any warrant from him and to open vnto him what perill might thereby come to the Catholike cause and offering themselues their cause with all submission to his Holines as the effect also prooued whatsoeuer this slanderous Libeller suggesteth to his blind obedient Reader But this author sheweth whatsoeuer he saith that he careth not if his Holinesse his sides be pierced so that he may keepe Fa. Parsons sides whole Now to that which ensueth saith this authour there is extant a letter written by F. Parsons to M. Bishop of the ninth of October 1599. containing a certaine briefe capitulation of the principall points that passed in this action of the messengers restraint in Rome c. To which letter there is answere made in the English booke where this letter is set downe at large and the answere is such as this authour with a litle snarling onely at it letteth it passe quietly neither is it a cauilation but a very material point that the notary so much talked of in that letter and in a wicked false letter of the 20. of February 1599. vnder the name of M. A. as if M. Martin Array had bene the doer of it was a Iesuite and that he put in and out what F. Parsons would haue him being himselfe the examiner although the Popes Comissary did twice or thrice shew himselfe in that time and if euery dayes examination had bene read as it was not in the presence of him who was examined yet F. Parsons might cause somewhat to be written otherwise then the prisoner did deliuer it and to haue somethings blotted out againe when the prisoners answere was contrary to his former information giuen by him either to his Holinesse or others neither was euery daies examination subscribed the same day for the prisoner neuer set his hand but to the last sheete which was of such impertinent stuffe as it might be added to any examination and the same hand which writ the examination being a Iesuits hand at the commandement of F. Parsons he might notwithstanding the scoring of the margent and the after registring if it were registred shew what he listed and if their examinations be extant as here it is said then will appeare in some of them many things blotted out sometime some words which F. Parsons caused to be writ contrary to that which the prisoner deliuered sometime a whole question with some part of the answere thereto when F. Parsons could not obtaine of the prisoner to make such answere as hee would haue him for remedy whereof F. Parsons tooke alwayes afterward this course that hee would neuer haue his question written downe vntill hee had heard what answer the prisoner would make that if the answere were such as he could wrest it to his purpose then should the question be set downe and himselfe would for breuities sake frame the answere about which there was diuers times some alteration about wordes which the prisoner vsed not but was often contented to let F. Parsons haue his will when the words were such as he knew he could interpret to good sence notwithstanding his examinators false intention hoping alwayes that hee should haue so much fauour when the matter should grow to an issue And although that neither all the examination was euer taken nor that which was taken let to stand as it was taken but somwhat was blotted out as is said and many answers out off vnder pretence sometime of breuitie sometime that there should be another Interrogatory to which such an answere would be more fit the prisoners subscribed sware but to what Not that there was al which was asked or answered nor that F. Parsons had not dealt in this kinde but that those answeres which were there made were truely sincerely giuen which maketh nothing to the clearing of F. Parsons or the proouing of his honest dealing And now you shall heare what matters this author hath picked out of their examinations and thereby perceiue what this good fellow would say First then to talke of substantiall points sayth this author the examination of M. Charnocke beginning the 4. of Ianuary and that of M. Bishop the 10. of Ianuary 1599 and passing ouer all other demaunds which these men call impertinent they were asked what was the cause and reason of their comming to Rome who sent them c. To this M. Charnocke being first examined answered in these words Causa aduentus nostri haec fuit vt rogaremus humillimè c. The cause of our comming to Rome was this that we might beseech most humbly and with all obedience the Sea Apostolicke that this order appointed by Card. Caietan for composing controuersies in England and to make peace not beeing hitherto confirmed by his Holines as we vnderstood it is said by diuers priests and namely Fa. Sicklemore and others might be mitigated or changed or some other order appointed with it for satisfaction of very many priests who doe thinke reseruing notwithstanding due honour to the Sea Apostolike that by this way appointed onely the strises begun cannot so well be ended c. But if it should please his Holinesse to confirme this authority and to admit no other then are these priests content to yeeld all obedience c. and as for the Superiour appointed â—… spake with the Archpriest before I came forth and desired him not to be offended with me if I went to Rome about this matter and hee gaue me leaue to goe to deale for the change thereof Thus farre the Apologie by which it may appeare what cause there was of the Priests so long trouble in Rome their apprehension by Iesuits and Sbirri vpon the feast of S. Tho. of Canterbury the most principall feast of any particular in all our countrey their keeping so close by the Iesuites as they might not goe out of their seuerall prisons to heare masse vpon some of the most principall feasts in Gods Church their being debarred to speake not onely one of them with the other but also with any to aske councell except the Iesuits their being debarred to come to the altar otherwise then lay men vntill the 7. or 8. of February notwithstanding they had by vertue of a Iubile receiued absolution by the same Iesuits from all censures which it was supposed that either they had or might haue incurred by this iourney to Rome their continuance in close prison vntill the 8. of April notwithstanding they had so discharged themselues before the two Card. Caietan and Burghesius vpon the 17. of February in the English Colledge as both they themselues and the whole Colledge were tolde that they should within two or three dayes after haue their libertie their being afterwards although somewhat more easily imprisoned the one vntill the 22. of April the other vntill the 6. of May their being banished their country and confined the one to France the other to Lorayne without any one penny or pennyworth allowed them for their maintenance in those
but the priests whom it shall concerne which was according both to the Cannons of holy Church and his Holines meaning as diuers priests can witnes the Pope hauing alwayes borne that speciall fauour vnto the priests But what els was discouered in those papers of the doctors Forsooth the changing of the gouernment of the Seminartes especially that in Rome yea the change of the Protector himselfe Very true For that the vnquietnes which the Iesuits made in Rome among the students was a great cause of the vnquietnes here in England And seeing that there was no hope of any quiet so long as the Iesuits had the gouernment what euil request was it to haue them remoued thence Neither was the request of the doctor and some others ioyned with him for the change of the Protector absolutely but that there might be some other or some ioyned with him in regard he was knowen to be one who in the Iesuits quarels tooke part alwayes very partially with them against the students and the students appeale from him or their declining from his iudgement had bene in former times admitted by his Holines who now is And further it was â—…uered by the same papers saith he and other letters out of England that they had particular designments to make themselues Bishops and Archbishops And how was this discouered or what proofe hath this authour of this whereupon saith he in some letters it was written To your LL. This is all the proofe that those to whom this letter was written had particular designments to make themselues Bishops and Archbishops If one should write to Rome to Fa. Parsons and direct his letter in this manner To your Grace of what could F. Parsons be conuinced others so writing vnto him But Fa. Parsons in his letter of the 9. of October 1599. to M. Bishop making mention of this iest is answered in the English booke pag. 127. and is told that M. Charnocke hearing thereof at Rome did there chalenge it as a faigned matter And there it is shewed at large in what sort it might be forged And this Apologie being made to answere that English booke letteth all that discourse goe quietly the authour hauing taken good order that his lewdnesse should not be knowen among these blind-obedient and hath the lesse shame to iterate any falshood without disproouing that which hath bene before directly sayd against it And a particular discourse being diuulged at this time vnder the hand-writing of one of their chiefe followers named M. Watson was sent to Rome whilest these men were there Whereunto was subscribed by another in these words Sic sentio W.B. By this discourse also this author would prooue that the priests that went to Rome went with hope of reward to wit to be made Primats themselues and to make other Bishops of their partners at their returne yea notwithstanding their oath which they tooke that they neuer heard of any discourse this authour emboldeneth himselfe to burden them with it or at the least with the knowledge thereof For such are his words though these messengers in Rome would not seeme to acknowledge it Fa. Parsons told M. Bishop that such a letter he had and requested to knowe whether it were not his name that was subscribed in this manner Sic sentio G.B. not W.B. as here is most falsely suggested perchance to take away the suspition from such as were the authors thereof for the disgrace of M. Bishop and M. Charnocke as M. Bishop toucheth it in his answere to Fa. Parsons set downe in the English booke pag. 159 To which demand of Fa. Parsons M. Bishop made answere that it was not his name and that he neuer had heard of the discourse before Moreouer hee saide that those letters might stand for Geor. Blackwellus as well as Guliel Bishop By which it is euident that this author dealeth falsely in setting down the letters W.B. For who is so foolish as to think that M. Bishop would plead that George was spelled with W This is also particularly set downe in the answere made in the behalfe of M. Bishop which is annexed vnto M. D. Ely his notes vpon the Apologie fol. 17. where also it is affirmed that D. Bishops answere for M. Watson was farre otherwise then this authour pretendeth and is therefore challenged to haue no tender conscience in this dealing But as it seemeth this author intended to disgrace M. Watson all that he could and at the first discrediteth himselfe in obiecting that M. Watson was a seruant in the English College at Rhemes as though that were so great a blot many most worthy men hauing bene of as meane or meaner condition And this being truely considered maketh more for M. Watsons commendation that he would liue in so meane estate out of his countrey for the cause he did And if this common wealth here by a foolish digression inserted being a matter as Fa. Parsons tooke vpon his conscience before the Cardinals to which the two priests were neuer priuy were of M Watsons making as he doth vtterly deny it as also that either hee sent any such to Rome or was priuie to the sending thereof but rather thinketh as others also that it was sent by the contrary part to Fa. Parsons for some policie yet he had not bene more idly occupied then was the plotcaster of Reformation the absurdities whereof were they yet perchance after so many alterations layd downe would farre surpasse these of this common wealth which is attributed to M. Watson This digression being made and more seriously handled then any materiall point in this controuersie this authour falleth againe into the Cardinals comming to the College together with the Comissary And to proceede saith he more substantially they heard first the aforesaid depositions read that is to say some part of them as is noted in the English booke pa. 95 as also the procurators of the Archpriest what they could say or demand who bringing foorth the foresaid letters of the most graue of our Nation that is to say the letters of D. Barret subscribed by D Webbe D. Worthington and D. Kellyson and also the letters of M. Wright the Deane of Cortrac all which and onely these were inserted into a Libell which these Proctors for the Archpriest put vp to the two Cardinals against M. Bishop M. Charnocke against this new sedition begun made supplication that some effectuall remedy might be put thereunto Very well good sir thus much is confessed in the English booke pag. 96. that M D. Haddocke and M. Martin Array deliuered vp in a dumbe shewe a Libell or bill of complaints or accusations against M. Bishop and M. Charnocke But what answere made those priests vnto that bill The messengers also were heard what they could say or answere But now in a little honesty what said they or what answere did they make to these matters Is it not possible that any thing did passe woorth the relating was all this preparation
kindly and friendly in all points to their power but not for loue of the Iesuits but vpon their owne honest dispositions except it be meant by M. D. Haddock and M. Martin Array vnto whose lodging the two priests were sent the one vpon the 22. of April for then he was set at libertie and not presently vpon their sight of the Breue or assurance that all would submit themselues for this was done vpō the 8 or 9. of April when F. Parsons did first bring them the Breue to copy it out the other vpon the 6. of May for then and not before was the other at libertie not presently vpon their assurance that all would be quiet as here it is most falsly suggested And the trueth is that this doctor and his fellow Proctor did vse that kindnesse towards the two priests as euery day when the priests went abroad the doctor himselfe or his felow Proctor would take the paines to rig vp their chamber that no loose paper should be lost which they might by any chance leaue behinde them There was also an honest man in Rome of the Catholick English nation who in respect of olde acquaintance with one or both the priests promised to goe with one of them to visit the 7. Churches an act of deuotion vsed by all that goe to Rome but when the day came he durst not goe fot feare lest the Iesuits should shew ouermuch kindnesse towards him for this loue towards the priest Fa. Parsons his loue and confidence specially is not to be measured who as I haue bene enformed obiected to the priests that they had brought with them a letter which was indorsed or entituled to them in this style To your LL. by which he and others at that time iested at their Lordships And F. Parsons in his letter to M. Bishop of the 9. of October 1999. vrgeth the same as also this author in the Apologie cap. 9 fol. 135. But when these priests desired to see that letter alledging oftentimes what comfort it would be vnto them to see their owne Lordships so often talked of by F. Parsons and other Iesuits all the loue and confidence especially which F. Parsons had could not worke it neither would this letter euer be shewed vnto them as M Bishop testifieth in the English booke fol. 159. Although sayth he it was most instantly desired yea and said to haue been forged as is set down fol. 127. and quietly let slip here in the Apol which vndertaketh to answere that booke Now follow certaine letters of D. Bishop to M. Colington not when hee was at libertie as here it is suggested but a prisoner still although at more libertie then M. Charnocke had for hee was commanded to the Proctors house as M. Charnocke was after his departure and might not lie in the towne where hee would and might haue liued without further charge as also M. Charnocke might for that they had agreed for their chamber and diet for a certaine time and payd their money beforehand and were caried away to prison before halfe the time was out and were offered afterward to haue their diet for so many daies as were behind of the reckoning which were more then either of them had leaue to stay in Rome after their seuerall inlargement out of the Colledge And as for this glose that M. Bishops letter was written eight dayes after the Popes Breue was published I should haue let it passe as one of this authors pety follies this letter bearing date the 29. of April as here is said and the Breue bearing date the 6. of April as in the leafe next before it is twice cited and elsewhere often in the Apologie But there is a further folly hereupon grounded or at the least the like more grossely committed to shew forth F. Parsons praises concerning a letter next following at the end of which thus sayth this author Thus wrote F. Parsons euen then when yet the Popes Breue was not come foorth was not that kindly done and friendly of F. Parsons But how is it proued that this letter was written euen then Marke how hee prooueth it As appeareth sayth he for that this was written the 9. of April and the Breue beareth date the 21. of the saidmoneth The Breue which hath hitherto borne date of the 6. of April must now for to claw Fa. Parsons be reported yea and beleeued also by the blind obedient to beare date the 21. of April Is not this authour very greedy that F. Parsons should be commended who will fetch a matter so farre off and so farre from a knowen trueth to further it ergo not being more common in the schooles then a Breue of the 6. of April for the Archpriests confirmation This letter and other would aske longer scanning then would recompense the paines but to euery mans view they present an argument that the peace was made vpon the Priests side and therefore I will briefly goe ouer some marginall notes which are made vpon these letters And first I will beginne with the notes made vpon Master Bishops letter whereupon Father Parsons his information who was to ouersee what hee writ into England how that he had laboured for his libertie he saith that hee had his libertie by F. Parsons procurement There is this note in the margent How then doeth hee denie this afterward but he telleth him not where you must go looke for that And in the meane time you must thinke that M. Bishop said one thing at one time and at another time denied the same which hee might very well doe speaking first according to such informations as F. Parsons gaue him which afterward he might vnderstand to be false The second note is this By this we see how these men were pretenders and could not expect their owne time And this note is made vpon M. Bishops good wishes to one man and certificate that vpon his peaceable behauiour he should be remembred And what doeth this proue that the same party pretended any thing at all vpon the next letter which is F. Parsons to M. Collington and M. Mush there is this note An obiection answered and that was Fa. Parsons is of an other body and therefore no friend of theirs A shrewd obiection and how is it answered He hath procured Seminaries for them and if these Seminaries were for men of his owne vocation as in deed they are and to make his faction the stronger yet they are all to one end and one publique seruice of our countrey And if no man wil this beleeue let him looke into his actions of the yeeres 1596 and 97. when diuers priests were to come in the Spanish Armadoes vnder pretence to restore the English to the Catholicke religion Let their forced subscriptions to strange titles proue Fa. Parsons and his agents their publique seruice of our countrey But after this letter of F. Parsons followeth another of M. Mush to him And where M. Mush declareth how much
and the priests now the world is come to this passe that he is no zealous or godly Catholike that will not runne from place to place to disgrace all such priests as refuse to be guided by the Iesuits or in this present controuersie will not acknowledge that they liued in schisme and deserued eternall shame and reproch because they deferred their obedience to an authoritie vntill they did see what was their Superiour his will concerning it at what time they all submitted themselues vnfainedly whatsoeuer this author most wickedly suggesteth to his reader in this place without any proofe at all vpon certaine of his most absurd surmizes for which also he sendeth his reader to the former chapter where he shal see perhaps and as it is supposed and it is very likely and such like stuffe as a man who esteemed of his credit would be ashamed of in so weighty a matter And for his foolish assertion that if it had been vnfained it would haue wrought some permanent effect there is an old saying that there must goe two words to a bargaine and so say I that if there must be peace betweene two parts both the parts must doe their parts to preserue it for who seeth not that it is a most absurd iest that if peace be broken by the wickednesse of the one part the other should be blamed for not dealing sincerely and vnfainedly the priests haue sayd that the Iesuits and the Archpriest did breake the peace and they haue shewed how and that which they haue sayd herein cannot be controlled and that is that Fa Iones the Iesuit after the peace made fetched out of hell it selfe as by the euent it appeareth that most wicked paradox of his fellow Iesuit Fa. Lister concerning schisme and the Archpriest also after the peace made brake the same peace by publishing a resolution from the mother citie that the refusers of the appointed authority were schismatikes which resolution he affirmed he had either from F. Warford or Fa Tichborne a paire of yong English Iesuites and this is the Epistle which is not onely mentioned but set downe in the booke to his Holines pag 63 and which this author slily ouerslippeth and stoppeth his readers mouth with the marginal note which is put by the priest to wit origo c. The beginning of the new contention was a violent Epistle of the Archpriests which here this author citeth and runneth in his new found milde and religious tearmes vpon the priests because they would breake out for an angry Epistle and so laughing in his sleeue to thinke how hee can cousin the blind obedient which must beleeue any thing that he telleth them he shutteth vp this matter without telling them what this angry Epistle was or that it was set downe in the booke to his Holinesse least that he should haue discouered the weakenes of his cause and consequently his owne wickednes who in so weake a case would vse so wicked tearmes against Catholike priests This you see how this fellow hath answered the booke which is dedicated to his Hol. and what poore geere he picketh out sometime out of the discourse sometime out of the margent and letteth this discourse goe quietly by him and with all this nicenesse and choice of some place to which he might make colourable shewe of answere he bringeth nothing but what being examined will breede his owne shame and confusion The Appeale he saith shal be answered by the Pope who in a briefe of the 17. of August 1601. refused it for peace sake as there is said being induced thereunto perchance by such as were loath to heare these matters come in question yet since this Breue all the world is made a witnesse that these matters haue bene handled at Rome and that there was iust cause to appeale notwithstanding the fine gloses here made by this authour who wisheth perchance by this time that he had not so much commended this Pope Lastly he agitateth a letter of M. Mush his writing to Mon Seignior Morto a Bishop in Italy who was ioyned with Doctor Lewes Bishop of Cassana in many affaires of the Church which letter is said in the priests their bookes to haue bene sent by the two messengers vnto him And in reason the Priests who said so should haue had credit vntill the contrary could haue bene prooued which can neuer be with more substantiall arguments then are here brought To wit it was not found among their papers as though they hauing bene 17. dayes in Rome before that the Iesuites and the Sbirri carried them to prison could not conuey it as it was directed before that their papers were seazed on or secondly the two messengers neuer spake to Fa. Parsons of such a letter ergo they caried no such letter with them as though Fa. Parsons were the man that must knowe all things and was not rather kept so short as diuers in the Citie noted how he was troubled for that he could get no other answere of the priests to his curious question then that time and place should discouer what they had to say And although afterward he was admitted by them to be their examiner it was not without the condition that they should not be bound to answere to his questions which condition the Fiscall did take and agree vnto before he could obteine of them to let Fa. Parsons be the examiner and it may be thought that when they were asked such idle questions they did vse this license or their owne rights no oath in this kind binding any man to answere to all things proposed vnto them and Fa. Parsons may call to minde if it please him that to some questions he was directly denied an answere The matters contained in M. Mush his letter are there so sufficiently handled as this authour saith nothing thereof in this place but referreth his reader backe to fome places already handled and answered he glaunceth at that which is there said of the necessity of the sacrament of confirmation in England for which all the Catholikes if they will may see his egernesse against their good and comfort in this time of persecution that he cannot heare of any who shal say it is necessary but he is straight on his iacke for it And because one said once that it was either most necessary in time of persecution or a vaine and as a superfluous ceremony in Gods Church because there onely is the proper vse thereof he playeth vpon the latter words as if they had bene affirmed by any one and applyeth them to such as speake for the necessitie of the sacrament He excepteth also against that which M. Mush affirmeth of Fa. Parsons his State bookes and is agreeued that he onely is named among such as haue written of such a subiect And for the loue he beareth to Cardinall Allen and other of our Nation he setteth downe in print what they haue written concerning such matters as though their fact did excuse
those so hudling one vpon another especially where the controuersie in question is handled that it is a very hard matter to find a trueth in it And doubtlesse this permissu superiorum was not set here to any other end then that the Reader might see howe the Author could lye by authoritie which that it may appeare more euident I haue drawen out of the Apologie some of such falshoods as are conuinced to be such in the Apologie it selfe or otherwise publikely knowen to be such without medling with those which otherwise are to be proued as occasion shall serue I haue also noted a fewe so apparant shifts as no man of any iudgement can chuse but finde them and be throughly satisfied how this game doth goe CHAP. 2. A note of some notorious falshoods and shifts which are contained in the Apologie IN the title of this Apologie it is said to be written and set forth by the Priests vnited in due subordination to the R R. Archpriest which is prooued to bee false Cap. 8. Apol. fol. 108. where it is confessed that these Authours are those concerning whom this question was asked in the English booke entituled The Copies of discourses pag. 5. why should they be so vnwilling to procure or suffer to bee procured c. which question euery man who can vnderstand English may see that it was asked concerning not the secular Priests but the Iesuits and consequently the Iesuites are to be taken for the authours of this Apologie and not the vnited Priests as here is sayd 2 In the title of the Table of certaine principall deceits c. he telleth his Reader that it is a Table of principall deceits c. contained in two Libels which is prooued to be false both by the eye and by this which he sayth himselfe in the latter end of the Table As for the second booke set out and intituled The copies of discourses c. wee meane not to cite any thing thereof in this place c. 3 In the Table number 5. he affirmeth That the Priests did exercise Card. Allen when he liued as now they doe other good men he being opposite vnto them and their factious proceeding especially against the fathers of the societie And this also is a notorious falshood the Cardinal beeing neuer opposite against the Priests or any their proceedings how opposite soeuer he might be against some other kinde of proceedings of some beyond the seas neither was there any faction in England against which he might oppose himselfe The Apologie contradicted by M. Blackwels letter as may appeare by the testimony of M. George Blackewell in his letters to Card. Caietane in the yeere 1596. which was long after Card. Allen his death And the letter which is here cited in confirmation of Card. Allen his being opposite to the Priests doth shew no more opposition against the Priests then against the Iesuites as may be seene where it is Cap. 2. Apol. fol. 11. 4 Ibid. num 6. it is said that when the Iesuits were first sent into England which was in the yeere 1580. as appeareth Apol. fol. 181. the Priests had but one only Seminary which is proued false Cap. 1. Apol. fol. 3. where it is saide that the latter beganne in the yeere 1578. 5 Ibid. num 13. A very malicious imposture It is said that the good and quiet Cath. prisoners in Wisbich are compared by the Priests to Donatists for that they retired themselues from the tumultuous scandalous life of the other and put themselues vnder rule which is apparantly false as may be seene in the place quoted where the Priests doe not onely not accuse any of Donatisme but shew how F. Weston of whom the speech is principally in that place by yeelding to stand to arbitrement declared himself not to be Tyronius that Donatist 6 Ibid. numb 14. It is fathered vpon the Priestes that they should say that one in Wisbitch Castle fell out of his wits by reason of opprobrious letters written vnto him which is very false as may be seene in the place quoted by this Author The Priests there doe affirme that one in Wisbich fell out of his wits vpon griefe which these Authors leaue out taken of certaine letters written which were written by himselfe and as he confessed sometime that his writing of them was such a corrosiue vnto him as he should neuer recouer it and these words vnto him are added by these fellowes for their purpose and for a braue florish that they might the boldlier charge the Priests with a falshood 7 Ibid. num 16. Hee shifteth off the assertion of the Priests that M. Standish had giuen his name to be a Iesuite which was a thing to be considered of he being the man who was said to haue solicited this subordination in the name of the Secular Priests and it is so also confessed in this Apol. Cap. 8. fol. 98. A palpable shift The shifting of it is in this manner All are Iesuits with these men who are not of their faction the Archpriest and all And thus hee runneth away with the matter which as is saide ought to be thought vpon as much as any thing here handled for the discouerie how and by whome this subordination was wrought 8 Ibid. num 23. The Priests are charged to call the authority of their superiour instituted by Christs vicar a masking vizard which is prooued false in the same place where the Priestes words are cited For there as any man may see they doe only affirme that the Iesuits thought to procure dominion to them selues vnder the maske of another mans person which is no impeachment to authoritie or immodestie against it euery man knowing that such authoritie as they doe acknowledge most iust may be abused and the man who hath it and made no better then a masking vizard vnder which men goe and doe many things vnseene and vnknowen 9 In the list of principall persons that are iniuried num 11. it is said that the most Reuerend Father in God the Bishop of Tricarica Nuntius to his Holines in Flaunders appointed viceprotector and iudge of English Ecclesiasticall affairs is refused by the Priests which is most false as their going vnto him long before this booke was set out will make euident Ad Clerum Anglicanum 8. deâ—…mb 1601. and his letters doe testifie as much and of their acknowledging of him in all dutifull sort 10 In the Epistle to his Holines num 14. it is said that the Priests had obtained libertie for foure vnder the Queenes letters patents to ride vp and downe c. which will appeare euidently to bee an egregious falshood if the records be sought vpon which all such letters are to be kept at the L. Keepers perill 11 A whetstone In this place also is another notable falshood that fewe Catholikes dared to deny them money lest they should detect them to the Counsell 12 The Iesuits play at in and out as
with the Councell c. If we looke into the Apologie we shall finde that the two messengers came to Rome vpon the xj of December 1598. cap. 9. fol. 121. and they were imprisoned vpon the 29. of the same moneth And M. D. Bagshaw his sending for was not so secretly done but that all England may quickly vnderstand that he was long before this time at London and that hee was either returned againe to Wisbich or vpon his returning before it was knowen in England that the two Priests were restrained in Rome And yet his Holinesse must needes be tolde that vpon their restraint in December and by reason thereof D. Bagshaw was sent for from Wisbich to treate with the Councell in the moneth of October Can any thing make this fellowe blush who is so generally carelesse what he publisheth to the world or can the Cath. expect that hee should deale more faithfully with them for their instruction who will so boldly abuse his Holinesse All that also which followeth in the 13. point touched in this Epistle to his Holinesse consisteth vpon diuers vntrueths shuffled in one vpon another as first that the two Cardinals Caietane and Burghesius did duely examine all matters Secondly that the Priests did but make a shew to obey the Breue as hauing engaged themselues before with the Councell to the contrary and thereupon sought occasions to breake againe Thirdly that they sent not any to prosecute their appeale Fourthly that they did not expect his Holines sentence or definition but proceeded by secret fauour and intelligence with the Councel and Bish of London to print and set forth erronious libels to the detraction of diuers venerable men and of a whole order of Religion and of their immediate superiours and of the sea of Rome it selfe of his Holinesse and the Protectors proceeding in this matter To the first it is answered that all matters were not duly examined when the two Priests were not suffered to deale neither as plaintifes nor as defendants beeing clapped vp close prisoners all their instructions taken away from them not suffered to speake one with another or to conferre with any man else about those matters for which they came examined by F. Parsons who made such Interrogatories as were for his purpose being the principall aduersarie on the other part and curtailed their answeres when it pleased him or blotted out both Interrogatories and answeres when they succeeded not to his mind being brought before the two Cardinals Caietane and Burghesius where after they had heard seuerally some part of their examinations read they were admitted to come together to heare a libel read ioyntly against them both but were not suffered to haue the copie thereof to make their answere thereunto as they desired and beeing friendly dismissed for that instant were afterwards kept close prisoners seuen weekes longer and not suffered to come together vntill the Breue was out in confirmation of the authority And thus much for the due examination of all matters which is here suggested to his Holines To the second it is answered That the Priests made an vnfeined peace for their parts and sought diuers wayes to haue all such questions ended as might be cause of contention betweene them as may appeare both by their offer of disputation and their sending to Paris for their further resolution and satisfaction of their ghostly children after their offer of disputation was reiected by the Archpriest It is also well knowen that the Counsell was not so enformed at that time of the difference betweene such men as they tooke to be dangerous to the State and others neither had any priests as then more fauor then the other had And where it is said here that the Priests sought occasions to breake againe it is most vntrue the contention was renued by the Iesuits who after the peace was cōcluded gaue their censure that those Priests were schismatikes who had deferred to subiect themselues to the new authority before they saw the Breue And this contention was encreased through the default of the Archpr. who being certified of the Iesuits rashnes in their speeches concerning this point did shew himselfe to be of the same opinion and furthermore gaue direction that the priests should make account of their being schismatikes and satisfie before they should receiue the benefit of absolution as appeareth by the resolution diuulged by him from the mother citie Of all which the Breue dated the 17. August 1601. taketh notice And in the relation thereof his Holines vseth these wordes Quod dolentes referimus that is to say which with griefe we relate And therefore it must be great want of shame to tell his Holines in this Epistle that the Priests either made a shew to obey or sought occasions to breake againe And this testimony out of the Breefe is of the more force if it be true which is said in the Preface to the Appendix that his Holinesse had not vnderstood of any of these scandalous bookes for so it pleaseth this author to terme the bookes which the Priests set out when he wrote the Breue and therefore could not receiue any such information by them as he doth follow in the Breue The third matter is now answered by the Priests there present in Rome To the fourth it is answered that notwithstanding the Appeale the Archpriest proceeded against the Appellants and principally because they had appealed as may appeare by many acts which he did and for this in particular there is yet his owne hand to shew to a lay gentleman of the 16. of April 1601. This I write vnto you to make you priuie of the great spirituall danger wherein you and all that receiue any sacrament of M. Osw Needam may be if it be so that hee hath subscribed to a seditious pamphlet coloured with the name of an Appeale And in respect that the Archpriest did in this maner proceed against the Appellants without expecting his Hol. sentence and definition which they might haue procured notwithstanding his most irreuerent refutaries the Appellants proceeded to publish their cause in print without detraction or defamation more then is requisite for the following of the cause in question And whereas it is here said that a whole religion is defamed it is most vntrue as appeareth by the booke to the Inquisition pag. 5. the Sea of Rome is no way dishonoured but rather maintained and all lawfull superioritie neither were these bookes printed by secret fauour and intelligence with the Councel and Bishop of London For which this only argument might satisfie an indifferent man that they would haue had a more skilfull man to haue printed them and not to haue one to worke who as the Latine booke doth very well shew did not vnderstand one word in Latine His exceptions against certaine propositions as scandalous and temerarious leaue some doubt in a man of iudgment whether this felow be more ignorant or more malicious He referreth his Holines
satisfaction before they receiue the benefite of absolution Can this Apologie-maker find any such matter in any of the bookes which he doth impugne and terme licentious and scandalous proceedings or can he shew how the good could be so dangerously infected or the strongest so greatly troubled by any thing which the priests haue written as they may be with these treatises resolutions or libels of the Iesuits and Archpriest with what face doth this author carpe at the priests bookes and say that the style is most bitter and opprobrious and nothing sauouring of that spirit that should be in the seruants of one God Could there be more bitter speeches then these before vttered against the priests or is there any one in those bookes which he impugneth comparable to those which this fellow himselfe vseth against the priests in this Apologie calling them children of iniquitie in the Epistle to his Holines sometimes Libertines and other such like as the spirit moueth him But these his tricks not being to be taken by any man of iudgement but to proceed out of great excesse and passion himselfe thereby more likely then the priests to be condemned he proposeth certaine generall considerations to trouble his discreete Reader For example What manner of men these be that haue aduentured to be the authors of so intollerable a scandall in our English Church what may be their motiues what their ends what their meanes by secret combining themselues with the enemie for defaming such as they most feare and hate and finally what may be doubted in the sequell how disunited these men be from their lawfull superiours and consequently from God also as iustly may be suspected yet for better enforming the Reader of diuers particularities falsly and vniustly set downe in their late bookes or infamatorie libels which I suppose the more pious sort of men will haue scruple to reade or looke vpon we are c. A notable insinuation that euery man must listen to him and his partners and must not once looke vpon any thing which the priests alledge for themselues And this caueat was very necessarily put in here and conformable to that policie out of which the Edicts proceeded that no man must see what the priests could say for themselues lest that the iugling of their aduersaries should be seene by the Catholikes and they reduced to those to whome in the end they must adhere when the true causes of all this diuision are to be ripped vp and iudged But if the discreet reader would but enter into the first consideration which is here proposed vnto him that is what maner of men these be his discretion will inforce him to heare them For some of them are of the most ancient Priests in England some haue suffered long imprisonment were neuer touched with any thing blame-worthy before this controuersie began In the time of greatest need these men haue bene of those who haue most imployed themselues in all parts of England and what hath bene praise-worthy done in any disputations at any time with the Protestants it hath bene by some of them This therefore and the like contemptible speeches as Cap. 9. fol. 119. such as they be and such like do argue nothing but an intollerable pride in this Author who being inferior to many of them for many good parts in them vseth a little liplabour the best qualitie which he hath to disgrace them In which doubtlesse he will haue bad successe with a discreet Reader and will discouer himselfe and his fellowes to haue bene the Authors of this intolerable scandall in our English Church The second consideration here proposed to the discreet Reader is what may be their motiues And for this the discreet Reader if he wil as discretion would leade him looke into their bookes hee will finde that their motiues were to shew how badly the Iesuits and Archpriest haue dealt with them and how vniustly they haue bene defamed of schisme and other enormous crimes as before is shewed and that the end which they desire is peace when the trueth shal be knowen which so long as it is smothered vp can neuer breed peace And thus is the next consideration at an end which was what their ends were Now followeth what their meanes are by secret combining themselues with the enemy But first he must haue told the discreet Reader what enemy this was The priests neuer tooke other for enemy then what they iudged error hauing alwayes honoured the personages of such as to whom they do owe honour And if this haue bene now lately perceiued by our Prince and the State and thereupon they haue shewed such fauour vnto them as faithfull and loyall subiects do or may deserue notwithstanding the controuersie in Religion how doeth this fellow call it a combining with the enemie If the priests had at any time done any thing which they are not ready to iustifie at the feet of his Holines this good fellow might haue cast some odde surmise into his Readers head but the contrary being so euident as the world is now a witnes the discreet Reader need not stand any longer vpon this consideration nor vpon the next which is what may be doubted in the sequell they hauing in this aswell as in any other thing behaued themselues no otherwise then hath become Catholicke priests Lastly the discreet Reader must consider how they are disunited from their lawfull Superior and consequently from God also A simple consequence but well beseeming the charitie with which this Apologie was written What bad man in authority wil not thinke himselfe much bound to this Author for this his consequence Must he consequently be iustly suspected to bee disunited from God who shall not runne wholy with his superior Cannot a lawfull superior do amisse and in that misdoing may he not be forsaken by those whose superior he is without incurring a iust suspition that they are dsunited from God Haue not the priests oftentimes offered to haue these matters scanned and determined by which the disunion hath growen with all submission And hath not the Archpriest refused this offer and written backe againe vnto them that their petition is a tumultuous complaint And how then can they be said to be disunited from their superior and not rather the superior from them and he in refusing to doe that which is honest and iust is more disunited perchance from God then he taketh himselfe to be or those who direct him in these his strange courses After these cōsiderations foloweth a faire promise to bring forth authentical proofes of such matters as are or should here be handled But they being not yet ready the Reader must content himselfe with what this Author can at this time affoord him and hope to see somewhat in a larger Apologie And he will performe this in a farre other style then the priests vsed in their bookes if God assist vs saith he with his grace and holy Spirit A very good condition
for such his authority to those priests who found the fault It was said to be obtruded for that neither the priests knew that it came by any lawfull authority nor it selfe brought any gratefull thing with it but rather did grace and strengthen the faction of the Iesuits against them the Archpr. being cōmanded in his instructions to doe nothing of moment without the aduise of the Iesuits who had already begun a most scandalous sedition in England It was said to be disorderly procured c. both in respect of the false suggestion which was the mother thereof as may appeare by the constitutiue letter and also in respect that the principall actors in the procuring thereof were men of an other order who were not onely free frō being subiect vnto it but must be directors also in it especially in matters of moment as appeareth by the Archpr. his 6 instruction All which maner of proceeding being right well knowen and that these principall procurers and counsellers were such as were also knowen to the Counsell to be more medling in matters of State then became them they could not shoot very wide who affirmed that this authority was already thought by her Maiesties Councell to be of purpose erected for the better effecting of such designments Neither was this to bring the archpr or any good Cath that should obey him within the compasse of treason for matter of State but a reason which al good Catholikes might take why the priests were not euer forward to run after the noueltie hauing no other warrant for it then a letter of a Cardinall who vnder colour of pietie might easily be caried by the Iesuits knowen Statesmen to do any thing which might further their designments And the Counsel being knowen to be thus possessed the priests had no reason to runne further into displeasure of her Maiestie her Hon. Councell but rather seeke to be well assured that the ground thereof was no State plot but Religion for which they haue bene and are most ready to shed their blood when it shall please God to suffer it But where doeth this good fellow shew that the priests would bring all good Catholikes that should obey the ordination the Archpriest within the compasse of treason for matter of State See I pray you how he choppeth Logike which point these men to worke more mischiefe do teach the persecutors in plaine words againe a litle after in the same page in these words Besides all this by the opinions of diuers men in the Lawes of our Countrey this our cause may and wil be drawen within the compasse of an olde Lawe enacted as well by our Catholike Bishops and Prelats as by the Prince aboue 300. yeeres agoe viz. the Law of Premunire because it is an externall iurisdiction brought into this Realme against the wil notice of the prince and countrey which made the late reuerend Bishop of Lincolne D. Watson to refuse all externall iurisdiction offered him ouer his fellow prisoners although once hee had lawfull Episcopall Iurisdiction within the Realme was vnlawfully depriued thereof Thus much doeth this author cite out of the English booke to proue that the priests to worke mischiefe doe teach the persecutors in plaine words that all who obey the archpriest are within compasse of treason Is this fellow in his right wits trow ye or must not his Reader be very credulous or at the least very forgetfull who being told that he shall see how the Priests to worke mischiefe teach the persecutours a lesson to bring the obedient within compasse of treason must be serued with an example of a Premunire But neither doe the Priests affirme in this place that the Archpriest or those who obey him incurre the Statute of Premunire but say onely that by the opinions of diuers men in the Lawes of our Countrey this our cause may and will be drawen within the compasse of an olde Law c. And in that they say of diuers men they leaue a scope for others to be of the contrary opinion And if the matter were so cleare as all men were of that opinion there being as expert Lawyers of the Priuie Councell as any other are how can they bee thought to bee taught by the Priests that there is here in our case any danger of a Premunire Who can iudge whether the follie of this authour or his malice were greater when he alleaged this sentence out of the Priests their booke to prooue that they to worke more mischiefe did hereby teach the persecutours in plaine wordes to bring all good Catholikes that obey this ordination and the Archpriest appointed by his Holines within the compasse of treason for matter of State Let vs put the case that there were no danger of a Premunire in this our case yet if by the opinions of diuers men in the lawes of our Countrey it might or would be drawen within the compasse of such a law it had bene wisedome to haue paused vpon the matter and not to haue runne ouer headlong into so great a danger vpon a letter of a Cardinall which added affliction vnto affliction without any good or ease to men otherwise afflicted and might very well haue bene omitted and God much better serued except onely in the triall of his priests who haue euer since the institution of this authoritie liued vnder a grieuous yoke and most extreame persecution vnder the Archpriest Iesuites and other their ouer forward and busie adherents And whereas this authour noteth that the Priests would haue consent of the prince though different from them in religion to be needfull for legitimation of this authoritie hee doth but shew how his pen can play the Gentleman vsher to his wit The lesse the likelihood is that the Prince would legitimate this authoritie the greater was the reason which the Priests did vse for their forbearance to yeelde vnto it It is very well knowen that when the prince did not differ in religion the statutes against the prouision of dignities from Rome was sued And can any man of reason hope for more fauour at the hands of a prince who doth differ in religion If this Archipresbyterie could be prooued so necessary as without it the Catholike religion could not stand in England this glanse were to some purpose and the Priests no doubt would haue bene as resolute in the behalfe of the Catholike faith as they are not sparing their liues in the defence thereof which they daily giue for it although through the businesse of a fewe vntimely Statesmen they are all generally taken for such and are put to death as traytors But the Archipresbyterie being no way so necessary but that it might with much more profit to Gods Church haue bene wanting the Priests most resolute to die in defence of the Catholike faith might aduise themselues whether it were wisedome to runne needelesly into an other danger and of such qualitie as if the magistrate had no way differed
authoritie they called it in doubt whether those things were true which were contained in these letters of the Cardinals namely that the authoritie was constituted by his Hol. commandement and if it were so yet they doubted whether his Hol. could appoint them a Superiour vnwitting and vnwilling thereto which afterward they feared not to say when they came to Rome yea and repeated it often as we can proue by conuenient witnesses And yet would this fellow perswade his reader that the priests did first contradict or oppose themselues against the authority and then afterwards finde some reasons for it yea after the two priests were gone to Rome notwithstanding these plaine testimonies of his owne that the priests had these difficulties at the beginning But perchance M. Charnockes answere put all these things out of his memorie non putarat he thought not vpon it How so Forsooth M. Charnocke said that the cause of his comming was to supplicate most humbly to the Sea Apostolike that if the aforesayd order of the Archpriests authoritie were not yet confirmed by his Holinesse as they had heard that Fa. Sicklemore and some other had reported that then the same might be either mitigated or changed or some other order appointed with it thus he collecteth M. Charnocks answere and thereupon commeth with a so as now our brethren seemed not to doubt c. nor were yet growne to be so bold as to affirme that his holinesse could not doe it without their consents except he violated the canons c. The humble spirit of the priests who hauing many and most iust causes to deale in other maner then by way of supplication being measured by his own proud humor of wrangling where he had no iust cause brought him into this error Next follow the reasons or causes which mooued M. Bishop to come to Rome which were sixe and hee here setteth them downe and proueth that he and M. Charnocke did scarce seem to agree in the causes of their comming And how so Forsooth M. Charnocke sayd and sware that his onely comming was to supplicate c fol 132. But whosoeuer will turne to M. Charnocks oath set downe fol 129. shal find this iugler and how that this word onely is here foisted in by him for this purpose And so much sayth he of this for that it were ouerlong to run ouer all points and not finde one for his purpose without a litle of his arte which will serue him no longer then vntill it commeth into the aire for then all this painting and false colours will easily be descried and himselfe worthily laughed at for his so grosse counterfeiting yet this in briefe they affirmed both of them that as for the Archpriest they brought nothing lawfully prooued against him either in learning life or manners and the like they affirmed of the Iesuits An euident argument euen to F. Parsons and the rest that they went to Rome to deale in peaceable manner with his Holines concerning these matters beeing able to bring more matters vnder the hands of sufficient witnesses then the Archpriest will be euer able to answere and which in any court of Iustice would haue hindered his confirmation But this authour setteth downe his matters somewhat warily the priests brought nothing against the Archpr. lawfully proued as for the Iesuits let any indifferent man iudge whether the priests were in place to haue medled with them further then that the Iesuits were their Iaylours somewhat belike they could haue said but they brought nothing lawfully prooued M. Bishop sayth he said he heard his fellow Rob. say that M. Collington and himselfe had heard the Archpriest vtter an hereticall proposition which was that they could not appeale from him to Rome They both affirme that hee stood very peremptorily in it after that hee was warned thereof and if M. Bishop did affirme that this proposition was hereticall or the author of the Apologie doe thinke so of it himselfe I wonder that M. Bishops fellow Rob. was not asked the question his examination not being ended in some 6. or 7. dayes after that M. Bishop was dispatched as appeareth here fol. 134. and this is one speciall matter which this author chuse out of many ouer which it had beene ouerlong to runne ouer Will ye heare another in briefe as he sayth M. Charnocke beeing asked what money they had made answere for 30. crownes more then M. Bishop tooke notice of which perchance this author here inserted that his reader might giue credit to M. Bishop when he said as is extant in the English booke pa. 171. The examinations were what is your name how olde where remained you in England how and which way came you ouer what money brought you ouer with you c. and much such like impertinent stuffe to fill vp the papers that when wee came to the matter it selfe they might be briefe taking barely what we came about without the reasons perswasions of it yea obiecting against it and peruerting it what they could The third principal point which notwithstanding the hast was in no case to be ouerslipped but rather run ouer is a disagreement betweene M. Bishop and M. Charnocke about one point of their commission And thus forgetting how he had before foisted in this worde onely to make a disagreement betweene them in that the one should say that their onely comming was to supplicate c. fol 132. and the other alledge sixe causes of his comming Now hee is contented that M. Charnocke should say that he had diuers points in commission and how commeth this kindnesse ouer him forsooth he would faine find another disagreement betwixt M. Bishop and M. Charnocke and for this purpose hee must intreat his reader to forget that he had before made him beleeue how that he had heard that M. Charnocke said and sware that their onely comming was to supplicate c. and now that it will please him to vnderstand that Master Charnocke said that he had in commission amongst other points for to procure that no bookes should be hereafter written by Catholicks that might exasperate the state of England M. Bishop said that he liked not that commission but rather it should be left as hitherto to the discretion of the writers adding further that in his opinion such bookes as before had beene written had rather done good then hurt M. Doctor Ely hath noted vpon the Apologie that the author thereof is much troubled with the chincough which in his relating this point may be very easily seene by his leauing out of certaine wordes at the end of the point auouched by M. Charnocke to haue beene in his commission The words are these sine necessitate aut vtilitate without need or profit which words being added vnto the point as he calleth it in M. Charnocks commission or the petition of the priests as they tearmed it maketh the matter so iust a request as no man of sense can dislike thereof But the very
thing indeed which troubled this author was that F. Parsons vrging very much to know whether that the booke of succession were not one of these which were within the compasse of this petition was told directly by M. Charnocke that it was and thereupon grew a little alteration betweene them to fill vp the papers perchance as M. Bishop sayth and as for M. Do. Bishop it is so plainely set downe what hee answered concerning this booke of succession or titles in the answere for M. Doct. Bishop fol. 16. which answere is annexed to M. Doct. Ely his notes vpon the Apologie that I cannot but wonder at this fellowes greedinesse to forge matters to make some shew at the least that M. Doctor Bishop and M. Charnocke disagreed For first M. Doct. Bishop was not asked any question concerning this point as there it is affirmed but had some priuate talke concerning the bookes of titles And the effect of his answere is that the booke is so penned as that while many by warrant thereof may iustly striue for the crowne a stranger may come in and take it from them all and how this agreeth to that which the Apologie sayth of a difference betwixt Master D. Bishop and M. Charnocke an indifferent reader will quickly iudge Now followeth a contemptible repetition of tickets and scrolles the least whereof was bigger then any by which this subordination was requested vnlesse wee should say as the author of the Apologie would perswade vs cap. 8 fol. 98. 104. that the 7. of March endured at Rome vntill many moneths passed in other countreys and many of them were directed to his Holines as humble supplications to which according to the old fashion men did not vse to set any seale but their names onely and so were these subscribed in the best manner that the writers could and the papers were of purpose so small for the better conueyance of them if the bearers should haue chanced to haue beene searched as this authors wit might haue taught him and not onely the names were to the petitions but the matters which were demanded by which these foolish doubts here made are easily solued what manner of commission these men had or could haue from whome by what meanes for what matters whether they in England would stand to all points which these men here should conclude in their behalfe and whether these mens authoritie were generall or limited For by these letters it was seene that they had such commission as many could giue where there was no one in authoritie the Archpriest not being as yet confirmed nor if hee had any likely to haue giuen any commission to any whome he should imagine liked not of such his preferment It was also seene from whome they had the commission for that the priests names were to their petitions The meanes likewise were faire without threatnings of execution and such like as were vsed to make the priests subscribe to the Archpriest The matters also were specified in their petitions and the priests in England committing their matters to these two there needed no great doubt to haue bene made whether they would haue stood to that to which they had agreed in that behalfe as they did when receiuing the Breue signed by their two handes of which otherwise perchance there might haue bene some doubt vnlesse the originall had bene sent they all submitted themselues It was also euident by the points set downe in particular what they had to deale in in the names of the rest although they were not thereby debarred any way to deale as they saw cause or had hope to effect any good for their countrey So that his endlesse folly might haue bene left out where he concludeth finally that the priests did onely agree in contradicting and pulling downe but nothing that was probable or facible for setting vp and so their examinations were ended c. A very good conclusion and well deducted out of his principles All this being done saith he and the whole processe considered and weighed well by the Cardinals and after related to his Holines it was resolued that the said Cardinals with his Holines Commissary Acarisius should goe to the Colledge themselues and to see whether they had any thing els to say or write Who doeth not now prepare himselfe to heare some matter to some purpose For all which hitherto hath bene touched in the Apologie seeme to be but praeludia or an entrance to this acte Here was it to be tried how iustly or iniustly the priests had done and to be shewed how worthily they had bene imprisoned with infamy kept close so long debarred al helpe one of the other Here was the proper place for this author to haue answered the English booke which was one of the two for which this Apologie was written this apparance of the two priests before the Cardinals being set downe so particularly in the English booke intituled The copies of the discourses pag 95 96. 97. 98. But alack the good man had not what to say but that which would haue cleared the priests nor was able to controll any part of the narration which is made in the places cited but turneth off his reader with certaine generall termes to which he first disposeth him with as idle discourses First taking occasion to exclaime vpon D Bagshaw for that he thought it requisite that the Archpresbytership should be recalled as being neither requested by vs nor any way profitable and that some Hierarchie were instituted which were to be approued by the free suffrages of the priests onely of the Seminaries And for this this author exclameth Loe what a resolute lawmaker here is who recalleth the Popes Subordinations in a word setteth vp another of his owne making with as great facilitie Loe what a resolute ly-maker here is who affirmeth that which is most false and can no way follow of the doctors words For the Archpresbytership was not the Popes Subordination but the Cardinals as then it was manifest by the Cardinals letters where he said Dum haec nostra ordinatio durauerit so long as this our ordinance shall endure Neither doeth the Cardinal in any place of those letters affirme as this resolute ly-maker doeth often inculcate in this Apologie that he did it expresso mandato Sanctissimi By expresse commandement of his Holines Neither doeth the doctor recall it but signifie vnto such as were going to Rome what his and others opinion was of the vnprofitablenes thereof And being thrust vpon them vnasked that it was to be recalled by his Holines in whom the author as I trow will acknowledge a power to doe as much as this was Loe likewise what a resolute lye-maker here is who affirmeth that the doctor setteth vp another Subordination of his owne making with as great facilitie whereas the doctor writeth in the same kinde to haue some other by his Holines appointment of which he desireth not that himselfe should be the setter vp
a thing called an Appeale he kept a fowle stirre by some of his seditious Agents against the Appellants An other reason was because they had a desire that their cause should be knowen sufficiently abroad which could not bee knowen too much in their conceit who sought nothing but a trial of the trueth and for iustice against their vniust defamers But what this author hath to say against these bookes you shal heare in the next Chapter and if you wil haue an answere from him to this question proposed fol. 148. which part hath broken the peace you must goe picke it vp where you can now you know his worships minde CHAP. 16. How the two bookes against which the Apologie is written are sleightly runne ouer with a few cauils against them Apol. cap. 11. IN the eleuenth Chapter the author of the Apologie intendeth to shew how false slanderous and iniurious the two bookes are which the Priests set forth whereof one was in Latine to his Holinesse the other in English entituled The Copies of certaine Discourses He will also shew how highly the writers and publishers offended God and all good men thereby Lastly he will defend certaine particular men that are slandered therein And first he beginneth to shew how God was offended supposing still that credite must be giuen vnto him in all which he sayth Now sayth he fol. 160. are we come gentle Reader almost to the last but the most loathsome part of all our answere which is to handle and examine in particular the two contumelious libels c. And after a holy protestation against so base and wicked a spirit neuer so much perchance as imagined that it should be so manifest in himselfe doth here and since in his Manifestation of spirits and a certaine Latine libell entituled Appendix c. he telleth his gentle Reader that the sinne of libelling is to be considered how grieuous it is in the sight of God how great censures are layd thereon c. O how would this man make a saint with a little helpe but his gentle Reader demaundeth of him where all these considerations were when the Iesuits writ their discourse aduersus factiosos in Ecclesia against the factious in the Church where were these considerations when this libell was generally approoued by their fellow Iesuits the Archpriest and all that seditious crew which adhered vnto them in this sinnefull acte whereby many Catholicke priests were most maliciously and most vniustly defamed and to omit other most malapert and scornefull speeches were in spirit exclaimed against in this sort Vos rebelles estis c. Yee are rebels ye are schismatickes and fallen out of the Church the spouse of Christ you haue trampled vnder your feete the obedience which is due to the sea Apostolicke yee haue rushed into excommunication and irregularitie ye haue so scandalized the godly that ye are euery where infamous ye haue by disobedience sinned against the chiefe Vicar of Christ and against Christ himselfe the Iudge and Iusticer See I pray you how that ye are nothing better then Southsayers and Idolaters and as Ethnicks Publicans because you obeyed not the Church when it spake vnto you by the highest Bishop And all this sturre was because the priests did not accept of the new authoritie vpon the sight of a letter written by one that was neither the highest Bishop nor the lowest nor yet any Bishop at all nor of any such credit as he was to be beleeued in this matter as hath beene sufficiently prooued by M. Doctor Ely in his notes vpon the Apologie and M. Collington in his defence of the slandered priests and was diuersly touched before in other their bookes But where were these godly considerations when this libell so senslesse false and scandalous was written and published how was God offended hereby or was hee not in your pious wisdome were any censures incurred hereby of the Church or any punishments deserued which the ciuill lawe inflicteth vpon Libellers In whom was that base and wicked spirit against which you so godly inueigh in this place when Iesuites the Archpriest and their faction were authours spreaders or approouers of such things where were these godly meditations when the Archpriest after the peace made did spread and approoue that scandalous libell or resolution as hee termed it from the mother citie that the refusers of the appointed authoritie were scismaticks I will omit to speake of that base and wicked spirit which caried certain gentlemen from house to house as he doeth the mountebanks from towne to towne with certaine libels against particular men where they seeme to striue whether they can excell those mountebanks in shamelesse and vngracious relations I will here say nothing of that base and wicked spirit which maketh euery one of the factious adherents to the Iesuits and Archpriest a most infamous and scandalous Libeller against such priests as did delay to accept of the Archpr. before they saw iust cause and denyed afterward that they had bene schismatickes during the time of that delay I will not vrge this fellow his Manifestation of spirits in which all his holines which he pretendeth many other wayes is discouered to be nothing but hypocrisie I will onely stand vpon this Apologie in which I haue shewed and shall yet discouer so many falshoods and slanders as no man of indifferencie can deny but that it is a most notorious libell and proceeded of a most base and wicked spirit And so I will leaue it to the authour his own iudgement here giuen what sinne it is to libell how grieuous in the sight of God and man and how great censures and extreame punishments are due vnto him for it when hee shall come to his answere as the priests haue bene in the face of the whole world which in the opinion of all learned men hath freed their bookes from the ignominious name of libels But here are certaine circumstances which aggrauate the matter against the priests as first that a religious communitie is here defamed but this is false for the societie is not touched by the priests but certaine men of the society such as we hope the whole society will not beare out in their wicked courses And if they should beare them out therein and thereby make themselues a party then must the religious community expect no other priuiledge then any other irreligious company And I cannot but marueile how M.D. Ely in this Epistle to M. D.W. prefixed to his notes vpon the Apologie blameth the Priests for opposing themselues as he mistaketh them against the whole society for they haue not in all their bookes vsed any such generall termes as may include the whole bodie of the societie when they haue spoken of Iesuits but in handling particular matters haue sufficiently discouered whom they haue ment when they haue spoken of Iesuits yea they haue in plain termes and particularly affirmed and published in print that they doe not touch the body of
any good will he bare either to M. Charnocke or any of his fellowes This author is also contented to let goe the 21. reasons giuen in the censure for the iustifying of the priests their forbearance to admit of the authority before the Breue came His reader must take his word that he hath assoiled all these difficulties before he was a cockish scholler that made them and there is an ende of a lubberlike answere to the censure and the 21. reasons contained therein and to the particulers also there discouered of the two priests their entertainment in Rome and what chanced to them there and afterwards to wit the Iesuits and the Proctors inpostures to giue a pious colour to their wicked actions against the two priests There followeth lastly saith this author the answere of M. Bishop to the same Epistle F. Parsons letter contayning two parts the first about the iustifying the causes of their not yeelding to the Card letters wherin for that there is nothing singuler from those reasons which his fellowes haue alledged before and by vs in diuers parts of this Apol. haue bene examined and shewed to be either false or feeble wee passe them ouer in this place His reader must haue a strong faith that he hath seene wonders in the Apologie And that he needeth no note in the margent to direct where any thing hath bene proued false or feeble he must remember if he can if he cānot remember yet he must make himselfe beleeue that he doth remember it or els he shal be accompted among the factious The second part treateth of their vsage saith he in Rome wherein diuers particulers are said by him with such passion as men that knew him before do wonder at him seeing the contrary may be proued by most authentical testimonies witnesses yet aliue But vntil these authenticall testimonies be produced M. Bishops credit will ouerpasse this authors impostures why were not these testimonies and witnesses produced wherefore are they kept as though they were ashamed to be seene how could the story of their vsage be set downe more in particuler then is set down in the books published by the priests and what one particuler is prooued to be otherwise then there is said And as for the exception against M. Bishop for a passion that is a most foolish exception for M. Bishop hauing shewed how falsly he was accused and slandered vseth these words pag 174. This fellow miscounteth the page and the sentence What an irreligious and damnable slander then was that inuented of purpose to haue vs taken and shut vp before we were heard that they might haue the deliuery of our message and be our interpreters Proctors and so make vs say what they listed and our matter to be such as they would haue it This fellow citeth his words in such sort as if he would haue his reader not onely to thinke that M. Bishop was in a passion but out of this sence also that an irreligious and damnable slander was inuented of purpose to haue vs taken and shut vp before we were heard c. As though Ma. Bishop had called his restraint an irreligious and damnable slander For by this meanes will this author turne away his readers conceit from consideration of the slander to consider onely of the restraint as if that were the slander mentioned which is a most absurd thing Yet must his reader so conceiue of it and this author in this 177. leafe hauing playd some of his old prancks concludeth in this maner How then doe they exclaime and call this restraint of theirs an irreligious and damnable slander But for the iustifying of the restraint note I pray you how this author bestirreth himselfe But to this saith he we aske him M. Bishop againe is this so hainous or damnable or vnusuall a matter to restraine a couple of Priests where so many complaints had bene written of their presumption and contempt and of the scandall raised by their contention as we haue set downe before And doth not euery Prince thus to greater men then they are committing them first and after hearing their cause To this question I answere that the two Priests comming to the Iudge at their great charge and with great paines as a winters iourney from England to Rome will prooue to an indifferent man were not to be thought either that they would runne away or hide themselues from the Iudge neither doth any Prince commit any man that offereth himselfe vncalled to his triall vnlesse the subiect be such as the King may feare him that he will raise strength against him as may ouerthrow him and iustice How many do we daily see that are subiect to the law euen of life and death who goe at libertie vpon their friends bonds that they shall appeare before the iudges at the time appointed to answere to what shall be pleaded against them Prisons are onely vsed for such as of whome there is cause of feare that they will not come to their triall these Priests came to Rome voluntarily and being dealt withall very earnestly by Fa Parsons to returne into England with letters from the generall of the Iesuits and the Protector to the Superiour of the Fathers and the Archpriest himselfe confesseth in his letter of the 9. of October 1599 which is set in this English booke it is an argument that they had no will to start but to goe forward in the businesse for which they voluntarily went But besides all this whereas this fellowe talketh of informations giuen against them and citeth in the margent cap. 9. wee haue prooued that all these letters were written long after that his Holinesse was induced to restraine them for as there we haue shewed his Holinesse was resolued vpon the 17. of October to restraine them and the first letters which are brought there by this authour and could concerne the two priests were not written vntill the 25. of that moneth were to goe to Rome to the Protector and from him backe againe to Ferrara where his Holinesse lay and was long before resolued to restraine the two priests as the letters of F. Bellarmine now Cardinall doe prooue which are cited by this author in his 9. Chapter 120. Further saith this fellow we would aske them Were not they heard afterward so much as they would say or write No good sir for when they demanded the copie of the libell which was put vp against them before the two Cardinals Caietane and Burghese by which occasion was giuen them to say and write they might not haue it And if their earnestnesse to haue that libel to make their answere had not bene so great there would haue wanted matter and cause to haue kept them prisoners afterward for this was the cause why M. Bishop was cōmitted againe to prison for that he was ouer earnest as they said in this point and being demanded why M. Charnocke was also committed there was no cause giuen but this
perswade himselfe that euery mans wit was a woolgathering when this doctour was sent for from Wisbich and that no man would remember how that this sending for him was about Michaelmas or not long after and that the two messengers were not restrained in Rome vntill the Christmas after This fellow his affirmation that M. Bluet had conference with the Bishop of London Counsell and Queene her selfe for the printing and publishing of these Libels as he termeth them said to bee printed at Roane is most false For these bookes were not printed by any such meanes but at the charge of the priests and in most secret maner And their charge was double in regard of the Printers danger And this probable reason might satisfie an indifferent man that there want not as good Printers in England as are in Roane and yet the bookes are full of faults And if the bookes had bene printed by any such license they would haue had more skilfull Printers and not haue had so many and so grosse escapes euident arguments of the Printers insufficiencie This authors relation also that vpon M. Bluets conference with the Bishop c. there was a generall search for taking of Catholicks such as neuer lightly before hath bene heard of is to be conuinced of great impudencie in that the most busie Agents of the Iesuits and the Archpriest in the furthering of their seditious attempts were neuer called vpon or searched whereas contrarywise the houses where the priests friends remained were curiously searched which was a greater argument that the Iesuits and their faction caused the search then M Bluet or any of his fellowes And this is euident by recounting the chiefe of the faction of the Iesuits Archpriest who dwelled then in London and were so farre from the danger of being searched or taken as they were not broken of their sleepe or any way molested vnlesse it were by the Officers their reuell in other mens houses The story also of the discouery of their the priests print and bookes but all restored againe with celeritie and fauour is both false and exceeding foolishly heere inserted False in that the priests neuer had any Print but to their double yea treble charge and by great friendship of a gentleman got their books printed they themselues neither know where nor by whom but as it should seeme by some meane and needy Printer who in consideration of being well payd aduentured to print them Neither was any of their books at that time in the presse or in any Printers hands nor euer needed any restoring either with celeritie or fauour I vnderstand that about the same time the Iesuits had a presse taken and many bookes which were restored againe vnto them but this was not in London nor by occasion of this search But by this may be seene the falshood of this fellow Now it remaineth that his folly also be shewed This search he saith was an effect of M Bluets conference with the Bishop of London the Counsell and Queene her selfe as the printing was and publishing of their bookes Is it likely that the printing and publishing of these bookes could be a cleare effect of M. Bluets conference with these and that the Print was subiect to be taken and the books also Could neither the B. of London nor the Counsel no not the Queene herselfe protect the Print and the books not onely from being discouered but from being taken away also that they should need to be restored againe this search being also a cleare effect of the same conference with the Bishop Counsell and Queene herselfe How doeth he forget himselfe how grossely doeth he combine his matters together He must also tell his Reader that the Bb. of London had M. Bluet to his house at Fulham for fuller conference making him good cheare as though the Bishop of London his table were not ordinarily to entertaine a greater man then M. Bluet or that M. Bluet were of their disposition for whom must alwayes be an extraordinary prouision for reuerence to their fatherhoods Master Bluet was also suffered to goe where hee would without a Keeper And what harme was this I haue not heard of any summes of money which the Bb should giue vnto him for any purpose as this author suggesteth But if it had beene so yet whatsoeuer this author would haue his reader imagine he cannot prooue that M. Bluet hath employed himselfe in any euill office This most wicked impostor doth furthermore labour to haue his reader to make no better conceit of M. Bluet and his fellowes then of Tirrell or Bell a couple of knowen enemies yea a farre worse seeing sayth this impostor that neither Anthony Tirrell nor Thomas Bell nor other he meanes perchance some of his fellow Apostataes Iesuits that haue precipitated themselues in this time of persecution did euer engage themselues further with the Councell then these men seeme to haue done And how doeth this companion prooue this Forsooth by a letter of M. Bluets as he sayth of the first of Iuly vnto M. Mush to which letter there is this subscription Yours Thomas Bluet and yet the letter speaketh thus of M. Bluet as if he were not the Inditer thereof I haue obtained by opening the cause vnto their honours and to Cesar that foure principall men shal be banished after a sort to follow the Appeale D. Bagshaw Bluet Champney Barnley would M. Bluet haue written in this sort to any man and haue set his name to the letter as from himselfe But marke I pray you what followeth all prisoners they shall be here with me on Wednesday next And afterwards hee followeth on in the same kinde speaking of the same men A moneth they shall haue within the Realme of libertie to ride abroad for money among their friends and then chuse their port to be gone with some countenance c. And after all this cloking himselfe as if hee writ not the letter but some other his name is put to it as is said Yours Thomas Bluet Many wayes are sought by this companion to bring Master Bluet and the other priests into an euill opinion with all Catholikes and many interpretations are made of the cōtents in this letter But among all the rest I wonder how the Iesuits come to be talked of I haue layd the fault sayth this letter where it ought to be and prooued that the Secular priests are innocent for the most part c. This companiō in his commentary expoundeth these words where it ought to be in this manner that is to say vpon the Iesuits And why so what haue the Iesuits at any time done that no sooner can any mention be made of a fault but euery silly fellowe can interprete what is meant thereby to wit some fact of a Iesuite haue they so badly behaued themselues in all mens opinion yea in their owne as no fault can be but a Iesuit must be at one end But this companion would haue his reader haue a
there was most vnchristianlike dealing that his Holinesse must be perswaded to shuffle vp matters of so great moment in our Church to whome were presented in the priests their appeale most euident proofes of the Iesuites and the Archpriest their disorders in the managing of our Church affaires And as for the style in which his Holinesse is sayd to haue written this latter Breue we leaue it to others to scan who haue list thereto and can vnderstand how great the iniuries haue bene and are still offred vnto Catholike Priests without any one word of satisfaction to be made therfore to them who haue bene iniured and let men of learning who haue read or hereafter may read the priests their bookes to his Holinesse and the Inquisition iudge whether it was not most necessary for the priests to publish in their owne defence and the priests will not be their owne Iudges whether they haue done or doe still as they may in conscience doe in publishing vntill their fame be restored which was vniustly taken away by the Iesuites in their seditious treatise of schisme and the Archpriest his pretended resolution from Rome and the controuersie decided which hath bene the cause of all these troubles for vntill this matter be fully ended and the Catholikes satisfied that the priests did as become Catholike priests to doe there will be hope that his Holinesse will not debarre the priests of such meanes as the lawe of Nature alloweth them in the purging of themselues of such crimes as their silence must needes argue a guiltinesse in and their owne consciences tell them they must vnder grieuous sinne free themselues from them But marke I pray you what deuises this fellow doth vse to haue the priests forget the abuses which were offered vnto them by the Iesuites and their faction And for himselfe his Holinesse seeing that the chiefe complaint and offence and petra scandali as it seemed was about the name of schisme and schismatikes he is saide to haue taken that wholly away in this cause both the matter and name it selfe See how he would haue his reader to thinke that this controuersie was about certaine names as though there was neuer any reall schisme laid to their charge Were the Iesuits such blocks as that they would for certaine names exclaime in this manner against the Secular priests Harken O ye factious ye are rebels ye are excommunicated ye are fallen from the Church ye are nothing better then Soothsayers and Idolaters and as Ethnickes and Publitanes besides the terrours of eternall damnation Were the Catholikes so barbarous that for certaine names they would in this time of persecution thrust Catholike priests out of their doores and some with most impudent faces some like eaues-droppers runne or creepe about to diswade the Catholikes from harbouring them or giuing them any maintenance But let vs see how his Holinesse is said to take away the name and matter it selfe in this Breue forsooth forbidding any bookes treatises or writings to be made read or held thereof and about that controuersie This is a faire taking away of a matter let vs then suppose that there be no more bookes treatises or writings made read or held hereof and about that controuersie I aske whether the Priests were schismatikas or no or what is this after-prouidence or order to the purpose for matters past If the priests had bene as wickedly disposed as the Iesuites and had procured an infamy to haue runne farre and neere against them without iust cause as this of Schisme against the priestes hath bene prooued to haue bene most vniustly spread abroad how could they thinke themselues cleared of any such slander only by an after-suppressing thereof or how could they thinke that thereby any satisfaction were made vnto them But gladly would this authour haue it so that the priestes being asked the cause of these present stirres might be debarred of giuing the true cause thereof for then might their aduersaries iustly triumph against them as troublesome people and clamarous and that they had busied themselues they knewe not why or wherein Had these Iesuites and their adherents halfe that valor in them which they would be thought to haue they would not for very shame indent with their aduersarie that he must come to the field without his armes and themselues armed from the head to the foot or were they men of that wisedome of which their followers take them to be they wold neuer haue committed so great a folly as to leaue no other hope of helpe for themselues then to procure that their aduersarie must bee forbidden to pleade for himselfe If it be true as their Libels will prooue it that they accused Catholike priests of schisme why should any priest be afraid to say that he was in such maner accused And if for quietnesse sake the name must be auoided why for quietnesse sake should not the course be altered which was taken against Catholike priests when the Catholike Laitie was in that manner seduced by the Iesuites to vse that sinfull name when they named or spake of Catholike Priests But it is no matter perchance howe priests be abused by the new illuminated so that they be not hereafter named Schismatickes and therefore this authour professeth that he procured to auoid it in his Apologie though not knowing of this expresse prohibition For saith he indeede the thing it selfe did euer mislike and grieue vs. Weladay weladay what thing was that which misliked and grieued you was it the wickednesse which was committed in the slandering so many Catholike priestes as would not contrary to the Canons of holy Church and vpon many iust reasons sacrifice to an Idoll who how well soeuer it was meant vnto him by him who had authority had notwithstanding no authority at that time at which he challenged it as hath bene euidently proued in the priests their bookes did you euer mislike that Catholike priests should be contemned and dispised by euery factious and seditious companion who vpon hope of some gaine thereby would fit your eares yea and your hearts with a placebo without any regard of them to whom they owed loue and duetie harken I pray you what it was which misliked and grieued this fellow that so much contention and falling out should be about a matter in the aire where no man was named in particular This then was it which grieued this good fellow that the priests would not be called and vsed like Schismaticks but would proue themselues to be Catholike priests and to haue discharged themselues in all points as became Catholike priests But this seemeth very strange that Schisme against which there are so grieuous lawes in Gods Church and against which F. Lyster the Iesuit and his fellowes the Archpriest and all his faction inueyed so bitterly and seduced the Laity in such sort as they did as it were schismatically make a diuision in prayer and communication and Sacraments euen from their dearest friends
this were so sweete and milde a declaration being as it seemeth hereby altogether against innocent priests what shal we thinke of that Declaratiō which was made the twentieth of Iuly 1602 where in consult had in the Congregation of the Inquisition and was afterward confirmed by his Holinesse the Archpr. is condemned for oppressing the said Priests in often declaring them to haue bene Schismaticks rebellious and disobedient and for this cause forbid them the vse of their faculties and that they should not defend themselues from that infamy and lastly after other oppressions there named he is condemned because he did not admit of the Appeale which they had made to the Sea Apostolike If his Holinesse did with a sweete and milde declaration annullate the appeale in that Breue of the 17. of August 1601. how is the Archpriest condemned 20. Iuly 1602. by the same Pope and the Inquisition for his not admitting therof And if his Holines was induced onely vnder a colour of peace not to admit thereof notwithstanding it was a most iust appeale because in the prosecution thereof might greater stirres arise how sweetely or mildely did he deale in not recalling the censures or penalties with which the Archpriest did vniustly oppresse the priests as is declared in the last consultation in the Inquisition But perchance his Holinesse seeing the malicious proceeding of the Archpr. and that his will was more then his power in the vse of his authority thought it a very friuolous matter to recall either censures or other penalties seeing that he did exceede his faculties as in this Consult in the Inquisition is declared and neuer kept the forme which was prescribed vnto him which defect maketh voide all the proceedings of a Delegate as the Archpr. was in this his office ouer the priests And whereas the priests are charged that they published bookes while the sute hanged before his Holinesse without expecting his sentence reply is made that the Archpriest inforced them thereto by punishing the Appellants while the sute hanged before his Holinesse without expecting his sentence and he punished and afflicted them by reason of their appeale as hath bene proued and the Breue of the 17. of August 1601. was procured against the priests before that either they were come to folow their appeale or their bookes in his Holinesse hands as here is confessed so that his Holinesse could not be informed by them of their case how it stood with them and their aduersaries And whereas also it is here said that the Archpr. was all this while their lawful Ecclesiasticall Superiour this Authour must finde how to satisfie all those lawyers who affirme that a Prelate pretending to haue an authoritie from the Sea Apostolike is an intruder if he vse his authority without he shew his letters in confirmation therof from the same Sea Apostolike which it is euident the Archpriest could not shew for a whole yeere after that he tooke vpon him to play his prize against his fellow priests During which time the priests had iust cause as is shewed not to accept of him and after his confirmation hauing behaued himselfe most sinfully in his office as it is determined by the Cardinals of the Inquisition and by his Hol. himselfe as appeareth by the copy of that consultation which was had the 20. of Iuly 1602 his actions were iustly impugned and this errour of the author of the Appendix ouerthrowen where hee holdeth it of necessitie that a lawfull superiour cannot be impugned without offence to God For these are his words in this Preface It followeth we say first that our good Archpriest during all this time of tumultuation against him hath beene and is our lawfull Ecclesiasticall superiour and consequently that so violent impugning him must needs haue bene very offensiue to God and perilous to the impugners Can this fellow be any other then a limme of those who were condemned in the Council of Constance Sess 15. for maintaining neminem gerere vicem Petri vel Christi nisi illum sequatur in moribus or nullum esse Dominum spiritualem dum est in peccato mortali This fellow must shew how without maintaining these errors he can make his consequent good A lawfull superiour is impugned ergo it must needs be that God is thereby offended The second Corollary which this author draweth is that the books against which he writeth are forbidden by this Breue of the 17. of August 1601. because they treat expresly and principally euery where the matter of schisme The procurers of this Breue are noted herein to haue shewed a little subtiltie but neither wit nor honestie For how can they imagine that Catholicke bookes written in the defence of Catholicks who were most sinfully slandered as schismaticks by the Iesuits and their seditious adherents can be iustly forbidden to be read or kept the slanderers remayning vncorrected for their wickednes and no way abridged of their sinfull courses against the same Catholicke priests For in the same Breue all the charge which is giuen is giuen to the Secular priests and they who were the malitious brochers of that sinfull slander of schisme against Catholicke priests yea although there be mention of their treatise of schisme against the same priests are not once named as a part in the controuersie but are at libertie to abuse the priests asmuch as euer before By this the absurditie of the Appendix-maker appeareth also in so often obtruding to his reader that all matters are declared and determined by his Holines who neuer had seene the priests their bookes nor heard them what they had to say neither can this author shew out of that Breue that it is declared or determined by his Holines whether the priests who according to the Cannons of holy Church refused to admit a Prelate instituted as is pretended by the See Apostolicke but had no letter to shew for his institution from that See were schismaticks or no. Neither can this fellow shew out of that Breue that it is declared or determined whether those priests who so refused that Prelate were for that cause excōmunicated or lost their faculties or could loose them by defending their innocencie by any law or edict which could be made by the Archpr. or at the will and pleasure of a Prelate who had his Authoritie not as an Ordinary but as Sub-delegate to whom was prescribed a set forme of proceeding in the inflicting of such penalties as he had power to inflict vpon those who should deserue them In fine it appeareth not in that Breue that the chiefe doers in this controuersie are once named or their facts censured only a booke of theirs is suppressed to wit their treatise of schisme but not condemned as false or erronious whereby any iudgement might be made whether the accusation were iust or not iust or how the Catholicks who were most violently caried against the priests might be resolued vpon the point in controuersie yet is not this fellow
ashamed to publish it vnto the world in this maner So as now those matters being thus declared determined by his Holines we hope that euery good Catholicke man and especially our brethren that are also Gods Priests will enter into themselues c. The like boldnesse doth this Author vse and libertie in the next sentence where he wisheth the good Catholike man and especially his brethren to ponder well the absurditie of spirit and speech proceeding thereof discouered in those their later bookes beyond all measure vnfitting for men of our vocation that is to say the booke to the Inquisition and The hope of peace against which two bookes this Appendix is written and because he will seeme to say nothing but what he meaneth to proue this answer saith he shall principally consist in laying before them their owne sayings in these bookes with a word or two of aduertisement to make more deepe and full reflexion thereof Now then it resteth that he performe asmuch and that he deale both honestly in relating the words out of these bookes and charitably in giuing his aduertisements The first of these later bookes which he taxeth for absurditie of spirit and speech is intituled The hope of peace by laying open such doubts and manifest vntrueths as are diuulged by the Archpriest in his letter or answere to the bookes which were published by the priests But before he toucheth it he discouereth a little of his owne spirit and speech which whether it be not more absurd then that at which he carpeth an indifferent Reader may iudge while he chargeth his brethren as he termeth them with fond passionate proceedings in these their distracted agonies In this title are 5. things noted First that it is a cōtrary meanes to make or hope for peace to impose on the Archpriest and diuulge against him calumniations of so manifest vntrueths which can neuer be prooued Secondly that the Archpriest is here named by contempt without any reuerence or respect at all Thirdly that there is mention of doubts the Archpriest hauing no doubt in the points he touched in his letter Fourthly that the Archpriests letter is tearmed an answere to the former two bookes Fiftly that they call themselues the priests being but a fewe diuided men frrom the rest whose doings are vtterly misliked and detested by the better and greater part of our Clergie To the first replie is made that it is the most ordinary and surest meanes to make or hope peace to open doubts and vntruethes which is perfourmed in The hope of peace without imposing any thing vpon the Archpriest but what is there proued and this author himselfe thought so well of those meanes himselfe as in the preface he tooke occasion to hope rest quietnesse peace and obedience because as he sayd these matters were declared and determined by his Holinesse and there is no man can doubt but that the cause of this second diuision was the not laying open of such doubts and manifest vntrueths about the slander of schisme which if it had been determined when the first Breue came those wicked proceedings of the Archpriest and his seditious adherents had neuer ministred any occasion to make a second Breue To the second there is this reply made that if these words the Archpr. imply a contempt then he is very often cōtemptuously vsed by the author of this Appendix both in the preface and the discourse where we reade the said words The Archpriest yea sometime concerning the Pope himselfe the Popes Breue the Popes authoritie and where speech is of the Prouinciall and Generall of the Iesuits fol. 17. Fa Parsons letter is cited wherein there is no more reuerence and respect then this the Prouinciall and Generall themselues which who will dare to say are named by contempt To the third replie is made that although to men of sense there is nothing in the Archpriests letter which should moue any doubt yet the letter being caried about and presented to the simpler sort there are many things which might mooue doubts in them and particularly in the very first beginning the Archpriest doth shew some doubt where he sayth speaking of the bookes perhaps neuer meant to bee presented to him his Holines And the fourth principall point which he toucheth is touched as a matter in doubt for it is sayth he speaking of the supposed schisme but a matter of opinion and therefore not worthy to make a matter of contention which part soeuer was true To the fourth I answere that the Archpriests letter is not absolutely called an answere to the bookes but a letter or answere as may be seen in the title of the booke but if it had been called an answere it was so christned before this booke was written and the Archpriest himselfe vseth the same word for not farre from the beginning of his letter thus we reade and therefore sayth he no other answere shall be sent now but this To the fifth I answere that they vsed the name of priests to distinguish betweene the Iesuits and them the controuersie being principally betweene them as may appeare by the groundworke of all this controuersie to wit the slanderous tongues and pennes of the Iesuits in the infamie of schisme Secondly if the controuersie shall be sayd to be onely among the priests the name of priests will most fitly be applyed to them who haue behaued themselues as became priests and the fewnes of the number can be no barre vnto them howsoeuer their doings are misliked and detested by the greater part of the Clergie which part if it were the author of this Appendix as it seemeth content to beare the name it might with more humilitie haue left out these wordes speaking of themselues the better part After that he hath canuassed the title of the booke hee descanteth vpon the Scripture which is prefixed vnto it Veritatem tantum pacem diligite that is trueth onely and peace doe you loue and he telleth his Reader that the priests do impugne peace and trueth and this latter point hee prooueth because the booke is said to be imprinted at Frankfort by the heires of D. Turner whereas sayth he the booke is knowen to haue bene printed at London by the fauour of the Bishop and permission of his Purseuants This argument hath beene often solued before and the folly thereof discouered it being an vsuall matter among honest men if Fa. Parsons may be counted an honest man to set out bookes as printed in one place which are printed in another and the thing it selfe neither being of that qualitie that it can induce any man into error and no iust cause wanting why such a point should be concealed It was neuer heard of before the absurditie of this spirit appeared that such exceptions were taken against a booke Saint Peter did in a manner date his first Epistle from Babylon Salutat vos Ecclesia quae est in Babylone the Church sayth he ending his Epistle which is