this any further here especially seeing Fa. Valent. his doctrine set downe before out of S. Thomas doeth most clearely conuince them And therefore we leaue that to God and their consciences to answere one day before the high Iudge where shifts will haue no place A condition which I doubt not but the author of this Apologie would gladly for this time should be agreed vpon howsoeuer when that day shal be present he would be willing to haue the hearing of the matter further deferred For if we doe but reflect what meanes haue bene made to haue it heard in this world and haue bene crossed by him and his faction we shall easily conceiue how vnwilling he will be to come to the triall in the next where hee must come to the naked proofe of right or wrong without his cloake which now couereth all his falsehood To this adiuration the priests will answere in their consciences afore God and at the day of Iudgement where shifts wil haue no place that when they had seene read ouer the Card. Caietanes letter which he testified not to the whole world as here it is most falsly suggested but onely to M. Blackwell being a letter written particulerly to him and to no other as appeareth by the letter extant both in the bookes dedicated by the priests to the Inquisition and at the beginning of M. Colingtons booke lately set forth and written by one who was not knowen to haue any authority in England neither did he make it knowen that he had any authoritie delegated vnto him for that which he had attempted but only by his owne bare words which no man in this case was to beleeue vnder any sin Notwithstanding they had heard that his Hol. had giuen a charge to some in particuler to haue peace with the Iesuits a very impertinent matter and as foolishly here vrged for the band to accept the Subordination at the first comming or had seene other letters testifying the same as a heare-say as M Colington doeth particulerly prooue from the 68. page to the 80. or that he was a Cardinal who writ his letters it being euident in the opinion of the chiefest Cannonists that a Card. may do more sometime then needeth or els they would neuer accord that credit is not to be giuen to him vnlesse he shew his commission whereupon your brethren doe answere sincerely and without passion that it was no morall certaintie of the Popes will and that they had not sufficient knowledge to bind vnder sinne to obedience and that no Superiours will did by any meanes appeare vnto them but rather a very bad part of their aduersaries to crosse them for a time vntill they could worke the Pope to confirme the plot which they had layde to bring the priests into a slauish bondage vnder them neither can they once be conuinced of the contrary as may in part appeare by that their reasons of their refusall before the Breue came doe stand firme as yet vnanswered And thus omitting to coniure the Iesuits Archpriest for their false dealings in this action for which assuredly they must come to an vnpleasing reckoning I wil briefly touch what is here said of the censure of Paris and make an ende of this Chapter referring the Reader for a larger satisfaction to M.D Elie his notes vpon the 8. Chapter of the Apologie pag. 245. and to M. Iohn Colington in his 4. reason pag. 153. The decree of the doctors of Sorbon in Paris consisted of two parts the one was that the priests who deferred to admit of the authoritie vpon the causes alledged were not schismaticks the other was that the priests the fact of it selfe considered did not any way offend or commit sinne By this definition of Paris saith this author fol. 118. commeth very little reliefe vnto the priests and it was printed onely to make a vaine flourish with the ostentation of an Academicall sentence Thâ—s very word Academiâ— sticketh marueilously in this authours stomach and his fellowes But let vs see how he will shew that this decree of these doctors did very little relieue the priests To the first point that it was no schisme what saith he marke I pray you his words fol. 115. for of the other point of schisme we will not talke at all am sorie that euer it was mentioned or brought in questioÌ„ But will you see this good sope of milke turned downe with a foule paire of heeles Note that which is behinde Vnquiet people hauing taken occasion hereby to continue contention and to make more brables then were needfull They were much to blame belike who would speake being publiquely defamed for schismaticks and what els a quintessence of malice could deuise as may be seene in the treatise of Schisme written by the Iesuits and approued by the Archp. and yet to this day mainteined in corners where any of that seditious crew can haue any hope to increase the schisme or diuision or what els it may be hereafter called in Gods Church by perswading now some now othersome not to communicate in Prayer and Sacraments with those who are the true members of Gods Church for a cause in which these members doe in here and plead the commandement of the head of the Church against a priuate letter from a priuate Cardinal to a priuate man as may appeare by the letter it selfe Were shame of that most wicked and sencelesse slander the cause of sorrow or silence in this author concerning this point of schisme what hope might there be that he had some grace but his sorrow and silence grow both out of a splene that his and his fellowes slanderous tongues had not that successe which he and his froward malitious adherents hoped for The submission which the priests did make at the sight of his Holines first Breue of the 6. of April 1599. acknowledged in his later Breue of the 17. of August 1601. conuinceth all but contentious brablers that the priests were further off by much from any touch or any suspition of schisme then their aduersaries here euer since their first deuiding themselues from them in prayer and communion of Sacraments But seeing he will say no more of schisme we will omit it and come to the question which this author meaneth to handle Our question saith he is then onely whether any sinne were committed whereof also we will not presume to determine any degree of sinne but leaue that to God and to the offenders consciences Now that the priests here be published for rebels seditious factious excommunicate irregular fallen from the Church to haue lost their faculties scandalous infamous persons no better then soothsayers and Idolaters disobedient to the Church and therefore as Ethnickes and Publicanes the author of this Apologie will not presume to determine any degree of sinne Our question sayth he is whether any sinne were committed but he giueth no answere to this question but wrangleth a little about the censure of
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
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
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
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