themselves unto them, as it is manifestly proved in all their books, and more at large in M. Collingtons' book, and in M. D. Ely his notes upon the Apology. He maketh a recapitulation of some matters in the same false vain, in which he writ this Apology, as is sufficiently discovered in this answer to the places quoted by him: and in the same kind is his second consideration, imputing the just defence of the priests from the jesuits imposture of schism, and other grievous sins to emulation, hatred, pride, revenge, liberty, and other his own, and his fellows humours.  
In the third consideration he doth explicate himself, how the priests dealt with the Counsel, and his first tale soundeth so shamefully false, as it were enough to convince an indifferent man, that this author had no honesty, nor care of his credit. And doubtless had there not been a great dearth of paper, this place should have had a patch upon it, as was put upon that malicious, and wicked gloze against the same man, and his fellows fol. 201. Note I pray you, the impudency of this fellow. First (saith he) as before you have heard (and in the margin he quoteth the 10. and 12. Chapters) as soon as ever they understood, that their two messengers were restrained in Rome, and not like to prevail, then D. Bagshaw was sent for from Wisbich to London, to treat with the Counsel, etc. Can this man persuade himself, that every man's wit was a woolgathering, when this doctor was sent for from Wisbich, and that no man would remember, how that this sending for him was about Michaelmas, or not long after, and that the two messengers were not restrained in Rome, until the Christmas after? This fellow his affirmation that M. Bluet had conference with the Bishop of London, Counsel, and Queen herself, for the printing and publishing of these Libels (as he termeth them) said to be printed at Roan, is most false. For these books were not printed by any such means, but at the charge of the priests, and in most secret manner. And their charge was double in regard of the Printers danger; And this probable reason might satisfy an indifferent man, that there want not as good Printers in England, as are in Roan, and yet the books are full of faults. And if the books had been printed by any such licence, they would have had more skilful Printers, and not have had so many, and so gross escapes, evident arguments of the Printers insufficiency. This author's relation also, that upon M. Bluets conference with the Bishop, etc. there was a general search for taking of Catholics, such as never lightly before hath been heard of, is to be convinced of great impudency, in that the most busy Agents of the jesuits and the Archpriest, in the furthering of their seditious attempts, were never called upon or searched: whereas contrariwise the houses where the priests friends remained, were curiously searched, which was a greater argument, that the jesuits, and their faction caused the search, then M Bluet or any of his fellows. And this is evident by recounting the chief of the faction of the jesuits, & Archpriest, who dwelled then in London, and were so far from the danger of being searched or taken, as they were not broken of their sleep, or any way molested, unless it were by the Officers their revel in other men's houses. The story also of the discovery of their (the priests) print and books, but all restored again with celerity, and favour, is both false, and exceeding foolishly here inserted. False in that the priests never had any Print, but to their double, yea triple charge, and by great friendship of a gentleman got their books printed, they themselves neither know where, nor by whom, but as it should seem by some mean, and needy Printer, who in consideration of being well paid, adventured to print them. Neither was any of their books at that time in the press, or in any Printers hands, nor ever needed any restoring, either with celerity, or favour. I understand, that about the same time the jesuits had a press taken, and many books, which were restored again unto them, but this was not in London, nor by occasion of this search. But by this may be seen the falsehood of this fellow. Now it remaineth, that his folly also be showed This search (he saith) was an effect of M Bluets conference with the Bishop of London, the Counsel and Queen herself, as the printing was, and publishing of their books. Is it likely that the printing, and publishing of these books could be a clear effect of M. Bluets conference with these, and that the Print was subject to be taken, and the books also? Can neither the B. of London, nor the Counsel, no not the Queen herself protect the Print and the books, not only from being discovered, but from being taken away also, that they should need to be restored again? this search being also a clear effect of the same conference with the Bishop, Counsel, and Queen herself. How doth he forget himself? how grossly doth he combine his matters together? He must also tell his Reader, that the Bb. of London had M. Bluet to his house at Fulham for fuller conference, making him good cheer, as though the Bishop of London his table were not ordinarily to entertain a greater man then M. Bluet, or that M. Bluet were of their disposition, for whom must always be an extraordinary provision, for reverence to their fatherhoods. Master Bluet was also suffered to go where he would without a Keeper. And what harm was this? I have not heard of any sums of money which the Bb should give unto him for any purpose, as this author suggesteth. But if it had been so, yet whatsoever this author would have his reader imagine, he cannot prove that M. Bluet hath employed himself in any evil office. This most wicked impostor doth furthermore labour, to have his reader to make no better conceit of M. Bluet and his fellows, then of Tirrell or Bell, a couple of known enemies: yea a far worse, seeing (saith this impostor) that neither Usum Tirrell, nor Thomas Bell, nor other (he means perchance some of his fellow Apostates jesuits, that have precipitated themselves in this time of persecution) did ever engage themselves further with the Council, than these men seem to have done. And how doth this companion prove this? Forsooth, by a letter of M. Bluets (as he saith) of the first of july unto M. Much, to which letter there is this subscription, Yours Thomas Bluet: and yet the letter speaketh thus of M. Bluet, as if he were not the Inditer thereof. I have obtained by opening the cause unto their honours, and to Cesar, that four principal men shallbe banished after a sort to follow the Appeal, D. Bagshaw, Bluet, Champney, & Barnley: would M. Bluet have written in this sort to any man, and have set his name to the letter, as from himself? But mark, I pray you, what followeth: all prisoners, they shall be here with me on Wednesday next. And afterwards he followeth on in the same kind, speaking of the same men. A month they shall have within the Realm of liberty, to ride abroad for money among their friends, and then choose their port to be gone, with some countenance, etc. And after all this cloaking himself, as if he writ not the letter, but some other, his name is put to it, as is said, Yours Thomas Bluet. Many ways are sought by this companion to bring Master Bluet and the other priests, into an evil opinion with all Catholics, and many interpretations are made of the contents in this letter. But among all the rest, I wonder how the jesuits come to be talked of: I have laid the fault (saith this letter) where it ought to be, and proved that the Secular priests are innocent for the most part, etc. This companion in his commentary, expoundeth these words, where it ought to be, in this manner, that is to say, upon the jesuits. And why so? what have the jesuits at any time done, that no sooner can any mention be made of a fault, but every silly fellow can interpret, what is meant thereby, to wit, some fact of a jesuite? have they so badly behaved themselves in all men's opinion, yea in their own, as no fault can be, but a jesuit must be at one end? But this companion would have his reader have a conceit, that this their fault might be the defence of Catholic religion, as though Ma. Bluet (whose letter this is said to be) did esteem that a fault. Is he not full fraught with most wicked malice, that would drive such a conceit into his reader's head, against a venerable priest, and one who hath suffered in the defence of the Catholic faith, before any jesuite dared to come near unto England, for all those proud vaunts that they were the men specially raised by God, to overthrow Luther and his followers? What M. Watson did in Scotland, he is to answer it himself: but doubtless he was not employed thither in any such affairs, as this author affirmeth, by any of the priests He hath spent time there (as other priests have) to repress that wicked doctrine of the jesuits, that a man might lock up his conscience, after that he had heard mass, and then go to the protestants Churches. Neither do we know what meaning any of those had to deal with the French king in any State matters whom this author so taxeth. He who is so well acquainted with meanings, will perchance in his larger Apology tell us more news thereof. The stories of Alcimus and Simon, and others, who went to Demetrius and Apollonius, and others here named, can have no place here, unless this companion do compare his holiness unto Demetrius, as he compareth the priests to Aleimus and Simon. For all the world is a witness for the Priests, that they went to Pope Clement the 8. to seek for justice, and that they sought not to any other for justice in the controversy between the jesuits and them: although they sought their prince's favour, which they might lawfully do, and desire to enjoy it, as the Catholics in the primitive Church have sometime done: and do pray unto God duly for her prosperous reign: and that God will incline her heart to have compassion upon such her most loyal and faithful subjects, as have heretofore most unjustly been condemned for the evil practices of a few busy fellows.  
The fourth consideration consists of twelve special points, which I fear will lie heavy upon their souls, who are guilty of these stirs. The priests make no doubt of the justice of their cause. And while this matter doth hang in question, this Apology, well considered, and advisedly read, doth itself very much prejudice their cause, in whose defence it pretendeth to be written: If it shall be hereafter judged that the priests were schismatics, because they did not accept of the new authority, before they saw a Breve from his Holiness, without doubt they have much to answer for. But if contrariwise it shallbe judged, that they were not schismatics, then must the jesuits and their adherents be the men, who have been the cause of all the evil which hath come upon this slander raised by them against the priests: And upon this also dependeth the fift consideration: for if it be proved, that the jesuits and their adherents did injury the priests in so high a degree, and a public infamy of schism etc. then will it not avail them to say, that the priests should have considered, that it was a time of persecution, and that they should have suffered this infamy, rather than have stirred in their own defence. If this doctrine of his might pass currant in temporal wars, there would indeed quickly be an end thereof: for by this rate every man that is wickedly inclined, might murder his fellow without any contradiction, for fear of endangering the camp, if the unjustly assaulted should seek to defend himself. This companion should have remembered that the priests sent to his Holiness, to whom it belonged to determine this controversy, and that they have not stirred in any thing, more than in procuring that the quarrel might come to his hearing: For which purpose they judged it most necessary, to make the world acquainted therewith, having once before been frustrated thereof, by reason of their over great confidence in the justice of their cause only.  
In the sixth consideration this author taketh his pleasure in discrediting the priests, who would not consent, that the jesuits, the Archpriest, with the rabblement of their most wicked, and seditious adherents, shall esteem of them, as of schismatics, soothsayers, Idolaters, Ethnics, and Publicans: And he would persuade his Reader, that they are not only few in number, but green in credit, without scruple of conscience what they utter; and therefore not to be trusted in matters which concern the lives, states, and honours of men, who shall fall out with them: yea his Reader must understand, that those who have yielded to the enemy in one or two steps, could never go back again, but must yield in greater matters, and discover all they know against their brethren, if not more. He speaketh as clerklike, as if he had searched the greatest secrets of his factious adherents, which will one day perchance come forth, and the parties named who have done as much, as he mentioneth. But as for the appellant priests, he cannot charge them justly, that they have yielded in any such thing. If any priest hath yielded any further, then to think himself highly favoured, that there hath been notice taken of his faith, and loyalty towards his Prince and country; let the priest be made known, and he shall be esteemed of accordingly by the priests: and if no man have yielded in any other matter, then is the Apologie-maker a notorious wicked impostor.  
The last consideration is of the necessity of union (which is handled with exhortations unto it: and dissuasions from division) and of the facility of making it again among us, and to show, that there is a great facility, he will ask his discontented brethren that show themselves so mightily enraged, what is there which they would have in this matter? who vexeth, or urgeth them so, as they may not live quietly if they would? A couple of reasonable questions, and therefore this answer is made unto them. First they would have that, which the jesuits, the Archpriest, and all their seditious adherents are bound under pain of eternal damnation to perform: that is, that these do make restitution unto the priests, for those most wicked slanders of Schism, sedition, rebellion etc. which are contained in Father Lister the jesuits book, and their own most malicious stomachs, without any just cause given unto them by the priests. Secondly they have proved, that the jesuits and Archpriest (with all the seditious followers) do vex them so much, as in them lieth, and do urge them so, as they cannot live quietly by them: but in every corner there is some of this sedition to warn all good Catholics to fly them, not to give them any entertainment, or relief. And all this is to drive them either to perish, or to bely their own souls, with the great dishonour both of God, and his Church. And as for the Archpriests good nature, here specified, it is very ridiculous. He recalled his Censures, when the priests submitted themselves upon the sight of his Holiness Breve, which censures he had used against three priests, because they had appealed from him to the pope (as it is set down in the book to the Inquisition:) And I doubt not but that the Archpriest would be as glad now, that all were well accorded, as he was at the first atonement, and be as ready perchance to break out again, as than he was: as it is proved in the books to his Holiness, and to the Inquisition, neither is there any man, that is in his wits, but will think that the jesuits and Archpriest would have peace: that is, power to use the Secular priests at their pleasure, and that the priests should suffer all manner of indignities both in fame, and otherwise, and not to stir for any thing, which may be done against them: lest the jesuits peace be broken, which they love so dearly, and cloak it with extraordinary piety in this place fol. 221: where they are said to have stood with the Archpriest and the rest in defence of his Holiness ordination, as though the priests had ever resisted his Holiness ordination, and not rather yielded themselves presently at the sight of the Breve, before which, there was no Pope's ordination. And to this the jesuits their standing in defence of his Holiness ordination, are joined most absurd positions of their desire not to meddle in the priests affairs: whereas it hath been showed, that they have been the chief of this sedition against the priests. And their interpretation, that their dealing proceeds of love, is to men of understanding an argument of a factious disposition, and desiring of governing all sorts of people, whosoever must play the Ape's part, to take away the envy for their misdeeds from them. They intent not (sayeth he) to prejudice them in any preferment for the time present, or to come. He were worse than mad, that would trouble himself with our jesuits intentions, which vary as often as their tongues move, and turn their intentions to serve best their own turns. Let the jesuits their hindrance of all our nation beyond the Seas from all promotion, speak for their intentions: since that no place, or preferment there can be had, without degrees in schools, which they have induced his Holiness to debar all the English nation, under this other intention, that young men must not take the degrees, when they depart from the Seminaries.  
And that their intention may be the more evident, that they will hinder every man's preferrment, they have put into the Pope's Breve a bar not only for the proceeding in Divinity, the knowledge whereof they have now also clean taken out of the College at Douai: but in either of the Laws also Civil, or Canon: which are not taught in any of our Seminaries. Yet must all their intentions be most excellent, and must not be thought to prejudice any for the time present, or to come. As for the time to come, were it in their hands to prejudice any man, all their protestations, and oaths would carry little credit but with such as know them not. In which as in all other their dealings, especially in this action the priests do most willingly forgive them their falsehood, and do pray for them, that God will give them and their adherents his grace to amend, what they cannot choose but see is amiss in themselves. To which they may make a good step, if they will enter into their own consciences, and consider of what great scandals, and harms in God's Church they have been a very faulty occasion, by that most wicked imputation of schism to most Catholic priests, and their obdurate standing in that sinful opinion, without admitting any equal trial of the cause in question, which the priests did offer in most humble wise, before they took the course that now they take, and was only left unto them, to clear themselves of so damnable a slander.   

¶ A REPLY TO THE Appendix of the Apology, by J. B.  
THE author of the Apology having seen other two books beside those, against which he writ his Apology, maketh an answer (such as it is) unto them, which answer he calleth, An Appendix to the Apology by the Priests that remain in due obedience to their lawful Superior. As though an Appeal made from a superior upon just causes, and a lawful prosecution thereof could not stand with due obedience. But somewhat must be said, and if it have no pith in it, as every indifferent reader will soon discover that want in this Appendix, it must be overcharged with big words, which the blind obedient must imagine would not have been uttered without just cause, although they see none.  
After a long conflict then (as it should seem) in this author, whether he should take notice of these two latter books, to which he hath made it known (both in this Appendix, and other two scurrilous Libels set out since this Appendix came forth) that he cannot make any answer, he hath adventured to say somewhat of them, and that it might not be made too apparent to the world, how little the poor man had to say herein, he stuffeth these few leaves with exceptions against those books, to which he pretended an answer in his Apology, & enlargeth himself somewhat by way of a preface, wherein he telleth his reader, how unwillingly he put his pen to paper for the defence of our Superiors, and their lawful doings, and proceed against the intemperate impugnations by tumult, and Libels of a few discontented brethren, etc. And no man can but believe him, that it was sore against his will, that he had such cause as he had to use his pen, although he never made dainty of his pains and pen, where he thought he might discredit those priests, which he could not bring to his lure. And as for the priests their doings or proceed, they have showed themselves ready to give account thereof, and to prove both the lawfulness, and the necessity, which was in withstanding the exorbitant proceed of such, as having neither any Christian wisdom, nor honesty, abused our Superiors, and procured that all the priests should be brought into these straits, to wit, either to yield to the wicked designs of others, or to be made infamous all the world over. And to this effect was the treatise of schism written by the jesuits, and sent abroad not only in England, but into remote places beyond the seas, to persuade such as would be blind, that Catholic priests, who had lived in a long & most dangerous persecution for defence of the sea Apostolic, were now become schismatics, and why? because they did not, contrary to the laws of God's Church, yield their obedience to a creature of the jesuits, intruded upon them as their Superior, without any warrant from the Sea Apostolic, which hath commanded that no such superior be accepted, without a special warrant, or letters from the same Sea, as may be seen in that extravagant of Pope Boniface the 8. Iniunct. de electione, and was afterward extended by julius the 3. to such as is our present Prelacy. And all the scandal which hath grown out of this contention, must be answered by those who most injuriously did drive the priests to so hard a choice, and if the priests have in the prosecution of their just defence been assisted by such, as in some other respect do disclaim from them, and other their actions, the jesuits and their adherents cannot so carry it away, with saying that they have combined themselves in secret with the known enemies and adversaries of our Catholic faith. But they must prove, that they have made an unlawful combination, it being evident to the world, that there may be as wicked and unjust combinations between men of the same religion, as between men of divers. And as it hath been answered before, the priests have justified and cleared themselves sufficiently, by their appearance at Rome, from all suspicion of evil dealing, or other combinations, than which Catholic priests might make, and think themselves infinitely beholding to their governors, that they are accepted of by them in that degree in which they are. But listen how fair as false a tale he telleth his reader.  
The Apology therefore (saith this author) written by us, was to stay somewhat this violent course (if it might be) by laying open quietly and modestly the true grounds of all these stirs and perturbations, and that not by invectives, exaggerations, or inventions of our own, as our brethren's books do, but rather by calm, gentle, and modest narration, yea with the greatest love and compassion of our hearts; alleging always most authentical proofs for that we say, speaking also the same in the best and most temperate manner we could, and pretermitting many things that might be more odious, if they had been uttered: and of this we make judges the readers themselves, that shall have perused the same, or may hereafter. It is very strange that indifferent readers cannot see any of this in the Apology. If we shall trust to M. Doct. Ely, to whom the Apology was sent by a principal man of the jesuits faction to be read, we shall find by the notes which he made thereupon, that the true grounds of all these stirs, are not handled in the Apology, but a foul stir made with much impertinent stuff, full of innectives, exaggerations, and inventions of his own, and his fellow partners in this business, and no proofs, but a few of their own letters (a most ridiculous manner of proceeding) whereas the priests have brought their proofs out of the originals of their adversaries letters and writings published by them: and this dealing is also discovered in the reply to the Apology, how this author in most intemperate manner, and most odious terms, seeketh the disgrace of the priests for want of other means to wreck himself upon his adversaries, who have laid too sure and firm a foundation for him to move: and unless a man will be most wilfully blind, he may very well perceive the distemperature of this brainsick companion, where he termeth the priests, children of iniquity, libertines, and chargeth them with ambition, envy, hatred, contention, malice, prink, malediction, and other like. His contemptible speeches also do argue little modesty in him: but if he should say, that he had written no Apology at all, his absurd faction must believe him, although they see him write it, and have it in their hands: so religious are our new illuminated Catholics become, if their guide tell them the tale.  
But now (saith he) since the writing of the said Apology, some other matters have fallen out, which do invite us to write again: and what are those? forsooth, our discontented brethren have set forth two other books, and put them also in print, intituling the one, The hope of peace, by laying open such manifest untruths, as are divulged by the Archpriest, etc. Consider you how full of hope this way may be to peace. I have considered of it, and I judge it a most effectual mean for peace to have falsehood discovered, and the doubts or difficulties laid open, which were before shuffled up in such sort, as the stirs broke forth again presently after, without giving so much respite, as to say there was a peace concluded. The other in Latin, whose title beginneth thus, Relatio compendiosa turbarum, etc. A compendious relation of troubles, etc. But now good sir, what of these? wherein do these two books trouble you? will you hear his grief? he hath told you so many idle tales in his answer to the two former books, that he hath none left to bestow upon the answer to these, and therefore he will make quick work with them: and to beguile his devoted the more cunningly, he beginneth to tell them a tale of a Breve of the 17 of August 1601. which he pretendeth here, that he had not seen it when he writ this Preface: yet he would not but his reader should conceive, that he was very perfect in it, for he declareth, that there is a full decision of the cause in controversy, determining all points, that have been, or may be in question among us, or between our brethren, and their Superior, or any body else. But as yet could no man ever say, that the priests were cleared from schism thereby, or condemned as schismatics, and how then are all points determined, that have been, or may be in question? or how are any matters determined, which were put up in the appeal to his Holiness? nay the appeal itself is not admitted, although the Archpriest did that, which his Holiness could not without grief relate, as these words of the Brief import: Quod dolentes referimus: neither is there any one word of the jesuits, or their disorders once touched, but in a very favourable manner: that most wicked and seditious libel, which they writ against the priests, is only suppressed; and herein do some of them most insolently glory.  
This Breve also is proved in this preface both by the date thereof, and otherwise that it was gotten by the information of the one part only, and how then could any controversy be ended as it ought to be? for it beareth date 17. of August 1601, which was long before that the priests arrived at Rome, although they were there long before they were bound to appear in the prosecution of their appeal, as all men know, who know any thing in the common laws, which allow two years to the Appellants: and when his Holiness wrote the same (as though his Holiness wrote it) he had not understood (saith this author) of any of those scandalous books written, and printed partly before, and partly since by our discontented brethren. If then he neither spoke with the appellants, nor did see any of their books dedicated to himself, or the holy office of the Inquisition, by whom could he be informed in their affairs? or can any man of sense imagine, but that there was most unchristianlike dealing, that his Holiness must be persuaded to shuffle up matters of so great moment in our Church, to whom were presented in the priests their appeal most evident proofs of the jesuits, and the Archpriest their disorders, in the managing of our Church affairs? And as for the style, in which his Holiness is said to have written this latter Breve, we leave it to others to scan, who have list thereto, and can understand how great the injuries have been and are still offered unto Catholic Priests, without any one word of satisfaction to be made therefore to them, who have been injured: and let men of learning, who have read, or hereafter may read the priests their books to his Holiness and the Inquisition, judge whether it was not most necessary for the priests, to publish in their own defence: and the priests will not be their own judges, whether they have done, or do still, as they may in conscience do, in publishing, until their fame be restored (which was unjustly taken away by the jesuits in their seditious treatise of schism, and the Archpriest his pretended resolution from Rome) and the controversy decided, which hath been the cause of all these troubles: for until this matter be fully ended, and the Catholics satisfied, that the priests did as become Catholic priests to do, there will be hope, that his Holiness will not debar the priests of such means as the law of Nature alloweth them, in the purging of themselves of such crimes, as their silence must needs argue a guiltiness in, and their own consciences tell them, they must (under grievous sin) free themselves from them. But mark I pray you, what devices this fellow doth use, to have the priests forget the abuses, which were offered unto them by the jesuits, and their faction.  
And for himself (his Holiness) seeing that the chief complaint and offence and petra scandali (as it seemed) was about the name of schism and schismatics, he is said to have taken that wholly away in this cause, both the matter, and name itself. See how he would have his reader to think, that this controversy was about certain names, as though there was never any real schism laid to their charge. Were the jesuits such blocks, as that they would for certain names exclaim in this manner against the Secular priests, hearken, O ye factious, ye are rebels, ye are excommunicated, ye are fallen from the Church, ye are nothing better than Soothsayers and Idolaters, and as Ethnics and Publitanes, besides the terrors of eternal damnation? Were the Catholics so barbarous, that for certain names, they would in this time of persecution thrust Catholic priests out of their doors, and some with most impudent faces, some like eavesdroppers run, or creep about, to dissuade the Catholics from harbouring them, or giving them any maintenance? But let us see how his Holiness is said to take away the name, and matter itself, in this Breve: forsooth, forbidding any books, treatises, or writings to be made, read, or held thereof, and about that controversy. This is a fair taking away of a matter: let us then suppose, that there be no more books, treatises, or writings made, read, or held hereof, and about that controversy: I ask whether the Priests were schismatikas or no: or what is this after-providence, or order to the purpose, for matters past? If the priests had been as wickedly disposed, as the jesuits, and had procured an infamy to have run far and near against them without just cause, as this of Schism against the priests hath been proved to have been most unjustly spread abroad, how could they think themselves cleared of any such slander only by an after-suppressing thereof? or how could they think that thereby any satisfaction were made unto them? But gladly would this author have it so, that the priests being asked the cause of these present stirs, might be debarred of giving the true cause thereof: for than might their adversaries justly triumph against them as troublesome people, and clamorous, and that they had busied themselves they knew not why, or wherein. Had these jesuits, and their adherents half that valour in them, which they would be thought to have, they would not for very shame indent with their adversary, that he must come to the field without his arms, and themselves armed from the head to the foot: or were they men of that wisdom, of which their followers take them to be, they would never have committed so great a folly, as to leave no other hope of help for themselves, then to procure that their adversary must be forbidden to plead for himself. If it be true (as their Libels will prove it) that they accused Catholic priests of schism, why should any priest be afraid to say, that he was in such manner accused? And if for quietness sake the name must be avoided, why for quietness sake should not the course be altered, which was taken against Catholic priests, when the Catholic Laity was in that manner seduced by the jesuits, to use that sinful name, when they named or spoke of Catholic Priests? But it is no matter perchance, how priests be abused by the new illuminated, so that they be not hereafter named schismatics, and therefore this author professeth, that he procured to avoid it in his Apology, though not knowing of this express prohibition. For (saith he) indeed the thing itself did ever mislike, and grieve us. Welladay, welladay, what thing was that which misliked and grieved you? was it the wickedness which was committed in the slandering so many Catholic priests, as would not (contrary to the Canons of holy Church, and upon many just reasons) sacrifice to an Idol, who how well soever it was meant unto him, by him who had authority, had notwithstanding no authority at that time, at which he challenged it, as hath been evidently proved in the priests their books? did you ever mislike that Catholic priests should be contemned, and despised by every factious and seditious companion, who upon hope of some gain thereby, would fit your ears, yea and your hearts with a placebo, without any regard of them, to whom they owed love, and duty? hearken I pray you, what it was, which misliked, and grieved this fellow, that so much contention, and falling out should be about a matter in the air, where no man was named in particular. This than was it which grieved this good fellow, that the priests would not be called, and used like Schismatics, but would prove themselves to be Catholic priests, and to have discharged themselves in all points, as became Catholic priests.  
But this seemeth very strange, that Schism (against which there are so grievous laws in God's Church, and against which F. Lyster the jesuit and his fellows, the Archpriest and all his faction inveighed so bitterly, and seduced the Laity in such sort, as they did as it were schismatically make a division in prayer, and communication, and Sacraments even from their dearest friends, and used themselves most ingratefully toward their spiritual fathers) should now become no more than a matter in the air, where (saith this fellow) no man was named in particular. And this last clause happily is true: for that they were nicknamed, and that in particular, and not only pointed at by every one of the jesuits faction, but thrust out of the houses of those Catholics, who had drunk of the jesuits poison, and were particularly also deciphered in that most wicked treatise of schism, which was divulged by the jesuits, the Archpriest, and the rest, as may appear by that, which is said in that treatise Paragraph 6 num. 10. Adextremum in suum sempiternum dedecus legatos factiosos ad Pontificem factiosi isti destinarunt. That is to say, At the last these factious have to their eternal dishonour sent factious ambassadors to the Pope. And in the next paragraph are the crimes of these factious set down under this title, Factiosorum crimina, the crimes of the factious. Which are these, Ye are Rebels, ye are schismatics, and are fallen from the Church, and spouse of Christ etc. Pretty names: and so he goeth forward with such like; And can his reader think, that a jesuit would rage's in this manner against an adversary in the air? or that the particularities were not sufficiently set down, by which all men had notice who they were, that were held for schismatics, when the two priests were known, that were sent to his Holiness, and many of them who sent them, or by whose consent they went? Can any man think, that these fellows had either wit, or honesty, who would in action omit nothing, which might further the infamy or misery of Catholic priests, and in words pretend, that the matter was a matter in the air, as here it is said, or as the Archpriest affirmed in his letter to his Assistants the 23. of june 1601 (against which letter the hope of peace was written) a matter of opinion, and therefore not worthy to make a matter of contention, which part soever was true? So doth it please these new illuminated to oppress their brethren, and to make a sport of their miseries, and most absurdly condemn themselves of want of all honesty and charity, who in a matter of so small moment (as they do make show) would enter into so desperate courses, and trouble our otherwise too much afflicted Church. But since that the matter, and name of schism is taken away, I will not use it, but in such case as of necessity it must be used, and necessity (as men say) is not subject to any Law, neither can I think, that the priests being demanded the cause of their grief, are forbidden by any Breve to say, that they were most unjustly both named, and used like schismatics, neither can their adversaries easily persuade them unto it, what holiness soever they do pretend, or strict charge out of the Breve of the 17. of August 1601, of which Breve this author, not having seen it, (as he pretendeth) undertaketh to relate not only the contents, but also some particular sentences, which he thinketh do make most for his purpose; and thus he goeth forward in his Preface.  
The principal points of this Breve (as they are written to us) are these: First that his Holiness having read and perused the Appellation of our brethren made upon the seventeenth day of November 1600, though not to this day sent, or presented from them, as we are most certainly informed, but only from the Archpriest, against whom it was made, after due deliberation he admitteth it not, but wholly annuleth it. Here is one main point of the Breve, his Holiness having blamed the Archpriest for his proceeding, as may appear where these words are inserted, Quod dolentes referimus, which we relate (saith the Pope) with grief, yet notwithstanding doth not admit the Appeal (yet doth he not annullate it) and if upon persuasion of such, as are loath to have it prosecuted, he hath been induced to have all matters slubbered up, as once before they were; there is no doubt to be made, but when he shall have heard both parts speak (which is requisite to all Christian justice) he will give that satisfaction, which a tender father cannot deny to his oppressed children, who have always borne that honourable respect unto that Apostolic Sea, that if an Archdevill had been appointed their superior, they would have accommodated themselves so far, as they might, without dishonouring God, betraying his Church, or prejudicing their own selves, yet would they have sought (as now they have done) with all submission for relief of the like miseries, or greater, if they could have been subject to greater. But the Breve being made (as here it is confessed) before his Hol. saw any of the priests their books, & also before he heard the priests (as may appear by the date thereof) it is no great marvel, that the Breve runneth in these terms it doth: yet is it somewhat strange, and perchance never had any precedent, that the priests are commended who received the Archpriest, before they did see the Pope's letters, and that the other are discommended or checked, these having done no other, than they were bound to do by the laws of holy Church, and those other most contrary thereunto: for proof whereof I thought it fit to set down the extravagant of Pope Boniface the eighth, which doth convince as much as I have said. Iniunc●…e nobis debitum servitutis exposcit, ut qui ad reformandos in Clero mores, & actus (prout nobis ex alto permittitur) solertiùs intendimus, ibi praecipue reformationis accommodae remedium apponamus, ubi maius respicimus periculum imminere. That is, Our office requireth of us, that we, who by God's permission do attend more diligently to the reformation of the Clergy, do there especially put remedy of convenient reformation, where we see most danger at hand. And then he proceedeth to tell what this great danger is, and setteth down the remedy. First therefore he beginneth thus with the danger: Sanè quam periculosum existat, quod aliquis in officio, dignitate, vel gradu fore se asserat, & pro tali etiam habeatur, nisiprius ipse, quod asserit, legitimis ostenderit documentis, tam ex civilibus, quàm ex canonicis institutis colligitur evidenter. Asserenti namque cum mandatis principis se venisse credendum non est, nisi hoc scriptis probaverit: nec similiter creditur se asserenti legatum. Nunquam enim Apostolicae sedis moris fuit, absque signatis apicibus undecunque legationem suscipere. Sed nec dicenti se delegatum sedis eiusdem creditur, vel intenditur, nisi de mandato Apostolico fide doceat occulata, etc. Quod autem in illis, qui se Episcopos, vel superiores Praelatos, aut etiam Abbates, Priores, seu alios monasteriorum rectores, quocunque nomine censeantur, appellant, sit discussio celebris, & diligens facienda, luculenter apparet, si scandala & pericula gravia (quae ipsorum parere possit communicatio indiscussa) diligentius attendantur. Hinc nos evidens evocat ratio, ut cum praemissis alijs casibus, qui minoris existant periculi, sit ex constitutionibus editis iam provisum, hunc ultimum, qui pericula gravior a minatur, nequaquam sine provisionis opportunae remedio relinquamus. That is, It is evident both in the Civil and Canon laws, how dangerous it is, that any man should challenge and be taken to be in such an office, dignity, or degree, unless he can make lawful proof, that he is as he saith: for there is not any credit to be given unto him, who shall say, that he cometh by commandment of his prince, unless he shall prove it in writing; neither in the like case is credit to be given to him, who shall say that he is a Legate: For the sea Apostolic never used to receive an embassage from any place without letters. But neither is any credit to be given, or any reckoning to be made of him, who shall say, that he is a delegate of the sea Apostolic, unless that he bring eye proof, that he hath commission from the Pope. Then speaking a little of the promoting of such, as have taken some orders, and that one saying himself to be a priest, must show it: he goeth forward in this manner, It is also most apparent, that there must be a very great & diligent search in those, who call themselves Bishops, or higher Prelates, or also Abbots, Priors, or other governors of monasteries, under what name soever they go, if the scandals and great dangers be diligently considered, which may come of the not discussing thereof. Wherefore, as in the former cases of less danger, there is provision made by former constitutions, so in reason can we not but provide some convenient remedy for this last case, which threateneth greater dangers. Now the Pope taketh this order following, for the avoiding of these dangers, which if the indifferent reader will attentively mark, he shall have light enough to judge, how unjustly the priests were termed, and used like schismatics, and excommunicated persons, in that they did not subject themselves to Master Blackwell, who had not any warrant from his Holiness, nor could show any letters from the sea Apostolic for proof of his dignity or authority, which he challenged here over his fellow priests: he may also perceive, what juggling there was at Rome, when his Holiness was induced to discommend or condemn the priests, who did not receive Ma. Blackwell in that dignity or authority which he challenged, without having his Holiness letters, and to commend those priests, who presently admitted him, and maintained a most scandalous division against the other, because they did not in the like manner subject themselves. These are the words of Pope Boniface: Praesenti itaque perpetuò valitura constitutione sancimus, ut Episcopi & alij Praelati superiores, nec non Abbates, Priores, & caeteri monasteriorum regimina exercentes, quocunque nomine censeantur, qui apud dictam sedem promoventur, aut confirmationis, consecrationis, vel benedictionis munus recipiunt, ad commissas cis Ecclesias, & monasteria, absque dictae sedis literis huiusmodi corum promotionem, confirmationem, consecrationem seu benedictionem continentibus, accedere, vel bonorum Ecclesiasticorum administrationem accipere non praesumant, nullique eos absque dictarum literarum ostensione recipiant, aut eis pareant, vel intendant. That is to say, Wherefore by this present constitution, for ever hereafter we decree, that Bishops, and other higher Prelates, Abbots also, Priors, and others, who do govern monasteries (by what name soever they are called) who are promoted by the Sea Apostolic, or are confirmed, consecrated, or blessed, (that is, receive power to exercise their office) presume not to take upon them that charge, or the administration of the Ecclesiastical goods; without letters from the said Sea, which do contain this their promotion, confirmation, consecration or benediction, and that none do receive, obey, or respect them, unless they do show the said letters.  
Now you have heard what remedy the Pope did take for preventing the dangers of which he spoke, that is, by pretending to be in dignity or office, without sufficient proof; and this were enough for an indifferent man to see, what commendation they deserved, who received a Prelate, who challenged jurisdiction from the sea Apostolic over two kingdoms, and had not any letters from the said Sea to show for his promotion, confirmation, or right to exercise any authority in either of them; and whether those priests do deserve a check, who did according to the constitution or decrees of holy Church, in not receiving, or obeying him, before he showed his Holiness letters: yet doth the Pope make this more plain by the punishment following. Quod si forsan contrà praesumptum fuerit, quod per Episcopos, Praelatos, Abbates, Priores, & alios monasteriorum regimina exercentes praedictos, medio tempore actum fuerit, irritum habeatur, nec quicquam interim ijdem Episcopi vel Praelati, Abbates, Priores, vel regimina exercentes de Ecclesiarum, vel monasteriorum proventibus percipiant, eorundem capitula verò, & conventus Ecclesiarum, & monasteriorum ipsorum, & alij quicunque ipsos, absque huiusmodi dictae sedis literis recipientes, velobedientes eisdem, tamdiu sint à beneficiorum suorum perceptione suspensi, donec super hoc eiusdem sedis gratiam meruerint obtinere, etc. That is to say, But if any shall presume to do contrary to this, that which shallbe done in the mean while by the aforesaid Bishops, Prelates, Abbots, Priors, and other governors of monasteries, let it be as void, and of no force: neither shall the same Bishops or Prelates, Abbots, Priors, or governors have in that interim any thing of the profits of the Churches or the monasteries: and the chapters or covents of those Churches and monasteries, and all whosoever shall receive and obey them, without such letters of the said Sea, shall be deprived of their fruits of their Benefices, until they shall get pardon of this fact from the same Sea.  
This decree of Pope Boniface is cited to this purpose by Pope julius the third in his constitution Sanctissimus etc. and also a decree of Pope Gregory the tenth which we have Cap. avaritiae de electione, & electi potestate insexto: where the Pope having showed that some perceiving, that by law they could not enter into the government of the Church, to which they were elected, before they were confirmed, upon covetousness, and damnable ambition procured the administration thereof, as Proctors, or Stewards, he maketh this decree: Cum itaque non sit malitijs hominum indulgendun, nos latiùs providere volentes, hac generali constitutione sancimus, ut nullus de caetero administrationem dignitatis, ad quam electus est, priusquam celebrata de ipso electio confirmetur, sub oeconomatus, vel procurationis nomine, vel alio de novo quaesito, in spiritualibus, vel temporalibus, per se, vel per alium, pro part, vel in totum, gerere, vel recipere, aut illis se immiscere presumant etc. That is to say, Since therefore men are not to be favoured in their malice, we (willing to make further provision) do decree by this general constitution, that from henceforth no man either by himself, or any other, in whole, or in part, under the name of a steward, or procurer, or other new pretence, do presume either in spiritual matters or temporal, to exercise any dignity, to the which he is chosen, before that his election be confirmed. And the same Pope setteth down in the same place the punishment, which such an offendor shall have, to wit a deprivation of all the right, which he had by his election. After these constitutions of Pope Gregory, and Pope Boniface, there is another constitution of Pope Paulus the third of the like matters recorded by the same julius the third, who noting, quod ante confectionem literarum gratia Apostolica est informis, that is, that a grace given by the Pope is not of force, until the letters be made: and showing what little regard hath been had thereof, by all sorts of Ecclesiastical persons (for all the former ordinances, or decrees made for that purpose) he confirmed, and renewed the same, and willed, that they should hereafter be observed, Et sanctiones ipsas ad inferiora beneficia ecclesiastica (quocunque & quomodocunque qualificata) amplians, & extendens, hac sua in perpetuum valitura constitutione statuit etc. And amplifying, and enlarging those decrees to all inferior ecclesiastical benefices, and howsoever qualified, he ordained etc. So that if by any wrangling shift this prelacy of the Archpriest (having no other name then of an Archpriest) should be said not to be included within the extravagant, although it be a much higher prelacy (as being over two kingdoms) than a Bishop, yet is there no shift will serve after this amplification of Pope julius the third, beside the plain text also of the law cited, where Pope Gregory the tenth forbiddeth all administration, not only in temporalties, but also in spiritualties, without a confirmation from the Sea Apostolic; and the intention of Pope Boniface most manifest, to put a remedy for such dangers, as might be by the challenging to be in any office, or dignity whatsoever, as from the Sea Apostolic, before any letters from the same Sea were showed in testimony thereof.  
Upon these or the like considerations, the Cardinals of the Inquisition in their congregation upon the 20. of july last passed, among other oppressions, which they concluded had been used by the Archpriest to the Appellants, numbered this for one, and it was afterward confirmed by his Holiness. Cum saepè declarauerit ipsos esse schismaticos, rebels & inobedientes, In declaring often, that they were schismatics, rebellious, and disobedient. By which it may appear, what dealing there was at Rome about the making of that Breve of the 17. of August 1601: out of which this author citeth this sentence against the Appellants, Vos autem filii presbyteri, etc. But you my sons the Priests, which neglected to obey the Archpriest your Superior: what cause had you not to give credit unto the letters of your Protector Cardinal Caietane? truly you ought to have submitted yourselves to your superior, & to have obeyed him. It is evident enough to all, that there did want no cause why we did not admit of the Archpriest: for he pretended a promotion by the See apostolic, but showed no letters from the same See, as he was bound to do before he should practise his authority, or any receive him in it under grievous penalties. Other causes were also given enough why he was not received before the first Breve came, which if his Holiness had seen, who can imagine that he would have rebuked the priests in this manner, in his Breve of the 17. of August 1601. But he did neither see the priests books, wherein they set down their reasons of their refusal (as is confessed in this present preface) neither had he spoken with any of the priests, as is convinced by the date of the Breve, and their arrival at Rome half a year after: And who knoweth not how matters may be carried, when one tale only is heard, and that no just iudgemen can be given, where one side only of a controversy is pleaded. And the case being now decided in the Inquisition for the priests, and the Archpr. condemned, as one, who many ways did most unjustly oppress them: it will not be hard for any indifferent man to judge, where the burden of scandals, breaches, and other hurts must lie, and how the highest Superior hath been hitherto abused, and consequently also God himself highly dishonoured. But now letting go this most absurd insinuation: So as all the sharp impugnations used against those letters, and the Archpriests authority from the very beginning are here showed to have been unjust, and against the express will, meaning, and judgement of our highest Superior, and consequently also (as of necessity must be inferred) against God himself; as though the highest Superior could not in these matters, which do not appertain to our faith, be induced by flatterers or false fellows, to command that, which without offence to God cannot be obeyed, or at the least wise doth not bind others to obey it: let us see how this author gathereth his Corollaries.  
It followeth also by the sweet and mild declaration of his Holiness, though it be like enough, that he will make some other of a more sharper kind, upon the knowledge and view of so many scandalous books, as have been put forth afterward by our brethren, and this lite pendente, while the suit hanged before him without expecting his Holiness sentence in the matter, remitted to him by them, it followeth we say first that our good Archpriest, during all this time of tumultuation against him hath been, and is our lawful Ecclesiastical Superior, and consequently that so violent impugning him, must needs have been very offensive to God, and perilous to the impugners: and besides that such prohibitions of books, writings, taking away of faculties, or other punishments or censures laid upon any by him, for their disobedience are, and must be of validity (seeing his Holiness here taketh away none) until they duly submit themselves, and he remit, or recall the same again, etc.  
A very sweet and mild declaration of his Holiness, by which a most just appeal to the See Apostolic is not admitted, but annullated (as this fellow affirmeth) and a show made of determining of all matters, but no man the nearer thereby: if this fellow say true, that his Holiness did take away none of the censures or penalties, which the Archpriest laid or attempted to lay upon the priests for defending themselves from the infamy of Schism, a most wicked and senseless imputation. If this were so sweet and mild a declaration, being as it seemeth hereby altogether against innocent priests, what shall we think of that Declaration which was made the twentieth of july 1602 where in consult had in the Congregation of the Inquisition (and was afterward confirmed by his Holiness) the Archpr. is condemned for oppressing the said Priests: in often declaring them to have been Schismatics, rebellious, and disobedient, and for this cause forbidden them the use of their faculties, and that they should not defend themselves from that infamy, and lastly after other oppressions there named, he is condemned because he did not admit of the Appeal, which they had made to the Sea Apostolic. If his Holiness did with a sweet and mild declaration annullate the appeal in that Breve of the 17. of August 1601. how is the Archpriest condemned 20. july 1602. by the same Pope, and the Inquisition for his not admitting thereof? And if his Holiness was induced only under a colour of peace not to admit thereof, notwithstanding it was a most just appeal, because in the prosecution thereof might greater stirs arise, how sweetly or mildly did he deal in not recalling the censures, or penalties with which the Archpriest did unjustly oppress the priests, as is declared in the last consultation in the Inquisition? But perchance his Holiness, seeing the malicious proceeding of the Archpr. and that his will was more than his power in the use of his authority, thought it a very frivolous matter, to recall either censures, or other penalties, seeing that he did exceed his faculties, as in this Consult in the Inquisition is declared, and never kept the form which was prescribed unto him: which defect maketh void all the proceed of a Delegate, as the Archpr. was in this his office over the priests. And whereas the priests are charged, that they published books, while the suit hanged before his Holiness, without expecting his sentence: reply is made, that the Archpriest enforced them thereto by punishing the Appellants while the suit hanged before his Holiness, without expecting his sentence, and he punished and afflicted them by reason of their appeal, as hath been proved, and the Breve of the 17. of August 1601. was procured against the priests before that either they were come to follow their appeal, or their books in his Holiness hands, as here is confessed: so that his Holiness could not be informed by them of their case, how it stood with them, and their adversaries. And whereas also it is here said, that the Archpr. was all this while their lawful Ecclesiastical Superior, this Author must find how to satisfy all those lawyers, who affirm that a Prelate pretending to have an authority from the Sea Apostolic is an intruder, if he use his authority, without he show his letters in confirmation thereof from the same Sea Apostolic, which it is evident the Archpriest could not show for a whole year after that he took upon him to play his prize against his fellow priests. During which time the priests had just cause (as is showed) not to accept of him, and after his confirmation having behaved himself most sinfully in his office, as it is determined by the Cardinals of the Inquisition, and by his Hol. himself (as appeareth by the copy of that consultation, which was had the 20. of july 1602) his actions were justly impugned, and this error of the author of the Appendix overthrown, where he holdeth it of necessity, that a lawful superior cannot be impugned without offence to God. For these are his words in this Preface: It followeth we say first that our good Archpriest during all this time of tumultuation against him, hath been, and is our lawful Ecclesiastical superior, and consequently, that so violent impugning him must needs have been very offensive to God, and perilous to the impugners. Can this fellow be any other than a limb of those, who were condemned in the Council of Constance, Sess. 15. for maintaining neminem gerere vicem Petri, vel Christi, nisi illum sequatur in moribus, or nullum esse Dominum spiritualem, dum est in peccato mortali? This fellow must show how without maintaining these errors he can make his consequent good: A lawful superior is impugned, ergo it must needs be that God is thereby offended.  
The second Corollary, which this author draweth, is that the books against which he writeth are forbidden by this Breve of the 17. of August 1601. because they treat expressly, and principally every where the matter of schism. The procurers of this Breve are noted herein to have showed a little subtlety, but neither wit, nor honesty: For how can they imagine that Catholic books written in the defence of Catholics, who were most sinfully slandered as schismatics by the jesuits, and their seditious adherents, can be justly forbidden to be read, or kept, the slanderers remaining uncorrected for their wickedness, and no way abridged of their sinful courses against the same Catholic priests? For in the same Breve all the charge which is given, is given to the Secular priests, and they who were the malicious brochers of that sinful slander of schism against Catholic priests (yea although there be mention of their treatise of schism against the same priests) are not once named, as a part in the controversy, but are at liberty to abuse the priests as much as ever before.  
By this the absurdity of the Appendix-maker appeareth also, in so often obtruding to his reader, that all matters are declared and determined by his Holiness, who never had seen the priests their books, nor heard them, what they had to say: neither can this author show out of that Breve, that it is declared or determined by his Holiness, whether the priests (who according to the Cannons of holy Church, refused to admit a Prelate instituted, as is pretended by the See Apostolic, but had no letter to show for his institution from that See) were schismatics or no. Neither can this fellow show out of that Breve, that it is declared or determined, whether those priests, who so refused that Prelate, were for that cause excommunicated, or lost their faculties, or could lose them, by defending their innocency by any law or edict, which could be made by the Archpr. or at the will, and pleasure of a Prelate, who had his Authority not as an Ordinary, but as Sub-delegate, to whom was prescribed a set form of proceeding, in the inflicting of such penalties, as he had power to inflict upon those, who should deserve them. In fine it appeareth not in that Breve, that the chief doers in this controversy are once named, or their facts censured: only a book of theirs is suppressed, to wit, their treatise of schism, but not condemned, as false, or erroneous, whereby any judgement might be made, whether the accusation were just, or not just, or how the Catholics, who were most violently carried against the priests, might be resolved upon the point in controversy: yet is not this fellow ashamed to publish it unto the world in this manner. So as now those matters being thus declared, & determined by his Holiness, we hope that every good Catholic man, and especially our brethren, that are also God's Priests, will enter into themselves, etc.  
The like boldness doth this Author use, and liberty in the next sentence, where he wisheth the good Catholic man, and especially his brethren, to ponder well the absurdity of spirit, and speech proceeding thereof discovered in those their later books, beyond all measure unfitting for men of our vocation: that is to say, the book to the Inquisition, and The hope of peace, against which two books this Appendix is written, and because he will seem to say nothing, but what he meaneth to prove; this answer (saith he) shall principally consist in laying before them their own sayings in these books, with a word, or two of advertisement, to make more deep, and full reflection thereof. Now than it resteth that he perform as much, and that he deal, both honestly, in relating the words out of these books, and charitably in giving his advertisements.  
The first of these later books, which he taxeth for absurdity of spirit, and speech, is entitled, The hope of peace, by laying open such doubts, and manifest untruths, as are divulged by the Archpriest in his letter, or answer to the books, which were published by the priests. But before he toucheth it, he discovereth a little of his own spirit, and speech, which whether it be not more absurd, then that, at which he carpeth, an indifferent Reader may judge, while he chargeth his brethren (as he termeth them) with fond, & passionate proceed in these their distracted agonies. In this title are 5. things noted. First that it is a contrary means to make, or hope for peace, to impose on the Archpriest and divulge against him calumniations of so manifest untruths, which can never be proved. Secondly, that the Archpriest is here named by contempt without any reverence, or respect at all. Thirdly, that there is mention of doubts, the Archpriest having no doubt in the points he touched in his letter. Fourthly, that the Archpriests letter is termed an answer to the former two books. Fiftly, that they call themselves the priests, being but a few divided men from the rest, whose doings are utterly misliked and detested by the better and greater part of our Clergy.  
To the first, reply is made, that it is the most ordinary and surest means to make, or hope peace, to open doubts, and untruths, which is performed in The hope of peace, without imposing any thing upon the Archpriest but what is there proved; and this author himself thought so well of those means himself, as in the preface he took occasion to hope, rest, quietness, peace, and obedience: because as he said, these matters were declared, and determined by his Holiness, and there is no man can doubt, but that the cause of this second division was the not laying open of such doubts and manifest untruths about the slander of schism: which if it had been determined, when the first Breve came, those wicked proceed of the Archpriest and his seditious adherents had never ministered any occasion to make a second Breve.  
To the second there is this reply made, that if these words, the Archpr. imply a contempt, than he is very often contemptuously used by the author of this Appendix both in the preface, and the discourse, where we read the said words, The Archpriest, yea sometime concerning the Pope himself, the Pope's Breve, the Pope's authority: and where speech is of the Provincial, and General of the jesuits fol. 17. Fa Parsons letter is cited, wherein there is no more reverence, and respect, than this, the Provincial and General themselves, which who will dare to say are named by contempt?  
To the third, reply is made, that although to men of sense there is nothing in the Archpriests letter, which should move any doubt, yet the letter being carried about, and presented to the simpler sort, there are many things which might move doubts in them, and particularly in the very first beginning the Archpriest doth show some doubt, where he saith, (speaking of the books) perhaps never meant to be presented to him, (his Holiness) And the fourth principal point which he toucheth, is touched as a matter in doubt, for it is (saith he, speaking of the supposed schism) but a matter of opinion, and therefore not worthy to make a matter of contention, which part soever was true.  
To the fourth I answer, that the Archpriests letter is not absolutely called an answer to the books, but a letter, or answer, as may be seen in the title of the book: but if it had been called an answer, it was so christened before this book was written, and the Archpriest himself useth the same word: for not far from the beginning of his letter thus we read, and therefore (saith he) no other answer shall be sent now but this.  
To the fifth I answer, that they used the name of priests, to distinguish between the jesuits and them, the controversy being principally between them, as may appear by the groundwork of all this controversy, to wit, the slanderous tongues, and pens of the jesuits in the infamy of schism. Secondly, if the controversy shall be said to be only among the priests, the name of priests will most fitly be applied to them, who have behaved themselves as became priests, and the fewness of the number can be no bar unto them, howsoever their doings are misliked, and detested by the greater part of the Clergy, which part, if it were the author of this Appendix (as it seemeth content to bear the name) it might with more humility have left out these words, speaking of themselves, the better part.  
After that he hath canvased the title of the book, he descanteth upon the Scripture, which is prefixed unto it, Veritatem tantum, & pacem diligite: that is, truth only and peace do you love: and he telleth his Reader, that the priests do impugn peace and truth: and this latter point he proveth, because the book is said to be imprinted at Frankfort by the heirs of D. Turner: whereas (saith he) the book is known to have been printed at London by the favour of the Bishop, and permission of his Pursuivants. This argument hath been often solved before, and the folly thereof discovered, it being an usual matter among honest men (if Fa. Parsons may be counted an honest man) to set out books as printed in one place, which are printed in another; and the thing itself neither being of that quality, that it can induce any man into error, and no just cause wanting, why such a point should be concealed. It was never heard of, before the absurdity of this spirit appeared, that such exceptions were taken against a book. Saint Peter did in a manner date his first Epistle from Babylon: Salutat vos Ecclesia, quae est in babylon: the Church (saith he ending his Epistle) which is in Babylon saluteth you: and no man doubteth, but that he was then in Rome, and meant no other than to write from Rome. And shall we say, that he gloried in uttering an untruth? But whereas this fellow affirmeth, that this book was printed in London by the favour of the Bishop and permission of his Pursuivants: he discovereth that, which was never known unto him, who paid for the printing thereof, as I have been before very credibly informed. But to let pass these frivolous toys and foolish exceptions, which might be quitted with a real falsehood, commonly used by the author of this Appendix in publishing his libels, under the name of the united priests, who poor fools must bear all the blame thereof, and run thereby into perpetual infamy, I will show what exceptions this absurd fellow taketh at the preface of the book, which he impugneth.  
Out of the Preface he hath picked a few sentences, out of which he gathereth certain notes worthy himself: as first, that they are called the priests, as if they were either far the greater part, or the most eminent priests of all England. Secondly, that they affirm, how that they have set forth two books in the necessary defence of their good name and fame, which necessity he affirmeth to be no other, than the force of their own passions, and telleth a tale of King Edward (as he saith) or some former King. Thirdly he noteth a comical vein in the beginning of the Preface, and that the priests do descry a stage spirit, by mentioning fools and physicians, and morning and evening meditations, which he affirmeth that they did use, when they were under the jesuits. Fourthly he noteth more of this kind, mingled also with some savour of impiety in these words of the Preface. The jesuits might have played with their Canons, upon such as resisted the Apostolical decrees, etc. And a little after Fa. Lyster being always ready with his Canon nullifas est, etc. Here lo, who seethe not, that these men (saith he) by scoffing at Canons (which are nothing else but Ecclesiastical rules) mean to live under no rule at all, etc. Fifthly he noteth, that the same Fa Lyster, who cited that Canon, read both Philosophy and Divinity with great commendations in other countries. Sixtly he citeth a sentence, of which he misliketh both the style, and the phrase.  
Concerning the first note or exception, sufficient hath been said, and how that the greater part in a community may be misled, and the part which hath justice for it, deserveth the title of the whole, for that in Courts of conscience and justice, the faulty (although otherwise far exceeding in number) is accounted either the lesser part, or no part at all, but only as a faction against them, who have the truth on their sides: which hath been declared by the Cardinals of the Inquisition, and his Holiness also to be with the lesser part of the priests. To the second exception it is replied, that no man of any sense can deny, but that the most impious slanders, which the jesuits, the Archpr. and their seditious adherents did raise against the priests were a great necessity for the priests to set out their books, yea after their appeal was made unto his Holiness: because these fellows desisted not from their wickedness, but persecuted the Appellants, and the more eagerly for this fact of their appellation, labouring in all places to defame them, and abridging them of their charity, as they call it, which otherwise such of the Appellants, as either in prison, or elsewhere are in want, were wont to receive for their relief. And as for his tale of King Edward the Confessor, or some former King, it is not his fortune, as I think, to thrive with his tales. First because how commendable soever a touch of a comical vain may be in serious or grave matters, yet it is absurd in him who shall use it, and yet find fault therewith in the very same matters, as this fellow doth in his third exception which I have noted. Secondly, because his tales are returned upon himself much more fitly, than he delivereth them against his adversary. He remembered a story that is recorded in one of our ancient writers, either of King Edward the Confessor, or some former King who being complained unto by a certain woman with great vehemency, that an other had called her scold, she being convented, and not able to prove it, she was condemned to prison, but she replied saying: well than I must to prison not for that I have spoken untruth, but only for lack of a witness. Wherewith the king being moved said, In good scoth I think you have reason, and that in this matter I may be your witness, for that this woman in accusing you, and defending herself, hath proved herself a very scold in deed. Thus said the King, and the parable needeth no great application: for me think every man will understand it, and our brethren are like to have the same success in the end, if we be not deceived, which we leave to the event, and trial. Thus far the tale of the scold, and in the very next words he blameth a Comical vein in so grave a subject, as this is. But to the scold. This Author leaveth the parable (as he termeth it) to every man to understand it; and if it be not understood as he would it should, he is to blame himself, would propound such parables, and would not expound them. This scold I take to be Fa. Lyster the jesuit, and in him his fellow jesuits, and the Archpr. with his faction, who maintained that treatise of schism, and infinite other slanders, and wicked actions against the other priests, who being many ways put to silence, as having their complaint by appellation not admitted, and commanded not to name it, wherein they had been most injuriously slandered, do somewhat resemble therein the woman, who could not prove the scold to be a scold. But if king Edward the Confessor, or any other king (if not so saintlike, yet not altogether senseless) would take that treatise Of schism, and attentively read it, he cannot but see a singular precedent for all the skolds, which should for ever after succeed. First, the very title of the treatise doth show, that it was made by a scold; for this it is, Aduersus factiosos in Ecclesia, Against the factious in the Church: and this word, factious, is often used, but because it is not significant enough, in the third paragraph toward the end, thus he proceedeth, Sed adeant nugaces isti, ac in theologia homunculi ullam rempublicam, etc. that is, But let these triflers, and pigmies in divinity, go to any common wealth, etc. Who would have thought that F. Lyster a jesuite would have grown to such an insolency against priests, whereof some were his fellows in studies, some so far his ancients, as they might have been his Masters in divinity, and many more of them might have excelled him (were he a greater man in divinity than he is) if they would have omitted their course of charity in helping their needy country, and stayed to have followed a course of more knowledge, of which the Apostle said most truly in him, Scientia inflat, knowledge puffeth up? and it hath made him so to swell, as he most insolently, and contemptuously conceiveth of others, as of pigmies in divinity, who perchance admire him as much, that he is become such a monster inform, ingens, cui lumen ademptum, evil fashioned, and huge, and one who hath his sight taken from him. Yea the poor fools, who had hid themselves with a marvelous wise, and sweet reservation of themselves in a tub of honey, as it seemed unto them, were fetched out by the ears in his 4. paragraph, where he concludeth against them in this manner: Ergo in regnum Christi Neutrales rebels sunt, Therefore the neuter are rebels against the kingdom of Christ. But in the 5. paragraph he layeth on load, and useth (as his blindness would suffer him) this Canon of the Church against the Priests, Nulli fas est, and when he hath cited the Cannon, he concludeth thus, Ergo factiosi isti prostrati sunt ruinae suae dolore, eo quod contraiverint decretis Apostolicis: That is, Therefore these factious are overthrown with the grief of their own fall, because they have gone against Apostolical decrees. But if any man should have asked him for these Apostolical decrees, where they went, how, when, or by whom they had been gone against, he would have told no tale of any other than a Cardinal's letter, which none but a scold, to serve his turn, would ever have called an Apostolical decree: for other there was none until the 6. of April following. In the 6. paragraph among other skolds' tricks he doth most lively represent himself in the objection, which he putteth to himself. Sed dicent fortasse, Pontificem haec decrevisse non sano aliorum consilio incitatum. O mendacium: Quid? numquid factiosis istis licebit in re gravissima tam impune, tamque impudenter mentiri? proferant si verum est suos testes, ac alia argumenta, quae sapientem convincant. De stultis enim non ita curandum est, quid sentiant, quidue effutiant. That is, But they may say perchance, that the Pope was moved by the evil counsel of others to decree this. O lie: What? shall it be lawful for those factious to lie so scotfree, & so impudently in a matter of most great weight? If that be true, let them bring forth their witnesses or other arguments which might convince a wise man, for as for fools, it is not to be regarded what they think or tattle: & in the seventh paragraph he concludeth in this manner. Nunc vos appello factiosos, etc. vos rebelles estis, schismatici estis, etc. Now to you factious, etc. ye are rebels, ye are schismatics, and are fallen from the Church and spouse of Christ: ye have trodden under your feet the obedience which ye do owe to the highest Bishop: ye have offended against all human faith, and authority in rejecting a moral certainty in a moral matter: ye have run violently into excommunication and irregularity: ye have lost the faculties, by which ye ought to have gained souls to Christ: ye have given such a scandal to all the godly, as ye are become infamous in every man's mouth. What shall I say more? ye have so offended by your disobedience against the chiefest vicar of Christ, and against Christ himself the judge and revenger, as we may say against you with the Prophet Samuel, Quasi peccatum ariolandi est repugnare, & quasi scelus Idolatriae nolle acquiescere, (that is) It is as the sin of soothsaying, to repugn, and as Idolatry not to hearken. See I pray you, that ye are nothing better than Soothsayers, and Idolaters, and ye who did not hear the Church speaking unto you by the highest Bishop, are as Ethnics and Publicans. And here I make an end of saying, very earnestly beseeching the very great God, that he will flow into your minds the very force of his grace, lest that being thrust into eternal destruction, with Ethnics and Idolaters, ye abide immortal pains for this your so great disobedience and scandal. To mine understanding, every man will say, that the priests had reason to think the jesuits and the Archpriest, with their seditious adherents, to be scolds & most wicked slanderers, and that in this matter the readers themselves might be sufficient witnesses for the priests: for that this jesuite, and the rest his partners in him, in accusing the priests, and defending themselves, have proved themselves very scolds in deed: and the parable cannot be better applied, as I do understand it, and the jesuits with their adherents are like to have but bad success in the end, if I am not deceived, which I leave to the event and trial: yet one thing in the mean while, to requite his tale of K. Edward, I thought good to advertise, that King Edward, not the Confessor, or a former king, but a good religious king of that name, who lived long after K. Edward the Confessor, and was the third of that name after the conquest, amongst other enormous offenders, which he desired to have grievously punished, or rooted out of his Realm, as great disturbers of peace, etc. Falsarum querelarum assumptores, manutentores, & fautores eorum are numbered, that is, beginners or followers of false accusations, and their maintainers, and favourers against whom this decree was made by john Stratford Bishop of Canterbury in a Counsel. Superno Dei munere, etc. unde nos piae mentis dicti regis, innitatione laudabili excitati, audaciam huiusmodi perfidorum compeseere cupientes, omnes malefactores praedictos taliter in posterum in nostra Cantuariensi provincia delinquentes, scienter, praesenti authoritate Consilij maioris excommunicationis sententiam volumus, & pronunciamus incurrere ipso facto: that is, We moved thereunto by the laudable solicitation of the godly mind of the said king, and desiring to assuage the audaciousness of these perfidious people, we will by the authority of this present Counsel, and pronounce that all the aforesaid malefactors, who shall hereafter wittingly so offend, in our province of Canterbury, do incur ipso facto, maiorem excommunicationem. And so we leave these false accusers of their brethren of schism, rebellion, disobedience, etc. and their maintainers and favourers, to reflect upon themselves in what state they live, and wish them to go seek remedy, where it is to be had, and lie no longer wallowing in sin, which daily increaseth upon them, by divers and those many very sacrilegious actions, for which their affected ignorance will be no excuse.  
To the third exception I answer, that there is not any cause to note any such vein in that place: for who knoweth not, that it is a word in every man's mouth, a fool, or a physician, and that it may be again said, that he, who took exception hereat, was either a fool, o● a physician? but how either these words or the next following, to wit, morning or evening meditations, are said to be more fit for a stage, than so grave a subject as this is; I confess I do not understand, unless this author peradventure hath gotten somewhat by such exercises, and thereupon framed his conceit of a stage, where the deeper the dissimulation is, and either true or false matters best counterfeited, there fools and their money do part most joyfully. But mark I pray you, what cause this fellow had, to except in these terms: these were the words against which the exception is taken, people of all professions, fools and physicians, make up their morning and evening meditations with the most uncivil terms, which they may devise against them (the Priests.) The holy Ghost by the Prophet David, used the like phrase against the persecutors of Christ, and his Church: Quare fremuerunt Gentes, & populi meditati sunt inania? why have the Gentiles been enraged, and the people meditated vain things? by which it is evident that although some meditations may be good, and to good end, some may be most wicked, yea and wickedness itself, as the holy Ghost affirmeth by the mouth of the same Prophet, iniquitatem meditatus est in cubili suo, he hath meditated wickedness in his bed: and when morning and evening meditations were thus mentioned, neither the holy Ghost, nor any good spirit thought it a vein more fit for a stage, than any grave subject.  
To the fourth I answer, that the Canons of holy Church were not scoffed at, as this fellow doth most maliciously inform his reader, but the jesuite was blamed for the evil applying thereof, as may be seen in the discourse: and the reason hereof is given, for that the Canon, which he apply against the priests, speaketh only of such as do not obey Apostolical decrees, and the question or controversy between the jesuits and their adherents on the one part, and the other priests on the other part, was, whether they were bound to give credit to a Cardinal's letter, for their subjecting themselves to one, who had nothing else to show for the authority which he challenged. A man may admire an ass, when he seethe him under a huge burden, who yet will laugh hearty to see him take a harp in his paws, to play thereon, or sing unto it: and yet will another be very justly judged an ass, who will affirm, that this man laughed at the harp, and not rather at the ass: yet will he have his reader to conceive, that the priests did scoff at the Canon, yea more than this, that hereby it is apparent that they mean to live under no rule at all. These are the advertisements, of which he spoke in the end of his preface, to make more deep reflection of the sayings in the priests books, by which he hath made known also the absurdity of his own spirit and speech.  
To the fifth note it is replied, that it was an evil turn for F. Lister the jesuite, to come into England to expond the Canon law, or descant thereon, if he read Philosophy, and Divinity with great commendations in other countries: for I doubt that he hath so discredited himself in taking a Cardinal's letter for an Apostolical decree, as every man, who commended him for the other matters, will judge that not only he was frantic, when he writ his treatise of Schism, but as many other also as did applaud it.  
To the sixth note which he maketh, no other answer is to be given, then that it might please him to read it over again, and show some particular matter which he judgeth blame worthy: for divers sober men have read it over, and over, and they judge the style and phrase most meet for the matter, and the matter most necessary to be known.  
The Appendix-maker having discovered how little he had to say of the preface, to the hope of peace, now he cometh to the answer which was made to the Archpriests letter, but first telleth his reader, that the book to his Holiness, and the English book, which were the cause of the Archpriest his complaint, or advertisement, (as he saith) were invective and scandalous libels, and that the English book contained many temerarious, false, and scandalous propositions, as well in matter of doctrine, as about the actions of Superiors, to all which answer hath been made in the reply to the Apology, the doctrine of the priests proved Catholic, and the obstinate maintainers of the contrary declared to be no better than heretics.  
In this answer to the hope of peace, the author discovereth an egregious audaciousness, as well in making a show, that he can answer that, which in very truth cannot with any reason be answered, as also in threaning overmuch kindness upon the priests in misciting their words, and making them say that which they never said: a silly shift, but necessarily to be used, when no other is left, to minister at the least a supposed matter to make a book, which falsehood being discovered, the Appendix is fully answered: for as appeareth by the preface, this his answer shall principally consist in laying before the Priests, their own sayings, with a word or two of advertisement.  
In the fift leaf, where he beginneth to except against the hope of peace, he doth falsely tell his reader, that the name of a rock was applied to the Archpriest in this discourse: for the discourse speaketh of rocks in the Archpriests letters, and not as if the Archpriest were the rock himself, and because Davus desireth to be instructed, what is meant by rocks, in the hope of peace, he is to understand that such things are meant, as lie either openly, or more hidden in those letters, in which the rocks are said to be, as are in the Seas, upon which ships are violently carried or do run infortunately, when either the storms are too great, or the Pilot unskilful.  
In the sixth leaf exception is taken against the application of Scripture which our Saviour used, if any of you asketh bread of his father, will he give him a stone? but here is not one word in answer to that which was applied, to wit, that M. Blackwell sought by all means to drive us to say against our own souls, that we were schismatics, yet crieth he out that passion overbeareth judgement and modesty, and all other good respects.  
In the same sixth leaf he threateneth the priests down, that they should say, and not deny, that the Archpriest confessed, that the instructions, which he first showed, as from Rome, were not made in Rome, but some in England, by virtue of those, which came from Rome, giving him authority to make particular orders or instructions, etc. alas the goodman is much mistaken, for the two priests here named, to wit, M. Collington and M. Charnocke (who will give over the office of accusers, and witnesses, for which they are here challenged, to M. Blackwel's own conscience, where this poor shift will not help him) never said that M. Blackwell had such a shift at that time, but being taken in the falsifying his instructions, or propounding other instructions in place of such, as he said were annected to his Commission, simply confessed the fraud, adding that indeed some of them were of his own making, and all this story of a virtue from Rome, was devised afterward and set out for a poor satisfaction for his former falsehood. For if he had had all the authority in the world, by virtue whereof he might have made instructions, yet was it a false tale, to say that instructions made in England were made in Rome, or annected to his Commission, which he pretended to have received from Rome.  
In the 7. leaf this fellow raileth at the hope of peace, because there are not other accusations mentioned against the Archpr. as though the poor man had not enough of one, and in this his absurdity of spirit, and speech, he telleth in a parenthesis a most egregious known fitten: for (saith he) it seemeth they M. Collington, and M. Charnocke were sent to him (M. Blackwell) of purpose to catch him in his words. And all the town rung of it, that M. Blackwell had convented M. Collington, and M. Charnocke, upon which speech M. H. H. one of the first Lay factious, was called the Sumner, for that he was the man, who by M. blackwel's appointment, hunted up and down to bring M. Collington and M. Charnocke unto him, as after two days seeking he did: but the new illuminates must believe all things which this companion uttereth. And this much for his parenthesis. Now concerning the principal matter here handled, this fellow is as false in repeating it: For thus he telleth his tale, About an heretical proposition said to be uttered by him, in that he told them, that they could not appeal from him in some points. The priests have affirmed, that M. Blackwell, notwithstanding that he was divers times admonished by M. Collington and M. Charnocke of the danger thereof, persisted in this proposition that the Priests could not appeal from him to the Sea Apostolic, and these words, in some points are foisted in by this author, and kindness threatened upon the priests, that they should say that he said so, whereas if he had, he had said more than truth, having no colour therefore, because he had no cause subdelegated unto him, nor he put in any authority to judge any matter, with this clause, Appelatione remota. But this helps to gall the new illuminated, as also that contemptible conclusion, and laying all other arguments, proofs, and probabilities aside, will ponder only but the difference between the accused, and the accuser in this case, shall quickly satisfy himself; for M. Collington and M. Charnocke were then known to be two honest priests, and M. Blackwell was but one at the most, and it will be apparently known, that they have patiently suffered much injury, for their maintaining a just quarrel, and he will be convinced to have been a long time an intruder, or an usurper, and afterward an abuser of his authority, when he had it, against them without just cause, when they shallbe cleared from Schism, rebellion, and disobedience, which he and his adherents have most maliciously, if not ignorantly objected, and caused them to be persecuted therefore.  
In the same leaf this poor fellow inculcateth his Hol. confirmation of this authority, as though that were a convincing argument, that there was truth used either for the setting up thereof, or the maintaining of it, whereas it is well known to those, who will know aught in these matters, that his Holiness may be misinformed, and thereupon do that, which may be afterward recalled, as no doubt this will be, which is urged in the same lease, out of the second Breve of the 17. of August 1601. Sanè vestro superiori vos submittere, atque ei obedire debeatis, Truly you ought to have submitted yourselves to your Superior, and to have obeyed him. For as I have before showed, he was at that time no other than an intruder, until he had his confirmation from the Sea Apostolic, and he was to be punished for his audaciousness, and all who received him at that time, and since, the matter having been examined by the Cardinals of the Inquisition, 20. july 1602, the priests are cleared from disobedience.  
In the 8. leaf he citeth two sentences out of the hope of peace which tend to this effect, that the testimony of one Cardinal, doth not bind in conscience to believe a thing prejudicial to a third: but he answereth not one of those authors, which are there cited for proof hereof, pag. 32. and 33. He telleth also his reader that when the first Breve came, the priests seemed to accommodate themselves for a time, yet soon after they broke forth again, and fell to writing, and examining the said Cardinals letters, more than before, rejecting and discrediting the same with all manner of contempt, and so they do now in these later Libels, as though his Holiness had never allowed or confirmed them. But he concealeth the cause of his writing, which was the jesuits reviving the slander of Schism, and the Archpr. his furthering thereof with a resolution pretended to come from Rome, to that purpose: which wickedness of theirs did drive the priests to declare the state of the question, as it was before the Breve came, and to prove that they were not schismatics in that time, in which they were falsely said to have been such, and in this doing they were to abstract from the Pope's Breve, whose after coming could not make the former cause better, or worse, except only in this respect, that it convinced, that the Archpr. was an intruder, who would exercise any authority, to which he was elected, or deputed by the Sea Apostolic, before he had his letters from the said Sea in confirmation thereof. And it may appear very evidently, because in that Breve there are not any such words, as the jesuits and Archpriest do often urge, Valida ab initio, (that is) that these things concerning the authority were of for●e from the beginning, but valida existere (saith the Breve) & fore, That is to say, now and hereafter to be of force, as may be seen in the first Breve, which beareth date the 6. of April 1599  
In the ninth leaf he citeth a sentence out of the 34. page, out of the which he noteth a restraint of the protector's authority to the court of Rome, and also authority to demur upon the Pope's letters: for the first (saith he) they say that the office of a Protector stretcheth not itself any further, than the Court of Rome, which they prove by the words of the Pope's Breve, itself, Nationis Anglicanae apud nos & Apostolicam sedem Protector: that is, Protector of the English Nation with us, and with the Sea Apostolic. And to help the matter they do add of their own, in their English translation, the word Here which is not in the Latin, to the end it may seem to tie the Protectors office to the place itself, which is most absurd to any man, that will consider the meaning of these words, which is, that the Protectors office is given, over any nation, order of religion, or the like to protect, or defend them in all occasions with his Holiness, and his successors, understood by the words, Sea Apostolic, whether it be in the Court of Rome, or out of Rome: for when the Pope lay at Avignon in France (for examples sake) yet was the office of Protector also in use. And when Cardinal Caietane our late Protector was Legate in France, and Polonia, his office of Protectorship ceased not whensoever he would deal in any matter etc. and this is sufficient for this first point, which seemeth to include both folly, and audacity.  
In this story were first to be answered, why apud nos is thus translated, Here with us: But I will leave this to Grammar boys, who know that this word apud doth import a place consequently in the very nature of the signification, and as I think never until this day was this translation judged faulty, est apud me, he is here with me: or est apud illum, he is there with him: and it cannot but argue a greater will in the Appendix-maker, than power to find a fault. The rest of the story is as absurd: for who did ever say, that a Protector did leave his office when he was out of Rome? the priest's words are, that it did not stretch further than the Court of Rome, which are true, although the protector be in Polonia: for although he be there in person, yet may he deal by letters in the Court of Rome, and at Rome, and all this while, although the man who hath authority be far from Rome, yet his authority in that kind stretcheth itself to deal no further then in the Court of Rome. And put the case that the Pope should go again to Avignon, and come no more at Rome, this fellow will not deny, that he remaineth still Bishop of Rome, and that as Bishop of that Sea he governeth the Church, and consequently there must be the Court of Rome, and not in Rome, for that (as I take it) the Court is where the prince is, and this way also are the words true, which were used that the Protectors office, stretched not itself any further than the Court of Rome, wheresoever that Court is kept. And this is sufficient for to show the folly and audacity of the Appendix-maker, who would take upon him to correct what it seemeth he understood not. In hoc Consistorio etc. In this Consistory, (that is the College of Cardinals, or the Pope's Counsel saith, Zechi de statu Illust. D. Card. Num. 9) every Province, and congregation of regulars, and kings, have their father's guardians, which are called Protectors, who in the Consistory do propound the elections, and other causes of the Province committed unto them, and answer to those who oppose against them.  
And for the second (saith he) about demurring upon his Holiness letters, we judge it to be of much more importance, and far more perilous, yea temerarious doctrine: for if it be lawful for any man, as our brethren here aver, to demur upon his Holiness letters, with mind to give a reasonable cause thereof afterwards; what end will there be of strife? what obedience? what resignation of wills, and judgements to our Superiors commandments? etc. See how this ignorant companion urgeth it, as perilous and temerarius doctrine, notwithstanding he was showed in The hope of peace, that it was most Catholic doctrine, and according to the ordinances of holy Church, and he was referred for his learning to the order of Pope Alexander the third, Cap. Siquando de Rescriptis, where the Pope writeth in this manner to the Bishop of Ravenna, Si quando, etc. If at any time we direct any thing to your brotherhood, which may seem to exasperate your mind, you ought not to be troubled; and afterward, having considered upon the quality of that business for which you are written unto, either reverently fulfil our commandment, or signify some reasonable cause by your letters, why you cannot fulfil it, for we will bear it patiently, if you shall not do that which hath been, or shall be suggested unto us by evil insinuation. There is in the same place another saying of the same Pope cited, Cap. Cùm teneamur de prebendis, & dignit. to the same effect, and this poor fellow not being able to make any answer hereunto, telleth his blind obedient a tale of obedience, as though this Pope Alexander had exhorted men to disobedience, when he told them, that they should give him a cause by their letters, why they did not or could not do as they were commanded by him.  
In the eleventh leaf for want of matter, in the hope of peace, he falleth into the Copies of discourses, and according to the erroneous vain, in which he was in the Apology, he excepteth against that, which is said by the Priests, that authority is not an infallible rule of truth in all who have authority, and out of that which is said, that but one upon earth is warranted from error, and not he in all things. And hereupon he inferreth thus: how (saith he) can our English people assure themselves, but that this institution of the Archpriest was one of the things wherein he might err? By what Law, Logic, or Divinity can this fellow show, that his Holiness cannot upon false information do a greater matter, than the confirmation of an Archpriest, in the authority of an Archpriest? It was wont to be no temerarious or perilous doctrine, to affirm, that a Pope could commit a sin, which is a greater matter, than not to be well advised in the institution of an Archpriest: for the sin groweth of frailty in the man: and evil advise or information, by which the Archpriest is instituted in his office, may come from another, in whom his Holiness may repose a trust, and be deceived. All the rest, which followeth in this eleventh lease, is often answered in the priests books, and lately more at large by M. Doctor Ely, in his notes upon the Apology, and by M. Collington in his just defence, etc. and there is a reason given in the place, quoted in the 11. leaf, of that which is there brought out of the hope of peace. And the fault or disgrace (which this fellow would should light upon his Holiness concerning the institution of the Archpriest in that manner that it was) the Priests have always laid upon the informers, who procured such dealing as was, in a matter of so great moment: neither have the priests challenged the ordination at any time for a matter of plot, as proceeding from his Holiness, but as it proceeded from the jesuits, who were known to attend principally to such matters, and were the sole actors in making this ordination, and moderating thereof, as hath more apparently since been seen: and at the very first they did so grossly interest themselves therein, as the Archpriest must needs have one of his instructions, not to do any thing of moment without the advise of the Superior of the jesuits here in England. Although now in a consult in the Inquisition it is adjudged to be taken away, notwithstanding his Holiness former confirmation thereof in the first Breve the 6. of April 1599 which also convinceth, that his Holiness may do that, which without offence may afterward be undone.  
In the thirteenth leaf this author repeateth more matter out of the Copies of discourses: for the hope of peace ministereth little matter for him to speak against, and the book to the Inquisition much less, as it should seem by this Appendix: but it is sufficient that there is a pamphlet entitled, An Appendix for the examination of these two books, it skilleth not how little thereof is handled therein: but let us see what this gear is. They add (saith he) in the same page, that by the opinion of divers men of judgement in the laws of our country, this our case may and will be drawn within the compass of the law of Praemunire, lo here these men seem to be counsellors that can say it may, and will be drawn, for that perchance themselves had suggested it against other Catholics. But do ye mark the reason why it may and will be so drawn? because, say they, it is an external jurisdiction, brought into the real me against the will and notice of the prince and country▪ do you not see his Holiness Ecclesiastical jurisdiction wholly here excluded by these good men, as external, unless it be allowed by the prince or country, notwithstanding any difference in religion? And do we marvel, that these men are favoured by the Counsel, that will publish such things in their be half against their own religion?  
A marvelous story, and stoutly urged. If the holy Ghost himself should say as once he said by the Prophet David, Dixit insipiens in cord suo non est Deus: The fool said in his heart there is no God: would this companion challenge the holy Ghost, that he said there is no God? yet is it true, that these words proceeded from him, but not proceeding from him as his words, but as the words of a fool related by him, they might well be spoken even by God himself. The like case is this of the priests, who affirmed in this place, quoted by this Author, no other matter then this, By the opinions of divers men of judgement in the laws of our country, this our case may and will be drawn within the compass of an old law, enacted as well by our Catholic Bishops and Prelates, as by the Prince, above 300. years ago, viz. the law of Praemunire. Is here any assertion of the priests, that it may and will be drawn? etc. Have they not delivered it in as plain terms as they may, that it was the opinion of other men? they then are the counsellors, and not the priests, who only have related what they said, and this poor fellow showeth, that his wits were small in this device, and that his honesty was much less, in that which followeth, for that perchance themselves had suggested it, against other Catholics. Is this a matter of so little weight, as it may be published at a venture? Is the fame of Catholic priests no more to be regarded, but to have such surmises cast abroad against them? The new illuminated may see if they will, in whose paws they have put their souls, and what spiteful guides they have chosen in place of their spiritual fathers. But concerning this law of Praemunire mentioned by those, whose words or opinions the priests did only allege, there is enough said in the reply to the second Chapter of the Apology: here only is to be noted, what this author hath since manifested in a late libel, commonly called, The manifestation of spirits, concerning this statute: Wherefore (saith he) a contention being in those days, about the collation of benefices and Bishoprics in England, whereof the Popes were wont to dispose for the most part, they concluded in England, after many contentions and disputes, and many sendings forth, and back to avignon in France, where the Popes at that time resided, that such provisions of benefices should not be sought, nor made from the Pope immediately, for the time to come, but only in England, by consent of the Prince, and confirmation afterward of the Pope, for the most principal benefices and dignities: and whosoever should contrary to this, procure provisions immediately from the Pope, or any other power or jurisdiction, contrary to this law, should incur the penalties thereof. And this to have been the only true meaning and intent of the said law, and lawmakers that were Catholics, is evident by all authors, that have written thereof. And in this sense there is no controversy among us, for that latter Popes have either agreed thereunto, or permitted the same: and we see the like in use also in other Catholic countries at this day, by agreement and composition between the Sea Apostolic, Princes, and Catholic Clergy.  
Can the priests themselves give a plainer testimony for confirmation of the Lawyers their opinions by them cited? But (saith he) in this sense there is no controversy among us. In what sense then is the controversy? forsooth beside the sense and meaning of the law, there hath been another invented by heretics and enemies since that time, etc. And in the same sense and signification, being plainly false and heretical, as you do see these libelers urge it now against the Archpriest and others, etc.  
If one and the same sentence do bear a Catholic and an heretical sense, it was wont to be judged according to the party his disposition who pronounced it: as for example this sentence, Pater maior me est: my father is greater than I am, being spoken by a Catholic was taken for Catholic; but being spoken by an Arrian, was taken for heretical. Such was the guise of Christians before these new reformers appeared in the Christian world: but now the world seemeth to be otherwise instructed, and Catholic priests how catholicly soever they behave themselves either in words or actions, must be taken for heretics, schismatics, and such like, at the discretion of such, as whose actions (although they are most damnable, as was the writing, spreading, and approving of that most impious treatise of schism, and other heathenish proceed against Catholic priests) must be counted religious, and the authors to seek nothing but the glory of God. And no man must say otherwise, when the very stones in the street are ready to cry out of their wickedness, which they have used against Cath priests.  
The other place noted in this same lease, out of the copies of discourses, is there evidently seen to have been spoken upon just cause, and this author is not able to answer the reason there given: neither is it true, which here also he affirmeth, that the Breve of the sixth of April is called in question whether it were not forged: it is only said, that it was procured by Fa. Parsons, God knoweth out of what office: and the reason is there given of these speeches, and it is further showed in the Reply to the second chapter of the Apology, how that his Holiness doth not ordinarily see the Breves, which he granteth.  
In the 14. and 15. leaf this author endeavoureth to satisfy his reader, why he doth often name & insinuate their (the priests) patrons, and their dealings with them in prejudice of Catholic religion, and when he hath spoken his pleasure, he solveth all himself in this manner. And albeit some perhaps may excuse the matter, as though this conjunction were not directly to the hurt of Catholic Religion, yet every man seethe, that by consequence it is seeing heresy is strengthened by our own division, and voluntary weakening of the Catholic party in their favour. But perhaps an honest man will say, that this conjunction is neither directly, nor by consequence to the hurt of Catholic Religion, but rather the unjust prosecution of those, who pretend to be Cath. through which heresy may be strengthened, and those priests tired, who have and must deserve best of the Catholic Religion. Neither is this any novelty in God's Church, that those who should be nurses of God's people become cruel unto them, and they who used cruelty, become pious in relieving the needful. S. Hieremie lamenting the desolation of jerusalem, among other things breaketh out into these words: Sed & lamias nudaverunt mammam, & lactaverunt catulos suos, filia populi mei crudelis, quasi struthio in deserto. Those creatures who were wont to tear their young ones in pieces, prepared their teats and gave them suck, the daughter of my people is cruel as an Ostrich in the desert. But to return to our purpose: It is most true, that some priests have received very great favours of the Magistrates, who notwithstanding they are of a contrary Religion hold it fit, that such have favour, as they are well assured do neither themselves plot, nor combine with others, who have manifested themselves to plot against the temporal State, under a fair pretence of Religion, and in this aught these priests to think themselves most deeply bound unto them, for that they will take notice of their loyalty: and if M. Bluet, as here it is affirmed, have laid the fault, where it ought to be, what reason hath this fellow to tell his Reader, that he will easily imagine that this fault is laid upon the jesuits, and other, of their side? Master Bluet said no such thing, but perchance the matters have been so grossly handled by these fellows, as no man can imagine other, and this fellow his guilty conscience maketh him to utter it, when the jesuits are not charged therewith. That which this fellow carpeth at in the hope of peace pag. 13. & 14. concerning the casting out of devils, is plain enough against him; the only difficulty is in his own opinion of the jesuits, that hearing of the casting out of devils, he is strait afraid of the jesuits, as though they were not only devils, but the only devils. That which is brought in, in the hope of peace, is brought to show, that it is not unlawful to take assistance in a good cause, even of such, as are otherwise contrary unto us. And therefore if there be any impiety in the application of the scripture there brought, the impiety is in this author, who placeth the jesuits in the devils room, and perchance he mistaketh, when he affirmeth, that the Protestants have them for Religion's sake, it being well known, that many of the jesuits friends are highly favoured who are known not to differ one jot in religion from them, and the priests whom this author affirmeth to be patronized by the Protestant magistrate, are true Catholic priests, and have so showed themselves, and are resolute to live, and die in the Cath. religion: so that there must be some other cause of the hatred, if any be in the Protestant magistrates against the jesuits, than their religion. But see how he proceedeth: and they are so resolute (saith he) in this holy doctrine, as they doubt not as it were to anathematize any man, that will not stand with them therein; for thus they writ a little after. Who doth not now expect some sentence out of the hope of peace to this effect? yet when it cometh it is of another matter, nothing appertaining to this, but here foisted in by this author to serve his turn. For as it is evident to be seen in the hope of peace, this discourse of the casting out of jesuits, as this fellow expoundeth it, was clean ended; and another passage of the Archpr. his letter taken to be answered, where he writ in this manner. It cannot be liked of, that we should write one against another etc. Whereupon it being first declared, what the jesuits writ against the priests namely in the treaatise of schism, and what infamy grew thereby unto them, the necessity of writing on the priest's side is proved, and the sentence here alleged by this author is used, to wit: And if the priests have been compelled to this hard choice, as either they sustain infinite injuries, and obloquys, or redeem themselves in this sort, (that is by writing) from so undeserved an oppression, no superior in the world can justly find himself touched in credit, but such whom the Apostle calleth principes, & potestates mundi, rectores tenebrarum harum. This sentence being in this sense used by the priests, note I pray you how this companion draweth it to another matter. And is this true in deed good brethren (saith he) that no Superior in the world can think himself touched in credit by this your dealing with heretics against Catholics, but that he must needs be accounted a prince of darkness? is there no exception at all with you? what if his Holiness that hath brought you up etc. And so he goeth on in this vain most idly, and clean contrary to the intent and purpose of the sentence which he brought, as may be seen in The hope of peace pag. 16. And yet after all this (which in his modesty he calleth, a malapert kind of writing) he telleth his reader that some may excuse the matter, as though this conjunction were not directly to the hurt of the Catholic Religion, yet (saith he) Every man seethe that by consequence it is, seeing heresy is strengthened by our own division. If this than be the matter, return in God's Name to unity, and do that, which Christians ought to do in satisfaction to God, and your injured brethren, who by you, and your means have suffered more indignities and affliction, than ever they had, or could have of the Protestants.  
In the 16 leaf he runneth over the reasons, which are given for the priests their turning again, after that they had been often, and grievously wounded by the jesuits, and the Archpr. and playeth his prize upon this question proposed in the hope of peace, page 15. Is it to be thought, that God's cause can suffer dishonour in any course, which is necessary for the recovery of his priests there honoured? But the point he standeth upon is the scandal, which may grow thereon, and chargeth the priests with a new divinity, as though they had never heard of the scandal of the pharisees, which Christ himself taught us to contemn. That which this companion, and his fellows shoot at is, to have us learn the divinity, which the ass had, who starved to death least by eating any thing which was necessary for his own life, some other beast might have miss thereof, and die after it. But himself must have liberty to write, and practise his pleasure without any fear of scandal, for so he writeth in his Preface to the Apology: which respect of scandal should have withheld us wholly from putting pen to paper in this case, if the intemperance of some persons, etc. Possibly this preacher would have his audience do, as he saith, but not as he doth, and this is a special guides trick, but very far different from the spirit of our Saviour, and S. Paul whom here he citeth, as earnest forwarners that no scandal be given.  
In the 17. leaf he citeth a place out of the hope of peace, where was proved, according to the Logic, which some of the new illuminated had used, that all men, who had any training up under any master, must subject himself to every puny Schoolmaster. To which (to omit his falsehood in relating the sentence) he telleth his Reader, that our bond is greater to Spiritual, then temporal parents. And so with some of his modest terms he shuffleth up the matter, as if this had been the question, or the point there handled, and not rather whether it be fit, that because a man had once a Schoolmaster, he must always be subject to every puny Schoolmaster during his life. The place is to be seen in the hope of peace, pag. 18. & 19 That which followeth in the 17. leaf concerning a letter of Fa. Parsons is foolishly answered: for (as there it may seem) this author saith no otherwise, then was before said in the place against which he excepteth.  
In the 18. leaf that which is affirmed of F. Parsons his bringing in of rules into the English College at Rome contrary to his promise, is to be declared by them whom it concerneth, and were present when it was done, and are to be credited. The other matter concerning the new buildings, is here falsely related, as made by the jesuits, and namely Fa. Parsons; All which is foisted in place of this, But they were not at the charge of the jesuits, but of the College. A simple change, but all is to the glory of God: but would a wise man have talked so vainly of new buildings in the College by the jesuits, and namely Fa. Parsons: and in the same place tell his reader of the want which the College had by the discontinuance of a monthly pension, which they once had of Pope Gregory the 13? was it a time for the jesuits, and namely Fa. Parsons, to spend the revenues of the College upon making a larger College, when for want of money there could not be scant half so many Students, as were sufficiently accommodated, before these new buildings were made? Is this fellow in his right wits, that would thrust such a matter upon the jesuits, and namely Fa. Parsons, to whose charge this absurdity was not laid in the hope of peace, as may be seen page 20. which place is here cited by this author?  
That which is affirmed in this 18. leaf out of the hope of peace concerning the Cardinal Allen his dislike of the jesuits, toward his latter end, and also that M. D. Haddock affirmed himself, that he had written to sir Francis Inglefield into Spain, is again confirmed. And if D. Haddock will deny that he said it, he may mend in his honesty when he will: for what was written, was written from his own mouth.  
In the 19 leaf there is a recapitulation made of that, which is said in the hope of peace concerning the Seminaries erected in Spain by the jesuits means, of which it was said in respect that there were Seminaries enough, & the wants of many poor Catholics were great, that the money employed in those buildings, might have been given with more merit to the relief of them; And this is heinously taken by this author, but nothing showed what extraordinary good hath come by those Seminaries. That Fa. Parsons entered into other men's labours is confirmed by the testimony of Ma. doctor Cecil, who and another Priest laid the first foundation thereof in Spain; And as for the subscribing to the title of the Infanta, and to certain blanks: there are divers priests in England, and out of England can testify it. And what is said in the hope of peace page 28. concerning the blotting out of an interrogatory made by Fa. Parsons to M. Charnocke is most true, although this fellow do falsify the place, which he quoteth, for there is no such matter in the hope of peace, as this fellow citeth, to wit, that D. Barret, D. Elie, and others were hindered by Fa. Parsons; but unless this companion have one false trick or other, he feareth his pen will grow too soon out of ure.  
In the twentieth leaf this Author groweth to an end of his answer to the hope of peace, and willing to leave a remembrance behind him of some notorious matter, he telleth his Reader, that almost in every other leaf of both Books, that is, as I conceive, The hope of peace, and The copy of discourses, (because these only are in English, the other two were in Latin) when the priests touch the institution of the Archpriest, they affirm, that it was nothing worth, for that it was procured upon false, wicked, devilish, and impious suggestion of discord between the Priests and Catholics, whereas there was no such indeed. And thus saith he, they repeat again and again without all modesty in every place: but you must go look where: for I have gone over both these books again and again, and I do not remember that this which he hath alleged is in any one place of their books: and if any man be so well sighted, as to find it in some one place, then shall not this author be utterly condemned of want of all modesty or honesty. True it is, that surreption is often alleged, to make void the Pope's grant, which both according to the Canon laws, and all interpreters thereof, doth always suppose this clause: Si preces veritate nitantur: that is to say, if the petition be grounded upon truth, and no man of reason or learning ever taught the contrary, howsoever any law made by prince should stand in force, although he were induced thereunto by false motives, and therefore is this comparison fasely made here, and most ignorantly. And no less false it is, which is here affirmed, that there was a division begun between Catholic priests, and Religious men, as well for the matter of the pretended association, as also about the slandercus Memorial fent over by Robert Fisher: for so soon as the priests perceived that some did dislike of the association, they gave over the soliciting it here in England, and this matter of the Memorial came too late from England to Rome (as is showed in the reply to the 8. Chapter of the Apology) to be a case of this subordination, but somewhat must be said to patch up a broken matter, and rather than fail, the religious men shall now be brought in, who were clean out of the Card. caietan's letter, as now we have it.  
In the same 20. leaf, this author saith, that he will end with one trick more of theirs, wherewith they end this book: that is, that Fa. Garnet having written to them a letter, exhorting to peace, and telling them, that he doubted not but they sought the glory of God, and consequently would hearken to the means etc. they now will needs take him at his word, & threape upon him, that he knoweth they seek nothing but the glory of God in all these their actions and scandalous attempts: Fa. Garnet (say they) knoweth we do seek the glory of God, and witnesseth so much in his letter dated on Midsummer day last passed. Lo here how substantially they prove by F. Garnets' testimony, that they do seek the glory of God: every child will laugh at this, and so we need to say no more of it.  
First it is false, that Fa. Garnet is said to have written unto them: for his letters were to certain other prisoners, to deal as it were between both parts. Secondly he proposed such means, as he himself best liked, but were not indeed any means for peace. Thirdly, howsoever this fellow cavilleth, or commenteth upon the hope of peace, there is nothing there cited, but what F. Garnets' letter will bear: I know also (saith F. Garnet) that those which complain against us do desire God's glory: but it is to be understood, according to the meaning of the jesuits (as it seemeth) who always do mean what they list, and every child may very well laugh at it, and he who taketh hold of any thing which proceedeth from them, is as sure as he is of the wet Eel which he hath by the tail: yet true it is, that thus the jesuite writ, but what meaning he had, he shall expound himself, for so he will whatsoever his words are: and so we need to say no more.  
The Appendix maker having scurried a little over the hope of peace, of which he would gladly have been discharged much sooner, runneth over the book which is dedicated to the Inquisition, in which his labours there occurreth no new thing worth the noting. In this he spendeth almost four leaves, & the most part thereof is in gentle persuasions, yet can he not overpass Ma. Charnocks going into England contrary to the sentence, wherein he was charged under mortal sin, not to go (as he interpreteth the sentence:) he telleth moreover, how that Cardinal Burghese writ a letter unto M. Charnocke while he was yet in France, dissuading and condemning that fact, if he should do it, etc. which the letter itself, and the Apology also, fol. 156. convinceth of an egregious falsehood. Afterward he telleth his Reader, that M. Charnocks reply was so irreverent and malapert, as any modest man that shall read it, can but feel his ears burn in behalf of so honourable and venerable a man, as the good Cardinal is: but there is not one of M. Charnocks reasons answered, which do justify his return into England, notwithstanding that sentence, which was given in the letter of the two Cardinals, Caietane and Burghesius: neither is it the fashion for this fellow to answer the reasons otherwise then as old heretics were wont, who when they had not what they could say against the Catholics, they would break into railing: and in the 24. this fellow not knowing, in what particular to take exceptions against the narration of the usage of M. Do. Bishop, and M. Charnocke at Rome, he telleth his reader, that they set it forth so tragically, as any act ever done by Nero, Caligula, or Dioclesian. A good commendation for those, who were the cause thereof, nothing being there set forth, but what was most true. Lastly, there is a little somewhat in the defence of F. Parsons, of whom this author cannot deserve too much: but his actions have been too gross in the managing of this matter to be now concealed, or smothered up. God send him his grace, that he may see his own naughtiness in time, and save his soul after so many desperate adventures, which also I hearty wish to them all, who have either maliciously or ignorantly run this wicked course against Catholic priests.    

❧ The Contents of the Chapters, with the page wherein every Chapter beginneth.  

Chap. 1. HOw the Author of the Apology playeth at All hid with his Reader, and while he is covered under the name of united Priests, he discovereth himself to be a jesuite. pag. 5.  
Chap. 2 A Table of some notorious falsehoods and apparent shift which are contained in the Apology. pag. 8.  
Chap. 3 An answer to those calumniations which the Apologie-maker setteth out in a book entitled, Of certain principal deceits, falsehoods, and slanders. pag. 18.  
Chap. 4 How the Author of this Apology followeth that counsel which Achitophel gave to Absalon 2. Reg. 16. that other seeing how he abused his Holiness, might the more desperately adhere unto him. pag. 39  
Chap. 5 How the Apologie-maker by the same reason which he giveth for the publishing of his Apology, doth give light to his Reader to conceive the just cause which the priests had to print their books. pag. 55  
Chap. 6 How this present controversy about the abuse of this new Subordination, is deduced from john of Gaunt, and other matters most impertinent thereunto. Apol. cap. 1. pag 63.  
Chap. 7 How this Author of the Apology while he would inveigh against dangerous and temerarious propositions, engageth himself further than becometh a Catholic. Apol. cap. 2. pag. 105.  
Chap. 8 How this Author layeth his plot for the disgrace of Secular priests, and draweth on his Reader with divers idle stories. Apol. cap. 3. pag. 142.  
Chap. 9 How this Author pursueth his impertinent discourses of troubles among the English in Flanders, France, Italy, and Spain. Apol. cap. 4. pag. 147.  
Chap. 10 How the stirs in the English College at Rome began, the cause whereof this Apologie-maker doth seek to colour and to lay it, where it should seem it was not. Apol. cap. 5. pag. 151.  
Chap. 11. How this Author be stirreth himself to lay the fault of the scandalous division in Wisbich, upon those Priests, who would not subject themselves to that insolent agency of the jesuits. Apolog. cap. 6. pag. 153.  
Chap. 12 How this present controversy is dissembled, and fetched from a head in Flanders, by the Apologie-maker. Apol. cap. 7. pag. 158.  
Chap. 13 How the Author of the Apology to cloak the jesuits their dealings concerning the institution of the new Subordination, persuadeth his Reader that his holiness was moved thereto by certain letters which were long after written. Apol. cap. 8. pag. 171.  
Chap. 14 How this Apologie-maker persuadeth his Reader that his Holiness was moved to imprison the two priests who went first to Rome by certain letters which were written long after his resolution to imprison them, and how he juggleth about that which chanced unto them in Rome. Apo. cap. 9 pag. 228.  
Chap. 15 How this Apologie-maker shuffleth off the true cause of this present controversy, and layeth the blame thereof upon the Secular priests. Apol. cap. 10. pag. 264.  
Chap. 16 How the two books against which the Apology is written, are slightly run over with a few cavils against them. Apol. c. 11. pa. 300.  
Chap. 17 How this Author busieth himself to purge F. Parsons of his expulsion out of Balliol College at Oxenford, and other matters wherewith he is charged. Apol. cap. 12. pag. 322.  
Chap. 18 How the Secular Priests appealing to Rome and going to his Holiness for justice against the unjust slanders of the jesuits and their adherents, are falsely and with great ignominy to the Sea Apostolic, compared by this Apology maker to Alcymus and to Simon, who went to Demetrius and Apollonius, heathen persecutors of God's people and his Priests. Apol. cap. 13. pag. 331.  
A Reply to the Appendix of the Apology. pag. 341.   
FINIS.