THE ATTESTATION OF THE Most Excellent, and Most Illustrious Lord, DON CARLOS COLOMA, Ambassador Extraordinary for Spain.  
OF THE DECLARATION made unto him, by the Lay Catholics of England: Concerning the Authority challenged over them, by the Right Reverend Lord Bishop of Chalcedon.  
WITH THE ANSWER OF A Catholic Lay Gentleman, to the judgement of a Divine, upon the Letter of the Lay Catholics, to the said Lord Bishop of Chalcedon.  
Superiorum permissu. M. DC. XXXI.   

The Approbation of the famous Preacher and Divine, and most ancient amongst the Doctors of Divinity of Sorbone now living.  
seeing the ground of this whole Controversy among the English catholics is therein placed, that the Right Reverend Lord Bishop of Chalcedon seems to challenge more unto himself, then is granted by the faculties given him by the Sea Apostolic: from whence it comes, that out of the divers opinions & judgements, which are with heat framed by many, there arise debats in this present time both dangerous and hurtful: To the appeasing & quieting whereof, no remedy seems more to the purpose, then to make fully known to all, the true sense and feeling of the Catholics, & that his Holiness do more clearly lay open his mind concerning the faculties granted to the said Right Reverend Lord Bishop. To both which this present Declaration of the English Catholics is most necessary: therefore I judge it worthy to be published in print, that it may be perused of all. Dated at Tornay the 29. of April 1631.  
john Boucher Sorbone Doctor in Divinity, Cannon and Archdeacon in Tornay, and Censor of Books.   

THE DECLARATION OF THE Lay Catholics of England, concerning the Authority challenged over them, by the Right Reverend Lord Bishop of CHALCEDON.  
WE Lay Catholics of the realm of England, have understood from sundry parts of the Christian world, that a foul aspersion is cast upon our honour & reputation, for that we are judged to frame a less reverend conceit of Episcopal Authothority, and jurisdiction, and not to render it that Obediecne, which may be thought fit. The only cause of this, is taken from thence, that we refuse to submit ourselves to that power & Authority which the Right Reverend Lord Bishop of Chalcedon hath long since pretended▪ as due unto his place; and to the which (as we are assured upon strong motives) he still layeth claim, taking it as granted him from the Sea Apostolic. This pretended Authority of his, hath been maintained by sundry Treatises, as well written, as printed, which warrant his Ordinariship, and assure him of as much power, as is granted to other Ordinaries, in what Catholic Diocese soever, and warn us that the same Obedience is to be performed towards him on our part. Moreover we are told, that hitherto we were not a Church, as long as we wanted a particular Bishop; but a flock without a Pastor, an Army without a General, a Ship without a Pilot, a spiritual kingdom without a spiritual king, a family without the good man of the house; in a word, no true, or perfect Christians. And although, as soon as we had returned an answer to a Letter sent us from my Lord Bishop, presently diverse scandalous writings (which his Lordship never sought to suppress, nor seemed to dislike of) were spread abroad, and we therein traduced with no small disparagement to our reputation, and prejudice to our cause, especially in the opinion of the unlearned; yet we chose rather to forgo our proper, and private interest, then by standing out with vehemency for our own right, either afford unto others a subject of scandal, or give way to the danger of an ensuing Schism. Wherefore in silence we left the deciding of this matter to those, who by their Highest power in the Church of God, were as well his Lordships, as our Superiors. But seeing there have not wanted many both at home and abroad who in a matter nothing belonging to them, and who could not so much as pretend any Authority over us, have notwithstanding usurped the freedom of giving judgement in our cause, with great damage to our fame and honour, which we endear above our lives; we have thought good to declare and avouch entirely, and faithfully before God and man these ensuing points.  
First, we sincerely believe & profess that Episcopal Authority in the Catholic Church was ordained by God, and, as it beseemeth good Catholics, we honour it with all reverence; and daily beg with our best wishes, that the divine Goodness will once be pleased to send a time, in which that authority, which is truly given, and which we account full necessary in the Catholic Church, may safely be established amongst us, and we without increase of persecution, acknowledge it, and as humbly submit ourselves unto it, as they do, who live in countries not liable to laws enacted against Religion, of which kind very many, and those severe and capital, be here with us in force. Which favour, if we could but obtain of his divine Majesty, truly we should esteem ourselves thrice-happy.  
Furthermore we declare openly, that for as much as belongeth to the Right Reverend Lord Bishop of Chalcedon, we honour and reverence him in all duty, & take him to be a true Catholic Bishop, sent hither by the sea Apostolic to administer the Sacrament of Confirmation, & as we think, to govern that part of the Clergy, which is committed to his charge; but not to be our Ordinary, either after an ordinary or extraordinary manner, because we in no case believe, that any such thing hath been hitherto declared by the sea Apostolic, seeing that the times, into which we are fallen, do no ways permit us to obey such Authority, without endangering the loss of our goods, & such a loss, as cannot be recovered. Neither do we only think, that the Sea Apostolic hath not as yet, bestowed any such office, power, or authority upon the Right Reverend Lord Bishop of Chalcedon; but moreover we rest assured, that it is not the intention of his Holiness to grant it him hereafter, until those times return, which may promise, that this power will rather serve to support Religion, then to overthrow it; and until it may be lawful for us to embrace it freely, without so many, & so great difficulties and dangers, which as things now stand, is altogether impossible, for sundry and weighty Reasons alleged by us in the Letter aformentioned in the beginning of this controversy to my Lord Bishop of Chalcedon; which for that the Reader should not peradventure light on, or we be enforced, often to repeat the same thing, we thought good to set down in this place a Copy thereof, together with a certain Declaration made, and presented to my Lord the Chasteau-neuf his Excellency, at that time the most Christian Kings Ambassador Extraordinary in England, before whom many Catholics & some of chief dignity & esteem amongst us, acknowledged the same for their own. So as the judicious and unpartial Reader will easily perceive the state of our cause, which was the thing we aimed at, by adjoining this Declaration.  
In the mean time, seeing for diverse respects we have not the freedom to present ourselves in person, & humbly to lay down our own Cause before his Holiness; we beseech those Catholics who are like to find freer access unto him, and who shall light upon these writings, to be intercessors for us unto his Holiness, that he will vouchsafe to express his mind, and give sentence of this controversy, which we now have with the Right Reverend Lord Bishop of Chalcedon, to the end, all occasions of further scandal & dissension may be entirely cut off, & quite removed; as we hope they will, if his Holiness will be pleased to give it in such a manner, as his resolution may be publicly diwlged, and openly made known to all. For if it be only expressed in private, each party may either affirm or deny what they think good; so that the strife begun will rather take increase by that means, then be any whit extinguished, as experience hath clearly taught us hitherto.  
Moreover, we most earnestly crau●, that in our behalf they will humbly beseech his Holiness, not to resolve of any thing in this business, whereby our King● most Excellent Majesties' indignation, may be provoked against us, or we brought yet further into his displeasure. Lastly, we entreat them not to censure or condemn these our proceedings, with disparagement to our honour & esteem, seeing we have always yet been ready, as the whole world may witness, to lay down, with all humility, our very lives & fortunes, whensoever a just cause, for the defence of our faith, shall require it.  

REASONS GIVEN to Monsieur de Chasteau-neuf Ambassador Extraordinary of the most Christian King, to show that the Authority of a Catholic Ordinary here in England, is incompatible with this time & place.  
FIrst we profess in the sight of God, that from our hearts we reverence Episcopal Authority, 
Initio Aug. 1627.  as knowing it to be God's institution, and that we unfeignedly wish the times were such as we might submit ourselves thereunto: & whatsoever hath been said of us to the contrary, is very slanderous.  
In the next place, we do with all reverence and humility declare, that according to the laws and state of this Kingdom as now they are, we conceive that the authority and jurisdiction of an Ordinary is not only inconvenient, and unuseful, but impossible to be executed, & so dangerous to be obeyed, nay even acknowledged, as that we cannot be obliged thereunto. And we do verily believe & that upon many and weighty reasons, whatsoever hath been affirmed to the contrary that his Holiness hath had no intention to oblige us unto it, nor will, after information how things stand here.  
There are here many Statutes of the Kingdom in force, which make it highly penal in some cases with loss of goods & liberty, and in others of life, to acknowledge any other Authority or judicature, than such as by the same statutes are authorized, which though we are obliged not to regard, when there is question of any doctrine of faith; yet when a man shall run hazard of utter ruin, for admitting and acknowledging of external jurisdiction and authority which importeth not faith, but practise of things not necessary but according to time and place we conceive that we cannot be obliged to embrace it.  
If it be said, that it is Capital for a man to receive a Catholic Priest into his house, and that yet many receive them with all the hazard, and that therefore we might aswell receive an Ordinary into our houses, acknowledging his Authority. The answer will make it appear, that the objection proveth nothing against us. For first it is certain, that even for the reason of being so Capital, and that there are so many lamentable examples among us, not only of friends who have discovered and betrayed other friends for receiving Priests, either for interest, licentiousness of life, revenge, frailty, or for some other passion; but of Servants, who have betrayed their Masters, Nephews, Uncles, Grandchilds & children their Parents, Daughters their very Mothers, yea and even Priests themselves sometimes, who have fallen and betrayed Catholics; we neither are nor can by any humane authority be obliged to take Priests into our houses. Many of us indeed do it out of devotion and zeal, for the comfort of our souls, by celebrating Mass and receiving the most necessary and daily Sacraments, and many of us also do it not. But howsoever, we think it a very ill consequence to infer, that therefore a man is, or may be obliged with the hazard of his estate of life to acknowledge or submit to the Authority of an Ordinary, for the practice of some things without which we yet find by experience, and God's grace, we have always subsisted in these sad times, because forsooth out of voluntary devotion & zeal, many of us are content, to run the highest hazards in receiving of Priests, for the so necessary and daily exercise of our Religion, through want whereof we also find by experience of Saxony & Denmark, and many other countries in Germany, Religion hath in effect wholly failed.  
Besides, a Priest who is a Person of our own election, being first authorised as fit and capable by the Sea Apostolic, may have entrance into our houses, and exercise his function, in a much more private and safe manner than it is possible for an Ordinary to do, especially when he will carry himself as Ordinary. For in that case, besides servants there must be always Officers, parties and witnesses, who do not all, and ever vow so much as discretion, or yet to continue constant in the Catholic faith. And for our parts the dangers being such as they are, it will be impossible to secure us in this point, where sometimes it happeneth that an undiscreet word uttered even without ill meaning may turn to our loss of goods and life.  
Besides, if we could abstract from the danger of offending the State, it is to be considered, that our Marriages and Testaments, and the like are made liable here to those Ecclesiastical Courts and Tribunals which are settled by the laws of this Kingdom, and are executed by certain Chancellors, and Commissaries for that purpose, who may often oblige and sentence us in the affirmative, whereas a Catholic Ordinary, or judge would perhaps do it in the negative, and so we should be tossed between two ●ockes.  
Again, if a Catholic Ordinary should pronounce any sentence, at which the party might be grieved, which must needs occur sometimes; his final remedy would be an appeal to Rome▪ which yet it would be Capital for him to make, besides the charge of prosecuting such a suit, and the impossibility for the most part of us, so much as to send, or write to a place so distant, and so contradicted by the State here, for the bringing of such a suit to an end. And to show both the inconveniences and impossibilities of executing the power of a Catholic Ordinary in such a time and place as this, we think it very considerable to reflect upon many Catholic Bishops, who survived the Reign of Queen Marie of happy memory, and lived here many years in Queen Elizabeth's time, after the change of Religion, and yet there is no memory that any of them did ever practise any power of Ordinary, within his own Diocese in foro externo contentiosè, which yet it is clear he had, and whereof he could not be deprived without personal demerit: & if having this Authority they were so far from excuting it, it is morally certain, that if they had not had it, they would never have sought it in these times.  
And thus much, to avoid greater length, for the showing, that the authority of a Catholic Ordinary in this time and place is impossible, either to be imposed or obeyed, and extremely inconvenient withal, even if it were possible. To which this only word may also be added, that even in the most clear cases, & which might appear to be most easy, and might be carried in the most private manner, as namely when any Catholic shall lead a scandalous life, or that men shall descent from their wives, or the like, we leave it to consideration, whether as the laws stand here, a Catholic Ordinary, as an Ecclesiastical judge can now discreetly think it fit to reduce this man by any compulsory way▪ lest thereby he may be made worse. But we hear some of the Lord Bishop of Chalcedons Officers say, that although he be Ordinary, and have the authority and jurisdiction belonging to that quality, yet he will not exercise the same.  
To this we answer, first, that if the authority be not to be executed, no reason can be given why it should be granted, when so many reasons are to be f●lt, why it must be so inconvenient and impossible. Secondly, we conceive it not enough to say it shall not be executed, because if it be extant, the state is put into iealosy thereby, as appeareth by the last Proclamations against the Lord Bishop: and it will disdain this answer at our hands; We acknowledge such an Authority, but the Ordinary who hath it, giveth his word that he will not execute the same. Thirdly the statutes of the Kingdom fall ●o penaly as hath been said not upon such only as submit themselves to the execution of the said Authority, but upon such also as acknowledge the same.  
Fourthly, the Catholic Ordinary may resolve this day not to execute his Authority, yet may to morrow think fit to do it, with evident danger to us of the Laity, whereof it must be intended, that we ourselves can judge best, as whom it concerneth most. Fifthly, this kind of Authority is not to be acknowledged, or so much as secretly admitted, though upon promise to forbear the practice, because the State is ever wont upon any new Bull, or the declaring of any new authority, or any occasion like this to question Catholics who shall come before them, with great rigour, how far they approve of the contents of such a Bull, or con●ent to any such Authority. Many have formerly been entrapped & greatly prejudiced, upon such occasions; and so may probably be hereafter upon this: and if it should be denied and forsworn, which all men who may be examined will not easily do, if indeed they approve such a thing; yet will not that denial or oath be any way available where proof may be made to the contrary. Besides that, if this Authority should be conceived to be here on foot, the Protestant Bishops would be much more active in persecution of Catholics, as finding their particular interest to be more immediately touched by this, than by any other thing forbidden by the laws of the Kingdom: and we palpably find by experience, that upon their knowledge that there is a Catholic Bishop here▪ who calleth himself Ordinary of this Kingdom, the Pursuivants are authorized to be much more busy, & upon pretence of searching for the Bishop, to search many houses, & to take many Priests, after whom otherwise they had not looked.  
These few Considerations we have chosen out of many which occur familiarly unto us, but which for brevity's sake we have omitted that so your Excellency may be briefly informed of this affair; beseeching you, to procure our peace and safety, by keeping such an inconvenience still from us, as it would be, for us to acknowledge the authority of an Ordinary in this time & place, & under these Laws; & that you will be pleased to consider the Letter of the lay Catholics, which was presented by way of answer to the former Letter of the Lord Bishop of Chalcedon to them; which answer we understand to have been delivered to your Excellency since your coming hither, and we avow that the said answer is the sense of us, and in effect of as many of the worthy and eminent men of our Communion as we know; & that the three people who first delivered it for the said Lord Bishop, to a chief person of his Body, are men very remarkable for piety, prudence, constancy in the Catholic faith, Birth, Estate, and Reputation here, with all good men we mean, although they be but even morally good of both religions; and that they are no such kind of people, as very passionately and injuriously they have been traduced to be; and the same we are informed hath been manifested to your Excellency since your arrival, by persons of the greatest rank of our religion here in England.  
We leave this point also unto your Excellency to judge off, whether those Catholics, if any such there be, who think it fit, to admit of the Authority of an Ordinary in this Kingdom, as things now stand, may be compared with us, either for degree, quality, or number, who think the contrary. Nay we are sure, that though some, when peradventure they be asked, whether they will acknowledge the Bishop of Chalcedon for their Pastor, or Ordinary, or the like, will answer, they will; either because they have nothing to lose, or because the state of the Question is not rightly propounded unto them, or else not explicated, what that power of Ordinary may contain in itself, or what penalties may thereupon ensue: Yet among those who understand the matter, and are men judicious, and withal of means, there will hardly be one found, who will not think as we do.   

A COPY OF THE LAY Catholics Letter, sent to my Lord Bishop of Chalcedon, whereof mention is made in the former Declaration.  
Right Reverend Father in God.  
WE have seen a Letter of your Lordships of the 16. of October, 
Anno 1627.  directed to the Lay Catholics of this Nation: so much thereof as doth not immediately concern ourselves, we shall endeavour to lay asi de; but for as much as there is other matter which importeth our persons and posterity, with all that which can be dear unto us in this world, we shall most humbly declare, what sense we have, and what judgement we are enforced to make thereof. Your Lordship's letter consisteth of four points, whereof we conceive the second principally to concern us, which is of your Authority as Ordinary, delivered by you unto us in these words: As for the Authority, wherewith I demanded it; that is as great, as any Ordinary hath, or can have to demand the same of Regulars, or Diocese. 2. And makes me a judge in prima instantia. 3. And thereby makes me as true & absolute an Ordinary in England as other Ordinaries are in their Diocese. 4. By my Brief it is clear that I am delegated by his Holiness to an universality of causes belonging to Ordinaries. 5. And have been styled by the Cardinals de propaganda side, Ordinarius Angliae & Scotiae. These passages with the whole scope of the second part of your Lordship's letter, argue your Lordship to assume your Authority over the Lay Catholics, to be as great in England and Scotland, as any Ordinaries exercised here in Catholic times, and now is exercised in Cath. Countries. The extent of this assumed Authority concerning the Laity, we shall humbly crave leave to lay open to your Lordship. First, an Ordinary hath power of questioning & proving of Wills. Secondly, of granting administrations. Thirdly, of deciding of Controversies of Tithes. Fourthly, of Contracts, Marriages, Divorces, Alimony, Bastardy. And fifthly of slanders, with many others: in all which causes, examinations are to be taken upon oath, and sentences and censures will follow. Now controversies of this nature have mixture with temporal Authority, concerning our temporal Fortunes, and have been by our temporal Laws & Statutes so assisted, altered, and directed both in the time of our Cath. and Protestant Princes, as hath seemed convenient to the Church and state of these Kingdoms from time to tyme. All which are so already settled, as innovation is most dangerous, as being contrary both to diverse ancient and modern laws. Now, since the erecting of a tribunal about the administering & course of justice either distinct, and much more if it be contrary to our laws, is an offence of high Treason, & that all they who submit and conform themselves thereunto may be drawn within the compass thereof, or of misprision of Treason, or Praemunire at least, if they have any little privity or participation thereof. Besides that, the execution of the Authority of this new Tribunal in so many cases as will daily arise, alloweth no possibility of secrecy, and will provoke the present government to an exact search after it, and suppression thereof. It may therefore easily appear to your Lordship, how dangerous it is for the Laity to submit, & conform itself thereunto, and unsafe even to have been so long silent to your Lordship, by whom it hath been so claimed, & published. Moreover, the inconveniences must be great which were to follow out of the contrariety of such sentences, as would often happen between your Lordship's Courts, and the Courts of this Kingdom. These dangers are so known, & by us have been so maturely considered, that they admit no further question thereof. And if they had been so understood abroad (together with the consideration of our long sufferings, and present estate of miseries) we presume no such Authority would have been imposed upon us. Neither can we be persuaded, that there is a necessity of conforming ourselves thereunto, as to a matter of Faith; or yet we can be obliged, to lose our estates and ruin our posterities where the necessity of faith doth not oblige us. We also most humbly beseech your Lordship to believe, that this which we here do represent unto you, is the sense of the Laity, and we desire that it may be made known both here & abroad, from which we cannot recede for the reasons formerly expressed. To the rest of your Lordship's Letter, not so directly concerning the general estate of the Lay Cath. ˢ but rather the Regulars, we humbly beseech your Lord. ᴾ that we may not be called into more interest & prejudice thereby, than we were in the time of your Lordship's Predecessor, and that these differences may be carried with such charity, sweetness, candour, and without noise, as may advance that union, wherein your Lordship's desires and ours are to meet, for the greater good of our Country. And thus we must humbly take our leaves of your Lordship.  
Your Lordship's most observant, The Lay Cath. of England.    

A LIKE DECLARATION MADE BY the said Lay Catholics of England, to the most Excellent, and most Illustrious Lord, the L. Marques de Fontany, Ambassador to his most Christian Majesty, and other Ordinary Ambassadors of Catholic Princes in England.  
CONCERNING The said Authority of Ordinary, pretended by the Right Reverend Lord Bishop of Chalcedon.  
Having understood these days past, by the testimony of sundry witnesses of credit that a grievous slander is laid upon us the lay Catholics of England, both at home and beyond sea, as if we did not respect, and reverence Episcopal Authority and jurisdiction, as it behoveth good Catholics, & this upon no other ground, as we are well assured, then that we refused to acknowledge the pretended authority, & jurisdiction of my Lord of Chalcedon over us; we thought it a part of our duty, both to God and ourselves, to declare, as well how deeply we resent the slander, as what is our judgement concerning the questions now in controversy between us and my Lord of Chalcedon: which feeling, and judgement of ours, we summarily represented before, to the most Excellent Lord Marques de Fontany Ordinary Ambassador, for the most Christian King, in this Court; and now very lately also we opened the same more at large to the most Excellent Lord Don Carlos Coloma extraordinary Ambassador for the Catholic King in the same Court, who having before hastened his departure out of this kingdom, & being now hourly to depart we were forced to dispatch this matter in his presence without delay. And now we desire to advertise the courteous reader, that we have thought good to make the same Declaration fully and distinctly to the said most Excellent Lord Marques de Fontany Ambassador Ordinary for the most Christian King, & to the other Ambassadors and Agents of Catholic Princes resident in this Court. Whereupon some of highest Rank in the name of many others, delivered to the said Ambassadors, and Agents, a Copy both of the Letter above printed, in the which we answered my Lord of Chalcedons Letter unto us, and of a certain writing also here printed, which about some two years past, many of prime Nobility had presented to the most Excellent Lord the Chasteau-neuf, then Extraordinary Ambassador for the most Christian King in this court, professing themselves Authors thereof. To the end that by these means it may be made known, as well to the Ambassadors themselves, as by them to the whole world, how great a wrong, we conceive to have been done to our Christian reputation, by the spreading of these false reports. And also what our opinion and judgement now at this present is, of the questions in controversy between us & my Lord Bishop of Chalcedon, touching the pretended Authority and jurisdiction challenged by his Lordship over us; which that it might the more plainly appear, we judged it not only expedient, but also necessary, to declare our minds, by this way & course, that we have taken.  

THE ATTESTATION.  
I JOHN Mallery Gentleman, do witness and testify, that I was present at London, in the House of the most Excellent, & most Illustrious Lord, Don Carlos Coloma, extraordinary Ambassador for the King of Spain, the 3. day of March 1631. stylo novo; when as sundry Catholic Noblemen, and others of quality, there present, did produce written in latin, the Declaration, Reasons, and Letter here above set down. All which, being distinctly pronounced in presence of the foresaid Ambassador, and all and every thing therein expressed (for as much as belongeth to the Controversy concerning the pretended Authority of the Right Reverend Lord Bishop of Chalcedon, over the Lay Catholics of England) the foresaid Gentlemen and Noblemen declaredfully and perfectly, to contain the sense and meaning not only of themselves there present, but in effect, of all others whom they knew; and namely of many Earls, Viscount's, Barons, & other men of Quality whom they named unto the said Ambassador. And they declared themselves to notify unto him the mind and sense of them all to be fully expressed in the said Declaration, Reasons & Letter, and that they had received full power & Authority from them so to do. And the Ambassador himself did then openly profess to have understood the same things, from many of those Lay Catholics, whom they had named; nor did he doubt at all, of the truth of the whole matter; which he took upon him, as they requested, to make public.  
john Mallery.   

THE above named john Mallery, Gentleman of the English Nation, appearing personally before the Mayor, Magistrates, and Griffiers of the City, and Territory of Saint Winocks-Berge in the West-County of Flanders, did upon Oath, affirm the things aforesaid, and in testimony thereof in our presence subscribed & signed the same. In Witness whereof, we appointed the Seal used in Causes of our foresaid City and Territory, to be set unto this present Writing, and to be subscribed by the Griffier our Notary. This 15. day of March 1631.  
Locus ✚ Sigilli. Joannes Hardunius.   

THE ATTESTATION  
Of the most Excellent, and most Illustrious Lord, Don Carlos Coloma.  
D. Carlos Coloma Knight of the Military Order of S. james, Commendador of Montyelo & Ossa, of the Counsel of State, and War to his Sacred Catholic Majesty, Captain General of his Armies in the Low Countries etc.  
We do witness and testify, whilst, of late, we resided, as Ambassador Extraordinary in the Court of the Renowned King of Great Britain, the foresaid Declaration to have been exhibited unto us in our House at London, the 3. day of March of this present year 1631. by many lay Catholics of chief rank in their Country, and the same to have been approved and confirmed by diverse English Noblemen, by word of mouth, as well in their own, as in the Name of others; in which respect we ratify the Attestation of M. john Mallery an English Gentleman, added unto the end of the said Declaration, being in like manner also authentically confirmed by the Magistrate of S. Winocks-Berge: & in witness of the truth of all and every the premises, as they were done, we have hereunto put our hand, and seal.  
Given at Brussels the 2. day of April, in the year of our Lord 1631. Don Carlos Coloma. Locus ✚ Sigilli▪ By Command of my most Excellent Lord. Fran. Schelen.    

Printed at Brussels, by the widow of Hubert Antony, sworn Printer, at the sign of the Golden Eagle, near to the Palace. M. DC. XXXI.   

THE ANSWER OF A CATHOLIC LAY GENTLEMAN,  
To the judgement of a Divine, upon the Letter of the Lay Catholics, to my Lord Bishop of Chalcedon.  
By L. B.  
Anno M. DC. XXXI.  
  

THE PREFACE to the Reader.  
GENTLE READER▪  
Lighting of late upon a little written Treatise entitled, The judgement of a Divine upon the 3. gentlemen's Letter to my Lord Bishop of Chalcedon, I took and read it, thinking to find somewhat more than Ordinary in it. For having heard much talk of that matter (being now in every man's mouth) & seen also something written, but not to much purpose; now finding a Book, with the Title of a Divine, I presumed he would say something more than others had done. But when I came to read him, I found him, but like other men of his own side; and particularly so like the Lay Gentleman, T. M. his judgement upon the same Letter, that I began to think it might be the very same man; the style, discourse, and as I may say, spirit, wherewith both are written, being the same.  
And that because then, that seeming to be but some Lay Gentleman's doing, men made small account of it, not vouchsafing it so much as one word of answer; Now the same party would speak a little louder to be heard, writing over the same somewhat more dilatedly, and inserting a little Latin in some places, and taking upon him the person of a Divine, for the substance of both, is the same; and accusing worthy Catholic Gentlemen of Passion, Temerity, Pretence of danger, Partiality to Regulars, want of respect to Episcopal Authority, and the like: and all this uttered with so little reason & truth on the one side, and so much gall and bitterness on the other as that I could not but be sorry, and ashamed to see such a thing with the Title of a Divine.  
For if such manner of writing ill be seem any Christian man, how much worse a Divine, who is to be a light of the world, teaching men sobriety, and temper, by word and example, having truth and reason with him, in what he saith and writeth; and delivering it in such sort, as the manner may not betray the matter, by showing any distempered affection. For even that will much derogate from his writing, though what he writeth should otherwise be true. For every man knoweth what a mist Passion is wont to cast before men's eyes, and how hard it is for a passionate man to speak truth, and nothing but truth. And this is so much more dangerous, where it concerneth the credit & reputation of other men: which how nice a point it is, and how soon, & how grievously a man may offend in it, no Divine can be ignorant; and especially, when the party discovereth but so much of himself as may gain himself credit, and thereby give more force to the slander, or imputation (as the writer doth, styling himself Divine;) and on the other side so concealing his particular person, that the parties grieved know not of whom to complain, nor where to have remedy.  
And whereas it was to be expected of a Divine, that he should handle the matter substantially and solidly, I found no such thing here, but even the very main Question for the most part mistated. For the Controversy being of the Authority of Ordinary, as Ordinary, how it may stand with the safety of Catholics in these times, and under these laws; the writer flieth from it to Episcopal Authority in general, Obedience to lawful Pastors, Government of the Church, and the like; whereof no man maketh any doubt. Or if he happen a little to touch the point, he doth but touch it, and so slenderly, that any man may see he hath not much confidence in his cause, but seeketh rather to carry it by the Title, than reason of a Divine.  
Wherefore finding myself every way deceived of my expectation, both for the matter and manner; and considering on the one side the harm, which even the bare Name, or Title of a Divine might do, among many that look not far into things, and the wrong that it might do to those three worthy Persons, and zealous Catholics in particular, against whom this writing is chiefly intended, and to the cause of Catholics in general; I thought best to make some answer to it, though I be both least fit of a thousand, & that this course of writing be for the most part disallowed by wise men, as being a thing that doth minister more matter of dissension, and keepeth those things longer on foot, which were better buried.  
For some answer must be sometimes made, lest such men think they have won the field: and indeed the silence of the one side, seemeth to have made the other take more hart, and to speak, and to write more freely, because perhaps they think men will still be as temperate of their pens, as they have been, and are still, of their tongues. But they must think that this extreme heat of writing will force men somewhat to alter their course: hoping that the necessity of a just defence may plead their excuse, & that the end of this War willbe Peace, which is my desire also, & intention in this my Answer: which the God of Peace vouchsafe to grant us. And so I come to the matter: which as the Divine divideth into five Sections; the first showing the Letter to proceed from passion; the 2. from Temerity; the 3. the motives to be humane and worldly; the 4. that the temporal dangers are merely pretended; the 5. that their cause of public disavowing the Bishop's Authority, is pretended & feigned: so shall I endeavour in so many Sections, to show all the Contrary.   

The Anwsere to the judgement of a Divine, upon the three gentlemen's Letter, to my Lord Bishop of Chalcedon.  
THOUGH in answering of these papers I must be fain to let pass many greater matters than the Title, yet it presenting itself in the first place, I cannot omit to note two things in it. The one is the word judgement, which doth sound somewhat authoritatively, insinuating, as if the writer were a judge or Superior; for to such only it properly belongeth to give judgement: whereby though perhaps he would gain himself and his writing credit, so to further my Lord Bishop's cause, which he handleth; yet he is best to look he do him not more harm. For by making himself a man of such Authority, he may make it to be thought, that he is my Lord Bishop himself, or some one of his officers, but only that men presume more of the discretion of such Officers, and much more of my Lord Bishop himself, than that they would write, or ever suffer such a thing to be written with their privity. Wherefore though he take upon him to give judgement yet I will take him not to be a man of judgement: I mean, that hath any further Authority, than his knowledge of Divinity will afford him, and so I shall in this answer speak to him as to a Divine, not as a judge. The other thing of the Title, is, that he calleth the Letter of the Lay Catholics, the Letter of the 3. Gentlemen, who undertook the delivery of it. Whereas it is well known that most Catholics of worth in, and about London at the time of the delivery of it, were privy to it, and that these 3. were but chosen out of a great number, as men most fit in all respects to undertake the delivery of it; whereof I shall have occasion to say more hereafter in this answer. Only this I say here, because hereupon as he calleth it the 3. gentlemen's Letter, I mean to call it more truly, the lay Catholics Letter.  

SECT. 1. That this Letter, did not proceed from passion.  
THE Divines first Section, is wholly to prove this Letter to proceed from passion. Wherein a man might ask him, what passion? But because I will not stumble him to much at first, nor intent so much to urge him as answer, I let that pass. His first reason is, because these Gentlemen take no notice (as he saith) of any thing but that which disliketh them: to wit, my Lord Bishop's Ordinaryship, and exacting approbation of Regulars▪ there being diverse other things that in the Divines judgement imported them more: as the validity of their Confessions, which concerned their souls good; the Bishop's care of not increasing their temporal troubles, which concerned their fortunes▪ and the preserving the Bishop's honour & Authority, which concerned the common good of our English Church. This is the substance of the first paragraph, wherein he taxeth these Gentlemen as if they had only a mind to quarrel with my Lord Bishop; for so he saith in the marginal note. But how false this is, may easily appear, if a man consider how many things there were in that Letter very subject to exception; which, a man that had been disposed to pick quarrels, might have made matter of; and among others that bitter imputation of practising and libelling, wherewith his Lordship chargeth Catholics in general in his common Letter 16. October 1627. Which though no man could but resent, yet every man forbore to speak of, because it was impertinent to that end, which they set before them in writing this Letter: which end of theirs, if it had been, as this Divine imagineth, this had been the first thing in the whole Letter to take hold of: and this is the very reason why they meddled not with those other matters, wherewith this Divine would fain have had them trouble themselves. Besides that, there be other reasons, which a man might easily bring: as for that of the validity of Confessions, that they saw not any colourable reason of doubt; yet they prayed his Lordship (in whose power it was with a word speaking, or rather not speaking a word) not to bring them into further trouble, than they had been in his Predecessors time and before. And for their temporal state, they saw well enough, all my Lords advice would nothing avail them, so long as he had the authority he challenged. Besides that, in their temporal matters they can better advise themselues, than any man else can; that being their own element. And lastly, for the not believing evil speeches against the Bishop, they saw it was a needle's thing to mention it, being a known point of Christian duty, not to hear any man ill spoken of, much less a Bishop, if they should chance to meet with any such discourse, which they never do, they and their friends abhorring such way of proceeding.  
The second proof of passion is, because the Bishop offering further satisfaction concerning his Authority to any man that would ask it, these Gentlemen did not ask it. It is true indeed; having seen my Lord Bishops public claim of that Authority, it was no time for them to go, and ask a private gloss or Declaration, which would little avail them, when such a Letter should be brought against them. But let this Divine ask my L. Bishop, Whether he were never desired to make it known, what Authority he had? I am sure his Lordship will not deny but he was many times: but he never would, till he declared it in this public manner. If my Lord then meant to give them sufficient satisfaction in private, why did he not do it in private, while men did desire it, and while there was time? Besides, suppose my Lord would have written a Letter, he might have forborn to speak so plainly of his Ordinaryship, only inviting those that desired to know his Authority to come privately unto him. And for that which this Divine saith, that my Lord could not inform them sufficiently of his Authority in so short a Letter, I see not what reason there is for it. I dare say his Letter is 5. times at least as long as his Patents, or Breve, and Instructions, the sight whereof would have served the turn without all this writing & doing. Which being so easy a matter, & th●t yet his Lordship would not do it, they might well despair of further satisfaction.  
The third proof of passion is, that as this Divine saith, this Letter stretcheth my Lord Bishop's words upon the Tenter-hookes, or rather addeth unto them, in saying, that the particular passages cited and the whole scope of the second part of the Letter, argue his Lordship to assume his Authority over the lay Catholics, to be as great in England and Scotland, as any Ordinary exercised here in England in Catholic times: Whereas my Lord Bishop never spoke of Authority over lay Catholics in Scotland; but only to prove himself Ordinary, brought the Inscription of Letters from some Cardinals thus Ordinario Angliae & Scotiae. In which the Divine complaineth of two Additions, the one that the Letter saith, my Lord challengeth Authority over the laity of Scotland; the other that it saith my Lord challengeth as much Authority here in England, as Ordinaries have had in catholic times. But first, the Letter neither stretcheth, nor addeth to my Lords words; but only maketh a manifest and immediate inference upon, or out of them. For it saith, his Lordship words argue him to assume etc. Which plainly shows that they do not charge his Lordship with saying so in express terms, but saying, that out of which, as antecedent, the conclusion is manifestly gathered. Now there is great difference between an inference and an Addition, as every body knoweth. Secondly, if the Divine would have answered, and not cavelled, he should have showed the Conclusion not to be well & truly deduced out of his Lordship's antecedent, & then he had said somewhat to the purpose. But that he cannot do. For if my L. Bishop out of the Inscription Ordinario Angliae do prove himself Ordinary, & out of this infer, himself to have authority over Lay catholics of England, why may he not do the like of the words Ordinario Scotiae, which Title his Lordship useth continually, and jointly with the word Angliae thus, Ordinarius Angliae & Scotiae? Thirdly his Lordship's patents make no difference between the faithful of England and Scotland. Wherefore if he challenge authority over the one, he may do it over the other.  
For the other Addition, as this Divine saith, or Inference, as in truth it is, of assuming the same Authority, which Ordinaries have exercised here in Catholic times, what can the Divine say to it? Is it not truly and evidently inferred? My Lord Bishop saith the Pope maketh him as absolute Ordinary in England, as other Ordinaries in their Dioceses; and this Divine, acknowledgeth him, to have as much as any Ordinary hath, or can have in his Diocese. But our Ordinaries here in Catholic times were no more, but as other Ordinaries in their Dioceses, nor had more than any Ordinary hath, or may have in his Diocese: Ergo, my Lord Bishop (supposing these his Lordship's premises) hath the same Authority, that Catholic Ordinaries have had here in England in Catholic times: Or by the challenging that Authority of other Ordinaries, or what they have, or may have, he challengeth the same that Ordinaries have had in Catholic times. What fault is there in this Argument? Why then doth this Deuine●ryfle ●ryfle thus? As if these two were not all one; The Authority which an Ordinary hath, or may have in his Diocese; and which an Ordinary had in times passed here in England? Had our Bishops more here, than an Ordinary may have elsewhere? Did he perhaps think, that no man would ever vouchsafe to answer, or perhaps read this paper▪ Where is now the passion in stretching, and adding of words? But because it may moreover appear, that this inference of the Authority, which Ordinaries had heretofore, did not proceed from passion, I will add a reason why mention was made of our Ordinaries of former times in England; which is this: That they, who wrote the Letter, came better to be acquainted with what belongs to the Authority of Ordinary, and how far it extendeth itself, by that which Ordinaries were wont to do here in England, and which for the most part they do still in the same Courts here established, than what Ordinaries do abroad, which we here, are not so well acquainted withal.  
And from hence cometh the answer to another objected Addition, in that this Letter saith, that such controversies, as were spoken of immediately before in the Letter, have mixture with temporal Authority, and concern temporal fortunes, and receive also temper from our temporal laws etc. This the Divine according to his former manner of speech, calleth an Addition to his Lordship's words; who, he saith, said nothing of temporal fortunes, nor Authority of temporal Princes. As for the word (Addition) it suiteth yet far less in this place, than before. True it is, the Bishop did not speak of temporal fortunes and laws; but he spoke of that, which hath necessary connexion with them: which is his Ordinaryship. Which connexion, though the Bishop perhaps did not so seriously reflect upon, as a thing, that might hinder the extent of his power; yet Laymen, whom it concerned, could not but look about them, to see themselves hooked in, upon a sudden, by Title of an Ordinary, which bringeth after it all this, that is mentioned in the Lay men's Letter, and which with all respect, they represent to the consideration of my Lo. Bishop, of whose love towards them▪ they were so well persuaded, that they did not doubt, but upon the very first representation of the inconueniencyes, perplexityes, and dangers, which that Authority did bring with it, his Lordship would presently desist from further claim of it. Howsoever these dangers to them, were a very sufficient enforcement to disclaim from it as they did. Now where is this Inference forced? Doth not my Lord Bishop say absolutely, he is Ordinary, or hath as much power, as any Authority may have in his Diocese? May not others than say, what the power of such an Ordinary is? and what inconvenience may come to themselves by it in some particular circumstances? What force or straining is here? Oh, my Lord Bishop (will the Divine say) spoke only of his Authority, to urge approbation of Regulars. True; that is the occasion indeed. But doth not his Lordship by that occasion, challenge the absolute and full power which an Ordinary hath, or may have? Doth not all that he bringeth, prove his Ordinaryship absolute without limitation of cause, or persons, if his proofs were good? Might not Laymen plainly say; my Lord meant more of them, whom he took to be his proper subjects, ●hen of them, who were exempt? And if his Lordship had meant only to claim Authority over Regulars, in the matter of approbation, he might have answered plainly and precisely, restraining all to them. But I shall have occasion to speak more of this by and by.  
The 4. argument of passion is, that they deny my Lord Bishop all Authority, not only temporal▪ but spiritual; and under pretence of their temporal Fortunes, they would be Oues sine Pastore. If I would be captious with this Divine, I could ask him, where this Letter denyeth my Lord Bishop to be Ordinary; or where it speaketh of his Lordship's temporal Authority? But I will not press him further in that. But for his spiritual Authority, or rather the power in fore interno (for indeed all the power of a Bishop, as he is a Bishop, is spiritual, speaking properly) where do they deny it?  
Or if they do not speak of it, having no occasion, and it being from the purpose, doth it follow that they deny it? He may have that, though he be no Ordinary, nor have power in foro externo. How then doth the denial of the former infer the denial of the latter? Is not here stretching of words, or forcing inferences? And much more in that, as this Divine saith, we would be Oues sine Pastore. Have we been Oues sine Pastore now above. 60. years, wherein we have had no Bishop? Nay, have we not so much more had a Pastor, as we have more immediately been governed by the Pastor of Pastors, receiving immediate influence from the sea Apostolic? But more of this anon.  
The 5. Argument of passion is, because they omit the principal point, which the Bishop handleth: which was his full Authority to exact approbation of Regulars, and take hold of the secondary, which was his Ordinaryship. And near the Divine complaineth, they took no notice whether he had satisfied them or no. Well, what passion was it for Catholics to leave that, that concerned them not so immediately, though it were the principal point, and touch that, which concerned them more, though it were but secondarily intended? To what end should they take notice of satisfaction in a thing, in which they needed none, as making no doubt of it? For, suppose there had been any little shadow of probability of my Lord Bishop's pretence, yet so many good and learned men, as there were here, of Regulars, nay and of all moderate and learned of the secular Clergy, affirming the contrary, & even my Lord Bishop not venturing, to say to the contrary, at least to some persons, but that Confessions made to Regulars were good; what doubt could any prudent man make, of the validity of his Confessions? The Authority of any one or two learned men, being sufficient for a wise man to lay aside all scruple of that kind: what needed therefore all that ado? And the rather because it was a matter of learning, they would not trouble themselves further, then to desire his Lordship not to put them to further trouble than his predecessor, or himself had hitherto put them unto: in which they show, though not in express terms, how they were satisfied with his Lordship's Letter in that point, especially laying his Authority of Ordinary for ground of that claim: what passion then is here? But now, if a man would stand upon it, it might perhaps be proved that my Lord did intend no less principally to declare his Ordinaryship, and by this occasion to make open challenge of his Authority in that kind. For what else doth the greatest part of his Letter pretend? Why doth he write so largely to the laity of a matter, which doth not so properly belong unto them, but only to put needless scruples into their heads? And with all to make some answer to the Laity, who not long before had been very instant to know his Authority more precisely, though his Lordship could not be met withal, to have their demands delivered to himself? But because these are conjectures, I will not stand upon them: only this I may say, if his Lordship's intent had not been to claim that Authority, he might presently have disclaimed it, and there had been an end.  
The sixth Argument of notorious passion (our Divine saith) is this, that they incense the State against the Bishop, by saying that the execution of the Authority of this new Tribunal, will provoke the present Governmeut unto an exact search after it, and suppression thereof; and so bringeth a clause of Bulla Coenae to prove them excommunicated therefore, & asketh, why else this Letter was showed to the King? This is a strange point of Divinity, that a man shall incur excommunication, for representing unto the Bishop, the danger which by claiming such Authority he bringeth upon himself, and other men. This is a thing allowable by the laws of God and man: and how then doth it deserve excommunication? Is this to provoke the state to persecute? No surely: but to move the Bishop not to provoke the State against himself and others: & as for publishing the Letter, and causing it to be showed to the King, if it were so, this Divines intelligence is better than mine. Howsoever▪ it was no more than needed, for men to declare themselves somewhat in a more public manner, that Authority being so publicly claimed, which would bring so many dangers upon them. And some great Officers have been known to say since, that it was time for Catholics to do as they did; for that otherwise they might have smarted for it. Wherein then doth passion notoriously appear in this matter, unless it be that this Divine will have all to proceed from passion which liketh him not. And so having cleared this Letter of passion, I might ask this Divine, what temper he was in, when be called this grave, substantial & humble Letter, no answer, but a public defy of the Bishop's Authority? What is there in the whole Letter that hath even a shadow of defiance? Doth not the whole manner & phrase import as much respect and humility, as such matter can possibly afford? Can defiance stand with humility and respect? Why then should this Divine call it a defy? What Law giveth him this liberty? Let him look home a little and see whether he be not liable in what he accuseth others. I leave it to himself to consider, for I will not so take upon me to play the judge. And here is an end of the 1. Section of passion, I pray God there be an end of that passion on the Divines part.   

SECT. 2. That the lay Catholics Letter is free from Temerity.  
THE first point of Temerity alleged by this Divine is, because they being Lay and private men do take upon them to judge publicly, and to condemn their Pastor: which is as much as by fact to justify, & even far to surpass the Oath of Supremacy, which giveth power to the Prince to judge of Ecclesiastical persons: and here private and Lay men take the same upon them, in saying the Bishop assumeth Authority over Lay Catholics, which he interpreteth usurping; and so bringeth a place out of S. Ambrose to show that Laymen, even Emperors must not judge. here you see the Divine waxeth warm in his judgement seat: but let him be careful he do not condemn men without cause. For his Divinity may teach him, that, that is a dangerous thing. Well; let us see where is this grievous crime, worse than the Oath of supremacy? For private men to judge a Bishop, it is true, it is a heinous matter, but yet by this Divines leave, far short of taking such an Oath, which is the denial of a man's faith. And therefore this I suppose was but to show a little of his Rhetoric. But for all that, he must not let his Rhetoric go before his Divinity. Let us then see wherein do they judge? because they say he assumeth this Authority: which, saith this Divine, is as much as to usurp Authority. But if his Charity had stretched so far, he might have found out a more benign interpretation, considering with himself, the difficulty of finding a fit word for this place. For the question being, of his Lordship's Authority, they could not use any such word, as might import, that in their judgements his Lordship had it. For that were in a sort to acknowledge it, contrary to the purpose of their Letter; beside, they had no ground, but his Lordships own word to think that he had it. In which case they might say that he assumeth it, as well as to say his Lordship saith he hath it: for that would imply, that they did not build upon his Lordship's word, which would have been as ill taken: and to say, he did take it upon him, would have been worse taken, as being nearer to usurpation. Thirdly they could not presume him to have the Authority. For though he were Ordinary, he must show his Letters of his Consecration, or Confirmation, as the Canons require. Or if perchance his Lordship should pretend difficulties, that he durst not bring in such things, & that he may as well be believed as Priests that come in here without written testimonies, yet there might some means, or other be found out and used, to give men some probability of assurance. But much more being a Delegate, as it is certain he is▪ For both Canon and civil laws require that a man in that case show his Authority in writing. For it is an axiom that jurisdictio delegata non praes 〈…〉 ur, sed probatur. Now if they cannot presume such Authority, his Lordship may well be said to assume it. This supposed, it is not certain, that he hath any Authority over them, and consequently whether he be a Pastor or no, & an uncertain Pastor in this case, is as if he were no Pastor. How then do they judge their Pastor? Besides, what judging is this, to say he taketh such Authority upon him? They do not say that he hath it, or hath it not, but suppose they think he hath it not; the worst that any man can make of it, is to say, they do not believe he hath it. Is this then such a crime as to be compared with the Oath of Supremacy, especially since they had many reasons to induce them not to believe it? Is it not great temerity then in our Divine, thus rashly to condemn honest well meaning men, of such a crime without cause?  
2. The second point of temerity is to teach their Pastor, what Authority he must not have; in saying that all things are so settled, as innovation might breed danger, being contrary to diverse ancient and modern laws; since the erecting of a Tribunal distinct, or contrary to our laws is Treason, or Praemunire at least, if they have any privity or participation etc. here the Divine asketh whether it be the part of lay men to tell a Bishop, he must have no Authority contrary to a settled course of state, for matters of Episcopal jurisdiction; and he asketh whether this be not to tell him, that he must not have authority to preach, confirm reconcile etc. And whether innovation in religion is not as dangerous? with a great deal more of that kind. But then he saith withal, that those ancient laws of a new Tribunal are not understood of a Catholic Episcopal tribunal, but of a Legative, and that therefore the challenging of this tribunal is no innovation but a restitution of ancient Episcopal jurisdiction etc.  
To all which I answer; that first this Divine taketh it for granted that my Lord Bishop is our Pastor, certain and absolute; but of that I say nothing till anon, & so I let him use his own language in that. But I must tell him here, he taketh to much liberty to call the humble advice of lay Catholics, or declaration of their own ease, Teaching: which is nothing but to make them odious, as if they took upon them with Authority to teach his Lordship; whereas in the very beginning they humbly crave leave to declare their minds, and so continue throughout the whole letter. This is not good dealing for any honest man, much less a Divine: for it cannot come from a good meaning. But we must bear with a hundred such things as these, at this Devins hand. Secondly whereas he inferreth à paritate Rationis, that the Bishop must not preach, confirm, reconcile &c. because these are against the settled course of state, he is mistaken. The reason is not a like, for these are neither against our ancient laws, neither do, or can hinder the ordinary Courts of justice here, & withal these things are more necessary for saving of souls, for establishment and preservation of Catholic Religion them a Bishop's court, which as things stand, will rather hinder then help. Now for our ancient laws which our Divine saith are not against a Catholic Episcopal tribunal (not according to the meaning of the Lawmaker, howsoever it may be against the sound of the words) I say first, that as times stand, it is enough to be against the letter of the Law: & our Protestant judges and men in Authority who think themselves fittest to be interpreters of the Law, will have great advantage against us, if they shallbe able by the very words of the ancient laws to bring us with in compass of Treason, or Praemunire. And if now by word, & writing they publish to the world that we die not for Religion, but for Treason, although we suffer but by the laws made in this time of Protestancy, how much more colourably would they think to do it, when we shall suffer by the ancient Laws, made and practised in Catholic times, and not disallowed, or contradicted by the Sea Apostolic? And it may be this very thing, if it had been so known to his Holiness, as the Catholics Letter saith well (for it is no disparagement for any man to say, that he doth not know all particular Laws, and Ordinances of all Countries) it is most probable his Holiness would never have put the Catholics into any the least occasion of such offence: especially being a thing wholly needless at this time. Secondly, a man may perhaps also say it is against the meaning of the law in some sort. For though it were never the meaning of our Catholic Ancestors, to hinder the lawful exercise of Ordinary Ecclesiastical power, yet their end was, as this Divine confesseth, to restrain the exercise of extraordinary power, or Legative, by reason of the disturbance, which it did many time's cause in the usual courts of justice of this kingdom. Why then may not a man say, they mean of such power as my Lord Bishop would have here, considering the present state of things? For, here be now usual Ecclesiastical courts of Ordinaries or Bishops: but they are Protestant Bishops, say you▪ I grant it, but yet in their Courts they retain the same form of justice in great part, the same kinds of causes they had anciently; and though it be true that they have not true Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, as being Branches cut of from the root which is the Sea Apostolic, yet they exercise it de facto, by the King's authority, so as all, both Protestants and Catholics must be subject unto them, so much as concerneth the outward government, or forum externum. Now my Lord Bishop's Authority in this case (suppose it Ordinary for the present for disputations sake) is of no less hindrance, or disturbance to the Ordinary Courts, and course of justice, than was Legative in ancient times; nay more: for the Legative court was a Superior court and therefore did not meddle in Ordinary and daily matters, but in some particular cases and events.  
Whereas my Lord Bishop's Court, if he were Ordinary, would answer ex aequo, as I may say and directly to the Ordinary spiritual Courts here, and might challenge the hearing and determining of all causes, as due to itself, excluding the other, as usurper. In which respect I think, that as this Divine saith the lawmakers never intended to hinder the restitution of Catholic Episcopal jurisdiction, so I am of opinion with him thus far, though they would not hinder it when time should be for it, so yet that in such time, and circumstances as now we are in, and so long as it were not in their power to hinder, but that Protestants should b●are the sway as they do, they would never have liked the restitution of it, in such manner as his Lordship desireth. To which though I am the rather induced by considering how the Catholic Bishops, who in Queen mary's time exercised their Authority, and kept their courts, upon the suppression of Religion and their Authority, and the substitution of others in their place, forbore the exercise thereof, as hurtful rather than any way useful; nay even impossible. Thirdly, not to stand guessing what would have been the mind of the Lawmakers in this particular case, suppose my Lord of Chalcedon were Ordinary here; to come to the true plain meaning of the Law, which this our Divine acknowledgeth, to wit, that by it is forbidden the exercise of a legative tribunal; I say, this law precisely and directly toucheth his Lordship's Court, which he would erect. For though be not a legate à latere, yet he is a Delegate of the Sea Apostolic, and his power is of the same kind with Legative, though inferior unto it. And this is manifest by the words of his own Letter, saying, he is Ordinarius, not Ordinario modo, but extraordinario modo, as Legates, Nuncio's, and the like, though he be not yet so truly Ordinary as any of them, whose power is expressed in the Canon Law, his Lordship's power being wholly out of the Common Course. Therefore the law is much more against it then against the power of a Legate. Secondly, the very manner of conferring the Authority, by special Commission, doth manifestly show him to be a Delegate: for that is proper to Delegation. Thirdly he hath his jurisdiction ad beneplacitum; which is essential to Delegation. But what need I stand further proving so manifest a thing, when as both his commission hath the express word Delegamus, and his Holiness his Nuncio of Paris in a Letter under his own hand, speaking of my Lord Bishop of Chalcedons Breve, saith, Delegationis suae Breve sufficienter ostendit etc. & by word of mouth, he did not only tell diverse that will justify it, that my Lord was not Ordinary, but proved also by the Cannons, that he could not be Ordinary. His Lordship's Power then being rather Legative then Ordinary, and even not that legative, which is expressed in iure, and whose power in that respect is called Ordinary, because it is belonging to the office of a legate by law, it is plain that the ancient Law doth properly touch his Lordship's power and Tribunal. For suppose when England was Catholic, a man had come in hither, (all the Bishoprics being full) with such a special title and commission, and challenging such Authority here as his Lordship now doth, what would other Bishops say? In what Ordinary Tribunal should he sit? Must he not erect himself a new one? Nay suppose his Lordship should have been Bishop of Canterbury, and one come in as he doth Bishop of Chalcedon, by special Commission, would not his Lordship think that man to offend against this ancient law in such a case? And whosoever should acknowledge or submit himself to such Authority, liable to the penalty there appointed? Certainly he would. And why not then in this case? You will say now there be no Catholic Ordinaries, as then there would be. What then, say I again? Doth that alter my Lord of Chalcedons Authority? Doth not that remain the same in itself still without change, whatsoever the others be? Is not their change merely accidental to his Authority? For he is still Bishop of Chalcedon, & hath the same commission. If then that would be against that law, now it is. What temerity is it then in catholics, to advertise my Lord of Chalcedon, what danger he bringeth upon himself, & others, by erecting this new Tribunal, which they may truly call Innovation, as being a thing without Precedent in our nation, and contrary to our ancient Laws, & therefore no restitution of Ordinary Episcopal jurisdiction, as the Divine would have it: though suppose it were truly and properly restitution of Ordinary Episcopal jurisdiction, and consequently, not against the ancient Laws, yet would it be against the modern, which threaten so many & so great dangers, that a man may very well without note of temerity declare them, & use what means they can to avoid them. I could here note how some friends of this Divine, I mean some of the Appellants in Clement the VIII. his time, urged these ancient laws against the Authority of the Archpriest, then appointed by that Pope, though that were no external jurisdiction nor over the Laity; how much more than may they be urged against my Lord Bishop of Chalcedons which he pretends? But I say no more of it.  
3. The 3. point of Temerity wherewith this Divine chargeth Catholics is, in that they censure the sea Apostolic, as he saith, and 2. most wise Popes, by saying, that if these their dangers, together with their long sufferings, & present state of miseries had been considered abroad, they presume no such Authority would have been imposed upon them: as if, saith he, the sea Apostolic had not considered the dangers which might come to Lay Catholics by Episcopal Authority. And then he asketh why they did not give, the Sea Apostolic to understand these dangers, all that time that the Clergy stood suing for a Bishop, the jesuits opposing it? Or all the time that the Bishop hath been here, wherein, as the Divine saith, he hath ever professed himself Ordinary? Whereupon he concludeth that it is not the rear of danger to themselves, but their passionateness to Regulars, who stood in danger of Approbation, that moveth them to this. This is the Divines discourse, and a very good and likely one it is, forsooth, because the Catholics say▪ that if their dangers had been considered (to use the Divines words) abroad, they presume they should not have had such Authority imposed upon them▪ Therefore they censure the sea Apostolic. This man is so much in giving judgement, and censuring, that all that any man else saith, seemeth to him to be censuring. What is there here any way condemning the Sea Apostolic? Nay rather, do not Catholics, in this, show the great confidence they have of the love and tenderness, that the Sea Apostolic beareth towards them? Which induceth them to think, that if their case had been fully made known, it would no way do a thing, so prejudicial unto them: where it is to be noted, that besides the Divines ordinary liberty of terming things as he listeth to conceive them, & wresting words to a worse sense, here he corrupteth the text, the better to ground his accusation of Temerity. For in those copies that I have seen of this Letter, there was not the word [Considered] but the word [Understood] which is no way subject to exception. But notwithstanding, suppose the Divines copy had the word [Considered] which yet a man may doubt of, none else having so, it may very well carry the same sense. Which supposed, what Temerity, or what Censure is it, to say, if the Pope did understand our case etc. May not the Pope be ignorant of many particular laws or Statutes of a Kingdom so remote in place, and so different in manners and language, and especially in this time of Protestancy, as this Kingdom is? He being a man, and having none but humane means to know things, he cannot know our affair; by himself but by information of others: and it seemeth they have been such men as were more careful to prosecute their own ends, then seek our good, and therefore would make no more known of our case then might stand with their pretences: & now that we come to speak for ourselves, & to make known our own case, for saying, that if it had been so understood abroad, we are calumniated, as if we did temerariously censure the Sea Apostolic: What dealing is this? But because this Divine doth thus grievously accuse Catholics for Temerity in censuring the Sea Apostolic, I would willingly ask him a question in his ear, whether he do know a man in the world, that hath been often heard to say, before there was a Bishop, that the Pope was bound under pain of mortal sin to let the English Clergy have a Bishop, and consequently it evidently followeth, that in the same Divines judgement, in not granting one, he did sin mortally. If he do not know such a man, I can tell him who he is; and vouch for myself, one of the Clergy itself, and a man of chief Authority under my Lord Bishop, and of great credit with him for his forwardness and zeal in the cause. Now whether this be not censuring, let any man judge? For, what greater censure can there be then to condemn the chief Pastor of God's Church of a mortal sin▪ And of a mortal sin, nor so much in matter of fact, which might depend of information, and so be somewhat excusable, but in matter of judgement, or error in a Doctrinal point, which cannot be excused▪ as whether the law of God require the having a Bishop, or not, here in England▪ at this time? Which the Pope denieth▪ this De 〈…〉 affirmeth: and not only affirmeth, but condemneth the Pope of a mortal 〈…〉 e, for not being of his mind. These 〈…〉 tlemen used a modest word (〈…〉; they used also a conditional 〈…〉 inner of speaking, which were sufficient to mollify the word, suppose it had been a little harsh. They impute no crime, they show assurance of love and tenderness, and of great wisdom and maturity in counsel; and yet this is censuring. And whereas he accuseth Catholics also for Censuring two most wise Popes, of doing what they understood not, I might answer him likewise that he condemneth all the Popes that went before these two; for the space of threescore years, to wit Ten most grave and wise Popes, who for many and very weighty reasons would never be drawn to have a Bishop here, as times stood. And the two last yielded to the having of a Bishop, not out of any Scruple of conscience, or fear of transgressing the Divine precept, but out of other motives. Nay it is most like, that they would have held the same course, that so many of their Predecessors did hold, but that they were persuaded by some, that the times were altered: so that it might better be now then heretofore: which can be no fault of the Popes, but of such as care not what they say to compass their own ends: and so used such underhand dealing, as that things were wrought, without any knowledge, or consent of those whom it might here concern. For what did Catholics here in England, know what others were working at Rome? And though they should hear something of a Bishop, they might well think the Sea Apostolic, knowing somewhat in general the different state of this Kingdom, from others at this time, would not send hither a Bishop, with like Authority as in other places, as indeed we find since this controversy began, it was never the meaning of his Holiness, though this Divine would make us believe otherwise. They might likewise think that no man of those that did sue for a Bishop, would so far pass the bounds of reason, as to desire a thing so impossible as is a Bishop here in England, with the same power that Bishops are of elsewhere, and have been formerly in England: but that they would be content at the furthest with a Bishop, who might Confirm, bless Holy Oils, & govern his Clergy, without challenging a further jurisdiction in foro externo, which would not any way prove useful, but many ways harmful.  
As for the Jesuits Opposition, I will not say much, but leave them to speak for themselves, as I doubt not but they can very sufficiently, in this business, as they have done heretofore in other occasions, though in this they need not say much for themselves; for any man may see, by the Divines manner of speaking, how well he wisheth them, & consequently how little, or no credit is to be given to what he saith of them. Yet for this matter in particular although I never had fee to speak for them, even out of the love I bear to Innocency, I will tell a thing of mine own knowledge, which as it hath made me believe, all that such men say of the jesuits, to be false, so it may well do others: and it is this. I knew a Priest, now a Blessed Martyr in heaven, who long had a mind to enter amongst them, and by false suggestions of some, he was with held for many years. And at the last, when being still more vehemently moved by God's holy spirit to prosecute his good desires, a great man of the Clergy, who shall be nameless in this place, to dehort him, told him the jesuits made a vow, or an oath (I know not now well whether) to oppose the having of a Bishop, which though it cooled the good man's desire for the present, yet when he informed himself better, and found that false, he believed all the other fables that were told him to be false, as indeed afterwards he also found them. So, I having seen better proof for clearing of the jesuits in this point, than this Divines authority for accusing them, will forbear to believe any thing he saith of them. Only, If they should have hindered it, foreseeing all this stir & inconvenience which hath happened since the Bishops coming, who can wonder if they would have hindered it, if they could, though I am most credibly informed they never meddled not spoke word all the time it was now last in treaty. Heretofore indeed when they were called to Council they spoke what they thought, as it is the part of any honest man. But this last time being not called, they did not speak a word, nor move a foot in it. For, what is it to them? Do not they live aswel where there be Bishops as where there be none? I trow they do: why then should they hinder it? And thus much for the Divines third point of Temerity.  
4. The fourth point of Temerity, as he saith, is that these 3. private men erect a new Tribunal, never heard of before, from which there is no Appeal, in saying that the matter they speak of, viz. of their dangers, admitteth no further question, which the Divine interpreteth, as if they would judge upon a Bishop, and upon Ecclesiastical Authority, so as no further question is to be made. What a frivolous objection is this for a man to make? Or with what conscience can he transferr● their words which they speak of the certainty and manifestness of their own dangers to so different sense, as if they did take upon them to judge of Bishops & Ecclesiastical Authority, so, as if from them there were no appeal? Nay what affinity is there between the bare affirmation of a thing, by saying it is out of doubt, and, erecting a new Tribunal? This man's head is so filled with Mitres, that he dreameth of nothing but Tribunals. This is too to gross: and as for saying, that these three private men erect a a new Tribunal, as if it were but the act of three, I have touched that before, and shall do again afterwards.  
The 5. point of Temerity he saith lieth in these words, from which (he putteh this parenthesis of his own) refusing the Bishop's authority) we cannot recede for the reason aforesaid; which, he saith, is a temerarious profession of disobedience not only to the Bishop their immediate Pastor, but also to the Pope. That, from which the Catholics say they cannot recede, is the substance of the Letter concerning the difficulty of a Catholic Tribunal, and danger which ensueth thereof to themselves, which what disobedience can it be? Against what Authority is it? for there is no obedience, nor disobedience but where there is Authority. What power is it that commandeth men not to speak the truth in matters of Fact, that so much concern them? What Law, what Superior, can abridge them of this liberty, though he were a known Superior? Much less here where the question is, whether my Lord Bishop have Authority over Catholics or not, or what he may have, as things stand? For to be bound to obey, there be these three things requisite at least; that the thing commanded be possible; that the party that commandeth be a Superior; and that others be subject in that kind, wherein they are commanded, or in the matter of command▪ for men are not subject to all Superiors in all kinds, but to one in one kind, and to another in another. So as this Divine, should first by proof have put it out of question, that my Lord Bishop hath the authority he pretendeth. Secondly, that, that authority can stand with the present government and state of Catholics. Thirdly, that Catholics are so far subject to him in matter of life and temporal fortunes, as to hazard all for acknowledging and obeying his Authority. And having made good all this, he might then have accused them of Temerarious Disobedience. But till then, it were more honesty and wisdom to forbear his Censures. And this order was more suitable with the order of the Letter; wherein having first said they were persuaded they could not be bound to hazard the ruin of their state and posterity, where the necessity of professing their faith doth not oblige them, they conclude consequently that they cannot recede etc. But the Divine had an eye in this to his conveniency, reserving this point for the last, therein to show his Divinity, which he hath hitherto made little show of: and so now he cometh to that which followeth.  
6. Their 6. point of Temerity, saith the Divine, is in their words; neither can we be persuaded that there is a necessity of conforming ourselves thereunto (Episcopal power) (observe these two words of the Divines own putting in by the parenthesis, and by way of gloss) as to a matter of faith▪ or yet, that we can be obliged to lose our state, and ruin our posterities, where the necessity of profession of Faith doth not oblige us. Upon which words the Divine descanteth: ask, what is this, but to get up into the Bishop's chair, and teach him how far they are obliged; where he saith that as long as they taught, what was common law, they were to be heard; but that where they come to teach the duty of a Christian, they pass the duty of a Christian. And then he teacheth, that it is a matter of Faith, that there ought to be Episcopal power in God's Church; and that the Pastors are to be obeyed, and that although particulars be not matter of faith, yet men are bound out of the virtue of Religion to hold them so, where there is no cause of doubt. For, saith he, it sufficeth that they are obliged to obey their lawful Pastor, and that they have no reasonable cause to doubt but that the Bishop of Clalcedon is such to them: and so concludeth, that they err exceedingly if they think that they are not bound to conform themselves to any thing but matters of faith; for that they are bound to conform their wills to matters of religion, obedience, or other virtues commanded by God, & his Church, as they do their understanding to matter of faith. Thus the Divine discourseth, more it seemeth to show his Divinity, then to speak to the purpose: for what needed all this whereof there is no question; as that it is the institution of Christ, that there should be Episcopal Authority in the Church; that lawful Pastors are to be obeyed; that men are no less bound to the practice of other virtues, than the profession of faith? Who denieth all this? Or what was there in the Letter, that being rightly taken might enforce any such discourse? The Catholics meaning therefore is plain that the acknowleging or obeying such Authority, as my Lord Bishop now pretendeth here in England, as things stand, is not a matter of necessity to the profession of the Catholic faith, or exercise of any other virtue necessary for a good Christian. But that they may be good Catholics without it, as they have approved themselves before God & the world these 60. years: which if it had been necessary, the Sea Apostolic would never have suffered them to want a Bishop so long. This was the thing the Divine should have touched, without going about the bush: now what Temerity is it for any lay man in the world to say this? Or wherein doth he take upon him more than he should? How doth he teach the Bishop? or, by saying this how doth he pass the duty of a good Christian? What crime is it for a man now in time of heresy & persecution, where the profession and exercise of the Catholic faith, is dangerous to his life and fortune, when he shall be urged by my Lord Bishop to further exercise or profession thereof then is necessary, to make answer, that he thinketh he cannot be bound unto it? Will this Divine in good company and before learned men say, he can? No, no, he will be better advised whatsoever he writeth. Nay this thing is so plain, and so necessarily included in the Common practice of the Catholic faith, all this time of persecution, as I wonder this Divine should think it such a matter for a lay man to speak so much Divinity. He need not; for his willbe never the less, though all the world know it. And on the other side Catholics have been so beaten to it, that there is no man can but know it. For what hath made them stand out against the oath of Supremacy, going to Church, the oath of allegiance etc. but the necessary connexion that these things of their own nature have with the profession of their faith? which were it not, all Catholics in England know, they could not by any humane constitution be bound not to comforme themselves to our laws in this behalf, the dangers being such as they are. Now they see, that the having of a Bishop at this time with such Authority as is pretended, is not of such necessity on the one side, as these things; and on the other side of no less danger, and therefore they think, they cannot be bound to it. Is this such a deep point of Divinity, as a Lay man may not presume to know it? Or if he know, not speak? Or if he speak of it, he must be said to get up into the Bishop's Chair? Who would think a Divine would trifle thus? But let us see more: he enlargeth himself in this, as being in his judgement a substantial point of temerity, making another Paragraph of it. But before I have done with this, I cannot omit to note the Divines Parenthesis in the beginning of this 6. Paragraph, where to the words of the Letter, which say▪ Neither can we be persuaded, that there is a necessity of conforming ourselves hereunto, which they mean plainly of an Episcopal Tribunal as things stand. This Divine with his parenthesis of (Episcopal power) maketh as though Catholics deny conformity to Episcopal power in general: which is a strange slight; & I may say plain corruption. But to go on with him, he goeth forward thus. Like to this, is that other great error of theirs, where they say they cannot be obliged to lose their estates, & ruin their posterities, where the necessity of profession of faith doth not oblige them. For saith he, they are aswel obliged to lose their estates, nay lives also, where the exercising of any necessary Virtue doth oblige them, as where the profession of faith doth. For example, he bringeth joseph the Patriarch, who was obliged to lose his estate and liberty, as well when the necessity of Chastity did bind him, as necessity of professing his faith. So he saith, Christians were no less bound to obey the decrees of the Apostles, them believe their doctrine. And he brings the Authority of S. Thomas to prove, that he suffereth as a Christian, whosoever suffereth for doing any good▪ or avoiding any evil▪ saying withal of himself, that to lose their lives for acknowledging their lawful Pastor, is to lose it for profession of their faith. So the Church holdeth them for Martyrs, who would rather die then subscribe to the condemnation of S. Athanasius etc. To this I answer, that the Divine is very free to call this an error, which by answering what he saith against it, shall manifestly appear to be a solid truth. For, that which he saith first then, that a man is bound to lose not only his estate, but life also, where the necessity of exercising any necessary virtue doth oblige him, no less then for the profession faith, it is true; but nothing pertinent to our purpose, which is, not to dispute whether a man be bound to hazard his life and fortune for his faith only, and not for other virtues: but whether he be bound to hazard all for a thing which is not necessary for profession of faith, & is supposed not to fall under the necessary obligation of any other commandment, or virtue: and so the question may be the same of any other virtue, whether a man be bound to exercise it, when it is not necessary, with hazard of his life & fortune; & this the Divine rather seemeth to grant by requiring a necessity of exercising a necessary virtue to oblige a man: for I would ask him wherein is the necessity of exercising a necessary Virtue, as he calleth it, by acknowledging and admitting his Authority? May we not have all things necessary to salvation without it? If not, how have we done all this while? If we may, what maketh this for his purpose? You see then the Divine would decline the question, by slipping aside to another matter. For his example of the Patriarch joseph, I say there was a necessity of exercising a necessary virtue (to use the Divines own Phrase (though it be not very good) & therefore nothing to our purpose. But by the way I would know what he meaneth by necessary Virtue in this place, for my part I do not see what he can mean, other than an act which a man is bound to exercise; so as either the word necessity, or necessary in his Phrase, is superfluous; & then the meaning of his whole sentence is this. A man is bound to lose his life for exercising any virtue whereto he is bound, and so we are where we were at the first, to wit, whether all kinds of obligation bind at all times and in all circumstances, and with all manner of difficulties and dangers. For the Patriarch joseph, there is no doubt, but he was bound to hazard all, rather than his chastity, whereto the law of God and nature did bind him in that case: not so the having of a Bishop with Ordinary power in ours. For the Apostles Decrees, it is true, they are to be obeyed: but yet I would know of this Divine, whether he thinketh a man bound rather to hazard his life or liberty, then to eat flesh in lent, or upon a friday or saturday? And so of other Apostolical Precepts, which are not divine Traditions, but enacted by them merely out of their own Authority. Only here I say, by this it is manifest, that there is difference between the obligation of profession of our faith, which is wholly divine, and obeying the Decrees of the Apostles, which are but human. For S. Thomas his Authority I reverence it, and am therefore sorry to see it applied by a Divine to so little purpose: for who denieth, but he sufferreth as a Christian, or for his faith, and consequently is a Martyr, that suffereth for exercise of any virtue, or avoiding even the least venial sin? For example a man persuadeth a young woman, that hath many suitors to leave the world, and become Religious; some one of the suitors who is most earnest, and in most possibility to have her, conceiveth a great hate against the party that persuadeth her to Religion, and so waiting his opportunity, killeth him for it. This man no doubt suffereth as a Christian in this case by S. Tho. his rule. But doth S. Thomas say, he is bound with foresight of this danger to persuade the woman? No, nay will this Divine say it? What then is this to that which Catholics say they cannot be bound to lose all, where there is not a necessity of profession of their faith? But the Divine inferreth here; that for a man to lose his estate for acknowledging his lawful Pastor (I suppose he means the Bishop of Chalcedon with his power of Ordinary) is to lose it for profession of his faith. Be it so: what then? Is this a matter of necessity or obligation as the case standeth? If not, you say nothing: & this I say, supposing it an act of virtue, as the Divine saith it is. But now not to dehort any from this acknowledgement, but only to justify a man that shall not acknowledge it for good reasons, I ask whether it be an act of virtue to acknowledge that Authority, which there is no sufficient ground for, but the Parties own saying; whereas there is much against it? Is this discretion? If not discretion, how can it be a virtue? Besides, grant he have that Authority, but that this Authority is on the one side not necessary, and on the other side dangerous, so as the Danger and Inconvenience doth preponderate the conveniency or commodity. Is it discretion to be silent in this case, or is this profession of faith, as our Divine calleth it, joined with discretion? Have not many been condemned therefore, both anciently & modernely for want of discretion, even in profession of their faith. Is it virtue for men to put themselues into needless dangers, or not prudently to decline them when they may without offence? What such special virtue than is it, to acnowledge my Lo. of Chalcedons Ordinaryship, and submit to his Tribunal, being no way necessary to the profession of faith & being on the other side so dangerous as it is? Neither doth this Divines example of S. Athanasius his followers help. For first, it was an unjust, and wicked thing in itself to subscribe to the condemnation of an Innocent man, the which for all the world a man may not do. Secondly, the persecution of Athanasius being known to be for defence of the Catholic Faith & belief, to subscribe to his condemnation was held in that time to be a denial of a man's Faith, concerning the Divinity of Christ. So here was a necessity (to use the Divines phrase) of exercising two necessary virtues, justice and Faith. In our case no such matter. So that all this wind hitherto shaketh no corn. Now than I come to Caietans' Authority, which indeed cometh near the point. For he putteth the question aright, whereas the Divine leads us out of the way all this while. And it is this; An lex humana ita obliget in conscientia quòd homo teneatur mori pro eius obseruatione? To which he saith that some teach this position, Non habet ●anc potestatem nisi in causa fidei, vel tuend 〈…〉 republica. Which he saith is erroneous & false Doctrine: and proveth it by diverse reasons as our Divine saith, whereof he bringeth this one. Lex humana est obligativa ad peccatum mortale, ut manifeste patet, cum praecipitur aliquid sub poena capìtis: Ergo est constitutiva alicuius actus, in hoc quòd sit peccatum mortale: Est ergo obligativa ad ●uitandum magis actum illum, quam mortem corporalem, quia mors animae fugienda est magis quam mors corporis And after saith, Nos autem secundum veritatem dicimus, quòd universaliter lex praeceptiva obligat ad mortem pro sui obseruatione, in casu autem, non ex benignitate legum. From whence our Divine concludeth, that it is false and erroneous doctrine to teach that men are not bound to lose their estates, & ruin their posterities where necessity of profession of Faith doth not oblige them; but that they are bound to lose both estate & life ever where the necessity of a lawful command doth oblige them under mortal sin. And such no doubt it is to acknowledge and obey their lawful Pastor (as he saith.) here you see Caietans' Doctrine, and our Divines Inference. To which I answer first, that our Divine cannot be ignorant how little Authority in many matters Caietan carrieth in schools now a days, though he were a great Doctor in his time, and this in regard of his singularity in many points of great moment and freedom in censuring other men's opinions. Both which faults he seemeth somewhat to commit in this place. For as for singularity, he can hardly escape it, having but one only man of the whole school of Divines to hold with him, who is Adrianus, of his own time, or rather a little after him; so as when he taught it, it was singular among Divines for any testimony that is extant, & since, he hath not any one man but Adrian to follow him: which being so, then is it manifest that he falleth foully into that other fault of censuring Doctrine as erroneous and false, which was approved and taught in his own time by learned men, and that it seemeth with such likelihood, that all Divines of ensuing times have left his, & followed this. Though in this he be not so much to be blamed, not being able to foresee what men would say that came after, as our Divine, who liveth now, and cannot but know it to be allowed and taught by all learned men. All whom this Divine in alleging and approving caietan's censure, doth condemn, which is a great fault in a man of his profession. But to let that go; In my opinion it had been more for our Divines purpose to have alleged caietan's bare Authority without his reason. This reason which he bringeth, being caietan's best reason, as is to be presumed in our Divines judgement (for sure he would bring the best) and it proving nothing worth, it will appear that he hath no reason at all: for his reason is this. An humane Law may oblige a man under mortal sin, as when a thing is commanded upon pain of death; but a man is bound rather to lose his life then commit a mortal sin: Ergo a man may be bound to lose his life for the observation of it. To this I might answer first that his first Proposition is not altogether so certain. 
Navar. apud  For that some great scholars not inferior to Caietan for Authority in schools in moral matters, 
Tol. lib. ●. c. ●0. 〈…〉.  are of opinion, that no humane civil law doth bind under mortal sin. But I do not build upon that. And therefore I answer secondly, that caietan's reason, is petitio Principij, and consequently no reason, taking the very thing in question, though delivered in other words, for a reason of his saying. For it is the same question, whether an humane law can bind a man under mortal sin, to loss of goods or life, but in case where there is some higher obligation proceeding from the law of God, or nature: and whether an humane law can oblige him to lose his fortunes and life, where there is no necessity of profession of his Faith, or other higher bond. And this is it which Caietan with one other Divine saith, and all other Divines gainsay him in. And the reason is manifest. For, a law being to be for the common good, and the power by which it is made, proceeding originally from the people (if we speak of civil or Political power) and given for that end, it were a great abuse of that power, to force men to so great damage as to hazard fortune and life, but where it is merely necessary for that end: for men are not supposed to be so void of reason, as to cast away themselves so freely. Now in that case of common good the law of nature doth come in, and fortify that bond. The like we may say of Ecclesiastical humane power, which though it come originally from God, not from the people, yet reason doth prescribe the use of it: and a Law made thereby to the damage and hurt of men's fortunes & lives, without a necessity, for their eternal good, would rather prove prejudicial then profitable, and therefore no Law. Nay, to matters of extraordinary difficulty, though otherwise good and holy, even Religious men are not many times bound. That Ordinary Example, which authors bring of a Religious man entering here in Europe, who, they say, by his general Vow of Obedience is not bound upon his Superiors command to go to the Indies through so many dangers by sea & land: How much less than can secular men be bound with danger of life and ruin of their fortunes, to things not absolutely necessary to faith and salvation? Such as is, the not acknowledging and obeying of my Lo Bishop of Chalcedons Ordinariship. And therefore no matter fit for so great an obligation, as the loss of life, and ruin of a man's posterity. Wherefore that must needs fail, which our Divine buildeth upon caietan's Authority, as the foundation: to wit that men are bound to lose all, not only for profession of Faith, but also where the necessity of a lawful command obligeth them, if he mean the necessity which a command doth bring with it subsequent, as an effect; which he must mean for his purpose. For as I have said all this while, all commands do not bind in all occasions, and then there is no such necessity, or rather it is no law or command in this case being not able to bind. Therefore to avoid all ambiguity & equivocation of the necessity of a lawful command, I distinguish and say: If this necessity be antecedent and such as may be sufficient to ground such a command on because the thing is of necessity of itself for the salvation of a man's soul or the public good this command is lawful & the necessity sufficient to bind a man to the loss of life & goods: if not, but only the necessity subsequent, that is, because it is commanded, I say, this is no sufficient ground for a man to hazard all; neither is it a command in this case, having no power to oblige, as I have proved. And so much for our Divines Divinity, which hath foiled him in this point of Doctrine contradicting the whole current of Divines. Let him look Bonacin. to. 2. disp. 2. q. 8. punct. 2. n. 3. & seq. Now to his temerity again.  
7. The seaventh point of temerity saith he (if I may give it so sharp a term) is in these words: We also most humbly beseech your Lordship, to believe, that this which we here present unto you, is the sense of the Laity; whereas scarce 30. Laymen knew of the writing of this Letter: & since they knew of it, many hundreds have disclaimed from it, & openly protested against it, some of them not accounting those Catholics that wrote this Letter. Hitherto are the Divines own words. And then he Rhetorically amplifieth it: ask whether it be the sense of the English Catholic laity, that a Bishop lawfully sent by the sea Apostolic doth usurp authority? must do nothing against the settled Order of the state, in matter of spiritual jurisdictition? That a Catholic Episcopal tribunal is a new Tribunal in England? & so in like sort he reckoneth up Epilogically all his former temerities, and prayeth, God forbid that such presumption should be the sense of the Laity. And that rather the quite contrary is their sense, to wit; to accept the Bishop for their lawful Pastor; to thank his holiness for sending him; to be as ready if not more, to venture the loss of their estate for entertaining a Bishop their Pastor, as for entayning regular Priests: and this he saith many hundreds have testified by word, writing, and deeds.  
This point it seemeth is a shrewd one in the Divines judgement: wherefore he would fain have a worse term than Temerity for it. But let him stay, and see whether it deserve even that, any more than the rest that went before. To say that this is the sense of the laity, whereas scarce 30. knew of the writing of the Letter, he saith is Temerity. Yea is it even so? Did 30. know of it? how cometh it then that all this while you spoke but of 3. calling it the three laymen's Letter, in the very title, & afterwards continually speaking but of three? It is well increased suddenly from three, to thirty. But mean while hath not our Divine strangely forgotten himself confessing & confuting himself out of his own mouth? For if 30. or near 30. were privy to the writing of the Letter, and did not disclaim (as if they had done, the Divine would not have passed it over in silence) it is to be presumed that they did consent thereto. If they did consent, than was it their act, not the act of those 3. alone: and what these 3 did, they did in the name of the rest. Therefore those 30. are subject to all the Divines censures of passion and temerity no less than those 3. But he thought better to lay all upon 3. because he thought he might be the boulder in his censures, the smaller the number was, therefore he made it less to himself, though contrary to his own knowledge, as is manifest by this his Confession. Well to go on, we have 30. may there not be a great many more, that he doth not know of? Will he arrogate so much to himself as to know all that passeth in private amongst men? might not many utter their minds so privately in this matter to their friends, as not only not the Divine, but no man else but the party, that they spoke to, shall know it? How then doth this Divine, so peremptorily affirm, that there were scarce 30. privy to it? As if no man did any thing but they came presently and told him: but he must excuse me for not believing that, but rather it is to be presumed that if he could come to the knowledge of 30. there were five times as many at least, that knew of it, & are not known to every one, considering the secret manner of carrying things of this kind among Catholics.  
And so much this Divine might truly have imagined, at least believed, when this Letter was delivered by 3. such persons in the name of the Laity, being every one of them of such worth, as might deserve credit in a greater matter than this. For it is no way to be presumed, that any one of them would do such a thing in the name of others without very good warrant from them, especially seeing they might be so easily disavowed. Nay it cannot be unknown unto this Divine, that they were warranted by most of the Catholics of honour and quality, in, and about London, at the time of the writing the Letter: for my Lord Bishop himself, did then in a manner confess as much. For to one Noble man very well known, he writ, that his Lordship's Letter which he had written to disclaim from the Lay men's Letter, appeared unto him like a star in a cloud; as if he were the only man that stood for him. And it can be no less known to this Divine, what a do there was to have a contrary Letter written by some of my Lord Bishop friends in the name of the laity to the contrary effect. But it would not succeed; & why? But because that none that considered the state of Catholic affairs here in England and what consequences the Authority of Ordinary brought with it, and withal had any care of their own fortunes or common good, could think it safe for them to admit of such Authority. It is true, that if a man, ask ordinary people that dive not into the matter, whether they acknowledge my Lord of Chalcedon for their Pastor, or some perhaps who understand the matter better, but have not much to lose; it may be they will easily answer, they acknowledge him for their Pastor. And this is the way which hath been used, with those hundreds, which this Divine saith have disclaimed from this Letter. But though they were more, it made not much matter. And though there should be but 30. that were privy to this Letter, might not those 30. be of such account, as might be more worth than many of this Divines hundreds? I believe they might. For they are the chief men for honour and estate that are most to be regarded in this matter, as being the men upon whom the credit of the Catholic cause most dependeth; and who, for a thing that shallbe subject to exception, are most like to suffer: & therefore they might well say the Laity, being the chiefest and better part; and what they wanted in number they might countervail in worth. This letter than is the sense of the Laity, not wrested and wrung, not glossed and commentaryed by the Divine at his pleasure, but in the plain and obvious meaning of the very words, far from passion, and temerity, as I have here showed. And so I come to the 3. Section, the title whereof is this.   

Sect. 3. That the motives of the three men, were not all human, and worldly.  
IN this 3. section the Divine examineth what the Lay men's motives were to resist the restoring of Episcopal power, or rather to impugn and banish it, as he saith, according to his usual manner, after it is restored by the Sea Apostolic, which seeing, saith he, that it is divine supernatural, instituted by Christ, appointed by the Holy Ghost to govern the Church, observed always in the Church in all times of persecution whatsoever, profitable for administering Confirmation, hallowing of Oils, keeping unity and good life, the motives had need be good; and then he reduceth all to two: viz. fear of loss of worldly fortunes, and troubles by contrariety of sentences betwixt the Bishop's Court and the Protestants. But than picketh out a third, which he saith, was the true motive, delivered somewhat in a covert manner: to wit, that the Regulars may be freed from the Bishop's approbation. Out of which he deduceth certain points for the lay men to consider. 1. whether it be fit for them to impugn spiritual & divine Authority upon mere worldly motives, and such as may better be objected against Priestly Authority, it being forbiddden by modern laws; Bishoply authority being not forbidden by them expressly. Secondly whether it beseem them to reject Episcopal Authority, and the certain spiritual commodities thereof, for uncertain or rather pretended temporal dangers. Thirdly how far they are from the Catholic Africans, who would have a Bishop, notwithstanding the persecution threatened by the African King if they had one. 4. Whether it beseem them to impugn a Bishop their Pastor in behalf of Regulars not their Pastors' Fifthly, whether Regulars deserve this at their hands, since for the quiet of their Penitents consciences, they would not ask the Bishop's approbation, though he offered it under his hand and seal, that it should be no prejudice to them, whereas the Bishop for quiet of men's consciences with his own prejudice approved Regulars though they would not ask it. This is the whole discourse of this Section.  
To which I say first, that he committeth a very foul fault for a man of learning, in misreporting and mistaking the question, by saying that the Laymen resist, impugn, and banish Episcopal Authority: whereas it is nothing so. For it never came into the hart of any Cathoque man, much less of any of these Lay men to question or make doubt of Episcopal Authority in general. But the question being of my Lord Bishop of Chalcedon who came into England with a foreign title of a Bishopric in Greece, but with Authority to be exercised here in England, what Authority is given, what Authority can fitly be exercised, & how far Lay Catholics stand bound, if new Tribunals with power in foro externo, or Ordinary power be erected. And he claiming such Authority, they whom it most concerned, declared their sense and judgement concerning these points: which it seemeth our Divine would needs mistake and draw the question another way to make himself a little more room to discourse at liberty, of Episcopal Authority, crying out a Pastor, a lawful Pastor etc. because what they said, was so just and consonant to reason, as he could not impugn it. Wherefore it is no wonder that of all this deal, he saith there is so little said to the purpose. Secondly for the motives, he saith not much against them: but only taketh upon him to judge of the secrets of hearts, by saying, the principal motive was to free Regulars from approbation. Wherein I might ask him, by what Autbority he taketh upon him to judge of such matters as are not subject to the judgement of the Church itself? for, Ecclesia non iudicat de occultis. But I need not press him here: for it is ordinary with him to censure men merely out of his own imagination. Now for his Corollary demands, I answer to the first, that it supposeth falsely, that they impugn spiritual Authority, which they do not. Secondly, it may stand with very good reason for a man to desire sometimes not to be urged to the acknowledgement and admittance of such a special Authority out of fear of temporal danger of life or fortunes, which though they be in themselves temporal things, yet being desired or preserved discreetly with reference to a spiritual end, as they may be, and as it may be presumed good men desire them, they are in a kind spiritual. Thirdly, these motives do not make against Priestly Authority so much as against the Authority of a Bishop, for they speak only of a Tribunal, or power in foro externo, which doth not belong to Priests, as Priests, and which is against our ancient Laws, as is said before, which is worse than to be against our modern laws. Besides the Authority of a Bishop is more against our modern laws, for he cometh with Authority and jurisdiction derived from the sea of Rome, not only in foro interno, but also in foro externo, which is much more against the intendment of our laws, howsoever it be against the words: and this may appear by the Proclamations, and Persecutions which have been for him in particular. Lastly put case the danger were the same yet God doth bind men to the one, as being a thing of necessity for the salvation of their souls, but not to the other, being no way helpful to their souls in these circumstances, but dangerous to their Lives and Fortunes.  
But because this Divine maketh such frequent mention & so sure account that Episcopal Authority is not more, if not less against our modern laws then Priestly power, this later being by them expressly forbidden, the other not, as he saith; I think it not amiss here in a word to show it to be forbidden both expressly, & upon greater penalty. For first the Law of 27. Eliz. which maketh it felony to receive, relieve, and maintain, or comfort a Priest, maketh it felony to do the same to any religious or ecclesiastical person. Now I presume the Divine will not a Bishop to be an Ecclesiastical person: how then can he say, he is not expressly forbidden. It may be he meaneth, because he is not forbidden by the name of a Bishop: true, I grant the word Bishop is not there; no more is the word monk, or friar; much less Benedictine, Dominican, Franciscan etc. and yet who can say that these are not expressly forbidden by the law in the word Religious person? If this Divine say again that they are forbidden in the word Seminary, or other Priest, so say I also of a Bishop. It is clear then, that a Bishop is also expressly enough, & as much forbidden by that law as a Priest: & this our proclamations sufficiently show, as that 1. Caroli Regis for banishment of Priests and jesuits, wherein the word Bishop was also expressed. Now for the penalty of reconcilement, it is true it is treason to be absolved or reconciled by a Priest. And is it not so by a Bishop also? yea verily as much one as other, for in the nature of reconcilement neither one nor other is named: where in I cannot but wonder why this Divine should so specially note, that it is treason to be reconciled by Priests. The matter then for that, is all one.  
But to go a little further with him, I say, it is not Treason for a man to hear mass, to receive the Blessed Sacrament, to be baptised, married, annoyled, or the like, or to do any act in acknowledgement of his Priesthood, except only absolution & reconciliation; whereas it is far otherwise of a Bishop. For not only to be absolved or reconciled by him, but even to promise any obedience unto him is high treason in the Doer, Counsellor, or A bettor, much more to do any act in conformity of his Episcopal power in foro externo, as to appear before him upon his citation, to obey his censures, or the like: & this by a law of 23. Eliz. (to wit 4. years before that other of receiving, relieving &c. of jesuits & Priests) where it is enacted that if any person shall promise any obedience to any pretended Authority of the sea of Rome, or of any other Prince, State, or Potentate, that then such person shallbe taken, tried, and judged, suffer and forfeit as in case of high Treason: in which words is plainly comprehended Episcopal power as such; for it is derived from the sea of Rome, whether it be delegate or ordinary. Or if it be Ordinary as that of Bishops in their diocese, and as the Divine takes my Lord of Chalcedons to be, than it is like it may be understood in that word Prince, for such a Bishop is a spiritual Prince.  
And that it may yet further appear that his Episcopal power as such, is so forbidden by this law, I will put this Divine a case thus. Suppose there should come one in hither sent by the Pope, without the order of Bishop, Priest, or any other order, but only with Episcopal power or jurisdiction, as he might be, to determine such causes here among Catholics, as Bishops do else where in their spiritual Courts; would this case be comprehended in our Laws thinks he, or not? or would it not be Treason for men to promise him obedience, come to his Court, obey his censures, & c? certainly it would; & even by this law of 23. Eliz. How then can this Divine so confidently aver, that Episcopal power is no more against our modern Laws then Priestly? But here now I must entreat this Divine to conceive me right, for my intention is not to enforce Laws against my Lord Bishop of Chalcedon, but only to answer his arguments, which force me to this, to show that there may be some more danger in Episcopal then Priestly power, for avoiding whereof Catholics are not to be blamed, if they be less willing to admit of the one, then of the other, now in these times, wherein it is but good discretion for men to serve God, and exercise their religion with as little hazard of their Lives and Fortunes as they may.  
To the second demand, whether it beseem them to reject Episcopal Authority, and the certain spiritual commodities thereof, upon uncertain or rather pretended dangers. I answer as to the first, that it supposeth falsely, that they reject spiritual Authority. For they reverence it, though nothing seems reverence to this man, but yielding to his will. Secondly, they do not refuse any spiritual commodity that cometh thereby, as Confirmation, hallowing of Oils, or whatsoever else doth not concern such manner of Ordinary Authority, as they cannot safely admit, for the reasons alleged in their Letter; which this man saith, are uncertain or pretended: which conceit of pretended, so much pleaseth the Divine, that he maketh a distinct section of it, & therefore if it deserve any answer, I will make it there.  
To the 3. demand, how far short they are of the zeal of the African Catholics, who would rather venture a persecution, then want a Bishop; I answer, it is well known, Catholics here want no zeal to Bishoply Authority, who have suffered so long & sharp persecution for the Authority of the sea Apostolic, which they have defended with loss of goods, and life, for admitting of Priests sent by the Authority thereof: which that holy sea considering, with great wisdom and charity hath so tempered things all the time of persecution, that as on the one side it hath sent Priests with sufficient Authority for our instruction, administration of Sacraments, & other necessary matters: so on the other side it hath for borne to press us further for the admittance of such Authority, at is more dangerous than needful. And who can blame us if we desire the continuance of the same course still, till God send better times? And if our zeal be the same to the sea Apostolic (for whose Authority we suffer, and upon whom we desire therefore to depend immediately, as upon our proper Pastor) as those Catholics had to their particular Bishop, of what can any man justly tax us? Are we worse Catholics? Nay are we not rather so much better Catholics as we depend more nearly of the Head of the Catholic Church? Besides our case is different from the Africans in many respects: they had no other means of maintaining the succession of Priests, for administration of the Sacraments, and preservation of the Catholic faith, but by a Bishop of their own; we have. They desired a Bishop of their own; we should also be glad of such a one; as for example a Catholic Bishop of Canterbury, London etc. if it might be; but not a Bishop of another Diocese, to come in hither as Ordinary; for that is against our ancient Catholic Laws. Their Bishop's seas were not possessed by others, ours are: and the like. This Divine therefore doth unjustly tax us of want of zeal to our immediate Pastor. Besides, the example of the Africans is often answered, & proved to make quite against the Divines end.  
To the 4. demand, which is, whether it beseem them to impugn a Bishop who is their Pastor, in behalf of Regulars, who are not their Pastors: I answer, that still this Divine supposeth a false ground of impugning a Bishop. Now for a Pastor, we know not what he meaneth by it. If he mean one with power to preach, teach and administer Sacraments without other ordinary foreign power, we grant he is a Pastor. But then why should not other Priests be also Pastors, having the same power? and Regulars as well as seculars? for it is not the name of a Bishop only. For any Priest that cometh here into England is more our Pastor, than the Bishop of Paris, Lions, Bordeaux, or any such Bishop who hath nothing to do here, but by special commission; which if it be no more than is given to other Priests, than is he no more Pastor than they. Will this Divine say my Lord of Chalcedon is a Pastor otherwise? Say it perhaps he may; but prove it I think he cannot. Sure I am his Breve or Commission importeth no such thing, but all the contrary; as that he is Delegate, his power revokable, that it is only for the spiritual good of souls It is signified by the word Faculties, which signifieth power in him, but no obligation on the other part to obey, & we understand the ordinary form of creating a Bishop for ordinary Pastor to be this: Providemus Ecclesiae tali, de tali persona: & praeficimns cum in Patrem, ac Pastorem ac Episcopum eiusdem Ecclesiae, committentes ei administrationem in temporalibus & spiritualibus, in nomine patris, & filij, & spiritus sancti. Amen. The omission of this ordinary form, and avoiding of all words which might signify any power or Authority, maketh us verily believe his Holiness never meant to make him Ordinary, or Pastor, other then in that general sense, that all that are sent with power of instructing men & administering of Sacraments may be called Pastors. And this power every body willingly affordeth him. As for that which our Divine saith, that the Laity impugn the Bishop in behalf of Regulars, I say, that the one is even as true as the other. For they neither impugn him (but he them) nor do what they do in behalf of the Regulars, but of themselves, & their own right: for it is their own lives & fortunes which they defend: and as for the Regulars they defend their own privileges of another kind, & no doubt, will be able of themselves to do it, without help of the Laity, being so learned as to know how far they ought to yield, or not to yield to his Lordship, and so virtuous as not to deny him any thing that is due.  
To the 5. demand, whether Regulars deserve this at the hands of the lay men, since for quiet of their consciences they would not ask approbation, though the Bishop offered to give it under his hand & seal, that it should be no prejudice to them; whereas the Bishop as the Divine saith, for quiet of lay men consciences approved the Regulars to his own prejudice, though they would not ask it. I answer that lay men's consciences were quiet enough, till my Lord Bishop began to disquiet them with needle's scruples: & that therefore they were not so much beholding to him for quieting them afterwards, as they were little beholding to him for disquieting them at first. Secondly Lay men saw well enough, it was some thing else then the quiet of their consciences which moved his Lordship to that course of moving approbations: to wit, to have his Authority which he pretendeth, thereby published and acknowledged. For otherwise he might either have approved all Regulars without more a do at first, or have dealt the matter privately with them: and they denying to ask approbation, he might have expected the award of the Sea Apostolic, without further acquainting Lay Catholics, who, he might be sure, for all yet he could say, would securely rely their consciences upon the word of so many, so virtuous, and so learned men, as are in the several Orders of Regulars. Besides, that they, the Regulars, give so good reason in their own Letter to the Bishop, and there were so many & so good reasons alleged in a shorter letter of a Priest for that matter, that no man that would be ruled by reason, would either doubt of the power of Regulars to here confessions, or think that my Lord Bishop himself, being so learned a man, could doubt of it, & therefore they might well think he meant that but by the By, and aimed at another matter principally: and so they answered that which seemed to them the principal matter more largely, and touched the other but briefly.  
Now, for Regulars to ask his Lordship's approbation where the matter was so manifest, was wholly unnecessary; besides, that though his Lordship should give it under his hand and seal that it should be no prejudice to them, it is like they knew it might be prejudicial in some respect or other: for the very ask it as necessary, argueth a dependency. But for his Lordship's approbation, which this Divine saith, he gave to Regulars with his own prejudice, I do not see wherein it can be prejudicial, for he approved them but only for a time till the matter be decided, & without prejudice of his own, or his successors right: wherein then hath he yielded one jot of his right, suppose he had any? Nay this manner of granting it was a putting of himself in possession. In which respect the Regulars were wise enough not to make any acceptance of it. Or wherein hath he more obliged the Laymen, than the Regulars have, unless it be by disquieting them with new pretences? And for some part of satisfaction, approveth all Regulars, whereby he obligeth Catholics, like as that man doth that first breaketh another's head, and then giveth him a plaster. So much then for that answer of this Divines demands, and clearing what he saith of the Laymens' motives.  
But what if before I pass to another Section▪ I should touch a little upon the the motive which maketh the Divine and others of his mind to be so vehement in the pursuit of this pretended Authority, that they will hear no reason to the contrary? They say, it is spiritual good of souls by administering the Sacrament of Confirmation, by hallowing oils, by keeping unity and good life; because it is the institution of Christ, because it hath been observed in God's Church, in all times of persecution. But these cannot be the motives; for as for Confirmation and hallowing of oils, it is clear they may be without the authority of Ordinary, & therefore cannot be the ground of such claim. For keeping unity and good life, it is as clear, that Authority can do little in it, as things stand now, and that it is only persuasion and fair means that must do it. For the institution of Christ, sure it is not, that in all places, and in all times there must of necessity be particular Bishops in every particular Diocese, or▪ Country, for if it were so, then should those 10. Popes from Pius 4. to Paulus 5. have offended grievously in not creating a Bishop here. Nay these two last viz. Greg. the 15. and his Holiness that now is Vrbanus 8. should offend in not making so many Bishops as we have Bishoprics. How then can this Divine enforce out of the institution of Christ, that my Lord Bishop of Chalcedon should have the Authority of Ordinary in England?  
For the observance of Episcopal power in the Church in all times of persecution, it is true, there have ever been Bishops, and would still be, though there should be no Ordinary in England for a tyme. But where, when, and how, for particular places, it hath ever depended upon the wisdom of the Sea Apostolic, giving Bishops in such manner, and with extent of power, as time & place hath required. So when some Cities or Countries have been first converted to the faith, they have given them Bishops; when they have quite fallen away, they have forborn to give them any; & now here in our Kingdom which hath fallen away by Heresy, yet so as there be some Catholics left, with hope of total restitution of the Catholic faith, when Almighty God shall please, the Sea Apostolic dealeth most prudently, sending men hither with so much power as is necessary, and expedient for Catholics at this time, reserving the fullness of Ordinary Episcopal power, till the full restitution of Catholic Religion in this Kingdom. For, so Catholics are well assured, that his Lordship is not Ordinary, howsoever the Divine cry nothing but Pastor, and lawful Pastor, at every word. But men give him the hearing: only they cannot but wounnder, that he should so bravely carry out the matter, as if there were no Declaration, or order to the contrary, when he cannot but know that my Lord Bishop hath had more orders than one to that purpose. Nay that my Lord Bishop hath acknowledged the receipt of them else where, though here he do not, and hath promised to cease from further stirring, though we do not yet see the performance of it, unless it be that his Lordship indeed forbear, but that his Officers will not be obedient to him in that wherein they may soon do his Lordship much wrong. For their faults willbe imputed to him.  
Now, because this Divine saith Episcopal power hath been ever observed in the Church in all times of persecution whatsoever, inferring thereupon that here now in England there ought to be a Bishop; I would wish him to consider whether even in the primitive Church, the persecution were like ours, in some respects: for though it were more bloudy● and the torments more various and cruel yet it was but by fits, and generally the Christians had their Cripts placed under ground, and houses dedicated to that use, wherein they had a public kind of exercise of their faith, & even by public allowance; and Priests and Clergy men were distinguished by their habit & tonsure, or shaving of their crown, as it is used now generally in the Catholic Church. But our case is far different, for here we have much ado to hear Mass in a corner, as private as may be, without discovery: how much less might we have those other things, which belong to the Authority of an Ordinary. But of this again in another place.  
These things considered, since none of these spiritual commodities which this Divine speaketh off are necessarily connected with the Authority of Ordinary, neither are so necessary, but that a man may be a good Christian and Catholic without them, they cannot be the true motive of pursuing the matter with such violence and heat, to the greater scandal and harm of the Catholic cause, than all the Authority my Lord Bishop would have, or this Divine have for him, will do good: and therefore men are induced to think that the true motive is Ambition, desire of Rule, interest in the fortunes of Lay men, disposing of Legacies in maius bonum, as would be pretended, judgement of controversies between party & party without their consents; and by little and little to draw into practise a vexation, by the several tribunals, upon Catholics. This I will not say, but surely there be great presumptions for it; for if their reasons were good, they would carry things with more temper, they would with a little more patience endure to hear men propound their reasons to the contrary; they would quietly expect the determination of the Sea Apostolic, and obey it when it cometh: besides that, in their very discourses they cannot but bewray somewhat of their minds, concerning Legacies & monies for pious uses. But I will say no more of it, but pass to another Section.   

SECT FOUR That the Temporal dangers are not merely pretended.  
THE Divine in his 4. Section laboureth by many reasons to prove, that the temporal Dangers are but pretended; which is but even the same that he said in the former Section in other words. For though he saith in the title that their motives were worldly, yet in his discourse he saith, that those were not their true motives, but their passionateness to Regulars; and so he saith here: yet I must yield to follow him, though he saith but the same things over again. His first reason to prove the dangers to be only pretended, is, because they never mentioned those dangers till approbation was moved to Regulars, which was about Easter 1627. whereas Episcopal Authority had been restored since the year 1623. I answer first, that whereas he saith that Episcopal Authority was restored, I see not how that can be said to be restored which never was: for when was there ever a Bishop of Chalcedon in England with power of Ordinary in England, before this man's predecessor? Secondly Catholics did little dream at first of any such Authority, as my Lord Bishop challengeth. For the foreign title of Chalcedon gave them some assurance, that he was not to be a Bishop, like as in former Catholic times. And though they heard sometimes of the word Ordinary among some of my Lord's Clergy, yet they made no great matter of it, not knowing any great ground. Notwithstanding they were desirous to know, what Authority the Bishop had, and for that cause used all the means they could to see his Letters, or Faculties, but they could not get a sight of them; which made them begin to suspect somewhat, and so they began to be a little more careful than before, especially hearing of diverse things done by my Lord of Chalcedons officers, as Excommunicating of some, and threatening others; as also coming to see the Letters Patents whereby his Lordship did create his. Archdeacon's, true and lawful Rulers, and Ecclesiastical Superiors of the Laity; which when they saw, they began to consult among themselves what was fit to be done. And all this was before, that ever my Lord of Chalcedon moved any thing about Approbation of Regulars. And without question they would have done what they did for their own security, though the matter of Approbation had never been moved to Regulars. It may be when they saw the flame break out so strong against Regulars, who were otherwise exempt, by challenging of a thing which could not belon● but to a proper Ordinary in his Diocese, it might quicken them, & make them go about what they were doing, with a little more speed, and thereupon they drew certain points concerning my Lord of Chalcedons Authority, in which they were desirous to be resolved, and all of them concerning themselves, and such as they had heard, many of my Lord of Chalcedons Officers and friends speak of, as things that were like to be put in practice. But because it was not fit for them to go upon uncertain reports, they were desirous to know of my Lord of Chalcedon himself what his Lordship did conceive to belong unto him; so that this Divine is clean out of his way, in making the matter of approbation of Regulars, the cause of the Laymen stirring.  
His second reason to prove the dangers to be pretended only, is, because no man hath been in danger since the restitution of Episcopal Authority. For answer to this reason, I remit this Divine to a great friend of my Lord Bishops, who is wont to allege his favour to my Lord Bishop, for a reason of the King's displeasure towards him. I might for answer also allege the Proclamations, & much and continual searching for him, which hath brought so great vexation upon Catholics, and upon many Priests taken by his occasion, but that I list not much to meddle in such a matter as this. Only this I may tell the Divine, that my Lord Bishop himself, as I have been credibly informed, took notice and exception to the speaches of some Catholics of worth, who spoke feelingly of what they suffered by his occasion, and wished he would for avoiding their trouble, withdraw himself: which showeth that Catholics find the contrary of what this Divine would make them believe.  
His 3. reason is, because there can be no greater danger justly pretended against one Bishop, then against so many Priests, they being forbidden by the modern laws, and he being not forbidden by either modern or ancient laws. Whereto I answer, that as I have showed before, the danger is far greater. For Episcopal Authority is so much more forbidden, as it is greater Authority, derived from the sea of Rome, and a double Authority. For besides the jurisdiction of forum internum, which Priests have, the Bishop would have another of forum externum, which is much more against the modern laws, than the former. Besides that I have showed before, that the Authority which my Lord Bishop of Chalcedon challengeth, is truly against our ancient Laws.  
The 4. reason is, because there is no Law ancient or modern against Catholic Episcopal Authority: for the ancient laws forbid an extraordinary Tribunal, as that of Legates, and ordain only for Catholic times, when there were true Episcopal tribunals, which they would not have disturbed by extraordinary Tribunals, and so are rather in favour of usual Episcopal Authority, as the Bishop of Chalcedons is, than any way against it; that they are only against a new Tribunal, such as a Catholic Episcopal tribunal is not.  
For this reason I answer, it is the same with the former, and hath been oft repeated; the often repetition of the same discovering the want of matter the Divine hath. The substance of the argument I answered fully before in the answer to the 2. point of Temerity, where I showed this Tribunal, which he pretendeth, to be new, and to be by many degrees more near a Legative, than an Episcopal Tribunal, though indeed neither; and so not only extraordinary, but most extraordinary. here therefore I will only speak of that, which the Divine decideth so plainly of my Lord of Chalcedons Tribunal, in saying the ancient laws are rather in favour of usual Episcopal Authority, such as my Lord Bishop of Chalcedons is▪ wherein I cannot but note how this Divine is a little more free in avouching my Lord Bishop's Tribunal, or power in foro externo, than I believe my Lord Bishop himself or some of his more wary Officers are, when they write, or speak to men of understanding.  
For though my Lord Bishop's words in his own Letter did seem very plain in this point, as that he was delegated by his Holiness to an universality of causes belonging to Ordinaries, and that he was made a judge in prima instantia; yet afterwards in a certain Letter, to a Lady, which hath been seen under his own hand, his Lordship saith, that concerning the new Tribunal, which some say he hath erected, it is a mere fiction, invented without ground, for he never thought of erecting such a Tribunal, and that his Authority over them, is merely spiritual; as the words of his Breve are, in Spirituale bonum Catholicorum, to wit, to administer to them that Sacrament, which they cannot have, but by a Bishop etc. And in conformity hereof, there being a meeting appointed by some of the Clergy, and some of the Laity, and Conference held concerning this Letter of my Lords to the Lady, those of the said Clergy, that were there (and were like to know most of my Lord Bishop's mind) acknowledged; and conformably themselves said, that my Lord Bishop never intended any such Tribunal. And it went so far, as that the Lay Gentlemen drew a certain Letter to the same effect, in explication of his Lordship's first Letter, in which he said his meaning was mistaken, which his Lordship might please to write to the Laity, expressing as much to them, as he had done to the Lady; which though it were no more than he had already written, and was confessed by his own officers, yet he would not write it: for what reason I know not.  
Nay, this Divine himself in maintaining this Tribunal, seemeth a little contrary to himself. For in his first section, and 3. point of Passion, he complaineth of the Gentlemen for stretching, as he saith, my Lord Bishop's words upon the Tenter hooks, in that they understood his Lordship's words of an Episcopal Tribunal, or power, in foro externo. Whereas, saith he, the Bishop speaketh only of such Authority, as Ordinaries have, or can have in their Diocese, and which was sufficient to exact of Regulars, that they should ask his approbation. And a little after: Where, saith he, in all the Bishop's Letter, is there one word of temporal Authority, or of Authority over temporal fortunes, or such as have been altered or directed by our Temporal Princes? What word then of the Bishops enforced them to make this sense? None surely but their own passion, which made them make this forced sense, this forced inference. These are the Divines own words: which I do not see well, how he can reconcile with his words in this place. Wherefore, though I will not take upon me to teach such a Divine, yet I may say he should have been better advised, and agreed better upon his tale, both with himself and with others of his own said, before he had fallen to write; and so perhaps he might have saved himself all this needless labour of writing, and me the labour of answering; for neither he, nor any else can well tell what Authority they would have for my Lord Bishop; only Authority they would have for him, and for themselves: But what, or how, they cannot tell. For, fain they would have his Lordship to have Authority of Ordinary: for without that, they cannot so well compass their ends; nor with it neither, I may truly say. And yet they find such main obstacles on the other side, making it not only difficult, but even impossible, that they are fain for shame sake to deny all such pretences. And thence it is, that sometimes they say one thing, sometimes another. Sometimes that he is Ordinary, sometimes that he hath faculties only for the spiritual good of Catholics, etc. And they are so nice and wary, when they speak with people that understand things, or may make any use of their words, that one cannot tell well, what they say; and yet they are more free of their tongue, than their pen. For they will not give half that under their hands, which they talk freely. But if they went upon a sure ground, and meant nothing but well and fairly, what should all this need?  
Well then; so it is, that the Divine doth here challenge more Authority for my Lord Bishop, to wit, a true Episcopal tribunal, than his Lordship doth for himself. For in his said Letter to the Lady under his own hand, he saith it is a fiction: to which Letter I remit this man for answer to his 4. reason. After these 4. substantial reasons to prove that the dangers are only pretended, this Divine cometh to answer that which the Lay men say in their Letter; that the execution of this Episcopal Authority, alloweth no possibility of secrecy, by ask, why not aswell as the execution of Priestly function, who say mass, preach, and communicate before many scores of men, women, and Children; whereas to the Bishop's Tribunal there come no children, few women, and not many men. He asketh moreover how the Bishop hath gone over almost all England, and confirmed many thousands with sufficient secrecy? How was secrecy kept in the primitive Church? How is it now kept in Ireland and Holland?  
To this I answer, first, that it is no wonder, that such men as this Divine, relate the case of English Catholics elsewhere as they please to strangers, when this Divine will tell men here at home such a tale as this is in writing. Secondly I tell him, though he cannot but know it, the Execution of Episcopal Authority in a Court, is of its own nature public. There must of necessity be a judge, and other Officers; there must be parties; there must be witnesses, there must be writing; there must be records: some must be sometimes grieved; some will complain, some will appeal. Is any of all this needful in hearing of Mass, Sermons, or receiving of Sacraments? May not a man hear a Mass, confess, and communicate without a judge, a Summoner, a Notary, without an accuser, a witness, without a writing & c? What then doth this Divine mean to bring such an argument? Suppose there be 10. persons at Mass, may there not be one alone? Can a business be so dispatched iu●idically in a Bishop's Court, without writing, witness, or Officer? Nay again, suppose there must of necessity be 20. at Mass, and a business in the Bishop's Court might be dispatched but with the privity of 2. men, would not even this be more public in regard the things must remain in writing, with note of place, time, and other circumstances; or that one of the parties may be grieved, as it falleth out commonly, in matters of suit?  
For the Secrecy of the Bishops going over a great part of England & confirming, I am full glad that he, & they have done so well with it, and wish they may do so still. But for all that, it is not good bragging: and as secret as it is, I know many a right good man, that would be loath to have it so well known, when he hath a Priest in his house, as it is known wheresoever almost his Lordship went: and the secrecy it seemeth, was so great in some places, that there was a great complaint made in Parliament, to what boldness the Papists were grown, to have a Bishop, to whom there was such resort in a certain place in Staffordshire, where he confirmed many, and showed himself in his Pontifical Ornaments.  
Thirdly I answer, that suppose the Bishops going up and down and confirming were as secret, and void of danger as this Divine would have it, what doth it make for his purpose? Which is to prove that a Bishop's Tribunal alloweth as much secrecy, as the exercise of Priestly function? For who doubteth but the Bishop may if he will, confirm a man as privately, as a Priest may communicate him? Doth it then follow, that he may with the same privacy judge, and determine a controversy between party and party? What manner of arguing then is this?  
Now for the Primitive Church, which our Divine speaketh of, I said a word before, and it is clear there is a great deal of difference. For that persecution was more by fits, more violent for the time, but shorter; & in the interim, there were such calms as Christians had free resort to public places of prayer and sacrifice, and houses deputed and dedicated for that use: and that not only by a connivency but even by public allowance of the Emperors, restoring unto them their Churches, & permitting of free access to them, & the Cemiteries or places of burial, where the bodies of the Christians and Martyrs relics were buried and kept. There was an outward apparent distinction in habit and hair, between Clergy men & others. Where hath there been any thing like this, all this time of Schism in England? Have not men enough to do to hear a Mass privately in a corner? Where is there a Church to say Mass, or to preach, or an Oratory for men to meet & pray together, or Churchyard for Catholics to bury their dead? Or where is there a Priest, or Religious man that goeth publicly in his habit, or with his crown shaved? Would not any man count one half mad that should go so, because they did so sometimes in the Primitive Church? What wonder then is it, if in the Primitive Church Bishops kept their Tribunals, & Provincial Counsels, met with many scores of Bishops, as the Divine saith? Though by his leave, they met not so freely, nor exercised their Authority so much at all times; to wit, in those hot fits of persecution. And what a wonder is it for our Divine who must be supposed to have a little knowledge of the Ecclesiastical History, to bob men here in the mouth, with the state of the Primitive Church?  
The same is of Ireland and Holland. For Ireland, Catholic Bishops have still continued in their several Seas, with their proper titles, heresy having never taken so deep root there. But here it is well known, that when our Catholic Bishops were suppressed, they, during their lives, forbore the exercise of that power which they were in possession of; & the state of things being such as it was and impossible to exercise Episcopal Authority: wherefore the Sea Apostolic did not put any Bishop in their place, during the space of 60 years till of late, the state of things nothing changed but only that for matters of life & death the laws were not so rigorously put in execution, upon information of some men, who longed for Mitres, as if the times were now for it, Gregory the 15. of happy memory condescended to their importunity, sending one with Title of a Bishop, but not with that full power, which belongeth to a Catholic Country: which experience showeth to be more than the times can well bear. What comparison then between Ireland, and England?  
Now for Holland, though considering the littleness of persecution, they might ten tims better have a Bishop there then we here; yet they have only a Bishop with a foreign Title, and I believe with power far short of that which this Divine would fain have for my Lord of Chalcedon. Where if they had Bishops, & Bishop's Courts as we have, such laws of ancient and late times as we have, I doubt whether they would have even that. But to be brief, I say in a word, that our Kingdom is more different from both Ireland, and Holland, than they two are from perfect Catholic countries. And whereas this Divine bringeth a place of Scripture for proof of the providence of God, thereby to make men not so to stand upon secrecy, I may bring two to the contrary. One is that of our Saviour Math. 4. Non tentabis Dominum Deum tuum, thou shalt not tempt thy Lord God, as they do that put themselves into needless perils. Another is that of our Saviour also which he gave to his Apostles, when he sent them to preach, Matth. 10. Ecce ego mitto vos sicut oves in medio luporum: estete ergo prudentes sicut serpents, & simplices sicut columbae: Cavete autem ab hominibus, tradent enim vos etc. Behold I send you as shep amidst wolves, be therefore prudent as serpents, and simple as doves: but beware of men, for they will betray you etc. Which admonition is as proper for our Country, & our times, as ever it was for any. And therefore notwithstanding our Divines confidence, I shall wish still, that with sincerity and zeal, men join prudence, or else their zeal may do more harm then good. And we find by experience, that the prudent secrecy of some hath been a greater means of preserving Catholic Religion in these hard times, them the over-hardy zeal of others. And so much for the fourth Section.   

SECT. V. That their cause of public disavowing the Bishop's Authority is not pretended, and feigned.  
WHEREAS the Catholics in their Letter say, that it was unsafe for them to have been silent so long towards his Lordship, so claiming & publishing his Authority; this Divine saith, that they pretend the cause of disavowing the Bishop's power of Ordinary, was the fear of danger of the State, if they had not so done. Which to be merely feigned he proveth by many reasons, all of them almost alleged, and answered before. But as he allegeth them here again, so must I be fain to repeat the answers. The first is, because no usual Authority of an Ordinary, which alone the Bishop claimeth, but at most Extraordinary of Legates and such like, was forbidden by the ancient laws, without the Prince's approbation. I answer as before, that my Lord Bishop's Authority which he claimeth is not that usual Authority of an Ordinary, but that extraordinary of Legates▪ and such like; as appear plainly by the words of his own Letter; wherein he saith, he is not Ordinary, Ordinario modo, but Extraordinario, as Legates, Nuntioes, & such like. Now that is usual Authority for an Ordinary, which is had in the usual manner: therefore that Authority which he claimeth, is that, which is forbidden by the aunicent laws.  
The 2. reason, because those laws were made for Catholic times, and in favour of Catholic Ordinaries: not for herelicall times, and in favour of heretical Ordinaries against Catholics. I answer; well, be it so. Doth this Divine think in his Conscience such an Answer would quit a man that should stand at the bar for acknowledging of my Lord Bishop's Ordinaryshippe, or judicative Power? Sure he cannot think it; For though the law were made in a Catholic time, when they little dreamt of such a change, as hath been since; yet now the times are changed, and Protestant Ordinaries are come in place of Catholics; all the power & privileges of the one conferred upon the other; and the Law not repealed, are not men still liable? What with right, and what with might, questionless, a man would be found guilty.  
For his 3. reason, he saith, he much suspecteth, that only privity doth not make a man guilty, but granteth it of acknowledgement or participation? But he asketh, what need they had, to take knowledge of such Authority? For, the Bishop, he saith, wrote but one Letter of this matter, which came to few hands, and far fewer can be convinced to have seen it. I answer, that for the privity, though this Divine say he suspecteth that will not make a man guilty, yet I presume he cannot be so bad a Lawyer as not to know that privity in matter of felony or treason maketh a man accessary, if he but only know it, and not discover it. If accessary, then certainly guilty: and this is general in all criminal matters without exception. Why then, should he make question in this matter? Or taking knowledge of it, I would fain hear how could any man avoid it? Suppose any man should have been questioned for acknow; ledgement of his Lordship's Authority, could he plead ignorance of his Lordship's claim, it being made, by a Letter written to all the Catholics of England, for their satisfaction, and to let them know, what Authority he had? Would it seem probable that any Catholic should not see, or hear of such a Letter? Now that the Letter was but one, that it came to few hands; It is true, it was but one: But that one was enough, and more then enough. For what he saith, of the Letters coming to few hands; I answer first, it seemeth by the matter and manner of writing, to have been my Lord Bishop's intention that it should come to more. Secondly, it is well known, that there were more copies made, and some of my Lord's Clergy had the care speedily to diwlge it; so as it was diwlged in some remote parts of England; at the very same time it was published here. How then can this Divine say, the Letter came but to few men's hands? And for being convinced to have seen it, in so public a thing as that was, no man will stand to prove it, but presume it, as any man well may. For what Catholic could be ignorant of it?  
The 4. reason is, That many months before my Lord Bishop published his Authority of Ordinary, these Gentlemen sent Interrogatories (as this Divine termeth them) unto him to have him declare whether he was Ordinary or no. So as he saith, they were rather desirous, he should declare himself to be Ordinary then conceal it. It is true, Catholics saw many things they could not tell what to make of; and so might be willing to know certainly, and from his Lordship himself what Authority he had: but might not the answer have been private, as the demands were? They were desirous to know, but not so, that all the world must know, they knew; had they known in private, they might have represented the inconueniency and dangers privately to my Lord's consideration. But his Lordship feared some such thing, and therefore made answer in such public manner, as to carry the matter clear, without reply. But that put men upon a greater necessity of reply. As for that which he saith, that they seemed desirous he should declare himself Ordinary, it is plain they desired it not, but the clean contrary. But whatsoever it was that he pretended, they desired to know it.  
The fifth reason is, That the Bishop ever since his coming avouched himself Ordinary, and till the matter of approbation of Regulars, his Ordinaryship was not questioned, nor danger pretended; whereof, he saith, they cannot deny, but they had some privity. I answer that here again the Divine forgetteth himself, for he was angry before with Catholics, for understanding the Bishops own words in his Letter so plainly of his Ordinaryship, and yet he would have them take notice of ordinary uncertain reports. It is true therefore that they heard sometimes speeches, as if he were Ordinary, but they made not much account of them (for his predecessor was sometimes said to be Ordinary also, and yet he never pretended any Authority over them, that they could hear.) But when they heard of many things, which his Lordship's Officers did, and of peremptory, and Authoritative Letters which they writ, with the judicative manner of proceeding of some Rural Deans, and saw the very Patents or Letters of institution of Archdeacon's plainly signifying the same, than they began to look about them, and to inquire a little more of that Ordinaryshippe, what it meant, and whether my Lord of Chalcedon took himself to have the same power, which Bishops had heretofore in Catholic times, and so sent to his Lordship to know it from himself; so that all this while they had no privity of it, nor after, till his Lordship published it by his Letter,  
The 6. reason: They gave this Letter to be sent to Rome, and as some say (saith he) long before they sent it to the Bishop, and desired the Bishop, that it might be known abroad: Now, to what end was it sent to Rome, and desired to be sent abroad, if it were made only for the state? I answer, that the Divine with his (as some say) is egregiously mistaken in saying the Letter was sent to Rome, before it was sent to the Bishop, for there be others that know better than all his (some says) if there be any besides himself, which aver the contrary. Now for the demand why it was sent to Rome, and desired to be sent abroad, if it were only made for the State? I demand again, where he findeth that it was made only for the state? If he mean that the chief reason of writing it, was to declare the dangers & inconveniences which might fall upon them from the state by acknowledgement and admittance of his Lordship's pretended Authority, it is true: but that is not all one, as to say, that it was made only for the state. For it was made principally for his Lordship, & for those, of whom his power, and the enlarging and diminishing thereof doth depend, to see; that considering the dangers and inconveniences, both his Lordship might please to desist from such pretensions, & others forbear to grant such power as was so dangerous, and so peiudiciall to Catholics. Now what inconsequence was there in this to desire his Lordship to make it known abroad? or fearing with themselves (for they expressed no such fear to him) that he would not, they sent it by some other means? What a doughty reason than is this, to prove the Catholics cause to be pretended, and feigned?  
The 7. reason: When Father Campian came in, and made public challenge of disputation in print, and proclamations were made against him, what Catholic did publicly disavow him, or his Authority, or faculties? My answer to this is, that I see not what there is to answer; for what likeness can there be imagined in this argument, save only the publicness of Father Campians challenge of disputation, and the publicness of my Lord Bishops claim of Authority? Which if it be sufficient, than I will make the Divines argument a little better for him, by ask, why Catholics do not disavow all Letters, or Breves of the Sea Apostolic nay all books written of Controversies, in defence of the Catholic Faith for these are public? Now, I assure myself there is no Divine in the world so dull, but can easily find a great deal of difference between these two last, and my Lord Bishop's Letter, though one be much more like the instance of Father Campians challenge. But because the Divine perhaps will not be willing to find a difference, I will do it for him. It was not Father Campians doing nor meaning to publish any such challenge, but made two Copies of his writing, one to have about himself in case he should be taken suddenly, before he should have time to do any thing, of what he came for: and another in a friends hand, with order to publish it when he should be taken, if by chance, as it was most like, his adversaries should suppress that which he should have about him. But his friend not observing this order, goeth and publisheth it of himself. So the publishing was not his doing. Besides it was a particular act, which concerned himself only, without relation to Catholics, no matter of Authority, or jurisdiction either in foro externo or interno, but a necessary defence of the Catholic faith at that time, no exercise so much as of Priestly function, but a thing which any Layman, for the thing itself, might do. What need then of disavowing his Authority, or Faculties for that matter?  
Now, my Lord Bishop's Letter was intended to be public, as being written to Catholics, so that they could not but know of it, having also for the matter particular relation to them; the subject of the Letter an authority of an outward Court or Tribunal, not necessary at this time, nor convenient for the defence or propagation of the Catholic faith, but offensive to the State, dangerous to Catholics, as being contrary to the ancient, and modern laws; grievous in regard of many inconveniences, which it bringeth with it; and the very knowledge, much more admittance whereof, bringeth danger. What then doth this Divine talk of disavowing Authority & faculties such as Fa. Campian had, as if any man denied them to my Lord Bishop? No, no man denieth, or disavoweth them, or any thing else of my Lord Bishops, but only they desire not to be pressed to the admittance of that Authority of Ordinary, which without any furtherance, or any the least necessity of their spiritual good may bring many temporal dangers upon them, & put them into more straits, than they have been this time of persecution. Which truly, is but a very ordinary, and reasonable request. There is no affinity therefore between my Lord Bishops claim of Authority, and F. Campians challenge of Disputation.  
The eight reason. It is more notorious, that there are many hundred of Priests then one Bishop, and more severe laws against any privity or participation with them, then for the Bishop; and yet these men, saith he, make no public disavow of Priest's Authority, nor account themselues unsafe for having been so long silent. I answer, that the reason is idle. Suppose there were as many thousands of Priests, as there are hundreds, nay if there were as many Bishop as there are Priests, if they had not the power of Ordinary what were that to our purpose, the question being of an Ordinary with power in foro externo? Now for the danger of a Priest or Bishop whether greater, is impertinent as long as the one is necessary, the other not. Besides that, such Bishoply Authority with the dangers, and inconveniences proper to itself, bringeth with it the dangers of Priestly Authority. The Divine could not, but know thus much of himself, and yet he must put down this reason to make number.  
The ninth reason; None but these 3. and some few of their adherents apprehend this danger of being silent, touching the Bishop's Authority, & yet many have more to lose then they; & a Noble man told them by public Letter, that Timebant, ubi non erat timor. I answer, for the number, and worth of the Persons that apprehend this danger, there is enough said before: & the thing is so well known, that surely this Divine would not have ventured his credit by speaking so apparent an untruth, but that he concealed his name. For the Noble man's saying, I answer it with the wiseman's saying, sapiens timet, & declinat à malo: stultus transilit, & confidit. The wiseman feareth and avoideth evil; the fool leapeth over and consideth.  
The 10. reason; The Monks made claim of a far greater Authority, and far more dangerous to the Laity, and in a more public manner by many printed copies, and yet these men do not go about to disavow the same publicly. I answer, that till my Lord Bishop's Letter no man heard of any such matter from the Benedictines, or any else. Therefore if there were any danger in their claim we may plainly thank my Lord Bishop's Letter, as the cause thereof. Secondly, the same Letter whereby the Catholics desired to be excused from my Lord of Chalcedons Ordinaryship, is sufficient against that, or any other book, that shall claim such Authority, as things stand here in England, and therefore there needeth no other disclaiming. Now for their claim, I do not see that for the present they exact any such matter of subjection from Catholics, but only say, they keep a kind of possession of their ancient right, against the time shall serve for it; and that if they would stand upon it, they might better do it then my Lord of Chalcedon. Now what offence or danger is this to Catholics? And for the publicness, the book is printed indeed, but no way directed to Catholics, but to their own Religious. But this Divine, that in this place thinketh much, that men do not disavow this Book, I presume, was privy to another Paper delivered up at Rome, wherein it was said, that the Laity were much offended at such a vast claim: how do these hang together? But that was for the purpose in that place, & this, it seemeth, in this; and he perhaps thought the same man should never come to see both the papers. But as close as that and such like papers are carried by this Divine, & his friends, they come to light one way or other, little to their credit, that care so little for truth in what they say.  
The last reason, is delivered by the Divine in these words: Last what needed they to have incensed the state against the Bishop? therefore these pretences are ad excusandas excusationes in peccati●: whereas the true cause was to help some Regulars to banish Episcopal power out of England. This is the Divines Conclusion. Whereto I answer; that for a conclusion I did expect a concluding reason, but it is so far from concluding, that I see no show of reason. For how doth the ask of this question, what they needed to incense the State against the Bishop, prove that the cause of writing their letter, was pretended? The Divine might have made this a motive, which might have moved them not to write their Letter to the Bishop in that manner: but to make it an argument to prove, that their pretence was feigned, I see not with what Logic it can stand▪ But now for the matter, it is a strange thing, that a Divine should have no more scruple then to charge men of known virtue, and wisdom; with incensing the State against the Bishop. Were it not more time for him to study his cases, & examine well his Conscience, then to stand censuring men so deeply, and so injuriously? What do they say tending this way? That the erecting of a new tribunal, will move the State to a more exact search & c? For this, I have answered before, and showed, that this is said to the clean contrary end; to wit, to decline the Search and Persecution, which his Lordship's claim would bring upon himself and others; and by their saying to appease that which his Lordships doing would incense. Which if it seem prejudicial unto him, is wholly besides their meaning and he may th●nke himself for it. For they in this, do but defend themselves, cum moderamine inculpatae tutclae.  
Therefore to answer this Divines applied place of Scripture, of excuses in sins, I may now ask him in behalf of these Gentlemen, and all others whose letter it was: Quis ex vobis arguet 〈◊〉 de peccato? St malè locutus sum, testimonium perhibe de malo: Si autem benè, quid ●ecaedis? Who of you will accuse me of sin? If I have spoken ill, bear witness of the ill: but if well, why dost thou strike me? And for the last word of all, that the true cause was, to help some Regulars to banish Episcopal power out of England, being but a bitter gall belike of a distempered stomach to end withal, and deserving rather pity, than answer, I let it alone: wishing this Divine the same measure of Charity, which he desireth of Authority, both for his own good, and the quiet of others, boing more his friend therein, than himself.  

AN ADVERTISEMENT.  
GOod Reader. This Treatise was written two years ago, when the foresaid judgement of this Divine, began to go up & down; but that other Books coming then out, and ministering other occasion of Discourse, the Author thought better to let it alone; as he would have done wholly, but that now of late the same Letter of the Catholics, being a new published, with A Declaration to the same effect, some of the other side, began to repeat their former ungrounded Discourses. For rectifying whereof, and stating the Question aright, the Author hath thought fit, now to publish the same.  
FINIS.