certain brief NOTES VPON A brief apology SET out under the name of the Priestes united to the Archpriest.  
drawn by an unpassionate secular priest friend to both parties, but more friend to the truth.  
Wherunto is added à several answeare unto the particularites objected against certain Persons.  
fort EST VINVM, FORTIOR EST REX, said SVPER OMNIA VINCIT VERITAS ET MANET IN AETERNVM. 5. Esd. 3.  
Imprinted at Paris, by PETER SEVESTRE.  
With privilege.   

NOs subsignati doctors Theologi Parisienses, ex relatu virorum fide dignorum testamur Annotationes has grauissimi& litteratissimi Viri D. H. Ely utriusque juris Doctoris peritissimi, in librum quemdam dictum Apologiam &c. Anglice scriptas, nihil inse continere contra fidem Catholicam aut bonos mores, sedmulta cognitu dignissima, tractare erudite. In cuius reifidem nomina nostra apposuimus.  


jac. LANGAEVS.  
joh. MVLOT.     

A general PREFACE.  
WERE it not à principle well knowen to all men by the very instinct of nature, that every one hath greater reason to defend his good name, then any other parte off his riches: and that they principally, whose credits are necessary for the behoof of others, are by the draw of God bound thereunto: I should besorie( I assure thee good Christian reader) to hear of any more writinge of this lamentable subject, of our civil dissension, who ought( like brethren) to live together in perfect peace and unity. But having red a most indiscrete and odious apology[ published under the name of united Priestes in the maintenance of a how founded hierarchy,] which Wandering far and wide from the Question in controversy, see●eth occasion to stir in the vnsauorye puddle of humane frailties, such as he deemeth to haue happened among our poor exiled countrymen, for above this thirty yeares: I could not( I say having seen such à pitiful piece of woorke) but esteem him to haue no feeling of à true English nature in him, that would not be much moved at that not Onely Vnchristianlyke, but uncivil and Barbarous behaviour: and should not also think it very requisite and necessary, that à reasonable answeare were returned, to preserve and defend our dear countries, and country mens reputation.  
Which hath been the cause that M. Doctor Ely[ à very ancient, wise& ledned priest, living in honour and at his ease, far from his native soil, and farther from all such debate and contention] hapeninge to red that venomous apology, could not hold his hand any longer, but quittinge his own repose, hastened to come to succour them, whom he( to his great grief) perceived, to be very injuriously set vpon and assailed. Not unlike the good blood in a mans body, which feeling the heart assaulted, flieth from every part, to assist aid and comfort it.  
And truly whosoever knoweth this right wourshipfull Doctor( as his ancient standing in the seminarie, even from the beginning, and his kind hospitality sithence to all comers, hath made him well knowen to many:) cannot think it strange, that his fervent affection unto our Common father, carded: ALLEN off godly memory( with whom he was very intrinsical) and his tender love twardes us all, hath pushed him on, to set pen to Paper and to employ some parte of his goodly talent, about the decision of this controversy, and appeasinge of our troubles.  
And to speak in differently, who is there of our nation that should be sooner harkened unto, or better believed in this cause, then M. D. Ely? For first he not being partial, but alike affencted unto both parties,( as in his Epistle folowinge he prophesieth at large) hath with all indifferency heard, red, and diligently perused, what either side hath to say for themselves.  
Then his sound natural iudgment, refined and accomplished with a profound knoweledg of both civil and canon draw,( whereof he hath been public professor in à famous university for many yeares:) enableth him, to discern& see on whose side the right is. Finally his sincere honesty, void off dissimulation, full of zeal to truth and equity, maketh him bold to deliuet in plain terms that which in conscience he knoweth to be the verity.  
Wherefore enery considerate an advised reader, must needs give singular regard to his opinion, and may without any doubt safely rely vpon him, as vpon à most probable author.  
Notwithstandinge it is to be ●eared lest some[ over willfully bent to dwell in their own errors, and who cannot in any sort endure to be controlled] not having any exception against the workman, will coin some cavil against the work, that so plainly discovereth their deceits: and not finding any other pretext, may peradventure say, that his holiness Brene of the 17. of August 1601. Doth debar them from reading all such books as this is. Which scruple I thought expedient to remove in this Preface. Because those good felowes that thrust into their blind folowers hands, books flatly prohibited by that Breue, with warrantise: are as earnest on the other side to dissunde them from touching others: lest reading them they should espy their errors, and so for sake them. First then it is to be considered that these learned notes of M. D. Ely come not within the compass of the books forbidden by the Breue. because they be not written by any of either party, to kindle more coals and to increase discord and debate: but by à charitable, discrete and indifferent person, to quench the flames of strife& to induceboth sides to atonement. again yf ther were such à prohibited book, yet may they now be red securely, without incurringe the peril of that Breue. For the said Breue was not at the first received and admitted.  
The one part seeing how it was abused appealinge from it. And the other, to calicut M. Archpriest, deludinge and defeatinge of it. For it being sent to wardes him from Rome shortly after the 17. of August, and comning to his hand about Michaelmas, he kept it close and suppressed it until inwards the end of January folowinge; that in the mean season, the goodly piece of work of their apology might be hatched: and then it peepinge out with an antedate, might seem to the simplo, to haue been made before the Breue.  
What boldness and presumption was this? Viewinge his hol. will and Commandement, under so severe a penalty as the greater excommunication, even holding his breue in his hand to be so audacious as at the very nose of it, to thrust out books so opposite to it, as darkness is to light, was certainly to contemn it in the highest degree,& to the greater scorn off it, they gave out, that the breue did onely forbid books of our side, but admitted all of theirs. It being made without partialitye as well against the one as the other. This was the first pageant they played against it, but was this all? Noe. For some months after both the publishinge off the Breue, and their Apologyes, one in Latin, and another in English: To the infamy and exasperation of diverse sorts off persons both ecclesiastical and temporal, there creepeth forth an Appendix to them of the same railinge quality: which very peartly playeth at bo-peepe with his holiness Breue. The Author confesseth ingeniously, that he had in dead heard of such a breue, but had not seē it: or else he would not for all the good in the world, haue so violated it, for what woeful contempt should that haue been? and yet the silly man was so ouerseen, as to relate in the same place the somme of it, and running over it orderly as it lieth, to city certain sentences of it AD VERBVM, word by word. which plainly bewrayeth his dissimulation, and declareth sufflciently, that he had both seen and perused the said Breue, but meant to jest with it. So obedient be they to the see apostolic.  
But I would fain grow what shift they haue yet in store for their larger apology which is reported to be already published. Shall that also bear date before the breue? Or shall it be fathered vpon some one that lieth in an vnknowen corner? who will say in like manner, that he had not seen the said Breue: or what other ioly devise shall we see next? be not these to wardly and dutiful Children, who under the pretext of such triflinge excuses dare so delude and resist our holy fathers authority? we were by them styled, enormous disobedient, rebels, worse thē magicians and Idolaters, for that we delayed to subscribe to a lately devised subordination, erected by a cardinal his letter: what do they then deserve to be called, who so wilfully trangressed our supreme Pastours authentic writts? for even as there is incomparable difference between the Popes person and a cardinals, between his Breue and this man bare letter: so was there in that which was commanded. For the carded: imposed an intolerable burden vpon us of that laweles subordination: chambermaids his holiness charged us onely to refrain from offending one an other by invectives and bitter writinge. every one therfore that is not blinded by affection, May easily see what Difference there was in the breach of those two comandementes. I will here pass over a fift pamphlet. Which they haue also put to light since the Breue. Because the subject of it is so absurd in itself, and so ungrateful unto all our catholics that be in persecution, that it cannot be unbosom into England. It is[ if it please you] that we notwithstandinge our long endurance of manifold afflictions, should not accept of a toleration in matters of religion, noe not yf her majesty of her singular clemency, would offer it unto vs. Need you hear any more? do you not think these men to haue lost four of their five sences? or else that living to long out of guneshott at their ease, haue cast of all humane compassion of their brethren? and shall we be so assotted on them still that we will uphold all they Say? And tather endure any hardness then once mislike their foolish opinions? But to return to our purpose, seeing they haue four or five times by ouuert act gone against that his Hol. Breue, they haue made it frustrat& of noe force For( as the learned Casuistes hold) after à superiors draw or precept published, is by two or three open acts contraried and resisted: it doth not bind any longer, when the superior understanding off it, doth not rebuxe or punish such transgressors and renewe his former decree. now we haue long since given his hol: to understand, by his Nuncios in France and Flanders, and by our brethren at Rome, of their often violatinge off the said Breue; and yet he stirreth not in it which signifieth that he is content that Breue expire, and bind no longer. But as I aforesaid, if the Breue did stand in former force and virtue, yet it comprehended not these notes, written so modestly, by such à Venerable Person, who in the spirit of mildness charitably commendeth or reprehendeth both parties, as he taketh either of them to haue deserved. And here I would end this preface, were it not that I thought it expedient in this place to examine briefly, that which is cited in the apology out of carded: 
Cap: 2. f: 11.  Allens letter unto M. much. For that he now folowinge our common cause at Rome, cannot as yet answeare for himself. After the good carded. had exhorted us secular Priestes to love, honour, and respect one another, according unto every ones age, order and profession, he hath these words: And those of the secular order, specially those that haue been brought up by the fathers, and haue found so great love, charity and help at their hands( as very few of late haue done) to be correspondent in all gratitude and thankfulness, reuerencinge them in worde and dead, as is requisite to their merites and calling, &c.  
Out of which words the Iesuites and their adherents draw, the carded: to haue been of opinion, that the secular Priestes should take them for their superiors, or at lest, should give them the pre-eminence in all places. All which is far wide both from his words and meaning. For as I will not say but that they, Who haue found courtesy at their hands, are tied to acknowledge and requited it: see do I affirm, that to fish out of his words any kind of superiority or equality either with secular Priestes, savoureth of Ambition: the carded; I grant adviseth and chargeth us to reverence them, according to their calling: but their calling and profession requireth not, that they be preferred before us, as out of the ancient Fathers, and holy canous may be proved at large: but this place doth not permit it: take for a taste the decree of a council holden at Rome abowe 1300. past, vnde pope silvester, where( charge being given that inferiors give reverence to their superiors) it is declared who be those superiors and inferiors, in these words as it is related in the decrees. PORRO PONTIFICI presbyter, 
dist 93. li: a Subdia●●no.  ET CET. Let the Priest do rerence to the bishop. The deacon to the Priest. The Subdeacon to the Deacon. Tha Acolite to the Subdeacon, the exorciste to the Acolilite, the lector to the exorciste, the portor to the lector; OSTIARIO abbess, ABBATI MONACHVS IN OMNI LOCO REPRESENTENT OBSEQVIVM: let the abbot give obeisance unto the keeper of the church doer in all places aswell in public as with in the church; as the monk Doth to the abbot. behold the iudgment of the primitive church concerning secular Priestes and religious, in their opinion( which was most pure and sound) a secular Priest so far excelleth a religious man: that the abbot who is chief among them, is to exibite and to do reverence, unto a door keeper the meanest minister aut attendant vpon a secular Priest. Which is confirmed by another Canon taken out off that true religious, and most learned Doctor of the Church S. jerome. Who being demanded by Heliodorus a bishop, whether the order of secular Clerkes, 
Cap. 16. q. 1. alia causa.  or of the religeous were more worthy, gave answer that the order of Clerkes was far worthier, And proveth it by four several reasons as is to be seen in that place. One of the principal is, that they are of the ecclesiastical hierarchy their calling being to take charge of souls, to teach others the worde of God, and to administers the holy sacramentes, which are the divinest offices, that the Almighty hath communicated unto men. And therefore said this great holy father. MIHI ANTE PRESBITERVM SEDERE NON LICET. It is not lawefull for me to fit abowe a Priest. True it is( as the gloss vpon the former place signifieth) that since the religious took holy orders, an abbot is to take place afore a secular clerk; but noe other monk or religious. As the ordinary practise of the Christian world in public processions and all other solemn assemblies Doth make most manifest. Where the precedence is always given unto the secular. And that these sharp censurers take no exception of the word MONACHVS, used in the former places. and say that secular Priestes be there onely put before monks, but not before such religious as they are: it is to bee understood, that in those Authors, MONACHVS, is taken for all sorts of religious, for that in those dayes there were noe other maner of religious: or yf they will needs haue a distinction betwen them: then monks wilbe the worthier, and must march before other poor friers, as the ordinary course of the world alloweth. And among all mendiants, or begging friers( in which order the Iesuites reckon themselves) they are to march in one of the lowest ranks not onely because, their societi is one of the last founded, but also for that they haue fewest religious observances; they not being bound to rough and rude apparel, osten and long fasts, or continual rising at midnight to canonical houres, as other ligious men are the, keeping onely the essential vowes of religion: of which also some term all those that haue not made their last profession but covenants at will, and noe freeholders. For when it shall please their general to dimitt them, they incontinently become secular& be no longer Religious. All which I say,( God is my witnis) not to disgrace any order of the religious, for albeit in the ranks of the world they be the lowest: Yet in the sight of God for whose sake the leave all, they may be of the highest, yf they excel in virtue: as many good devout poor woman, shall in the kingdom of heaven, be placed far abowe many ladies not so virtuous as they. Yet as we giving the place to a lady before a poor woman here, do not offend God or man: so whosoever prefereth a secular Priest afore a religious man, doth not offend against carded. Allens grave aduise, of giving them such reverence as is requisite to their calling. Their vocation being inferior to the other, as hath been proved. Neither can the addition of religious joined unto their Priesthood greatly advance thē( of which yet I haue heard some to brag) when as the highest dignity of religion, is not equal unto a poor portershipp in the church of God, as is by record of antiquity abowe declared.  
And because I am a little entred into this matter, 
Ca. 16. q. 1. Eccles.  I will to this purpose add one sentence more, out of the next Canon of the same question. The sum and substance whereof is, that it is not lawefull for monks and religious to do any thing( specially belonging unto the ecclesiastical hierarchy), without the counsel of Priestes. Thus taught blessed S. Hierorome 1200. ago: and this holy charch esteemed convenient to be ranged among her sacred decrees. What shall we then say to those wisemen, wo leppinge out of the limits of their own profession, durst avowe, that Priestes were out to be trusted with the guidinge of the consciences of layfolkes, unless they depended on some religious man. The discipline of holy church sendeth religious for direction and counsel, unto secular Priestes: this unadvised inventor clean contrary, would not haue secular priestes credited with the charge of souls, yf they be not ruled by some religious: which is also so much the more absurd for that the managinge of lay persons spiritual salvation appertaineth most properly unto secular Priestes, that being their peculiar vocation and profession. And( as all men confess,) God most assuredly assisteth and concurreth, with those instruments, of which he maketh choice himself for any purpose: now the very institution of secular Priestes by our blessed saviour, was to give them the charge of both converting, instructinge, and guidinge mens souls into the knigedome of heaven: wherfore by the divine draw of his ordinary providence, he doth more specially perfitt this his holy work by the service of secular Priestes, then by any other what soever. He then that leaveth them, and seeketh after others for the directinge of his conscience, may be resembled to him that forsaketh the hight way, and followeth bypathes, of which be cannot bee so well assured.  
For as I take religious men to be the fittest to handle religious affairs so it cannot with any colour of reason be denied but that secular Priestes are the most proper for the conductinge of secular mens consciences. And therfore I chiefly take them to be calsecular, for that they live in the world to be lanterns and guides unto thirdly men. unchurch should be a singular motive unto all lay men, to cast their eyes principally vpon them and to love honour, and respect them abowe the rest, as their ordinary Pastours, who haue quit their own friends and all other things to line and die among them, and to assist them whih the word of life, and the holy sacramentes living and dieinge: chambermaids the religious( love they them never sowell) must needs forsake them on the sudden at the commandment of their superiors.  
Which I do not relate to Diminish in any sort the orderly affection, that any man or woman carrieth inwards them: but to correct the fond opinion of them, that think nothing can be well done with out them. And to complain a little of the incongruity of such religious, who contrary to their rule and profession, plunge themselves over head and hears into ecclesiastical affairs, with such audacity and obstinacy, as they haue turned all topsy turnie. And how can it almost be other wise so long as they meddle so peremptorily in matters, wherein they haue very small skill: having neither studied much in the holy canons, by which principally the discipline and regiment of the church is directed: nor had any great practise in ecclesiastical affairs; they living as it were out of the world, in a distinct and far different gouernmente. And finally God doth seldom bless their enterprises with good success, who run before he sand them, and intetmeddle farther then they haue commission from him or his vicar and vicegerent in earth. Whefore( to conclude) I most heartily request them, to retire themselves with in their own bounds, and to observe that golden rule, REGVLARIA REGVLARIBVS, let religious men deal in matter appertayninge to religion and the cloister: and leave SECVLARIA SECVLARIBVS. The orderinge of the Common affairs of the church, to secular Priestes, and so we shall come to line quietly together. Which Almighly God; of his infinite mercy and goodness grannt us speedily, throught the merites of our blessed saviour, Christ Iesus.  
Amen.   

THE OPINION OF M. KOB PARKInNSON PRIEST and licenciate in divinity touching this controversy with M. Archpriest: whith is word for word taken out of a letter of his ost the last of May 1602. The which was thought worthy the relatinge, because he was long since carded. Allen confessor and one of the seniors and readers in the seminary at rheims.  

In his second assertion to wars the end he hath these words  
I grow also by relation of many and am fully persuaded, that you haue sustained injuries by the erection of your Archipriest, and some Iesuites: and I confess unto you vnfainedly, that if you had kept yourselves, within the compass of your appeal, and plainly and orderly proposed to the see apostolic( where at first although you were repelle, yer in the end doubtless, you should haue had audience and iustice) I would never haue given any sign in mistike of your doings, but rather to the vtermost of my power, haue furthered it, as just and lawefull.   

In his postscript thus he saith.  
YF God spare me health and life: fine dayes together, I will write to F. Persons, concerning many complaints, that I haue heard off his hard dealing with our youths at Rome, and likewise off the how erection off the Archipriest in England. It was thought of long before F. Persons. began it: and by gregory the 13. suppressed and forbidden, as a jurisdiction, which could not be practised in England. I suppose F. Persons did it with good intention, &c. But by experience and contradiction, he should haue foreseen the misehiefe that was like to folowe, and sought means how to prevent it, rather then by force and authority, to bear it out.  
Thus much by the way the good old man wrote well. But in his main discourse against our sovereign lady, he very grossly goeth against the common opinion and practise of all our learned countrymen. Which may be imputed partly to his lack of experience, and partly to those his superiors: that commanded him so to do, as there he confesseth. Some of the same humour object as a great fault unto diverse virtuous Priestes and ancient confessors, that they in faire humble sort deal with the temporal magistrate, about their own deliverance, and for the manifold eases of sundry others. Where nothing is more evident by the very light of nature, then that we may by all honest means possible, both help ourselves and do good to all others. And yf we needed in so clear a case any longer probation; I could by many examples, of the most ancient, best learned, and valiantest Christians, both martyrs and confessors, convince it to be neither unhonest nor dishonourable, for catholics in persecution to fly unto the clemency of them in whose hands they are, and in most seemly humble maner to beseech thē to haue compassion, on such their poor afflicted countrymen, as be ready to spend their best blood either to do any of them good in particular, or for the service of their country in general. But some do say, beware of the council, they mean onely to deceyne you, but will do you noe good: we confess their honours to surpass our brethren in calicut and policy exceedingely, yet hope, by the help of God, that ours are of sufficient discretion to look to themselves: and their long tried constancy in prison, doth with any indifferent man warrant them from all suspicion of trachery in the catholic cause, until there be plain proof to the contrary. on the other side, are not the hartes of princes in the hands of God? and are not all men inclinable to mercy, vpon true declaration of our innoecency? it is thē rather a singular blessing of God, thē matter of exclamation, to haue obtained the favourable ear of our gouernours, that we may haue the opportunity to purge ourselves from those heinous crimes of attemptinge evil against her majesties royal person, or dealing with foreign nations about an invasion; of which through the sinister information of our aduersaries, we haue been heretofor holden in great jealousy. It may be that they who are not so well able to discharge themselves of such imputations, dislike of this favour: fearing lest their by, their plots be easilier espied and themselves become more odious. But the innocet( who is by that means like to find more favour) must acknowledg himself much bound unto unto that venerable ancient Priest and confessor M. Bluett, yf he haue( as the apology reporteth) in some part pacified the wrath of our gracious princess, and of her right honourable council towars the most part of us, by cleeringe us from the suspicion of the aforesaid wicked attempts: and yf he could not do as much for some others( it being over well knowen unto the council, that they had meadled to to much in such matters) he is not to be clamed, yf he let the fault lie where it was, and leave them to answeare for themselves. But I refer it to him himself( wen he shall haue leisure) to treat of this subject more at large.    

AN ANSWEARE unto THE PARTICVLARS objected in the Apology against Master Doctor Byshope.  
considering that nothing can be more just and honourable, then to defend grave and innocent men, specially such, whose travails haue been very profitable unto the church of God, in the service of their country: I trust that my pains shall not displease the indifferent reader, if I do bestowe one chapter, in the defence of the wourshipfull PRIEST M. DOCTOR bishop. Who being well descended, and trained up accordingely in virtue and learning, for the love of the catholic Religion and holy Orders, forsook the hope of 200l. of yearly inheritance, and led in the colleges abroad, an exemplare life. Whence returning home Priest, he was taken and cast into prison, for his profession. Where for three yeares space, he did good service to the cause, by often exhortations unto his felow prisoners, and in disputations with many accounted learned Ministers: Connertinge by the grace of GOD, diuers unto the faith, and among others six who abowe this Dozen yeares, being Priestes, haue laudably laboured in their vocation. At length banished into France, he renewed his study in divinity, in the renowmed university of Paris, and in five yeares finished the laborious course of Sorbone, as much to the credite of our country, as to his own good and preferment.  
Afterward returning into England, employed his talent among his country men, abowe seven yeares at liberty, noe less helping his brethren the Priestes, then soccouringe many poor catholics: all which notwithstandinge, because he moved of Charity, did travail, to prevent those pitiful broils and contentions, which he forsaw long ere they broke out, he is in sundry places of that Vnchristian apology, not a little touched it reputation, but very wrongefully, as by answeringe to all that therein is laid against him, I will now let you understand.  
First then before the preface of that apology, where the principal authors of two book,( written against Mr. Archpriest, F. Persons and their complices) are scored up, M.D. Byshope is said to be one of the three, that haue put their names in print unto diverse partes of those books.  
I heartily desire the upright reader, to run those two books over the one is in English, containinge the copies of certain learned discourses, ther other in Latin, entitled, DECLARATIO MOTWM ET CET. And yf he find D. Bysp. His name, at any other part thereof then at one letter of his own, written in answer unto an other of F. per. to him: let him hardly repute this nameless Author( shrouded under the shadowe of united Priestes) for such a one, as may be believed on his word. But yf not, as in truth it is not, then beware how you trust him hereafter who beginneth at the first to deceive youi again, neither did M. D. By: put his name in print, unto that his letter: but others desiring to make knowen to the world how some things had passed, caused it to be printed: as they did also F. par. letter.  
with his name at it. Wherfore yf he must needs be holden for one of the chief doers in those books, because one letter therein is subsigned with his name: By as good reason F. par. himself, may be reputed and taken for a principal Author off them ●his name being a swell set down in print to a letter in them. And albeit D. By. make fart better account of those books, then F. P. doth, never the less it is as untruly inferred of him, as it should be off F. P. that he was one of the principal doers in them. so that in one line almost,& that the first which toucheth D. By. there are two untruths: one in that he saith him to haue set his hand to diverse partes off those books, when it is but at one onely: The other in avouchinge him to haue put il to, in print when others did that, and not he. See( I pray you) whether this Apologist, be not like to prove an unfortunate pilot, that thus before he put to sea, 
Cap. 19. f. 129.  maketh shipwracke of his credite, as it were in the haven. Of like sort is that vain flourish of his where he saith, Neither is that fond shift used by D. By. in his answer, and by this felowe censurer vpon F. P. letter, of any valewe with men of iudgment, but rather prophesieth that they proceed not by conscience, but seek evasions by cavillation, when they say, that the Notary being a father off the college, might put in and out what F. P. would haue him &c: all this is nought else but a fond amplification of a very tale: for their is noe one such word of that Notary in all M. D. By: letter, as every one that list, may see. Of the same base quality is this counterpoint of his, to calicut, that his holiness Breue made in confirmation off the Protectors letters was dated the 6. of Apriell 1599. And yet in the same chapter shortly after in favour of one of F. P: letters, 
Ca. 10, f. 140. f. 143.  that Breue is made to bear date of the 21. of Apriell. But why stand I to note by the way as it were for a taste, some of those gross misshapen forgeries, when as with the like paltry stuff is patched up admost all that peevish apology. it grieveth me I assure you to haue to do with such a peltinge adversary, QVI POSVIT MENDACIVM SPEM SVAM, whose whole confidence lieth in cunning conveyance of lies: But being driven for the necessary defence of my deere friends honour, to coop with such a mate, I must entreat the gentle reader ro bear with me, yf I do now and then, take him up, some what roundly. before I enter into the particulars of M. D. 
Of the Sorbons sentence.  Byshops negotiation, I will speak a word or two in behalf of that piththy and grave sentence of the Sorbon doctors( who declared those Priestes, that delayed to receive M. 
Cap. 8. f. 116.& 317.  Archpriest, until his hol, Breue, not to haue offended) because D. By, is coated in the margin to haue been one of the solicitors of it. Many odd idle exceptions are there by the Apol. taken against that weighty and sound declaration: knowledge some are in the former learned notes, very sufficiently rejected, yet so, as some what more may be thereunto added.  
certain it is first, and there well proved; that the addition of protector, unto the title of a cardinal, was impertinent to that purpose. Because that circumstance altered not the case, in giving either any how power to his person, or more credyte to a carded: it being of far meaner quality, then the dignity of a cardinal.  
The second exception is, for that in the information of the said dd, it was related, that the carded: instituted that subordination, SEQVENS VOLVNTATEM SANCTISSIMI: chambermaids the Apol. averreth it to haue been done EX SPECIALI MANDATO, by his hol: special commandement. Although he repeat this often, and urge it greatly yet is it a very fiction, without any good ground or probabilitye. For in the carded. his letter of M. Arch. Constitution, are these express words NOSSANCTIS 1. PIISSIMAM ET PROVIDENTISSIMAM VOLVNTATEM SEQVENTES, HOC IPSVM STATVERE DECREVIMVS: We( saith the carded.) folowinge the most godly, and most provident will of his holiness, haue determined to institute this subordination. Which are the very words used by the informers. now those terms, EX SPECIALI MANDATO, are put down before in the proeme about a neither matter, of making atonement betwen the lay catholic gentlemen and the Priests, 
Relat. comp. pag. 11.  as in the letter itself now in print, is evidently to bee seen wherefore as many times as the Apol: doth inculcate in this matter, HIS EX SPECIALI MANDATO,( which he doth often) so many times doth he tell a special untruth.  
The third exception is that the informers concealed, how the subordination was demanded by the English Priestes: true it is that noe mention was made of that, because they knewe it to be most false. As hath been often heretofore declared.  
Fourthly he excepteth against these words off the information: many Priestes refused to subscribe unto that subordination: when( as he signifieth) there were scarce ten that refused so to do: What voluntary lesinge is this? they knewe full well, That D. By and his companion M. Charnock, carried with them more thē thirty hands against it. moreover not they onely who wrote against it, refused to subscribe to it, but all those too, who would not meddle on either side. Who were more in number, thē all they set together, that were on both sides formalli: which partly by F. Listers railing against neuters, partly by this worthy authors reckoning up of thē that subscribed, might be proved, yf the matter were not clear of itself. 
Cap. 8. f. 106.& 107.  For the Apol. accountinge them that subscribed in particular, gathereth but 57, hands, to that subordination, comprehendinge the assistants withal. So that of three hundred Priestes approbation, they every where vante and brag of, there were not threescore expressly for them. And consequently not onely ten refused to subscribe to that how hierarchy, but more then two hundred. now to suppose that for breuityes sake that Author( who is so superfluous in recordinge many letters off less moment) would omit to set down in Cipher at the lest, the summa totalis of the rest, were extreme folly. thorough also I pray you the advantage they had over us: as well through the colour of the carded: his authority, as by the aid of their 12. assistants, and all the power of the Iesuites, with the terror of taking away faculties& displacinge, and the thundringe out of schism: And can you marvell then, yf they obtained the hands of some few more, then we could do, being destitute of all those helps? sithence many at more leisure having considered better of the matter, are come to join openly with us so that our brethren who now are at Rome about it, had with them more hands for us, then they haue sheued for them. But not to stray from these exceptions, the fift is a more cavil. Were he blameth the informers for saynig, that they sent speedily to grow his hol: pleasure. And were ready to obey it. As though( saith he) they meant then to yield, and to be quiet: when as they never thought any such matter. This he mightily presseth in enery Chapter almost, thorowe out his whole book. But plain proof to the contrary is set down in the former notez by the protestation of all on our side, which is also of record in the latin book Dedicated to his hol, 
Pag. 61.  and in all other writinge of shalt tenor. And because it is a point of great importance, whether we meant sincerely therein or noe, I will, to put it out of all doubt, recite the Confessions of our adverse party, registered by themselves, in this their apology. First M. Archpriest in his letter of the 3. 
Cap. 10. l. 147.  of june 1599. to F. Persons: giveth plain testimony of it, in these words: NOX PRECESSIT, DIES APPROPINQVAVIT: dissension is put to flight, PAX HABITAT IN TABERNACVLIS NOSTRIS, peace dwelleth amongst us M. Colingeton and M. much, haue procured the submission, of M. Ed. bennet, watson, Champney an the rest. Note how they submitted themselves vpon sight off his hol: Breue. The same witnisseth F. Garnett( superior of the Iesuites in England) saying in one of his of the 26. off may to F. Persons. I hope all wilbe well, nay all is well already. M. Colinglon and M. much submitted themselves to the Archpriest the 19. of may and promised to do what lay in them, to bring in others. Which also F. Persons himself, in his to M. much, of the 17. of july, acknowledgeth. Finally this great Apologist,( whose saying you must take to be of as sound record, as the oracles of Apollo) clearly delivereth the same in the argument of his tenth Chapter, 
Cap. 10, f. 141.  thus: Of the ending of all controuersyes vpon publication off his holiness Breue, and how by the art off the Common enemy, matters were brought, to worse Breach then before. So that it is most manifest, and was confessed by both parties, that the Priestes not onely meant to yield and to be quiet, but were so in very dead, as soon as they sawe his hol: Breue. What unspeakable malice and impudence, or dotinge blockishness,( or what shall I learme it?) is it then, to repeat more then à hundreth times over and over, that they never thougth, to submit themselves, to be quiet and to obey? do they not deserve the prick and prise off audacious and shameless lyeinge, that so often, so bodily and roundly gaynesay that, which in express terms, they set downc themselves. Yf the reader be not wilfully blind, he will easily discover, see and detest such shamefully false& most desperate assertions.  
The sixth and last exception they take against that information is, That there wanted at Paris some body on the behalf of M. Archp: to haue showed, their reasons who informed against him, not to haue been good: namely those two, to calicut, that the subordination seemed to be haue been granted, vpon false suggestion: and that there was great partiality used, in the choice of the Archp. and of his assistants. This the Apol. affirmeth: but doth he bring any thing in reproof of those two reasons? little or nothing. He might in like sort bee put backewith a bare denial: but that I hold it not sufficient in a different, to presume vpon the readers credulity as he doth, but desire to give him some satisfaction. Wherfore I will prove those reasons to haue been very good. First concerning false suggestion, the two principal causes, why the cardinal instituted the Archpriest and that subordination were both false; as by the carded: own letters is evidently to be proved. The former was general, which moved him to think off some good means of pacifieinge all parties: For that( saith he) Satan had stirred up the lay catholics and the Priestes to knock and beate one an other,( VT INTER●SE COLLIDERET:) to the utter ruin of the wals of union,& cet. now of this running one vpon an other, and liquor betwen the lay catholics and Priestes, few I wene ever heard of, besid●s these false suborned solicitors, yet this gross gooyeon they made the good carded: fwal owe down first: the other untrue suggestion was, That the English Priestes exhibited many gentle persuasions unto his holiness, for that rare hierarchical subordination of an Archp: and 12. Assistans. For as I haue abowe said, either that matter was never spoken of in England, till it was dispatched in Rome: or in such secrecy, as it could not be, but a very shameful lie, to bear his hol: in hand, that is was the Common request of the Priestes in England. It remaineth them most assured that there was very false suggestion in the Chiefest motives of that subordination. Yea that the informers used great modesty in saying onely, there seemed such default, when it was most apparent and manifest.  
concerning the other reason off partiality in that choice of M. Archp: and his assistants, because I mean not to touch their Persons in particular, I will leave it, to the upright iudgment of them, who grow their capacityes, and haue well observed, their odd maner of proceeding these few yeares past. Yet one plain point of partiality may not be omitted, which was in making choice of such to be arbiters, who were all affencted unto the one party;& therfore being no indifferent men, were never like to compose matters and to make any perfitt atonement, as by the lamentable effects of some yeares experience, all the world no we seeth.  
Thus much about the frivolous exceptions of the Apologist against the judicious, and learned decision of the venerable facutly of Paris. Which proceeding from deep experienced men, Vpon due consideration, must( no doubt) were passion beareth not the sway, be holden for most sound and true: as his holiness( being thoroughly informed by both parties) hath already, VIVAE VOCIS ORACVLO, declared it: and shal be[ as I hope] shortly published Authentically.  
unto this sentence of the Doctors off Sorbone, is shall not be inconvenient to join another act done at Paris, which in the apology is delivered in these words. 
Fol. 154  M. Charnock goeinge to Paris where. D.B. resided, both of them took scholedegrees vpon them, the one of Bachelar: the other of Doctor in diuinitye: not with standing his hol, by an express Breue had forbidden the same unto all Englishmen some yeares before, without such licence and approbation, as in the said Breue is set down.  
The incongruity off this Breue is showed in the former notes. 
Of the Breue against proceeding.  For what a disgrace is it unto good students, that when their time of proceeding cometh, they must be cast behind their felowes, yf they cannot make friends both to the Rector off the college, vhere they studied, which may be in spain; and to the Protector, who is sure ordinality to be no nearer then Rome. And so be forced both to lose their places in the vniuersityes, and their preferment abroad. But what cared the procurer off this breue for that: who seemeth to take great pleasure in bridlinge them, who be not at his beck, and in heapinge such yokes of bondage vpon his poor afflicted contrimen, as no other nation I think in the world is subject unto.  
But to stand awhile vpon this Breue: It may first be doubted, whether there be any such or noe, it is so diversely reported. This Apologist( as you haue heard) Maketh it to prohibit all Englishmen to proceed either bacchelor or Doctor in divinity. The copy rehearsed in the former notes, saith nothing of Bacehelars yet forbiddeth not onely Doctors in divinity, but d. also in one of the laws. A third( who supposeth he sawe the original itself with the seal at it) affirmeth that neither Bacchelars in divinity, nor Doctors in any of the laws, but onely Doctors in divinity are prohibited to proceed. Of other rumors that run against licenciates I will not speak, because they haue no certain head: but to whether of these three opinions, which all come from the same fountain must we give credite? or until there be better agreement about the matter, may we not very well( for fear off doeinge wronge to the rest) beleeue noe one of them? but rather suspend our iudgment, and stay until we shall see( according to the draw and Common practise of the world) a canonical publication and reception of that Breue, in the catholic country, where we live, and that so much the more in the Case of this Breue, as it seemeth to haue been obtained by surreption. hear the preface of it: Foras much as diverse young men goeinge from the colleges took by the way the degree of Doctor in divinity: Where vpon coming into England, and there taking their place, according to their degree, before many ancient grave Priestes, great disorder did ensue& cet. This is the preamble in substance, wherein are two falsehoods: the one that many young men had proceeded dd. on the way: when one or two at the most had so done, who for their ripe knowleage in scholediuinity, were esteemed worthy that degree. The second untruth is, that any such disorder grewe of it in England: where no graduat lightly doth take his place, Priestes seldom meetnige together, and then in disguised habits. again yf a young graduat, should take place before an elder man, yea better learned too then himself: that would not bread any disorder. The Common custom and order of all christendom being, that youger men having taken degree, should be preferred before more aged, not alike qualified. This Breue then being granted. Vpon wronge information, let others judge of the validy of it. concerning M. D. bishop, certain it is, that he seven or eyeght yeares before that Breue was gotten, had done all his acts, and had his grace given him to proceed Doctor. But not being so ambitions,( as they would make men beleeue) stayed ten yeares after his due time, before he would stand in act to take the degree which at lengh he took being first by decree compelled to make his abode in the same university, and therefore could nor without his disgrace and great hindrance, put it of any longer. He then also to avoid braulinge and all colour of contempt, requested the Rectors Consent as the Breue goeth: but being withoust just Cause refused, letted not to take the degree, folowing the best counsel in the university and city: first for that he had, more then seven yeares before the date of that Breue, taken some of the most substantial points, of Doctor ship: his exercises being all made, and his grace granted: wherfore such a penal decree as the Breue is, being to be restrained as much as may bee, can take no hold on him, that was so far passed into the degree before. Secondly for that this Breue was never published, much less received in France, where he remained: and according to a very probable opinion( which by all learned mens consent, may in practise be followed, without all peril of offence:) a decree made at Rome, and not published canonically in others countries, hath noe force there, nor bindeth any man in that place. Thirdly noe human draw bringeth any obligation in conscience when it is manifest, that the principal cause, for which it was made ceesseth, which is to be gathered out of the proeme that in this Breue is, to debar young men from proceeding. Vpon their departure from the colleges, before they haue studied four yeares after in some other university, now this cause wholly cessed in D. By. Case. For from his departure fro the college of Rome, unto the time of his proceeding: Was little less then thirty yeares: and he had ten yeares before the taking of the degree, studied almost six yeares in the noble university of Paris, and venerable Faculty of Sorbone. So that it could not be any meaning of the author of the Breue( yf any such be) to let his proceeding. yet because of a petty addition in the end of the Breue( which for his advantage, this Apologist would make the onely clause) he did( to prevent all exceptions) ask leave of F. Persons: Who was then Rector, the unchurch at that time he refused to grant, yet about ayeare after, not spoken to about that matter, offered it of his own accord, and caused, both the protectors& his holiness, to ratify, confirm it, yf it neaded any such rehabilitation: as F. Persons own letters of the 28. of july 1601. to the said Doctor do testify. Mary all this courtesy was after he had laboured under hand what he could, to haue the said Doctorship called in question as it is very credibly reported. Which might be the cause why this Apologist, having taken to task to stir in all matters that sound ill in his ears would not let this pass, with out giving it one dash with his blottinge pen.  
having done with matters of Paris touching D. Byshope: 
Of their apprehension.  let us now come to the affairs of Rome unchurch belong to him, where first presenteth itself, his apprehension, shortly after his arrival which being contrary to the course of draw, contrary to equity and all good custom, Hath been ever sense greatly misliked, and much complained of by many virtuous and wise men. 
Cap. 9. f. 123.  Wherefore the Apologist casteth about far and near, to find some colourable excuse for that fact. And bringeth in two or three bad ones nothing sufficient to serve the turn. First not that far featched, out of certain letters written from Flanders, long before there was any talk, of any such matter as appeareth by the date of them: and besides there is never a word in any of them either of those messengers, or of that negoriation: and withal not one of them addressed unto his holiness. how then could he Pike out of them any raisonable cause to cast Priestes in to prison unheard? certainly this Apol. Wittes begin to fail him that to no purpose laid down at large such impertinent letters. touching the letter from dovay, and that of D. Worthingtons, both written from partial places and Persons, it is not meet that they be valued at more then their reason is worth, which is just nothing. For( saith he) Yf these Captaines of how broils do find favour, they will stir up great storms in England, but yf they be kept down with sharpness, all wilbe quiet. You haue heard this divines auguration: You haue also long ere this seen the contrary event. For they being hardly handled, much more trouble was raised then before: chambermaids, yf they had been Courteously dealt withal, all might haue been quietly composed. So that this first kind of excuse, is far from the purpose. The second is not much better. Which was( say they) That his holiness being advertised by his Nuncios from Prance and Flanders of their coming, resolved to haue committed them at farrara, yf they had come thither. Here seem to be more lies then lines. First there was at that time noe Nuncio in France( as far as I can learn) but a legate the carded: of Florence, who had noe Correspondence with the Archpriest and therfore: neither received nor sent any such aduertissement. As for the right reverend Nuncio in flanders he might well give intelligence of those messengers coming, but was to wise to wish his holiness to imprison them, being sent to his see about ecclesiastical matters, before they were heard. And for his hol: who is renowmed through the world, for his mildred considerate manner of proceeding, with out any such hast and precepitation, it is impossible, that he could vpon the onely clamours of aduersaries, resolve to Comitt Priestes before they were heard. transversely they do him no small dishonour, that so osten and that in print report so evil of him. But to that wicked audaciousness some are now growen, that to excuse themselves, they stike not to lay there own faults vpon their supreme Pastors Shoulders. What then might be the cause, why they were committed before they were heard? The right R: bishop of modina( his hol: Nuncio in France after wardes) hearing how all had passed, said that it might welbe done with out his hol privity, By carded: Caetane his order, who being lord high treasurer had sergentes at his commandement, and so might commit of his own authority: or it might be perhaps, that at carded: Caetanes great importunity, his hol: having heard many heinous complaints against them, condescended, to haue them retired to the college to confer in private after a friendly sort of their matters: meaning nothing less, then that they should be there used like prisoners, as they were, well of this, our brethren that now folowe the matter at Rome wilbe better able to say more here after.  
But what I pray you were those complaints, where with the pope ears were filled, against the messengers? forsooth, That they were tumultuous and seditious felowes, that they obstinately resisted the right R. Archp: and stirred up many others to do the like, to the great scandal of both catholics, and and heretics that they went about to disereditt the pope and cardinal: that they were come to Rome to make how garboils in the college, and finally would fill the court of Rome with rumours, yf they were not restrained. These were those irreligious and damnable slanders, unchurch D. Byshope in his letter said were no less falsely then wickedly invented against them, to haue them laid up, before they were heard. unto which the Apo. answereth after his old fashion, clean camme as they say: in this sort. Is it so heinous or damnable to restrain a coople of Priest, 
fol. 177. Cap. 11.  where so many complaints be made of their presumption, contempt and scandal raised by their contention? doth not every Prince do so? No good Sir, not one just Prince doth so, when the party presenteth himself, and meaneth to stand to his trial, as they did. For by what draw or reason can he vpon hear say, and fals bruits perhaps Chastise him: Whom he may duly hear at leisure,& finding him guiltye may punish according to his deserts? But to our purpose, the enormous slanders, where of D. By: Complained in his letter, were( as every one may see) not the casting of him and his Companion in prison, as this Apol: misconstrueth it: But those vile and mischievous rumours abowe rehearsed: to calicut, that they were tumultuous and factious, and obstiuately disobedient to all sort of superious& cet. Which faults are as farfro M. D. By: manners( of whom I now treat) as white is from black, and light from darkness. For his behaviour for thirty yeares before, as well in the colleges as in all other places, was well knowen unto all that knewe him, to haue been very mildred and quiet: having never had his finger in any such stirs, and therfore most injuriously styled, tumultuous and seditious. moreover vndertakinge that journey to Rome at the request of diuers venerable personages, he was so far of from making any uproar against that late erected authority of the Archp: that he acquainted none of the house where he risided, with the particulars of that affair. Yea he conferred most quietly with M. Archp: himself of the matter. Mary perceiuinge that no good Could be done therein with out F. Persons, on whom all depended: he determined for Common quietness, to undertake that painful and perilous journey, giving under his hand the cause of his goeinge unto M. Archp: and taking with him a copy of it subscribed by M. Archp: that it might appear unto all, how peaceably he departed from him. What presumption and contempt of the Archpriest, what dispargement to the carded. letters, what scandal and offence of the world in all this? Who seeing any thing amiss, and desirous to seek redress of it, could more orderly or more quietly haue done it? The like mildred and temperate course held they in Rome, presentinge themselves to both the carded. Protectors, and dealing with F. Persons himself about some reasonable pacification of all parties: as in M. D. Byshops letter is to be seen more at large Most false therefore were all those slanders, with out all conscience cast out of them, and consequently very irreligious and damnable, 
of their mission.  as M. D. By: termed them. No● we let us come unto their mission and commission. Wherabout D. By: being asked, who sent them? With what authority? Why he and his felowe abowe the rest? and other like points: Was somewhat troubled in his answeare, saying, NESCIO QVIS FV●RIT: J grow not who was the first Author of this mission, nor I grow not for certain, why we were chosen for this mission abowe the rest. These are his words, by this you may perceive, what an authentical mission and commission this was. 
Fol. 132.  Hitherto the Apologist. Nay rather you may drew and behold what fraud and Coseninge he useth, to backbite those good Priestes, and to abuse and deceive his readers.  
For suppressinge wilfully D. By: his answer unto those questions, Who sent him? and with what authority? he choppeth in his answer unto an other particular demand to calicut, who was the first author of that mission? unto which, the Doctors answeare is direct, that he knewe not who was the first man, that moved that mission. These Questions were much urged, because they thought they had great advantage against them, for that they wanted à Princes letter of Credence for their message, and brought the Priestes testimonies in small peieces of Paper.  
unto all which D. Bysh: answered in particular, and keepeth à copy of it. The which I haue gotten to set down in this place, that you may more lively discover the paltry dealing of this Apologist. who wantinge subject of just reproof would needs forge and coin some. To those Questions then, who sent them, and with what authority, this was the Doctors ansvere. There was not in England either Prince, or catholic Magistrate, to give us any Customary letters of Credence. Nor any noble lay Cath: could write for us to his holiness, without imminent danger of his liberty and life. And we haue no other ecclesiastical Prelate, Besides M. Archp: who neither was confirmed in that authority, nor was it to be expected, that he should write in our commendation. Knowinge full well, that we went about the moderation off his power. Whom nevertheless we gave to understand of our enterprise, and he would not prohibit it. we bring with us the humble petitions off nine and thirty learned and virtuous Priestes, which were for the most part addressed unto his holiness in form of supplication. seven of the ancientest of them, committed the charge of presentinge off them unto us, as their letters do bear witness. Neither are simale pieces off Paper brought out of an island, where most norrowe search is made at every port, to be smally esteemed: which off purpose we made choice of, for the saffer conveyance: misdoubtinge nothing less then that the virtue of a testimony, should lie in the largeness of the Paper, wherein it was written. as soon as we came into à catholic country, we got letters of commendations, from the right R. Byshope of Paris, in the name also of carded: Gondy his uncle, unto carded: Aldibrandino his holiness nephewe. Thus furnished we came, presuminge that his hol: grave wisdom and experience, would not stand vpon such formalityes with us coming out of a country, where was neither magistrate nor Notary catholic. Neither were the humble requests of fewer Priestes then they, to be contemned: considering with what peril of their lives, and with how small thirdly recompense, they had à long time laboured in our blessed lords vineyard. Principally when some of them were of the most Ancient, best qualified, and best esteemed Priestes of England.  
Thus far his answer, which you see to haue been some, thing else, then NESCIO QVIS FVERIT PRIMVS author. And this might the Apol: haue set down as well as the other,& should in honesty haue done it, because it was the direct answer; but it would not fitt his purpose, which was to deprave and calumniate, but not to tell the truth.  
Of these Questions, with their answeres I collect and gather two things. First that it is à palpable untruth that D. By: being demanded how many Priestes he knewe of his party in England, should answer that he knewe but hove, as the Apo: affirmeth: 
fol: 131.  chambermaids you see by his last answer, that they had ●9. suflrages for them: besides their own two, and sundry others, both in and out of England, whom he knewe to favour their party, although they feared to set their hands to it.  
secondly by these and such like ioly Questions, is iustyfied that which D. By: said in his letter, that many vain impertinent Questions were asked them: as for example, was it not fond, to demand of them, whom they knewe to enter into a matter long after others, who was the very first that motioned it? but it passeth all wisdom and folly, to ask messengers vpon their oaths, why choice was made off them, before all others, for that message: as though they could enter in to the secrets of other mens hartes, and did se their hidden counsels. yf no Princes Ambassadors commission, should be allowed, before they had resolved those two Questions, Who was he that made the first motion of that imbassade: and why they werc chosen abowe all others in the realm to perform it. I wene we should haue few Ambassadors or agentes admitted any where. These and such like peevish intertogatoryes D. By: taxed vpon great reason. And did not write( as the Apol: falsely chargeth him,) that he was not examined at all, vpon any substantial point of their message: but he said that those material points were barely and nakedly taken without there proofs and persuasions: 
copy of dis: Pag: 171.  yea were often wrested and perverted. See his own words. Let us go on to a while, and hear what the Apologist hath more to object against him. Mary[ saith he] those two messengers seemed scarcely agreed in the cause off their coming. For M. Charnock did say and ware( or else the Apol: lieth) that their onely coming was, either to haue the Archpr: Changed, or yf he were already confirmed to haue some other order appointed with him. D. By: enlargeth himself unto six causes. 
Fol: 13●.  The first was devotion to see the holy places. The second, to haue Byshops, the third, yf that would not be granted, then that the power to confirm and consecrate oils, might begiuen unto some of the ancientest Priestes. 4. that their sodality might be confirmed, 5. that order might be taken to compose all matters in wisbich, 6. about the like order for the colleges. They had not then so little to say as F. Pet: in his letter ( pag: 58,) affirmeth of them. In all which there is scantly one[ as the Apol: awerreth] which concurneth fully, with his felowes petition. now I pray thee( good Reader) judge, whether yf Byshops had been granted,( which is D. By: second cause,) Mr. Archp: must not haue been changed, or else some other order appointed with him, which was M. Charnock onely petition, as this false companion blusseth not to affirm here: and yet in the very next leaf, forgettinge himself, he bringeth M. Char: in sainge that among other things, he came to demand, that noe such books should hereafter be written by catholics, which were like to exasperate the state. Oh how necessary a thing it is, for à liar[ as the proverb goeth] to haue à good memory, otherwise he may sone shane himself: as you see here by this Apologist, who in the next leaves, Bringeth in one man speekinge contradictoryes. But pardon him I pray you, for it was for à good end. For what good end must he needs lie in that sort? Mary to prove those two Messengers to haue disaggreed in their matters. For M: Charnock would haue such books prohibited. But D. By. did not like that point. Yf they agreed in the other more material points, it imported the less. But D. By: being asked about that, saith that he remembreth not, that he was examined thereon, nor knoweth not why heshould. But in private talk he might haue said, that he knewe some in England who liked of that book of titles, because it opened very particularly the state of that high Question. For that point[ he saith] the book was liked, but for many other respects, he affirmeth it to bee much misliked, and chiefly for two of very great sprite. knowledge one is in the former parte of that discourse, of the peoples power over their Princes, which if it be not very warely red and discreetly understood, is a most perilous and pestiferous piece of doctrine. The other inwards the end of the later: Where his lawier having argued at large of seven or eight several houses, pretendinge right to the crown after her majesty,&[ like a good country man] blemished most of them born with in the realm, with bastardye, he nevertheless concludeth very gravely, and like à sound lawier, I warrant you. That every on of their titles is good in draw: And warranteth on his credite, each pretendor, that he may rightofully put him self in arms,& call his friends about him, to porsue his interest. A paradox; and very strange assertion, that so many several pretendors, to one and the same thing, can each one haue laweful title to the whole. And yf after his holy counsel, so many should push at the crown with all their forces,( as who will not give the venture for a kingdom, having just claine to it,) it would set all England together by the ears, and the whole country in combustion. Which peradventure, Might be part of his meaning, who made that treatise, that whiles they within the realm, were bickeringe one with another, some stranger might step in, and conquer them all. Those points thē, as, I said with some other D. By: utterly, misliketh. and touching other books against the state,[ as that unpure and loathsome one of leysters common sea-coal, and that malapert and ra linge one of And: plilopari is, with such like] he doth vpon mature consideration of that matter, greatly disalowe off them. As books wholly unnecessary, and wherein to small purpose, much foolish passion and spleen is uttered against some mighty personages, who thereby being highly offended do wourke our catholic brethren that live under them in England greet woe. Wherfore he taketh it for an intolerable oversight, to publish so far out of season, such satiricall invectives.  
now one word( before I make auend) of D. By: his answer unto the Comissarye enquiringe of him, what he knewe of the man who wrote the letter off presidences. It was that he was so far from knowinge the Author of it, that he had never before, heard one worde off that matter. But supposed it to haue been framed by their adversaries to wourk their disgrace: and that the letters whervvith it was said to be subscribed, agreed unto Mr. Archp: as well to him: For that copy was showed him in Latin to which F. Par: said his name was subscribed. And so might as well be Georgius Blackw: as Guil: Bysh: then F. Per: replied that is was on M: Watsons letter: yet he had before( contrary to his own adjudge) charged D. By: with it. Note his tender conscience. after he demanded of D. Byshope whether he knewe M. Watson or what he had heard of him: to which the d: answer was far other wise then this Apologist reporteth. to calicut, 
L. 139.  that he had heard exceeding well of one Mr. w: Watson priest, how he had many yeares very fruitfully travailed in his vocation, reducinge diverse unto the Cath: faith,& by the assistance of God his grace had caused 25. altars to be erected to the singular service of our blessed saviour. Which few in England had( as he thought) done besides him: sorry I am that to some blemish of his former virtues, certain books set out of late, carry the letrers off his name. Because the style seemeth to sharp, and some thing in them soundeth harshly in sundry catholic ears. But to mitigate the matter, the occasion of writtinge, which time and place ministered must be duly considered, and withal how he& others were before grievously hurt in their reputation by the other party; and that in defence of their just honour, they might subtilely discredit the injurious aggressors. but of this, some other time, more at large; to draw now unto the windinge up of this matter conceringe M. D. Byshope, finally the Apol: saith, that the Messengers during the time off their restraint had all maner of iustice offered them for their defence: and after their deliverance were bidden to followe their matters, &c. For answer unto this faire tale, see what is said in M. D. By. letter and in the censure vpon F. Per. letter. I will here repeat most Briefly and most truly, how they were used, and leave the iudgment of it, unto the reader: being both apprehended, all their letters and instructions, were taken away from them,& they were kept close prisoners apart, so that one could haue no help off the other. Yea were severally examined to try yf they could draw out of one, that which might hurt tother. their adversaries were their keepers, examiners, and iudges, not alowinge them any help of counsel, so much as of one another.  
And by interrogatoryes( such as it pleased them to propound) they were compelled to deliver the message they were sent about. Thus stood the case with them● whyles they were in durance: neither goeth the Apol: about to confute any of these particularites. Then before they were delivered, they had sentence to depart the city within ten dayes, which respite they obtained to visit the holy places. One being enlarged, tho ther was kept still in the college safe, as it were in hostage off the others good behaviour abroad. And not thinking that enough, for more surety they lodged the Doctor enlarged with D. haddock and M. array, that they might look unto him for dealing with any body. All this is so certain, that noe one iote of it can with any honesty be denied. now let the upright reader determine, both of the form of iustice held within the college, and what possibility there was after, to seek for redress.  
This is that I had to say touching those points, forthwith M. D. Byshope standeth charged in the Apology. And[ as hath been showed] look how many charges, and assaults so many either apparent falsehoods or covert guyles and deceits, to infect the vnwary and credulous reader, with error and evil opinion of him undeservedly.  
What good Christian, would not wonder to see men esteemed other wise neither foolish nor dishonest, so to forget themselves in their own cause, that they seem, during the mood and humour, either to haue lost their wittes, or to haue cast aside all honesty. how could they else contrary to their own knowledge, so misreporte, disguyse, and pervert other mens sayings and doeinges, and so contradicte themselves, which are certain signs of voluntary blindness.  
And yf the Author of this apology by long custom of canuassinge and wranglinge, or that his iudgment in his elder yeares beginneth to fail him, do so grossly oversee, and ouersute himself. Yet[ I hope] that you whom he termeth the united clergy of England,( for that you belike join under his ensign) remembering the holy honour of your coat and calling, will not any longer endure to be made such base vnderlinges, as to suffer that deceitful wourkeman, under the pretext of your names, to disgrace and bring in contempt our whole order. Wherfore( deere brethren) take heart and courage: Disavowe, and disclaim boldly from all such lyeinge, staunderous and wicked libels: pull of your masks, from other mens faces; teach them hereafter so much good mamers at the lest, as either to ask you leave first, and make you acquainted with what they write, or else hardly to speak in their own Persons. Otherwise by your silence,( as you best grow) you ratifyeinge and confirminge their facts, are made partakers of their faults. And so consequently you stand deeply charged and your consciences deadly wounded with that heinous crime of backbitinge and infaminge your felowe labourers in our lords vineyard, to the great scandal of the world, and exceeding hindrance off the catholic cause. Our blessed saviour give you grace to look to it in time, and to amend it.   

AN answer MADE BY ME CHARLES PAGET ESQVIER, TO certain untruths and falsities, tochinge myself, contained in a book, entitled a brief apology or defence, of the catholic hierarchy& subordination in Englance,& cet.  
IT is not long since that I sawe your book entitled a brief apology or defence of the catholic hierarchy and subordination in england,& cet. wherein you treat off many matters, name many persons, and interlace and mingle the one with the other, in such disorderlye and confused maner, as one may easlye see that your meaning is not to make appear to the worlde, what is the veritye; but think you haue gained much, yf by your obscure and dark narration you may colour and cover the defects, errors, and faults, that justly are to be imputed to you and your associates and draw men to doubt yf not to condemn the sincere and honest proceeding of those you esteem the contrary part. How absurdlye you haue behaved yourself concerning the matters and persons of others you write of, I refer you to their answers: but how vncharitablye, and lewdly you haue governed yourself towards me, is to be seen by that I shall set down in this my defence.  
in the 3 leaf of your book after you haue said that in the year 1578. the contention began between doctor lewis late bishop of Cassano and the English scholars at Rome& cet: and that the samewas nourrished by some spies sent from the counsel of england, namely vaughan and Aldrid& cet. and withal the counsel of england endeavoured by all means possible, to maintain suspicion, ielowsye, and emulation, between those that favoured doctor lewis on the one side, and the rest that were joined with doctor Allen and the Iesuistes on the other, though much no doubt against both their consuls. Then you say that that attempt of thers was holpen soon after by a new accident that fell out in paris in the year 1583. and 1584. where two or three lay gentlemen belonging( as was said) to the queen of scots, then prisoner in england, falling to be discontented with doctor Allen, F. parsons, Sir francis Englefielde, and others united together in the affairs of our country, these gentlemen partinge themselves and their actions from them, and going by an other way: increased the foresaid breach, and made a far stranger opposition against the foresaid men, and whole body of catholics joined with them at home and abroad: knowledge many great inconveniences did ensue, and among others as the worlde doth grow the ouerthrowe at length of the queen her self and many more of her friends: as more particularlye shalbe showed when it cometh forth in our larger apology. These be your own words. Vpon the margin you name my celf, master Thomas Morgen, and master Thomas Throck marton, as the three foresaid persons you speak of.  
By this speech of yours you taxeme with two things: the first is that chambermaids ther was a breach between doctor lewis and his party, and doctor Allen, F. persons, Sir francis Englefield with them of the other party, that I was one of those, that increased the sameand made a stronger op you as a detractor. In the mean while until you haue uttered better stuff then yet you haue done, for the reprehendinge of my dealings and actions in france, it is not worth the looking on and much less worthye any credit.  
in the S. leaf and year 1589. you say prior Arnauld was sent to spain to discredit the cardinal Allen with the king of spain, and to set up his emulator against him in the same dignity while he lived& cet.  
It followeth not that Doctor lewis was Doctor Allens emulator, yf he had sought to be cardinal, or those that should assist him in that course should be counted factious, as you would haue men to think, since his good partes did merit the dignity for as ther be of french, Italiens, and of other nations diuers of one nation that be cardinals, and yet they be not esteamed emulators one against an other: so with any charitable interpretation may ther be the like in our Englishe nation. But in truth I was nether privy nor knew of that priors going into spain, or what he negotiated ther. So that your naminge me in the margin, as one to be touched herewith is of no force, and a manifest untruth.  
in the 6. leaf and year 1594. you say they began in flanders against Father william holt an Englishe Iesuist( in great credit with the Gouernours ther) and master Hughe owen conjoined with him, under pretence that they were partial, and furthered not those of that faction, in their pensions, and other suits by them pretended.& cet. in the margin you set down master Charles Pagets letters and memorials yet extant: by the which you would haue it thought that J was the principal cause therof.  
True it is that the said Owen was called in question, by the count de fuentes then governor of the know countries for the king of spain,( and as I haue hard by the solicitation of Father Creton a Scottish Iesuist) for some disseruices he had done to the said king,( knowledge as I hear he is not yet purged) two Commissioners, one Monsieur Martin and one other, Counsellors of Macklin were appointed by the said count to examine not only Owen of his vndewtifull behauyour towards the said king, but also had authority to force any they would by iustice, to say vpon their oaths, what they could to such articles, as were to be ministered to them, by the said commissioners. The late earl of west merlande, Sir Thimothye Moket, master William Tresame, master Pansfote, master Ligon, master Stonor, master brown, master gauge, and myself with diuers others,( knowledge some were reverend priests) were summoned by iustice to appear afore the said commissioners, before whom we were examined. We answered sincerlye and truly vpon our oaths to that we were demanded of. Father Holt Went to the said Martin and told him, that he was not to geaue credit unto us, for that we were men transported with passion and partialitye. We the said noble men and gentlemen understanding of his said information given against us, and that he meant to deface us as men that were corrupted, and respected not our oaths: complained of him to father Oranus his superior: desiring to haue satisfaction of him for it. His said superior charged the said. F. holt with it. He denied it. And said he was so far from doing any such thing as he never sawe the said Martin in fine proof was made that he had been with the Said Martin in form aforesaid. Where vpon his superior willed him to declare the truth vpon his obedience.( And as I haue been crediblye informed) then the said. F. holt answered, that it was true that he had been with the said Martin as is afore rehearsed: but with intention, his superior should not know of it. His superior being justly offended with his equiuocatinge answer, worthelye) as I haue hard enjoined him a good penance for the same. And both for this his irreligious behaviour towards us, and many other foul and most vnseamlye partes played with us in general, and with every one of us in particular: being the chief and only cause of our disunion and separation, who were afore in charity and unity one with an other: we the abovesaid with many more( and not I alone as you would haue men think) did present diuers articles: where in( as I remember) we showed that he was of a rude and insolent nature, subject to passion in the highest degree: very inciuill in his behaviour, very credulous of false reports, very suspicions in his conceits, very obstinat in his opinion, partial in presentinge, and aduauncinge of pretences to the Gouernours: that he nourrished faction and division, and was chief head of the same. That he was disdainful and of a commanding humour, that he was improper to give or take counsel: easy to break amity, and ready to tax reuenge: and in fine was incompatible to live withal. All which things were so true, as even some that loved him very well much misliked him for the same. And these errors did we find in him by experience: how so ever you comende the said F. Holt for his modesty and mildness.  
I can assure you that when these differences aforesaid, were afore Seigneur Babtista de Tassis( now Spanis ambassador in france) and Father Oliuerus Iesuist appointed by the Archduke Albert to hear them: F. Oliuerus said to some of his friends in conference, that we the said noble men and gentlemen, that bare the sworde, were more meet to be church men, for our quiet and temperat behaviour, then F. holt and his associates; who proceaded with great passion and collar, which I repeat to show the error of your opinion touching Father Holt.  
And when by your larger apology( which doubtless wilbe some bulbegger to fear children withal because almost in every leaf you threaten us with the same) you shall further urge what is rehearsed of the said Father holt, then shall it be seen what proofs and probabilityes were of these things objected against him, as also shal be set down his malicious dealings against the lord Dacres, the lord Paget my brother, master Bridgwater, master covert priests: Late master Thomas Throckmarton, master Godfrey Fouliambe, master brown, master gauge, master Thomas Morgē with diuers others and myself: which now for breuityes sake I let pass. as also I would haue it appear how loathe I am to discover his turpitude and vnsauorye dealing now he is dead: Vnlest you or some of your faction force me ther unto, for the defence of the noble men and gentilmens reputations, and mine own, you seake so much to stain and blemish.  
only at this present for that which concerneth this point, I shall pray those which be free from partialitye, to consider the qualities of these noble men and gentlemen aforesaid: their sufficientye, the cause they endure for, their constancye therein, the losses they haue had for the same: their long exille with many comendable partes that be in them: and let-them judge from whence these broils and stirs did spring, what service. f. holt did for the aduauncinge of the comen cause, and what good to his so cietye, when as with his said imperfections he disgusted the said noble men and gentlemen& joined most intrinsically with master Hughe Owen, George Herbert an Inkeper, George persons a black smith his son, daniel an apostate, tipins a double spy, George Stoker an ordinarry serving man, roland alias verstegan a coupers son, with such like, who were the famous body of the catholics in flanders on f. persons side, that you so much vaunt of. and who in deed were of. F. holts privy counsel, and most emwin presented fishers Papers, and examinations you speak of, withal things he could devise or imagine, to prove Master Doctor Gifforde and myself to be the inventors of the said memorials, and cheafe instruments of the broils among the scholars at Rome. We were sent for by the said nuntio we appeared. For myself the nuntio used some speeches with me to accord with. F. Persons: which I offered to do, so as he would geaue me that satisfaction, that reason and conscience bound him unto. But nether then, nor since to this hour, was ther either accusation off fisher, or any other, by worde or writinge objected against me, to prove me to haue knowen of the said memorials, or to haue meddled with the broils off the English college at Rome. Which F. Persons with his lying affermations would needs face me out was so. The matter being so clear on my side the Nuntio never spake to me of it again. But prayed me to be a mean that some good end might be made between Master Doctor Gifforde, and F. Persons. F. Baldwin urged as much as he could Master Doctor Gifforde to give some satisfaction, he utterly denied it, and said ther was no cause: and wished for the clearinge of all doubts that F. Baldwin would proceed by order of iustice against him: and then whosoever were found culpable should be forced to give satisfaction. F. Baldwin would in no wise hearken to this course: for that in law ther must be an accuser against Master Doctor Gifforde, who yf he could not make his allegations good, was to receive the same punishment, and shane, as the said Doctor should haue done, yf he had been found culpable. It is evident that what F. Baldwin was to say and allege was of no substance against Master Doctor Gifforde: or ells he would not haue refused to haue proceeded by the course of Iustice. Which advantage commonly he and some of our English jesuists do not use to let slip and specially the broyllers, when it is for matter of reuenge. To be short as the said nuntio told me himself, F. Baldwin desired that those differences between Master Doctor Gifforde and the jesuists might be ended. Wherupon they both being with him, he sitting in his chair and they standing, he took one hand of each of them, and held them fast together, F. Baldwin and the said Doctor stoupinge down together, the said father began and said to this effect: that yf either the jesuists or F. Persons had any way offended Doctor Gifford that in their names he did ask them forgiveness, and afterward the said Doctor in like maner repeated the like words in effect, that the said father had used: and said that yf he had offended the jesuists, or F. Parsons, that he asked them forgiveness, and so they partend good friends, both promising before the said Nuntio, that the accord should be published, but the maner therof kept secret, and( as I remembre) he told me likewise, that in their presences the said Papers and writinges were burnt, or to be burnt afterwards: which was done to the end these things should never be spoken of again. The said Nuntio wrote in particular to cardinal Cayetan then protector of our nation, how these matters passed, and were accorded. F. Persons got a copy of the said letter, and wrote to one( as I remember) in doway, that Master Doctor Gifforde had asked the jesuists forgiveness vpon his knees, and said nothing, how F. Baldwin Began in form a foresaid: but leaveth it out, growing it would haue been to his disaduauntage. In this you may see he left out that which was against the jesuists, which clean changeth the matter And by his seditious report, he was the cause of a new breach: And yf he had told the truth in the whole, then should it haue been found, that, F. Baldwin had been ihe seaker and beginner of this accord. And so F. persous had had no cause to triumph against Master Doctor Gifforde, as he did. But rather the said Doctor against him. It is well knowen that this is not the first time that. F. Persons hath used these trikes, as in addinge, deminishinge, equiuocatinge, using of subintelligiturs, yea and yf need be flatlye to lie, so as it may serve his turn. All which narration of these things I haue made because one may see, that you rather discover your malice, then advance your pretence, in speaking of the foresaid memorials and letters: as also of fishers papers and depositions, which you say be reserved, when as by the said Nuntio they were condemned to the fire, not worthye after ever to be remembered.  
You say fisher was very repentant for the offences he had committed, and confessed of himself frelye such matters, as you allege from him against me and others, but I say yf he be free from fear of punishment, and came face to face before them he hath accused, he would for the discharged of his conscience,( at least yf he be a good Christian) acquit them of the most principal points you take most advantage of, because they be false, and excuse himself by the rigour and roughness you caused to be used to afterwards him, which maketh many times men of archbishopric spirits and courage to say readmit is black. And for that concerneth me, I do not so far despair of the acknowleginge of his errors and faults, but that yf I might speak with him afore indifferent persons, I would make him lay down the truth of the speeches and actions( which were very few) that passed between him and me, and to show that they were nothing in that sort, and sense, you give them out, but were very well to be justified afore God, and man, and tending to no other end, but to the aduancement of gods cause, and reformation of such as hinder the same. And where as you rehearse diuers pieces off letters of the cardinal allens and others in the leaves 36.37.86.87.88. tendency you would make men to think that Master Doctor gifforde, Master Thomas Throckmarton, and myself, were in faction against the said cardinal,( all which letters yf they be well examined, prove nothing to the purpose) it is well knowen that the said cardinal did so esteem of Doctor Gifforde, for his virtue, learning, and other singular gifts, as until his dying day, he made account of him as his son: and used him, about him, as for his Theologall, which is a place of honor and confidence, and as for master Thomas Throckmarton, he esteemed him so much, for his rare and virtuous partes: as he determined,( yf he had lived) to haue married him to one of his neces. Which prophesieth he tookenether of them in faction against him, how soever it pleaseth you to interpret the said cardinals letters contrary to his meaning. And put the case ther might haue been some small difference in opinions among us about some private matters, which happeneth many times between the dearest friends, that afterwarde was lapped up in a loving and kind maner: it followeth not that they be in faction one against an other, as you would haue it.  
And as for the concepit which the said cardinal had of me, you shall hear out of his letter written with his own hand, not long before his death dated the 16. of july 1594. as followeth. Good Master Paget, Doctor Gifforde, and Master Mushe told you no lie, when they advertised you of mine affection and desire of your friendship: for so it is in deed, and so haue Jeuer thought of your calling, discrete and honourable comportement, that you are worthye to be employed, and to join with me, or any other in the service of our country. I never had other opinion of you in my life.& cet.  
This letter is of latter date then any I am sure you can show to the contrary. And in truth I haue diuers letters written with his own hand of latter date then this, that towns the good conceit he had of me, and the confidence he reposed in me, by comunicatinge freely unto me matters of sprite, which it seemed he would not haue nether you, nor Father Persons know of: because ther was some straungnes growen between him and F. persons, and as I haue been crediblye informed, by those who were most intrinsical with the said cardinal, he began in his latter time to mislike yours and F. Persons violent humors in such sort, as yf he had lived he would haue courbed you shorter, for meddlinge either in matter of state, or in the seminaries, or mission of Preestes. And this was seen by his causinge F. Creswel to be removed from the government of the English college at Rome, whose in discrete and tyrannical behaviour deserved the same. And for the which act, both he, and F. Persons used against the said cardinal among their secret friends and folowers, such uncivil and irreverent speeches, as ever after ther was but holow liking between them.  
Now you Master libeler or Father Persons( because I would be sure to hit rightly of the author of this libel) I address myself to you both, and do ask you. Who haue been the beginners of these stirs and broils, among English catholics at home and abroad, hath it not been you that haue assaulted men in their reputations and credits, by causinge to be spread abroad of them slanderous reports, and calumnies, for that they will not yield and subject themselves to your obedience and pride? the chief grownd of your exceptions to me, is it not for that yourselves say, I would not make you privy of my courses and actions? and yf I had dealt in any matter of practise for our country besides you( as I never did) but that you were the inventors of the same, and the perswaders of me thereunto,( the more infortunat that I had such directors) vpon what prerogative do you challenge of me that slauerye that I must deliver to you my conceits and whole course of life, by what authority do you demand it. haue you such commission from his holiness? or any foreign prince, that is to force me to render you account, of what I speak or do? I am sure you haue it not. Or yf you had it, I would not obey it, no farther then my liking, for temporal jurisdiction: for that I owe in that case no obedience but to my sovereign Prince. Yf you demand the same in respect you think yourselves to haue a superlative wisdom, experience, and pietye above allothers of our nation, you are deceived, for men see that many off your practices be rash& vngo dlye, and to haue failed: And your lives to be full of errors and imperfections, and are to be amended. Yf vpon hope off thirdly preferment, or profit, their hath been or perhaps may be some of our nation so folishe●, and childish, that being temporal men do make vowes unto you in such sort, as they haue and will wholye be disposed of by you, both in spiritual and temporal affairs, and that you haue and do place diuers of them in honourable houses and ells where as your spies to make secretly relation to you of all that passeth in their houses, I am not to be brought to that bent, therfore never look for it, for you shall never haue it. I will acknowledge that dewtye to my sovereign Prince,& country, that I am bound unto, that respect to my superiors I ought, that affection to my parents and friends they shall deserve: but to such as I esteem mine enemies as you be, that seek to spoil me unjustly of mine honour and reputation, I am not to be blamed, yf I seperat myself from your company and actions. And yf men would but observe, as both I and many haue done, your ambitious desire of directinge and commanding both private Persons, prelates, and Princes, and vnlest you obtain it ther is nothing but war with you, they would be of my mind and should see that whersoeuer you live, the most of your actions and practices tend to that end.  
I presume in answer of this, ther shal come nothing from you but detractions, I will say with Plato being injured: continue to detract, for hardly can you speak well: and I will say with lisander being outraged with bitter words: vomit boldly and often your slanders and calumnies,& spare not, it may be a mean to empty your mindes of envy and malice, where with they be much infected& posoyned. For mine own part the profit I will reap, shalbe to make me more warye, and fearful to fail, more careful and diligent to direct my manners, to conduct mine actions and to reform and correct mine imperfections, which things God grant in me, and that you may haue repentance of your faults past, and a charitable behaviour for the time to come, which is the right and readiest way, to procure peace, an quietness, among us, of every one to be desired& embraced.   

THE EPISTLE OF THE Author to his friend. M. D.W.  
Right worshipful.  
I Haue received the apology you sent me as a token of your ancient good will continued towards me, and a sign that you are not forgettfull of me, for the unchurch I yeld you most humble thankes, earnestly requesting your wor. to continewe the same courtuous good will still towards him, that will not be forgetful thereof, nor omit any occasion to acknowledge and requited it according to my poor habilitie. And in few words to tell you the truth, the book was at the first wellcome to me, as new things ordinarily are to all men But when I had red it over, it utterly misliked me, for the causes you may see in this discourse annexed. Truth it is, as your wour conjectured, I had the other books, but not sent me by any of that faction, with whom I never had any dealing or intercourse of writing, but out of Ingland from one who with the rest acknowledged the Archpriest at his first institution. He sent them vpon this occasion.  
In August last N. N.( who passed by you) having occasion to go into Ingland I dealt with him to go down into my country to see wither my friend swear living or no, and to bring me certain news thereof. He seeeng these books vpon his table and telling him that they were nouellties in these countries, he sent them to me by him: and so receuing them in september last, when I had red them curssorely over, I threw then in a corner never thinking to look on them again( so unpleasant are contentious books unto me) but having received this apology and conferred them together, I began to perceive what the grownde and substance was of this sandalous controversy, the which before I neglected and cared not for. And finding this apology to be written rather to augment then to extinguish the contentions, and perceuinge that the others went simply to work, in setting down truly& simply the causes of freeze controversies, but the apology to fly as from a serpent the true causes thereof. And beside seeing the chief head of this controversy, to depend vpon a point of draw, I could not hold my hand, but was driven in recompense of the book you sent me, to sand you these points wherein I mislike the apology, and wherein they ought to haue satisfied( as they do not) their friends and readers. I hope in reading it without affection you shall perceive who those be that Sibi imputare debent, qui causam dederunt, quique illi sunt, as you note of our holy Martyr S. Thomas,& vpon them the vae illis &c. is like in th'end to fall. For my part I mislike with the discontented brethren for one thing, with the Iesuites for 2. things: with the Archpriest for as many: and with the apology for a great number of faults it hath committed, as by this discourse is made evident. With the discontented pristes, not for writing, for it was necessary for them so to do, because it stood vpon their honor, honesty and credite: but for writting as they did hardly both of the whole society, and of diuers particular Fathers and priests. If they had kept themselves with in the compass of their matter in the latin book to his Hol: as they did in the latin book to the Inquisitors: the apology maker must haue held his peace for any advantage he could haue had against them. The first fault of the Fathers was, for that they meadled in a matter nothing at all apparteinning to them. For what haue religious men( that haue a distinct body, and a distinct common sea-coal, and haue distinct Superiors,) to do with an other body, and common sea-coal distinct and separt from them? What had they to do with the affairs, associations and contentions of secular priestes? yea what had the Iesuites more to do to meadle in it, then the Benedictines, Charterhowse monks,& capuchins? of which orders we haue diuers of our nation as desirous of, and as zealous for the good of our country as the English Fa. can be? Their second fault was, in writting of that unlearned and scandalous book of schism against the Priestes that were innocent thereof and far from the note of sedition and rebellion, for that withstanding the Archpriestes institution vpon a cardinals letters, without his Hol. Bull: as in this discourse is sufficiently proved. I find not so great fault with the writter( for he might be commanded to do it) as with the Superior for commanding it to be done, and when it was done so unadvisedly by his subscription to approve it. for our rule in draw saith: ea nostra facimus quibus nostra impartimur authoritatem. We make those things our own, to the which we do impart our authority.  
One of the ARchpriestes faults was, for that without iudgement and prudence he subscribed also to that book and by his approbation made it as currant as he could. His other fault was, his over much severity inwards his brethren: as well appeareth by his answeres to them laid down in their appeal, and neither checked nor controlled by this apology. I might join to this his tossing of the censures without any regard or reverence.  
Now for the faults of this apology, I refer you to that which followeth. If I haue wronged the Authors thereof either in my words, or by mistaking the sense of theirs, I submit me self to the just reprehension of any learned and vnpassionat man whosoever, and promiss all due and charitable satisfaction. And that I myself was free from all affection or passion when I wrote it,( except that some times I may utter some sharp worde, their fault being so evident and exorbitant, that an angel would haue dipped his pene in gaule) may be easily coniectured, by that I was never,( as I haue said) of the one faction or th'other: but all superintendency kept me self free and clear from all passion, loving and honouring both sides and parties as my dear contreymen, having wished and desired that some good peace and appointment might be made amongst them. Now for more proof of my neutrality first, I never wrote or subscribed any letter in my life either against the Fathers for the others, nor for the Fa. against them, nor ever was dealer in any action Pro or con, for either party. Secondly, there haue passed through this hewn men of both sides, and also haue lodged with me sometimes men of either faction, at one and the self same time: The which were equally wellcome unto me, I gave them allwaies the like and equal countenance, because I loved them equally, for that they were English Priests or catholics. And for this I refer me to the report of such of either side, that haue done me that honor and pleasure as to visit me. Lastly if I could be partial or affencted more to one side then an other( as in truth I cannot be) there are many reasons and causes, why I should lean rather to the Archpriest& his side, them to th'other. for that I haue many old and dear friends of that side, both at home and abroad: to omit the Archpriest himself with whom I haue been acquainted above freeze 35. yeares, as well in Oxford, as in Doway, and since that in Ingland. My brother who should be the dearest to me in this world( as I vndrestand) is of that side: So is M. Henry Shawe my oldest friend, one of the 6. assistants name by the carded. M. Branston, and M. Wiggs, we having been brought up together& fellows of one and the same colleague. and to the last very particulary bound for a singular friendship he once in Doway showed me. besides M. Archer( whom these nicnamed the discontented brethren seam eagerly to pursue) is my dear friend and godsoon. To omit a great nombre of my acquaintance that are amongst the united Priest( as they are name) the supposed Authors of this apology. On th'other side I know no man with whom I am familiarly acquainted but M. Edward Bennett, nor to whom I am bound for any benefit or extraordinary friendship received, but to M. Bluett, who some 25. yeares since, did me a good turn, the which if ever occasion shalbe offered, I mean to requited in eodem genere amicitiae. By these few you may perceive how free I am from faction and clear from all passion to either party. You may ask me then, how chauuce you begine now to entremeadle, the strife and stir being at the whottest? I answer. If I had never seen the apology, I should never haue thought vpon the matter: but seeing such fond and foolish matter therein, and by that book perceiving the iustice of the cause of those called discontented Priests, I could not hold my hand I confess, but for your sake and in recompense of the book, to sand you my advice there vpon, hoping you will look more deeper into the cause and consider of it beter and not geve such credit to the apology as you seem by your letters to do, and with all to see more clealy where the faults of all these scandalous and uncharitable troubles are to be laid, and who were the first occasioners of it, and after that, the renewers therof. This is the end and scope of my writting. I haue not respected my fore said friends, nor the Fathers amongst whom I haue many a good friend quia magis mihi amica est veritas. truth and true dealing between Priests and Religious, ought to be preferred before all thirdly respects and carnal friends: as I haue endeavoured to do in these notes of mine. And so after my humblest and hartiest commendations to you and by you to all the Seniors of my acquaintance with you. I commit you to god and myself to your devout Memento from Pont. a Musson.  
Your Wour. to serve and honor. H. E.   

TO THE united PRIESTS.  
MY reverend and dearly beloved in our saviour the united Priests, the supposed Authors of a brief Apolog. which is set out under your names, against certain venerable Priests, ancient and constant Confessors your brethren& companions in this fight against heretics, and defence of the catholic cause, by you yet termed& called Discontented Brethren, I haue seen and red that apology not without great grief and sorrowe of mind, to see thee, children of one happy and virtuous father( I mean that learned pious man of worthy and famous memory carded. Allē) to be so amongst themselves divided, to be so in hart and mind separated, to be so in love and affection disvnited, that the one parte receiveth against the other what do I say, write? nay do so calumniat one an other, and as it were tear in pieces the famed, name, and good renowne, one of the other. A lamentable case no doubt to see such as are in durance and fetters for the faith, so far from charity; to see holy Confessors and designed martyrs so far from brotherly love and affection: to see such good Priests quiter forget the second chiefest precept of Christian Religion which is Diliges proximum tuum sicut teipsum. how can any man be persuaded that you love yourselves or your own souls helths, that do not love your equal Christian, men of your own coat and quality? men of your own education, with whom you haue been brought up in the hame house, in the same study, and at the same table. I doubt not but that blessed prelate doth see it With great compassion; as I myself one of his eldest children, and one of your aucientest brethren do most heartily. Seeing therefore this dissension among you, and my fathers house as it were ou fire, imitating that holy man Aphraates of whom Nic●pherus maketh mention, 
Lib. 11. c. 25.  I haue gotten out of mine hermitage, that is, I haue left for a time my draw books, and am come to advertise you my united brethren friendly and brotherly of 2. things especially. The first is, that if you be the Authors of this apology, that then you leave and desist to pursue this contention and controversy, because you haue the worser end of the staff; and defend against your conscience and knowledge( as in these notes is manifestly proved) an unjust and ruinous cause. The other, yf you be not the authors( as I suppose you are not) that then you do not suffer yourselves to be any longer abused, and your names to be borrowed, to th'end to continue contention and dissension between you and your brethren, to one of these, to consent or satisfy you are bound in conscience. for how can you or dare you being in persecution and as it were at the persecutors disposition, being once advertised of your fault and errors, continue still in the same, without a notorious mark of obstination, wch is the mother of heresy? And with what conscience can you lend your names not onely to the continuing and furthering of contention: but also to the debasing, disgracing and defamation of your own coat& vocation, yea and to the defacing of your own selves as is often noted and told you in these notes. I haue doō mine endenour to warne and advertise you, it is your part to follwe the good counsel of a friend, and especially of a common friend, as you all do grow, I am unto you all, both united& discontented. For mine own part,( as I haue often protested& stil do) I am not passioned, nor leaning more to one side then tother, nor affectioned more to thone, then to tother: but have many more deere friends amongst thvnited then amongst tother. Yet the truth which is to be preferred before all thirdly ftendship, and the infinite faults of this apology, haue driven me to run amongst you with Aphraates, to see if I can quench the fire, that beginneth to ruynate and destroy our Saluiours church at home in our country: by knowing you how unjustly you received the Archp. vpon a Cardinals letters, how scandalouslie and falsely your brethren for their just resistance were sclandered to be schismatics: and how unjustly and uncharitably the Archp. and Iesuites after the Popes bull was comen, and their submission made thereto, these were newlie& freshlie slandered to be schismatics for the former occasion. I do here showe you that these are the chiefest points now in controversy, that your brethren had both draw and reason for them, that this your apology is so far from coming near to these questions, and the handlinge there of, thath it hath not answeared any one of abdoue 30. Reasons, which your brethren bring for their defence. how can you by this kind of writing, I will not say satisfy your reader, but your own conscience and knowledge? This pain I haue taken both for your sakes, and your readers also, to th'end they be not deceived by this Author whosoever he be. yf you take it in good part, and with that affection that I wrott it, I shall haue thought my pains well employed: but if you take it in evil part I cannot do with all, mine intention being to do good. Yf you reply, I will triplicat as well as I can. Yf you shall judge me partial, in time and place I will prove the contrary, so that you shall beconstrained to confess as much. yf by this means I shall open but somme of your eyes and make you to conceive the indignity of the thing I haue my desire. I beseech God so open your harts and eyes, that you suffer not yourselves to be carried awaie hereafter with toys and trifles, as it seemeth hitherto you haue been, and to give you the grace to look more deeply in to the matter, and not permit yourselves and your names to be borrowed& abused for the extoling of somme and the depression of yourselves and of your quality, and vocation, as you haue suffered hitherto, to your own discredit, the continuance of strife, hindrance of the cath: faith, Gods dishonour, and our contreyes great hurt, and so I commit me self to your devout Memento, and to your chains.   

THE PREFACE.  
TO omit the 2. places of scripture, put in the beginning of your apology, because the first is impertinent, for neither the Protector nor the Archp. was their superior before his. Hol. Bull. came, as is often proved in these notes. the other may be very aptly applied to the Archp. and our english Iesuites in Ingland, who were the first Authors and causers of all these contentions abroad and at home, by writing and teaching that the Priests which refused to receive the Archp. vpon a carded. lettres without scripp or scroll from his Hol. were schismatics, seditious, rebellious, and I know not what: as also is proved in these notes. Beside, the Archp. after the Bull was come and the priests had submitted themselves thereto, began the broil again by pronouncing and proclaiming them schismatics as before, which also is set down in these notes. S. Paul willeth vnquiete people but especially the Authors of unquietness to be repressed( as you say) or to be rebuked( as I say): but the Arch. and Iesuites were the Authors of this unquietness, as is showed at large in these notes, ergo you haue brought S. Paul against these, whom you pretend to defend and clear from unquietness. I beseech you then( my united brethren) to look better to the matter, and to pluck of the mask of affection that now blindeth you, and to consider well that the renewing of the crime of schism by the Archp. was the onely cause why they wrote in defence of their good name honor and famed, as is proved hereafter.  
But these scriptures are not so impertinently brought, as the place which you allege out of S. Augustin, which is flat against you for in this Apo.( as he saith) you know not to distinguish between true and false yea you dare not once approach and come near the truth. nor between probations& criminations: many criminations indeed you put down, but you bring noe probation at all. between instructions and fictions: your Apol. being wonderfully compiled of fictions and fittons, of toys and trifles, so far is it from giving any instructions, pertaining to the matter in question& controversy. between handling the cause, and running from the cause. never were men so lively described by these words as you are for you are so far from handling the cause that all your drift is to run from the cause as is manifestly showed in these notes: and I doubt not but that your readers having once red these notes will much wonder at your audacity for alleging a place in the very front of your book that maketh so evidently against you: and that doth so palpably control and descry your juggling, fraud, and guile. yf you grow it not? viz that this your Apol. doth not distinguish between true and false, that it hath many Criminations and noe probations at all of the matter in que●tion that it is full of fictions, and void of all instructions: that it handleth not the cause, but runneth and roveth quiter from the cause, yf( I say) you know it not? then Jam not sorry that I haue had this care to instruct you. and if thereby. your harts will not be turned to peace, yet our peace returneth to us as it did to S. Augustine.  
In the very beginning of your epistle to the Pope, 
●n the epistle to his Hol.  you tell his Hol. with what grief of mind and confusion of countenance you are constrained to defend the ecclesiastical Hierarchte which God inspired him to institute amongst vs. you may well say: with Confusion of countenance for to make so false a report to his Hol: in the very entry of your book: which Ecclesiastical hierarchy I pray you do you defend in this your Apol? you should here haue distinguished with, S. Augustine, between true and false for there were( you grow) two institutions of this hierarchy, one by the carded. letters, as you confess in the 8. pag. of your epistle and in the 10. you talk of an other institution made by his Hol: breue 1599. In defence of which of these 2. Institutions, I pray do you write? yf of the first, thē may you well in deed, haue grief of mind and be confused in countenance, yea and cautherized in conscience for abusing his Hol: with so notorious a falsehood. But tell me in good earnest is, This Apol. written to the catholics of Ingland in defence of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, instituted by the Cardinals letters? yf you say yea: these notes do utter your impudency, and do new to all catholics in Ingland and out of Ingland, that you never dare come near the question, but that you fly from it as from a toad: and there you haue not as yet answered one onely reason of more then 30. that your brethren bring against it, albeit your account thē but fonde and of no force at all. Let all Catolickes now Iudgee if you ought not worthely to be confused in countenance to make so flat a fitton to his Hol: and that in print, in making him and all men to beleeue that you write this your Apol. in de fence( forsooth of the Ecclesiastical hierarchy, by him so fatherly and prudently instituted amongst us: when as( I say) I showe to all such as are not stark blind, in these my notes: that you fly from and shoone that matter, as from a venomous Serpent: yf then you haue abused his Hol: touching the first institution how can you excuse yourselves and say: that this your Apol. is written in defence of the second institution, made and confirmed by his Hol: bulls? A faire piece of work who I pray you doth or hath impugned it? you fight with your own shadowe in making his Hol. beleeue, your writing is in defence of his institution of the Archpr. you should first haue proved it to be impugned, and then to haue defended it. Nay, it is so far from being impugned by your brethren, that you confess frankly in this and many other places of your Apol. that so soon as they sawe his Hol: Breue they by and by yielded and were reconciled to the Archp. now the cause both of this first and latter breach also, which was, for that they were holden and proclaimed by books and lettres, and confirmed by the Archp. sentence, for schismatics, rebellious, and factious( which is the head and ground of all this controversy) you mention not at all. and yet you are so shameless, as to tell Christes vicar, that you write in defence of the Archp. for the resisting of whose institution vpon a carded. letters your brethren were defamed with the horrible crime of schism. Well, if you haue in this your Apol. defended neither the first nor last institution how are you able to defend yourselves from a most haynons falsehood? I charge you with it and that in good earnest, and in your next either discharge yourselves in knowing, that you haue defended the one or the other institution, and that by solid and substantial proofs, or else I will leave you the whetstone, as subtilely gained by you, and that in fittoning to the highest power and Potentat vpon earth.  
The reader may gather by this epistle, how substantially you handle the matter through out your Apolog. for the same order you keep here, the same kind of proofs you observe and bringtherein. you haue taken vpon you to defend the ecclesiastical hierarchy institured by his Hol. let us see how coningly and learnedly you do it. First, in the year 1558 her majesty began to reign, and the Protestants gained more in the first 10. yeares of her reign, then in the 34. that haue eusued, ergo, the institution of the Arch. made, by a carded. lettres, was draw full and to be obeyed. In the year 1568. the college at dovay was erected by D. Allen. ergo, the institution of the Archp. was worshipful. And here is to be noted, you haue set the Cart before the horse. for first you mention the seminary of dovay, and foundation thereof, and then after, how learned men placed themselves in diuers universities, and wrote books in confutation of heresy. whereas, these men you mean, had written their books many a faire yeare-before there was any Seminarie thought or dreamed of. I would pray the Reader here to mark well the order of this tale laid down in their second note, and I will marvell if thou marvell not much at it.  
The council, bent themselves whollie to persecute the Seminarie ergo the Arehp. &c.  
The counsel laboured to drive the Seminarie out of rheims ergo the Archp. &c.  
The counsel raised sedition amongst ourselves go. &c. But by your leave, this is another fitton. for there was never any dissension much less sedition in the Seminarie of rheims so long as D. Allen governed it with this therefore, as with a manifest fittō I charge you, discharge yourselves for your own honor in your next: and in that you name Banes, I would you should grow, he was not sent thither as a spy, but there in the Seminarie he became a naughty spy, and was taken and punished there as a spy, by the uniform consent of all from the highest to the lowest: so far was he from making any sedition there, as undecently you inform his Hol. in this place. But I pray you, what seed of sedition sowed John Nicols, or Salomon Alread, or Monday, or Sledd, in Rome? I do oppose you now. I beleeue as well as you that they were spies, and I grow that they were afterwards in Ingland very naughty fellows, and did much hurt there: but I am ashamed that you should either say or think that such base varlets could sowe any seed of sedition in Rome: all those that knewe those companions will control you of oversight in this point, aswell as I do. But be it they sowed sedition in Rome in the year 1578. go. the institution of the Archp. made by a carded. letters in the year 1598.( just 20. yeares after) was good and worshipful, for this must be your conclution, otherwise all that you haue there set down is to no end or purpose, neither do you showe thereby to write in defence of the Ecclesiastical hierarchy instituted by his Hol. amongst us, but rather of other gugawes and by matters.  
In the year 1580. fa: Parsons, and fa: Campio were sent into Ingland. go. if the sky fall, we shall haue larks, beit that by their coming, religion began to go with more fervour yet is not that true that diuers ancient and grave priests went in with them by their example and perswasion. not by their example( I say) for many a priest was gone in many yeares before the jesuits went in. and those that went in eitherwith thē or after them, were priests sent in by the ordinary mission, and not by their example: onely 3. or 4. that had been Chaplyns in the Rom. College wer● persuaded by D. Allen( from whom you would take this praise) and not by the fathers, to go into Ingland: and this I refer to the conscience and report of M. D. Bauande, who onely is yet living( as I understand) of all those ancient and grave Priests. now as I would not take any right full praise from the fathers: so can I not endure other mens praises to be unjustly attributed to them.  
In the yeares 1582. and 1584. there began an emulation in Paris of somme Gentlemen against D. Allen and fa. pa. go. the Archp. was rightly instituted. I beleeue you do injury to those gentlemen in sayig they induced Tyrell, 
fol. 26.  Gifford, and Gratley to join and treat with thē. for in your book you lay it down thus: A combination was made by somme of our order with walsingham to the prejudice of D. Allen and fa. pa. and in your margin you put down the confession of G. G. suppose that he were Walzinghams spy, yet I do not beleeue that the Gentlemen knewe somuch, and you are not of such credit with me, that I should take all that you speak for gospel. They haue both wit and means to defend their honor, seing you haue given them the occasion, and so often blotted your Apolog. with their names.  
Two priests wrote several book in favor of the heretics in the yeares 87. and 88. and and one was a spy for the counsel of Ingland &c. go. Powles steeple and charing across. may meet.  
The counsel of Ingland omitted not to maintenie the faction and emulation all carded. Allens life. go. &c. and the carded. a little before his death perceiving a faction to grow in Ingland against the fathers, wrote most earnestly against it go. the Archp. was well instituted.  
cardinal Sega dedicated the visitation of the Rom. College to his Hol. go iumppe as before.  
His Hol. by word of mouth commanded the priests that went into Ingland from Rome in the year 1597. to be quiet for the time to come. go. the discontented brethrene are seditious. And here are we come to the subordination that was ordained by the carded. Protectors letters, which is the point in controversy Wither any lawful subordination, or any dignity may be given or instituted by the bare letters of a cardinal saying he did it. Ex expresso mandato Sanctissimi. without the Popes bul or breue? your brethren and I with them say no. and both they and I, haue proved our assertion. you say yea, but do prove nothing in all this your Apol. albeit( as you do falsely flapp is Hol. in the teeth) you haue written it in defence of his Institution but I hope at length after your long vagaries and running at rovers, you will be so good as your word and prove that the Ecclesiastical Hierarhis was subtilely and duly instituted by the carded. Protectors letters without the Popes Bull. for this you must prove, or else you may look with a confused countenance and be much grieved in mind, to haue promised more to his Hol. then you haue hitherto, or ever shal be able to perform. I pity your case, and am in deed full sorry, to see how you haue plucked an old howse vpon your head. With this Subordination all good and obedient catholics were contented and conforced( you say) go it was subtilely instituted. but wheare you say, it came from the see apostolic; by your leave you fitten. for nothing is said to comme from the see apostolic, except it come under the breves or bulls of that see, as in these notes shalbe proved. but here was no Bull from that See, go you say not well, that it came from the See apostolic, seing it came but from a carded. Protector who had no authority to do it, nor any jurisdiction or power at all in Ingland. you add: that they called in question the carded. letters, and that which followeth, so they did in deed and that instly, and still do, for any thing you haue, or can say to the contrary, or in defence of the carded. or his letters.  
In all this your Apol.( which you make his Hol. beleeue is written in defence of the carded. institution of the Archp.) you haue not one word or reason. I say, not one, for the defence of the carded. and his doings: you say: they impugned his Hol. meaning. how I pray you could they do that, having nether that breue, bul, nor letter from his Hol. explicating or declaring to them his meaning? it is but your imagination. how( I pray you) can I tell what your meaning is, except you explicat the same to me, either by word of mouth letter, or express messenger. But his Hol. by none of these means showed or declared his meaning unto them. go. they could not impugn it.  
But that which followeth is a mere calumny: yea they called into quostion your authority itself, wither you could do it without them or no. this to be a nanghtie slander and a fowle calumny is often proved in these notes, to the places I refer you.  
At last we are come to the Popes breue in confirmation of the said hierarchy, to the which you confess your brethren did obey, but after sought occasions to break again. what were these occasions? for shooth, as you calumniat: thē they were so engaged to the council that they could not hold long. The counsel serveth you well for a mask, to cover the cause of this last breach: which yet they lay down otherwise both simply and plainly, and lay it vpon the Archp. and jesuits back, and that so firmly, that in all your Apol. you cannot as yet clawe it of, neither in deed do you go about it, the matter is so plain and evident. how justly they appealed, is showed hereafter. I grow not what you mean in this your epistle by Scandalous and temerarious propositions: But sure I am, that you yourselves haue accused and accounted the chiefest points of our Cath. religion, for scandalous, dangerous, and offensive doctrine, to your eternal shane, as in these notes will appear.  
I would to God they or any other could get liberty of conscience in Ingland, under condition that all the fathers were out, and I myself banished with them never to comme in so long as I live. yf you or the fathers had that zeal and charity to your country, you should not mislike of this condition, if liberty could be gotten by it. But I see well, you are far from the zeal of S. Paul. why( my Maisters) cannot Cath. religion, be taught and planted in Ingland without the fathers? it should seem you are of that opinion, because you like not of that condition, which all good men ought to like of: if we could haue the liberty of our conscience restored unto us so good cheap.  
Well, as you began with a fitton, so I perceive you will end with a flat lie: for( say you) in this Apol. we do late down by clear historical narration and authentical testimonies the grounds of all. Of what all? of the controversy between the Archp. and your discontented brethren? nothing less, as hath been often said. your historical narration is nothing but a recapitulation of the seditions of the Rom. college, of the factions in Paris, against D. Allen and fa. pa. of the factions in Flanders against fa. Holt and M. owen, of G. G. spierie and books against D. Allen, and fa. par. of R. Fishers examination, of the praise of the fathers, of M Watsons common welth and of the stirs in wisbich. No narration at all, either historical or legal, of the controversy now in question. your authentical testimonies are a great number of tedious letters written by private men, either the fathers creatures, or whollie addicted to their faction: which yet for the more part prove not that for the which they are brought and alleged. authentical( qnoth you) even as authentical, as an obligation sealed with butter, and all one. who ever heard private mens letters missiues to be called and termed authentical testimonies? in deed such are the authentical proofs you bring and none else. how durst you so abuse his Hol. without blushing, as to tell him, that every private mans letter is an authentical testimony? God of his mercy open your eyes, that you may see your own error and folly, that thereby yielding to the truth and leaving all contention, you may go on forwards as you haue begun, to wynn souls, to advance Gods glory, and relieve and comfort his afflicted English church, which groaneth more bitterly under the waight of this dissension, then it ever did, or doth under the greauous burden of persecution.  
There you abuse your Reader again making him beleeue that your book was written to lay forth the progress and success of the whol controversy, by a serious and orderly narration of the chief matters: a strange thing to see your vanity, you lay forth in deed a serious narration of all the factions that haue been since the Seminaries begun, but what is that to the Question now in controversy? haue you laid down by a serious and orderly narration the cause of those 2. breaches the occasion of this dissension? Mumme. haue you laid down their Reasons that moved them, not to receive the Archp. vpon the carded. letters? No haue you laid down how fa. Liester by writing would prove them schismatics for the same? Neque: haue you laid down how after their union with the Archp. the same Archp. pronounced them schismatics for nor admitting him vpon the carded. letters, and forbade all Priests to absolve them? no forsooth. And why so? bicavse we will not talk of it, and are sorry that ever it was mentioned. these are the controversies in question, these are the chief matters, and hereof you should haue set down a serious and orderly narration. but you dare as well eat your fingers as to come near to these questions and chief matters: you ly a loof, for fear of knocks. I cannot blame you, lo est in uia. the Truth is so dreadful, that you dare not approach it. you stand a far of, and cast your shuttcock of Rom. seditions, factions of Paris, and flanders: examinations, common wealthes, and bundles of letters, as it were at their heads. but therewith you cannot hurt them. and to approach and close with them in the chief matters now in controversy, you dare not. Fie vpon impudency, you ate not content with your serious and orderly narrations of your flym flābs: but you will also set down their untruths &c. as they lie, that thereby the reader may judge of their spirit and manner of proceeding. In Gods name go on then.  
First, you find no less then 5. or 6. deceits shifts, and falshoods in th'inscription of the latin book. to use your own words, Reader hereby thou mayst guess what truth thou mayst expect at these mans hands in the rest of their book, whem they begin with so deceitful a calumny. For, 
fol. 111. & seq.  in the place by me here noted is showed, that they haue not committed any one deceit, shift, or falsehood in the inscription of that book: but that you( united brethren) haue committed so notorious and gross a falsehood, that it passeth all their 6. swear they such as you term them,  
The second, is out of the 3. pag. and not out of the 2. as you qnote it. these are their words: hinc enim &c. on one side we are grievously wounded and murdered by the common enemy, on th'other side we are grewously oppressed with mutual contentions and strifes. what deceit, shift, or falsehood, is there in these words? are you not lawfully blinded with malice to set them down for such? no( say you) because few of these men haue been wounded or put to death by the common enemy. For putting to death I beleeue you, for they are all yet living: but if you dare say, that none of those that haue been of their opinion haue suffered death: then dare I say, you dare say an untruth. Wounded( qnoth you) why? haue not many of these endured imprisonment, banishment, loss of their goods and liberty for the cath. cause so well as you my united brethren?) and do they not by Gods grace, stand as firm and stable, against the common enemy in defence of the cath. cause, as you do? impudency itself cannot gainsay it.  
To omit the slander of their secret nourishing by the counsel: you answer fond that their oppression is none, but such as they list to imagine, when all men haue seen thē without imagination in fact and deed to haue been oppressed these many yeares. let your Reader consider here, with what goodly toys you fill your book: and with all, your infidelity in nipping of your latter word of the sentence, which showed wherein they wedre greuousely oppressed with mutual contentions, the reader may well conjecture with what spirit you write, and in what manner you intend to proceed.  
The 3. Cogimur, &c. we are forced te fly to the feet of your Hol. &c. what untruth is here? did they not fly to his feet by printing their book? growing that somme copy thereof would come to his Hol. hands or knowlege, vel per notum aliquem( as they say elswhere) vel ignotum amicum vel inimicum, casu vel dedita opera. but how prove you this to be a falsehood? because they never sent yet any of their appellations to his Hol, nor any man to prosecute them. 
fol. 54. cum seq.& fol. 110.  I give you a sufficient reason therefore in these notes. But how doth this followe they never sent any of their appellations as yet to his Hol. ergo, it is false and feigned, in that they say, they are compelled to fly by this their printed book to his Hol. feet. this argument is tied together with points. 
pagin. 5.   
The 4. Haec autem &c. we are forced( sai you) to diuulgate thes things in print &c. but they say thus: we are forced full sore against our consuls( inuitissime merely) you haue herein descouered your own falsehood in nipping of these words in the Parenthesis, when you go about to new a falsehood, where there is none at all. And of this compulsion against their wils, they add immediately 3. reasons, which you deceit fully omit. what deceit, shift, or falsehood are in these words my blinded brethren? or in the 3. Reasons they yield for this their doing? O how malice doth blind, if not a religious man, yet designed martyrs? this force( say you) came from the council. how soever it came, they committed neither deceit nor falsehood, for saying they were forced to do it. Nay, this force proceeded of fa. listers scandalous book, and of the indiscrete subscription and approbation thereof, by the superior and the Archp. they were forced( I say) to defend their honour, good name and famed, so stained and blotted with the haynons crime of schism by the aforenamed, as in their. 3. reasons here they tell you plainly. but you are blind and deaf: your ( for informing his Hol alone,) printing was not needful, is refuted in these notes following.  
Your 5. Is in the 6. and not in the 5. pag. as you wote. Jgitur dum, &c. Wherefor while carded. Allē our common father was living, &c. cough out? why, haue you the chyncough? thus they say: wherefore while the common father of us all( Priests and jesuits) and the health and safeguard of owr country was living, that honourable man of blessed memory carded. Allen a most wise and holy man, all our affairs aswel abroad in the Colleges, as at home amongst the Priests that laboured in the Englisch vineyard, werre happily governed& manured. what deceit, shift, or falsehood find you in these speeches? doth the Author envy the carded. just titles? dare he deny that all went well so long as that blessed man governed? he seemeth so to do, else grow I not why he should reckone up these speeches amongst deceit, shifts,& falshoods. how soever they glory of the carded. now dead, yet commit they no falsehood nor deceit in the woordes by you alleged. By the same woordes they secretly infer that these contentions broke out after his death, and not in his life. which is so true that you yourselves confess it in 3. 
Fol. 6.48.6.65.6.  seue rall places of your Apol. This my brethren is to play at smallgame rather then to sit out. but rather then you would not thaue them noted of falsehood, you will accuse them of true and orderly speeches, as fond you do in this preface for deceit& falsehood.  
The 7. Desudantibus, &c. 
Pag. 7.  while the seminarie Priests did thus sweat in the harvest of Ingland( which harvest was then well manured& almost ripe) somme jesuits were called in by D. Allen to help them, whose intention was that they( the Iesuitz) should be aiders, helpers,& fellowe laborours with the Priests in our lords work, this whole Narration you say, hath many falshoods and vanities. let us see one. Mary, how well manured and ripened was the english Cath. harnessed 22. yeares ago, when the jesuits wear sent first in? I answeare: So well as it hath been at any time since, for the space of time, and the number of the workemen. you say, noe and I say, yes. you talk of 22. yeares manuring by the travell of 400. Priests and jesuits to help them. and I talk of 5. yeres space onely, and of 100. and odd workemen, If the Priests in that time had not manured it well and brought it to somme repenes, where had the jesuits found harbour or howses to receive them, or men to maintain them in that order they swear maintained? it was the secular Priests that brought them into honor and credit, and this thank they haue for it. who is so blind, that doth not see by this place, that the Author of this Apol. is a jesuit, attributing to himself and his, the manuring and ripeness of our English harvest: and that 2. jesuits( although otherwise learned& virtuous men) could do more good to the ripening of the harvest, then a 100. seminarie Priests: this in deed is both falsehood and vanity. But let us examine your brethrens words, and see what falsehood and vanity they haue committed. Theysaie, that the seminarie Priests did sweat in the harvest of England before the jesuits came in. yf the falsehood be in that there were seminarye Priests in England before the fathers went in? I can assure you there were somme for v, yeares space before the fathers entred. and that there were at the least a hundreth before they went in. M. Barlowe being the first seminatye Priest that entred, can testify so much. So can the R. Archp. and diuers of his assistantz whoe had been in Ingl: somme yeares before the fathers. Is the falsehood or vanity in that they say: they swet in the harvest? yf the suffering imprisonment and close imprisonment and martyrdoome( as somme of them had done before the coming of the jesuits) loss of goods and liberty, may not be termed sweating? then I confess they haue committed falsehood and vanity for saying so. But lieth the falsehood and vanity in that they say: there was a harvest then in Ingland? O vanity of vanity! o blindness! o shameless inventor! are these falshoods? are these vanities? are they not the very solid Truth itself? what poor Priests are you to write against your own knowlege, and against your own consciences, untruth? vae vobis that say: darkness is light and light darkness. But peradventure there is falsehood and vanity in the words following: which harvest was then well manured& almost ripe, somme jesuits swear called in by D. Allen to help them. why? was it not well manured? were not men taught to leave hanting and frequenting heretical service? did not the Priests preach and teach, say mass and administer the Sacramentes? you will say peradventure the falsehood or vanity is in the word well, because nothing is well done, but that which the jesuits do. and by consequence, before they appeared in the world, there was nothing done well. Is the falsehood in Almostripe? yea forsooth. and why so? because nothing can be ripened, but hy the jesuits. where they comme, all is ripe incontinent. Is it a falsehood or vanity to say, that somme jesuits were called in to help them by D. Allen? why, all the world knoweth this to be truth: and I wonder how the Author of this Apol. is so shameless, either to deny it, or count it a falsehood or vanity. Let fa: par: call to memory, that which I set dowe in these notes of D. Allens going up to Rome, 
Fol. 13.  and he must needs bear towns, that D. Allen procured the sending in of the jesuits into Ingland, and that to help the Priests that traveled there. By this you haue proved yourselves both falsyfiers and vain men: to extenuat your own travels and labours, and togeue the praise thereof to others that then deserved them not. But let us now see your own falshoods and vanities.  
First your say: that There were but few Priests in Jngland. were a hundred Priests but a few? and that there were a hundred, I can new out of the Register of the yeares they went in, and of their names. it followeth: as having had but one onely Seminarie until that time the Jesuits went in: if this be falsehood or no, let the Reader judge. The Rom. Seminarie was instituted( as you confess) in the year 1578. 
Fol. 3.  the jesuits went first into Ingland in the year 1580. about mid summer: so that that college had been founded at the least 2. yeres before. and yet there was but one onely seminarie till that time and so by an arithmetical substraction, of 2. you make but one. and that the Reader may better perceive, this to be a notorions falsehood: Diuers Priests werre sent out of the rom. college in to Ingl. before the jesuits went thither: as M. shoer martyr, M. Haddok, Array, hid,& Meredeth. And few known catholics. this is indeed a vanity. where( I pray you were all these seminarie Priests besides the old Priests, which were then many in number, receuied and harboured? by heretics or schismatics by like. where( I pray you were the fathers received and almost a hundred Priests that entred the yeares 1580. and 1581? if there were then but few known catholics? I confess the number then was not like to the number that was afterwards, and to that that is now: because time and number of workemen, haue gained more. And this that I haue said is known to most men that grow our case, and for this your misdemeanour are to lament our common case and cause.  
The 8. Ostentans, &c. A certain jesuit vaunting himself among our people as though he had been legate to the see apostolic, &c. It may be their vanity is in saying he vaunted himself to be, &c. but sure I am in fact and dead he used the authority of a legate in assembling synods which you confess, and say that neither D. 
Fol. 164. b.  Allen nor fa. pa. did allowe of it. wherein lieth then the falsehood in these words? for soothe, that he did not vaunt himself, &c. but in truth and in act as you yourselves confess, he played the legate. it is not then a material but a verbal falsehood, such as you commit full many in this your Apol. And to prove this falsehood, your say it is spoken Of fa: Haywood, a grave and learned man as all men grow: as who should say a grave and learued man cannot be ambitious, or sin in ambition, or as though all jesuits swear Angels and sainctes, and cannot be ambitious, or commit the like sins. I would to God they swear, for then this lamentable division had never happened in our country. now where you refer us to the third chap. of your book, and to the 11. chap. to see how false and malicious this lie is, with diuers others uttered against him. I haue read over very diligenth your 3. chap. and find no word there, of fa. Hayw. at all. Is not this then, a flat lie) to use your own terms) to say you new in such a place how false and malicious the lye is, where you make no mention at all of it? except under the general name of jesuits( whom you defend in that chap.) your Reader must conjecture that you defend fa. Heyw, particularly in the 11. Chap. you say: 
Fol. 164. b.  And as for that biting flourish brought in pag. 8. against fa: Heyw. that he did vaunt& brag in Ingland, as legate of the see apostolic, called a provincial counsel, abrogated the vigils and fasts of our lady, prohibited th' Acts of our Martyrs written by D. Allen, they are partly plain Calumniations, and partly odius and malitioas wresting of his doings. well, touching the word vaunt and brag, I am content, let them be a Calumniation, for albeit they peradventure can prove it, yet cannot I. how say you? is that also a Calumniation, that he called a provincial synod, that he would haue abrogated the fasts of your lady, that he hindered and letted the Acts of our Martyrs to be published? speak out? if you affirm it to be a Calumniation, then you condemn yourselves, for in this place you confess that it is true, that 16. or 17. Priests met together, behold the synod, that they would haue had all the national customs of Ingland about fasting, to be reduced to the Common order of the Rom. Church. and what is this, but to abrogat the fasts of our lady in Ingland. and you confess that D. Allen and fa. par. and others did not allowe thereof. Tell me in your larger Apol. in which word of theirs consisteth this Calumniation, odious& malicious wresting of his doing? when as you yourselves confess, all they say to be true, and his doings to be disliked by D. Allen and fa. par. how haue you showed in this chap. how false and malicious this lie is? you are poor Priests, united in falsehood and malice against your innocent brethren. they say the truth, you do confess it, and yet your Reader must needs beleeue and think, that in the places by you quoted, they may see how false and malicions a lie is made against fa: Heyw. a grave and learned man. and yet such is your impudency, that in one place you say never a word of it, and in they other, you confess all and more too then your adversary doth say. you grow who advertiseth that in accusing honest men ought to be precise and punctual. 
Fol. 190.  Can there be greater accusations then to commit a false and malicious lye? then to be Odious and malicius wresters of mens doings? these be your Accusations. you are taken for honest men, therefore you ought to haue been precise and punctual in your proofs. but what tell I you of proofs? for you haue sworne as it seemeth in this your Apol. to say what you list, but not to prove any thing at all.  
The 9. toucheth the Rectors government of the College: my opinion touching that you shall find in these notes.  
Pag. ibid. Conspectis, &c. 
Fol. 15.  where is reported that D. Allē was cannon-shot to say, that the fathers sought more their own good then that of their Coutrey or the college. you answer, it is mere false and a notorious untruth. how do you make, or prove it a notorious untruth? you refer us to his letters in the 4. chapped. and for any thing in those lettres, he might haue said somuch. you refer us to your 11. chapped. where you haue these words: All that they tell after this of carded. 
Fol. 164.  Allen from pag. 6. that he favoured them or misliked the Jesuits, or concurred with these factious& their emulations against them, is refuted largely before in the 3. and 4. Chap. of this treatise. well, in the two chapters you allege here; this saying is not proved mere false or an notarious untruth. let us see the 3. chapped. I haue red it diligently over whith my spectacles, 
Fol. 24.  and find carded. Allen once only name in it. but no one letter of his in that chapped. to the which yet you sand vs. you say there, that the jesuits procured the first 100. Crownes for the seminary of Doway, as the world knoweth and carded. Allen did allwayes confess while he was living. ergo by carded. Allens own letters and doings this report is mere false and a notarious untruth. such comonlye are your proofs throghout your Apol. well for all you haue said as yet to the contrary it may be true which they report of carded. Allen. I do not say it is true. but for any thing you say or bring here or elswhere to improve it, it may be true.  
You ask, what private good can the jesuits pretend for themselves worth their labours& perils in Ingland except the good of souls? they haue answeared you and still do: that the jesuits seek to rule the roast, to haue all men at their beck and commandement, to haue nothing done whithout their advice and appointment and that they will haue all Priests their prentices. thus they answer the question, but how true, Time will hewe.  
And where you ask: of what conscience then are these men that print so manifest Calumniations? I anwer: of the same conscience you are, which print and in this Table, haue imputed deceit, falshoods, untruths, manifest lies and Calumniations unto them, when there is no such thing, as hath been showed. look in to your own consciences first and cleanse them, and then ask hardly, with what conscience your Brethren can print such manifest calumniations, after you haue proved them such: other wise, you do but dally in woords, and with exclamations abuse your. Reader.  
The 10. pag. 11. it is the 10. Iam tu, &c. you nip their words, for thus they say to his Hol: At that time both the College, and all the schollers had been vndoonn if afric hol. had not sent carded: toledo, who after he had heard both parties& judged the controversy whith equal, balance opposed himself as a wall for the schollers, our country being desti tuteof carded. Allen their father. you haue nipped of, that he was sent by his Hol. to be a judge in the Cause. by which your Readers might perceive that carded. toledo seeindg the schollers to haue right on their side, stood whith them and for them all his life. he was not then a favourer of troublesone and seditious scholars against their superiors as you would infer, but a patron and defender of the youths from the unjust dealings and gouuernement of their superiors, and that sent by his Hol. as they say and you confirm by nipping of these words: missus. à tua S.  
The 11. pag. ibid. Whiles these things, were a doing in Rome, the troubles of wisbich began, 
Fol. 6.  &c. do you not say so much yourselves, where you join the troubles of the Rom. college, of slanders, and wisbieh Castle together? but where is the deceit, shift, 
Ju tabul. Apologiae.  and falsehood of these speeches? for this cause you haue thought it convenient to note some points touching their untruths, &c. why did you put down these words, can you tell? No suerlye, but onely to make up a number.  
The 12. you will your Reader to note the phrase of United. and why could they not name themselves the united Priests? you anwer: because they were far the lesser number. a good reason a few in number cannot be united, or so termed. where were your witts? Nay,( say your) besides this, they were divided from their head. how could a company that haue no head, be divided from their head? for the Arch. was not then their head, but an usurper, and an intruded person, 
Fol. 47. b.  till the Popes breue came, as is proved at large in these notes. seeing there was no head, there could be no body. and so could they not be divided from the rest of their body the English clergy. you seek very narrowly and are desirous of contention, that hunt so after words and syllables, and yet when you haue all said, they might be justly united Priests, not as the united provinces term themselves, for they have a head, the king and governor. these had none in Ingland, that was their superior, nor out of Ingland, but his Hol. onely.  
All that which followeth, till you comme to the 18. are matters of story and fact, and therefore to be omitted by me, and to be answered by the Actors.  
The 18. you reprehend them for their association and choosing to themselves prelates, being but a few and that they would do it whout commission and consent of the rest of the clergy or whithout licence of their Superior. how and with what face can you reprehend 13. Priests( for you grant they swear so many in wisbich, besides those that swear at liberty and of their association) for choosing of prelates, when you haue had a prelate given you by the information of 2. Iesuitz and one secular Priest onely, and that without commission and consent of the rest of the clergy. which is the greater fault and greater absurdity, for secular Priests to think of choosing themselves prelates( for as yet they were not comme to the choice) or for Religious men to meddle without Commission to procure a head to the secular clergy, without their knowlege or consent.  
That which you add: Without the licence of their superior is a mere fitton. for they tell you pag. 23. Si quando id( ●. Pater) tibi approbandum videretur. to whom not the election( by ordinary draw) but the confirmation appertaineth they might then subtilely choose their Prelatz without licence of any superiors, but they are to be confirmed by the superior before they can administdrat and exercise their dignity or office. The Rest of the Articles, touch not the controversy, but the estimation of particular persons, whom I deem to be unduly and uncharitably both name and taxed, and there fore leave it to their satisfaction, which they are in my Iudgement bound to make, and that in print.  
I must yet aduertize thee( gentle Reader) of an egregious untruth before I make an end that is: where this Author saith in the end of his table, that he will not city any thing out of the English book, because he hath examined the same sufficiently in the 1.2.7.& 11. Chap. mark( Reader) when thou comest to those places how sufficiently he hath examined it. there it shalbe showed thee, that he hath left the chief points and Reasons thereof, both vnanswered and unexamined.  
But you say: it may be somme other will examine more exactly these books. indeed so he hath need, for you haue examined them as lightly and as slenderly as any man well could do. Yf fearful fleeing from the Truth, answearing to no one Reason, and filling your Readers ears with tittle tattle, be an exact examination. and as you conclude, this will in deed be sufficient for him that will not take the peaynes to read your Apol. but to beleeue you or your word. but to him that will read it with care and diligence and seek on which fide the Truth lieth, the same will prove very insufficient and not woorthie the name of an apology, which is a defence of truth: and so shall see to your Confusion of countenance how poorly, faintly, and weakly you defend your Eccliastical Hierarchis set up and iustituted by a carded. Protetectors letters. And for an end of this table, I must advertise thee( Reader) that the Priests haue printed another book in Latin dedicated to the Inquisition, in which they haue simply and plaiuly set down the controversy, and haue not roved therein at bymatters, nor touched the name or famed of any person in particular or in general: to the which book, these men are so far from answearing, as they do not once name it, or make mention of it, in this their brief Apol. I grow not what they will do in their more larger and ample which they promise thee. and if the Priests had kept themselves with in the compass of their matter, in this book sent to his Hol. we had lost this woorthy piece of woorke, the which is written in the defence of somme particular men, and of the society, and not in defence of the hierarchy, as they untruly would make his Hol. beleeue. for, as I haue often said, and must oftentimes hereafter note, the Author never cometh near the matter or the controversy. which I must aduertize( the Reader) to note and mark diligently.  
In the preface to the Reader, 
In the preface to the reader.  you are of a sudden become very holy and charitable men, for those whom a little before in the table you accused of untruths, shifts, deceipes, falshoods, Calumniations,& slanders, are now forsooth your most entirely beloved brethren. O hypocrisy! when the fox precheth, beware your gheese, beware their gaule hidden under sugared words. your Reader forsooth must think and beleeue that this controversy which is between fomme Priests, the Archprieste and English jesuits, to be against the church of God and all good men: as though there were no good men, but such as stand with the Archpriest and jesuits, and as though they, made the church of Christ, or at least were the principal members thereof. O folly! And why may not that which you bring bring out of S. Cyprian touching the later sort, be applied to those, whom you take vpon you to defend. whoe were more troublesone then they? who began this contention and strife: but they? swear not the jesuits the chief informeres and perswaders of this subordination and that it should be instituted by the Protector and not by his Hol.? you confess somuch yourselves. was not fa: lister, the second cause of all this trouble by writing that book, wherein he would prove them schismatics, for not obeying the Protectors letters? his book is printed verbatim in theirs to the Inquisition, the which you do not answear. were not fa: Garnet and the Archp. mayneteyners and incensors of this trouble, by subscribing and authorizing that book? you confess it by your deep silence in not refuting them when they object it. was not the indiscreat letter and opinion of the Archp. the cause of this last breach, by writing and pronouncing them schismatics for not receiving him vpon the Protectors institution? 
pag. 63. pag. 60.  they put down his epistle in both the latin books, and his decree after their appellation. you slily let all pass without anwer and yet will needs haue us beleeue them, and not you, to be the Authors of all this trouble. You obiectt to them their association, 
pag. 21.  they confess it, and give you the reasons why they made it. you accuse them of the troubles in Wishich Castle, 
pag. 51.  they tell the Pope thereof, and put down the story:( truly or falsely, that is elswhere to be examined.) you accuse them of disobedience to their superiors, the Protector and Archp. they prove and that by 21. reasons al in rowe, that nether of them was their superiors. You are dumb, and answer not any one of those reasons. you accuse them of disobedience, and contemptuous speeches against his Hol. in diuets partes of these notes, you are showed to speak untruly of them. you accuse them, of all the factions and seditions, that haue been betwixt englishmen, in diuers contryes, ever since we haue lived in banishment, and yet somme of them were then unborn, and the greatest part of them, but young stvdients, when those dissensions happened. let any in different reader judge now who haue been these trouble somme fellows, and apt to set debat, and of whom S. Cyprian talketh whether you discontented brethren or those in whose defence you writt this apology?  
You say full well( but you followe it not) That scandal should haue witheld you from writing. for how can it otherwize be, but you must continue and maintain scandal, when you defend these that swear the Authors of this scandal? your brethren swear unjustly accused of schism, rebellion, contention, and sedition, lo, the scandal given, they were forced to defend their name and famed by writing, and to prove they swear not schismatics. you come on their backs with this Apol. do you not maintain the scandal? I ask pardon: in deed you never come near the mark, neither will you make mention of this schism, which yet is the foundation of all this controversy. I grow not what points your reader knoweth al ready, but sure I am, they are not like to grow or perceive any point that is in controversy by this your Apolog. I grow they shalbe choked with the Rom. stirs, G.G. his spieries, Paris factions, Flanders tumults, Fishers examinations Wisbich contentions, praises of somme religious men, detractions of the discontented with heaps and bundles of private mens letters( which you term authentical testimonies) from all coasts, and somme of them( as by reading you may easily conjecture) intercepted, but none of them to the purpose. and at last( to make you merry) with M. Watsons common welth. lo here, the substance of this Apol. this if you knewe not before, you shall now grow& perceive by this Ap. but you shall not grow all. why so? Mary, much is kept for the larger Apol. which shall out as soon as the Informations comme aswell out of our country( to Rome where the penner lieth) as other foreign realms. tis great likelihood, that singular matters will be contained therein. for things far fetched, are dainty.  
You sand out this your Apol. to fore warne and forearme men lest, their books infect the good and trouble the strongest: when they see such enormous matter pass without controlment. transversely for any thing you say in this Apolog. touching the matter in question, the good may continue infected, if to hold and beleeue the Truth be infection, and not onely the strongest, may stand still in his strength: but also the weaklings may be made strong: as I doubt not but many will be, having red these notes: in the which your weakenes and nakedness is laid open to the sight of all that be not wilfully blind. I grow that by enormous matter here you mean, not the question in controversy, but either the undecent speeches they haue uttered against the society, or other particulars in their book. tell them home for it hardly, and take them up bitterly, for they seem to haue deserned it: but do not mock your Reader, and make him beleeue, that under these words, you comprehend the fact and matter between you and your brethren in question. for as I haue often inculcated, you come as near the question as London is to lincoln.  
If this I haue said prove true, then the more grauo and writer sort of readers will consider with themselves, of the iustice of the cause and of your iniquity and unjust proceeding, that make his Hol. and them beleene, you write in defence of the hierarchy, by him instituted: whereas you write onely in defence of somme certain men, defamed, and uncharitably used, by the penner of the Latin book to his Hol. and not one word for the defence of the hierarchy: which you confess yourselves here so apparently, that a very Idiot may perceive it. The principal point( you say) that by answearing you can note to thē is: first the extreme passions of these libelers( note you write against their passions, and not in defence of the hierarchy) in descending to such kind of reuenge, if they had been injuried. against this reuenge then, you reuenge yourselves, and care full little for the matter in question.  
If they had been injuried, quothd you) why, can there be a greater injury offered to catholic Priestes, that employ their travail in an heretical country, with the hazard of their lives, to with draw and reclaim others from heresy and schism, then to be called, counted, published, pronounced, and by written books proved to be schismatics themselves, 
See fa. Listers book.§ 7.  yea to be men worse then wytches soothsayers, pagans, and Idolaters? do you not grow thus much? how can you be ignorant of it? if you grow it, with what brazen face, dare you write to englishmen, and Cath. men, If they had been injuried? where is your conscience? nay where is you charity? are you favourably the names of confessors, or of Priests either, that so impudently in print, and to English catholics, that knewe full well, they were called and counted schismatics, you dare say If they had been injuried? read the grievous punishments enacted against schismatics, set down in fathers Listers book, and you shall see wither they were injuried or no, by being esteemed, held, and called schismatics. You go on: the most bitter and opprobious style of speech this then, and not the matter in controversy hath stirred you up to write, and to reuenge. and these,( as you note in your margin) are the points to be considereed in the libels set forth. Mark( Reader) is it not true I haue oft  told thee, that these united priests, do neither defend, nor touch the matter in controversy, but onely defend the name and estimation of certain persons, bitten with this bitter and opprobious style and speech. I do not find fault with them therefore: but am sorry they abuse his Hol. and you english catholics, in making you beleeue, that this their Apolog. was written, in defence of the Ecclesiastical hierarchy: when it is written in the defence of particular men only, and against contumelious libeling and writing, wherein worthy men are defamed. Not a word of the hierarchy. you should haue showed that the Archp. was subtilely and duly instituied, by a carded. letters, without the Popes bulls. you should haue proved the discontented to haue been schismatics, for withstanding and not receiving the Archp. vpon those letters: you should haue answered the Reasons, they bring in defence of their doings: you should haue controwled them, for denying the Protector or. the Archp. to be their superior you should haue declared, that the Arch. did duly and subtilely, pronounce them schismatics for not receyving him vpon the carded. letters, yea after they had yielded to the Popes bulls: these are the questions in controversy, these are the points which the more grave and writer sort ought to consider of. these are the points to be considered in the libels set forth. but in these points you are so dumb, and fly so willinglie from them, that I am ashamed( for your sakes) of your cowardlines.  
you add: no certain author, &c. of this point I haue talked in these notes, little to your credit.  
I hope and presume with you that every discreet reader will of himself now ponder both your points, and the others that I haue laid down, and thereby judge, how well you defend the matter in controversy in this your Apol. And with all will consider What manner of men these be you write against, and how they haue adventured, backed by the laws, Canons and constitutions of the Church, to with stand justly, subtilely, and in conscience, the intrusion of the Archp. thrust vpon them by a carded. letters, against all draw, iustice, and practise of Gods Church. By this that hath been said, and is hereafter in these notes to be said, the reader shall easily see, who are the authors of so intolerable a scandal in our English Church, and how impudently without all kind of proof or new of proffe, these united Priests would thrust it from the true Authors vpon innocent men.  
your Conclusion then is, that this brief Apol.( being sent out as a cock boat before the great ship your larger Apol.) is wrirtē for the honor of our nation( but to the little honor of the Author) and for somme defence of innocency exceedingly injuried in these writings. so, as I said before, this is not a defence of the hierarchy but of private men, which pretend themselves to be injuried, and so you may haue a confused countenance for promising his Hol: cheese, and give him in stead thereof Chaulke.  
you vaunt, that you haue written this Apol. in a far other style then the Authors of these books haue: let the Reader judge. I beleeue he shall find as bitter a style and as opprobrious speeches in this your Apol. and that worthy men are( if not defamed) yet taunted, as bitterly by name, as thothers are in whose defence they writ.  
But you promiss a larger Apol. which shal be more substantial and authentic. wherefore? because you will haue informations and letters, not onely out of our country, but also from foreign realms. as who should say, that private mens letters, especially of the assistants and of such as are creatures or fautors of the jesuits, are to be accounted, of any grave or wise man, either substantial or authentic, mary, if you bring us the signs and public seals of Princes, or cities, then I will hold with you, and call them anthentick, other wise to think your Reader will take private letters for substantial and authentic matter is to think him to be a very fool and an ass.  
Well, you will get informations, letters, and other writings concerning this affair. which affair I pray you? to defend the institution and subordination of the Archp. made by the carded. letters? there is no need of other writing to prove that, but by the canons, the interpreters, and the gloss. other writings are of no force in this point. or is it to prove your most entirely beloved Brethren to haue been schismatics, for not receiving him? I am sure you can do no more, nor say more in that point, then fa. Lister hath done, or is it to prove that the Archp. received a letter from the mother city by which he was advised to hold them for schismatics after they had obeyed the Popes bull, for with standing the carded. letters? this matter your beloved brethren haue committed to the inquisition to judge and resolve, to whom and not to any private letters, the decision appertaineth. Or to be short, will you bring authentical information to prove that the Protector of Ingland hath power or jurisdiction, vpon Inglishmen, in Ingland or out of Ingland? this in deed were a work worthy such wnited heads. But in truth, this affair, is the defence of the name and credit of somme that haue been uncharitably bitten by your brotherne and nothing else. you haue wearied us already, with your roman stirs, Paris and Flanders factions, Giffords and Gratlies books, fa. Westons praises, Wisbiches troubles, fishers memorial and examinations, Watsons common wealth, and with a great bundle of tedions letters. for the love of God no more. But if you will be doing, touch the points in controversy, twang vpon that string: shoot at the mark, and riun not a roving, as you haue done in this: otherwise you will loose, both your pains, costs, and credit: and of this I warn you as a friend, and as one that wisheth your honor, and your quietness. for if you set down things at length, in your next in that order, and after that fashion you haue done here: certainly, both those that live presently, and the posterity after us, will wonder to see howe God hath blinded you, and left you to your fantasies, and made you to pronounce yourselves, to be the chief disturbers in this cause, to impugn the Canons and constitutions of the Church, and not to decide, but to run quiter from the controversy now in hand. Besides I pronosticate unto you, that if in your next you give not better stays and stops then in this: the diuers good men who urged you to write and at whose request, you haue published this book, if they haue so much wit as goodness in thē: will not onely be sorry to haue requested you to writ so foolishly: but also, will quit you, and pronounce you to haue more care to writ against the intemperat manner of proceeding, of your brethren, then to defend the ecclesiastical hierarchy, instituted by the carded. letters, as in your Epistle you promised his Hol. well, when these informations come from so far contreyes, I doubt not, but they willbe viewed and sifted, as well as these are, that came not so far. and then the Readers will weigh and consider, which side writeth, Without all regard of truth and modesty, and on which side the truth lieth and leanethe.  
In the mean time, till your other be ready to succeed I shall desire the reader to peruse this diligently, and to confer these my notes there with: whereby they shall see, howe you are bound to do that, you wish your brethren here to do, that is, christianly to correct yourselves, confess and satisfy for the faults, you haue committed, in slandering and calumniating them, for such faults( I say) as your own consciences shall accuse you of, and then to amend& correct all the fault I note herein against you. For if it pleased God to give you this spirit of humility, this controversy would quickly be at an end, and all should be in order and quiet again. And as you wish your brethren to do in respect of them, whom they haue injuried or infamed, so do I wish and exhort them to it, as they are bound in conscience to do. and you to do the like again on your part: you( I say) my united brethren, or whosoever( be he Religious or priest) that is Author of this apology. for your so doing, the Angels in heaven will rejoice, all men will be thereof full glad, the common enemy shalbe confounded, the harvest at home, will be better cultiued, Gods glory willbe augmented, love and amity between brethren willbe increased, infinite souls willbe gained, your old glory and renown recovered, and all strifes, troubles, and controversies removed, and forgotten, yea and many a one of you with martyrdoome for this humbleness crwoned, but if you go on as you haue begun, and as you seem to continue, the contrary of all this will happen, to your dishonour and discredit in this world, and to your shane at the dreadful day of judgment. God of his infinite goodness mollify your stony heart, open your eyes, make you yield to the truth, and in the end bring you, your brethren, your Readers, and myself to his eternal bliss. Amen.   

CHAP. I.  
THe first fault I find with you( united brethren) is that by writing of this apology, you blowe( as it were) the trumpet to an new onsett, as men desirous to continewe in wrangling and dissension still, and provoking your discontented brethrene to break their silence, for their own defence: by which doing you haue not only broken charity( which in such a nombre as you be, should more abound, then in a lesser number, not so well united as you are) but also highly disobaied his holiness commandement( which disobedience you oft object in this your apology, to your brethrene) who in his last bull sent into Ingland for the pacification of these contentions, forbade all books written on both sides, to be red of any with in Ingland, or others to be written, under pain of excommunication. If you( united brethren) be herein obedient childrene? let all men that haue either seen or heard thereof, be Iudges.  
Besides that, you might very well haue spared his labour, for you do nothing in all this your book, but rove up and down with by and impertinent matters, never touching or coming near the prick: filling up your book now with old quarrels, appertaining neither to the matter you writ of nor to the men you write against: then, with letters, examinations, and other trifles( as those of M. watsons devises) not worth the labour( certz) of such men as you are, and much less worthe the reading of any wise, grave or learned reader as in place shalbe noted.  
The second fault I find, is with the title or inscription of your first chapter( imitating herein yourselves, who find fault with the title of the latin book, but how justly, shal be showed in his place) which you haue put down in general terms and yet in dead do prove nothing at all of that which you pretend. So as it may well be said of this title, as our Lawiers often times say of our Rubrickes, viz, that Rubrica est generalior nigro, the rubric( or title) is more general and ample then the text. yond say: The emulation of secular pristes against religious: both these word secular pristes and Religious being put down indefinitely, that is generally, for in draw Indesinitum aequiparatur vniuersali. An indefinite proposition, is equal to a universal proposition. So that you say thus,( if you say any thing) The emulation of all secular priestes against all sorts of religious men, hath brought great hurt to Ingland. And all your profess yet are but of some secular priestes, against other secular priests and religious. And when you haue all done, and come to the point of this controversy, you grant it is the emulation of 13. priestes,( brought afterwards to 7.) against their fellow priestes, and one jesuit. and elsewhere you confess again, that this emulation is but of somme few secular priestes against the fathers.  
By this generality of speech then, you do not only accuse yourselves,( for you are also secular priests but do also draw me and others with in the compass of this emulation, who were never of the one nor of th' other faction, but haue hitherto and so will still keep ourselves indifferent and free, from passion or affection to either side, in this so pitiful and slanderous dissension.  
Now as touching Religious. all this emulation is but against one order of Religious viz: the fathers of the Society, as you confess throughout the whole book, and so it must needs be, because there are not many in Ingland of any other order. Thus then you should haue entitled your chapter: what great hurt hath come to Jngland by emulation of the levy against the clergy, and of a few secular Priestes against other secular Priestes, and the Religious of the society of Ihesus. For other emulation then this, your do not prove, either in this chapter, or in the whole book itself: I fear much that the united Priestes, are not the Authors of this book, for that I cannot judge so hardly of them, that to extol, praise, and defend the society and some certain persons of the same, they would so far forget themselves, as to accuse men of their own coat and order, of so hainons a crime, as not only in our daies, but from the beginning of christianity in our country, the emulation of secular Priestes against Religious should bring great hurts to our Nation: Out vpon such base Priestes, as so unjustly and uncharitably, accuse themselves and theirs, to please others, out vpon such unnatural birds, that defile their own nests, by slandering their own vocation in words without any profs, as anon shal be shewed.  
In an other place, to a base and bring in to contempt, your own order and vocation, you say: That the greater parte of you were serving men, souldiers and wandrers. but to be plain with you, I do not think that any secular Priestes would be so injurious and ungrateful to this order and vocation. And therfore I think some religious man hath borrowed your names, the better thereby to extol his religion, and companions, and to abase and bring into contempt, both with laity and clergy, the state of secular Priestes: to th'end he may so revenge himself, of some of them his aduersaries, and so for the fault of afewto offer injury to the rest. This is no no veltie for the report goeth of a religious man, that borrowed M. Dolmans name,( a secular priest in a book dedicated to the earl of Essex, when he was in his ruff: the which trick, as it brought that Priest, into some danger then, so this toy is like to bring you( the united Priestes) into disfavour, mislick and discredit, with all well meaning and vnpassionated men, both Priestes and lay: to see you so far from all love and charity towards your brethren, that you are made not only, instruments to vex and discredit them, but also Authors, to renew, and proclaim the war a freash against them, with fire and sword, which will fall out but little to your own credit.  
If you do justly mislike the discontented brethren, for touching the whole body of the jesuits, you haue to pardon me, if I mislike with you in touching so generally, the body of the secular Priestes, where of I am a member. But let us see first wherein the secular Priestes haue emulated the Religious with so great hurt to Ingland? Sure it must be that they envied them, for their lands and livings, for their jurisdiction and authority, or for their lives and behaviours. Now touching the first two, it is well known our secular clergy in Ingland, to haue had such honourable means to live, as they had little cause to envy the religious herein. besides who knoweth not the authority, and jurisdiction of secular Pristes, to haue been far greater, then that of any religions order: yea to haue extended itself, over the Religious themselves. And as for the last point, the Priestes are so far( especially in this age) from envying the lives and manners of the society in special, that I am assured, and all men will confess, more secular Priestes to haue entred, and daily do enter, into the society alone, then into all the other orders of Religion, put them all together. If you know any other cause why the Priestes should envy them, let me understand it, for my learning in your larger Appologie, for sure Iam that in this apology you haue not as yet proved, that the secular Priestes haue emulated the Religious, either in any of the foresaid 3. pointtes, or in any other point else what so ever. Now to your examples.  
The first is of john of gaunt, which proveth only this, that there was( for that Prince his sake) Emulation of some secular Priestes, against the 2. bishops there name, and the rest of the secular Priestes, and Religious, that took their parte as it is now between some secular Priests and the Archpriest, which the rest of the Priestes and Iesuites that hold with him. Doth this prove the emulation of the secular Priests in general against the Religious in general? and yet very likely it is, that the kniges uncle duke of Lancaster had both Abbots, Priors, monks and friers, that took his parte, as well Bishops as secular Priestes, and so was it emulation of Religious and secular Priestes against Religious and secular Priestes, which proveth not your intention. You, yourselves also do in that place, restrain the word Religious, to such religious men, as had possessions: excluding the 4. orders of sriers, which yet are contained under the generality of the word Religious in the title of your chapter.  
You seem elswhere to contradicte yourselves herein, 
Fol. 15. b.  saying: That some of the clergy banded themselves against the rest with John of gaunt to set up Wicliff. there you say, that the statute of praemunire, was begun to be treated of, about the time that Wicliff arose, when emulation was in heat against the clergy. If against the clergy, then this emulation, was of the levy against the whole clergy, secular and regular. How can it stand, that in Wichffes time emulation was whott against the whole clergy, and that some of the clergy emulated the rest of the clergy? these two cannot well stand together.  
In the next example you bring in 3. kings, like Mummers, for they say nothing: neither do you there prove any thing but in the margin, you note a malicious suggestion. of whom, I pray you? you name no man, and yet would you haue your reader to understand it, of the secular Priestes, against religious: and that the secular Priestes did suggest these kings to take away the abbey lands. for if you mean not so? then the example is to no purpose to prove the hurt that hath come by emulation, of secular Priestes, against Religious. If you mean so? then turn your note in the margin vpon your own malicious heads, in so maliciously slandering men of your own coat, without desert of their part, and without proof of yours. For who knoweth not, that if the secular clergy would haue yielded, or agreed to suppress Abbeies, then especially. when heat of emulation was great, against the whole clergy,( as you say:) but that all had been lost, both houses and lands. No, no, the secular clergy was so far from joining which the envions levy in that issue, that their constant withstanding and charitable cleaving to the Religious at that time, conserved both their lands and possessions.  
From those 3. kings, your make a great step down to Henry the 8. god be blessed, that our secular Priestes, for 200. yeres almost, bare no emulation against the Religious. but lived in love and charity together, till this kings latter daies, when all the Religious swear turned out of their houses, and their lands taken from them. But happened this( I pray you) thronghe the emulation, that was between the secular Priestes and the Religious? Put your hands to your consciences, were the secular clergy the doers and sticklers herein? If you say, they gave their consent in the parliament, I grant. But not for any emulation, they had against the Religious. Was it not for frailty and fear? 
Fol. 15.  or was it not( as you say well elswheare of the bringing in of the statute of praemunire) for that our Catho. bishops and Prelatz did not willinghy consent, but sore against their wills, was it passed in the Parlement, by the stream of temporal power and emulation against them. Why may not our prelates of king Heury the eights time, be as well excused for consenting, to the supperssing of Religious houses, as the prelates of an other king, for consenting to the statute of praemunire? who is so blind as to think, that the united Priestes, are the Authors of this book? or they ther would be so shameless, as to accuse men of their own coat, the whole clergy of Ingland, in kindge Henry the eighths time, by emulation and malice which they bore to the Religious, to haue consented to their destruction, and to the euersion of their howses and Cloisters? transversely, if this were true, you said some what. For this emulation in dead brought, unspeakable hurt and damage, to our poor country of Ingland. I guess therefore( as I said before,) that some other hath borrowed your names, to make emulation amongst you secular Pristes yourselves. If I guess amiss? I ask perdon. seeing it is lawful for every man( as you know,) to defend his order, vocation, name and estimation, so it be not done which contempt, disgracing or dishonoringe, of any others order or vocation.  
The 4. example which you bring, to prove the fore said emulation, is of Q. Maries time which seemeth very strange to me. For both at her coming to the crown, and during the time of her reign, there were but few Religious men( God knoweth) specially of such as had possessions, to be emulated or envied: a few Benedictines in Westminster abbey, and a few Carthusicas onely excepted. How lykly is it then,( I pray you) that the emulation of the secular Priestes against the Religious in Q. Maries time, bronght great hurt to Ingland? But you seem so deeply plunged in this emulation yourselves, that you date against the known truth say: that the fore said emulation hindered much in her time the reconciliation, tendency no perfect reformation could be made, nor such restitution of Religious orders, as in iustice should haue been, and as the good Q. Her self desired. And here you cannot cover yourselves under the cloak of the Layetie, saying you mean here of the emulation of the Layetie against the whole clergy: because you say: by the same emulation, that was in John of Gants time, for you repeat in all your examples, that do follow that of Iohu of gaunt, by the same emulatiou, that is: of secular Priestes against Religious. But each one of my age, or elder, that saw the beginning and end, of that virtuous princess her reign, can controwle you in this point, and tell you: there was no such emulation at all. every man desiring, the perfect reformation of Religion, and entire restitution, of religious orders and howses: and the cause, why neither the one, nor tother was performed, was not( as it pleaseth you to say,) the emulation of secular Pristes against religious, but rather the shortness of her reign, with the difficulty to get the abbey lands, out of the possession, of the nobility, and Gentlemen, who kept them, as hitherto most unjustly they do.  
You are wellcome at last, to her Majesties reign, without any good or worshipful proof, of your former proposition:( which the Reader must haue in mind) that the emulation( forsooth) of secular Priestes against Religious hath brought great hurt to Ingland. Now you are come to the last cast, I hope you will say some thing. Truly as much as you did before, which is just nothing. You say: There was small union of diuers clergy men amongst themselves. What is this to the purpose? The emulation or small union and affection was between secular Priestes, and not against the Religious. And so you are well come home, having made a long Iurney of 200. yeres, and brought us home nothing: you haue fairly fished, to catth a frogg. If all were true you say, in the disgrace of our constant clergy,( which you shall never be able to prove,) and if diuers clergy men, holding with heretics and politics, gave occasion of the total ouerthrow of Religion in Ingland, yet doth it not prove, your pretended purpose. For that was the emulation of secular Priestes, against secular Pristes, except you take the worde clergy men in general, 
Can dno. 12. q. 1.  as it doth comprehend under it, both secular Priestes, and Religious men: then as well Religious, as secular Priestes, did hold with heretics and politics, to the total ouerthrow of Religion. And so in this case it was emulation between the secular Priestes and Religious, against secular Priests and Religious, and so without the compass of your proposition. Suppose I say,( for we must be Pythagorians, to beleeue what soever you say vpon your words, ( quia ipse dixit) that some clergy man, followes the time, and holds with the heretics, in heat of faction: will you therefore, in heat of detraction conclude there vpon, that in the beginning of her Maiestates reign, the emulation of secular Priests against Religious, hath brought great hurt to Ingland? You might haue spared this pain, with ink and papier.  
The 3. 
Fol. 2. a.  fault. That the true opinion, of not going to heretical service, was taught then, by Priestes and Religious men, from beyond the Seas. I perceive that this Religious, the Author of this book, would willingly haue his parte, with secular Priestes, when they do any thing praise favourably. But I tell you( my united brethren,) you might haue put up the worde Religious, in your purse. For the best opinion, was known, taught and folowed, many a year, before the jesuits( whom you mean) came or wrote into Ingland. It came from beyond the seas I confess, but yet out of a secular Priestes shop, Doctor Sanders having written a book in Englishe of Images, made a long preface to it, wherein he admonished, and exhorted all such as were Catholiks in hart and mind, to shun and avoid, all Communication with heretics, in their service. The which book made many to abstain, from their conventicles, and amongst the rest,( I give God hearty thanks therefore) I myself was one, and therfore can best tell, which way and from whom it came, that I forsook the heretical church, which is now 37. or 38. yeres past: at what time, the name of the society, was scarcely hard of in Oxford, I am assured. I speak not this to detract any thing, from the virtuous, painful and profitable labours and travels, which the fathers of the society haue taken, in manuring the afflicted viniard of or Conutrey, but to give every man his due praise:  
The second praise, of planting and teaching this better opinion, belongeth as well to many ancicient Priestes, of Q. Maries daies, that stood firm and stable in their faith, and drewe daily some out of the mire of schism, by their preaching and teaching, whereof I myself am a wittnes, having known many that were reconciled by them, many a year, before any Religious, either from beyond the seas, or at home, taught this doctrine. And as for our Seminarie Priestes also who entred some yeres before the fathers, there were( when they cam in) above an hundred, which had travailed in this point to with draw men from communicating with heretics, And God so blessed their travaills, that the fathers found the harvest well advanced, before their arrival, to their great ioy and consolation, as I can best testify, who went into Ingland with them. besides diuers of our Seminarie Priestes, had suffered glorious martyrdom, for teaching and preaching this doctrine, before any Religious writt thereof, or came into Ingland, as M. cuthbert main bachelor of divinity, and the first Martyr of the Seminaries, M. John Nelson and M. Everand Hanse. What meand you then( you united Priestes,) to take away the praise from yourselves, and to give or divide that which is due to your coat only, to others, or with others that haue no part therein? There was, as I said before,( as by the register thereof whennead shall require, I can new) above a hundred Seminarie Priestes in Ingland, that taught this perfect doctrine, some yeres before any religious man, put his foot into Ingland. If you knew not thus much before, learn it now. But let us put the case, that the foresaid true doctrine, of not going to heretical service was taught by Religious men from beyond the seas, will you therfore conclude that the emulation of Secular Priestes against Religious, hath brought great hurt to Ingland? This you must prove, or deceive your Reader. For the title of the chapter importeth so much. In your next edition, or in your larger Appologie, which you promis, put out hardly, or else correct, this brag of Religious men teaching, from beyond the seas, the perfect doctrine, of not going to heretical churches, because they came too late, to haue that glory, which is only due to Secular Priestes: albeit you united Priestes, do seem both wrongfully and unjustly, to give it to others. such honor bear you to Religious, that you will for their sakes, dishonour both yourselves and your brethren.  
At last we are come, from John of gaunt, to wisbich castle, where you say, was emulation of secular Priestes against Iesuites. ergo your haue proved that which you took in hand to prove. Nothing less. because that emulation( as you confess) was but of some few against one jesuit and 19. other secular Priestes, and so proveth it not that which you pretend. You say, those few Priestes were the cause of that contention. They say: fa: Edmonds and his adherents were the cause. so that Lis est adhuc coram judice, to be decided and resolved not by these apologies, but by our Superiors authority. I pray God it may be so done with charity.  
But for better proof of this emulation you all eadge the first contention, of the Englishe roman college, then G. G. and G. writtinge against D. Allen and fa. Parsons, which appertain nothing at all, to this contention between the discontented brethren, and the Archpriest and jesuits. This contention being grownded vpon two other matters. thone for not receiving the Archpriest, vpon the carded. Protectors letters, for the which fa: Lister proved them schismatics. tother, for that after the coming of his Holl. breue, and their submission, the Archpriest then, would not admit them to be absolved, of any Confessor, except they confessed their schism, and abjured it. This is the state of the controversy, in question between you, and your discontented brethren. This is the cause of their writting, both in Latin and English, in their own defence. But this you winck at, and will not see, yet this you must prove, not to be the state of the question, and cause of this contention, or else you must ask them forgiveness, for so slanderous, and scandalous injuries done to them. freeze questions you touch not: but with toys and trifles, fill up your book and cast dust( as it were) in your readers eyes, to blind, or at the least wise to hinder them, from viewing the question, and controversy it self.  
For example what do the troubles in Rome in the year 1578. or the death of Vanne the spy 1581. or the division that fill amongst Englishmen in Paris 1580. or all ther memorials made against the Seminarie,( if any such were) 1583. and 84. or B. Sega his visitation 1585. or G.G. and E. G. writing againsts D. Allen and fa? Parsons 1587. or all the factions that were made against D. Allen: or M. Watsons common wealth, appartaine to this controversy? What doth all this stuff( I say) appartaine to the stirs begun in Wisbiche 1595. and the contentions which since hath folowed? were your discontented brethren, either Actors, Abettors, Doers or sticklers in all freeze Tragedies? Had they their hands or pens therein? Nothing less. You might as well accuse them, of all the contentions and quarrels that hath happened between the Englishs, since Noes flood, as with these. Many of them to my adjudge, being but young youths in those daies. To what purpose then is this unprofitable and vnsaverie rehearsal, ripping up and reviving, of the faults and follies of many yet living, who peradventure are sorry for the same? Is this charity? cometh this from a peaceable, or a contentious spirit? to revive old soars quiter forgotten, and butted many yeares since in deep oblivion? and that to no purpose at all? Doth it prove the great hurt, which the emulation of secular Priestes, against the Religious, hath brought to Ingland? as just in soothe as germans lips, that stood 9. miles a sunder: even so these actions stand at least 10. or 11. yeares one from an other.  
The ripping up of the Actions of those 2. Priestes of the roman college G. G. and E.G. the willing discovery of their filthiness after 20. yeres almost, makes me believe, that the Author of this book, is not you( united Priests,) who for shane would not, nor without your own dishonour could not, rip up the rotten naughtiness of men of your own coat, thone( as I haue been advertised, by a good father his Confessor) dying very sorry and penitent, for his sins& offenes: tother yet living, and of ability and learning, to set vpon you, and to refute you, of many things, unduly set down in this your Apologīe. And yet all that you haue said of theirs and other mens frailties, maketh nothing to the matter now in question, as I haue noted before. I pray God, some Religious person then offended, hath not kept this vpon his stomach, till time hath served him, to vomitt it out, to the disgracing of secular Priestes. If it be so, God forgive him, and sand him grace, not by such undecent means, either to divert others, from esteaming of secular Priestes, or to make secular Priestes, to less esteame him and his compaignons, as he geveth them just occasion: seeing he seeketh every cornere and hole, & omnem movet lapidem, to disgrace them, with the faults and follies of some one or two, deserving reprehension.  
And because you make mention, of some former troubles happened in the college of Rome, I will for the readers better instruction set down in order, the five several troubles, that haue fallen out in that vnfortunat colleague, with in the space of 20. yeres. since the foundation thereof which was in the year 1578.  
This colleag had been an hospital, to receive English pilgrims at their coming to Rome, and there were some 8. priests in it, under a head: the which hospital, by the procurement and industry of D. Lewes, afterwards B. of Cassano,( as they confess) was erected by Pope gregory the 13. into a, College: the 8. priestes by violence( almost) put out, because they would not obey to the Popes commandement. Schollers were sent from rheims to supply their places, and one of the said priestes M. Do: morris Clenock a welshman, being Do. Lewes friend, was made Rector there. Into this college were received as well welsh as english, as to this day they are indiflerently received. There were not then many welsh men, but some 32. english schollers. Their first complaint was, that the welshmen were better clothed, and better looked unto, thē they were, and that the Rector was partial, in so much that there grew great strife, and dangerous quarrels In the end the Protector( who was then carded. Morono, a great friend and upholder of D, morris: and it may be M. Do. Lewes for friendship and country sake, might also back him) expelled the 32. English schollers vpon a Shrouetewsday: whiles this stir was amongst them, th'english for the causes you mention, and with great zeal desired to be governed by the Fathers of the society. Being thus expelled the next day being Ashwensday, they dispersed themselves in diverse Churches, requesting the preachers to recommend their case and poverty, to get them some money, for they had determined to return altogether in Procession( as it were) and with a cross before them to rheims or Ingland. In the mean while his Holl. was informed of all by Father Parsons, and Fa. Alfonso, who gathering such of the schollers together as he could meet withall, and bringing them to the Pope, there was old weeping and crying on both sides. The good old ffa. Weept, as one loathe to loose so many zealous and to Wardly children, and they on tother side cried for sorrowe, that they should be constraind against their willes to leave and forsake so loving a father. But after they had wiped their eyes, the Pope sent thē with one of his chamber in their compaine, to command the Rector to receive them again: and at their return, they took 2. others into the college with them, who afterward proved naughty fellows called Nowell and Moonday. Not long after, they had their desire: for the government of the college was given to the Fathers, to the schollers great contentement and good of our country, and so ended this first stir and dissension.  
The second, happened the next year 1579. which was rather a certain murmur then dissension: the which if by ffa. Parsons wisdom and industry it had not been prevented, would in time haue growne to an open sedition. The cause was this. Our schollers having obtained their desire and falling to their studies used very zealously all the godly exercises of mortification, in such sort, as some one or twoe of them became so contemplative that they would needs be jesuits. Which vyhen their companions understood, they began to mislike of those spirits, alleging that the college was founded for the education of virtuous and learned priestes to help their country, and not to bring up men to enter into Religion, and leave the harvest at home. Where upon fa. Parsons procured D. Allens coming up to Rome, who obtained of the Pope, to command the general of the jesuits to sand of his Religious into Ingland. the which appeased all this murmur. For( quoth the Schollers) let as many now enter into the society as will, for when they haue been sufficiently brought up therein, they shalbe sent into Ingland. And thus each party was pleased. The fathers, for that they might receive of the schollers into their society, without grudge or mislike: and the schollers, by cause such as entred, most of all( if not all) should be in time employed for their country. And so the 2. schollers that first entred into the society of that college were M. Wright a constant Confessor now in Ingland and John Barton, who after fell from them and looked back to the world again, as I am credibly informed.  
The 3. was that, wherein M. Doctor Bagshawe and M. D. Stafferton( dead long since) M. Warford( now a jesuit) and diuers others had their parte. I haue heard, they would haue had the government of the College given to the Dominican friers, or to haue it governed by English secular priestes. In th'end it fell out that good fa. Alfonfo was displaced and an other put in his place.  
Not many yeres after fell out another controversy between the schollers and father Creswell then Rector, D. Allen being then carded. and a spectator. I know not well what the cause was. but this I am sure that a virtuous priest now a holy Martyr in heaven name M. John Ingram, was not over well used. This stir in the end procured father Creswells removing from thence to spain.  
The last stir which was the whottest endured longest and vexed most the fathers. It began( as you say) after carded. Allens death about the year 1594. vpon this occasion, as you afterward insinuat, and the Actors confess: father Harwood the minister finding 2. youths clapping themselves on the breeches, or rather one for some revenge ierking his fellowe on the buttock with a rod, before he was out of his bed, had some suspicion of worser behaviour and should( as I haue heard) say, he found thē at buggery, which when the rest understood, it did gtieue them full sore, that the fathers( and specially Inglishe fathers) should suspect any of our nation with that abominable sin, and calling to mind some of the fathers former actions tending to this suspicion, as cutting the privy doors beneath shorter by half a foot, to see if there were any more then twoe feet at once at one privy, and cutting down a fair grove in the vineyard, because they used on their daies of recreation, to skulk there by two and two. They fell first into such a hatred of the said fa. Harwood, that they made a supplication to his Holl: desiring him to sand the said fa. to the Gallies, for dishonoringe and discrediting the college, themselves, and their nation, with such a calumnious report. Vpon this they fell every day more, and more, into mislike with the fathers, and into this last sedition. Whither the schollers had cause to be offended, and to complain, I leave it to the iudgment of others. Thus much touching these troubles, wherein if I haue misreported any thing, I desire to be better informed, for I tell it, as I haue heard it of others, according as you tell your tales also by hearsay. My meaning herein not being to defend the schollers, or discredit their Superiors, but to tell the truth only,  
If any do muse at these frequent seditions, and would know the causes thereof, albeit my opinion is, but one doctors opinion: yet such as it is, I will communicat it to you, having duly marked the causes myself, and having heard other mens judgement also therein, That which I will say now, I sent once to father Creswell then Rector vpon an occasion which were to long here to set down, and nothing to the purpose. After I had called to his mind the contentions, which had often before that time happened in the college, and recounted the number of Spies, and revolters, from the faith which had been members of the same college, and that till that time, there had never happened any one sedition in the Seminaries of dovay or rheims, nor any knowen or notorious spy, gone out of them, one Banes( a revolted priest, which yet was apprehended and imprisoned) only excepted: I  told him that I thought the causes of those seditions in Rome, swear one of these that followe. Either the air did infect them, or else our country men were of a lewde and seditions nature, or other wise that the government of that college, was not convenient for our English natures. If the first should be the cause, then there was no other remedy, but to transport the college into a better air. For the second, I could not so hardly judge of my country men, especially having seen them allwaies in rheims, to be both virtuous and obedient youths: and to the third, I neithet would nor durst attribute it to the fathers. F. general and provincial, the Rectors, superiors being so near, and having so vigilant an eye on the government. What shall we thē do now quoth I? Mary, father, change the government for a time, to see if they will do better, and live more quietly. And if they do not, then the world must neads attribute it, to our ewill and seditious natures. until then we must suspend our iudgment. this was the effect of my letter. for the which he courteously thancked me, and said he would communicat my reasons with his superiors.  
But seeing I am on this point, I will boldly set down what I haue all ways thought in that government, to be not convenient to out English nature, but is rather the cause both of rancour and division amongst the schollers, and of the dislike and discontentment of the government and governors.  
I was pensioner in D. Allens company in in that colleague 4. months and more, and then I marked and understood the mislike of this government, by those that had been most desirous of the fathers government, I mean M. Sherwin, M. Array, M. Haddock M. Rishton, and others my familiares then in the colleague. The first is, their open penances done in the hall, and their dicitur culpa. which is as far from all good orderly discipline, that when a man doth it at the first, he is so far ordinarily from amendment, that in his hart he doth grudge, and repined at his superiors, for the giving of it. But when he is used 3. or 4. times to do it, then he maketh a very scoff and mocking or may game of it: so far it is from a true penance, at is engendereth( as I said) both hatred and mockery. If you say it is not the superiors fault. I say it is, if he knoweth it will bring forth no other effects and yet will use it.  
The second is their Spies, which the Rectors haue always in store, which by an honester name are called Angeli custodes.  
these spies at recreation time, and in other places, speak liberally against their superiors, of their government and usage towards them, of their apparel, meate and drink, and against the strait keaping of them in, and against what soever they think is not well done in the colleadge. And all this to sound their compaignons. Now if one or two hap to discourse, as he doth against the Superior: freeze spies carry the wholly discourse strait to the Rector. After a few daies the other are called Coram nobis, and are either punished or rigorously reprehended for the same. freeze good fellows afterward recall to mind, before whom, and in whose presence and what company, they spake such things, and having discovered this good fellow, they from that day forewards, hate him as a spy and traitor. If this be a charitable way of government judge you, and whither this be true, and practised continually or no, I refer it to the conscience of as many of you( united brethrene) as haue been brought up in that Seminarie, and to the knowledge of all others, that haue been brought op therein, yea to those themselves that haue been these good Angells. Nothing so contrary to an englishmans nature, as to be betrayed by him whom he trusteth. If such spies were in Oxford( whose colleges haue as good statute and ordonances for bringing up of youths, if they were put in practise( no displeasure to the Fathers) as they haue or can devise) if such spies I say wear in our colleages of Oxford, they would be plucked in pieces.  
The 3. cause of discontentment, mother of sedition, is when such schollers as haue wholly addicted themselves to priesthood to serve their country, see others which intend to be of the society, to be more favoured, more cherished and more often in Fa. Ministers chamber at collations, haue more free access to the Rector, and to be better countenanced then they: this affection which the Fathers bear to such, can neither be wisely hid of th'one, nor well digested of th'other.  
The 4. and which aggravated the contention in Fathers Creswels time, and was the occasion of these last and greatest troubles, as you seem to confess afterwards, is: that the Rectors and Ministers are over much suspicious of our English youths thinking them to be given to that sin, which is not to be name. thereof came the cutting down of a faire grove which was in their vineyard wherein they used sometimes to walk for their recreation, two and two or more together. Which doings did wonderfully animate the schollers against their superiors, as I understood by a virtuous priest, who since by martyrdom is no doubt a blessed saint in heaven.  
The cause, ground and beginning also of these last troubles came they not of that which Father Harwood said( albeit after, he swore the contrary:) that the found two, of those libertine lads committing that abominable sin? the man you note in the margin and your fellowe priestes now in Ingland say so, and you yourselves understand so much by your Somme things much amiss. If it be true that Father Harwood affirmed so much as in the 43. leaf you insinuate: their dissolution in corners to haue been so secret a sin, that he could never be brought to utter it for the saving their honors and the nations, till( forsooth) he was commanded by obedience a little before his death. that he might dy, belike, with that glory, to haue infamed the students. Had not those northern and southren lads good cause, think you to defend their honors and the honor of their country? Had they not just cause to require the Pope( as they did by supplication) to sand Fa. Harw. to the Gallies, for defamyng both the colleague and nation? Whither it swear true or false god knoweth, neither will nor can I decide it: yet was this Father much more to be commended, then a nother Father, who in reuenge of the factious schollers, without respect of their honor or of the honor of our nation, or of his own conscience, letted not to sand about the world general articles against all the schollers and priestes of that faction, the which contained more grievous and abhominablē sins then Father Harwood discovered. Of this occasion then began all that fowle stir which as the disconted brethren say, had like to haue undone and ruynated that college.  
The 5. is, that the Rectors( yea our English Rectors) in the roman college haue no respect of such Graduates as are made in our universities in Ingland, but will make more of a boy, and give him better countenance, and place him higher at the table, then to a Baccheler or a M. of arte, which cannot be but a great corisiue to such graduates a great fault and in government especially of English Fa. who either do or should grow, what esteem leatning and degrees taken in schools( albe it many in dead are vnworthie of them) are in Ingland: and how an unlearned man having a degree, is of greater respect and credite then a more learned then he having no degree. This is the good custom of our country that carrieth such respect and honor to the degree, albeit the Graduat be not favourably therof, because all men presume he hath the learning requisite to the degree. But the Fathers, whither it be under the colour of making them humble, or for somme other cause best known to themselves, do give very little, or no credit or countenance at all to Graduates. And a nother thing) which hath been noted of somme men) they never sent any from that college into Ingland with any degree of schools on their backs 2. only excepted, 
D. Barrett. D. Stillinghton.  who being specially favoured and loved of Father Alfonso were made Doctors in Rome before their mission, yet neither of them went into Ingland, but were both stayed at rheims.  
You go about afterwards to defend the Fathers from this calumniation( as you term it) how I pray you? 
Fol. 92.93.  Mary they haue received many Graduates into the society. What is this to the complaint of not respecting graduates in the Seminarie? yes( say you) for many Graduates haue lived in the Seminarie with them much esteamed and honoured by the jesuits. You name 4. and yet 3. of them vpon my knowledge, were favoured as the first Authors and bringers in of the Fathers to that government, and honoured not for their degrees, but as Priestes, and as Priestes they sate at a higher and more honourable table then the rest. But if rheise 4. haue been respected, how many others haue been neglected? You confess in the same place, that they are greatly made of by the Fathers, if their vettue answer to their degree. Who seeth not, that you confess, they are not respected for their degree, but for their virtue only? Put case he be not so virtuous as his superior would haue him, shall he thereby loose the respect that is due to his degree? There are punishments for his fault, his degree still respected. But with the Fathers who you say, are men of order, in this case of degrees, is kept little order.  
To the man you note in the margin( who complained of the disgrace of degrees) when he was sent from rheims to Rome, I said thus to him. Master Bagshawe your are going to Rome and in your company such and such( naming 2. poor schollers that served him and the rest at the table) when you come there, you shall see these boys( your seruants here) as well clothed, lodged and served there as yourself, peradventure more in favor, and better liked of the superior then you, and to sit higher at the table them you, can you abide this? think on it, for so it will happen, as it did in dead. Which made him, Maester Stafferton, Warfotd( now a Iesuite) Fixer, D. Cicill and others having been all graduates of and good account in Oxford to dislike and storm at it, as many others haue done since, and still will do, till Graduate, be better respected. If one poor Doct. iudgment might be heard and allowed, I think verily, if those fore said impediments wear taken away, the Fathers and our yonthes would live lovingly,& in peace together. But if this be not remedied then I say( though I be no Prophet, yet bear I a Prophets name) that these discontentments may well for a time lie smothering in their breasts: but one day, do the Fathers what they can, they will flush out into flames of dissension as th'others haue done before. It is natural to that college the foresaid impedimente not removed, but remaining in their force.  
And to augment mens suspicious and surmises of the small account the Fathers make of degrees and graduates, they haue obtained a strange and exttaordinary Bull to the discredirt and dishonour of our whole nation, to stop all English students in their banishment from the degree of Doctorshipp either in divinity or lawe, I wonder they put not in physic also,( Doctor Norden, a Doctor of physic being so great an enemy to them as you the united brethren do show in this your apology) and by consequence to stop them from all preferment and promotions in strange countries in this time of their banishments. I may well call it strange, because all strangers do wonder strangely at it. And I may well term it extraordinary, for that since saint Peter sate in the Sea of Rome, and that universities haue been erected, there was never such a Bull sent out into the world. The Sea of Rome hath ever been so favourable to learning& degrees, that it hath instituted and confirmed many universities, hath given authority to certain, to give degrees and make Doctors. Yea Canons that are bound to residence, Quia datur beneficium propter officium, And to serve in the Church Yet in favor of learning may be sent to the universities to study, and there to receive their fruits till they haue taken their degree. But alas? our poor Englishmen are not sufficiently afflicted with banishment from our country and parents, but more affliction must be put vpon their shoulders, and as it wear segregated from all other nations, and bound to be men unworthy and uncapable of Doctorshipp and that by the highest judge, and Tribunal on earth. And why? for soothe because our young Doctors must not sit above( I will not say jesuits, but) other graver and elder Priests. For this cause the Pope hath annulled and abbreged the Ptiuilegs of all universities in respect of us poor souls. This is a point of Mortification in dead, but let us here the Bull, which in effect saith thus. Our will and pleasure is, that none of th'english nation hear after so long as heretics prevail in Ingland, &c. do take degree of Doctor in divinity or in one of the laws, unless they haue studied 4. yeres in the same science or profession. Those ended, to study 4. yeres more to make him prompt and solid, and to become more mature grave and learned: Nor then neither shall he proceed, without the consent and approbation of the Superior of the College or Seminary wherein he hath studied or been brought up, nor without the approbation of the Protector of the Nation or his vicegerent in those partes where those Englishmen would be promoted, &c. Who soever then shall take the degree of Doctor in any place or country with in the time and yeres above prescribed, or without the leave of his Superior, Protector or his vicegereut, we pronownce the degree to be none, nor such a one to be called a Doctor. And besides this he shall incur the sentence of excommunication, the absolution there from we specially reserve to ourselves and to the Sea apostolic, &c. And we will this to be in force, not with standing any apostolic decree what soever, or any statute, custom or previledgs of universities given them by the apostolic Bulls, &c.  
The reason of this Bull is, least young men be made Doctors and by that means the degree come into contempt in Ingland viz: So great care had these informers of preserving the respect of degrees in our country: for in all other nations in the world, young men may be made Doctors this reason not withstanding. An other reason is, least by this doctorshipp, they should go or sit before ancient Priestes and learneder, then they are. And this last reason seemeth to be the chiefest motive why, this Bull was procured, and yet not with standing this Bull, a young man may march and sit before an elder and graver Priest. For example. If a young man be a bachelor or Licentiat either in divinity or lawe( which is nothing else with us, but an Inceptor Doctor) would not an elder and graver Priest think you, give him place in respect of his degree? Noe doubt he would. Then what haue you gotten by your Bull? You must get out an other, if you will stop them from Bachelorshipp or Licentiatship, or else those that tak such degrees will sit above you, be you jesuit or united priest not graduated. Be of good cheer all you that haue not studied in the Seminaries, for this Bull toucheth you not. Next note that it saieth in altero juris, that is, in one of the laws, as if it would say. No man can proceed Doctor in the Civill lawe alone, or in the Canon lawe alone, without the foresaid conditions. But vpon my words you may procead in both laws without incurring the penalties of the Bull, because it is a penal Constitution and therfore to be restrained to his case, which is in altero jure in one of the laws, and not to be extended ad Doctoratum in utroque jure to Doctorshipp in both laws, for the rule is. Odia restringi& fauores convenit ampliari.  
besides, if I should say the bull to be of no force because it may easily be proved to be Surreptice, as also it was not promulgated publicly, and in the place, and with the solemnity, that all like penal Constitutions are accustomend to be, you would haue much ado to prove the contrary.  
This Bull was obtained immediately after the peace made with the schollers in the roman College viz. the 19. of Sept. 1597. but yet was it not printed till 3. yeres after( when it pleased such as had obtained it) viz in the year 1601. The cause as I suspect was for fear least others would follow the example of D. Bagshaw D. Stafferton( dead long sinces) Do: Weston( who hath been a Reader of divinity many yeres in our Seminaries of rheims and douai) and D. Norris( Whom in contempt you call Italian Doctors) who going from the College took their degrees by the way.  
See yet the great diversity of Iudgment between D. Allene the Father of our Seminaries, and the Procurers of this Bull. When D. Bagshawe and D. Stafferton came to rheims and had signified to him they were Doctors, he was so far from contemninge them, that the next day at dinner he brought them into the hall and placed them himself in their due places, next to th'other Doctors in divinity, th'one above M. Licentiat Parkinson and th'other above me, being but Doctor of Lawe. And this place they kept so long as they remained there, to all mens liking and contentment. If such a Bull had either been necessary profitable or honourable to our country, would not do: Allene( who had as great care of our country as these Informers haue) haue pro cured it? Yes I warrant you. But god be blessed that some of us swear Doctors before these men cam to govern the court and country, else might we haue gone beg our bread, and many a one below their nailes besides. But will you see the absurdity of it? In most universities( as in this also of Pont a Mousson) there are certain benefice affencted to the university, and due( when they fall) to the signior Doctor. Put the case an Englishman hath studied his time and is made Licentiat in divinity ( as those are here before they be Doctors) with one or two more with him whose signior he is. when the time cometh to proceed Doctor his fellowes pass, and he is stayed by the virtue of this Bull. Some months after falleth out a bnfice, which one of his fellowes catcheth, and he by reason of this bull loseth it. See what good then it bringeth to our Nation. again one that hath studied the laws some yeres is Licentiat, and may when he will take his Doctorshipp. he is in a university where a Doctors place falleth vacant and he is otherwise found capable for it, but by reason he prooceded not Doctor( it being a Doctors place) he loseth it. And so by this buggy Bull, all hope of promotion and preferment is taken away hereafter from us poor Englishmen. Honos alit artes. Who will now study with any courage either in Diuitie to convince heretics, either in the Canon lawe to govern the church, when they are barred of the reward of their studies and defrauded of the fruits of their labours? But you will( perhaps) say to me here, as you do often in your apology to your discontented brethren, that I find fault with his Holl: actions and doings. for answer whereto, I say: I do so in dead and swear I in Rome and worthy to be admitted to his presence, I would appeal in this point from his Holl: ill informed, to his Hol: better informed.  
The 4. fault I find with you, is, that you say: That the cardinal Caietan and the general of the jesuits did hinder the promotion of D. Lewes B. of Cassano, butfalsly as you haue credibly heard, Nay, that which you heard to the contrary was credibly false. For, which of you haue not heard that the said B. and fa: Parsons stood for the red cap, and that the report went, that one of the two should swear it? so that every man as he affencted the party wished and desired it. yea, the report runneth abroad that many hands and subscriptions swear gathered in Ingland and Flannders in Fa: Parsons favour for the red hat. The suspicion that the 2. before name laboured for him against the B. was increased by this, that the ice beiug now broken to the cardinal ship by the creation of toledo one of the society, and toledo beiug dead, that the general of the jesuits and the Protector,( who was wonderfully the jesuits) swear more willing to haue a man of their own and wholly addicted to the society to be preferred, rather then a man, whom for many yeres they accounted of as one not at all addicted to the society, but joined to the faction that was against them, as you insinuate before, and in this place also. besides, as there was no man of our wholle nation thought so able for that dignity as fa: Parsons, so no man was so fitt to be opposed to the B: as he, for by all licklyhood without any opposition, the B. might haue carried it away. An other presumption of fa persons preferment was, that having( as the report runneth) made a book of the succession of Ingland in favour of the infant of spain, he had gotten thereby both favour and credite with the good old king, who could do much in the obtaining of a cardinals hate. And besides all this at that present time, when these rumors ran abroad, fa. Parsons came from spain to Rome, in the company of two Spanish cardinals. All these ptesumptions put together made some proof he aspired to the red hate, and that the Protector and general would stand for him against the bishop. Yet to give you more certain satisfaction that Fa: persons and his friends did all they could to hinder the B.( for what cause god knoweth) I will( to imitate you) set down the bishops own words in his last lettere that ever he wrott to me, dated the 10. of march 1595. after some few particular affairs thus he saith.  
We haue lost our good carded: Allene, he made me executor of his will with 3. cardinals, and we ever haue been friends though some evil disposed did seek to seperat us for their own gain, and ill purposes. And now there is such a stink iug stir in Flanders, spain and Rome, to make Fa Parsons cardinal and so by consequent to exclude me, that it is almost incredible. But yet it is so though it be lick to haue no other effect, but the discovering of Ambition, the blotting of that blessed Religion and discord amongst our nation and persecution against me, least I step before and stand between them and the fire. The doers of this are but 2. or 3. of our Nation, which tumble all up and down. All the rest, best and wissest do love and honor me. And in this Court it is merveiled at of strangers high and know. They say I am an Italian, that I pass not for the Nation, that I am Brittannus and not verus Anglus. That I will neucr return into Ingland, if it swear catholic: false impudent lies and sclanders, which I pray you confute as occasion shal serve. By lies, they may hinder others, but never are like to help themselves. In dead I am 61. yeres old, and am not therfore like to see Ingland, but if the way were open, I would leave bishopric and all thirdly states in this case, and go to serve my natural country and country men, whom in banishment I haue ever served and loved more then all these good fellows. I seek not to be cardinal, because I grow not, An ille status expediat& saluti ainae meae conveniat. But let god do his divine providence, who knoweth what is beast for us all. Thus I confidently tell you my mind, because I know you love me and I will ever love you. Thus much the bishop.  
Now of freeze premises, conjecture I beseech you wither the schollers who desired the preferment of him, whom they took to be founder as it swear of that colleague, and the fittest and worthiest of all secular Priests of our nation to haue that honor after carded: Allens death, had not just cause to suspect the forenamed to be his aduersaries, and hindrers from attaining that high dignity? For my parte, as I was no dealer either for the one nor th'other, so I wished one of the twoe to be advanced, I cared not which. For growing that those twoe that stood for it, to be fittest and capablest men of our whole nation, both at home or abroad, I stood indifferent, both in respect of our contreis good, and of my own particular, both being able men to serve our country and my especial friends. Mary, yet to tell you the truth, I believed as much then that Fa. Parsons should or would be carded. as I beleave now the report of travaillers who advouch that M. geoffrey pool or M. Tho. Fitsherbert shalbe carded. And although it might be true that Fa. Par. hindered the B. all he coold,( for some just causes best known to thim self) yet of this I am assured, that Fa. Par: had no will nor intention to procure it for himself. For I sawe a letter written from Rome by a dere and secret friend of his, that Fa. Par. with much ado and traveill, and at the great suite of his general had missed or refused the red scape, wishing that some fit man of our nation had it. which is an invincible argument to prove, that if Fa. Par. had had the will and intention to be carded. he should not haue had need to employ all his friends to persuade the Pope to the contrary.  
A neither fault is, 
The 5. fault fol. 6.  your impertinent discourse there of the controversy of the English Gentlemen against Fa. Holt. How doth this prove that which you haue taken in hand? They swear but some of the laity in emulation against one religious man. It is a great fault of you throughout your wholle book, 
Impertinent matter.  to stuff it up with impertinent matter. For if a man would make a table of your impertinent matters, tales, toys, and digressions, it would be bigger then half your book. Well, these Gentlemen accused Fa. Holt and M. Owen of partiality. Surely they might say true, for any thiug you bring or prove to the contrary. Why should not I or any other Reader( I pray you) rather beleave worshippsull and Catho. Gentlemen affirming by words and writtinge that they were partial, then to beleeue you( united brethren) talking without book and by hear say, without any disproof of that which they say? men must believe all that cometh from you without proof, who gave you that privilege?  
At leugth you are come from John of gaunt to Wisbish castle, and from the year 1577. 
Fol. 64.  to the year 1595. when these stirs began there, having not( as you promise in this chapped.) brought any sufficient proof for 200. and odd yeres space to show what great hurt the emulation of secular Priests against Religious hath brought to our country. Both your books do testify, that at that prison began all these unfortunate and scandalous prison contencions. And although you attribute here, their living many yeres a religious life to haue happened by the instructions of a Religious Father of the society, 
Fol. 6. Contradiction Fol. 65.  yet after afterwards( forgetting yourselves) you attribute the cause of their so quiett living, to M. Licentiat Metham, and that it continuwed so long as he lived, and after this blessed mans death the stirs began. I ask you then if it be true, that for diuers yeres they had been governed by Fa. Edmonds good instructions, how felit our they continewed not to hearken still thereto? You answer. D. Bagshaw began the division. Aetatem habet. let him answer for himself. But I rather esteem it to be that which you say a little before the good carded. was dead, 
carded. Allens death cause of the division.  whose authority, as it kept the jesuits under, so the reverend respect that all Priestes bare him, as to their loving fostering Father, made them depend wonderfully on him, and to refer all their doubts and controversies to him, and not to Religious men. But after his death, the Priestes like fatherless childrene, did seek help and comfort where they could find it. Some then liked this, some liked that, and so of diuers humors and liking grew discontentment amongst them, the which drewe after it, this miserable contention.  
The 6. 
The 6. fault is irreverence towards his holl. Fol. 7.  fault is, in speaking so vnreverently of his Holl.( of which irreverence towards their superiors you often accuse your discontented brethren) saying that his holl. should be enforced afterwards to confirm their officers and Prelates. An undutiful speech. how could his holl.( I pray you) be compelled by a company of discontented brethren, which do not amount( say you) above the number of 30. to confirm the prelates chosen by them? A strange case, to see how great want of charity driveth men headlong to such uncomely speeches, and to bring their brethren gods Priestes into contempt and discredit. The Priestes in their book to his holl. make mention of this Association, of their Rules and constitutions and lay down their intentions in these words: Sedi Apostolicae confirmandas proponere decreveramus. we had decreed to present them( our Rules) to the Sea Apostlicke to be confirmed. And afterwards talking of their Prelates or bishops they say: Si quando id( beatiss. Pater.) tibi approbandum videretur. If at any time it should haue seemed good to your Hollines to approve it, would these men compel the Pope to confirm their prelates, who protest their association and prelates to be of no value, nor their election of any force without the Popes confirmation? Many other thiuges they say there, which you let pass untouched, and being not to my purpose, I omit also.  
You add, that when his Hollines saw this mauer of proceeding. What mauer of proceeding? Mary their new association, and that he should be enforced if they choose officers and Prelates, afterwards to confirm them, thought it was time to look to the matter, and to prevent their force, by providing them of a Prelate of his own making. Certes, your words must tend to this, or else tonothing. But his Holl. being in Rome, how could he see this maner of proceeding in Ingland? 
Pag. 23.  Your discontented brethren attribute it to the jesuits and especially to Fa. persons, which you yourselves do grant here, but more modestly saying: 
Fol. 7.  The Pope caused the Protector to call to him Fa. persons and other Englishmen in Rome. which other Englishmen as you say afterwards were Fa. Baldwine and M. 
Fol. 98. b.  Standish. one a jesuit and tother a secular Priest( being lately come out of Ingland) each of them urged the same( subordmation) in behalf both of th'one and th'other order. 
informs. Fol. 99.  So you see there are 2. jesuits and one secular priest to inform of the maner of freeze proceadings. besides these, th'oppinions of M. Haddock, M. martin Array, and M. Thomas Allene swear asked in Rome. So that his holl. was informed by twoe jesuits and 3. Priests most affectioned( as all the world knoweth) to the jesuits against the Association of the discontented brethren. And as for M. Thomas Allene, as he is put last, so I deem he was put in to make up an nombre, as a cipher in Algorisme. Let all men judge wither your brethren haue not cause to complain, that the church of Ingland must be governed and ruled according to the iudgment and information of jesuits, the cause touching them not at all, but the secular Priests only, which are neither called nor heard.  
Well it seamed good to these 6. Englishmen to give the Priests in Ingland a Superior of their own order. 
Fol. 7. b.  Who should not be a bishop, whose dignity being Culmen dignitat is the highest order in gods church, would haue obscured and dymmed( as your brethren say) the estimation of the Fathers in Ingland, 
Pag. 23.  but an Archpriest whose ordinary office and dignity is the lowest in gods church.  
The next conclusion in that Consultation of diuers moneths was, that it was not thought expedient for his Holl. to writ himself. wherfore? Mary, for the same cause and consideration. what was that cause and consideration? forsooth for the avoiding suspicions and troubles of the state of Ingland. For no other cause or consideration but this, you allege before: for not having a bishop. Where were your wits when you wrot this, swear they a woolgathering? or do you not know, that all things that come from Rome are suspected in Ingland and construed to be against the state? be he Archpriest, or be he bishop? or whither it come from Pope or Protector? either these were not the considerations that moved the informers to inform, that it was not thought expedient for his Holl: to writ him self, or else they wear of no force and effect, or afterwards rejected and neglected. For this notwith standing it was thought afterwards expedient for his Holl. to writ, and to sand his bulls( as he did). swear not those causes and considerations as forcible when his Holl. wrote, as before he wrote? yes, yes, you know it full well. But there lay a pad in the straw, the which in time willbe discouerd.  
Toching M. Black well, 
Fol. 8.  whom you praise for quietness, learning and virtue, true it is, that for such a one he was taken before these stirs began, and for such a one I haue known him many yeres together. And if the Bishop: or Archp. had been made by election, I should haue given my voice to him, so soon as to any man I know in Ingland. honores mutant mores. if all be true that is set down in the Priests appeal Qnantumque mutatus ab illo. 
M. Blackwell faults.  it is not the same M. Blackwel. I knew him to be( I must tell the truth for I yove not to flatter.) in those his answers and doings he prophesieth neither quietness, modesty nor learning: but rather haughtiness, severity and much indiscretion, tossing the censures of the church like tennis baules, for every default, threatening the taking away of faculties, suspension, interdiction or excommunication. Worthily was he cheaked in his Holl. last bull for his over much severity. In prelates clemency is extolled more then severity, Plus erga corrigendos agate beneuolentia quam seueritas: plus cohortatio quam comminatio, plus charitas quam potestas. 
Can licet. dist. 45  benevolence( saith Pope lo) worketh more with those that are to be corrected then severity: exhortation more then theatninges and charity more then authority. I leave to M. Blackwell to meditat that which followeth in the same Canon. If I had been by him in Ingland I would haue wished him to haue followed the example of S. gregory of Nazianzen. Who seing a contention among the bishops about him, quitted rather the Archbishopps Sea of Constantinople, then to be cause of such stirs and contentions. So when M. Blackwell sawe what stir and contention began to arise about his extraordinarre office, a man of his modesty in the time of persecution, the office being not profitable but dangerous should haue quitted it. But being well united in loove and iudgment with the jesuits( as you say here) seeing they had procured him the dignity, he wovld not leave it so easlye, but for the yove of them hold it, and for their sakes, to his no little discredit, subscribe to the book of schism which the jesuits wrote against the prests, which resisted him.  
Next you talk of the 2. priests that were sent to Rome and there imprisoned. I marvel how you can without blushing, twange so oft as you do vpon this string, which soundeth in every mans ear, and worketh in every mans hart( but your) pity and compassion, as well for their undue and unjust imprisonment, as that it should be thought that Fa. Parsons should procure it, as also for his Hol. degenerating so far from his name of Clement and from all iustice and equity, as to imprison( unheard) such as came ab ultimo orb, as appeallants to that Sea. But here parhaps you will cry out and say that I do not respect his Hol. nor speak so reverently of him as I ought. Whereto I answer. I bear as great a respect and reverence to his Holl. and his actions, as any of you do or can do: But I cannot flatter as you do but am. Tom tel troth. Is not his Hol. the supreme judge on earth? Is he not bound to do iustice? To observe his own and his predecessors Constitutions and Decrees? Hath not god and nature given him 2. ears, to hear each party? Is he not a man and may be misinformed? hath he not his passions as other men haue to credite one man more then a nother? If all this be true, as you cannot deny but that it is, if you be Christians, Why might he not unjustly imprison them, being preoccupied with evil and false informations? Numquam est auditum à saeculo. specially in Rome that men appealling to that Sea, wear imprisoned before they wear heard to speak in their defence. In your next and larger Apolog. bring me one like example and I will yeld to you.  
They wear there a fortnight( say you) before they wear imprisoned. what if they had been there a whoil year, being no● heard the time of their being there doth neither ag grauat their fault nor purge the injustice of the fact. If they had ben hard and found faulty? All the world would haue liked of the iustice done to them, as now they mislike of the injustice shewed to them. the matter passing as it did, assure yourselves, all the water in Tiber will never wash or cleanse the Actors herein of injustice, nor stop the mouths of the posterity from speaking against it, if it should be committed to memory and writinge as you haue done here. It followethe. That his Holl. 
Fol. 8. b.  took order that they should be retired to the English colleague in Rome, but in a neither place you say: it was at Fa. Parsons Request. retired( quoth you) from such retiring Liberanos Domine. If close prison be but a retreat, I know not what prisomment is? You do well to cover and mitigat so grat injustice with so mildred and favourable a word as retired is. Certz, they were retired to the English colleague, as M. bishop was retired in Ingland to the Marshall sea, and there put in close prison by an heretical Iustice of peace. But to tell you more, this retiring of thē to the English colleague, was as great an injustice as their apprehension was before they wear heard. What draw doth permit men to be imprisoned in the howses of their aduersaries? It is well know and you cannot deny, but that their coming to Rome was aswell against the jesuits as the Archpr. and specially against Fa. Parsons, under whose custody they were imprisoned. In what common wealth well governed are prisoners committed to the keaping and custody of their aduersaries? Why are common gailes built but to keep offenders and malefactors? If you haue any like example in your next, for our satisfaction that do mislike of this dealing, bring us one.  
Afterwards you treat more at large of this imprisonment. 
From fol. 120. downevvards.  Cloak and disguise it so well as you can now, the posterity hereafter will wonder to hear or read that 2. cathol. priestes coming as appellants to Rome out of an heretical country, in the which they maintained constantly with danger of their lives, the honor and preminence of that Sea, and one of them had suffered somme yeres imprisonment with banishment afterwards for the article of S. Peter and his successors supremacy over all Princes and prelates whosoever, that these priests( I say) should before they swear heard, what they had to say, be cast into prison, yea and imprisoned in the howse and under the custody of their aduersaries. never was there hard of such injustice since good S. Peter sate in that chair. transversely, as strange, unusual and never before hard of iudgment, as the appointment and institution of the Archp. was, the which they went to impugn. the maner and fashion also of their imprisonment, to be kept close prisoners and not to see or communicate one with th'other for somme months, doth make the injustice much more greater. Murtherers, manquellers, and traitors are not every where, nor in common gailes so handled. They cam to plead against a new prelacy instituted without his Holl: bulls, and obtained( if not by evil) yet by the information of some few parsons. Was this so heinous a crime, that it should deserve such rigorous punishment? Are not his hol. bulls and breves every day almost in every court impugned, and rejected vpon such pretences as surreption and ill information? And yet such reiectors are quietly heard, and neither imprisoned nor punished albeit they prove not their intention. These men came but to impugn a carded. letters, and yet were heinously punished for it, before they were hard, and as though they had committed Crimēlesae Maiestatis were constrained to answer ex vinculis. Yea, 
Fol. 121.  but( say you) they persisted to wrangle, and went about to misinform diuers principal men of the city of the affairs of Ingland and divisions. because they informed otherwise then the 3. priestes and 2. Iesuite, before name had before informed it is misinformyng. In dead they were not called by the Protector to counsel as the others were, but came to impugn the information given to him, and his appointment of the Archp. and therfore they were but wranglers and misinformers? seeing you will haue it so, be it so. They paid well for their wrangling.  
After you haue  told the tale as cunningly and as smoothly as you can in defence of the Agents and actors of this imprisonment, you fall a mockinge the poor priestes saying this then is the heinous fact which our discontented brethren since that time haue so much aggravated through the world by clamours, and do at this present both amplify and urge in these their books against his Holl: the carded. and specially Fa: Parsons, &c. Come hither( I pray you) Is it not a heinous fact to commit injustice and to imprison innocent parsons unheard? that they were innocent the time of their imprisonment( how soever they were found guilty afterwards) is notorious to all men, for in law, Quilibet praesumitur bonut usque dum probetur malus. every one is presumed to be an honest and innocent man, until he be proved to be an naughty fellowe, but nothing was proved against them before their imprisonment, ergo honest and innocent men swear imprisoned. If this be not a heinous fact, I know not what is a heinous fact. Haue so much aggravated?( quoth you) if men had not uttered it, the stones themselves would haue cried out against it, and( as I haue said) all posterity hear after will no doubt wonder at it? Call you the setting down of the truth exaggeration? That 2. priestes coming out of Ingland to Rome with appellation, swear cast into prison, before they swear heard, what they had to say, and that in such hast, as they must needs be caught and carried to prison on S. Thomas of Canterbury his day, a day so highly solemnished troughout all Chrestiendome of all Englishe catholics, where any company of them dwell or remain? then, to be imprisoned in the howse of those, against whom they came to contest? Next to be kept close prisoners some months, not to be permitted to speak one with another, nor to company or haue conference( what say I with any advocate or procurer for their instruction) no not with any English in the hewn or scholar in the colleague, no not to be suffered to go to Church, to say or hear mass vpon sundays, New yares day and twelf day? is this to aggravat the matter? think they to dazzle mens eyes by saying: They aggravat the matter? haue they not just cause to cry out, and notify the injustice to the whole world? yea, but they urge it against his Hol. the carded. and Fat. Parsons as who should say his Holl. the carded. and Far. parsons swear Angels ad not sinful men, or such as could do no injustice, that haue not their passions and affections a swell as other men? as who should say, his holl. cannot err and miss in matters of fact, such as this is? by creditinge one party too much, and by prejudicing tother party? By these great brags you would, terrify your reader, and draw him from the due codsideration of the fact it self. But all in vain, we know as well as you what is due to his Holl. and Cardinals without flattering thē, as you do to your own and other mens hurts.  
Next your answer to their poor objections that, 
Fol. 123.  if they came to trouble that church of Ingland: his Hollines might well determine to restrain them for their disobedience at their first arrival. Which is a poor answer. For had they come to trouble 20. churches, yet they ought to be heard before imprisonment. For how could his Holli know they came to trouble the church of Ingland, before they swear heard to speak against that church? you will answer: his holl: knew it by hear say. And vpon hearsay innocent men be imprisoned. And might not these informations he had out of Ingland and flanders( especially being given by those of the contrary faction) be false? Good God? my judge is informed against me by mine adversary against whom I pled, the judge giveth ear and credit to his information and will not hear me speak and defend myself, but condemneth me to prison. Is not this good iustice think you? And yet this is the case of the twoe priests. Information was made against them to his Hollines by the contrary faction, vpon which information, without hearing their defences, they were condemned and cast into prison in such order as you haue heard.  
And as for that which you add in defence of this fact, that this a is course usually held in all Princes courts of the world at this day, viz to imprison a man first& thē hear him after: as they do in kendal, hang a man in the forenoon, and sit in iudgment of him in the afternoon, if it were true in temporal princes courts, yet the Sea of Rome never used any such course before in Church matters as these are, neither in any Princes court in the world, are men prisoned in civil matters, such a one as this is, before they be heard. Nay, I say more, that ordinarily in criminal causes there is made a secret inquiry of the life and behaviour of the accused by the Princes officers before the delinquant be apprehended and imprisoned. 
Can. non ita. 2. q. 6.  And wear it true you say of Princes courts, I answer you: Non ita in Ecclesiast. agendum est negotiis sicut in secularibus. ecclesiastical affairs( quoth the Pope Eutichianus) must not be handled as secular affairs are handled.  
The 7. fault, 
The 7. fault. The state of the question not set down as you promis.  is that you promiss in this first chap. to set down the state of the present controversy in question. and yet you do nothing less but through out this whole book you shun it and fly from the points in question, as from a snake or serpent.  
Your discontented brethrene in the preface of their English book put it down thus: The strife and dissension at this day, &c. is against those priests who did forbear to subject themselves to the Archp. constituted in authority over all the Seminary priestes in England and Scottland by a carded. who was Protector of the English colleague at Rome, and afterwards honoured with the title of Protector of Ingland, for the which forbearing &c. the Priestes were accused of schism, sedition, faction and rebellion. &c.  
lo how plainly they go to work, where as you still rove abroad, and will not come near the prick. You should haue confuted this, and put the case more truer if you could They did put it more largely down to the D. D. of Sorbonne which you mislike and find 5. faults therewith. Therfore being partial to neither side, I will put it down truly and as it is in dead. 
Fol. 116.117. Fol. 7. The true case of the first controversy in question   
When his Holl. saw the proceadings of the priests in Ingland touching their association and endeavours to make themselves officers and prelates of their own institution. He willed the carded. and Protector to call unto him fath. parsons and other English men in Rome, to see what remedy was best for these disorders. Where it was concluded that the priests should haue a superior of their own order, and for somme causes, it was not thought good that this Superior should be a bishop but an Archp. with 12. assistants, and for some considerations it was not thought expedient that he should be instituted or constituted by his Hol. his bulls. Where vpon his Holl. gave full and express commission to cardinal cajetan the Protector to appoint the same with convenient instructions. The protector according to his commission appointed and constituted M. Blackwell Archpriest with as grat jurisdiction over Ingland, and also Scotland as al the bishops of those 2. realms had before. The carded. 
Fol. 116. b.  letters wherein he said he did this Ex expresso mandato Sanctissimi. by the express commandement of his Hol: being received in Ingland and communicated to the priestes. The Archp, 
Fol. 7. b  was received and obeyed willingly and joyfully by the English clergy, excepting only a few that misliked the fact, 
Fol. 8.  because it hindered their association. And for that the Archp. being a quiet learned and virtuous man, and well united in love and iudgment with the jesuits, they mistrusted ever to be able to draw him to be indifferent and for that cause devised many scrupulls and lets, partly of the faith and credence of the said carded. letters, then wither his Hol. could( according to the canons and constitutions of his Predecessors and according to the writtē draw and style of the court of Rome) institute a new office and dignity never hard of before in Christs church in respect of his large and ample jurisdiction, by that mean, that is, by the letters of a protector without his Holl. bulls? This is the case set down plainly and truly Now the question is.  
First. 
First question.  whither a carded. Protector is to believed vpon his word, saying: that he hath express commandment from his holl: to do this or that?  
Next whither not only a new and extraordinary dignity,( as this is for his ample jurisdiction) but any other bnfice or dignity what so ever, can be made, Instituted or given to any, or by any other means, then by the Popes express bulls and breves?  
Thirdly whither those parsons vpon whom such a superior is put and thrust, may not, yea are not bound in lawe and conscience to withstand him and not to admit or accept him?  
Fourthly Whither a man put in possession of a dignity or bnfice by other means thē the Popes express bulls, be not an intruded person: that is, an vninst possessor of that dignity or bnfice?.  
Fiftly, Whither our English cletgie that received him and obeyed him so willingly and joyfully did not offend against his Hol. constitutions and are punishable by lawe for it, or no?  
Lastly, 
Fol. ibid. b  Whither those few priestes that misliked the fact, and would not admit such a Superior thrust vpon them by such letters, without his Holl. bulls, did sin, or wear to be counted and proclaimed schismatics and worse then soothe saiers for the same.  
these questions touch the quick of the first controversy in question by the decision of the which, you and your reader shall see and perceive( if they be not stark blinded) whither the fault Was in your discontented brethren that refused to receive the Archp. and to acknowledge him their Superior vpon the carded. Protectors letters, written as he said ex expresso mandato Sanctiffimi, or in the Archpr. that would accept and occupy such a dignity vpon such letters: or in you( united brethrene) that vpon such letters did hazard so willingly and joyfully to receive the Archp. and by this your apology go about to auerr and allow of the same.  
Touching the first question. 
For the decision of the first question. Fol. 108. b  It seemeth that a carded. Protector is to be beleaued vpon his word, by the text, gloss and reason which you allege for the saime. For the Canon Nobilissimus dist. 97. doth report that the Pope received a Princes Ambassador as Ambassador, and beleaued all he told him in his mayst. name that sent him, 
For the Cardin. and Archp.  albeit he brought no letters of credence from the Prince that sent him. Ergo if the Pope himself did beleaue an Ambassador without letters from his Prince, why should not a few secular priestes beleaue a carded. their Protect. affirming, that what, soever he did, was done by his Hol. express eommandment, although he shewed no letters from his Hol. for confirmation thereof. Now if the Pope believed a man of far less quality, dignity and credite then a carded.( yea a carded. Protector of the whole nation to whom he wrote) is, and that without letters vpon his bareworde: per argumentum à minore ad maius, certs, priests ought to haue believed a carded. Protector being of so eminent a dignity as( under his Hol.) there is no higher in gods church, and by consequence these few secular priests did not well in not beleauing the carded. and in withstanding and not acknowledging the Archp. constituted by him, by the express commandment of his holl: as by his letters he affirmed and testified.  
The gloss by you alleged reckoning up many privileges that carded. 
Fol. ibidem. Ad C. vnic. in extr. Joann. 22. de praebend. sn verb. sublimitatis.  haue above other prelates in the 8. priuiledg saith that a carded. saying himself to be the Popes legate, is to be believed without any letters at all. But Caietanus who instituted the Arch. was a carded. and which is more Protector of the country in the which he instituted that dignity. Ergo he was to be believed without letters, saying he did it by the express commandment of his holl. I see no reason of diversity. For why is not this carded. as well to be beleaued saying he did this by this holl commandment, as the other carded. saying he is the Popes legate, till you discontented brethren bring me, some reason of diversity, I must conclude thone to be as well believed as th'other, and so both to believed without letters, on their bare words, and by consequence, you to haue offended in not believing him, and in not admitting the Archp. vpon his letters, attesting it to be done by his hol. express commandment.  
This reason also, 
Fol. 108.  is against the discontented brethren who doth not grow what a carded. testimony in any Chrestian Catho. court is worthe? especially a Protector testifying and professing in his letters to do it by the special commandement of his Hol. as this man doth in this letters? If then carded. be believed in Christian Princes courts, vpon their words, why do you poor priestes call his credit in question, why do you not obey him, think you that your disobedience is of greater force to discredit him, then the obedience of all Christian Princes is to give credite to his worde and testimony, you are far deceeued if you think so.  
This is all( my united brethren) that you haue said or can say in the defence of the institution of the Archp. by the Protectors letters ex mandato Sanctissimi. I haue urged your arguments sincerely, and as far( I think) as you can do yourselves, and yet for all that, your allegations do not prove your intention nor disprove the fact and doing of your discontented brethren. If you haue no better stuff to bring in, in your next and larger apology, I must needs pronounce you to haue an injust cause in hand, and these few priestes against whom you writ, to gain the victory of you. and to haue done like good childrene of Gods church, in observing her ordonance and Constitutions by rejecting superiority so unduly and vncanonically put vpon them: and you to be( as it swear) bastards, so willingly and joyfully to receive an intruded person thrust in vpon you against the Ordinanances, Decrees, Constitutions and Canons of Gods church, 
The text, gloss andreason brought for the Cardin. doing make not for him.  as an one shall appear.  
The Canon Nobilissimus is so far from making for you, that it utterly ouetthroweth the Constitution of the Archp. and doth prove that a carded. be he Protector of ten realms is not to be believed except he show his holl. letters. This saith the Canon: Nobilissimus vir atque strenuous vestrae sublimitatis Legatus licet nullam epistolam iuxta consuetudinem à vobis nostro Pontificio detulisset, licet nnnquam Apostolicae Sedis modus fuit absque signatis apicibus vndecumque legationem suscipere: nos tamen vos in illo honorantes eiusque grauitatem& eloquiorum illius veridicas cognoscentes assertiones, nihilominus eum& sicut decuit suscepimus,& ei sicut honestum fuit oredidimus. Thus far Pope Nicholas, Which is to say. All though the most noble and valiant man your highnes legate brought no letters from you unto us, and albeit it was never the maner of the apostolic Sea to receive any embassage from what place soever without signed or sealed letters, yet that notwith standing, as it became us we haue received him,( without letters) and as honesty required we haue believed him. honouring you in his person, and his gravity acknowledging his assertions to be true. If this Canon prove any thiuge, it is this: that the Sea apostolic never used to receive Ambassadors from Princes without letters of credence signed or sealed by the Prince thet sendeth such Ambassador, and that the same Sea never sendeth Ambassador or giveth commission to any whosoever without letters from the same Sea. And therfore the carded. Protector by this Canon was not to be believed Sine signatis apicibus, that is without the Popes bull or breue. And by consequence this Canon brought by you doth discharge your discontented brethren from all disobedience, and charge your own selves with over much lightness to admit a Superior vpon a carded. letter without letters from the Sea Apostlick. which as your Canon proveth is not accustomed to give Commission to any man without letters signed. The truth is, this Canon neither maketh for th'one, nor against th'other, for it spaketh in a case far different from this that is in question. For it treateth of sending Ambassodors to the court of Rome, and our question is of sending from Rome. And whereas Gratian a little before this Canon by you alleged, said: That it was not the custom of the church of Rome either to receeve Ambassadors from any place, or to sand Ambassadors or Legates to any place without letters signed or sealed: And for proof ther of alleged the words of Pope Nicholas: the Correctors of the decret appointed, and after approved by Gregory the 13. Do takaway these words.( Or to sand.) In vulgatis sequebatur: Neque mittere, quae absunt a vetustis neque conveniunt cum his quae sequenti Capite afferuntur. That is. In the vulgar copies it did follow, Neither to sand, which words are not in the ancient copies, neither do they agree with those things that are treated in the chap. following. which chapter is your Canon Nobilissimus. And why do not those words agree with that which is treated in that chapter? because that chapter treateth of sending Ambassadors to Rome and not of sending legates or Ambassadors from Rome, and so the case is altered( quoth Ploydon.) Your Canon saith that the Pope of courtesy extraordinarily and against the custom of that Sea received an Ambassador that came without any letters of credence. This is all. How proverh it that the Protector was to be believed without letters vpon his own word that he did it by express commandement from his Holl.? even as much as: How far is it to london? A poake full of plumbes.  
Now to your gloss. 
You haue throatled this gloss.  Who if it had not had the chin cough, and that it had not been( at it swear) throatled by you, least it should haue spoken out, would not haue made much for you.  
The 8. privilege( saith the gloss) is, a cardinal saying himself to be the Popes legate is to be believed vpon his worde. allthoughe some call this priveleag in doubt. 
You are nippers.  which latter words you nipped quiteof, because they marred the market. If you had put them down, your Reader would strait haue seen, that that priveledg was not so firm and stable, that you should build any solid or firm Doctrine upon it, as in dead it is built vpon a heap of sand, and not vpon a rock, as you shall see anon, after the answer to your reason. 
No upright dealing.   
Why( my united brotherne) this is falsehood in fellowship to deceive yourselves voluntarily,( for you could not but see these words if you saw the other) and your unlearned Reader( that would not seek the gloss, but credit you vpon your worde) willingly, I will not say malliciously. you must in your next apology confess here wither you will or no, either your ignorance or your malice. Ignorance for alleging untruly an Author you never sawe, malice, if you sawe him, and yet allege him corruptly, in cutting of that which confuteth the thing, for the which you allege him. This is no news to you for elswheare you do the like, as in place you shall hear of. This is to imitate jewel and Nowell and not Cath. writers.  
That your reason is not good and that it holdeth not in any Christian and Catho. 
Your reason holdeth not.  Courts( as you would make men beleeue) is proved out of Robuffus a French man, who was a great practitioner in the court of Rome and france, 
in concord. in rubr. de regia ad Prelaturas? verb. Certa.  and a Learned Canonist. He saith thus: Secundum praxim in Francia non creditur Legato a later asserenti se viuae vocis oraculo dispensandi vel aliam potestatem a Papa habe re, nisi eam ostendat,& in Parleamentis eius potestas registretur, &c. According to the practise of France a legate of later is not to be believed affirming that by word of mouth he hath power from the Pope to dispense, or to haue any other authority, except he shenw it, and that his authority and power be registered in the parliaments.  
This is taken out of a book dedicated to Fraunces the first king of France, whom I trust you will grant to haue been a good Christian and catholic king.  
So that your who doth not know, 
Fol. 108.  provethe your intention nothing at all. for if a legate of later be not believed, when he saith he hath some specially authority given him by mouth from his holl. how would a bare carded. or a Protector be believed in the like case? And sure I am neither legate nor Protector should be believed in spain or elswhere in our case, which is the Institution of a new office or dignity, that never was seen in christ his church before, without express letters from his Hollines.  
Now to return to your gloss which saith: 
The gloss.  Licet aliqui hoc revocent in dubium although some call this in doubt. for aliqui, some, he might haue better said, omnes. All interpreters call it in doubt.  
First and foremost then, 
Against the Institution of the Archpriest.  the first gloss upon your Canon Nobilissimus saith: here it is proved that legates are not to be credited without letters, and so condempneth the said 8. priveleage.  
The second gloss there addeth: A legate then or Ambassador must show and exhibit the letters of his Legation, if he wilbe believed. You see by this that your gloss said well: Some do call this in doubt.  
To this gloss I add the opinion of Bartolus the Prince of civilian interpreters. 
L. Unic. C. de superindicto lib. 1.  the Emper or forbidding all men to pay any towle or tax ad solace prefectura lettras, vpon the captain of the guard( who was the next person to the Emperour in authority) his letters, except they wear confirmed by the Emperors letters, saith thus: Canonista tamen dicunt quod Cardinalibus creditur etiansi literas non ostendant, &c. The Canonists do hold that credit ought to be given to cardinals, although they show no letters for it. which is flat against the text of this draw, by which faith is not given to the captain of the guard or Constable vpon his own letters without he show also the Emperors letters. ergo a carded. is not to be credited unless he show the Popes letters, the which cardinal cajetan did not. ergo.  
The lawyer that maketh notes or additions upon Bartolus in the same place, 
Notes upon Bartolus.  noteth full well, that the lawe cited is to be vndrestood of such things as are due to the Prince only to do, or are reserved only to his authority, as the imposing of tax, tributes and gabels vpon the subiects belong only to the Prince, and no man else of what pre-eminence or dignity so ever he be, can do it. And therefore( quoth he) Si quis dicebat se habere talem promissionem a Principe, non est dubium, quod non creditur sine literis,& maxim quando certatur de preiudicio alterius. if any man should say, he had permission of the Prince( to towle or tax the subiects) without all doubt he is not to be believed, without the Princes letters and chiefly when that which he saith he may do, is prejudicial to others. Mark how he saith. if the thing belong to the Prince onely. 
C. 10. exit. de translat. Cpi.  But the instituting of new offices and dignities, belong to his Holl. only as also do the collations of benefice depending of his gyste, and not to cardinals Protectors or cardinals legates, unless it be expressly set down in the faculties of their legation. ergo there ought no credit to be given to the Protectors letters, instituting a new dignity without knowing his Holl. letters for discharge, and by consequent the discontented brethren in lawe and conscience did well, not to admit the Archpriest as their Superior vpon the cardinals letters: and you( united brethren) did against draw and right to admit him so lightly and willingly as you did.  
Iason also a Learned civilian after he had alleged( according to his customet) the opinions of all that wrot before him at last concluded: 
Jason.  
in repetit. Li. admonnendi ff. de iureiur. 11. 189.  Quod si etiam Cardinalis a later diceret Papam sibi aliquid commisisse quod respicit damnum& preiudicium tertii non creditur sibi, nisi Bullas Apostolicas commissionis ostendat& ita procedit Glossa ad ca. Nohilissimus dist. 97. If a carded. yea a carded. Legate should say that the Pope( by mouth) hath committed some thing to him that is hurtful to a third person, he is not to be believed, except he new the Popes bulls of his Commission, and so ought the gloss vpon the Canon Nobilissimus to be understood, he meaneth the third gloss vpon the same, which saith thus: Credit ought to be given to a carded. that is well known in any Province without any letters at all. maxim cum non contingat Cardinalem unquam abbess nisi Legationis causa. Chiefly, because it doth not lightly happen a carded. to be absent( from the court of Rome) but when he is seent in Legation. besides Petrus Rauenatus a singular good lawyer, 
Petrus Raucnatus. In breuiario Juris Can. Tit. exit. de foro competent.  is of the opinion of the gloss, that a carded. is to be believed affirming himself to be the Popes Legate, because customably cardinals do not depart from the court of Rome, except he be made a Legate. But both are to be vndrestood as Iason said before, except that which they say be prejudicial to others. And besides, they talk of cardinals which be out of Rome that are presumed to be legates. And our carded, was still in Rome, and so the case is altered.  
Andreas Alciatus also saith: 
Alciat ad C. cum contingat in 11.35. exit. de Iureiurand.  Neque Cardinali creditur in alicuius preiudicium. Neither is a carded. to be credited in an others prejudice. Note he speaketh in general of all cardinals be they legates, 
The Emperors. l. vnic. C. de mandat. princip.  Protectors or not. To conclude with Civilians. The Emperors their lords and Maisters say: Si quis asserat &c. If any affirm that he cometh to you with our secret commandements, be it knowen to you all, that you give no credit thereto, except he prove it by shewinge our letters. And be you not terrified with the dignity or peruissance of any man, but ask hardly for our letters. This then you see is a rule in draw, that none that say they haue this commandement from the Prince, or, the Prince hath given me this office or authority to constitute such an office or officer are to be believed, except they new the Princes letters for it. carded. cajetan did not new his Holl. letters for the authority he took vpon him in constituting the Archp. ergo by draw he was not to be believed or credited, nor the Archp. vpon his letters only to be received or admitted. Let us now hear what the canonists say.  
Petrus Rauenatus in the place before alleged saith: Siautem diceret, &c. 
Petr. Rauenatus. again.  But if he( the carded. legate) should say that some thing were specially committed to him, which is not contained in his faculties, Commission, or general office of his Legation, he is not to be credited, except he new his letters. This not whithstandinge some do say: That by custom credit is to be given to him, yea in an other mans prejudice, when he affirmeth some thing to be committed to him by worde of mouth. 
a. In c. sicut extr. de sent. excom.  But the Abbot Panormitanus doth not believe it, forwhom is a notable a gloss. and for my part I am of his opinion and do allege a singular text, which is alleged ordinarily to prove, that the Pope cannot make a draw: that faith be given to one in the prejudice of an other. Thus he.  
But let us hear Panor. 
Panormit ad. d. c. sicut.  the Prince of Canonists speak: Nota singulariter, &c. Note singularly, that a carded. is not to be believed affirming any thing in the prejudice of an other. And therfore if a carded: should say, that the Pope committed some thing to him by worde of mouth ( which is all one with express commandement) tending to an others prejudice, he is not to be believed, except he proveth it otherwise. keep in mind this gloss, which doth notably limitate the Canon Nobilissimus. And although Nauarre doth seem to advouch and hold, 
Nauar. in consil. 12. Tit. de testatis.  that a carded. is to be believed even in an others mans prejudice, yet he saith, three thingh must concur. The first that he testify of things committed to him by the Pope, or to be sent to others by him. The second. That they be things accustomend, to be granted. The third. That it turn not directly to the prejudice of an other. Now as the first point might help the Protector, so the two others make directly against him. So that in effect Nauar, saith as much as th'others do, that a carded. is not to be believed in the prejudice of another  
The reasons why a carded. 
Reasons why a carded. nor any other is to be believed on his worde. C. Cum a nobis exit. de test.  is not to be believed on his only worde is: because the lawe doth forbid Any credit to be given to the worde or saying of one judge, of what soever authority he be. And that no Judge do easily suffree the tetestimonie of one alone in what cause soever, to be admitted. And again. 
L. Jurisiur. C. de testib. Ca. si testes Par. unius 4. q. 3. L. Nullus ff. de testibus.  We will not that the deposition of one towns be heard at all although he be of great honor in the court. For in such a case the carded. should bear wittnes in his own cause which cannot be, because, Nullus idoneus testis in re sua intelligitur. No man is counted a worshipful towns in his own cause. For by the lawe of god and nature( which neither Pope nor Protector can change) it is decreed: that in ore duorum aut trium stet omne verbum. there must at the lest be two wittnesses to prove the thing that is in controversy. Alexander the 3. after he had alleged the foresaid words, addethe: 
C. Licet. exit. de testib.  Quia licet quaedam sunt causae, quae plures quam duos exigant testes, nulla tamen est causa quae unius testimonio( quamvis legitimo) terminetur. For albeit there be some causes that require more then twoe wittnesses, yet there is no cause that can be ended or decided by the witness of one alone, be such witness never so worshipful. And to end this controversy with Pope Bonifacius the 8. saying: Nec simpliciter creditur se asserenti Legatum. 
C. Iniunctae par. asserenti in exit. come. de elect.  Nor is he to be believed that saieth simply( without our letters) he is a legate. mark how he speaketh indefinitely, without adding whether it be in the prejudice of an other or noe, he is not at all to be credited without letters from the Pope. By this that hath been said you see, that your discontented brethren had just cause and good reason not to believe the carded. Protector without the Popes Bulls, and therfore might well say, that they were not bound to beleeue him with the rest that followeth in your 17. leaf b. put down by you as not well spoken, when as it is the truth itself, as you see hath been hear proved.  
But now when I haue all done, you will say: the Priests in Ingland were not prejudiced by the carded. letters, and therfore by the opinion of the Authors by me alleged, they ought to haue believed and obeyed the carded. affirming to haue done that which he did by the express commandement of his Hollines. My united brethren, my Authors do not say that he is to be believed when that which he saith is not prejudicial to an other. But they say: he is not to be believed maxim chiefly when he doth thereby prejudice an other. which word maxim doth not include, that if he do not prejudice any he is then to be believed. And besides Bonifacius saieth simply: He is not to be believed without letters. It importeth not then wither this action did prejudice the Priestes or no. but wither he was to be believed and obeyed therein without the Popes letters? But now, if all the Priests in Ingland swear preiudicied in this action, then must you hold down your heads for shane and grant you swear too hasty to admit' such a superior to be put vpon you to your own prejudice.  
That you and your brethren were preiudicied by this subordination so instituted by the carded. letters may easily be proved thus. 
That all Priest in Ingland we re preiudicied by this Jnstitution.  every Superior as Pope, Archbishop, bishop, dean, provost, abbot abbess and some sort of Priors De jure communi& ordinario, by the ordinary and common course of draw ought to be chosen by those, over whom they are afterwards to govern. 
Tit. de elect. exit. in 6. in clo.& in exit.  This is proved by the general title de electione of election which is put aswell in the decretals as in the Clementins and extrauagants. in which title are set down many notable constitutions touching the maner, order and direction of these elections. And that in Ingland elections haue had place is evident, by some constitutions directed to the Archb. of Canterbury, the B. of worcester, and others, to end some Difficulties which arose vpon elections there. besides this his Holl. asked M. Standish who was duly come out of Ingland with Fa. Baldwine, whither the desiere to haue a superior as he then informed him, was by the consent of all the Priestes in Ingland, or no? who answered that it was. And vpon this information of Fa. 
Pag. 31.  persons and Fa. Baldwine( as you confess) it was resolved to give the Priestes for Superior an Archp. but not a Bishop. That question of his Holl. was an evident sign and token that his Holl. meaned not to give them a superior without their consents, nor to take away the right of election that was due unto them by his predecessors decrees and Constitutions. 
C. Ecclesia 2. vers. neque enim exit. de elect.  For to use gregory the 9. his words, talking of this matter of election. Neque enim credendum est Romanum Pontificem( qui iura tuetur) quod alias excogitatum est multis vigilus& inuentum, uno verbo subuertere voluisse. It is not credible that the B. of Rome( who doth defend the laws) would with one worde over throwe, that which otherwise with much pain and care hath been excogitated and invented. even so I say, the Popes holl, is not to be presumed with one worde said to the Protector, to take a way the right of election, which by lawe belonged to the Priests in Ingland: specially being informed( though falsely) that all the Priestes consented thereto. upon which information, thinking they were contented that his holl. should appoint them a Superior, he appointed then one. Besides you must learn, that all that which his Holl. decreeth or granteth by his Bulls and commandements is all ways to be vndrestood. Saluo ture alieno,& sine alterius detrimento, 
C. L●cet exit. de officio iud. ordinand.  saving other mens right and without the hurt and hinderacem of others. Nostrae( inquit) intentionis non est Episcopo preiudicium generare. It is not our intention to prejudice the B. saith Alexander the 3.) And Innocentius the 3. writting to the Archb. of Sens in France saith. Quia tamen intentionis nostrae nec fuit nec esse debuit Iurisdictioni tuae per mandatum huiusmodi derogare. because it neither was, nor ought to be our intention by this commandement to derogat thy Iurisdictione. I think if Clement the 8. were well informed how all matters do go, and in what sort he was deceived, he would answer with his predecessors: that it was not his intention to derogat the jurisdiction of the Priestes, by taking from them the election of their Superior, which was due to them by the ecclesiastical laws. By this you see, that what soever the Protector wrott, you swear to haue an eye to his Holl. intention that commanded him, as your brethren had. Certz for this your fact of admitting the Archpriest. vpon the carded. letters without Bull. or breve from his holl. you rather deserve to be called blind, then th'others for their worshipful resisting him discontented brethren. This unchurch I haue said may suffice for this present to advertise you that the carded. Protector was not to be believed in the prejudice of all you Priestes in Ingland both discontent and united without letters from his Holl. nor his Archp. to be by you received and by consequence your discontented brethren to haue had just cause, of discontentment for such vnlawfull intrusion, and to haue duly and subtilely refused to accept and acknowledge the Archpriest to be their Superior, before he shewed them the Popes Bulls for his warrant.  

The second Question is. 
C. 1. exit. de transt. epist.   
Whither not only a new and extraordinary dignity as this is,( touching the large jurisdiction over 2. realms) but if any ordinary dignity or bnfice whatsoever, can be instituted and constituted by other means, then by the Popes express bulls or letters?  
The negative is so evident and apparent true, that no instance can be given against it. besides that, the Pope affirmeth it himself. Search I pray you all the court rooles in his Holl. chancery, turn over all the books and records that are in the office of the Datarie, if you find any one President( since the Popes began to institute and geive benefice) that a carded. Protector vpon his bare letters( with this clause in them: By the express commandement of his Holl.) without the Popes Bulls joined to them, ever gave the least bnfice of the Popes gift, then call me cut. Mary, if you can show me that a Protector hath Without bulls by the express commandment of his Holl. instituted a new dignity Which was never in Ingland or in the church of Christ before, then Will I burn my lawe books and quit that profession, 
C. beneficium de regu. jur. in 6  for it is against express lawe, against custom, and against the style of the court of Rome. Be not offended if I term it a new dignity, never hard of before in Christes church since Christes ascension. I mean for the amplenes and extension of his jurisdiction. For, an Archpr. 
Archp. dignity is new, and never hard before  to haue as great and ample yea greater, jurisdiction over all the priestes of 2. realms, as had all the bishops of those realms when they wear Cathol. is new and extraordinary. 
Fol. 99.  It is a mockery that you call it an ancient dignity in Christes church. who knoweth it not The question is not of the ancientnes of the dignity, but of this new and never before heard of jurisdiction and authority. 
The ordinary di gnitie of an Archp. is the lowest and basest in gods Church. Tot. Tit. exit. de office. Archipres.  It is an ancient dignity in Christes church you say. I confess, but with all I say, it is the lowest& basest dignity in Christes church. It is such a one as follo Weth. His jurisdiction did not further extend then the church. his office is to govern the choir, to see that the service be decently said, and in the Bishops absence he must sing mass vpon holy and festival daies. It is his office to begine the service, 
What is the ordinary officie of an Archpr.  or to appoint another to begine it. To his office it appartaineth to see that sick parsons die not without confession and receiving the blessed Sacrament. This which I say I speak not in contempt of the man or his office, but to give you to understand, wherefore your discontented brethren call it a new, extraordinary, and never heard of dignity in Gods church viz: for this ample authority: and with all to advertise you, that you do very fond and childishlie control your discontented brethren very often in your book, 
Uncharitable dealing.  for termyng the dignity thus. Your own conscience nov will accuse you, either of ignorance, if you knew not before that an Archp. authority extended no further then the church door: or of splen,( if you knew it) for so often tvitting, vpbraidinge and cheaking your brethren for saying a truth, which you yourselves knew so to be. Which dealinghs of yours througheout your whole book, maketh your reader to see and believe, that you haue greater desire by such taunts and toys to discredit your brethren, then to look into the truth of the matter& controversy in question: which( as I haue said) you fled from as from a toad. This is the spirit of contention my brethren and not of charity. I say then, that the first institution of the Archp. without bull or breue from his Hol: is mirabile in oculis nostris. unto us lawyers, and so exorbitant a case in lawe, as the like was never heard of before. I pray you give me some instance for my learning. For hitherto I haue learned and do teach daily the contrary viz: that none but the Pope and that by his bulls can institute or erect a new dignity or office in Gods church. 
C. 1. exit. ne seed vacant: &c  I haue learned that Innocentius the 3. a profoud lavier and divine did reprehend a carded. Legate for meadling in such things as belonged to his Holl. charge. 
C. quod transla. exit. de office. legati.  Licet in regno Siciliae generalis sit tibi commissa legatio, ad ea tamen sine speciali mandato nostro non debuisti manus extendere, quae in signum priuilegii singularis sunt tantum Summo Pontifici reseruata &c. All though we haue made the our general Legate in the kingdom of Sicill, thou oughtest not for all that to meddle with such things as are reserved only to the high Bishop in sign of his singular priuileage, without our special commandment. If you say this maketh not against the Protector, because he had the Popes special commandement to institute an Archprieste? You say that which is in question. For I say he had not, neither am I to belewe him saying so, as before is sufficiently proved. Then I say more, that the Pope in the place alleged doth understand of his special commandement in writing, because a Cardinal is not to be believed on his word without letters and writing. I meddle not here with the Popes superame power, I know he may do great things, ex plenitudine potestatis, 
C. 2. de praebend. in 6.  by the plenitude of power specially in matters of benesices( such is this) for he is Dominus beneficiorum, the lord and M. of benefice, and may at his pleasure dispose of them: nor of his right of prevention, for he may by collation prevent all election and electors. But I speak of his ordinary jurisdiction, by which he giveth and conferreth bnfice and dignities. And therfore I say, that a carded. Protector can not by his letters containing the express commandement of his Holl. confer or give the poorest bnfice in Ingland that were at the Popes disposition For not withstanding such letters, the bnfice stood still vacant and as vacant, might be asked and obtained over his head, that should take possession thereof upon such letters. If this be true, let the Archp. consider how justly, he possessed that dignity, till the Popes bull cam so confirm him. And let him further consider, wither such a dignity could be justly obtained without the Popes bulls, and waigh that which Bonifac. 
C. 29.1. de praebend. in 6.  8. decreed: we do( saith he) ordain by the same authority, that neither Churches( he meaneth bishoprics) dignities, Parsonages or other benefice that shall hap hereafter to be vacant in the Cour of Rome be not conferred, but hy his Hollines only, and that no man of what authority soever he be wither he haue ordinary right to confer benefice, or wither he haue general or special leave to confer and give benefice vacant( except he haue special and express commandment given him by his holiness to confer those that be vacant in the court of Rome) do presume to confer them. If a vacant bnfice that was extant before cannot be given by any but by the Pope himself, much less a new dignity or bnfice can be institutad by any but by the Pope only, and by his Bulls. 
Pag. 6. C. Jniunctae Papraesenti. in exit. communibus de electione.  To conclude this question the extravagant iniunctae alleged by your brethren( but by you not answered) doth evidently prove that none ought to take any dignity or ecclesiastical administration vpon him, absque dictae sedis litteris, without the letters of the Sea of Rome. which extravagant iniunctae If Father Lister had red, he would never haue answered so vnlernedly to his own objection. 
Father Lister over seen.  At( saith he) Bullam nullam aut breue Pontifex confecit. The Pope hath sent no bull or or breue to institute him. His answer is ineptissime, most foolishly spoken, and why so good Father. Quis enim sacrorum canonum hoc unquam praecipit. What one of the holy canons hath ever commanded it? I wonder so learned a man to be so blind and over shot: but a greater wonder it is to me, to see how the English air hath changed his old sweet and good nature( for the which especially he was honoured and reverenced of all that knew him) as is seemeth by his book. Well my good old friend and Father I do now advertise you of the Canon Iniunctae alleged also by the discontented brethren. 
Pag. 60.   
Now where you object that they might haue sent to Rome, 
Fol. 119. b. objection.  and haue inquired of the Pope or his Nephew wither that carded. did it not by his hol. express commandment, or no? I answeare they swear not bound in conscience to do it, much less by draw, because by this extravagant by them alleged they were assured of their doing, being by it expressly forbidden to receive any Superior without the Popes letters. 
The 3. question.   
The third question, wither those vpon whom a superior is thrust in such sort ought not in draw and conscience to withstand him and not to receive him?  
This question is briefly decided in the foresaid extravagant Iniunctae. where it is said: Nullique eos absque dictarum literarum ostentione recipiant aut eis pareant. And that none do receive them or obey unto them, except they new the foresaid letters or bulls. See you not how unjustly you accuse your brethren throughout this book for not obeying their superiors. You mean the Prote. and the Archprist. You accuse the Pope and not them, who forbiddeth thē by express word not to obey any that cometh without the Popes bulls, as did both the Protector and the Archpriest.  
The fourth question wither he that entereth into a bnfice or dignity( as the Arch. 
The 4. question.  did) be not an intruded person, that is, an unjust possessor of that bnfice or dignity?  
Panormitanus is of the opinion that such a one is intruded. 
A● c. 2. extr. de restit. in inaegr. N. 4.  Intrusus appellatur qui obtinet dignitatem ab eo qui non habuit potestatem illam conferendi. He is an intruded person which hath obtained a dignity of him that had no authority to confer or give it. 
M. Blackwell was an intruded person till the Breue cam.  But the Protector( as hath been proved) had no authority to make M. Blackwell an Archp. Ergo M. Blackwell taking that dignity of him, was an unjust possessor, till the Popes bulls came, and by consequent, the Priestes had reason to withstand him, and not to acknowledg him for their Superior. 
Joan. 10.  You know how the holy scripture termeth such as come in at the windovve and not in at the door, that is, by worshipful, usual and ordinary means. If you ask me rhen, wither all that which M. 
And all he did was of no forcet thill the breue cam.  Blackwell did until the Popes bulls cams, swear frustrat and void, as his excommunications, suspentions, interdicts, taking away, or given faculties, &c.  
The same Panormitanus answereth thus: 
Loco citato.  know thow, that all that the intruded doth to be of no force howsoever or of whom soever he be tolerated, obeyed, or upheld in that dignity: because toleration hath no effect in one that is intruded, the reason is: because he had not his entry by one that had authority to put him in that place or room, If you united brethren reply and say, 
reply.  that your receiving of him, obeyng and bearing reverence to him as to your superior, is sufficient to install and confirm him in that authority: the same Panormitanus answeareth said tu dic quod reuerentia exhibita intruso non facit illum Praelatum. But say thow, that the honor and reverence that is born or given to an intruded person, doth not make him a Prelate. 
Can. 1. dist. 62.  And the Pope lo speaking of intruded parsons hath these words. Quis ambigat nequaquam istis esse tribuendum, quod nec docetur esse collatum? Who doubteth( quoth he) that is not at all to be attributed to those( intruded) which is not taught or proved to be conferred or given unto them? upon which words the interpreters gather that an intruded bishop is no bishop: neither hath he the execution of his bishopric, office and dignity. 
Can. Si per. 63. dist.  And Pope Nicholas the first. Recipi nullatenus meretur, quem indebitè ordinatum cognoscunt. He doth in no wise deserve to be received, whom men grow to haue ben unduly ordained or constituted. By all which is refuted that which Fa. Lister puttheth down§ 6. D. 3. for albeit the Archp. had been received and admitted, by the greater, better and learnerder part: yet you see by Panormitanus their admission maketh him not a Prelate, because he Was not lawfully instituted. 
Note.  Let all such of your united crew as received faculties of M. Blackwell to hear confessions before the bulls came, look to themselves, 
L. Nemo ff. de regul. juris.  whither they had authority to absolve or no? Quia nemo plus juris ad alium transfer potest quam ipse habet. 
his intrusion further proved.  master Blackwell had no authority then to give faculties, as you see: ergo you that received them of him had none at all. Further more, the unlawful and unjust entrance of M. Blackwell is proved thus. 
C. beneficium de regaur. in 6.  Beneficium Ecclesiasticum non potest licite sine institutione canonica obtineri. An ecclesiastical bnfice( as the Archprist is) cannot be lawfully obtained or gotten without canonical institution. But M. Blackwell obtained not his bnfice by canonical institution. Ergo he cam not in by the door, but by the window. I prove the Minor thus. Dinus the best and learnest interpreter on the rules of the Canon lawe, saieth the rule intendeth to say thus much. That if any be instituted by him who hath no right to institute, or if the form be not observed that ought to be observed in institutions, that then the Institution is not canonical, because it wanteth that which is of the substance of the Institution: and therfore by such an Institution a bnfice cannot be lawfully obtained. But M. BlackWell was instituted by him that had no right to institute as hath been proved sufficiently: ergo he gote that bnfice unlawfully, and by consequent Was lawfully resisted by the discontentsd brethene and unjustly admitted by your united brethren. 
In comment. de spoliis clericorum pa. 7. no. 3.  Beside this, Nauarr teacheth that Iulius 3. by his decree did fo explicat and extend the chapter Iniunctae, that if any one had obtained the Popes signature for a bnfice, and vpon that signature should take possession before he had his bulls, that he should loose that bnfice for the same and be made uncapable therof. Now M. Blackwell took possession Without either signature or bull and therfore was made uncapable of that dignity. If you answer that this dignity of Archpriest is not reckoned up amongst the dignities that are reckoned in that chapped. Iniunctae, and so the extension made by Iulius 3. not to appertain to him? 
Ad c. accepta extr. de restitut. spoliat. oppos. 8. N. 24. o.  The same Nauarr answereth that Iulius 3. doth not only mean of these Prelates name in the said chapter, but also of all such as be put in their place, or are equal to them. But the Archp. is put in the place not of one, but of many bishops, and is equal to them in jurisdiction: ergo the chapped. Iniunctae, is extended to him by the rule: 
Pa. licet instit, de testatis.  Surrogatum sapit naturam eius in cuius locum surrogatur. And by consequence mayst. Blackw. was intruded taking the possession without bull or breue of his hollines.  
The fifth question, 
The 5. question.  Whither those priests that received the Archp. as their Superior vpon the carded. letters without the Popes bulls, did not offend, and are punishable for it?  
This question is decided in few words by Bonifacius the 8. in the forenamed extravagant Iniunctoe, alleged by your brethren for their defence, but by you drowned in the depth of silence. A sign you writ not with a mind to search out the truth, but With intention to brable, and to continue strife and contention concealing and omitting the strength and proof of your adversary, and rūve aroving after by matters and childish toys nothing at all apparteynig to the matter in question. All chapters of churches( saith he) and all couentes of religious houses, or any other whosoever that shall receive or obey any of the above name, except they bring with them his holl. bulls, shal be so long suspended from receiving the fruit of their benefice, 
D.C. Iniunctae pa. capitata. The united priests punishable for receiving the Archp. vpon the carded. letters.  till they haue deserved to obtain again the grace and favor of the Sea apostolic. You perceive by this thē if you had had benefice, for your willing or rather light admitting of the Archpriester in the order you did, you had lost all the commodities of them, till his Holl: had forgiven you that offence. I and albeit you haue escaped the punishment, yet can you not but see, and confess, that you did not well, but directly against the Popes institution, 
Can. consequens dist. 11. ( Nam qui ab huius sedis Rectoribus plena auctoritate sancicitur, &c. firmiter& inconcusse teneatur. For that which is ordained by full auctori. of the governors of this Sea, and ought firmly and stably to be kept) to receive any prelate whosoever or by what means or order soever he was sent you. Yf he came not with his Holl: letters, beside the canon Nulli fas est distinct. 19. alleged to no purpose by Father Lister in the 5.§ of his book doth flatlye condemn you, saying that it is not worshipful for any man in will or dead to transgress the commandement of the Sea apostolic &c. but you by receiving the Archp. without the Popes bulls did transgress the commandements of Bonifacius the 8. Ergo you transgressed the commandement of the Sea apostolic: and by consequent fell into the penalties by Gregory the 4. set down in the foresaid Canon. Look to it. Thus then you see yourselves to be charged with overmuch lightness, and your brethren to be discharged of disobedience schism and sin and all. Nor can you excuse yourselves by saying you knew not thus much before, because Ignorantia juris neminem excusat. 
C. Jgnorantia de regu. jur. in 6  to be ignonorant of the laws, is no just excuse or to be admitted. According to these promises your discontented brethren if they say it,( for you note not the page.) do full well and truly say, that which you impute to thē, viz false information,( why? was not his hollines informed only by 2. Iesuite and a secular priest, that spake against his knowledge) not hard of in the Church before( this I haue proved to be true) and that it is against all equity and iustice( This y haue sufficiently proved also) and that his holl. could not subtilely appoint it without their consentes, which is full true meaning by the ordinary maner of proceeding, according to the Canons and Decrees of his predecessors) and that the means by whic he appointed it is insufficient,( as done by a carded. letters without the Popes bulls, which is as hath been proved insufficient to erect a new dtgnitie) binding no man to obey it,( because it was done against the canons, decrees, and constitutions of the church and contrary to the custom and style of the court of Rome. As like wise that is true they say. A new and extraordinary authority, &c. Which you very absurdly haue put down as absurdly spoken, as in place will beshewed.  
The last question, 
Fol. 14. The 6. and last question.  Whither rhat those priests that withstand a superior put vpon them in order a foresaid, be schismatics or whether they do sin atall for thus withstandige him? To begine with the last, sure it is they sinned not at all. 
The priest did not sine innot receiving the Archp. L. iustè ff. de acq. possessed.  For whosoever doth that which the lawe or their Superior command thē to do, doth not sine at all. But these priests did nothing but that Which the lawe and their Superior the Pope commanded them to do, as hath been proved out of the extravagant Iniunctae, Ergo they did not sin in refusing, to obey the Archp. instituted by a Cardinals letters.  
This question of schism is the chiefest cause of this controversy, 
The chief cause of all this controversy.  not only for that they wear counted, yea forsooth by a scandalous and unlearned book proved to be schismatics, and that by the approbation of the provincial superior of the jesuits, and the Archpriest, 
Whether the priests that refused to receive the Archp. vpon the carded. letters were schismatics or no. They could not possible be schismatics.  for that they did not receive the Archp. vpon the carded. letters: but also for that vpon the sight of the bull they did not, aclowledge themselves schismatics, and make recantation thereof, or else not to be admitted to confession and absolution. Oh folly! o ignorance! o scandal! o want of charity! how is it possible that men who still protested to be obedient children to the Sea apostolic and wear in prison( some of thē) many yeres for the defence of the Sea apostolic that promised all obedience vpon the sight of his hol. bulls, could be schismatics? Schisma( saieth Pope Pelagieus) Scissuram sonat, 
C. Schisma 24. q. 1. What is schism.  schism soundeth or signifieth a cutting of. But these men did not cut themselves of not from the Sea apostolic ergo no schismatics. again in unitate( saieth he) scissura esse non potest. In unity can be no cutting of. These men remaineing still in unity with the sea apostolic how could they be cut of? 
Can. non vevo quisquis 23. q. 5.  The same Pope saieth elsewhere. Quisquis ergo ab Apostolicis diuisus est sedibus, in schismate eum esse non dubium est. Who soever is then divided from the apostolical Sea it is not to be doubted, but that he is in schism. A contrario sensu. he then that is not divided from the apostolic Sea, is not in schism. Your brethren wear not divided from that Sea, 
For Fa. Lister hath told you in his§ 6.  ergo they were not in schism. you know how grievous pains and penalties are adjoined unto it. how great thē was the fault of him that made the book of schism to prove those that communicated with the sea of rome to be schismatics? how great was their fault that by their authority and subscriptions authorized that book? a foolish book in dead ground not vpon a rock, but vpon the sand. For, for his foundation he put that for a certainty which was and is in question viz: that the Cardin. letters wherein was made mention of the Popes express commandement, wear sufficient to institute this dignity, he erred in the lawe, and therfore gave us such poor divinity. But let us suppose that the carded. had the Popes letters, to show in confirmation of his authority,( as he had not) and that the priestes, not Withstanding, that did resist him yet in this case it was neither schism nor rebellion: bieause they might allege the Popes letters were gotten by surreption and false information. Ar all such as impugn the Popes bulls and breves vpon these 2. occasions, or any other just occasion( which are daily impugned in Rome itself) accounted schismariks, rebellious factious or seditious? or contemners of their Superiors for the same? nothing less. But of this matter which is the chief head and cause of this contention,( as your discontented brethren do show to his hol. and the Inquisition) You say: You will not talk of, and that you are very sorry that ever it was mentioned. or brought in question, and why? because unquiet people hath taken occasion thereby to continue contention, and to make more brables then wcare neadfull. Thank those unquiet heads that would be meadling he in other mens matters. thank those there authorized it, and be not offended with those whom you call unquiet people, for defending the truth yea for defending their honor good name and famed, for complaininge of the injury done unto thē by so slanderoous and scandalous a book. you cry out on them, you hunt and chase them throughout your book for having touched the name famed, and honor of somme particular men for lesser faults( I do not find fault when you tell them their faults in dead) and yet you are offended with them, for defending themselves from the blame of so horrible a crime as schism is, which I dislik in you. 
Fol. 81. b.  If to show the great strife and dislick you haue conceived against Do. Nordone for calling one grave Priest a knight son, arrant knave, not openly but in his ear and at another time knave and Montebanck in the presence of 2. Priests.( You do not spare his ashes, but by this count, do all that in you is, to deface a dead mans memory): how great cause then haue so many grave Priestes yet living to be offended. First with Fa. Lister with writing then with the provincial, Archpriest, and you united brethren for callumniating them not in corners and in mens ears, but openly not before 2. Priests only, but before the whole world publicly, not for writing or calling them knaves or Montebancks but to be infinitely worser, base, and more abject in all christian mens ears, then arrant knaves or Montebancks can be, for no Christian man can be more injured and infamed. then to be called accounted and as it wear proved schismatics, yea worser then soothsayers, wiches and Idolaters? If you in reason may mislik with Do. Nordon for the one, far greater reason haue they to mislike with these terms, names and shameful reproaches. Was it not high time for them to look about them, and to defend their honor estimation, good name, famed and renown? But you will not talkeat all of this schism: Why so? for they wear either justly or injustly accused therof. If justly: What cause haue you to hold your peace and to be sorry that it was mentioned? seing you lay so at them, with hands and heals for far smaller matters. Example, For not putting the name of the printer, nor the place where it was printed, with such other trifles. Very lick it is, if you could justly haue accused them of schism, you would not haue spared them. If they swear accused unjustly( as they swear by your own confession, and as his Holl. since by a Breve hath declared, by condemning that slandarous book that was written against them) with what face and conscience can you extol above the skies these persons that were the writers and approvers of that book, wherein they were condemned for schismatics, yea to be seditious and worse then soothe saiers and idolaters. And why? for soothe, for obeying, and keapinge the decrees and Canons of the church, in not admitting an Archpriest constituted and set over them without his Holl. bulls.  
This accusation of schism so heinous a crime, 
The second point in controversy is for renewing the crime of schism after his Holl. breue was come.  is the chief point also of controversy between your discontented brethren and the jesuits and Archpriest joined with them in affection and error. The unchurch being forgotten and forgiven on both parts after the coming of his Holl. bulls, and the union made: the Archpriest began again to set a broach the vnsauory licor of schism, calling and holding them for schismatics, because they denied him obedience upon the carded. letters. 
The cause why the Priests wrot in latin and Englishe.  This is the occasion of writing their books in their defence, this is the cause of their complaining to his Holl. and this was also the chief cause of their appeal from the Archpriest. The 2. chief points you touch not, neither come you near to them in your apology: 
The united never come near the point in controversy.  But fill up your book with old dissentiones and practices against D. Alleine with impertinent letters, with Fishers examinations, with praises of particular men, with disgraces of your own coat and profession, and to be btief with words talk, tattle, and babbell, all quiter from the purpose, and nothing to the controversy in question.  
To omit that the jesuits had not to do or meddle in these points and contention between the Archpriest and the Priests: I say, 
The fault of our English jesuits at home.  it appertained to their coat and profession rather to haue used all charitable means to haue united them together, then to haue used such strange means to disloyne and seperat them more then before by exasperating the Priests one against another. I know the society was at first founded and grownded vpon love and charity towards his neighbour, vpon teaching and making concord and unity: But alas? some in this point do stagger and haue fare swarued from the first foundation, and seam to begine to build and work vpon other mens discords and dissensions, the which as I fear me in the end will work discredit on both sides, so am I sure in the mean time it is the cause of the loss of many a soul. God amend all that is amiss and give you grace either to abstain from setting out your larger apology, or else to set it out with better stuff then is in this your first, with more truth in handlinge of matters, with more charity to afterwards your discontented brethren and with more respect to your own order and vocation, wither the Author be an united Priest or a Religious person.  
there you talk of appeals, 
Fol. 9. Of time appealing.  as though they did injury to the Archpriest to appeal from him. The judge a quo from whom a man appealeth, is never injured by appealing from him. because by appealing a man is constrained to do it, rather in his own defence then to dishonour or injure the judge. But they appealed for others aswell as for themselves. Neither is this so absurd as you would make men beleave for as in some cases, if one gain the victory by appellation, it doth help all his companions, so lickwise one may appeal for an other or in the name of a neither. Sisit eadem causa defensionis, 
C. Penult. exit. de appellat.& 161. D. D.  if it be the same cause of defence. As our interpreters note. and so it appertaineth not to sedition, as you say, but to defension. But none hath as yet appeared in Rome to present the appeal. Good cause why. their brethren were so well handled there with their appeal. It is periculosum for thē to come there, and therfore are excusable. besides de jure comuni the appellant hath a whole year to prosecute his appeal, 
Argument. c. ex parte 1. de appellat. Auth. Si qui c. de temp. appellat.& clem. sicut de appell. c. ex ratione exit. de appell.  and if he hath let that year, for that cause, the second year is granted him to pursue his appeal. and if he be so let, that he cannot the second year pursue it, for a just cause and let the third year may be granted to him to pursue his appeal. And what juster cause of let can there be to your brethren, then the might of their aduersaries at Rome, their imprisonment at home, and their want of money and means to go or sand to Rome? And as for M. 
M. Charnokes appeal was worshipful.  Charmocks appeal made in Lorraine it was lawful and to be admitted, as he well proveth in his letter to carded. Burgesius and Nauar. saith. 
Pag. 91. Ad c. cum coutingat de rescript. 14. cum nullitatis. no. 7.  Hoc verum enim, &c. This is true( that a man cannot appeal from the excommunication after he is excommunicated) when the excommunication is pure and not condicionall: But when it is under condition, except you do this or that,( viz you are excommicated) then it is otherwise. for a man may appeal from a conditional excommication, yea after the 10. Daies( allowed to appeal in) before the condition fall out. Which is M. Charnoks case, who was willed not to go into Ingland without leave under the pain of excommunication. Before the condition fill out, that is, before hewent into Ingland, he appealed from that sentence, and that justly, as you see out of Nauarr. 
Fol. 9. b. C. Romana Pa. cum vero de appella. in 6.  You object as a great fault, That in the mean space no obedience or regard is had to the Superior During the dependence of the appeal. Why? are you ignorant of this that appellation doth ligare manus judicis a quo? bind the Iudgs hands from whom one appealeth. that is, that all jurisdiction is taken from that judge in the matters wherein it is appealed from him. But their appeal is in general and in all matters from the Archpriest ergo in no matter hath he jurisdiction over them. Mary if they appeal but in some matters only, and disobey him in the rest, they offend hey nouslye by that disobedience. And as for the appeal itself( if all be true they lay down there, as I deame it to be, because you do not controvle or refute any part theroof) I think never men had juster cause to appeal then they had. read then who list, and if he haue any iudgment he will confess as much. As you accuse them here very unjustly for appealing. so they do full justly( because you do not correct nor cheeck them for it) complain of the Archpriest iniquity, 
Pag. 54.70.  for suspending, interdicting them and taking away their faculties, after their appellation, and after that his hands were bound. 
Pag. 53. The Archpriest doth against draw.  The letter with which he suspended them is set down verbatim in their book to the Inquisitors. I think he is not so ignorant as not to grow, that nihil debet innouari a judice a quo, post appellationem. If he knew not so much, yet for the respect and reverence he ought to haue born to his Holl. to whom they appealled, he should haue abstained from those rigorous and severe actions. If I had been one of them, I beleave I should haue said. according to the proverb. Hold your hand M. Blakw. for god sendeth a shrewde cowe short horns. You push at us with the horns of your suspensions and interdicts, but you hurt us not, as he did not hurt than indeed, and therfore they did subtilely and justly exercise all the functions of Priesthood notwith standing those censures quia latae fuerunt a non suo judice they having taken all jurisdiction from him by their appeal. besides M. Blackw. 
C. De priore exit. de appell. l. quoniam judices c. eod.  is punishable by lawe, because he did not, admit their appeal. by this and diuers other of his actions, men may see how unfit divines be to govern the church, without the aid of canonists.  
The 8. fault is, 
The 8. fault. Fol. 9. b.  for finding fault with thē for printing their books without particular name of Author, without licence of Superior and other circumstances of modesty, &c. When you yourselves do commit the same fault. what particular name of Author hath this your Apol. forsooth, The united Priests. and theirs hath By Priests that swear accused of schism. You say: Permissu superiorum, by the permission of our Superior. And they say: Printed at rouen by Jacob Molens. they name the place and printer, and you put neither place nor printer in yours. For their want of modesty, course them hardly, I do not find fault therewith, so that you yourselves had not fell into the same fault. for in many places you pass also the bands of modesty. remember who saith. Turpe eisim Doctori, &c. In this leaf and the next you lay load on them, whether justly or no, I will not judge, but do leave it to their own defence. If they haue deserved it, I am full glad they are told of it so rowndly, to teach them and others that writ hereafter to be more modest, and to keep themselves with in the compass of their matter.  
In the same leaf it is a world to see, how you lay about you to persuade the Readers, that for the causes by you there alleged, your brethren fell again to contention( after the receipt of the Bull) against the Archpriest. 
The cause of the last contention since the Bull. came.  But they tell another tale, and put down other causes of their contention, which, as it was the chiefest moriue of their appeal and of their writting to his holl. 
Pag. 61.  you haue quietly omitted there with silence. Thus they say in effect to his Holl. As soon as they sawe his Bull, they submitted themselves to the Archpriest and being desirous of peace, they forgot and forgave all injuries passed and specially by which they were proclaimed through out Ingland for schismatics, by a book written against them. Then in the next page., they tell their tale thus. Not long after the common ioy, that ensued of this unity, which proceeded of the receipt of his Holl. Bull, the Archpriest of his own accord, or set on( as they rather think) by the jesuits, began again to renew the ovld war in charging them with the owld calumny of schism, writting letters thereof and dispersing the copies abroad every wheare( the letter is put down in the 63. pag. of their latin book) wherein he reporteth he had received a resolution from Rome, that all they which did not admit him for their Superior before the Popes Bull came, swear schismatics and that they should satisfy therfore( that is: recant their schism) before they be absolved of any Priest that was not noted with the mark of that schism. 
Pag. 120.  And for proof hereof they set down in th'end of their appeal, the form of abiuring this schism, that every Priest that withstood him, must make before he be absolved in confession. For these injuries they appealed and wrot to his Holl. to haue his iudgment, whether they swear schismatics for this fact, 
The Pope reprehendeth the Archpriest for his severity. And quitteth the Priestes from schism.  or no? His Holl. since in a Bull of Pacification sent down before Christmas( the which I saw and red) doth not only exhort both sides to peace and unity: But also reprehendeth the Archpriest for his over severe and austere government, and quitteth your brethren from the crime of schism, in condemninge the book that was written by Fa. Lister against them, and approved by his provincial and the Archpriest. 
The state of the question.  This is then the question. Whether the Archpriest did call and count them schismatics after their obedience made to him vpon the coming down of his Holl. Bull, for not obeying him vpon the carded. Protectors letters? This is the triple, vpon which they play, and the which they sound against the Archpriest. For either this is true, which they say, or false. If true?( as I haue already proved) they could not be schismatics therefore, the Pope affirmeth them to be none, and you yourselves confess so much, as being sorry that ever mention was made thereof) then do you writ against your own conscience, by writing against a known truth, defending a falsehood, or disguisinge a verity. If it be false, then had it been your parte to prove it, and to new that the Archpriest never wrot such a letter, nor prescribed such a form of abjuration as before, 
The united are bound to ask the other Priestes forgeivennes.  If you cannot prove this in your next larger apology. then are you bound in conscience and of charity to ask them forgiveness, for the injury you do them in this your book, in making the world believe with words without proof, that they, and not the Archpriest were the Authors and beginners of these troubles and contentions, since the receipt of his holl: bulls. Look well to yourselves in this point, least the threats and comminations you mention elswhere fall not vpon your own heads, for concealing and adultering the truth and the causes of this contention, and for putting them vpon other mens shoulders. Is this to devise new injuries offered by the vnquiett, when they are indeed owld injuries renewed to make and increase disquietness and dissension?  
In the tenth leaf, 
Jmpertinent.  you apply again the last contention of the roman colleague to this quarrel now between the Priestes and the Archp. and the jesuits: but how unaptly hath ben noted before, and every reader that is not stark blind may easily see, and it is flat against the rule in draw that saieth: a diversis non fit illatio, there can be made no good illancion or consequence from things that be diuers or opposite.  
Your 9. fault is in calling carded. 
The 9. fault. Fol. 12. Fol. 103 104.  Caietaine the Protector your higher Superior and again Our highest superior under his Hollines and from so high a Superior. which in dead is a fowle ignorant fault in you. Why? is the Protector of Ingland, 
The Protector of Jngland is not superior to any Englisman.  in that he is Protector your Superior? Nay, hath he any authority or jurisdiction vpon the poorest Englishman that is, either at home in Ingland or in Rome? Dare you be so dull as to affirm it? He is called Protector a protegendo, that is: he is honoured with that title, to help, aid and assist the country, or any of the nation in their suits and affairs they haue in the court of Rome. But as for authority or jurisdiction he hath none over any whereof he is Protector, as carded. or protector. You are willfully blind, and so would make your Readers also in making them beleeue that the Protector of the nation is not only a superior but also the highest Superior our nation hath under his Holl. for I tell you, he hath no more authority over an Englishman as Protector, then I haue which is none at all. vpon this error or ignorance Fa. Lister founded and built his ruinons book of schism, vpon these words. Qui vos spernit, &c. as though they had despised the Protector their Superior. Now you see how the good Fa. was deceived. In your next apology recall this gross and palpable error, or new us your reasons, Why he is our Superior as he is Protector. And hereby is made void all your speeches, of gods iudgment. king Saules example, 
Fol. 12. b.  disobedience so often iterated, &c. because the Protector was not their superior, and next he did not prove, neither can you prove for him, 
Fischers memorial.  that he was the Popes Delegat to institute an Archpriest over thē.  
In the 11. 
Fol. 7.13.26. b. 68.80. b. 81.82.95. What was this Fissher.  leaf you repeat again the association and make mention of Fischers memorials as you do in many places of your book, stuffing and farcing the same, with one and the self same thing often repeated. But what was this Fisher of whose examination you make such account as of a Iewel? In your own conceit he was a lewde fellow, a Rogge and of no credite and by your own report one of the most exorbitant disorderly fellows in the Romaines stirs. And yet forsooth you will haue all the world beleaue his examination. 
Fol. 93.  But your Reader must vndrestand, that this miserable fellowe coming to Rome, after that the stirs in the colleague swear happily finished, he was caught by the back in Rome by those against whom he had written and dispersed the often name memorial written in D. 
Fol. 97.  Griffith his howse in Cambray. and so was put into the hands of the officers of his Holl. The miserable fellowe being apprehended and fearing the Gallies or the gallowes, to save his life and limbs, was ready to ware and forsweare, yea and to writ and speak Placentia. that is to say, such thingb as he knew would best please the offended persons, and by which he might obtain for himself perdon and liberty. And albeit the Author of this book counteth him a naughty fellow, yet would he haue his reader beleeue, that all that he spake or wrott was gospel. 
Fol. 82.  And why so? Mary because he subscribed his examination: Ego R. Fish. it a dico. juro,& ratifico. IR. Fish. do say so, swear and ratefie. And because Fisher deposed much more, then you haue laid down here tactis Euangelijs putting his hand vpon the gospel. 
Fol. 97. b.  The 3. reason why we ought to beleave all was true, 
Fol. 82.  was because. All this is consirmed again by the subscription of his Holl. officer. Ego Acharitius Sqorsionius, &c. which you ad for more credit of the matter forsooth as though the Popes officers do not subscribe to many a lie, that false fellowes make in their examination. He did not subscribe to give more credite to the matter thereby, as you ignorantly say, but to give faith and credit that that was it which he deposed or said in his examination, be it true or false.  
But why should I or any other give credit to Fishers depositions, 
Fisher was pariured by you own Confessio.  when your own conscience make you to tell us that all he spake in a manner was but lies. For thus you say: 
Fol. 95.  And albeit we will not affirm all to be true which he said, ye many things are such a● coold not be well feigned, and are confirmed otherwize, and the speaking voluntarily vpon his each must be presumed to haue had somme care also of his conscience, &c. why do you not beleeueall he said to be true, but Many things seeing he spake voluntariely vpon his oath, and must be presumed, to haue had somme care also of his conscience? Yf you beleeue not all he said vpon his voluntary oath, why should you or your Readers beleeue Many things he spake and uttered vpon his voluntary oath, and constrained for fear of his life? I see no reason why I should not deem him perjured in all he said, and to haue said all against his conscience, to please them in whose hands his life lay, as well as you deem him to haue been perjured in some things, and in some things to haue spoken against his conscience. For if you think not all to be true he said, vpon his oath? I thinek nothing at all he said upon his oath to be true, for the reasones a soresaid. For Qui semel presumitur malus, semper presumitur malus in eodem genere mali. Yf he be perjured in saying some things, he is presumed to be a perjured person in all he uttered vpon his oath. 
Consider Fisher standing quaking before his judge.  Your reader must considerer Fisher to haue been one of the chiefest Doers in the roman stirs against the Fathers, and after to haue gone into Ingland there to defame them, then to haue commen into the know countries and there to haue written against them a slanderous libel or memorial( all this you report in your book, 
Fol. 94. b.  in the places before quoted) at last to haue commen again to Rome( more then half converted as you say) and there to haue been apprehended and pursued by such as he had before defamed standing before the Popes attorney, quaking and quivering through fear of his life, and then to depose or say what he knew would please and like those in whose hands the thread of his lief lay either to be lenghtned or shortened. Now conjecture you, if this swear a voluntary oath or no if he had any remorse of conscience or respected what he said save only that which might procure his liberty? Add this, that the Authors of this apology do not beleeue themselves, that all was true, which he said vpon his oath. All these circunstannces laid together, what haue you gotten by naming Fishe● and his examination so often as you do? Truly with wise and prudent Readers nothing at all: but it doth reather make against you, and so you might well haue left it out.  
The fault you lay upon them, 
Fol. 14. No fault to call the Protectors power in question.  for calling into controversy the Protectors actions and power● no fault at all, because he had no authority o● power to institute an Archp. nor was he their Superior as hath been showed before: but the fault was in the Archp. in accepting of that dignity in such sort and yours in consenting unto him and taking him for your Superior, who was then no more your Superior thē the man in the moon. And in that you add. They bring in contempt what so ever hath been d●●e in Rome hitherto, about the institution and continuation of this hierarchy: You may well put hitherto and continuation in your purses, for it is well known both by their confessions and yours that they impugned the institution made by the carded. only and obeid, so soon as they sawe the Popes bull. 
A fitten.  And therfore thit is one of your accustomend figures called a fitton: to bring them unduly into discredit. 
This Archp. authority is new  And to prove they speak contemptuously you add, they call it a new and extraordinary authority. Ergo they speak contemptuously. If to speak truth be to speak contemptuously. I grant your conclusion: but if that be new and extraordinary, that never was in Christs church before( as this officie with so large a jurisdiction, of which they mean, and you yourselves know it well but that you list to wrangle) full sure it is, that this Archp. office was never in Christs church before, 
and never in Christs church before.  and so is it how and extraordinary, and you haue she Wed your vanity in correcting Magnificat. They knew so well as you that it is an Ancient dignity in Christs church, and haue red so well as you the title de Officio Archypresbyteri, of the Archp. office, but withall they knew more then you( as it seemeth) that an Archpr. had never the same jurisdiction, or greater then all the Bishops of 2. realms had, 
never Archpr. had such Jurisdiction.  when they wear in possession of their bishoprics. This is in deed a new and extraordinary dignity, is it not my brethren, what say you? tell m,( I pray you) in your larger Apolog. what you judge of it, and why you complain of your brethren here for calling it, a new authority. Mary if they had said or written that his holl. could not give him so large and ample jurisdiction and authority, then might you haue justly reprehended thē for so fowle an error. But for attributing contempt to them for saying truth, and that your conscience do tell you to be truth, surely you haue committed a soul fault, and take heed that it proceedeth not of Splen: assured I am that you task them unjustly for it.  
Besides, 
a fowle fault.  your fault is in taking your aduersaries words by piece meal onely, as heretics are accustomend to do, and leaving out his discourse. Yf you had meant well you should haue answered the foundation and ground of their discourse, 
Pag. 9.  the which you pass over in silence, because in truth you are not able to answer it. I egg you let us see what you can do in your larger Apolog. for this was set out in hast, as it seemeth by the substance thereof.  
It followeth: 
Fol. 14. Your brethren  unpleasing and obtruded authority. which are both true: unpleasing to them to haue an Archp.( the very inferior dignity in Gods church) in stead of a bishop which they desired. Obtruded, by Fath. Parsons and other englishmens advice in Rome given to his hol. as you confess yourselves. 
Fol. 7.  disorderly procured. because it was procured not by the vsvall and accustomend order of procuring dignitiesand offices in Gods church and by such men as it touched not, neither by right or draw( being dead to the world) had they to deal or meddle at all in that. 
Fol. ibid.  for 2. jesuits( as you confess before) did mittere falcem in messem alienam, meddle with other mens matters. Secularia secularibus, regularia regularibus, saith the draw. let secular priests meddle in matters apparteining to secular priests, and religious men in matters belonging to religious men. Exorbitant from the office of an Archp as hath been showed before: for by reason of his large jurisdiction it may well be called exorbitant, without offence to his holl. or any man else: so long as it is not denied but that his hol: may institute such an Archp. Disonant from reason, 
Fol. 14.  that is to say: that one man should haue the jurisdiction of all the Archbishops and Bishops of Ingland, and Scotland. For if they had much a do, each one to govern his own diocese, by what reason cane one man with his 12. assistants govern them all? 
C. de multa exit. de praebend.  Besides the holy Canons and reason itself will not that one man should haue 2. benefice, much less 2. bishoprics. Ergo it is much more dissonant from reason, that one man supply the place and room of so many Bishops. Beside, all this was spoken by your brethren before the Popes bull came down. for so soon as they sawe the bull, they subjecteth their reason, to his hol. will and authority, without asking a reason either whie or wherefore. because his will in matters of benefice, 
Vaine reprehension.  is reason. and therefore you did ill to tax your brethren, for that they said both truly and duly before the coming of the breue, and vndulie to impute it to thē as spoken since the coming of the said breue. the which is a fowle fault in you, if to discredit men undeservedly, be a fault with you. 
your wits a woll gathering.  And to the accustomend practise of Gods Church. I marvel where your wittes swear( if you haue any at all) when you laid this down as spoken Contemptuoufly of the dignity and office of the Arch. how can a most assured and known truth be contempt? you are very ignorant of the practise of Gods Church if you knovye not this: for, wither it be to be understood of the instituting of the Archp. by the carded, letters, or of his ample jurisdiction: it is most true they say, as hath been evidently proved before, and you shal never be able to give one instance to the contrary. 
give one instance. Fol. 14. b.  Yf you can, bring it in your larger Apol. and I will say as you say, they sp●ke ●ontemptuously of the dignity.  
The speeches which followe are not allowed or liked either of me, or of any such unpartial priests as I am▪ and I leave to them either to explicat their meaning or to recall that which they haue unduly uttered. The which I would aduise both them and you to do, wherein you are both faulty. the which wear an evident sign of sincerity an charity in both. God grannt you so to do, this is all the hurt I wish you.  
It is a fowle fault also to call their pretended association a popular regiment. 
Fol. 15. Another foul fault.  But the desire you haue to discredit your brethren, make you to forget what you said before, and so to contradict yourselves, as commonly al do that flow in words without matter, and say what they list without proof, as you do ordinarily throughout your book. For before, you tell the tale, 
Fol. 7.  that they resolved to begin again by devising a certain new association amongst themselves with officers and prelacies of their own institution, &c. and that his Holl. should be forced afterwards to confirm them. now by these prelates they meaned Bishops, as they themselves say, and you confess somuch yourselves, that bishops wear demanded. and afterwards you object to M. D. bishop and M. Charnock, that they swear appointed to be Bishops. Yf this be true, how dare you call that a popular regiment, wherein are ecclesiastical officers, under a bishop their head and conductor?  
That Which ensueth: 
Fol. 16. Contradiction.  And thus much about their contempt of impugnation of the authority instituted by his Holl. and confirmed afterwards by an express Breue, savoureth of contradiction. to be first instituted by his hol. and afterwards to be confirmed by his Hol. because the Popes institution or collation of a bnfice al ways containeth in it express confirmation. and therefore if he had been instituted by his Holl. there had been no need of confirmation. But because he was not lawfully instituted by the carded, as your brethren said, and is above proved, therefore he had need in deed of a bull called, perinde valere to coroborat and give force to the first inualiditie and imperfect institution. and so whether you will or no, your brethren are delivered from Contempt and impugnation of the authority instituted by his hol. seing there was no such institution made by his Hol. but by the carded onely.  
The 10. 
The 10. fault is an enormous fault.  Fault I find with you, is a fowle and enormous fault. and I am ashamed for your sakes, that ever united priest should be so far over shoes as to impute that for a fault, which is a solid and certain article of our faith: Yea, that which they say, is the foundation of the Cath. faith. and yet you that fight daily for that faith, find fault with it. 
Fol. 16. b  They ask: who vpon earth is warranted from erring, but one? and not he in all things neither, You wonder at this doctrine and yet you confess it to be true in some senses and interpretations: and afterwards you say: it is dangerous and scandalous to teach the people in this general manner, that authority is not an infaillable rule of truth, in all that haue authority, and by consequence, that no man is bound in all things to beleeue what every man in authority shall teach him, because there is no man vpon earth warranted from erring but one, and not he in all things. Is not this true and cath. doctrine? is not this our faith? that every Archbishop, bishop, and Archpriest may err, and that but one in the whill world, hath the privilege not to err how can true and cath. 
How can cath. doctrine be scandalous to cath. men.  doctrine be either dangerous to be taught or scandalous You haue done both dangerously and scandalously, to mislike it in your text, and to note it in your margin: dangerous and offensive doctrine, but to whom? mary, to men blinded with malice, as you seem in this place to be. what? Priests that suffer for cath. Religion to find fault with this proposition: None vpon earth is warranted from erring but one? Why! look better about you. is it not for this onely article that you endure prisons, chains, and most cruel death? viz: that all men in the world may err in religion except the Pope? is not this the article that maketh us to beleeue the gospel to be the word of God? because the Pope that cannot err teacheth us, that it is the word of God. Haue not all those that haue succeeded th'other XI. Apostles in their Seas, most dangerously erred? and why? because they had not this privilege which was given to S. Peter and to his successors onely. My belief, for the which I live in banishment, is: that all the prelates and superiors in the world may err except his holl. who is Christs vicar and S. Peters successor. And what else do they say? If I haue an erroneous faith, I pray you teach me an other in your expected Apol. In this faith I was baptized, in this faith nourished, and for this faith( by Gods grace) I shall be ready to shed my blood. For this faith, our blessed brethren haue most constantly suffered martyrdoome, and for this faith here you check your discontented brethren.  
our poor country may sing welladay, 
The priests checked for laying down a cath. proposition.  welladay, to see here Cath. priests and confessors to be so blinded in contention and desire of reuenge, and discredit of their brethren priests, and that in defence of other men, that to their own dishonour and everlasting discredit they check and find fault with them for speaking catholickly and christianly, to call the teaching of the chiefest point and article of our Religion, dangerous, scandalous, and offensive doctrine. wither will malice lead you in the end, if you go on as you haue begun? 
A strange union.  Are you so united against your brethren to discredit them what soever it cost you, that you disvnite yourselves from the cath. doctrine, from his Holl. and the cath. church? Fie vpon it. I am both ashamed and sorry that you haue so ouerlashed yourselves. They say: All the prelates and superiors in the world may err, his Holl. onely excepted. You say: 
The Pope cannot err in deciding controversies of faith or religion.  It is scandalous and offensive doctrine. They say. authority is not an infaillable rule of truth but in one onely. viz the Pope( who by reason of his authority cannot err) You say: That it is a dangerous doctrine. They say: that Archpriests, Archdiacons, yea Archbishops haue done amiss and swarued from the truth. You say: it may prove dangerous and scandalous to teach the people in this manner against their superiors. Why?( my maisters) must truth be lest untaught for fear of scandal? where haue you learned that? and if there were any scandal in teaching this doctrine, as it is impossible there should yet is it Scaddalum acceptum non datum. they gave no scandal in saying the truth, but you haue taken scandal thereby, and do by your writing scandalise others. Vaevobis, What? do you not teach the people thus much? that all may err except the Pope. Yf you do not, you must answer for it, because you teach them not the truth. yf you do so teach,( as I am sure you do) what a shane is it then for you to tax and cheek your brethren for the same, 
The priests unduly checked.  as so Wers of dangerous, offensive, and seandalous doctrine? I conclude th●● with them( yea with the Cath. church) that the Pope is the onely prelate that cannot err in deciding a controversy or doubt in faith and religion, all the world else may err in deciding of such doubts.  
But( say they) and not he in all things. That is: 
The Pope may err in matters of fact.  the Pope himself who hath so singular and eminent a privilege not to err in matters of faith, may yet and often doth err in some thinghs. I conjure and charge your conscience, as you shall answer for it at the day of iudgment, first, whither you did not know when you wrote this, that they meant of matters of fact: that is, that the Pope in matters of fact may err so well as an other man. yf you did know it? why do you reprehend it? Is it not a true and cath. assertion and proposition? do you make the Pope a God, or a man? Is not this good, true, and cathol. doctrine? The Pope is a man, and as a man may err and sin, 
The Pope is a sinful man as others are.  for he hath his passions of love and dislike, of affection, and not affection to a man, as other men haue? he may be ill informed, and by that information do wrong and injustice to another. yea there is no sin except heresy but he may commit it by his frailty, if the bridle of Gods grace do not keep him in order. Is he better then S. Peter, to whom he succeedeth? doth the Prophet lie himself that saith omnis homo mendax. yf he or you for him should say he wear no sinner, you wear both liars by S. Iohns verdict. yf wee respect his spiritual and supernatural authority in forgiving and retaining of sins, in not erring in question of faith? Wee may well say, 
The Pope for his power, is as it were a God on earth.  he is a God on earth. but if wee respect him as a man? he is a mere sinner as others are, and may err and be deceived by affection or information as an other man. do you hold it for an Article of faith, that all Popes be saved? all in heaven and none in hell? albeit I do piously think them all to be in heaven, yet am I not bound to beleeue it. Ans if all this which I haue said, be as true as the gospel, 
Wherein the Pope may err.  why may not the Pope err in somme of his commandements in his instituting of Bishops and Archb. by false information? as well as the Archp. may err in his decrees and comaundements? which yet with great absurdity, you think to be absurd, teach me( I pray you) in your larger apology, who hath given the Pope that priuilegie that he cannot err in matter of fact, so Well as his inferiors, or that he hath not his passions so well as other men, or there he cannot be deceived and abused by falsehood and flattery and by fraudulent information, so well as inferior prelates may beteach me this, Et eris mihi magnus Apollo. this is not to flatter the Pope( as you do) nor to maintain false doctrine, as you seem here to do, by disallowing of the true and sincere doctrine. But this is the Christian and Cath. faith that a lawyer hath learned and is bound to teach it you( you united divines) Which seem to be ignorant of it. The Pope himself permitteth every man( that hath interest therein) to scann and examine his letters and bulls, and liketh well of it, because they may be gotten by surreption and ill information: and so confesseth himself he may be deceived and err in matters of fact and information. but the just examen of the Arch. institution by the carded. letters, haue so nettled him, and you his united brethren, that to disgrace the doings, and the just fact of your discontented brethren, you fall headlong by forgetfulness, 
gross absurdities.  into these gross and intolerable absurdities in such men as you are, as to call the christian and Cath. doctrine, dangerous, scandalous, and offensive, and to count it absurdity to say, his holl: may err in some of his ordonances and commandements. 
Fol. 16. b  In your next I pray you tell me, why a man may not argue against his Holl:( touching erring in matters fact) by the same arguments which they use against the Archp. and others. For matters of fact, is he not a man, and a sinful( as hath been said) as they are? Ergo ubi est eadem ratio, ibi erit eadem juris dispositio. But you use your common fraud here to deceive your negligent reader. they do not, 
fraud.  argue agvinst his Hol. by the same argument which they use against the Archp. but do say the quiter contrary. They say: All Archpri. in the world can err both in matter of faith and matter of fact also. but his Hol. of all men in the World hath onely that privilege, that he cannot err in matter of faith, albeit he be not privileged more then others, from erring in matters of fact. howe say you? is this to argue against his Holl. by the same argument used against the Archp. truly these your doings are to argue against all conscience,( I will not say) all honesty.  
You ask: What otherwaie heresy took at the beginning against Ecclesiast. Gouuernors, 
Fol. 17 Which way came hersy into the world?  what other gate did some open to heresy? surely, not this common gate, but another back gate, quiter opposite to this. For these men teach that the Pope cannot err in matters of faith. and those that opened the gate to heresy taught and do still teach( which is the foundation ston of their heresy) that the Pope and all do and can err, that the whole Church( whereof wee beleeue the Pope is head) do and may err, not onely in fact( as your brethren truly teach) but also in faith, and religion. howe say you, is not this true? did not heresy begin with this doctrine, and doth it not continue in the same still? And thus your questions are briefly answered. You go on to show howe they passed onto diminish the credit and estimation of their Superiors, 
Fol. ibid. Wranglers.  andparticularly of the Arch. I see right well, that you are but wranglers. The Archp, in those daies you talk of, was not their Superior as hath been before proved that is, before the Popes bull came to confirm him Of which time, you talk here quiter out of time. Nay, they went about to diminish the credit of their immediat and higher superiors in Rome, to wytt, the carded. protector and his Hol. you might haue put his Hol. in your purse. for they honor and reverence him in word and dead, as much as you do, and as they are bound to do, as by Reading their books may appear. but you will needs dra We his Hol. into the quarrel with the Protector and the Archp. as in the first chapped. you draw your brethren by force into all the quarrels of Paris, 
The carded. was not the superior  Rome, and Flanders. Touching the carded. he was no more their Superior then you are mine, as I haue shewed before and therefore it is but a roy of yours to deceive your reader and: to seem to say something, when in deed you say nothing to the matter or purpose.  
Let us hear their vndulifull speeches against a deade Cardinal, 
●erueillousvudutiful speeches  but yet a good Cardinal as you say, That was protector of the English college at Rome, and afterwards honoured by the title of Protector of Ingland. what undutiful speech is here against him? dare you for shane deny that he was Protector of the college, before he was Protector of the realm? I myself and many yet living can reprove you. but suppose he was not: what vn dutiful speech is it to say, he was protector of the College? or is the undutiful speech in saying, he was honoured with the title of Protector of Ingland? Why: was is not an honor for him to be Protector? Is not Cardinal Farnesius honoured this day with the same title? think you any Car. Would take it, if he wear not honoured by it? what a vain toy is it, for you to find fault with this wherein there is no fault at all? you reply: 
Fol. 17.  they do not grant he was so in deed, nor they did not acknowlege him for such howe prove you this? Mum.  
That which followeth, 
The pratector no Superior.  seemeth to be a high matter in a low house, as to say, they wear not bound to beleeue him in a matter of such consequence. That they said true herein, is proved already, that they held him not for their superior, and therefore wear not bound to obey his Ordinance. That he was not, nor that the present Protector as Protector now is not their supper. hath al ready been shewed, which being true, they wear not then bound to obey him.  
And where you add, that they are not to give credit to the carded. bare words &c. it is the same you repeated before, and is before like wise answered. 
The protector affencted to one party.  For their accusing him of too much affection to the one part, you can find noe fault with them for the same. for as you report yourselves, he was informed and instructed by the one party onely, and followed the same parties counsel, to reject the request of the Priests, that would haue had a Bishop or two, and to make an Archpr. and such a man Archp. as that party advised him. If this be not, to be too much affencted to the one party, and to be over partial, I know not what partiality and affection is.  
To leave to other men to judge how deere a Patrō and father, 
Fol. 17. b A supper fluous complaint.  carded. Caretane was to our nation, I cannot omit your accusation of your brethren For vnkyndly and vnreuerently speaking of him specially in the English book. yf you could haue found any vnkynd or vnreuerent speech, you would not haue passed it over so sleightlie with out setting it down, seeing you haue set down many things of lesser importance: note the pag. and then I will beleeue you, no nor then neither, till I see it with mine eyes, you haue so oft deceived me. you mean perhaps that which followeth: for that they do so contemn the institution of the Arch. made by him. they are so far from, to be counted unkind and irreverent for that fact, that they are to be highly praised for it. He did against the decrees of the church therein, and they did as the Canons and constitutions of the church commanded them, as hath been sufficiently proved before. You set this matter of resisting the Protector often a brooch, to fill up your book, and with poor silly Readers to bring your discontented brethren into discredit. but the discreditt turneth vpon your own heads that, are so ignorant to beleeue and think, a cardinals bare letters containing in them ( by the expresst commandement of his Holl.) 
Ignorance.  can confer a dignity or bnfice to any man. I am ashamed of your Ignorance being so many heads as you pretend to be, and having so many eyes amongst you, that not one could discover this fault and gross ignorance, but still beat vpon it, as vpon your chiefest defence and refuge.  
But alas for wo? 
Fol. ibidem. ( my united brethren) what is this that followeth? They go about in one place of their book to ●hewe( the institution of the Archpriest made by the carded. Protetector) to be void and vain and of no force by 21. fond Reasons. what is this I hear? haue they 21. Reasons for them against the institution of the Archpriest? what? 
Not one of 21. Reasons answe read.  haue you answered them? No forsooth. what! not one of 21? no, not one. why so?( pray you)? because they be fond and devised by themselves, 
Fol. ibidem.  whereof no one hath any force at all. Is it possible? you might easily then haue answered one or two of thē at the least, if your leisure, or hast offe●●ing forth your book had not permitted you to haue answeared all. what! mean you to leave the victory to your aduersaries, or will you answer these reasons in your larger Apol. that is coming? I blushy for your sakes that so many united Priests, that your Superior, and the jesuits whose cause you defend, did not answer one fond reason of 21. whereof not one hath any force at all. here your Reader be he never somuch affencted unto you, must needs stay and admyre your silence, he must needs stagger also to see you let your aduersaries ronne awaie with the victory. 
The Priests haue gotten the victory.  I pray you, who is most likely to haue the truth on his side, he that aleageth Reasons for himself, or he that saith onely: your Reasons 〈◇〉 fond, 
The united fly from the matter in question.  and of no force at all, and yet prodeth no one of them to be such? This is it which I haue ●ould you always, that you fly from the matter in question. The question is this whither the Archpriest was not truly and duly instituted by the carded. letters? your Aduersurie saith no. and for proof of his assertion, he layeth down 21, reasons. You comme and say: he was rightly and duly instituted by the carded. but you prove it not by any Reason, neither do you confute any one of their Reasons, but onely by saying. They are fond all of no force at all. the poorest and simplest cobbler in a town, can after this sort answer the learneest man in a wholl country. 
A false conclusion.  You conclude as vntrulie that a carded. letters bear credit vncontrowleable in any catholic Court Christian as hath been shewed before out of Rebuffus. let the Protector of spain or France sand his letters to these courts saying he hath express commandement from his Hol. to institute and constitute an ecclesiastical office that was never there before, or to conferre any bnfice: his letters should not be esteemed, nor take their effects, without his Hol. express commission in writing.  
You charge them with not sparing his Holl. himself, 
Fol. 18. The Priests are unjustly charged which contempt.  but yet according to your custom you prove it not. Their words nippingly by you alleged, as they may be well spoken in their sense, so prove they not their contempt or irreverence against his Holl. which you should prove. For your brethren in the pag. by you alleged, do make a comparison between themselves and their aduersaries. that as their aduersaries think themselves more stronger to vex them, so they, the more injuries they suffer, the more bold and courageous they will be, in freely repelling of them. this is the sense of the sentence. 
Nippers.  from which you haue nipped these words. what immodesty( I pray you) is here against his Hol. or what profession of liberty of speeches, is here against all things and all men, as you( like spiders) do gather? the comparison there made, is between themselves oppressed, and their oppressers, which toucheth not at all his Hol. much less all men. Amend amend, I am weary with repeating your faults and follies. Indignum quip nimis gloria nostra( say they) net amplius ferendum du●●imus, 
Fol. 18. b.  &c. Wee esteem it to be vnwoorthy of our glory, and no further to be tolerated, &c. As you do imitate here M. Iewell in your & cateras, so must I say to you, as one said to him: 
Th'vnited haue the chyncoughe.  cough out my united Brethren, what haue you the Chyncoughe? add that which followeth in their book, and see if any christian man will find fault which their words. every honest man I am sure, will mislike of your false play, in taking that which serveth your turn( as you think) to discredit them, and leave out the substance of the matter. you haue learned this trick of nipping their words with an &c. of jewel, and such ennemyes of Gods church. this then they said: we esteem it to be vnworthy of our glory and no further to be tolerated, that we, 
A favourably speech.  which are sent by the Sea apostolic( in to Ingland) to draw other men out of Shisme, and to bring them into Christes fold, should be falsely defamed throughout the wholl world to be Schism●ticks ourselves, and to haue given such horrible scandals and to be counted and judged such. your, &c. being thus discovered and enlarged, what fault can you find with this speech? a speech worthy men of their profession. they were heinously slandered by Fa. Listers scandalous book of schism, wherein he affirmed( without proof) that they were schismatics and thirst then soothe sayers. what contempt of his Hol. is there in these words? and yet forsooth to prove they contemned him, this place is brought and alleged. surely your wit swear over whelmed with over much malice or passion, when you wrott this your book, the which so blinded you, that you thought every thing they wrott, was in contempt of his Hol. else would you never haue cited this place for an example.  
As foolishly you set down their words out of the English book against thē, 
Fol. 18. b. well spoken.  which are spoken very prudently and judiciously. For if the Pope doth not use to give the simpliest bnfice that is, but by the ordinary way, with his Bulls: who can presume, that he would so basely esteem of the English clergy, which is in continual fight with the enemies of that Sea, and specially for the pre-eminence of that Sea, as to gieue them a Superior by thaduise of 2. jesuits and one secular Priest, extraordinaryly and without his bulls. You should haue answered this vehement presumption, which standeth on your discontented brethrens side, against the carded. letters, and not to haue drawn their words ( uncharitably) as spoken in contempt of his Hol. which are nothing so.  
Then they tell you plainly that there is greet reason why his Hol. 
Fol. 18. b. A reasonable speech.  should not appoint a Superior over them without their aduise and allowance: and that in doing contrary he should d●e against the Canons of the Church, and against the decrees of Popes and Emperours, &c. howe say you( my Maisters)? 
Tot. Tit. Ext. de Elect.  is it not great Reason the clergy should choose their Superior? haue Popes against Reason made so many notable decrees touching Elections? haue they occupied their witts and authority in a matter unreasonable? yf Election be reasonable in others, why is it not reasonable in Ingland? yf it be reasonable that the clergy of other Contryes choose their Bishops, deans, and provosts, why is it not reasonable in Ingland, that the clergy should choose their superior● I see no reason of diversity, touching the reasonableness of the fact or act. You think it is a sufficient confutation to allege their words onely, and you think all men so blinded as you yourselves are that can see no Reason in them. when they are most reasonable you answer neither their Reasons, their examples, 
Th'vnited never answer Reason nor authority.  nor auctorityes, and yet you will haue men of Reason to beleeue you without reason at all you quoate their authorities in your margin, and yet you will make us beleeue they haue no Reason, and by consequent the Canons which they allege, to be against Reason, because they are against you, and that you cannot answer them.  
The Canons( say they) do allowe, that the clergy may and should( if they find themselves wronged by having a bishop put on them against their consent and liking) resist and with stand the intruded. But they haue an Archp. set over them without their consent and liking, ergo according to the Canons, they may resist and withstand him. and so by consequence, this their resisting him is reasonable because they are warranted by the Canons. what say you to this argument? you are as Domb as Fishes. here you should haue showed your cunning, learning, and rhetoric, and haue answered this argument or Canons, 
Th'vnited triumph before the victory.  and so haue triumphed after the victory, and not before, as often you do. but being by the Truth strooke stark domb, you leave, will you or nill you, the victory to your adversary, and give thereby your Readers to understand, that they had reason to withstand, and not to accept the Archpriest at his first coming in so desorderly, and against the Canons as he did, your Brethren in all their books and discourses, 
The corner ston of the question untouched.  put this down as an infaillable ground, and as it swear the corner ston of all their writings and sayings: that the Archpriest was put on them at the first, against th'orderly course of appointing and constituting Superiors either by the Canons, or of the Pope. This is in dispute, and this ground you should haue vndermyned, and shewed the contrary, either by lawe or by practise. but as I haue always  told you, you fly from it, and show yourselves cowards. This is not the question which you seem to insinuat, and would make your Readers to beleeue it, that they should say and hold: 
Not the question.  that the Pope could not give them such a prelate with so large and ample jurisdiction, or without their consents and election. Note well, they never said or thought this, neither can you of this justly accuse them. if you can show me that they teach or haue written this, then will I cry out on them as yond do, and call them schismatics justly, as they haue been called wrongfully. For this were to abbridge in deed the eminent power his Hol. 
The Popes eminent but not ordinary power  hath Ex plenitudine potestatis, to give jurisdiction to whom he list, and as largely and amply as he list. mark these points well. for it is one thing to say: A superior is put vpon us against Reason and the orderly manner and practise that ever hitherto hath been observed in Christes church, and a nother thing to say: his Hol. cannot appoint us such a superior with such authority over us against our consuls: for the former, is a worshipful and just complaint, and the seccond is a schismatical Pride.  
But what if they do not speak as you make them to speak? what if you use M. 
False play.  Iewells tricks, to foist in words that are not theirs, as if they had spoken them, so to discredit them with your partial or negligent Reader? what if you haue put down your own words in a small and distinct letter, as though they swear their words? if you haue done all this, can you abstain from blushing? are you not ashamed of it, 
The Readers are fraudulently deceived, and the Priests falsely accused.  pretending to defend truth, and to commit so great an untruth? how can your Reader beleeue you in other points you say against them, when he shall see you so fraudulently both to accuse them, and deceine him? who would haue thought united Priests to be so much over seen? I pray God you be not united as Sampsons foxes swear, to destroy by your contentious spirits the good corn of gods church, and by this occasion of over much affecting one party, be not the loss of many a soul. Yf you be united Priests that speak, and not an other under your name, I will set down their words, as you haue set them down in your book, and afterwards the same words according as I find thē in their book, in the pag. by you noted, and leave the iudgement hereof even to the partiallest Reader that is, if he haue any calicut, Iudgement or honesty in him. Thus you say: And a little after they tell us plainly that there is great Reason why his Hol. should not appoint a superior in Ingland without their advice and allowance, and that in doing contrary, he should do against the Canons of the church and against the decrees not onely of Popes, 
Distinct. bb. ca. 12. & dist. 61. cap. 3.  but also of Emperours( as though this swear more) which appoint that the clergy may resist and withstand any bishop put vpon them against their consent and liking. All this you haue put down in a small and distinct letter as their words. now let us hear them speak.  
For, 
Pag. 14.  whose advice, consent, and allowance are required to the choosing of a Superior, if not theirs that are to obey and live under the said superior when he is chosen? do not the fellows of every howse in oxford( and according to the statutes and foundation) choose and elect their head and Rector? do not likewise all the Religious companies choose their superior? Nay, do not the Canons of holy church decree, 
Dist. 63. c. 12. dist. 61. c. 13.  that Priests should haue the election of theirs bishop? and this late authority is for amplenes in punishing more then Bishoplike. yea the Canons alowe further, that the clergy may and should( if they find themselves wronged, by having a bishop put on them against their consent and liking) refuse and withstand the intrusion and injury. and not onely Popes haue decreed that their clergy should choose their bishops, but Emperours haue constituted the same, as appeareth by the ordinary gloss vpon 63. dist. cap. 34. all which maketh our friends refusal much more justifiable. Where do they tell us plainly, that there is great Reason why his Hol. should not appoint a superior in Ingland without their advice and allowance? 
False addition.  haue you not foisted in these words advice and Allowance? and that in doing contrary, he should do against the Canons? where is there any one word of his Hol. or of his power in the former words? they show both by example and by authority that the ordinary coming to superiority over others, is by the election of such as are to live under that superior: and that the clergy may refuse a bishop set over them against their consent and liking. and there vpon conclude, that the Priests which withstood the Archpriest set over them without their consent and liking, to be justified by the same examples and authority. 
falsehood.  you put your own words down for theirs, as though they spake contemptuously of his holynes( for that you go about to prove in the same leaf before, and bring this for example) whereas it is you yourselves and not they, they not once mentioning his Hol. but laying down a true and solid Doctrine proved by example and authority to the which you answeare not one word here. And you are not content to corrupt their words onely, but their allegation also, 
Corruption of words and allegation.  as the Reader may perceive here in the margin, set down both at your words and at theirs And when you haue framed them such a speech as pleaseth you, 
A false conclusion.  then you conclude thus: By all which, is not hard to judge of these mens haughty spirits. But I conclude: By all which, your unjust dealing with your brethren, it is not hard to judge of your naughty spirits. for you haue corrupted both their sense and their text. Fie vpon Contention which engendereth mallicie, and Mallicie is the mother of wilful blindness. For where as they say: Not onely Popes but Emperours haue constituted, &c. thereby to showe how the laws consent with the Canons, as the Emperour himself often saith: 
Auth. de monach.§. huic autem.  Sancimus, sacras per omnia sequentes regulas. we do ordain, following altogether the sacred Canons. and the Pope saith: 
C. 1. Ext. de novi operis.  Quia vero sicut leges non dedignantur sacros Canones imitari, ita& sacrorum statuta Canonum, principum constitutionibus adiuuantur. Now as the laws do not disdain to imitat or followe the sacred Canons: so the statutes of the sacred Canons are aided by the laws and Constitutions of Princs. 
False Jnterpretation.  You interpret their words, that they allege the Emperours authority after the Pope, as a greater authority then the Popes, for so your words in the text( and for more surety, set down in the margin also) do notify. ( as though this swear more.) as if you would say: these men allege the Emperours authority, after they haue alleged the Canons, as thougs it swear more, that is, greater then the authority of the Canons. you may as well accuse the Pope for saying, that the Canons are helped by the laws of Princs. what blindness is this against your own conscience and skill, to misinterpret mens words, 
blind and misinterpretarum.  and to make your Reader to note a false sense, which your brethren never intended, neither can it by any spider be sucked out of them. this is not a haughty, but a contentious and seditious spirit. 
A haughty answer.  To conclude for answer to their Canons and ordinary gloss, you say, they are of a haughty spirit. why so? forsooth because they allege the Canons and theordinary gloss. I pitty your ignorance, and bewaile the weakenes of your cause. For in stead of solid answeres, you corrupt both the sense and the text of your adversary. you make him say what you list, and when all is done, that which you make him say, remaineth still firm and stable, untouched and vnanswerred by you. transversely you are like to get great honor and credit by this kind of writing and dealing: even as much as jewel( whom you imitat) did get, which was shane enough.  
now you accuse them of disorder for that they did call into suspicion of forgery the Popes breue itself, 
Fol. 19.  that came to confirm the Protectors letters. They say the contrary. 
contrariety. Pag. 1. in the preface.  that a Peace was made to the great comfort of all catholics, when his Hol. breue was presented unto them, and that all was forgiven by the Priests so grievously injuried. and you yourselves confess, 
Fol. 109.  that in words they acknowledged his authority aleaging their words which are these: 
Pag. 4. in the preface.  yf they mean thereby that the Priests do not acknowlege M. Blackwell for their Archpriest and superior( since his Hol. breue came) they may if it please them correct this their understanding, 
Fol. 109.  &c. You reply yet for all this, that they seek by all possible means to discredit his authority. 
Fol. 19.  and why? because they say: the breue was procured, God knoweth out of what office. you note not the place where they say it, and therefore I will not beleeue you, nor your, &c. But suppose they did suspect the breue of forgery, yea and went about to prove it also, 
One may subtilely suspect a breue or bull of forgery.  what then? Is this a fault, or a sin? is this contempt of his holynes? nothing less. for somuch as it is worshipful for all men against whom any Breue or bull is obtained, to impugn it, yea and to prove it false and forged too, if they can: and good Reason. for it may be obtained by false information, and so his Hol. may be deceived, who intendeth not to grant any thing in the prejudice of an other, or against an other mans right. this is no contempt of his Hol. or of his bulls, but draw and Reason. you do very ill therefore to accuse your Brethren falsely in saying: 
False accusation.  they called into suspicion of forgery the bulls. whereas so soon as they sawe it, they yielded without further enquierie, wither it swear obtained iustè or iniustè, or wither it was forged or no.  
That which you allege out of the English book, 
Fol. 19. b. Pag. 29.& 103.  might be more charitably interpnted, and not to the rigour you do, 
Uncharitable interpretation.  and as I beleeue, contrary to their sense and meaning. which I leave( with many other things) for themselves to answer. for as I haue often said, I do onely advertise you of such faults as you commit in this Apol. not intending to defend them in their faults and errors, but am full glad when you take then: up justly, and correct them wherein they are faulty. for as I mean not to defend them, wherein they are reprehensible, 
A disorderly conclusion.  so do I not mean to flatter you when you are faulty. As for example, in your uncharitable and disorderly conclusion of this your second chapped. which proceedeth not of that spirit, which should be in men of your calling and quality, towards your brethren running the same course, and peril of persecution that you do: but rather of the spirit you make mention of there, pride, wrath, envy, Emulation, and worse passions if worse may be. God sand the one and the other of you his holy spirit of unity and charity, for transversely it is high time.    

CHAP. III.  
THE Fathers of the society are worthy of greater praise then you give them, 
Fol. 20. b.  and wear worthy of more, if they had not meddled in this controversy, which nothing pertained to them, 
One il herb marreth a whole pot of pottage.  and had suffered the secular Priests to follow their affairs, being 2. distinct bodies and common wealths as they are. But this meddling so far in a matter not appertaining to them, doth give men suspicion, they tend to somme other end, and make their friends full sorry to see contemplative men plunged so deeply in thirdly affairs, and so up to the ears in strif and contention.  
But that which followeth as it should seem greatly to please you, so it much disliketh me, 
Disgrace of secular Priests.  and all of my humour, as spoken in disgrace and discredit of secular Priests, but especially of such as haue and do travell in Ingland, for the gaining of souls. I will set it down to see if it can make you blushy, so to discredit your own coat and vocation.  
Yea diuers, 
Fol. 20. b.  that be heads now of faction against them( the jesuits) are so far beholding to them, as probably they had never been men of learuing and account, if these Religious men, and their charity had not been. What an impudent ly is this? why? D. Bagsbaw, 
an impudently.  whom they account the chief, D. Bishop M. Champeney, and others the heads of the faction against thē, Would they( think you) never haue been men of account, if they had not gone to Rome? what if they had stayed in rheims, or dovay? is there no learning but in the Rom. college at Rome? be they all Asses and vnlerned not able to writ books that wear brought up in the seminaries of rheims and douai? All you united priests( the greatest part never being brought up under the fathers) are you not men of learing and account? and able to write books how then wrote you this your apology? peradventure it was written by a Romist and not by a Rhemist. but what? are all the learned men of our country beholding to these Religious for it? God forbid. yea but Why are men somuch beholden to thes religious: Mary, 
Fol. ibidem. Jmpudencie.  somme of thē( the secular priests) going over poor serving men, other soldiers, others wanderers in the world, and none lightly but more or less, one superintendency or other, in need of their help and favor, &c. Far othewise doth their great friend And. Philopatris( pag. 199.) write of them: that those who come to the Seminaries, are for the most part descended of wourshipfull families, and born of rich parent. What! diuers of these that be heads now of the faction against the jesuits, wear they such men as you mention here? name one of them to save your honesty. For heads, in al your book, you reckon D. Bagsh. D. Bish. M. much. M. Bluet, M. Champeney, M. Colllington, M. Charnock( put in also M. Watson if you will:) swear these poor serving men, souldiers, or wanderers, when they came over? what impudence is this? what calumniation both of the vocation and of the persons? you tell the reader here, that the heads swear such companions as you haue name, but name no man here. yet afterwards, you reckon these whom I haue name for the heads of the faction, by consequence then, you would haue your ignorant Reader,( that neither knoweth the men, nor their education) to think, that those swear these poor serving men, souldiers, and wanderers up and down, which if the Iesuites of charity( forsooth) had not taken in, they would never haue come to this learning to be able to write books against them. Beleeue them who list, this I am assured of, that if it swear true, and that a jesuit wrot this book, 
An unhappy Cowe.  he then doth like an unhappy cowe, that after shee hath given a good meales milk, striketh the pail down which her heel. Euensoe, if the jesuits had done somuch for these kind of men as your pretend, you should not by upbraiding them therewith blemish and deface all the good deeds you say they did them. And yet this not withstanding which you say here can scarcely be true. for these Souldiers, serving men, and wanderers, did very rarely go to Rome to be holpen by the jesuits, and very few or none of thē were made priests there, but were still received in dovay and rheims, there brought up, and priested. Besides, swear it true, that all these Souldiers, and Uvanderers had gotten this learning to write books of the jesuits, yet the opposition of these priests against that unorderly and exorbitant superiority obtained by the jesuits, is so far from ingratitude against them, that it is, a notable fact of conscience and Iustice both.  
And your Probably they had never been men of learning or account, nor able to write books, if they had not been brought up under the jesuits: is very fond said on your part, 
A speech dishonourable to the jesuits.  and to the jesuits themselves also dishonourable, and cause of just envy. As who should say: that either there was no learning in the vworld before the jesuits appeared, or no learned man now, if he hath not been brought up under the jesuits, which is both folly to beleeue: and shane to utter and write.  
But let us examine these 4. whom you set down as chief heads: viz. D. Bagsh M. Bluet, M. Collingt. and M. much. 
Fol. 29. b ( who to you seem the chiefest broachers of all thes suspicious reports. 
Fol. 68. b ) The first, to whom you attribute the penning of the Latins book, was a Graduat and of accomptin Oxford before he came over. Yf he had cont ynued there, and never comme over, or if he had stayed at rheims and not gone to Rome, is it not probable he might haue proved a man of learning, and able to write such a book? whie: did he learn his latin tongue in Rome? as for M. Bluet and M. Collingt. they swear never under the jesuits, but brought up in the seminarie of dovay, and swear both gone home to serve their country, before any jesuit had any government in our seminaries, and so for the learning and ability they haue, not bound to the jesuits, and consequently cannot be ingrateful: In deed M. much( who yet by your own iudgment is the author, but of 2. letters, and of no one book) he was brought up in Rome for somme yeares. but had he not gone thither, but remained and spent so many yeres in dovay or rheims, should not he probably haue gotten learning enough to write 2. letters and a book too, if need were? three of these heads therefore at least are not indebted to the jesuits for their learning and ability to write books and therefore cannot commit any ingratitude, 
The beds not ingrat to the Jesuits.  in writing in so just and equitable a cause as they haue to write against somme of thē, especially those that wrott and confirmed the book of schism, which Was written and penned against them. Besides the style and manner of writing, this place aiso doth discover the penner of this Apol. 
The author of the apology discovered.  who omitteth noe occasion( as before I haue noted) to abase and bring into contempt the vocation, of secular priests. For howe can it be probable rhat you united priests should object to your brethren as a great disgrace to them, of a serving man to be made a priest, of a soldier to be priested? 
Tot. Tit. exit. de servis non ordinandis.  The canons of the church do not repel from priesthood the very slaves, so they be made priests after they haue been set free by their mayst. yea he whose Father was a slave, 
C. fin. d. Tit.  so his mother be a free woman, may be made a priest. and was not I pray your the founder of the jesuits order a soldier, and is the society to be upbraided therewith? God forbid. Bought slaves I say are admitted, and you object to free men, as a wrinkle and fowle blot to priesthood: because of serving men and souldiers, they became good and virtuous priests, and for that they forsook the world to serve God in his church, and for that they let the killing of bodies, to help to save souls. You do injury not onely to many of yourselves( my united brethren) amongst whom yet I know somme that wear serving men: 
The united do injury themselves.  but also to many a holy martyr, that of serving men yea and of mean quality, by their zeal and constancy haue come to the height of perfection which is Martyrdoome, to the with I fear me, the Author of this Apol. whosoever he be Will never attain, so long as he hath his head so full of these contentions and uncharitable dealings, augmenting them by such fond books, as haue neither rhythm nor reason in them. howe say you to one( whom since I haue heard to be martyred) that was first a Cobbler. then a Porter, after that vndercooke in the seminarie, 
cobblers and smythes, priests and martyrs.  and at last by his extreme diligence got as much learning as was sufficient for a priest, and finally such favor at Gods hands to be a Martyr: Whereas you by Gods secret iudgments haue been as it wear for saken, and left to be dealers and sticklers in this uncharitable dissension. what say you to M. 
M. Joannes Cleyton.  james Cleyton Who being a smith in Ingland came to rheims, and there trauailled somuch and profited so Well in his study, that D. Allen( a man of an other iudgment and spirit then this author whosoever he be) adiudged him worthy of priesthood. 
D. Allen of an other iudgment.  he was not deceived in his iudgment, for this man after long imprisonment, was at length condemned for his faith, but died in prison before the day of execution. go now and object to that worthy prelate of pious and famous memory carded. Allen, that he made not onely serving men and souldiers priests, but also cobblers and smiths. I referue the names of many serving men that after they came to dovay and rheims wear made priests, 
Many serving men priests and Martyrs.  and haue done much good in their country, and many of them haue died for the cath. faith most constantly. Yf you grow them not, their names are written in Libro vitae. You may aswell and justly reproach to S. Peter, S. Andrew, S. John, that they swear fischers and so unfit to be Apostles.  
Souldiers( quot you?) how many I pray you? tell their names. I know serving men that became Souldiers, and afterwards coming to the seminarie were made priests: but any that was a more Soldier, I grow none especially of the heads, as you term thē, nor any of the 30. unchurch subscribed to the appeal, except the two Bennets, whereof the one in deed was a soldier, and after made Priest in Rome, wither the other was or no I grow not, but for the rest, I can ansswere negatively.  
Well? these serving men, Souldiers, and wanderers, one superintendency or other, stood in need of the jesuits help. What! to make them priests? and to haue the habilitie to write books? or else in that they gave them bread at their gates, a meales meate, or a nights lodging. For the first, they gained it in the Seminaries. For the seccond, I grow heretofore our contreymen haue found charity and friendship at their hands, but for some yeares since, if all be true that passengers, trauaillers and wanderers( be they serving men, souldiers, schollers, or others) report. they may assoon break their necks as their fasts, 
The Jesuits old charity towards Euglishmen changed.  at a jesuits college. And might starve if they found not more charity and better relief at other mens hands then theirs. Somuch is the old help of the Iefuits changed, that they will haue no Inglishman stand in need of them. For if he do, he may be deceived. I am sorry our contreymen haue given such occasion: but more sorry to see the fathers for somme respects, so to change their charitable natures. For howsoeuer thes Souldiers and wanderers. show themselves forgetful and vngrat full, yet should not the Fathers for that becomen nigrads and uncharitable.  
But to close with you. I pray you what help and favor haue these serving men, souldiers, and wanderers, specially the heads of them, found at the jesuits hands. I would fain grow for my learning. I am sure of this, that the greatest part( if not all) haue found help and favor and not of the jesuits as you insinuat, but in the Semin. to be nourished in learning. 
More charity used in the Seminary of dovay and rheims then in those governed by the jesuits.  yf in our semin. of dovay and rheims, there had not been used more charity to comers and wanderers then is or hath been in the Seminaries governed by the Iesuites, or that now is in the seminary of dovay governed by their will and direction, you had lost this good argument of serving men, souldiers and wanderers, our country had lost many a good priests and holy martyr that haue been received, entretayned and nourished in those seminaries, which now may go a answering in deed, if they haue neither money in their purse, nor commendations from certain men in Ingland! 
The seminary of dovay marvelously changed.  O good Cardinal! thou seest the great change that is happened since thy death, and no doubt thou dost lament it. thou receyuest all that came, serving men, sonldier, heretic, and all: thou refusest none, and thy charitable dealing brought forth the fruit that followed. Not onely serving meu, and souldiers, under thy happy, wise, and discreat government wear made priests, but many an heretic also Was converted, priested and sent back, and afterwards became a blessed martyr, so God blessed they zeal and charity. But now alas! both charity and zesle are waxen so cold, that few comme over, and many of them return, not onely frustrated of their zealous hope, but malcontented and keycold.  
To conclude, yf these serving men, souldiers and wanderers, now priests haue not received such help and favor of thelesuits as you pretend, then you taxing them with ingratitude is undue. and if all be true you say, then you conclude against yourselves( Yf you wear the Authors of this Apol.) in that the are are amongst you, mo of these serving men, souldiers; and wanderers, now priests, then amongst your discontented brethren, and so haue you made a fair spoken, 
The united prove themselves ingrat.  by proving yourselves ingrateful fellows, as you are in deed to your own coat and vocation, in abasing and bringing it into contempt to, please and praise others.  
That which you say in the same leaf and elsewhere, 
Fol. 22. What is to be disliked in the priests?  touching their disordinat writing against the fathers in general and against fat. Parsons in particular, I dissalowe with you, and for that kind of writing, I haue always found fault with their books, and am as sorry that ever they wrott so as you are for the book of schism. yf they had kept themselves with in the compass of the question, and not spoken so against the parsons they do: their book would haue passed without controwlement. but seeing they haue been so bold, touch them hardly, and lay load on them, I will not mislike with you. so that still you call to memory, that the biting, passionat, and slanderoous book which fa. Lister wrote against them, might haue pusshed thē into the like disordered heat, and liberty of speech. For Wee haue a rule in our lawe, that Compensatio habet locum in delictis, there is: one injury may be compensed with an other, The Iesuite called them schismatics, and worse then sootsayers and idolaters, and for recompense they call the Iesuites ambitious &c. one is as true as the other, both are false and so an end.  
To put down my verdict touching your discontented brethrens censure of these so many seminaries that now are in respect of the two we had onely before, true it is. 
The authors iud gment of the non bers of how seminaries.  The fathers and especially fa. person.( by whose special travail and industry they haue been erected, 
D. Cicil. in his spectacles yet attributeth the beginning of th' seminaries in in spain in to his industry, and that fa. Pars. did build vpon his foundation.  and as yet are maynete yned) are highly to be thanked, and greatly to be esteemed for the same. and no doubt but in time our country shall reap great good and profit thereby: so is it true also, that the 2. elder Seminaries did fend into Inglant mo priests, and nourished in them greater numbers of schollers at one time( I think) then these new seminaries, with the old now decayed wlll furnish to sand into Ingland in diuers yeares. and for the number of students, priests and proper yonthes, there swear more for many yeares together( so long as D. Allen governed) in those seminaries at one time, then are now, or here after like to be in all the seminaries put them all together. I haue seen 50. 
The 2. Sem inaries flowed more in number, then all do together now. And why?  priests in one year sent out of rheims, and yet 50. other priests remain in the college still. haue all the Seminaries so many in them now? No no, the reasons why the seminaries flowed then in number, are: first because all rhat came to dovay or rheims swear received and wellcomme noneweare rejected, 
All were welcomen.  had they money or had they none, brought they commendations or brought they none. After they had been tried there a while, such as swear not found fitt( which god knowth swear but few) swear graciously and courtuously dismissed with money in their purses. But nov if they haue no money, no meate: if they haue no commendations from special parsons in Ingl., Nescio vos, and so return as they came When it was known in our universities, how all swear received and full unbosom that came, a number of the chiefest and best schollers and wytts of both universities came flocking over. but no Wit being known that none are Welcome Without money and particular commendations, 
The government more sweet.  none or verife We dare adventure. Next, they lived then very quietly Without rigorous rules and penances or dicitur culpa, governed and ruled by the countenance and look of one man, whom all from highest to the lowest did yove, and highly reverence. But no own We la was haue altered the state of the seminarie, and make men vn Willing to come there. yf you Will ans Were here( as you do elswhere) that the Seminarie is now poor, 
Fol. 25. objection. answer.  and therefore must diminish the number to pay their debts? I mervell it having so few, it can be so poore-the Popes exhibition continueth, and so doth the kings of spain. Who as you report. hath ever since the year 1583. given the seminarie 2000. 
Fol. 24.  Crownes a year, the payment whereof hath ever since been procured by Fa. Parsons labour and travail. But for all your saying, I think the king of Spaignes exhibition hath been the slower paid, because his liberality Was withdrawn from thence, to be bestowed on the seminaries that wear in spain. I think also the poor seminary getteth little out of England, because since carded. Allens death, there haue been new collectors that bestow it elswheare, as time the daughter of Truth will discover. 
Fol. 25. b  But why do I call your seminary poor, that hath but few moonethes since received 2000 crownes. And expect daily 2000. more? I may then very well conclude with your discontented brethren, that the new seminaries haue almost destroyed the old? as reason and experience itself doth teach. For every man by nature is more addicted, and more careful of that which he hath himself begonn and set up, and to increase it, rather thē to maintain that. Which was begoone by another. For that which one liketh, another disliketh. That of dovay Was founded by carded. Allen now deade and out of mind: the others, by fa. Par. that hath credit to maintain them. Another may comme after that will care for none of all these, but set up another elsewhere, Estenim vicissitudo rerum, I doubt not but fa Par. doth endeavour to maintain the old Seminaries, if not in their ancient splendour, yet at the least to see that they do not utterly fall down and decay. Which wear great pity, 
fall. 27.29. The author of the Apol. discovereth himself to be a jesuit. The jesuits attribute to hem selves the conversion that is made in Ingl.  and a wonderful loss to our contey  
In the end of the 3. chapped. the author of this book discovereth himself to be a jesuit( as I myself always guessed and as all men that read it diligently, must needs guess also For, the conversion of all in Ingland is attributed to them, and you united brethren, are but lookers on, and made but ciphers in Algorisme. Mary, yet least he should take all the praise from you, in recompense of borrowing your names, he will content you with this short parenthesis ( which labour welland zealoufly also) Truly, if so few jesuits as are in Ingland, in respect of somme hundreds of priests that be there, haue( as this fellove braggeth) converted infinitely more then you all: and haue holpen to save more souls then you all, it must needs be a great shane for you all. 
The united confess themselves to be lazy.  For, you confess yourselves here to be very idle and lazy priests. Why what do you there? If you be but lookers on, and do no good? I do not mervell that so eg●●ly you discover your brethrens priuitids, when you lay your own shane so willingly open to all the world. Yf you haue written this Apol. blot it out in the next impression for shane, and endeavour to employ yourselves better in the vocation and mission you wear sent for? or else cast of your gowns, and get you a spade and mattock in your hands, for you are not worthy of the vocation you haue. For, is it possible that priests brought up in learning, order, and discipline, and sent to labour in such a harvest, should be so idle, that a few jesuits should surpass them in pains and travail of gaining souls, and that by their own confession? or that they can without blushing discover their own drowsy negligence to the world? Yf you haue not written this Apolog. nor discovered your lameness in action, or ignorance in want of ability to gain and win souls, then ask reason of this good fellow that hath borrowed your names, not onely to declaim against your brethren, but to calumniat, disgrace and dishonour your own selves. Or else I will( as you do there) request all godly and pious minds to ponder and consider how far malice hath blinded you in pursuing your Brethren, in defence of Religious men, that rather then you would hold your peace and say nothing, you are content to disgrace, and dishonour your own selves.   

CHAP. IV.  
IN this chapped. 
Fol. 29. Amā of strave  You haue put up a Man of straw to fight against, repeating with great teadyousnes, the faction of M. Morgan against D. Allen, which appartayneth nothing to this question, but serveth onely to fill up your book, and to make it bigger. as also that of G. G. and prior Arnold. Yf a man should urge you howe you came by their letters that wear sent secretly between friend and friend, 
Intercepting of letters.  I beleeue it would fall out, they wear intercepted, as many a letter is, by such as should haue conscience to open other mens letters. At least wise it is taught to be a case of conscience to do it. And the world must needs deem that the person that hath furnished you with all the letters in this your apology, and who hath yet I warrant you a heap for you in store for your larger Apol. hath had more care to assemble and keep them, then to say over his beads.   

CHAP. V.  
FOR their charging the Rector, 
Dislike with the Priests and with the united.  I dislike all such undue digressions from the Question in controversy, as I do you yourselves also for reporting the diuers seditions ad nauseam usque that were in the Rom. College, because it is nothing to the purpose and question between you and your brethren, which is: whither the carded. 
The questions in controversy.  Protector without the Popes breue could or might constitute a new dignity in Ingland? and next: wither the Priests( that held and taught he coold not do it) swear schismatics, seditious, and rebellious for the same or no? what appertaineth this to the faction of M. Morgan and M. Paget against D. Allen, or to the discontentement of our Gentlemen in Flanders against fa. Holt? The question( I say) is: wither the jesuits, Arhp. and you united Brethren, haue justly or unjustly by writing published them disobedient and woorse then forth sayers for not receyving the Archp. vpon the carded. letters? and wither the Archpriest( with whom you are united in this scandalous action) after their submission unto him, vpon the coming of the Popes bulls, did well and charitably to renewe the old wound( which was before by their submission healed) again or no, in not admitting them to be absolved, except they did first confess and recant the foresaid schism this is the chief ground of this later contention with the Archpriest and the occasion of their writing to the Pope, 
Why the Priests wrot to the Pope.  and to the inquisition to haue their Iudgments( seeing the Archpriest rejected the Iudgement of Sorbonne) whither they are schismatics or no? 
Th'vnited do never comme near the point.  this point you touch not, but make extravagant discourses vpon factions which were in the world, many a faire year before thes Contentions grew amongst you. but somme thing you must say to make your book the bigger, and to blear the eyes of your Reader and content his affection. because then this chapped. with the 2. following pertain nothing to the head question in controversy, but contain onely the repeating and ripping up of the begyning of the troubles between the Priests and the jesuits, together with Fishers examinations, I pass them over.  
Where you accuse them to be the first that appealed from his Hol. 
Fol 68. b.  breue, for you say: 
The Priests wronged.  They swear the first that appealed from it▪ you do them wrong, for they appealed no● from the Breue, but from the strange severity and government of the Archpriest who as it seemeth by the Articles of their appeal, and by his strange answers made unto them, could not well tell howe to behave himself in this how and unusual dignity, and jurisdiction laid vpon him. All this appeareth by their appeal.  
You add: 
Fol. ibidem.  that somme of them are presumed to beprincipall doers in these late printed libels. a great fault I assure you. for defending themselves and their honor in print. If they had kept themselves with in the compass of the controversy, neither had they offended, neither coold their writings haue been called libels. But what iustice and equity is therein you my united brethren? 
iniquity.  you are contented that the jesuits write scandalous books against them( which in deed deserve the name of libels) and that by your approbation: and yet you think it not lawful for your brethren to defend themselves in print against such infamous accusations as are schism, sedition and Rebellion. why! 
Blind affection.  how are you so blinded with affection, that you dissalowe that in secular Paiests, which yet you well alowe in Religious men? and are you so drowned with passion that you can like of the jesuits calling your brethren schismatics, and worse then soothsayers, and I cannot tell what: and yet mislike of them for purging the selves from those haynons accusations, and complaining of this uncharitable dealing.  
You might( my Brethren) for Modesties 
Fol. 82.  sake, haue passed over in silence the 6. or 7. Butteries for 13. Priests( if it swear true, as all is not gospel you writ in your book) for respect of their vocation, and not to give heretics occasion of laughture and mocking. surely in the Iudgement of your own faction, it is much unworthy the modesty and Christian sincerity and honest dealing that ought to be in the confessors of Christ towards their brethren of the same profession and confession you yourselves be. but the order of writing, 
Fol. 83.  the phrase of the book itself, with the store of letters, and other particularities do new to the ey, that it was written by a jesuit and not a secular Priest. I coold lay down the first letter of his name if I listed, but it is very easy for every man to conjecture it onely this I say: 
The united wrouged by th'author of the apology.  he hath done you( my united brethren) great begging, under you name, to defame your order and vocation.   

CHAP. VIII.  
THE whol discourse of the begymming of this chapped. 
By wqose information, the subordination was made?  tendeth to new, that this subordination that is now in Ingland was, made by the information of Fa. Par. Fa. Baldw. and 2. or 3. other Priests, whollie affectioned and led by Fa. 
Fol. 99.  Par. and as you say, of diuers principal men( naming none) from spain and Flanders. All which principal men are wcll known to be the deere friends and creatures of the jesuits. The somme is: that this subordination was procured by the Iesuites, and that the jesuits wear the chief meddlers in this subordination, 
Subornation.  which might be better termed A subornation of his Hol. making him beleeue, that all was jump as they  told him. Yf I might ask you this Question? 
A worshipful question.  what had those principal men in spain and Flanders more to do with the affairs and government of the clergy of Ingland, then the Priests that reside and travell there? what reason is there, that these unquiet wear not demanded dwelling in Ingland, and yet the others dwelling in spain and Flanders must be demanded? you answer: because they be so small a part of the English clergy. I reply, yet for learning, ancientie of Priesthood, and for the long time they haue trauailled in that country, not to be rejected. They knewe what government was best for Ingland better then those Spaniards and Flemings. They swear 13. 
Fol. 67. b.  in number, and swear to live under that subordination: by right then their voices and consents was rather to be asked, then the voices of 2. jesuits and 2. Priests out of Ingland, and not subject to that subordination. how soever the matter was handled, 
The Fathers in excusable.  the Fathers cannot be excused for meddling in a matter not appertaining to them, 
Deut. 16.  and so to haue put their falcem in messem alienam, which both in the scripture and in the draw is accompred a great fault. what had the jesuits to do to procure the secular Priests a superior? nothing at all, except( as your brethren say) they would play sure, and haue such a one appointed, as should always rely vpon them, and govern by their appointment and prescription. 
Presumption against the Fathers.  there is in deed great presumption of this against them, their actions and endeavours in this behalf considered. You find fault with your brethren Priests for meddling in the troubles of the Rom. college against the Fathers: and yet the Fathers commit the same fault( or a greater) here, as being the chief meddlers and dealers in the contentions that wear amongst the secular Priests. Here a man may justly turn the cat in the pann, and say as you do in the first chap. of you apology. That the meddling and dealing of the Fathers in the secular Priests matters and contentions, hath brought great hurt to Ingland, and is like to bring much more, if this writing of Apologies by them or for them do still conntynue: as also somme disgrace to the united brethren, and no less blemish to the Fathers: seeing they be counted and esteemed rather for spiritual and moatified men, then for contentious or seditious persons. and for my part I haue always thought them to be such, and haue against their detractors for such defended them. But yet for all that, wee lawyers say: that there is noe rule so general but it hath his exception. so no doubt somme there are in that holy company. 
mark.  that are too too much given to politic matters, and are as it swear overwhelmed with the affairs of the world, and more intentive to them, then appertaineth to Religions men, or aggreeth with their profession. And albeit men wynck now, and will not see them, yet in the day of Iudgement they wilbe made known to all the world.  
Where you say: 
Fol. 104. b.  that the Popes breue did not satisfy them, but they began to stagger and doubt, and to discuss their Superiors commandement, 
The united abuse their Readers and themselves.  you abuse your Readers and yourselves. your Readers, in saying they staggered at the Popes breue, doubted and discussed their superiors commandment. for they did nothing of all this you allege, but by your own comfession yielded, and obeied the Popes Breue. you conceal the cause why they wrott to his Hol. and the Inquisition in Latin, and to the English catholics in English. which was not as you say, for refusing to obey the breue, but for that the Archpriest vndiscreatly renewed the old wound of schism( the which you will not talk of, and are sorry that ever it was mentioned, as you and all peaceable men may well be) in forbidding 
Fol. 115.  them to be absolved except they confessed and recanted the said schism. the which as it is the cause of all these contentions books, so do you still rove at randame, and will not comme near the mark to answer thereto. you abuse yourselves, for that you confess their voluntary submission to the Breue. 
Fol. 146.147.  and there you set down the Congratulations of Fa, Garnet, the Archpriest and others for the same submission. 
The testimony of the 6. assistants not woorth a ruth.  For proof of yourformer saying and their staggering, &c. you bring the testimony of the reverend brethren forsooth the 6. assistaunts nominated by the Fathers as the Archpriest was, and as unorderly installed as their superior the Archpriest was, whose letters and testimony you do use oftentimes in your book, which is not worth a rush in any indifferent mans Iudgement. nor would be received in any Tribunal in the world, they being the parties, and known aduersaries to those against whom they bear witness. you may please yourselves therewith and becontented to enlarge your book with them as you do with many letters of diuers men, that are known to be wonderfully affectioned to the Fathers, and to be of their faction( if these contentious sides and part takings may be called factions) the which men vn passionat, and such as stand indifferent to both parties make little account of, and give less credit unto.  
You thrust the sin and scandal that hath ensued and fallen out by this contention vpon your Brethren, 
Fol. 105. b. vpon whose back the scandal of this contention lieth.  but I pray you give him his part, that wrott the scandalous book( condemned by his Hol. and all the jesuits that are out of Ingland) of schism, and part also to those that aucthorized it, and subscribed to it. Take part yourselves also not onely for contynunig the scandal by your Apologies, but by your ignorant accepting the Archpriest vpon the Protectors letters. for had you stood to your Brethren in the just refusal thereof, these sins and scandal had not happened. this writing and libeling one against an other, had never been heard of, as now it hath to the unsuccessful and unspeakable grief of all your friends and well willers.  
I wonder how you dare say: 
Fol. 107. b.  that in both their books they haue set down their Reasons confusedly and tumultuously, 
Th'vnited give themselves the ly.  and in no one place distinctly and in order: for in saying so, you give yourselves the lie. For, a little before you say, that in one place of their book, they would new the constitution of the Archpriest by the cardinals letters to be void and of no force by 21. Reasons. Yf I can prove, that they haue laid 21. Reasons together in one place of the English book, and that by distinct numbers, then are they not set down confusedly in both their books, 
Fol. ibidem.  and by consequent you say not true in saying: and in no one place distinctly and in order. yet you say: we do let pass the 21. Reasons which this Censurer layth together by distinct numbers. Fol. 176. b. ergo you give yourselves the ly by saying: they haue not set them down in any one place distinctly and in order. And in their latin book written to the inquisition( whereof you make no mention in this Apol. because it toucheth the point and roveth not at any person, and because it hath in it Fa. Listers book, which you are sorry to think of) they haue laid down many Reasons( not confusedly but orderly,) wh● they did not receive the Archpriest vpon the carded. letters without the Popes bulls. you answer neither to those 21. nor yet to these set down in the latin book before mentioned. But to these Reasons confusedly set down you say you will answer. In Gods name. I pray God you answer them not so confusedly and tumultuously, as you say they are laid down in their books.  
It was gotten say they by the instance of the adverse party. 
Fol. ibidem.  do they not say true? who is their adverse party? 
The Priests say true.  By your own confession, the jesuits and specially Fathers Pars. was it not gotten at the instannce of Fa. Par. Fa. Baldw. and 3. other Priests the jesuits creatures? you confess somuch yourselves. This benig true, 
Fol. 99. Fol. 7. b.  haue they not just cause to presume that it was gotten by begging and false Information? for what had the jesuits to deal therein, more then the Capuchins, Dominicans, or any other Religious order? It followeth: against all equity and Iustice. which they prove by the 21. reasons, by you mentioned, but not answeared, and as I haue proved before, against the laws and Canons, ergo against equity and Iustice. And yet they do not put down this their saying as a Reason, but as a Consideration. But why did you not go on, and say as they do: that this superiority was so established by their adverse party, that the superior so by them appointed, must needs remain a puny and inferior to them, &c. which words make a vehement presumption against the Fathers of stickling and meddling so far in these matters nothing at all apertaynenig to them.  
But what do you answer to this Reason( if you will needs haue it one?) For soothe, this hath been evidently proved to be false. viz: that it was not gotten, at the instance of the adverse party onely. but I say, it was proved by yourselves a little before to be true, 
Fol. 99.  as is to be seen in the place alleged in the margin. Next, you give a probable answer touching their will and knowlege, but to that they say: it was contrary to all equity and Iustice, you are Mumm, and not a word; because your conscience tell you, they said true. so that to the chiefest part of their Reason you haue yielded no answer, although you would make your Reader beleeue, you will answeare all their Reasons.  
You do as it swear control their second Reason, both at the beginning and at the end. 
Pag. 5.  for they say thus: Furthermore of their interest( the jesuits) swear not great in this authority why should they be so vnwilling to procure, or suffer to be procured somme bull or breue for the confirmation thereof, that it might be an absolute and independent authority? 
Fol. 108.  To pardon your nipping of the essential words of their reason both in the begynninng and in the end, 
Nipping and adding.  and your adding thereto the words which they say not, viz yf it came from his Hol. howe answer you the Reason? Forsooth, the question and reason is now answered, for that a breue is procured. they talk of cheese, and you answer chaulke. They ask, why the jesuits swear so unwilling to procure or suffer to be procured a bull for so many months as the carded. letters wear in controversy and doubt? and you answeare: now a bull is procured. they ask of the time past, and you answer of the time present. They knewe so well as you that a bull was procured, and sent before they wrott this book. I marvell how you dare put down their Reasons, and answer them( I will not say so confusedly, but,) so childishly.  
That which you add: 
Fol. ibidem. Th'vnited speak without book.  that the Bull is not much more esteemed of them thē carded. letters, you say without proof, contrary to yourselves, and contrary also to their protestation. that which you add also, 
Fol. ibidem. Pag. 2.  to prove their little esteem of the breue( viz: god knoweth out of what office) as it is but the words of one, so are they not to be drawn in general to all, and yet that one may haue spoken them in a good sense. because there be diuers offices out of the which the Popes bulls are procured. but be it that it was ill spoken of him, yet do you not for all that answeare his Reason, but set his words down falsely, thereby to make them sound more adiouslie. 
words set down falsely.  thus you set them down in a distinct letter: That they do not grow out of what office it was procured by Fa. parsons means, whereas the paraphraze vpon Fa. parsons letters, saith, until the 3. or 4. day after that Fa. pa. 
Pag. 82.  had procured( god knoweth out of what office) an apostolical breue, &c. you haue set the words down as spoken of all the discontented brethren( saying they do not grow) when they are spoken but of one. besides you set them down as spoken simply and absolutely, whereas, they are put within a parenthesis as spoken in passing.  
Thirdly, 
Of many Reasons put together not one answered.  you put many Reasons together, because you faime would be at your letters again, and at Fishers examination. and for hast, you cote not the place where you found them. but we must beleeue you on your word, that haue so often deceived us in aleaging their words. but in Gods name we will beleeue you this once. The first. 
Fol. 108.  that the carded. letters patents are not sufficient to give the matter credit, your easy answeare: who doth not grow, &c. hath been answered before, and showed, that a carded. Protectors words and letters for the constituting of a how dignity, or conferring of an old, hath no credit in any Christian court in the world, albeit they comme a hundred times, with Ex speciali mandato Sanctissimi. your Canon, lawe, and Glosses, haue been turned against you before, and make still against you till you do bring us better. Secondly that he hath been found partial towards the jesuits. this may be true, because he was a man as others are, and allied to the general of the jesuits as you say. The 3. Reason. that he( the Protector) is not their worshipful superior, as he is not in deed. neither worshipful nor vulawfull, for he hath no superiortie at all over any English man by that office, as hath been shewed before. The 4. Reason. And the like. 
A wise reason  what( I pray you) do you answer to these 3. last reasons? even thus. But not to stand vpon these matters, 
Fol. 108. b.  it is a fowle thing, when for covering our own consuls of not obeying, we seek holes in the coat and authority of our superiors as these men do, &c. You haue well shot and killed a busard. 
Th'vnited cannot stand, but must be roving.  you will not stand, because indeed you cannot stand against Reason, then sit a while and count howe many mo of their Reasons( left vnrehersed and vnanswered) are contained under your last words, And the like? that we may see them answered, with your answeares to them, in your larger apology, in the which as you promise us more abonndannce of letters, and a larger discourse of Fisher and his examination, 
Fol. 95.  so I fear me we shall find as little reason and matter as we haue found in this.  
Well, these discontented brethren do not onely seek holes in the coat of their Superiors the carded. and the Archpriest( the first being never their superior, no nor yet, 
mark the holes found in his hol. coat.  the next until his Hol. bull came) but also in this Holynes( coat) but in covert words. But let us see the holes made in his Hol. coat and authority? for soothe, they persuade the people, that he hath believed false information. A sore matter. but where haue they persuaded the people thus much? For soothe, in both books, and especially the English,( you say in the margin) and almost in every pag. but you note no one pag. Well! they make the people beleeue, 
His Hol. may beleeue false information, benig falsely informed.  that his Hol. hath believed false information. Why may not his Hol. beleeue false information? is he not a man as others are? and is he not subject to passions, as before hath been noted? yf he hath believed false Information, it is not a hole in his cote, but a fowle hole in their coats and consciences that gave such false information. It followeth: 
Pag. 35.  and thereby appointed a subordination most inconvenient. they give a good reason thereof in the English book. For by this subordination gotten by false information the jesuits haue the Archpriest as their puny, and inferior to them, and by consequence all priests must be their apprentizes, 
The reaso why the subordination is inconuenient.  and stand at their command, and thereby may keep the Archp. in awe, that he shall dare do nothing that may displease them, for fear they should thrust him out &c. and these be holes, 
holes in the fathers coat.  not in the Popes, but in the Fathers coats, and sufficient causes of inconvenience Next, And not heard of in the church before. Tell us( I pray you) in your larger Apol. if ever it was heard of in Christes church before, that an Archp. should be superior to all the priests in 2. realms, and that his jurisdiction. should extend so largely out of the choir and church, over these realms. When you can show this, 
Jgnorance.  then upbraid them for such speeches: for until then, you show but your own ignorance, in imputing this to them, as an undue and vnreuerent speech. Thē they say: It is against all equity and iustice. that this was well and truly spoken, hath been sufficiently proved before, and you yourselves could not answer it. It followeth, 
Truthies. Fol. 107. b  And that his Holl. could not subtilely appoint it without their consents. The word lawfully being taken for that which is done by lawe. And vnlawfully. for that which is done against lawe, they say full true His Holl. coold not do it subtilely: that is, observing and following the laws, constitutions, canons, and decrees of his predecessors, as hath been shewed before, Lastly, And that the means by which he had appointed it, is insufficient, binding no man no obey it. All this is true, if there be any truth at all. For as it hath been proved before at large, a carded. letters are not sufficient to constitute a new dignity, or to confirm an old. and the means wear so far from binding any man to obey it, that all such as obeyed it, are punishable by the canons, as hath been before declared. Of all these truths conclude you what you list, but I conclude, that you are by these words so far from finding many holes in his Hol. coat, as you cannot thereby find one hole at all, the same being truly and lawfully spoken. And I cannot a little marvell, that you are not ashamed to rehearse them, Without making answer thereto, being so evident against you in the question that is in controversy. 
Fol. 109.  It followeth They acknowledge the Archp. and his authority in words, yet do they seek by all means possible to discredit his authority. They ackowlege the Archpr. 
Pag. 4. in the preface. Pag. 3.  authority in more ample manner and words then you do set down here. That is: they aclowledge him since his Hol. bull came. before, they forbore to acknowlege him, as in the same preface they frankly confess. But their deeds are contrary to their words. In word they confess him, in deeds, they discredit his authority. how prove you this? because M. Collington and M. Charnock reported, the Archpnest dubbled with them. 
Wiselie.  But when dubbled he with them? before the Popes breue came, thē when they did not acknowledge him either in word or dead to be their superior, as they confess in the preface of their English book. 
Pag. 3.  How doth this prove they seek to discredit his authority since the Popes breue came? Your proffes hang by Gimboles, and had need to be knit together with points. Besides, 
A deceitful objection.  you would deceive your reader by objecting that to them now since the breue came, which was subtilely do on by them before the breue came. Yf then you will prove any thing, you must prove that in deeds and facts they haue gone about to discredit his authority since the breue came and your parenthesis ( For of their two relations onely all the matters are raised against him) seemeth to in far, that 2. witnesses although they be priests, are not sufficient testimony to prove any thing in question. you ought to grow, that the testimony of 2. parsons is sufficient by the draw of God and man, but you think it an absurd thing to admit the testimony of 2. priests, and yet you are offended with thē( throughout your book) for that they will not credit one person, viz, the carded. through whose relation and letters, all these troubles are raised, between the said priests, the jesuits and yourselves.  
You cannot comprehend how these things should be spoken, that the Archprie. should at the first say? His Instructions came from Rome. and yet afterwards say: they swear made in Ingland. you cannot comprehend then how a man may be contrary to himself: or that he may vpon better deliberation, correct that which he had said before. transversely, your comprehension then is very feeble, if you cannot comprehend thus much. I do comprehend it well, and beleeue it also, because there are 2. witnesses as you report that affirm it: which are aswell to be believed in this cause, as your reverend brethren the 6. assistants are to be believed in their own cause.  
The next proof is that they give out he had spoken an heretical proposition. this toucheth the discredit of his person, and not of his authority a sore matter. whoe knoweth not, that not onely an Archp. 
An Archpriest may err. ( which is the lowest dignity in Gods Church) but an Archbishop also( being so eminent a dignity) is not privileged, but that he may err, and that this gift is not annexed to his office or dignity, but that he may sometimes utter an heretical proposition wither this swear said or no, maketh nothing to that which you haue taken in hand to prove. viz: that since the breue came, and since they acknowleged him in word. They haue sought all means to discredit his authority and person in dead. For these words swear spoken before the breue came, and before they acknowleged him to be their superior. Ergo not spoken to discredit him as their superior, as you would make your simplo reader beleeue.  
That which you object to them of foreign authority and of the praemunire, 
Fol. 110. The priests vn●rdelie speech.  was( in truth) foolishly and vnorderlye spoken, and therefore they are justly reprehended of you for the same. But the words annexed, viz. that his Hol. cannot do it lawfully without their consents &c. as they are not in the 14. pagin. by you noted, and haue been often times by you repeated, so are they true and irreprehensible, as in diuers other places, hath before been shewed.  
And althought it seemeth strange to you, 
Fol. ibidem.  Whie( their books) swear no w printed after the breue is comme forth, and hath not wrought that effect for quieting them, which there they promise, to me, or to any vnpassionat and indifferent reader, 
The reasōiwhy they printed their book after the coming of the bull.  it seemeth not strange at all. because the calumnious crime of schism, being renewed against them since the coming of the bull, for that they did not obey the Archp. vpon the carded. letters, they wear driven to yeld their reasons, why they did not receive him vpon the said carded. letters, and so to clear themselves from that calumnious accusation of schism, and to show to the World, 
See their reasons in the 2. and 3. aphorism, to the Popes Nuncio in Paris  that they are much less to be counted schismatics, since that they yielded to his Hol. bull. The vndiscteat dealing of the Archp. and his counsellors gave the occasion of writing and publishing these books, the which they wear bound in conscience to do, to conserve their good name and famed.  
Well, seeing you haue omitted above 30. 
The united haue omitted aboo ne 30. reasons, and let them vnanswered.  reasons Which they haue laid down in their 3. books, and haue chosen certain speeches onely( naming them reasons) to answer, and yet haue not satisfied to any one of them, I marvel not that you let pass( as you say) the 21. 
Fol. 176. b  reasons v●hich this censurer layeth together by distinct nousbers to discredit the Protectors letters: seeing you cannot answer their simplo speeches.  
But you Will not let M. Champeyneyes, Epistle escape so good cheap, you will answer all his reasons. The first is taken out of S. Thomas who as you confess, 
Fol. 110. b Fol. 111. M. Champeneys first reason.  saith: That The subject must grow the will of his Superior, otherwise he cannot be said truly to disobey him. But these priests did not grow the will of their superior the Pope, Ergo M. Champeny saith true, that they swear not disobedient to his Hol. in not admitting the Archp. 
reply.  vpon the carded. letters. But you reply out of S. Thomas that there is a secret and a manifest commandment. but it was a secret commandment of the Pope contained in the carded. letters. The which they and I both deny: and how shall wee know it was a secret commandment? because the carded. saith he did it Ex expresso mandato Sanctissimi, No man is to beleeue him on his word as hath been sufficiently proved before, and by consequence, not to beleeue that it was the secret commandment of his Hol. again his Hol. in the extravagant Iniunctae doth expressly command no man to beleeue or accept of those that comme without his bul: ergo in such a case no secret commandment can be presumed. and if it swear, yet not to be credited, against an express commandement. Our draw saith: Expressa nocent, non expressa non nocent. As it bindeth under sin to obey, when the Superiors will doth by any means appear, as you say out of S. Thomas: so it is no sin or disobedyence, when the superiors will doth by no means or byways appear, as it doth not in the case of this question, and so let any man consider wither S. Thomas his speech of obedience touch your brethren or no, as it doth not in deed.  
You haue been  told before that you may be ashamed to call that A perilous and scandalous doctrine about obedience, as you note in your margin, and more ashamed to put a patche or a peace of their sentence in your text, when it hath been proved before that it is a true, Christian and catholic Doctrine.  
From M. Champeney you leap backward to your fare you well, 
Fol. 112. b  and are not ashamed to put his words down for absurd, perilous, and scandalous doctrine, which is a most just and worshipful doctrine, not at the first sight to admit any authority but such as is orderly procured and subtilely promulgated. 
A piece of a setence.  They are warranted to say so, by the fore alleged extravagant Iniunctae, 
Haue at, fare you well.  and diuers other places of the Canon and civil lawe. Their reason annexed you cut of with your accustomend &c. your answer is: 
&c. Helpeth much the vuited.  But who shall judge of this? I answer. his Hol. their superior, to whom in this case they are to retire: but not every subject as you guilefully would make your reader to beleeue they think and say: All that you can allege out of the fathers of ready prompt and simplo obedience, is to be understood of a true Superior, or when( as S. Thomas saith) they grow the will of their Superior.  
Your first rule out of Fa. 
Your first rule nothing worth.  Gregoire hath no place in this controversy, because the manner of constituting the Archp. by the Cardin. bare letters, was contrary to the commandement of a higher superior the Pope, who in the foresaid chap. Iniunctae forbiddeth any prelate to be received without he bring the Popes bulls with him, for proof that he is constituted in that dignity. And besides, the Protector did exceed the limits and power of a Protector, who hath no power or jurisdiction to constitut any new or old dignity in Ingland as Protector of the nation. And so might you haue put up this rule in your purse, because it maketh quiter against you. But let us see the mark you shoot at. mark( quoth you) that a man is boond to obey in all wherein he hath not evident knowlege to the contrary. mark( my mayst.) that this mark is a false mark. 
mark a false mark.  For Fa. gregory saith no such thing. take your spectacles and red him over once again, and so it is not quiter opposite to your mens doctrine.  
The first corollary of fa. 
The first corollary is not for you. Fol. 113.  gregory maketh as much for you as the rule before alleged: It is sufficient to bind the subject( under obedience) that he doth not grow evidently to the contra rye, to calicut: that it is either evil, or without the limits of his superiorsauctoritie. Ergo if that which is commanded be evil, or without the limits of the authority of him that commandeth, those that refuse to obey, are not disobedient to their superiors. Now the thing itself, as the priests haue often said and proved also, is evil of itself, next, the Protector that commanded exceeded the limits of his authority, for he had none at all. by consequence then your brethen wear not disobedient, and you haue brought this corollary to cury yourselves. By euidencs here( quoth he) I understand that which shalbe so judged not by the passionat subject, but by other good and learned men. But it hath heene judged by the good and learned men of Sorbonne that they did not somuch as sin in refusing the Archpr. vpon the carded. letters, ergo here is no disobedience. Yea it is judged by the Pope himself, as hath often been said, 
D. C. Jniunctae  that no man can be installed in any ecclesiastical dignity, without his bulls, Ergo it was evident to the priests that the carded. commandement( if he had been their superior) exceeded the limit of his power and authority, and so by the former rule and corollary: committed no disobedience against their superiors.  
The second and third corollary, 
Fol. 113. b The 2. and 3. corollaries make nothing for the united.  brought out of the same father, make as little against them as the former. for he talketh in them of a subject, and so presupposeth a man that is subject to an other. But no Englishman is subject to the Protector of Ingland, and therefore it appartayneth not to your brethren, nor proveth them disobedient for not obeying the carded. protectors commandment.  
That which you add: that the priests run vpon passion may be well applied to yourselves, whom passion hath so blinded, that you will not or do not understand the Author you allege, when they are so far from being against your brethren, that they confirm and prove their lawful endeavours and actions.  
At last you come to material disobedience, which consisteth in omitting that which was commanded, 
material disoobedience.  or doing any thing contrary thereunto. viz to the commandment of his Superior. But the Protector as you must still be  told( for you willinglie forget it, and yet harp still vpon yt) was not their superior, neither was it evident that it was commanded by his Hol. and therefore they haue not committed this material disobedience. I grant with you that both kinds of disobedience are damnable in such as commit them, but you neither haue nor can prove, that your brethren haue committed either of them,& therefore are not culpable of that damnation.  
At length you comme to judge of their intentions, of their thoughts and cogitations, 
you judge of mens thoughth and cogitations falsely. Fol. 113. b  seeing you can prove no disobedience in their words and outwardactions. You wish it swear not openly seen in this fact of theirs, and their perseverance therein. What( I pray you) wear not seen? forsooth, their intention not to obey. yf men may express their inwards thoughts and intentions by words( for words wear invented t' express mens inward intentions) I will show you their intentions, and then let the reader judge whither you utter these words with a good intention or no, thus they say in English. 
Pag. 2.  Wee haue and do vowe all obedience unto Gods church, and do acknowlege and embrace all authority subtilely proceeding from the Sea apostolic, 
Pag. 7.  and are most ready to new all obedience thereunto, &c. and elsewhere: we protest and vowe all obedience due to Gods church, and to all her worshipful authority, and therefore can be no schismatics. If they say: we do not obey this authority( of the Protectors) let them new us that it is a worshipful act of the church, and we obey, howe dare you in conscience reflect so vpon their intentions( having red these words) as to indge quiter against their intentions●. you should in your book haue shewed that the institution of the Archp. by the carded. 
what the united should haue done.  Protectors letters was a lawful act of the church, and then had you gained the victory: thē might you in some sort haue counted them( if not schismatics) yet seditious and rebellious for withstanding a lawful act of the church. But this rock of theirs is so strong and immovable, that you dare not thrust at it, but you scatter the sands of discourses, not apparteyning to the matter and question in your readers eyes, to hinder him from seeing the force and strength of their cause, and the barenes and weakness of your pretended defence.  
From reasoning, 
Fol. 114. b 115.  you turn to charging the consciences of your discontented brethren, at the day of iudgement, to tell you in sincerity and without passion, whither the carded. morally swear not to be believed, or wither he would dare presume to do or to attempt so public an act under letters patents: and that expressly in the Popes name without sure commission? They may answer you sincerely and truly as at the day of iudgment, that they might both probably and morally doubt of the Car. credit, wear his letters never so patent, or said he in them to haue never so express commandement of his Hol. as hath been shewed before in the question: Whither credit is to begiuen to a carded. saying he hath express commandement from the Pope to do this or that? where the conclusion is negative, that neither probably nor morally he is to be believed. and thither I refer you.  
The fine faults you find in their information sent to the DD. of Sorbonne, 
Fol. 116. Of the vfaults found in the information sent to the DD. of Sorbonne.  are suplied and put in the case proposed by me in the be gynning of this pamphlet. but to say something to thē as they ly in your book. The first faut you say is: because they added not, that he was protector of the nation. 
the first is of no importance.  Which is in deed a fault in you to think, that that would haue changed the case, and made the DD. not to haue pronounced as they did. As who should say: he being the Protector had more power and authority over our nation, thē being a bare Car. and not Protector. every carded. in Rome hath as much authority and jurisdiction over us as hath the Protector. For as I haue often  told you, he hath none at all. 
The second is no fault.  The second they said he did it according to the will and good liking of the Pope. And you would haue them haue said it was Expresso mandato, by express commandement. Is not his will and good liking contained in this express commandement? or is not his express commandment his will and good liking? The 3. fault is of as small weight, because no such subordination could be made without his Hol. 
The 3. of small waight.  breue( which is the thing in them for saying Many. why may not 13. 
The 4. is foolish. Fol. 67. b  persons be called Many parsons? yf they might say in latin mnlti, why not in Engl. many? 
The 5. is without fault.  Fiftly they say: that they refused onely to subscribe till he had obtained letters from the Sea apostolic. and this was true. howe say you was it not? did they not still petsist in their refusal till the breue came: what fault find you with this information? when you yourselves in many places of your book affirm it to be true? and for their so resisting wear accounted fchismaticks and so are still for the same resistance. you add: as who would say, that this being doō they meant to be quiet. there being quiet or not quiet afterwards doth not change the case proposed to the Sorbonnists. and as though( you say) in the mean speace they had behaved themselves obediently. To whom( I pray you) should they haue behaved themselves obediently? to the Archp. whom they justly and lawfulli denied to be their superior, and rightly rejected him as an intruded person? as one that came in at thewin dowe? yea but say you) no man was the are present of the superiors side to inform the good Doctors. yf any had been present, and coold haue said no more then you haue said here, the good DD. would haue said as they did. for this which you haue alleged, altereth not the case proposed at all either in substance or circunstance of any valour or respect. 
Fol. 118. The united deal not sincerely. Why the priests did break from the Archp. after the coming of the Breue?  You accuse them for breaking out again after the sight of the Popes breue, but you tell not why, neither put you down the cause as they do, and Why? because you defend an unjust and scandalous cause. They say it was, for that the Arch. after their reconciliation to him, did renew the old tear of schism, and held them for schismatics for not admitting and receiving him vpon the Car. letters. 
Pag. 63.  thus they say in many places of their Engl. book, and in their latin book writtsn to his Holl. they set down M. Blackw. letter forbidding any priest to ad-mitt them to confession, or give them absolution except they acknowledge themselves for schismatics: 
Pag. 59.60.  in their latin book to the inquisition after they had mentioned the peace that ensued vpon the coming of his Hol. breue, and of the congratulation of the Archp.& jesuit, and specially of fa. Pars. they add: that one Rob. jones a jesuit did raise up again fa. 
Fa. jones.  listers opinion that thny swear schismat. which jones taught and preached that all that did not hold then for schismat, 
The Arehp. indiscretion.  did incur the Censures of the church. Now the Arch. quoth they did not onely approve jones his teaching but did also publish everywhere the resolution before specified viz: that they were schismatics,& wear not to be absolved except they recanted. thus they lay down to the whole world the cause of their writing and appealing from the Arc. you find fault which thē for it, 
The united do not refute this cause, nor give any other.  but yet you neither refute that with they say, nor give any other probable cause of this revolt and contention. To what end wrott you this book? not to refute your aduersaries reasons not to reprehend them for laying down a false cause of these contentions? no truly, 
The substance of their Apol.  for you do neither the one nor the other. but rarather to discourse of old dissentionsin Rome Paris& Flanders, in laying down loads of letters to no end or purpose. and this is the very substance of this your brief Apol. that which you add: they bring against the new breue, hath been answeared before. 
Fol. 118.   
Lastly, you charge your brethren being not scarce 10. against 300, howe they durst make so dangerous a division? they may answer that this dangerous division proceeded from those 3. or 4. at Rome, that gave the information& counsel to haue an Arch. without asking the consent of the priests in Ingl. and their procuring him to be so disorderly and vnlawfully constituted: and not from those priests, that according to the decrees of the church, yea by the express commandment of the holy Canons refused a prelate so disorderly and vncanonically thrust and put vpon thē as it swear by violence, against the express lawe and approved custom of Christs church. 
The united may be ashameth, to put the cause of this division vpon the priests.  For my part I much marvell how you can in conscience an how you dare for shane put the cause of this division vpon them: when as they in all their book give solid and worshipful reasons of their doings, lay the occasions vpon the jesuits and Arch. and yet you neither answer their reasons, nor defend the others from the blame put vpon them: neither do you object any reasonable cause against thē whereby a man may see or conjecture that they were the authors and begynners of this diuifion& contension. And yet forsooth they are the authors they made this division, I talk not of those dissensions that fell out at Wisbith, but of those how controversies, the cause of all these scandalous contentions, and uncharitable writing one against an other. viz: the subordination and the renewing of the quarrel of schism. whereof they show and prove the jesuits and Archpriest to haue been the Authors. 
what the united should haue done in their apology.  and you do not clear and deliver them from these accusations. this you should haue done, and this should haue been the scope of your book, if you meaned to haue done any thing that Good is. the fault( so far as I can parceiue) lieth yet vpon their shoulders, for any thing that you can say in this your Apol. to the contrary. I grow not howe you will handle the matter in your promised larger apology.  
If little relief cometh to your brethren( as you say) by this definition of Paris: 
Fol. 118. b.  
Pag. 110.  what needed the Archpriest to make this severe edict against it, as it is put down in your brethrens appeal: 
Th' edict of Paris maketh for the Priests.  that neither directly nor indirectly they maintain or defend in word or in writing the censure of the university of Paris, &c. belike it made for them, 
Fol. 116. b.& 117.  as in deed it doth still not with standing your 5. additions that you would should haue been added unto it. For these circunstances and considerations neither do aggravat as you would make men beleeue, nor at all change the state of the case or question proposed. and so th'Academicall sentence standeth firm still and maketh substantially for M. Champeney without flourish or ostentation.  
Wee haue showed( quoth you) in the former chapped. 
Fol. 119.  with how little reason our discontented brethren being so few and such as they were( Serving men, Soldiers, and wanderers) opposed themselves at the beginning to the first Institution of this hierarchy, 
Fol 29. b.  &c. beleeue you who list. this is a flourish in deed with ostentation of an united fitton. 
And united fitton.  where haue you showed it? note the place leaf, and line sure I am you haue reported, that they haue laid down 21. Reasons against that Institution, but that you haue answered any one of them, as yet I find not. you haue here and there picked certain speeches out of their books, but how poorly you haue answered them, I leave to the Readers Iudgement, that will but cast his eyes vpon the same places, and yet we must beleeue you because you are a number, that you haue showed with how little reason your brethren opposed themselves to the institution of the Archpriest. 
Th' united play with mens noses.  You may well play which the noses of boyes, women, and your own creatures, but in different men pitty your case and laugh at your so vain affirming that which you never did. new how little Reason( quoth you) mary he that hath red the former chapped. and will beleeue you, hath in dead but little Reason. These be gugawes and toys to mock at or to please foles, and not worthy such grave men as you are or ought to be, and such constant Confessors. What! make you no conscience( saving your reverence) to fitton and that in print? how do you abuse and detract them behind their backs, that dare in print say: you haue showed how little reason they had? having not answered to any one of their Reasons as yet. 
What the united should prove.  You add, ordained by his Hol. this you should prove. This is the Question. wither at the beginning he was ordained by his Hol. or no? they say no. and bring above 30. Reasons to prove their assertion. But you say often yea, and for proofs and reasons, you give us nought but bare words. who is then bound to beleeue you?  
As they asked you before, 
Fol. 108. Fol. 119. b. Question.  why in so many Monèthes space the bull was not procured? so you ask them here: why they sent not a letter to Rome either to his Hol. himself or to his Nephew, or to any other acquaintannce of theirs there? And as you answered them( but howe jump judge you) because it is now answered for that the breue was procured, so say I: they wear not bound to sand either Messenger or letter either to his Hol. or his Nephew, or to any other acquanitannce to grow wither this matter came from his Hol. or no: or wither the Protector had abused the Popes name or no? because it was answered by the Pope long since that none under pain of deprivation of the frui 
D.c. Jniunctae.  tes of their bnfice should receive any man to any office bnfice or dignity without he brought the Popes bulls. 
L. 1.§. fin. in fin. ff. de act. empt.  now we hauea rule that saith ( Qui certus est amplius certiorarinon debet. he that is alreadly acertyned of a thingh ought not to be certisied again. They swear certified by Pope Boniface, not to admit any such: to what purpose then should they sand to his Hol. to be certified again? And if they had sent and that his Hol. had certified them that it was his will, yet could they not in coscience haue received and obeied him as their superior, because he was not canonically instituted, being instituted without his Hol. bulls, and by him that had no authority to do it, albeit he had had a hundred express commandements from his Hol. quia sublata forma, tollitur res. it is of the form and essence of a canonical institution to be instituted by his Hol. bulls, if the Collation( as in this case) partaine to him. but this form was not observed, ergo the institution was not canonical, and by consequence if they had received a hundred letters from Rome, that all was done by his Hol. Good will liking and consent they had never been the better for it, neither yet discharged in conscience, for acknowleging and admitting an intruded person that entred in by the wyndovve and not by the door, 
A fend objection often repeated often answered.  but unorderly. that is, without his Hol. Bulls.  
How oft cometh in this fond objection affirming that the Pope could not do it without them except he violated the church Canons. sithence it is an infaillable truth, and yet this you lay still down as an absurd saying, so blinded you are in affection. howe say you? th'ordinary means that heave always been in Gods church to appoiot ecclesiastical superiors, was it not by election? run over the titles De Electione. and therefore the Pope following the ordinary means and ways of the church Canons, could not give them a superior without their consents. 
C. Bonae memoriae 2. in fin. Ext. de elect.  For in matter of election this is the rule: Plus obest contemptus unius quam contradictio multorum. the contempt of one that hath a voice in election doth more hurt, then the contradiction of many. Wherefore, if these few 10. Priests had been contemned and all the 300. Priests had consented, the election had been of no valour. howe then can it be said, that he was ordinarily instituted, and according to the Canons of the Church? when both the 300. and these 10. also swear contemned, and their voices neclected? I speak of the ordinary way, and so do they understand( else would they not haue made mention of the Canons) not of the Popes plenitude of power and authority, by which he may take away all Election, and alter and change all the churches canons, and constitutions, and make new in their places. but by the ordinary superintendency of Canon lawe, as they say well, the Pope cannot appoint a superior without the consent of the subiects, 
folly and ignorance.  which are to live under that superior. I muse at your folly or ignorannce to object to them this, and that so often as a great oversight fault and contempt: the which( as I said) is truth itself, sound and canonical doctrine.   

CHAP. IX.  
TOuching the imprisonnement of the 2. Priests in Rome, of the which all the 9. chapped. almost doth treat, I haue put down my Iudgement beforé. onely this I add: that all the principal men whom you notify to haue written against them, swear such men as all the world knoweth to be in this cause too too much affencted to the Fathers, 
Affection of blindeth men.  and by affection utterly blinded in the state and question of the controversy, that is between the Priests now, and the Archpriest and jesuits. I grow them all both by face and affection, and therefore may be the bolder to say it.  
The first man you name is M.D. 
D. Stapleton proveth not your intention.  Stapleton whom his Hol. purposed to prefer to higher dignity. if he were now alive he would tell another tale against those that hindered him from that higher dignity, and that  told him a tale in his ear, when he was ready to put his foot into his litter and made him stay at home, and loose that higher dignity. 
He was bereeued of his higher dignity.  the story( of like) if you continue your Apologies will comme out one day. Well! but what saith D. Stapleton to the matter? doth he exhort or desire his Hol. to chastise by imprisonnement These two Priests? Nihil minus. 
A dead man fore man of the quest. Fol. 173. b.  He never dreamed of it, and yet is he made the foreman of the quest to condemn them, being dead himself by your own confession before the Priests came to Rome. What kind of writinge is this to say that a dead man gave his verdict after he was buried? And why? because( when he was senseless) he agreed in sense and Iudgement with other principal men that wret( after his death) to Rome.  
Next to the fore man of the quest that gave his verdict after his death ther march seventeen hands of the principal of owr Nation in Flanders, When wrote they? some months before they( the Priests) came out of england. But to whom wrote they? I pray you? forsouth to the general of the jesuits, the head of those, against whom the Priests were in contention. But what do they desire? imprisonment? nothing less. only to do Justice, 
The 17. principal men of owr Nation did not require their imprisonment.  and so to make peace. A just and reasonable request. I see not to what end you put down a piece of their letter here. Who would not request Iustite to be done? Why? did not the Priests themselves go to Rome to ask Iustice? that is: If they were found faultye: to be punished: If innocent? to haue their just requests granted. do these 17. principal men request the general to get them Imprisoned before they were heard? No neither if they had requested it( I deem) should they haue been heard. howsoever he was afterwards brought by one mans persuasion to consent thereto. for I think Fa. Parsons durst not haue gone with the Popes Officer to appre hended them, and to imprisone them in the college without the general his knowledge and Consent. And so by this means the general hath his part also in this unjust and vnaequitable action of their imprisonment, before they were heard, For besides his consenting to their apprehension by permitting one of his order to be present and chief actor in it, this memorial of these 17. sent to him, was also by him to be presented to the Pope as you insinuate.  
After this, 
Fol. 12. b.  followe the letters of the Zealous men, the former were principal men, these are but zealous, although it be the president and the Doctors of the seminarye. In my time, such men were counted amongst the principal of our Nation but it was then, when they were their own maisters, not subject and pinned to others, and directed by others, as they are now, 
The president and his three Doctors desire not their imprisonment.  the more is the pity, and it is the great hindrance of doing good in our country. But to whom wrote these zealous men? forsooth to the protector. and not to his holynes? And what do they request? to haue them imprisoned before they were heard?( for therein consisteth the injury and the Indignitye of the fact.) not a word thereof. onely they think it good, 
Fol. 125.  that some example of severe correction should he used vpon them, to hold others in duty. now if these three Doctors which are yet livinge and subscribed to that lettere were examined on their Consciences, whether they meant these Priests should be imprisoned before they were heard, or that they meant to haue thē punished, being found factious, and coming with no matter of importance, but only to trouble his holynes: I am assured they would answer, they meant not the first, for two of them being Doctors of draw should otherwyse speak against their own knowledge skill and practise. And some of thē I beleeue haue bitten their singers since, for subscribinge against their will, to please and Content others. Well then these four zealous Doctors though not before, yet now counted amongst the principal men of owr clergy prove but little your Intention. 
Fol. ibidem b.   
In the fourth place is set down a letter, ( M. 
D. Worthington now president desired not their imprisonment.  President) wherein he iudgeth them to be repressed with some severitye? ergo say these men, he wrote to haue them imprisoned, before they were heard what they had to say, or to impart and utter what they came for, coming as appellannts to the see apostolic, this they say, or else they say nothing. and for proof thereof they haue printed the letter. I am assured that that was not his meaning, what soever else he meant by severitye. But by these my notes he may see, howmuch he and others were deceived that thought them Culpable and seditious, because they withstoode the Archpriest, so vnlawfullye and disorderlye set up, by the Protectors letters. as also his predecessor with his 3. Doctors that Confessed this subordination to be most wiselye and wholsomelye instituted. I speak not against the subordination, neither do I mislike of it, but of the maner of instituting of it at the first, which was against all draw and reason, as those zealous Doctors might haue seen, if they had but turned over their Common lawe.  
After your letter, 
The names of 3. Doctors abused or borrowed.  there are 3. Doctors brought in, and albeit they say nothing, yet we must beleeue, that they wrot most earneslye and gravely to the same effect. although( as I haue said) they said never a word to the merely effect. What! to be imprisoned before they were heard what they had to said, to justify their coming to Rome? Lansweare, if I swear with some of thē, they would say, that you abuse their names and credit, to make men beleeue they were so unjust, cruel, and uncharitable men, as to wyshe the imprisonment of innocent men. For until they be Iudiciallye convinced of some crime or fault, they are presumed innocent, as before I haue proved.  
In the end you set down M. 
No word at all in M. Licentiat Wrights letter of the two Priests.  Licentiat Wrigts( my old and dear friends) letter. Who albeit he speaketh as a zealous friend of the Fathers, as he ever hath been since I haue known him, yet not a word in the lettere of the two Priests at all, nor of punishing them, much less of requesting them tobe imprisoned before the were heard. 
Fol. 127.  By all these letters I see no just cause, why the Protector should incite the Pope, or his holynes be moved justly to resolve to restrain thē( as you say) or to imprison them( as they say) at their arrival or some 20. dayes after, being as yet neither heard nor examined what they brought or had to say. 
These letters do not discharge Fa. Par.  surely whether Fa. Parsons procured these letters or no, these letters do not discharge him from their accusation, that he was the chief procurer of their imprisonment( I do not say he was) but I say these letters which speak never aword of their imprisonment is not a sufficient argument( as the think) to discharge Fa. Par. of the suspicion they haue of him.  
At lenghe after your long travail in setting down letters that make nothing to your purpose, 
Fol. 136.  in wrangling with your aduersaries, and not answearing their reasons: in talking of factions in Paris and Flannders and of the last troubles in the roman college, after all these great travails( I say) you begin to make yourself merry, and to enrich your apology with M. Watsons common wealth. and haning first disgraced him for not being a scholar of the college for a god while, 
●f. Watson disgraced for being a poor scholar.  but a seruant to make M. Boasts bed and dress up his chamber. If this be a disgrace unto him to haue been a poor scholar in the Seminarie, then is it not onely a disgrace to some of the subfcribers of the former letters, which yet you say to haue been the principalest men of our Nation, 
many of you united Priests, some jesuits, and some of them whom you call the princip allest men, were poor schollers in the seminarie.  but to a great number of yourselves( my united bretheren) and to some of the Fathers also in England, that haue been also poor schollers and seruants before they were schollers of the college. If you urge me in your next I will name thē noman knowing thē better then I, as having lived many a year in the seminarie, yea even from the first setting up of it. A poor scholar is a principal man when you list if he hold with the jesuits: but if he be against them, then it shal be laid in his dish I warrant you. What man having any Iudgment can think, 
Want of honesty and conscience.  that united Priests wrot this apology? How can they with honeslye and conscience object to another as a disgrace and in contempt the state wherein diuers of them also lived. If it were abject, and M. Watson to be counted abject therefore, yet the same Iudgment is to be given of a great number of you yourselves, that lived also in that estate, except by holding with the Fathers you are restituti in integrum, washed clean from that spot, the others still remaining all to be smyred therwith. 
A question to be answeared.  But why( I pray you) might not M. Watson a secular Priest, make a common wealth for ecclesiastical government, so well as a Religious man( as it is reported) make a common wealth how England shalbe governed both in ecclesiastical and temporal matters. what privilege hath this man mote then the other? the which( if it were put in print) perhaps would make the reader as merry as this doth. But you haue set it down at large in recompense of the setting down of Fa. Listers book, 
A comparison between Fa. L. book and M. Watsons common wealth if that be his which the author of the apology Fathereth vpon him.  ad longum sine require. I would to god his book had done no more hurt then M. Watsons common wealth. For this maketh men merry, that maketh men groan, this stirreth up laughter, that breedeth melancholy this rejoiceth the readers hart after the reading of so many tedious and vndeacent letters and matters that maketh many a man bleed at the veriehart through grief and sorrow. this derogateth but a little the credit of a ordinary Priest but that doth blemish not only the name and famed of the writer, heretofore held for a very pious, modest and a great learned man: but somwhat also of the society itself. I know many a Father in these coasts, that bite the lipp, so soon as they hear any mention made therof. And you yourselves that will not talk of it, but are soerye that ever it was mentioned, for the grief you haue conceived of it, can yet make yourselves merry with M. Watsons common wealth. Cettes your vocation and grauitye might haue advertised you to haue spent your time better then in these follies, and to haue studied to answeare your aduersaries Reasons and arguments and to haue filled up your book with sound Reasons, rather then with these flymflams. But why do I speak to you, whé I know you are not the Authors, he hath discovered himself( as wyse as he thinketh himself to be) as in place you may understand Bonus quandoque dormitat Homerus, even so in this book he hath overshot himself, and discharged you of all blame, but onely of lending your names willinglye to the disgrace, contempt and abasement of your order ad vocation, as I haue often warned you. If this vain of wryting goforward as it hath begun, 
many merry tales are kept in store.  credit me there are tales and stories in store, that will make some men blushy( if they haue any blood in their body) when they shall be set out in print. may I not for these your follies better cry out then you do. Good lord, to what vanity are these our united brethren growne by contention that they can lose their time in filling their book up with these toys! 
Fol. 138.  wheere is the spirit of charity? where is the virtue of modesty become? is this fit for designed Martyrs, or for good Confessors? to disgrace and deface a man of their own coat and vocation, to make him a mocking stock to the readers without just occasion: his words and writings nothing at all appertaining to the matter inquestion? But drawn as it were with a cart rope to make yourselves merry? one day you will answeare for this Idle time so scandalou sly spent. do you designed Martyrs give your sheep such edification? do you good confessors instruct your flock with such stuff and exhortations? hath contention and malice so blinded you, that you forget the honourable state and vocatiou you are in? Yes truly, else would you never commit the absurdities you do, and espetiallye about the contempte of men of your own coat and vocation, Amend, amend it is high time. 
Fol. 139.  Who I pray you sent the common wealth unto Rome to be Communicated to the cardinals that laughed so heartily at it? who translated it into Italien or Latin, or who did explicat it to the cardinals to make them so mertye?( for I suppose it was written in English for any thing I can perceive in this apology to the contrary.) who but the Author and inventor of this apology, to whom it was sent from England to Rome. Me thinks I see how he laughed when first he did red it. And then how he hasted to Communicate the same to the said cardinals to make them merry, and then what discourses there were of the insufficientie, vnlearnednes, and ambition of these Priests that stood against the Archp. because this common wealth maker was one of them. vanitas vanitatum that Religious men who should spend their time in study and contemplation, do take their greatest pleasure, delight, and contentement in writing and receiving packets of news from all coasts and cuntreyes, making that their whole study and travail. Would to god they would content themselves with such packets as are directed to thē, and not forestalle, and take up, other mens that appertain not unto them.  
We are come at last to the Question that standeth in this which part hath broken the peace, 
Which side broken the peace after the coming of the bull.  that was made by the coming and sigth of his holiness bull. You say they did by a new devise they shortly after cast out, that satisfaction must be made to them for some former hard speeches used and wrytten against them in the time of contention, &c. this you say but do not tell who began, which superintendency, in what place and at what time and this you prove only by cvi bono. They say the breach began on the Archp. his side when they had forgiven and forgotten all the foresaid hard speeches and injuries done unto them( so far were they from requiring satisfaction for thē) and this they prove in both their Latin book, 
Pag. 65. in the one and 60. in the other.  by putting down the Arch. letters, vherein he saith he had received from the mother city a resolution that the detractors of the protectors authority were schismatics, and that he would not absolve any that made not a conscience of it. Beside they put down a form of recantacion or satisfaction which is to be made by such as held against his institution before they could be absolved. 
Pag. 120.  
This breach credibly begon the Archpr, side.  These are better and more substantialle proofs then, cvi bono, that this piteous breach began on the Archpriests side, and not on your discontented brethrens side. the which I beleeue to be true, because you answer not one word thereto in this apology, neither go you about to clear the Archp. of it. For this being the chief cause they pretend of this contention, and affirming so oft as they do that the Archp. renewed the old quarrel of schism, in all wise mens iudgment you should haue spent your labour in proving the contrary and in discharging the Archp. from this fowle fault. the time,( I say) ink, and paper spent in setting down M. Watsons common wealth, had been much better employed in controling your aduersaries of an untruth, by laying the breach of the peace unjustly vpon the Archp. and his counsellors but fortis est veritas, the truth carrieth such a majesty with it, that the very aduersaries themselves dare not approach it, much less impugn it. And to prove they broken the peace made after the coming of the breue you allege an appeal made by 3. of those priests from the Archpriest before the coming of the said breue. Wiselye, but yet according to your custom throughout your book, 
The united put stil quid pro quo  where you put still quid pro quo, and the cart before the horse. The question is, Who broke the peace after the coming of the breue? And you prove they broke it, because some of them appealed before the breue came down. 
Fol. 154.   
Where you object the one was made a doctor of divinity, and the other a bachelor in Paris, against an express Breue that forbade the same in all Englishmen. I marvell that this Author the procurer of that Breue is so forgetful, as to say, it is forbidden to all Englismen to take the degree of a bachelor, where as Doctorship is only forbidden. You may correct the fault in your next, 
Fol. ibi. in mar. Pag. 91.  as that also, in calling the appeal made by M. Charnocke very ridiculous, for he proved in his letter to the cardinal Burghesius which is put down in their book to the inquisition and that authority of the learnedst Canonists, that it was a worshipful and not a ridiculous appeal. you should haue answeared his auctorityes, and them haue termed it ridiculous. But leaving his authors untouched you new yourselves to be very ridiculous people, that would haue men beleeue you vpon your bare words, and not beleeue those that bring good stuff and authorities for them.  
Touching the special point( you say) to be noted that they haue not procured any one of their appeals to be presented or prosecuted in Rome. the note is easily to be answeared, 
Fol. 159. b Why the priest did not prosecute their apeales.  because the place is not tutus sure for them, having experimented it first in ther messengers, 
Fol. 137.  and next having Fat. Parsons in the hewn, whom you confess they take to be their chiefest adversary, and who for his credit( you say) in the roman court doth great lie let and hinder their designemens. and this their saying was not many months since confirmed by one of his own coat passing by this superintendency, who said: fa. Parsons could do what he would with the Pope. judge if such a place be sure for your brethren to persecute their appeal. And where you add, that they ought to haue prosecuted it with in certain months, under pain that all is void if it be not done: you talk like diuynes and not like lawiers, as I haue showed else where before.  
And where you say that the Archpri himself presented their appellation to his Hollines. 
Fol. 160.  If he haue presentend that appeal which they have put in the end of their latin books Certes, either the appellants are egregious. liars and shamels men, or else the Atchp. had a brazen face: they shameless to exhibit to his Holynes, and to all the world such faulsityes and untruths against their worshipful superior: but if they be truths and not forged, then had the Archp. a brazen face to exhibit or cause to be presented to his holiness such true, but yet vnworthye stuff against himself.  
If they had kept themselves with in the compass of their matter, 
Fol. ibidem. The cause why the priests printed their books.  the book written after the appeal, had neither been libels( as you term them) neither yet vnduelye printed. Why should they not inform his Holynes, and give notice to all all the world how unjustly and vnchristianlye they were dealt with all before the coming of the breue, to be called, counted, and by writen books proved schismatics, for not admitting an exorbitant dignity vpon a carded. bare letters. And again after the coming of the bull. and their acceptation of that dignity, the same crvme to be renewed, and so horrible a crime to be imputed to them again. If you justly accuse them for imputing far lister faults to Fa. Pars. and others, and take them up egerlye for the same? how can you find fault with them for defending and clearing themselves from so horrible a sin, next cousin to heresy? and worse then soothsaying and idolatry itself they wrote then both for the defence of their good name and famed, which is just and natural, and to aduertyse his Holynes of their usage, requesting him either to quit, or condemn them by his sentence. To this end they published their book, as they affirm, and you selves cannot well deny. the which sentence of his Hol. which( you say) you expect, is come out already( as I haue heard) and if I be not deceived I haue red it also. In the which he condemneth expressly fat. Listers book of schism, and theirs also commanding silence and forbidding any more writing. the which yet you( that so often object contempt of his Holynes and his doings to others) do neither observe nor obey. 
Fol. 162. Of the 6. abuses you find in the title of their latin beoke.   
The first of the 5. or 6. abuses which you fin de with the title of the latin book is. Becauthey make the strife to be between them and the Iesuites and the Archp. favouring them. this to be false and that their strife is cheiflye with M. Blackwell, whom they make in their title but an Appendix, you prove, because the Appellation is made against M. 
The cheise strife is with the Jesuits.  Blackewell But they show, and yourselves elsewhere confess that their chiefest strife is with far. Pars. for giuing false informations for this subordination, and With Fath. Lister for writing his book of schism, and fa. Garnet for the approving thereof. Yet was their first falling out with fat. Weston and the others before name, many a day, yea some yeares before they appealed and therefore it is plain truth and not falsehood, that they put the jesuits in the first place and M. Blackw. in these cond. For much strife and contention had they with the jesuits long before M. Blackw. was made Archepriest.  
Your second fault also is faultless in them. 
The second fault is faults.  for had they said: and all the Seminarie priests, thē had they lied in dead. but saying onely and the Seminarie priests, they said true, for they are Seminarie priests, but you say this was but a poor fault and therefore passed it over lightly.  
thirdly they say from the death of carded. Allen. you add that this stir against the fathers was begun in England in his dayes. If in his dayes? then might it be continued from his death. you look very narrowlye to sinned holes, where none are, they do not say the troubles began but from his death, but that haue risen from his death. that is, haue been increased. And here by your own words is proved that which I said before: 
your own words against you. Fol. 162.  that these priests were in trouble and concention with the jesuits some yeares before the Instituting of the Archpr. for your say: That the contentions against the Iesuites were begun in England even in carded. Allens daies. by consequence then, they committed noe abuse to put the jesuits before M. Blackwell and much less is it then a plain falsehood. 
The fourth is no abuse.   
Fourthly, they say: Ad S. D. N. Clementē octauum exhibita ab ipsis sacerdotibus, that this declaration was exhibited by the Priests themselves to our most holy father Pope Clement the 8. I see not to what purpose you put this down, you do not acknowledge it yourselves to be an abuse. What matter is it I pray you( so it be exhibited to his holiness) whether it be exhibited by themselves or somme other therir friend or foe? as it was exhibited by the Archp. as you say before. For the appeal and the book being printed and bound together, I cannot see how the one could be presented without the other. except the Arch. did cut of the book, and sand the appeal onely. What matter( I say) maketh it, so it come at lengh to the Popes knowledge( which is the scope of their writing) as it did come indeed, the which may appear by the breue he sent down, to condemn both theirs, and Fa. Listers book also.  
Neither is this word exhibit, to be taken so strittly, as you seem to take it, that is: to deliver up into the Popes hands, but in his usual and common signification: which is to set abroad for every man to behold, or to offer and she we a thing to another. But why did you not put down all their words at length without nipping of the latter words were you afraid of somme bugs? 
Nippers.  or did your consciences accuse you for the former injury of schism laid against them? of the which you talk not willingly: and are sorry to hear of it. Why did you not speak out and say as they do: ab ipsis sacerdotibus qui schismatis aliorunque criminum sunt insimulati. exhibited by those priests that were vnduely accused and appeached of schism and others crimes. 
The united do justly abhor the word schism.  I cannot blame you if you abhor the worde schism. because the unjust, uncharitable, and unlearned accusation of your brethren of this schism was ihe spring and fountain of this trouble, your consciences do testify as much, and therefore you nipped of these words which declare the cause of their writing and exhibiting their latin book to his Holynes. And besides in this whole book you never enter into speech of this matter, albeit the same be the ground of all this contention but with other to yes and flymflamms, you turn your readers eyes and intention from marking this point.  
As for the 5. 
Fol. 162. b  abuse which you gather by the application of the verse of the psalm to their book: I pass over being no divine and therefore cannot judge whether they or you explicate it most aptly.  
You 6. reprehension is very foolish: the which as for saying: 
The 6. is a foolysch reprehension 163.  their book was printed at rouen in the howse of james Molens, and you confess you grow not whether there be aine such sign or man dwelling in rouen or no. If you cannot precisely say their is no such man, why do you find fault with thē for saying there is such a man. You should haue doō well if you had followed the same counsel which you gave them a little before, to sand a letter to Rome to his Hol. his nephew or some other friend to know whether the Car. instituted the Archp. by his Hol. consent or no. So might you with less cost and charges, haue sent from flanders( where this book was printed) to rouen, to know whether their be such a printer so name or no, If not? then you might haue precisely said, there is none such, and as precisely tax them: but if you had found such a printer there. Then might you haue saved this labour. but you are like to such as can give good connsell to others, but will follow, none themselves.  
Well then, seeing that all yours. 
Fol. 163. and 164  absurdities, be neither absurdities, shifts, nor falshoods, but that you haue committed a manifest falsehood in nipping of these words. 
Their 6. faults if they were such not comparable to your own fault.  ab ipsis sacerdotibus qui schismatis aliorunque criminum sunt insimulati, to which one shift &c. falsehood, all their 6. are not comparable, albeit they were shifts and falshoods now your readers may imagine what stuff the Remnant will be. And if we may presume( as the lawe saith a praeteritis de futuris) by that which you haue already said, of that which you are like hereafter to say: then sure I am, that you will not say much to the matter, nor come near the question. nor yet answeare there reasons, for as yet you haue done neither of the three.  
To their 2. 
Pag. 5.  reasons that caused them to print their books. 
Fol. 164. The first reason for printing their book is good.  The first: They could not haue copies enough in written hand: You answer is: That many copies was not needful, if they were only for his holiness information as they pretend. Indeed if they were only for his Holynes information so many copies needed not: but where do they pretend that they wrote for his Holynes only information? their intention was not only to inform his Holynes, but also to defend their innocency, famed, and good name, that was blotted& blemished, both at home, and in foreign contreyes by Fa. Listers book, the copies where of flew over into strange countreyes, sent and dispersed every where by the Fathers. And this is the third reason, which they give in that place in the margin, which you willingly omit.  
The second reason. 
Pog. 5. The secand rea●e. Fol. 164,  To get their good names again in foreign nations taken away by the jesuits whereto you answer, that in your opinion it will fall out quiter contrary: to wit where before they were not infamous nor yet known: now they shal be both by their infamatorie writinge. 
Take heed this prophecy fall not vpon yourselves.  This is perchance but your own opinion. howsoever it will fall out with them, my opinion is, yea I am full sure of it, that somme others that haue been meddlers herein, especially the writer and the consirmer of the book of schism against them, haue lost much of their credit already by the devulgating of these books, and that their best friends hold down their heads for shane when it cometh in talk. And as little credite I beleeue, you will get( by these your Apologies) both at home and abroad, as you deem may hap to them for their books.  
From the 164. 
you repre●end them justly.  lease of your book to the 168. you run over their latin book and do duly reprehend them for their writing against certain reverend and virtuous parsons. 
Willing omission.  But yet I mark, you willingly omit and neglect their quarrel against some jesuits and specially Father Lister, for writing against them and Father Garnet for approuinge the same. This is, as I haue often repeated the ground of these troubles and contentions. Hinc fundi nostricalamitas. Here you should either haue defended Father Lister or haue condemned him( as in your conscience you do) but you are of that vein, that if you should condemn or dislike of any thing in one jesuit, you think it would denigrat the praises you attribute to thothers. 
Speak truth.  But for all this, you being priestes and confefessors should speak the truth and shane the devil and lay the fault, where it is. You know who said: Amicus Plato, Amicus Socrates, said magis amica veritas. But with you, the Fathers and their praise are more respected, then the truth itself.  
They go about( say you) to new that the Archpriest hard proceeding with them, 
Vneuen dealing.  was cause of their how contentions and stirs. This you prove by 2. marginal notes of theirs. But why did you not put down the text also? Why did you not set down the Arcpriest his epistle renewing the wound of schism and counting them schismatics? Why? because you love not to talk of the matter. albeit the same be the chiefist point in the controversy. 
Markstill the question in contrsuersie.  That is: Whither they be schismatics for wistanding the carded. letter? But because you will not talk of it, and that you are loathe to hear of it, and especially for that I would inculcate into the memory of the reader the true cause of these contentions, and call to his mind, What you should haue handled, I do so much the oftener and willinger repeat it. But is not this a pretty trik? You allege the page. where the epist. is, you know that the Arch. over shot himself in it, and yet you come in with, But suppose he ouershott himself, and then, 
Foolish supposalls.  was this a sufficient cause for priests, &c. Yea forsooth, and for monks to, to defend their good name and same, and especially to acquitt themselves of so heinous a crime as schi sme is in that country, 
The pests were bound to defend their good name.  in time of persecution for the satisfaction of their spiritual children, and contentment of all that knewe them. for had they held their peace, they should haue been judged and holden for such in dead, and that worthily our saviour himself gave them example to defend their famed. 
By the example of our saviour.  For when the Iewes had said to him. Samaritanus es tu& Daemonium habes. He answered: ego Demonium non habeo. And so defended his good name. What man of reason or religion will not allow of this? Who will say( With you) that these men are out of the right or true path of priestly proceeding, who do but that which god and nature permit thē to do: that is to defend their good name against slanderous and exorbitant calumnies. 
Fol. 167. b  let every indifferent reader consider well what you do in this place, and they shall find, 
a man of clowtes  that you make yourselves a man of clowtes to fight against, and then you run furiously at him with head hand and feet, but for all that, you hurt him not. 
What the united people should haue done.  No more do you any thing at all here touching the matter your take in hand, which is to confute your aduersaries book. For if you would haue confuted it, you should haue showed and proved that, that the epistle of the Archp. was not his, or that that epistle did not give the first cause of this breach, after the coming of the Popes breue. But what( I pray you) do you herein? nothing, but Suppose it was his Epistle, and then you rage at their two notes in the margin. They say: the beginning of how contentions was a violent Epistle of the Archpristes and that the Archpriest renewed the wars. And this they proved by producing of this Epistle. But you What? Mary But suppose he ouershott himself. Well, Suppose he fowly ouershott himself in calling them schismatics, yet say you Priestes that profess modesty, obedience, and mortificacion &c. 
Can. Non sunt. 11. q. 3. S. August. bjddeth them to defend their famed.  should suffer it. Are they more modest obedient and mortified then Saint Augustine? Saying: Proinde quisquis à criminibus flagitiorum atque facinorum vitam suam custodit, sibi been facit: quisquis autem famam:& in alios misericors est. Nobis enim necessaria est vita nostra, aliis fama nostra. Therfore who soever keapeth himself from synning and offending grievously, he doth good to himself, but who soever doth keap his good name is merciful to others. 
Can. Nolo 12. q. 1.  For our life is necessary to us, our same to others. And the same doctor again. Conscientia necessaria est tibi, fama proximo tuo. Qui fidens conscientiae sua negligit famam, crudelis est, Thy conscience( that thou livest well) is necessary to thee thyself: but they famed( that thow livest well) is necessary in respect of thy neighbour. He therfore that trusteth to his conscience and neglecteth his famed, is cruel. Are they more modest and mortified then our saviour? Who( as I haue said) answered his calumniators, 
Salomon willeth them to do the same. Eccl. 41. S. paul defended his famed. 2. Cor. 12.  that he had not the devill? And Salomon commandeth us, Curam habere de bono nomine. To haue care of our good name. And S. paul defendeth his good name. Good and just cause then had these Priestes by reasons and examples alleged, to defend themselves, from so heinous a crime, put vpon them by the Arehpriest in his letter or Epistle. Which you will not see, but only suppose at it. To conclude this point notwithstanding your bog and lofty words of Scandalous tumults, 
Fol. 168.  exorbitant passions, and furious rages( very unfit terms for such Priests, as you are that profess modesty and mortification, and that are in Ingland, not only to suffer, but also to die for Christian Religion) with which you would make babies afraid. 
The Priests had just cause to appeal.  They had very just cause to appeal from so unjust a judge charging them both falsely and uncharitably, with so heinous a crime as schism is. And that men justly defending their honor and famed, do nothing at all dyminishe, eitherof their modesty, mortification or obedience, neither haue they stepped for that, out of the path of Christian Religion, or priestly proceeding, as you would make not your wise but passionate and affencted reader here beleeue. 
Fol. 169.  And thus much you haue said of the latin book. A short horse is soon curried. 
A whole book briefly answered  If you can answer whole books so briefly, you nead no more large Apol. you are men of dispatch, I see well, but no marwell: many hands make light work, you are many united priestes together, and therfore you haue the soener done. And yet as brief as you are, you haue spoken more then, at the beginning you thought to say in this place, Truly if at the beginning you thought not to say so much, you thought to say very little o● nothing. 
Thouchinge the pridcipall you haue as yet said nothing.  For touching the principal points of the book, and the matters the reof in controversy, you haue yet said nothing at all in this chapped. I know not what you will do here after. Now to the English book for as for the third book written to the Inquisition, 
You touch not nor mention their book to the Inquisitors.  you touch it not, because they kept close to the matter, and did not fling out at the jesuits and specially at Fa. Persons as in th' other they do, and so doing gave you no occasion of writting. 
Fol. 172.  If the thad been as modest in their book to his Holl. we had lost the notable piece of work of this apology. Dixit Piger, lo est in via. 
proverb. 26.  The sloth full excuse themselves saying, there is a lion in thewaie. What soever they mean by it, or how soever you interpret it of over throwing all that stand in their way, superiority, Reason, Religion, and S. Peters koies, &c. 
This peec of scripture interpnted against the united.  I may well apply it to this apology of yours. For you are so slothful or so fearful of the lion that lieth in the way, that is, to come near the points in question or to handle any one of them, as you ought to haue done, that for fear of that lion or of the iustice of their cause you dare not put out your head so much as once to look them in the face. You went veryneare in dead, 
Fol. 167. b.  yea so near as the margin, but you durst not look over into the text, for there lay the lion. that is, the Archpriests epistle, which was the original and fundamental cause of these last controversies, and writing of these books. If you had not been sloth full cowards you should haue caught that lion by the ears, and plucked him out of his denme. 
Such as writ with conscience should haue done this.  and if you had found him to haue had venyme and no hony in his mouth, you should haue torn him in sunder as samson did: that is, haue freely confessed the truth, and blamed your Archp. for such an uncharitable act. otherwise if you had found him a villeinage in a lious skin, you should haue plucked the skin over his ears: that is if you had found that it was not M. Blackwels letter, then you should haue discovered their falsehood and imposture by fathering that vpon him that was none of his. But it was in dead a lion and neither wolf, fox or bear, and therfore you let him alone, and durst not come near him. So that this sentence man well be applied to the fashion of your writing. how you dare not come near the lion, 
Fol. 172. An uncharitable wronge.  that is, examine the true question of this controversy.  
Why do you begging your brethren by saying, That they taking vpon them in the place( of their English book) to the Reader to set down the true state of the question, put it down wonderfully to the contrary. let us see, 
The first controversy.  if you be true men of your worde, There are handled in their books 2. controversies( the which being lions, you shonne and fear so much that you dare not come near unto them) The first is: that the Archpriest was not orderly instituted, by the carded. letters and themselves unjustly called schismatics for not receiving him vpon those letters. 
The second controversy.  The second. That after the Bull came and all had submitted themselves thereto, the Archpriest set abroch the old matter of schism, and as schismatics forbade( by his letters) them to be absolved of any Priest except they acknowledged their schism and disobedience. The first they set down in the said preface thus. The striefe and dissension at this day too great and scandalous in Ingland is maynteined by the Archpriest the jesuits and their adherents against those Priestes who did forbear to subject themselves unto the Archpriest constituted in authority over all the Seminarie Priestes in Ingland and Scotland by a cardinal who was Protector of the English colleag at Rome and afterwards honoured with the title of Protector of Ingland, for the which forbearing to subject themselves at the first making known of this authority, the Priests were accused of schism, sedition, faction, rebellion, &c. do you put down the question in controversy so simply and plainly in your first chapped. as you make your Readers beleeue by your title you would do? Nothing less. Let any man read over that chapped. and he shall find no case or state of the question proposed. You fly it, as it were from a lion. 
From fol. 2. to b.  There you shall find a ragmans roole of all the contentions and factions that hath been in france, 
Fol. 6. b. and 7. Fol. 7. b.  Italy and Flanders for many yeres. Fa. Parsons return from spain to Rome, mention of a new association, of Fishers confession, of Fa. Parsons information, and of the conclusion taken to make an Archpriest rather thē a bishop, and that he should rather be instituted by the carded. letters then by the Popes bulls: 
Fol. 8. b. Fol. 9. Fol. 10.  of a great nombre of letters, of D. bishop, and M. Charnoks examination, of the new Breue, of Fa. Parsons letters to M. Collington and to M. Mushe, of appeals without prosecution, of M. Charn. letter to carded, Burghesius, of the Archpriest being made Prothonotarius Apostolicus, and so the end.  
where is the state of the present controversy in question, 
You promise much, but parforme nothing.  that you there promised. let the world judge, who are rather to be beleaved, they that go plainly and simply to work, and that set down the question truly and nakedly without pomp or flourish of words? or you that promise mountaines, and do not give us so much as mowlehills? that make men believe by the title of your chapter, you will go plainly to work, but in the end serve them with title tattle and nothing else. What appertain all these things recownted up before, to the controversy in question? and yet you say nothing else. If I haue least out any substantial point of your first chapter chardg me hardly in your next, if it be rightfully, I will ask forgiuennes, if unjustly, I will haue my right. The first cause thē of all these troubles, is, for that the jesuits wrote, taught and auowed that the Priests that refused to obey the Archp. and to take him for their Superior, being only instituted by a carded. letters without the Popes bulls, swear schismatics seditious, factious and rebellious, &c. but of this you will not hear. lo est in via. You dare not come near it.  
This you confess also yourselves in saying. you will not talk of it: 
You will not meadle with the point in controversy.  that is as much to say, you will not meadle with the point in controversy, but will run at Random, and discourse and talk of what matter you list, though it come not noe nearer the question then Barwick comes to London.  
The second controversy they put down in the same preface in these words: 
Pag. 3.  A peace was made to the great comfort of all catholics, when his Holl. breue was presented to them. But this peace was soon after broken by the means of the jesuits, who revived the same calumniation against the Priests and by the Archpriest who did not only aver the assertions of the jesuits, but published also that he had receved a resollution from the mother city( to use his terms) which avowed that the refusers of the authority were schismatics.  
The cause then of this division is not for any resistance of the Priestes against the Archpriest but for that the Priestes will not acknowledge that in the time of their forbearance to subscribe to the authority they were factious, seditious rebellious schismatics, enormously disobedient, in continual mortal sin, practising their functions in irrigularitye, &c. lo how plainly simply and truly( for any thing you say to the contrary) they put down the case. You say it is set down wonderfully to the contrary, you prove it not. 
united you are never ●otouch the question.  We must beleaue you, because you are united steadfastly in this, never to touch the question, but to evacuate the saying and disgrace the persons of your brethren all you may. You say in putting these cases, they debase the Archpriest and the Protector: but you tell us not wherein. You are men of wonder full authority that you must be beleaved vpon your word. 
mark.  I haue proved to you before, that a carded. is not to be beleaued vpon his bare word in an other mans prejudice: and why shall we beleaue you in sclaundering your brethren without cause? show me in your next by wh'atwords in these 2. cases by thē proposed, they haue debazed the persons by you name. for until then, you haue lost your credit with me. They haue set it down( you say) wholly to the contrary. Why are you in such hast, that you cannot stay to tell us wherein? What ass will give credit to your books, writting so negligently and so fond, that you are not able to new one reason of your negative doctrine. You add that in the end they lay a foundation to all disobedience. But you tell us not in which end, either of the preface or of the book: for in the 2. cases proposed, there is not the least surmise therof. But peradventure you mean these ends you lay down, in the which, 
Fol. 172. b.  th●one Thirsteth the good of his Reader and th'other biddeth you Fare well. 
A foolish toy.  In dead these be your impertinent discourses, as you note well in the margin, and I add to the text foolish also. No no, S. 
You sand us to a chapped. that hath no such thing in it. ( say you) you may see more noted before in the second chapter. Well in Gods name. Let us go back againce thither. What shall I see there? That they haue put down the state of the question wholly to the contrary. Is it true? that would I fain see. Fiat voluntas tua. 
Fol. 10. b.  for so you begine, and the Sermon continueth until carded. Allens letters sent to M. 
Fol. 11.  Mushe interrupted the prechear and carded. Sega his visitation. 
Fol. 12.  You thirst( by all likelihood) the good of your Readers that begine so devoutly, and go on so honourably with 2. cardinals in the fore front. But bewaire( Maisters) of your goose when the tox precheth. Then after the Cardinals march the Popes speeches sent into Ingland Exhorting and chardging men to live in unity. Next to his Hol. marcheth Fishers memorial against the jesuits, being one of the most exorbitant disorderly fellowes in the roman sturrs, and yet thought a fitt man by you to be put in your book. Next to his Hol. after Fisher in stead of a Trumpettor marcheeh. No alas, 
Fol. 13.  is this the virtue of obedience? is this humility? is this, &c. Next followeth that which I haue before confuted, so that I can see nothing in that chapter, that proveth They haue put the state of the question wholly to the contrary, and yet I promise you I did red it over with my Spectacles wherfore I beseech some of you, that haue a clearer sight then I haue, and that can see more with twoe eyes them I can do with four, to note me the leaf where I may see more noted in that chapter. 
A subtle sending.  You did well to sand your Readers from the 11. chapped. to the second, to seek for that, which they shall never find there, and that which you should haue showne them in this place, if you could. 
The force of truth.  But lo est in via. Truth lay in your away, which is more impregnable thē a lion, and more immovable then a Rock. If you had had a desire to instruct your Reader in good soothe, and not to haue him deceived: you would not, or at least should not, haue sent him to run over a long chapter to search that which was not to be found, but for his more ease to haue quoted the leaf of your book wherein he might haue found it. 
And undecent shiefte for united people.  But your intention was if not to deceive him, yet to deliurer yourself by that shift from knowing and proving that they put the question wonderfully to the contrary. these fowle shiefts may for a time hold some fools in suspense, 
Fol. 168. Fol. 172.  but in the end it will turn to the shane of the Authors.  
You answered the latin book bricflie, 
Twoe discourses answerd with two● words.  as before, but here you answer two whole disconrses Maruaillous Lacoanically and very merrely. The one, with, he thirsteth the good of the Readers, th'other with Fare you well. This in soothe is to play with your Readers nose and show yourselves to be more like Scorners then grave Priestes. Fare you well, and why did you not add, and I ack shall haue Gill. You are counning men that can answer two treatisses with twoe words. You should haue much a do to answer M. Watsons common wealth,( which yet is not so long as these 2. treatisses) with such scholastical or rather sophistical brevity. It should seam, that either you haue great confidence in your cause, when you may be admitted to answer your aduersaries reasons with a fare well, or else that you do not greatly thirst the good of your Readers and much less care for their satisfaction, 
You should haue esnfuted the Reasons that ba in those discourses.  that expected from grave united Priestes the confutation of Reasons laid down in those discourses, and not a Iest of will Sommars budgett. Who is so blinded, that doth not see their Reasons to stand firm and solid, which are set down both in the letter, that thirsteth the good of the Reader, as also in th'other that biddeth you Fare well: for all that you haue said either here, or in the second chapter noted in your margin. For of 5. considerations put down in the letter that thirsteth the good of the Reader, you seem in your 2. chapped. to answer one which is of the praemunire as for th'other 4. 
Fol. 15.  your bid them fare well. And so great is the thirst you haue of the Readers good, 
A notable custom.  that it is your custom through out your apology, to answer some one argument or reason, and then make him believe you haue answered them all, and so he must content himself with a piece, either that, or none at all.  
And albeit you answer nothing here to the Reasons of your nameless friend Fare you well, yet afterwards leaping( according to your custom) disorderly from one thing to another: and after a flinge at M. Champeneis letter, 
Fol. 174.  you leap back to Fare you well again to answer to the ostentation of their Canon so often cited. 
Dist 63. can. 12. Dist. 61. can. 13.  I know not how often they cited it, but sure I am, you cited, it once before, and their words falsely, as I haue there noted. You answer not the Canon there. 
Fol. 18 b.  But now after you haue taken your breath and bethought yourself better, you will answer it( I trowe) very sufficiently: because any man of mean learning way discover how little this maketh for them. If this be true then no doubt but men of your learning will discover to us, how little this maketh for their purpose. which if you perform, then will I bid them and you both Fare well and meadle no further in this matter, but thirst my own rest and quietness. Well on then Maisters mine.  
After you haue showed your skill in autiquitie and of diuers means of constituting and appointing bishops, at last. 
Fol. 174.  You think your brethren will not deny the pre-eminent authority of the Sea apostolic in all these elections, and above all that he might, and hath lawfully changed the same. I answer for them, they will not deny this. But what then? Mary If his Holl. can alter election in ordinary bishops, much more he may appoint an extraordinary prelate as the Archpriest is, with what jurisdiction he thimketh expedient. Transeat, and therfore so much to urge this, is great presumption to call it no worse. haue you said? Then say I, 
A foolish answeare.  your answer is but a mere folly to call it no worse. for they talk of chease and you give them chalk. They talk, speak and mean of the ordinary and accustomable means of election, 
Distingo.  constituted and appointed by the Canons and decrees of the Sea apostolic, 
C. 2. de prebend. in 6. & Clem. 1. vt light pendens, &c.  and you talk of the supereminent power or plenitudine potestatis that his Holl. hath over all benefice and jurisdictions to give them to whom he will and by what means and order it pleaseth him. If you think your brethren are not ignorant of this, you might haue left it out, 
The Canon is not ansvered.  for it answereth not their Canon that talketh of the ordinary means by election. And so their Canon standeth still for them. Note hear that you yourselves call this authority of the Archpriest extraordinary and that he is an extraordinary Prelate. 
Fol. 14. Rash reprehension.  Why then are you so rash I will not say impudent to make your reader beleaue, your brethren speak very contemptuously of the dignity, and Archpriest, because they call it a new and extraordinary authority well either you speak contemptuously here in calling his dignity extraordinary, and so fall into the same fault your brethren did, or else if you do not, 
The united are bound to ask their brethren forgivennes.  you must ask them forgiveness for slandering them unjustly with contempt for saying that the Archpriest dignity and jurisdiction is extraordinary. This is a rule of nature quod tibi fieri non vis, alterine facias. You would be loathe to be counted to speak this in contempt, so then must you judge of them, that they did not speak it in contempt, as in dead they did not, and therfore be unjustly taunted and noted of contempt by you for it. 
Gloss. 1. ad can. 13. dist. 61. The gloss is against you also.  The gloss you allege there is against you. for it vndrestandeth of ordinary election wherein the number of voices carrieth it away, and so if the greater parte choose one to be a bishop and the lesser part or fewer in number choose him not, he shal be their bishop against their consuls, because he was canonically elected viz by the greater number of those that had right to choose him. So that your contradicting brethren nor none else coming to the election are not condemned, neither are they the lesser parte, where was no part at all. Mary, if it had come to the election and 200. Priestes had chosen M. Blackwell, and your contradicting brethren with an hundred more on their side had chosen an other: M. Blackwell had been their superior against their consuls, as chosen by the greater number. 
Your error.  And yet this lesser nombre had not been comdempned by the Canon as you say, but by the gloss, neither yet absolutely by the gloss. For if the lesser part( saith he) hath justam causam contradicendi. just cause to withstand the election. A bishop cannot beginen to them against their consuls. Your gloss then talketh of the ordinary way of election, and you of the extraordinary power, and jurisdiction of his Holl. you haue allwaies good luck to allege lawe against yourselves, as those accustomedly do, 
Ignorance. Fol. 174. b.  that impugn a truth as you do. But here by the way I must a little note your ignorance in that you say that his Holl. Legates and Nuncios often be neither bishops nor Archbishopps: I am sure the eldest of you all never sawe or hard of any of the Popes Nuncios, but they were bishops. Neither doth his Hol. make any, at least Nuncios, but such as are bishops. And as for Legates, for some hundreth yeres, there hath been neither bishop nor Archbishopp but always cardinals which are called Legati a later, per excellentiam quia semper mittuntur a later Pontificis. The siege apostolic sendeth no other Legates but cardinals, nor none other there is, but such as we call Legatinati, 
C. 1. de offi. Legati in 6. C. pen. exit. de office. Legati.  such as is the Archbishopp of Canturbury in Ingland, And as his Holl. giveth more ample or more strict authority and jurisdiction to his Nuncios, so doth he allwaies restrain the jurisdiction of his legates: for if he did not, they had de jure almost as great as he himself hath. I once saw an indult given to a legate a later wherein were but 4. things reserved from his power and jurisdiction. The first that he had no authority to alienat the patrimony of S. Peter. The second he had no power to alienat the goods of the churches under his Legation. The 3. he had no jurisdiction to confer Bishopprickes. The 4. I do not remenbre. You may then see by this that so lardg is the jurisdiction of a legate a later, that the Pope doth dyminish his jurisdiction, rather then amplify or extend it. And so good reader fare well for we must back again to M. Champ letter, to see what he can say for himself.  
If he be as fond and childish, 
Fol. 172. b. 173.  as the former discourses, the which you neither haue nor can answer, but by a farewell. thē were you childish to put them down, and by your not answering him, utter your childishness to the world.  
First and foremost you exagitat his example of a noble man, 
Fol. 173.  which you say is no more like the case in controversy then London is to lincoln. And why so? because the Protector wrott by the express commandement of his Holl. How shall we know, that? Mary he saith so in his letters. But I haue proved to you before that a cardinal be he a hundred times Protector, is not to be beleaued absolutely vpon his worde, and letters: 
A false dissimilitud.  the dissimilitude( you say) consisteth in this that the cardinal is of the Popes counsel, and to him is committed all the affairs of Ingland, and so was not the Gentleman M. 
You answer was prevented Pag. 24.  Champeney talketh of. Be it so, yet M. Champeney prevented this your answer, the which you will not see, you are so willfully blind. For these be his words: Twoe disparites peradventure they will allege in the case. First, that I put the case in civil government whereas it ought to be in ecclesiastical. The second, that I put the case in one that is not known to haue any ordinary authority in these affairs, chambermaids it is contrary in our affairs, the cardinal being Protector of our Nation. lo here your answer set down for you in this chisdish lettere the which he answereth thus. I omit the answer to the first( as impertinent to this place) the second is as frivolous. For albeit carded. cajetan was our Protector and also chamberlain of the church of Rome: yet it is evident that by neither of these offices had he any ordinary ecclesiastical jurisdiction( he might also very well haue added nor extraordinary jurisdiction) by these offices) over our clergy especially to erect any new government. And therfore if he had any authority in this matter it must needs be delegat and extraordinary and consequently, was as well to notify to us the same( his extraordinary authority) as the chancellor of Ingland is to new his warrant, 
The young scholar putteth you all to school.  if he intend to take vpon him an other office, not appertaining to the Chauncellorshipp. Thus far this young man come lately from school who by that he hath here said, putteth you all in soothe, so to school, that he maketh you all as dumb as Fishes, not saying hereunto so much as Baff: and why? because lo est in via. The truth which he allegeth is so strong, that it stoppeth your mouths, so that you cannot open your lips against it. 
Fol. 173.  If he not the best learned amongst his fellows be able to stop your mowthes, so that you cannot answer him, and to make you so blind, that you will not see this reason. What would his learneder fellows do, especially if they were united to writ, as you are. How say you? Hath he not clearly showed, that there is no disparitye between the case put in the cardinal, and the case he put, &c. in the Gentleman. All those that are clear of sight can see and will confess it. And here by the way( you my brethren) having red this, and seeing he flattly and truly denieth the Protector to haue any ordinary jurisdiction over the English clergy, why are you so impudent in all this your book, yea in every leaf almost, to object to them disobedience to the Protector as their superior? how are you so impudent as to term the Protector their and your superior? yea your highest superior next his Holl. I say impudent, for if he were, and they deny it so flattly and apparently, it was your parte to control them for it, and to prove the contrary, that he was both theirs and your ordinary superior, in that he is protector. But the thing being denied by them, and the contrary not proved by you, it is extreme impudency so often to affirm it, 
Note.  and to put it down in your book, as a thing vndoubtable and a know truth, when it is kowen to all that haue but a cromme of wit and experience, 
Tit. exit. de off. Iud. ordinar.& Tit. exit de offie. delegat.  that it is stark false to say. That the Protector of Ingland is Superior to any Englishmen in the world, Be he clerk or lay, be he in Rome or in Ingland. Note beside reader, his learned distinction of Iudgs. That every judge is either an ordinary judge, or a judge delegat, that is extraordinary. An ordinary judge hath jurisdiction ordinary over all such as are subject to him: but a delegat judge hath no jurisdiction of his own, he hath only the use of an other mans jurisdiction, that is to say, the jurisdiction of him that doth delegat him, and hath no more thē th'other doth give him the use of, neither must he pass the limits of his delegation, but observe it diligently. But the Protector was not our ordinary judge. Ergo if he be at all, he must be our delegat judge. But a judge delegat( saith M. Champeney) must new his warrant, and the letters of his commission. But the Protector showed no such letters. Ergo they were not bound to beleaue that he was a judge delegated to institute a new dignity. In your larger apology, I pray you new your learning, 
Fol. 174.  and answer to this youngmans argument.  
Where you ask with what modesty can he say that this government of the Archp. 
impudence.  was never hard of before. I ask you with what brazen face you dare reprehend him for it, and with what front you dare say, that this government Was ever hard of before? 
Fol. 174. b  Nay, where is your modesty and honesty to find fault with him, for saying that which yourselves say afterwards? 
Desirr of contradiction blindeth men.  Where you affirm his Holl. May appoint an extraordinary Prelate as the Archp. is. If it be extraordinary where was it ever hard of it before? A desiere you haue of contradicion hath so blinded you that you vttet infinite absurdiries, and seem to say you care not what. Yes we say some what, for we say. That it is well known to be an ancient dignity in gods church. In dead the office of an Archp. is an ancient( albeit a very know) office in Christes church. But o blindness. Is this government, I say. this, an ancient government in gods church? Was this, I say this,( I must often repeat it, because you are become deaf, dumb, and blind, this lo in via, hath put you in such a fright) government which the Archprist hath now in Ingland, an ancient dignity in Gods church? I know the name is ancient, 
you must recant or be counted liars.  but this government he hath is new, and therfore in your next, recant these words or give yourselves the lie, for saying it is an extraordinary Prelacy in the place noted in the margin. 
Fol. 174. b  And here also you confess as much. That his ordinary jurisdiction did not commounly extend so far and over so many as this doth. 
An Archpriest ordinary jurisdiction goeth not out of the church doors.   
Commonly( quoth you) no never since Christes Ascension, did it extend out of the church doors. For saving of your honesties, and for my learning, in your next promised larger apology, bring one example I pray you. you fighr still with your own shadowe, who I pray you doth not know so well as you what the Pope may do? How great jurisdiction he may give, and that to whom he pleaseth? these are fonde and childish matters in dead to treat of, and not now in question.  
We are at last comme again to M. Champeney who in effect addeth notinge to the 2. former discourses but certain bold assertions. What need he? when you haue answered no one of all the assertions contained in these two discourses, But the thristing the readers good and the farewell? Hath he added nothing? What is that he talketh of ordinary and extraordinary jurisdiction, showing the Protector to haue neither, 
M. Champeney reasones vnanswerable.  as you haue sene before. Sure he addeth enough for all you united priestes and take to help you all the jesuits in Rome and Ingland, to answer to, whiles you live. except the Pope do change the canon and civil laws to help you out of the mire. His argument is this, 
His argument.  all superiors haue either ordinary or extraordinary jurisdiction. But protect. of nations haue neither ordinary or extraordinary jurisdiction, as they be Protectors. Ergo carded. cajetan as Protector was not the Superior to the clergy or levy of Ingland.  
But let us see these bold assertions, 
Fower true J says, answered with you say.  Which are 4. I says, and all true for any thing you bring to the contrary. For asweare thereunto, you say, He is a young man come lately from te school, and not the best learned amongst his fellows. And again, all this you say( not, because such grave men as you that hath been so long from school, do say it:) cannot but import great presumption of Spirit, and so discrete men( upon your words and credit no doubt) will judge of him and his, and their cause accordingly. you haue so sufficiently an fweared his I say with your you say, that discreet men cannot but wonder at the order and maner of your writting. That is, to put down your aduersaries words, which contain nought but truth itself in them, and then to make such foolish discourses as afterwards you do, without touching or answering them. 
you united know to maintain contention.  Surely every man of any discretion in the world must needs judge of you and your cause, that love with words to maintain contention and quit your cause and abandon it utterly, as bringing nothing either to uphold it, or to vndermyne and ouerthrowe the cause of your aduersaries. But is not this a bold or rather a false assertion of yours to say: 
A false assertion.  Which( I say) so often repeated against the authority of his Superiors, When as the Protector( as he  told your before) was not his Superior nor the Archp. at that time when he spake this, I mean before the bull came for he was no just possessor of that dignity, but an intruded person, and so had no superiority as I haue already proved. You had nead to go to school again to learn to leave falsifying, and to forget slandering and unjust imputing of words and sences to your aduersaries, or else to the nouiciat howse to purge you of theyse foul faults.  
We haue( say you) answered such reasons as he brought sufficiently before. 
you haue not answered his reasons at all. Ergo not sufficiently.  and showed his ignorance in divinity and considered of the decree of the Doctors of Paris. Where hare you done this doughty dead? Mary, in the 10. ch. of this book, you would say the 8. chapter. I haue over viewed your 10. chapped. 
Fol. 107. b  Where first and foremost I find your iumbling at certain reasons brought out of the discourse that Thristeth the good of the reader, as you term it, 
Fol. 108. you iumble a● these reasons only.  thē at other words of theirs( as you say) for you haue not quoted the place) Iumbling( I say) as I haue proved there. Thirdly you heap up many things out of both books but especially the English. You note not the places, because you say they are almost in every page.. Other reasons you allege out of the discourse, which you call fare you well. At last in the same leaf you come to M. 
Fol. 110. A fitton. Fol. 174.  Champeneys epistle out of the unchurch you allege but one reason, and so you Fitton in saying. Such reasons as he brought when you brought but one of his reasons to answer. Where I haue shewed his reason to stand firm and his divinity not to haue been spilled by ignorance as you say here. Where also is considered, how well you considered, 
Fol. 118. b Why did you differr to answer him there.  of the decree of the Doctors of Paris. In the end of the 8. chapped. you say: The rest which he hath in this epistle shalbe considered of afterwards again in a dewe and convenient place. Why? when you were in hand with him there, why did you not dispatch him and crush him in the head, and so deliver him at once from the pain and fear he had how you would trownce him afterwards? or why do you not answer the rest of his reasons here, seing the young man is under your ferule, and standeth quaking at the consideration he hath of your number and gravity, and that you are old schollers. But be of good cheer M. Champeney pluck up your hart, they haue no more to say to you here, all is remitted to the 8. chap where they considered but one of your reasons, and that to their own loss and discredit.  
I noted this foul shist of yours before, 
A fowle shift.  that when you cannot answer, you sand your reader to an other place to seek that which he shall never find. So do you here, you sand him to seek your answer to M. Champeneis reasons in the plural, where they shall find but one of his reasons laid down in the singular number.  
Thow must know reader, 
Fol. 110.  that beside his first reason laid down by them, there followeth a second reason handled by me before, tendency he proveth the carded. 
Pag. 25.  had no authority to institute the Archpr. because he was neither their ordinary nor their extraordinary judge. the force of the which reason, I haue laid down before.  
Thirdly, This young man more resolute being come lately from the school, urgeth you yet further, 
you mightest objection is answered fourtsouldly.  and presupposeth the mightest objection you haue against your discontented brethren( the which in dead you haue, if not in every page., yet in every leaf almost of your book, which he also answereth fourefoldly) and the which he termeth your Achilles viz: that to deem or doubt of that which the carded affirmeth is to call his credit in question whose authority ought to be sufficient testimony for whatsoever he saieth. and prophesieth that it concludeth not. If these united people had any desiere to open the truth to the world and not to deceive their readers, and still wallovve in contention they should in stead of this( I say) haue taken his answeres made to the chief pillar of their cause, and haue confuted them, and so by learning and authority haue rebarred this youge scholar that gauleth thē so much, and showed to the world that he was not the best learned of his fellows. But alas? they durst not, for lo est in via. the roaring lion of truth made them take their heels and run awaie. 
Fol. 173.  Truth is so terrible to those that maintain a false cause( as these united brethren do) that they dare not behold it.  
After this, this young man more resolute and more peremptory goeth forwards with secondly, 
Pag. 26.  thirdly, and fourthly. you let him go, for he being young is to quick of foot for you elder fellows: pursuing his matter he putteth down 3. other reasones, of his not accepting the Archpriest. 
Pag. 29. The united broken their periuis and deceived their reader?  And albeit you promised to consider of the rest of his reasons, as before you haue touched but one and so haue broken your promise and deceived your reader that expected a greater matter at your hands, because omnis promissio honesta est obseruanda. and we Canonists do hold that nudum pactum producat aectionem, so that I, and other your readers may take an action against you, and call you into draw to make you pro form that which you haue promised us, 
your reader shal be constrained to bid you ffare well.  that is: to consider of the rest of this young scholars reasons, or else we shalbe driven to believe him, and bid you fare well, as the second disconrser said to his friend.  
This young scholar is so resolute and peremptory, that he doth that, 
Pag. 34. 35.  which you dare not talk of, and for the which you are sorry, that ever any mention was made of it. What is that? Mary, to set down simply, 
M. Champeney seteth down simply the cause of this last contention.  plainly and without shift or fiction, the cause of this last contention, and the occasion of his and others writting. What is that? forsooth that the jesuits or Archp. renewed as it should seem the slander of schism in more intolerable maner then before: for now they said, that we were not only schismatics but that who soever should dogmatizando say the contrary: should incur the censures of the holy church, &c. and a little after when therfore we perceived our late composed peace contrary to all expectation to be thus quickly broken, and that our good names be gane to bleed a freash, the old gaules being not yet firmly cured, we requested the Archp. &c. How say you( my united brethren) is this true or false he saith? If true? how can you in conscience defend so unjust and ruynous a cause? If false? 
you must confute or else confess.  Why do you not confute it? Why is then not one word at all of this in your book? No And why? because your conscience doth prick you Conscientia mill testes, You confess it you selves, for you say, you will not talk of it, you are sorry it was ever mentioned. How say you, had not your pen papier and ink been better bestowed in confuting this, if it be false, then in setting down his. I say it is no sin, &c. you should haue been better occupied also in confuting, as false the six comditions and articles( he saith) swear on their side offered and proposed to make peace and unity, 
Pag. 33.  and by your side rejected: Then in setting down either M. Watsons common wealth Fishers memorial and examinations, or the trouble of the roman colleague with the factions in Paris and Flanders, which come as near to this controversy as London to lincoln.  
You quit M. Champeney for troublinge him or his reasons any more, because by all likelihood you found his first to be hard of digestion: and you will visitr M. I. B. his censures vpon Fa. Parsons letter to M. D. bishop. Course him lustily, I will not let you. But where you talk according to your custom of this controversy vndewly, I wilbe bold to rencountre you. As I must neades ask one question of you. 
Fol. 176. b falsehood.  Why you do so willingly and frankly let pass the 21. reasons which the Censurer hath laid together by distinct numbers to discredit the Protectors letters which his Hol. confirmed. You answeare. We haue spoken of it before. I ask you where? here you haue forgotten your old custom, which was to sand your reader to an other chapter. For you haue noted nothing in the margin but pag. 48. for what cause or end, god knoweth, neither can I, or any man else judge? but yet in th'end with much searching I haue found this before in the 2. chapped. and 18. leaf where thus you say: 
Fol. 18.  as in one place of their book, they go about to new it to be void and of no force by 21. fond reasons devised by themselves knowledge no one hath any force at all. This is your spoken, and thereto you add, that you are ashamed here to lay open the vanity by more particulars. then you haue by like done already. 
A short answeare to 21. reasons.  this then is your answeare to 21 reasons which you in your margin call cavillations in stead of reasons. you are well come to the butts, how came this qualm over your stomach, as to take so great pity of your aduersaries as to be ashamed to lay open the vanity( of their reasons) by more particulars. you mey be ashamed if you haue any shane in you, 
A sharmfull answeare.  of so shameful an answer: and these twoe answeares are, th'one here, th'other in the 18. leaf. And why? what, did you think that none but beasts and dizards should red your books. I think so, or else you would never haue handled the matter so shamefully. Truly( my united brethren) the Protector and the Archp. 
The Protector and Archp. do con you little thanks.  are to give you but little thanks, that taking in hand to defend them, their causeand doings, are not able to answeare one reason of 21. being as you say yourselves, but fond, And that not one hath any force at all: truly then the more easy to he answered. 
The broctors and the matter are a lock that is nothing worth  But like matter like proctors. The matter you haue to defend is nothing worth and you defend it accordingly I am sure that the simplest man or woman that shall red these places, Will stay here and wonder at your negligence or ignorance, that will not or cannot answer one of 21. fond reasons of no Force at all, being laid together by order and distinction. yea they are laid together to discredit the Protectors letters, and yet you will not do so much for the Protectors credit, as to answer one of them. O folly, to think any man so mad as to imagine you to haue a good cause in hand that cannot or dare not answer one of so many reasons that are brought against you. 
None but mad men can think you to haue a good cause.  Here in dead lo est in via. But who saieth so? Dicit piger. yf ever there was any slothful and negligent writer. you may therein bear the bel.  
Well? 
you prove hear that the Pro●ectors letters are of ●●force.  his Holl. afterwards( say you) confirmed the Protectors letters, and therefore you let pass the said reasons. you haue reason. If his Holl. confirmed them, then they swear of no force before, and so you plead for your discontented brethren, For regularly that which is confirmed, was bebore of no force or value. For if it had, it should not haue neaded any confirmation. You conclude very substantially that one onely reason of humility modesty and obedience, 
Fol. 167. b  would haue gotten them more credit then all these 21. reasons of disobedience against their Superiors. I willingly yeld unto you, 
An humble conclucion lost.  if the Protector had been their Superior? Or that you could haue proved him so. He then not being their Superior, you haue lost an humble and modest conclusion and their 21. reasons remain still firm and stable.  
these cockish, schollers haue me thincks so troubled your united heads and brains that you writ neither rithme nor reason: 
Their reasons haue troubled your calicut.  and they haue so affrighted you with their reasons, that you know not well on which side to turn you. Here you should haue laboured and sweat to haue ouerthrowne not one, but all all their fond reasons, and to haue proved the cardinal to haue had sufficient authority to institute the Archp. Here you should hauc employed all your eloquence and powred out your skill, learning and adjudge, in divinity, lawe, histories, and what else, to haue proved them if not schismatics, yet disobedient and rebellious to god and their superiors. 
you proffes are but title tattle.  proved( I say) not by a bold and badd●●tatle, as you endeavour, but by good& solid arguments and reasons. But alas? and welladay? you yeld up your arms, and having taken the foil, you give them the victory. For( as I haue said) seing you are not able to confute any one of their reasons, all reasonable readers will judge them to haue had good reason to withstand the institution of the Archp. by the carded. letters: and you yourselves against all reason( not being able to answer to one of their 21. Reasons) to fill their ears and feed their eyes with bare words only without any reason. I haue often warned you and put you in mind that this is the chief& principal point of this controversy, and if you touch not this string, you labour in vain, to persuade men that your discontented brethren do defend an evil cause, and that they be the beginners of this division and contention. What a shane is it for you, to fill your book with so much impertinent matter as you do? and when you come, where you hold close Witth your adversary, then yow turn your back and fly, fie, fie upon it.  
I am also ashamed( and so may all your friends and well willers be) to see an number of virtuous priestes( if you be the Authors of this apology) daily fighting against the enemies of God and his espouse for the defence of the infallible truth, so much to forget themselves and their vocation, and to be either so blinded with malice against their brethren, or to be carried away with inordinat affection to their parte and faction, as to commit here such an exorbitant falsehood as you do in this place saying: 
Fol. 177. An exorbitant falsehood.  wherein for that there is nothing singular from those reasones which his fellows haue alleged before, and by us in diverse partes of this apology haue been examined and showed to be either false or feeble, we pass them over in this place. 
The united haue gained the wheatstone.  You will gain the wheatstone I see well. and truly I will leave it with you, till you show me where, in this apology, you haue examined his fellows reasons, and where you haue showed them to be either false or feeble. This is your third pass over or retiring when you should stand firm and stable. But as often as you mention their reasons, you pass away in such post hast, as in the 18. leaf, then in the 176. and lastly here in the 177. leaf, as that with in the compass of one leaf, you make 2. pass ouers. Such hast you make to the 12. chapped. there to defend F. Parsons from the injury done unto him by your brethren. I am content you go, and if you had need of mine aid also, I would willingly help you. For I protest I do as much mislike that kind of writing as any man can do: And in truth am glad and rejoice, when you pay them home for it.  
And as for these faults of yours which I haue here noted: 
That Authors intention.  I take god to witness, I haue not done it either of Spleen or malice, nor for that I am more on their side then on your or more their friend then yours, but being indifferent between both I thought friendly to admonish you thus much, that hereby you may amend the faults. or give me and other you friends satisfaction in showing the to be no saults. If you take it in evil parr, I would be full sorry for it, mine intention being by this advertisement to deturne you rather from the old troubles and contencions, thē to give any occasion of new stirs. Consider your states and qualities. remenbre where you are, wherefore you are there, and amongst whom your are, and for gods sake, and the sake of the honorrble quarrel you fight for, and for his sake under whose banner you fight, and at whose hands you look for rewarde and recompense: for these considerations( I say) to forgive and forget all that is past, join in unity with your brethren, live in love and peace with them, gain them by lenity and charitable conversation: and then god almighty will bless all your actions. To the which I pray God bring you, your brethren, all our friends and me myself also, Amen.  
FINIS.   

AN ANSWEAR OF M. DOCTOR BAGSHAW to certain poyntes of a libel called.  
An apology of the subordination in England.  
A libel lately hath been set out in English, called, A brief apology or defence of the catholic ecclesiastical hierarchy and subordination in England, &c. Wherein I find the creditts of many,& of myself above others most injuriously impeached. howsoever it be divulged under the name of united Priests, it is nothing else, but a certain narration of English matters, told over and over, by one Parsons a Iesuite, in Rome, to the English students there, and by some of them rightly termed his mother Hubberds tale, as containing not any one thing of worth, but a farthel of Idle and boyish surmises, untruths, and detractions.  
That he should use other mens names to this apology,( which hath been a former practise of his, and that sometimes perniciously, as in setting out his titles under the name of Dolemā,) men of modesty do not so mutch wonder, as that a man professing himself religious, being publicly charged with eight imprinted libels, of most evil and scandalous success, already, should persist in the same infamous manner of writing. My silence almost twenty yeares now, may testify my vnwillingnes to handle sutch matters, more then for the necessary defence of my Good name: which, besides the former English libel, I see impugned in an other set out in Latin, to the view of the whole world, something resembling the English, but so altered and perverted, as by the conference of the one and the other, a man may se the vanity of both. Three or fower general imputations, which the libeler useth, I leave to other men& better opportunity to answear: as his pretended zeal for superiors, his magnifical talk against passion, his cloaking himself under the whole Society of jesuits, and his vaunting of a body of Catholiks( as he termeth them) united unto him.  
His talk against disobedience and passion, as it onely beateth the air, and is objected but of colour and course, so to be imputed to others, by a most exorbitant and discomposed man, doth show as much excess of a proud and hypocritical humour, as defect of a good conscience to reflect duty upon himself. Of the Society of the jesuits,( the liking whereof because it is an order allowed in the church hath been and is professed by us, &c.) I doubt not but there are many, which know not, and many, which utterly dislike of the practices of the libeler and his complices: and therefore he doth them no small injury and disgrace, which maketh the credit of his order a mask for his own disorder: since those be castra rebellium, ubi esse est mereri. What a goodly body of Catholiks the libeler hath had to ioyn with him( by bragging whereof he endaungereth all whom he inuolueth.) For his seditious practices from time to time, for the procuring of M. black wills authority, for the stirs in flanders, for the oppression of the roman College, for the defaming of the secular clergy of England with schysme, and other strat agemes, when judicious men consider, they will see( according to our proverb,) great boast and small roast, and the ranking of himself with cardinals and principal men of our nation, doth show the mans humors, conceipts, and meditations: whereas in the end he will mar the play, for that he seeth not how evil his acts become the stage.  
The first particular thing against me which he objecteth, is close dealing with the counsel, in his marginal note of the English but not of the Latin Epistle to his Hollines. And it is the last thing fol. 207. wherehe saith. As soon as they understood their twoe messengers were restrained at Rome, and not like to prevail, then Doctor Bagshaw was sent for from Wisbich to London to treat with the council. And what followed? forsooth the remove of two or three jesuits to the Tower with danger of their lives. A great matter I warrant you. And how doth all this appear? by a letter of N.N. 15. of Apr. 1599. who may not be name for fear. The letter is cited fol. 150. containing four conjectural surmises, all foolish, and the two first grounded vpon plain untruths.  
For the first. The day( saith he) after D. Bagshaw was gone, the Minister of the hewn coming into the Castle, said, that D. Bagshaw told him, that he looked to be removed ere it were long:& therefore it is thought he was cause of his own remove. First, I will not except against the testimony of a Minister whom this letter-maker would make to utter a secret, if not an untruth, because I know him, and diners others of that town, to be of such moral honesty and sincerity as in that respect they would haue nothing to do with the jesuitical faction, as having often by others and themselves experienced their perverting& depraving mens speeches. Then if I had  told him I expected my remove,( as I never did for I did not once think of it) he& the whole hewn knew, that I might haue doubted my remove, because it was threatened from one of the Iustices, fourteen dayes before, falling out with me vpon matter of disputation in Religion. again, I had received a letter,( which is well known,& was a great means to declare mine innocency to the LL. of the council,) that I should look to myself, for that there was a plot laid to over throw me, by the English Spaniolized practisers. So that the first is but a false grownd, and a malicious inference. And so is the second, that I should sand M. Bluet word, my sending for was, concerning certain matters, which we had talked of, &c. For clean contrary, I being debarred to write at all, or speak but in the hearing of the Pursuiuant, sent M. Blu. word, that he should not grieve himself, with devising, what the cause of our trouble is: for that he could never perfectly know it, until I, or some which were privy to it, did utter it unto him. For the third, M. Archers words are not worth the speaking of, nor his remove a matter worth three strawes one way or other. for the last, if there were a false brother in Wisbich it might be assoon the inventor of this letter as any other and perhaps sooner. Are not heer accusations, proofs, and witnesses passing suitable? Ar not these goodly authenticalls whereof the libeler so much braggeth? But to omit these bibble babbles.  
My first dealing( as the libeler scoffingly termeth it) with the council was to defend the honor of our Religion, and even with suffering torments, to declare mine innocency which was brought into great doubt, specially by one Anfield, seruant to F. Parsons& after a Pursuiuant. My second dealing with the council was, to show myself guiltless of an horrible treason, laid to Squire and his fellows: who averred the contriver, mover, and vrger therof to be one Walpool a jesuit, subordinate( as the other English jesuits are, if F. Parsons say true,) to the said Parsons. How far he is to be charged with suborning or concurring with the one, his seruant, or the other his subject, I leave to the due place of discussion. It is well known to many, and some of great honor( men without exception) can testify in my trouble about Squire, that the earl of Essex was sent from the Queen, to take order for my committing to the Tower. And M. Wade, whom now the jesuits make so favourable to me& others, vpon the first information given against me, wrote to the earl of Essex and M. Secretary, that there was no way to deal with me but with extremity: although afterward he changed his mind when the matter disguised probably at first, was afterwards better opened. Now what a pregnant coniectural head hath this libeler, who writeth, that I procured mine own sending for to London, to treat with the council? And wherfore forsooth? For that we understood, the twoe messengers sent to Rome were imprisoned, &c. That year with the libeler went backward, as the undergone did in Achabs dial, or else he folyshlye professed the arte of lying, having so archbishopric a memory. My apprehension was in the beginning of October, and theirs in Rome was in December after. Whereof the libeler should haue had good cause to haue some Remembrance for he knoweth that among a number of tales of the like quality and truth he told the twoe Priests, that I had a pension of the Queen of England: which was but the ordinary allowance to close prisoners, but that it pleaseth his loose tongue, to use such insultations and indignityes. Therefore by putting such a fowle, gross, and palpable untruth for the first accusation,( the first in every order of things being the measure of others,) a man may guess of the rest. And I wishe the libeler in due fear may way, how abominable to God pondus& pondus is,( as the wise man saith) a wayght and a wayght. My remove from Wisbich was( saith he) a preferment to the Queens pension: and yet the remove of jesuits from Wisbich, having the same allowance, was no preferment but a detriment. If the libeler had had any true zeal of the honor of God and Religion, he should haue wished the remove of the jesuited from Wisbich. Their separation there had made the greatest scandal, that was given in this time: whereof no cause could be imputed to the united Priests, which continued as before, without the least innovation. The Catholiks had written thither that they had rather haue sustained death of their bodies, then such an offence to souls. Some of them had come thither, and vpon their knees requested F. Weston, for the honor of God, to desist from so scandalous an enterprise, and being discontented with his inso lent answear, went away detesting pride and faction. Some of the temporal Magistrates had told them to their faces, that Iesuitisme from a serpigo was become a gangrena, and therefore to be cut of: and the keeper had long before my trouble sowght to remove some for their seditiousnesse. Their Agency and consistorial common wealth was often handled by Ministers in pulpits, to the great disgrace of catholic Religion. Their seditious and disorderly behaviour was such that not onely the Iustices in commission disliked them but even some youths of the hewn of Wisbich, scattered abroad,& offered to justify most disgraceful writings against them: grievous accusations had been uttered against some of them, by three woemen their proselytes, whereof ensewed examinations, Rumors of indightments, expectation of arraygnments terrors to themselves, troobles to the quiet, and discontent of all judicious Catholiks. In which case some of the jesuited offering with money to procure their own remove,( whether vpon shane or Remorse God he knoweth,) Gods iustice may appear, in that the book of titles made for the aduancement of the English jesuited, and turned in their remove to their disgrace and danger, some of them being principally called into question for those titles, and the cunning plot of suborning Squire and others, served to bring to pass, that the coheir which was intended for me and others was assigned otherwise, and the politic canuasers fel into the pit, which themselves had digged for others. Another cause of close dealing with the council, the libeler imagineth to haue been, to inform them that the subordination was not for Religion, but for state practise: and by likelihood some promise to them that it should not stand. For M. Blackwels titles whether they were begon for God, or for God shall be ended, God in his iudgement and fitt time will descrye. I grow one much jesuited signified to the counsel his liking of M. Blackwills authority the rather because it should not be displeasing to the council for that it tended only to the taking away of faculties and so consequentlye to the hinderinge of reconciliation, which in time might be the overthrow of religion. For other dealing with the council about him, I am ashamed of the unworthiness of the libeler which himself discovereth. What want of modesty is it to blaze such false and foolish narration? What indiscretion to abuse the name of the council about such toys? It is well known if it pleased God so to move their honourable wisdomes, they could rid England of all the jesuited with less labour, then the libeler bestowed in this his paltry rhapsody, and with less ado then was my remove from Wisbich to London. But what fear doth a wicked conscience carry with it? Allane late cardinal of worthy memory in his apology of the seminaries, fol. 71. receiveth. We protest, that neither the Re. Fathers of the Society of the holy name of Iesus, whom the people call jesuits,( an express clause being in the instructions of their mission into England, that they deal not in matters of state, which is to be showed, signed with their late generalls hand of worthy memory,) neither the Priests either of the seminaries, or others, haue any commission, instruction, or insinuation from his holiness, or any other their superior either in Religion, or of the Colleges, to move sedition, or to deal against the state or temporal government. Fa. Parsons himself also receiveth in his answear to S. Fran. Hastings fol. 71. in the third person: So then Fa. Parsons protesteth,( as I am credibly informed,) that he was never consenting, witting, willing, inducing, yielding, or privy to any( such) personal attempt against her majesty in his life. Parsons In the supplication to the Queen made by one jesuit for all the rest and they all subject to Fa. Parsons, is not shee termed mose mighty, most merciful, most feared, best beloved princess, the shot anchor of all their just hopes, perfect in all princely duty, sacred majesty and what not? Is not protestation made unto her that they will yield and persuade in conscience all temporal obedience, and take her parte even against the Popes army? In this libel, is not Fa Parsons made a most free and innocent man from treasons, never touched, never name in the arraygnment of any? And doth nor M. Blakwell himself in one of his decretals forbid books made against the state? Nay goeth he not further and chargeth M. Mushe and his consorts that they be meddlers in state matters? Is it not a common objection against the secular clergy that they go about to bring the king of Scotland to the crown of England being an heretic? Doth not Fa. Parsons say that M. Doctor Bishop. and M. Charnock with their associates were found to be Scotish in faction? And in this libel is not M. Watson said to be sent by the secular Priests to the king of Scotland? And are not we charged that we are to deal with the king of france to subject England unto him? After such protestation, such zeal for the state, such charging of others, did any fear remain in the libeler that he should not be believed? Would any man think that the opinion of twoe or three Priests could sway with the council or move any thing, and that against the libeler and his body of Catholiks? No no the libeler knoweth well enough the great vigilancy, experience, and iudiciousnes of the council in state matters. It is well known that Fa. Parsons in England after contrary Protestation first made, and that under his obedience to far and foolishly dealt in state matters, that some principal Catholiks sent him worde to depart the realm for otherwise they would deliver him to the temporal magistrate. And this is the true cause of his departure which the libel would ridiculously colour that he might be freed from being thought to be a renegado. His carriage since( which particularly hath been proposed before competent iudges) hath been suitable to that worshipful persuasion which he used at Rome to the students there, that they should haue at state and all: for with state meddling they could but dy, and dy they should if they were taken without state meddling.  
Now after all his turmoils, browilleryes, libels, attempts, and invasions ended with shane and confusion, to retain still his body of catholics in good opinion of him( a few God knoweth, whereof some are sincere with scrupulous ignorance, and others very factious with partial prejudice) he telleth thē an old stale tale of close dealing with the council which in very truth being told in plain terms is this, he must strike& we may not ward: he must accuse, and we may not defend: he must irritate against religion, and we may not pacify: he must falsely pretend and by pretending disgrace the catholic faith, and we may not sincerely clear it: he must expose as much as in him lieth our prince to destruction, our country to invasion, our friends and ourselves to slaughter, our profession to contempt and malediction, and we may not refuse to receive his wounds in our whole body. But since his overweening of himself is so great, let him assure himself that what loyaltly he deceitfully protesteth, we will dutifully perform against all traitorous practisers whatsoever. It is so far from us to be afraid of dealing with the council wherein we haue and will always use sincerity that we think he had little calicut which did object it, himself being charged to haue dealt most dishonestly underhand in that kind and we would count it the greatest earthly benefit which could happen to us, if the LL. of the most honourable council would deal with us for the building up of that which this libeler hath to his power ruined.  
And in this point, not onely our better warrant, but the infinite levity of the libeler may appear, who always maketh cardinal Allen his copesmate, and in his table of men abused by us hath put him in the rank. Now let any indifferent man of common sense judge whether he be abused by those which seek to credit his protestation before mentioned, to follow his direction, and to imitate his quiet& apostolical course, or by those that by their seditious shufflings haue made his protestation to be thought perfidious, and by thinking themselves somebody, vpon emulation haue run another cleā contrary course to that which he did. And for further mark of the same ridiculous vanity in his Catalogue, the most reverend Bishop of Tricanica now nuntius in the Low countries is put in as disobeyed by us and refused to be judge of our controuersyes. This is not only a notorious ly, but the clean contrary is true. He having his instructions and commission for England from the Pope himself, in his letters to the secular clergy willeth them so to comport themselves as they do not irritate the temporal state. do we or the jesuits disobey in this point? And the like might be said of every other point if opportunity served and patience in men to hear such illimited& audacious boldness in uttering untruths as this libeler useth. One point further I would not omit. The same Bishop told me and others and willed us to intimate it to our countrymen, that in the Spanish invasion in the year 1588. when all English aswell catholics as others were designed to slaughter, the Pope had no interest, no he was not so much as priuvco the particular circumstances of that design. If any man compare this spoken of his credit with the book published that year in the name( usurped as may be thought) of the cardinal and other semblable pamphlets since wherein the libeler hath been a special stickler he shall see in a principal point of our difference, who be the abusers of the Pope and his nuntius, cardinal Allen, and others?  
That is pleaseth therefore this goodly libeler to term our actions treacherous, he prophesieth what be his own, by which he would measure other mens. And whereas he likeneth M. Bluet and others to Alcimus and Simon in the books of the maccabees, we hope in God the just judge of all men, that in time we shall haue satisfaction, and in the mean while we make not ourselves better then the whole army of the living God, which by his permission was exprobrated by an vncircumcized and bastardly Philistim.  
An appendix of state matters is the incurring of the law of praemunire wherein unnecessarily, unprofitably, and most dangerously the libelers faction involved themselves and their abettors, and are discontented that we avoyded it ourselves& warned others. And in this point the libeler pleaseth himself in retorting a dilemm● against our associacion. For answer may it please him to know that the Agency of F. West●n in Wisbich inuolded him and all his abett●rs within the praemunire, according to the iudgment of many and namely of M. Doctor Windham, a most excellent and renowned lawyer. And it is admirable, that any men should so far be given over to their own sense, as for pride without any show of the least good under heaven, they should infolde themselves and their friends in such dangerous statutes, and there is no doubt but wyse men will look to the causer of these inconveniences. The association as it was wholly to haue been referred to the good liking of his Holinesse, and was grounded upon such sincere indifferency as the jesuits above hand were fayn to commend it, so it should haue been without any cause of exasperating or dislike of the temporal state, and so the often repeated satirical and false surmises against it, are ground upon emulation and passion, without reason& iudgement. And it was well provided in the rules of the association, that we in prison should haue no authority: that it might be seen we sought the common good and not of ourselves. And whereas he citeth a letter of mine Fol. 64. to say the Agency in Wisbich was without title, place, and superiority, it is a fitton.  
The thing itself sheweth that upon ambition and emulation( for they said they were not honoured enough) they overthrew the credit of one of the most famous places in Europe. The introduction and ground of the rest was an Epistle which 18. of thē wrote to Fa. Gar. beginning, Contulimus ab heri& nudius tertius &c. In the English Apol. it is maimed, and in the latin in the first Catalogue of fraudes Num. 14. that parte which is left out is said to be an imposture of others ascribed vntruely to the 18. I did wonder, at the lightness& folly of the libeler when I saw the twoe Catalogues, the one of fraudes, the other of men abused, set before the libel. Scarce a true worde is in either of them, and many notorious untruths, but this denying of parte of their epistle, is to bear the bell. The letter in the first true edition is turned into English( as I hear) with a commentary, and is entitled Epistola prima obscurorum virorum. And I grow some who at the sight of it at the beginning said, they would never consort with the Agenists for the absurdity of that letter. It may be now they see they spoken truer then they would when they affirmed Fat. Weston to be a paralytik in his bed not able to walk, in via servorum, in the way of the just. And they must needs perceive that the remedy for him was as ridiculous and puppish as their conceit, that they vnriled the howse and let him down in a couch before his Superior. And if he had been a whole man, yet he walked another way then his superior prescribed since. His letter to me is avouched wherein he saythe he was neither author, nor counsaylor, not approver of the separation. And it may be they see when men perceive by their own confession, they pulled of the tiles of the howse, they may doubt whether they intended not to pull down all the rest. When I saw so egregious an untruth and denial of a thing most notorious in the beginning, and all the rest suitable( a very bundle of lies) I determined to refer men to the English narration of wisbich matters, which hath vpon necessity sparing set out some things, though it hath passed many other worthy the knowing. Twoe untruths may not be untouched proceeding of spleen and malice, to obfuscate the estimation of twoe Priests, the one dead the other alive. The dead is M. Doctor Norden who with me is made to haue drawn M. Bluett to opposition against Fath. Weston, and so to haue caused the dissension. Besides that M. Bluett is of that worthinesse, virtue and iudgment, that he would be drawn to nothing but that which is right: it is notoriously known that the separation was made before D. Norden came. His dislike of it proceeded from many causes, whereof one was: the night before he came to the castle, remaining in Wisbych hewn with his keeper of London from whence he was removed, one of the separators( whose name I spare) wrote him a letter containing the names and praises of the separators, and sundry detractions against those which kept their former unity, and a persuasion to him therefore to be one of the separation. The next day for fear he should be preached, he burnt the letter before he came to be prisoner in the Castle. In process of time seing many the like vnpriestly tricks of the separators, he grew to great dislike and open plain reprehension of them, especially for that they spoken and wrote evil of others, alleging among other proofs the letter Written to himself. The party who wrote it growing it to be burnt, denied it in such sort that D. Norden affirming it upon his Priesthood, charged the other to be a flat Atheist. Many such things he charged the jesuited with, as F. Weston himself and Archer, with averring and defending the stewes to be as worshipful as the Pope himself, the denial of which propositions in this Apology is so without the compass of human modesty, as it seemeth a very league with hell against truth and honesty, for salving the credit of F. Weston and his complices: a strange and marueillous kind of death must be ascribed to D. Norden, who yet as he had ever lived honest and sincere, so he dyed in prison for the confession of his faith of an apoplexy, in quiet and Christian manner, referring his cause to be discerned by God betwixt him and his factious detractors, who are not content onely to rak in all the cannels of the living, but needs must be ransaking the graues of the departed, who if they cannot discommend, yet will conceal, or as much as they can dissemble due commendations. In the book to his Holinesse in describing the stirs of Wisbich it is said: There came a certain priest to bring alms to the imprisoned, &c. In the first Catalogue of the latin book. Num. 18. These praises are said to be given to M. much. If it were a mistaking to put M. much for M. Doleman, it were a strange boldness of him that would writ any thing out of the authenticalls( as he calleth them) so much to err in the narration of one of the chiefest points of the matter: and by this one may see what wise information the author of the apology had, and what credit is to be given to all the rest of his tale. If it were of purpose( as otherwise it was a dull oversight) it could not be less then envy against M. Dolman, a man as it is well known of singular solicitude towards afflicted catholics, and of long time a special provider for prisoners, in which respect he was and is a great moat in the jesuits way, which are said to seeck themselves and not christ or his. The mention of M. Dolman is made in the book to the Pope, to show Gods providence in sending him to Wisbich so opportunely, to be an Arbiter of the separation, who was a man besides his rare charity of such experience iudgement and sincerity as none fitter could haue been chosen, whereby the peruicacity of the separated may more be convinced, who would not desist at the compassionate perpersuasion persuasion and tears of so worthy a man, nor for the advice of other excellent men whom he had conferred withal, nor at the last as they had promised( at his undertaking the arbitrement at their requests) before and undertaken and were in conscience bound vpon his sentence given that they could not go forward without sin. And therefore no marvel though the libeler would haue that seem to be spoken of M. Mushe, which could be ment of none but M. Dolman. The whole narration no less foolish then malicious, I leave to any indifferent and Christian iudgement. At the close I am charged with a contradiction for writing to Father Garnet in commendation of Father Weston, whom elswhere I reprehend. The truth was, Father Garnet commanded Fa. Weston( who had been cause of much troobles and scandals) so that there might be a formed peace to desist from his Agency in his letters to me, myself M. much and M. Dudley dealt with him, he urged the making of some rules which he thought could never have been procured, yet they were contented unto. That way being deceived he pretended a great desire of reconciliation which he knew to be difficult, considering the injuries and detractions proceeding from him and his, to the prejudice of the others, yet with great difficulty we obtained consent of remission of private injuries: being thus also frustrated he assembled his party& told them he hoped they would not leave him, for he would not leave them: some of the writer answered, the scandal of their separation was so great, as they would return to their former unity, and without him of he would not. Being thus driven from all hope of retaining his dominion, he desired that he might haue the credit of persuading his party to reunite themselves by making to them an exhortation, in pronouncing where of he fell down amongst them, and at the first was thought to be dead: howsoever the libeler would haue it thought to be a fiction, which is a manifest sign of want of honesty and grace in the libeler. At length after many tergiuersations, a time and place, was appoynted for the reuniting of all again. In which assembly F. Weston to give example came first to M. Bluet and vpon his knees desired the forgiving and forgetting of things past. After he came to me and others, which example the rest mutually followed. upon this occasion I wrote in his commendation, thinking then that he had desired this reconciliation vnfaynedly as others I know did, from which he was so far that his party had dealt before hand and underhand with M. much and M. Dudley for the ground of a new breach. If I upon just occasion misliked F. Weston, yet vpon belief of his humility and charity was content to commed him to his superior and others, with desire of abolishing the memory of all vnkindenes, what shallow calicut hath the libeler to make me contradict myself? At the making of the separation they did make great protestations that they did not make the least exceptions against any mans behaviour. We knew thē to be false and urged separation from men for pretended faults to savour of donatism: and now the libeler uttereth the contrary to their protestations. Which party is guitly we refer to every christian to judge by this that to counteruayle their vnpriestly pasquils we sent to the Pope for a visi●ation of Wisbich. F. Parsons intercepted our letters and so hindered it, which was not onely an injury to us labouring to declare our innocencyes, but one of the great abuses& indignityes which he hath offered to the Sea apostolic, we for forming our consciences and satisfying the world, sought to the Pope for discussion and reformation, they audaciously impeached it, And further to trouble the water divulge to the world one Fishers confession. I would fayn know what thing were so absurd which the libeler would not take hold of when he citeth him whom withal he discrediteth? When Fisher came into England he voluntarily set down in writing the affairs in Rome as they had passed betwixt the jesuits and the students. Notwithstanding it imported that the students should haue been cleared of those detestable infamyes which Harwood and other such bad fellows had raised, it being written and bruyted that for extreme evil behaviour they were disciplined in the open streets. And this was it fol. 81. For which he saith one was derided and miscalled, giuing good and spiritual council, which was indeed a persuasion to one to beleeue the most horrible slanders raised against the English students in Rome. yet were Fishers writings concealed, until unexpectedly a search caused by a wicked seruant and occasioned by some indiscretion of one jesuited they were brought to adjudge. A memorial( they say) he caused to be exhibited to the Pope, and fol. 97. He had letters written by me, entitled. Copia literarum Catholicorum in Anglia degentium. Why was it not given up, and the authors convented if they could not haue justified their complaints. If it was given to the Pope as the jesuits wrote in England, why did they procure letters of commendations from men( some virtuous indeed as S. Fr. Inglefield& others, but vninformed, credulous,& many times for private interest partialized) to stop the course of Iustice? why did they by evil means extort letters from some who now repent their writinge? in what place of the world was it ever held for a worshipful manner of proceeding to elude sufficient testimony against one in a criminal cause, by procuring hands in commendation of the accused, and from such many times, as do not know him, and yet must testify general negatives, against law, and the light of reason? The libeler confesseth, my letters among others were intercepted, and thereby discovereth himself who he is, for that he averreth them to be forth coming, which,( with Gods grace) before a due tribunal will be discussed, whether letters sent to the Pope, and inquisition, may be intercepted. That is a stale shift, which he bringeth, for my letters written to the students, that they were delivered to some in milan, and the libeler most dishonestly and falsely affirmeth, that they were seditiouse: whereas indeed they were contrarily, to persuade the students to peace and patience, and to leave reuenge to God, to whom it did belong. For that I ever neglected private hallelujahs, in respect of public scandals: although in his sense every thing is seditious, which is not fitted to his humour: which is no less then to call good evil, and evil good, which as virtuous and moderate men condemn, so hath it annexed from God a malediction.  
This Fisher at his coming to Rome was brought to the college, and imprisoned under the custody of the common jailor, for that office he executeth, and as it seemeth affecteth. Being in close keeping( as I of certain knowledge, do know he himself relateth it& promiseth to justify before his holiness) Once for a show Acarisius came to examine him, but ordinarily his keeper Fa. Parsons offering to put hot Irons to his arms, if he would not confess what he would haue him. These times God hath reserved us into, wherein our English College founded by our kings for the good of our country, should be possessed by those who make it a place of imprisonment and torture. A number of sheets of paper were written of tales, surmises, and incoherent lies, which is one of the most principal authenticalls of the libeler. And if there were nothing else, that is a sufficient discovery of the packing of Fishers confession, and of much malice else, that he maketh him, fol. 96. to say, he was principally commended to M. Christ. Bagshaw, M. Robert Dolman, and M. John Collington. And yet must needs this worthy work be printed in disgrace of those, who are towched with Fishers confession. If Fishers reports be of any credit, the libeler and his Rowte be arrand honest men. If they be of no credit the publishing of them deserveth a furred cap. Among other narrations of Fishers, a number of incoherent fooleries, collected under his name, one is of some great familiarity which he saw betwixt some of us in Wisbich, and the keeper, and also the keepers wife. A detraction according to their custom general, sownding bog, and a toy in particular discussion. The libeler hath very bad luck in his Chronology, for M. Medley our keeper his wife was a very old woman, and dead some years before Fisher came to Wisbich, yet his cunning is to hurt by a confused suspicion if he can, and no man in particular shal be able to urge satisfaction. I could haue wished for the honor of Religion, the libeler had not with so much untruth and improbability, corraded such base show of matter against men of known integrity, for that it discovereth very bad dispositions in himself( and many things daily begin to be imputed to his complices, I hear more and more) the displaying whereof if hereafter it grieve him and them, they must thank themselves, and haue the amends in their hands. I haue heard( and truly disswaded) some threatening such publication, and I could wish that the libeler with Harwood& all the rest of the pack of detractors, were with their accusations remitted to Gods iudgement, if it were not prejudicial to their souls which is much to be feared. One devise with Fisher is not to be omitted. After Fa. Parsons had made him say and unsay what he would haue him, he caused him( being still guarded by some of his creatures) to come before some of the students, and tell them in solemn earnest, of his knowledge, that the stirs in the roman college against the Fathers were caused by the council of England, and therefore to be abhorred. Whereby may be seen what wise opinions he would imprint in our virtuous youths, what aversion he beareth and bewrayeth to the state of England, vwhich others sought to haue concealed, and upon what grounds he chargeth men with dealing with the council. And yet this served him for a principal ground to write into Spayn, that the English students were alienated from the king of Spayn until he came to Rome and altered them. By which and a number of like shifts and surquedryes, he hath abused both England and Spayn, which in due time here after may come to the light and laughter of the world. And because in the Latin libel he maketh the council, or I know not what enemies, beginners of the discontents and garboils in Rome, and would draw a certain coherence of the late stirs with things which fell out in my time, and maketh me expelled thence by the cardinals own hands whereof I never heard before. I red the libel nor know not now what it meaneth. I must say something of my departure out of Rome. Although to be expelled thence, or from any place for that which he calleth sedition, be to be counted I doubt not reputation and merit,( which if he had or durst haue explicated in particular what he meaneth by sedition,) would more easily appear. For any act or word of mine in Rome or else where let him object what he can, I give him leave,& in just defence of mine honor, I defy all such contemptible companions, as shall any way oppose themselves against it. But to clear the mists which he casteth. Being made Priest in france, with that freedom and resolution for England, with which many excellent and innocent Priests had been made before, I went to Rome, to visit that holy and renowned place, with leave and advice of the late cardinal Allen of happy memory, to stay or return according to mine own liking, for which and many other favours I was singularly beholding to that man. At my first coming to Rome, seing the state of the college, the number of the discontented, and that for notorious injuries, I determined to return again with the first opportunity. Which resolution I would never after alter, among many other causes, for that I had gotten the Italian pain in the breast in taking the spiritual exercise in the roman college for which I was driven for a time to live in our vinyeard, and use other means of recovery, but all in vain, for which and other causes, cardinal Allen wrote unto me to come into france. whilst I was expecting opportunity of returning, D. Lewis Bishop of Cassana came to Rome, and lay in the College, using often conference with me about English matters. Fa. Agazarius growing most of the students to dislike his proceedings, and doubting that he should be driven out of the howse( which fell out immediately after in Sixtus Quintus his time vpon a visitation which was procured after my departure, wherein M. D. Ely hath been misinformed, as though I had been one of the procurers of that visit) dealt with me very earnestly, that I would resolve to stay and be entirely united with the Fathers. My answer to him and others was still resolute for departure. The fashion of the jesuits is to haue one whose name they may use for their disignes, to the end things laudable may be attributed to themselves, and things discommendable to him. So was cardinal cajetan for their matters of England, and so was at that time cardinal Boncompagno, whom with no credit to himself( to say the least) the libeler nameth, nor with honor to the cardinal, but that he would play small game rather then sit out. The cardinal asked me whether I would stay, and I told him no, the cardinal said then I should resolve to depart, I answered rather that day present then the next. After this when I came to the Pope himself of blessed memory Gregory the 13. he moved my stay unto me, I answered his holiness, I had a firm resolution to go to my country, where upon he dismissed me with the rest, with most fatherly words and affection, and granted all the requests we proposed unto him. And F. Agazarius gave such testimony to me and others then departing under his hand and the College seal, which is yet extant to be seen, as if the libeler had viewed it, call he sedition what he list( his calling not being worth a blew point) he would confess our expulsion( if any had been) to be most iniuriouse,& with no advantage to the libeler remembered. The records of the College be nothing but foolish partial wresting and reporting of things according to private humors, which is at length growne to that narration of mother Hubberd, which I remembered in the beginning. Within the compass of which since, he will needs draw his departure out of Oxon, the conference of one parte with another will discover the whole. For. Parsons his departure out of Oxon he telleth a tale without head or feet that because he would haue punished on M. james Hauley his own scholar for going to a play, I joined with the Protestant party, whoe would needs throw him and all his out of the College the same night, except he would yield to depart. If he had not a marvelous conceypt of his own calicut, he would not utter such narrations, not onely void of substance but of all probability or colour of truth. Long time he hath been suffered to report, that he was put out of Oxon for his Religion, with some touch of credit to me and others, until at length his exorbitant grating vpon every one who stood in his way, gave some occasion by some insinuation of the truth to give him a caveat, not to be so saucy in meddling with other mens matters, and so far so forget his own imperfections.  
True it is that M. squire did not like M. Parsons, but that he did object any particular matter against him is so far from truth, that he made protestation to the contrary. For Religion M. Parsons then did profess himself a Protestant and that with such affectation, as he dealt with M. Squire for direction in the study of divinity, and conferred ordinarily in the reading of Caluin with M. hide, a fellow in the howse, a known Caluinist, but otherwise learned and a very moral Gentleman. Yea being bursar he had disfurnished the College library of many ancient books, and rare manusscripts( and of some of them as is thought dishonestly) and in their stead brought in a number of heretical books the first that ever were there which yet remain for an argument of his want of Religion, and for a corraziue to his conscience whylest he liveth. The resolutenesse of some of the fellows to be rid of him was such, that they had provided the tolling of a bell for him as the manner is for one which is to depart the worlde, which as it might proceed from some discomposednesse, so I protest before God I did not know of until I heard the bell toll, and there upon asked the cause. He had indeed the favour granted him to resign( being first subtilely expelled) his submission with many tears& promise to us all whoe wear there that he would ever after carry himself in good sort. That he hath born malice towarde me, I am sorry he hath given such cause to think, as in the libel is uttered, and I could haue wished that his virtue had obliterated all those things which then passed, and that he had not by his comportement since, lost those good motions which his humiliation caused him to utter then. For being charged in Oxon amongst very many things( which I would be loathe to utter) with forgery by one Stanckliffe his fellow bursar, it seemeth strange to me that in this libel mention is made of so many things, which must needs be foisted ( as Fishers memorial Fishers confession, for a great parte, my letters delivered in Millan) and amongst many other one fol. 135. And which is further( saith the libeler) it was discovered by tht same papers and other letters out of England that they had particular designments to make themselves Bishops and Archbishops( speaking of D. Bishop and M. Charnok) wherevppon in some letters it was written to your LL.  
And not unlike is the narration of M. james Hauley his going to a play, and keeping in my chamber for fear of correction, as he is now a Gentleman of great worth and commendation, so was he in his young yeares of rare expectation and composed behaviour. I doubt not but M. Parsons remembreth well he was one of the thirty nine or thirty which to his face came before the Masters and fellows of the College, to demand iustice, yet with that modesty which for the time( others being eager enough to speak and urge) made him sylent, which since I haue often recounted with and commended him. And therefore I marvell at his boldness in mentioning him but much more in remembering the matter of eating flesh, except he would register his own perpetual infamy. For going about beyond all extremity of law, to draw diverse( seven or eight as I remember) of good reputation in danger of their lives for taking after the fashion of schollers certain puddings from a pupil of his called hims, dealt with the youths Fa.& would needs haue him enter into bands unto him, that he should not release the prosecution of felony, which M. Parsons would haue the matter brought unto. The indignity was so great as the matter was signified unto the privy council and by their order ended, the parties accused being made secure and Parsons notorious for giuing occasion of a common by word, Parsons puddings. Wherein he should haue given me thankes for saying( if it had been true) that in Oxon we were cannon-shot to draw all matters to felony, in transfiguring that to myself which was true of him. Whereas for mine own private, I thank almighty God, I never in all my life accused any man of felony, or any other thing, nor ever commenced any action either criminal or civil against any man, nor was ever convented before any Magistrate when I was at liberty, but for matter of catholic faith& Religion.  
Concerning which the libeler maketh an objection about a place of Scripture of the day of iudgement not known to the son of man, alleged for defence of equiuo●ations. For my defence of the Scriptures and every title of them I trust I haue given sufficient proof. This place is absurdly alleged for equivocations as out of the word s●re, with which the libeler is little acquainted, So to doth learnedly prove in his book De tegendo& retegendo secretum. And some of the jesuits confess, that this place were alleadgeable for equivocation in matters of faith if it were in any, for that christ his knowledge of the day of doom is a matter of faith, neither will this letter discharge F. Wallpoole,( for which purpose it seemeth framed) of whom concerning Squires matter it is well known what the said party confessed if I do not mistake him. But his latter letter and manner of his taking is so impudent a forgery, as I see not how any man can give credit to the former, if the libeler say true, that the same man wrote both. I might take occasion here to speak of the propositions which the libeler maketh daungerous, and I know not what, which he objecteth in his own name concerning obedience& confirmation, &c. and in the name of one Bensted against me concerning equivocations. But to deal with him out of the sphere of his activity were no victory, and yet might increase a swelling humour in him which redoundeth already. Neither need I to defend the letters sent from Wisbich and Framingham signed by myself and others, they be extant, let him urge them to the uttermost. Those particulars which he rehearseth in the apology, come out of his own forge. He saith certain peremptory demands were set down to the Pope fol. 134. and there upon calleth me a resolute lawmaker: I must call him a resolutely-maker. The title prefixed to those demands was. The points for which most humble supplication is to be made to his holiness. He saith we haue abused M. Blakwell. We wish M. Blakwell had not abused himself& the wole worlde. before the brief he was an usurper and since his pretended decretals and censures he is holden to be excommunicate with all his complices, of which as he hath written to the Nuncio in flanders, so may he to the Inquisition or his holiness. Since twoe or three worshipful appeals made to the sea apostolic( which are acknowledged in the Apology) his authority( if ever he had any) being suspended, it was a plain rebellion against Gods Church in him to meddle further to hinder as much and as dispightfully as he could all appellation, to oppose himself against the university of Paris, to comtemne the learning, practise, and canons of the whole church( a few complices of his own excepted)& to make himself in his own cause a supreme, peremptory, infallible and inappellable judge. The most reverend Bishop of Tricarica Viceprotector of England wrote unto him to see all things restored in integrum. His despicable answer prophesieth what indeed his regard of the Popes deputies is, and consequently of the Pope himself. We wrote unto him from Framingham of diuers falsifications which he used in citing our letters, whereof one was, which is recited again in the apology fol. 82. that he should sand 2200 pounds to Flanders. Is not this an admirable world when an untruth shalbe averred, noted, iterated, corrected, and yet again and again repeated? specially in a matter of such iniquity as is the endeavouring to starve the confessors of christ in prison. Which injustice( whereunto besides a number of like intolerable grievances to the saints of God M. Blakwell hath concurred) cannot be counteruayled in Gods iudgement or an vncauteriated conscience with a vain, unprofitable, daungerous, and surrepted title.  
F. Parsons who standeth so much in the Apology vpon his book of resolution, I wish not the diminution of commendations due to his labour( although it be nothing so much as he would haue the world beleeue) but his continuance in handling that object. As to some private friends of his, some yeares ago talking with me about the myseryes of the church of England, and sygnifying they heard some were about to set out Parsons life I then told, that I understood many were exasperated with him for diuers and just causes, and know no reason why they should spare him, and therefore wished he would leave of with detractions& practizings to irritate men: so in one common letter which in the Apol. he saith was to be shewed to the Pope, we gave a sufficient caveat Cito indignabitur libertas si opprimitur. or as he eyteth it( if truly) fol. 18. si prematur. That which he should haue taken for a warning to himself he maketh a matter of exclamation against us( saith he) these good liber tines. &c. And I know not whether some of them from whom it proceeded will say, see this calumniator, see this ignorant censurer, see this unlearned Atheist. They be the words of S. Hier. in his Epistle to Theophilus Patriarch of Alexandria, against John Bishop of jerusalem, and now Aristippus will make S. jerome a libertine, I know not how far in rigor his reprehension may be drawn in speaking against defence of liberty, specially ecclesiastical.  
Is not such a mans talk of peace like the speech of friar Rush after he had set all by the ears. He wrote I know letters to M. Collington and both the Bennetts pretending a desire of peace. And I am towns that all three most sincerely and charitably endeavoured to procure peace, offering all reasonable conditions, and more then was fitt. M. Collington at the first coming of the brief came to Wisbich and upon his conscience protested, that he thought M. Blackwells authority would do good to England( a great inducement for quieting things then) vpon fair words and promises made to him and M. much by M. Blakwell, wherein of M. black. ment truly as is thought then and of himself he did, he hath been egregiously abused and transported since. If he ment fraudulently( which the event might persuade) he is as faythles a man as liveth upon the earth. Among other things he promised the return of D. Bishop and M. Charnok the restoring of faculties to M. Benson, M. Hill, and M. Tempest, and diuers other things in particular which he knoweth, besides a general& inviolable atonement for all matters passed.  
Nothing was performed but new picking of old quarrels( which the Pope in his last brief saith he sorrowfully repeateth) Heervppon a new and worse trouble arising besides the requests, letters, and caveats of many to M. Blakwell and the jesuits. M. Clerk and M. Mountford( twoe worthy priestes) came to confer with us at Wisbich, wrote to M. black. delivered their letters to M. Hues, who with M. Wright and others witnessed M. Blakw. promis made to them in London, that all old quarrels should be butted, M. John Bennet and his brother came to London at the same time to procure pacification, M. John Bennet in his answer to F. Parsons( which I think before this he hath seen) recounteth with what travails, expenses,& demisse offers, they sought for quietness. with inconstancy disdain and intolerable haughtiness all their endeavours were requited.  
hereupon the appeal was forced and the want of conscience in the libeler discovered, which pretendeth I know not what compact with the council to make the Appeal, and yet not intent to prosecute it, one being as true as the other, and both shameless and witlesse surmises, which kind of dealing if he continue in, he shal deserve in stead of a red cap a blew whetstone. The giuing and debarring of orders and faculties, partially and almost sacrilegiously, the hindering and excluding of graduated and mature men from our seminaries, the factious admitting of them unchurch come thither the alluring of some there with the oppression of others, the contempt of the secular priestes being the body of the Clergy, the infaming so many Saints of God with horrible and continual slanders, the manifold irritations of the temporal state, the indaungering of catholics, the variouse fraud in getting money within the realm and transporting it without, the superfluous and scandalous expenses of many, the support of many unworthy men, unlawful assertions and enormous injuries, the indeauoring to starve many Worthy Catholiks at liberty and confessors of Christ in prison, the contempt of all laws, all canons all appeals, and all Christian proceeding with us do convince the libeler of the necessity and intended pursuit of the Appeal. Three reconciliations the secular Priests with yielding of their right, haue condescended unto, which all haue been broken by their aduersaries, for the fourth nothing was omitted which was requisite, and more tendered then just hope and desert occasioned.  
The persons of our adversaries we pray for, their injuries we haue referred to God and our worshipful Magistrate, not onely affirming but also wishing, and not wishing also but endeavouring to effect that which the Prophet saith, Iustitia& pax osculataesunt.  
By Christopher Bagshaw Priest and Doctor of divinity.  
FINIS.