contempt of temporall goods his conuersation was with those Religious that had no possessions and ioined himselfe vnto the begging Fryers approouing their pouertie and extolling their perfection Euident tokens that hee had left the state of a Secular Priest and ascended to some higher degree of perfection But as it should seeme he was neither Monke nor Frier but talis qualis such as he was or as other perchance who came after him although they follow him not in all things For as it appeareth in our Chronicles hee preached against Monkes and other religious men that had possessions and taught such doctrine as hee was condemned for it in the Council of Constance as an heretike and his bones were taken vp and burned as is beforesaid Whereby also this authour is proued to forget himselfe very much to number him amongst the Clergie which is generally taken for such as are not onely in Orders but liue also in vnitie of the faith Wherefore purposing to tell a tale of emulation in the Clergie against the Religious he should haue taken some other to haue prooued it then Wickliffe who also by his pretence no doubt of greater perfection had forsaken the state of a Secular Clergie man as appeared by his habit and conuersation To these falshoods and couert calumnies against the Secular Priests this deceit of this author may be added That whereas the Chronicles doe mention that not only Iohn Wickliffe but foure doctors of diuinitie also one of euery Order of the begging Fryers ioyning with him were imployed by Iohn of Gaunt in his grudge against Bish Wickham of Winchester in whose defence the B. of London not Arundell as this author affirmeth but Courtney speaking as became him to doe Iohn of Gaunt threatned him also and swore that he would pull downe both the pride of him and of all the Bishops in England this author mentioneth onely the Secular Priest as he termeth him without any mention of the orders of Religion which were also imployed Moreouer it soundeth very foolishly that Iohn of Gaunt would set Iohn Wickliffe against the Monkes vpon an emulation which hee had against the Bishops their estates depending so little vpon the estate of the Monkes as when all the Abbyes in England were put downe the Bishops remained in as great honour as euer they did And wheras it is further said that the Abbey lands were taken from the Monkes and giuen to the maintenance of the crowne by the same emulation of the Clergie against the Religious in the time of K. Henry the eight it is most false the Abbyes being then put downe by a change of Religion which had not the beginning vpon any such emulation as this author affirmeth but vpon the perswasion of Longland B. of Lincolne the Kings confessor fortified by Card. Wolsey viz. that his Highnesse mariage with the Lady Katherine his brother Prince Arthurs wife was vnlawfull and against the word of God whereby the King being induced to seeke a diuorce but crossed therein with the Pope by Charles the fift nephew of the Lady Katherine and some others as well of the Laytie as the Clergie both Secular and Religious here in England it wrought in the King such a dislike of his Holines and others as it procured not onely the ouerthrow of the Abbyes but such a change in Religion as since the world hath seene Of this alteration therefore if any emulation were the beginning it was an emulation in the Cardinall who dealt with B. Longland to perswade the King as is mentioned and afterward did second him with all his might himselfe against the Emperour for hindering him of the Popedome and neither the sister nor the mother to ambition as this author would haue it but her daughter But the greatest folly committed by this author in this his exordium is not yet touched and that is that among all other histories impertinent to the cōtrouersie in question he would make his choyse of one wherein himselfe if we are not deceiued is notoriously disciphered Iohn Wickliffe was a Secular priest being a priest and neither Monke nor Friar and no Secular priest as differing from them in habit and conuersing with the religious Mendicants vnder pretence of greater perfection His followers tooke no name of him as both Monkes and Friers do of their founders and Sectaries of their Masters but went vnder the name which the common people gaue them to wit Lollards He was vsed as an instrument by Iohn of Gant to bring that to passe which this Duke had long conceiued in his mind For he saw saith the Historie Ioh. Stow. sup that it would be hard for him to obtaine his purpose the Church standing in his full state c. Wherefore he laboured first to ouerthrow aswell the liberties of the Church c. And to this end did Iohn Wickliffe bestow his talents for he was not onely eloquent saith the historie but also seemed to contemne temporall goods for the loue of eternall riches c. This authour being in a state which once was of Secular priests now no state of Secular priests not because he will be taken for either Monke or Frier or goe barefoote as Iohn Wickliffe did and his followers or basely clothed for these are outward mortifications which of what edification soeuer they are yet are not worthy of that honour which is due to the inward mortifications which lie hid and are not seene by the corporall eye But because Pope Gregorie the 13. hath so declared it yet so as he being filius populi as people say hath no other name but what the people giue him he is imployed not by Iohn of Gant himselfe in his owne person for this great Duke died aboue 200 yeeres since but by Iohn of Gant in some of his posteritie who hath somewhat to bring to passe which he hath long conceiued in his mind for the effecting of which this godly Father is busied in the corrupting the Cleargie of England or the vtter ouerthowing it which at this present he and his doe worke by taking from them their good name and fame and making them odious without iust cause to the people And to the end that he would be knowen not to haue spent his time idlely in Wickliffe his schoole he hath not onely imployed his tongue but his pen also and in his first platforme of Reformation hath ordeined that none of the Clergie shall possesse any temporall liuings but shall liue vpon such pensions as shall to certaine of his company and some secular Priests ioyned with them in their wisedome seeme necessary for their maintenance But let vs now see whether this authour can fit himselfe better in the next point In the beginning also saith he of this Queenes dayes the little affection which the Laitie did beare vnto the Clergie procured by some vnquiet spirits as also the small vnion of diuers Clergie men among themselues some holding with the heretikes and politikes by beate of faction
For the ruine of the Citie liberties he deuised that it should no more be gouerned by the Maior and Aldermen but by some Captaine appointed for the purpose And that the Marshall of England who then was a trustie friend of his and placed in that office by him should vse his authoritie as well in London and the liberties thereof as els where which the Commons taking in euill part rose together in great multitudes and in heate of emulation to vse this authors words sought the Duke and the Marshall with such fury as if the Bishop of London had not happened to appease them the Duke and the Marshall had not escaped them But when all was quiet and the best of the Citie for the common sort would not obey it had giuen such satisfaction as the king commanded the Duke tooke exceptions thereat affirming that they knew his minde and were not ignorant how to make satisfaction with which words sayth the historie the citizens were much troubled for quoth they among themselues hee would haue vs to proclaime him King but this shall neuer be done The way which hee tooke to ouerthrow the estare of the Church was by countenancing Iohn Wickliffe who by reason of an hypocriticall demeanour among the Common people had gotten an opinion of holinesse Hee had liued as a secular priest but afterward hee changed his habit and conuersed with the Friars mendicants Hee and his company went bare footed and in course russet garments down to the heeles They preached especially against Monkes and other religious men that had possessions and for this cause got in some fauour with the Religious who had no possessions and were assisted by them in that cause This Wickliffe being called before his Ordinary to answere for certaine wordes spoken by him was brought in by the Duke and the Marshal into S. Pauls Church in London and was bidden by them to sit downe as hauing much to answere which when the Bishop Courtney of London vnderstoode hee countermanded it Whereupon the Duke and the Marshall tooke occasion of anger against the Bishop and the Duke threatned to pull downe both the pride of him and of all the Bishops of England He had before caused all the goods of the Bishop Wickham of Winchester to be seized on and would not suffer him to make his answere and had persecuted others who had bene most vsed by his father in the gouernement of the Realme But shortly this Bishop had his temporalties restored vnto him by king Edward against the Dukes will and presently after the Duke and he were made friends at the very beginning of the reigne of King Richard the second who succeeded King Edward the third And this accord was not onely made betweene them but also betweene the Duke and the citie And thus ceased that heate of emulation so soone as it was begun and yet it began not vntill the 50 or 51 yeere of K. Ed. the 3 in whose 17 25 27 38 yeres of his reigne the statutes before cited were begun to be treated of made concerning the abridging of prouisions for dignities from Rome and the forbidding of Appeales in some cases to Rome besides what we brought concerning the first of these two points out of a statute made aboue 300 yeres since to wit in the 25 of Ed. the first By which it may appeare that it was treated concerning these points before Wickliffe rose how deceitfully these matters are layd vpon a heate of emulation against the Clergie And although in the 9 yere of the reign of K. Rich. the 2 there was a Bil put vp in the Parliament against the Clergy for their temporalties the King hearing sayth the story the inordinate cryings out of the Laity the iust answeres of the Clergy cōmanded that the bil should be cancelled such inordinate petitions to cease affirmed that he would preserue the church during his time in as good state as he foūd it or in better And the king being then not past 20 yeeres of age no doubt but his nobles counselled him in this his answere which is an argument that at that time the aduersaries of the Clergy did beare no great sway in England In the 18. yeere also of his reigne the Clergie and religious men being oppugned by certaine fauourers of those hypocritical Lollards the King being in Ireland certified therof hastened home and threatned those fellowes that if they did from thencefoorth fauour the Lollards or in any wise comfort them he would extreamly punish them By which it is euident that what was enacted or confirmed by him in the 16 yeere of his reigne which was two yeres before this or at other times concerning those points cannot bee construed to haue bene done by heate of emulation against the Clergie King Henry also the fourth who was sonne of Iohn of Gaunt and succeeded King Richard the second was so great an enemy to these Lollards as in the beginning of his reigne at a Parliament held in London he made a statute against them wherein it was enacted that they should be apprehended and deliuered to the Bishop of the Diocesse and if they were found obstinate they should be degraded and committed to the secular iurisdiction to be executed And in the fifth yere of his reigne when some to relieue his want made a motion in the Parliament to haue the Clergie depriued of their temporalties and Thomas Arundel Archbishop of Canterburie had giuen his reasons to the contrary the king and his Nobles stood for the Bishops and those knights of the parliament who were actors against the Clergie were brought to confesse their offence and to aske forgiuenesse thereof To conclude no one of these statutes were euer repealed by any of our princes Catholike or other which concerned those prohibitions of prouisions from Rome or pleading of matters out of this Realme the knowledge whereof did appertaine vnto the kings Court although some particular clause concerning the punishment of the offenders hath been repealed As for example where it was lawfull for any man or at the least not punishable by our lawes to kill such as were out of the kings protection or to be taken as the Kings enemies by offending against these statutes And in the first yeere of Queene Mary whom the Author of the Apologie will bee ashamed to number amongst the worst kings for according to the statutes of our Realme what prerogatiues soeuer any kings haue had they are to be vnderstood to be fully and wholly in the Queenes who come by succession to the Crowne when no doubt these statutes were in minde it was enacted that all offences made felonie or limitted or appointed to be within the case of Premunire by any act or actes of Parliament statute or statutes made sithence the first day of the first yere of the raigne of the late king of famous memory King Henry the eighth not being felony before nor within the case of Premunire
first Chapter of the Apol. fol. 2. the first English Seminary began at Doway in the yere 1568. and neuer as yet failed although vpon occasion it hath beene translated from thence into France and backe againe now to Doway so there is also mention in the same Chapter fol 3. of the beginning of the English Colledge at Rome in the yeere 1578. which was before the Iesuits entrance into England as may be prooued out of the 12. Chapter of the same Apologie fol. 181. where F. Parsons is said to haue come into England betwixt Easter and Whitsontide in the yeere 1580. where he must needs heare of some priests who had beene sent from that Seminary before him T.W. in his disgression from 16. Martyrs in one yere pag. 52. sayth that the Colledge of Rome was founded in the yeere 1575. which was fiue yeeres before F. Parsons entrance into England And as I thinke no man doubteth but that Fa. Parsons and Fa Campion were the first Iesuits which were sent into England to labour in that haruest As for those generall letters which follow in reproofe of these supposed falshoods they shal be answered where this Author setteth them downe in perticular In the 8. page F. Heywood the Iesuit is said to bee falsly and malitiously belied in these words Ostentansse c. A certaine Iesuit vaunting himselfe among our people as though he had bene Legate to the Sea Apostolicke c. But you must go for proofe hereof to the 3. chap. where there is nothing to this purpose and to the 11. chap. where fol. 164 F. Heywood is thus cleared from this pretended false and malitious lye Onely it is true that some 16. or 17. Priests whereof one chiefe man is said to be of their faction at this day met together with him that is F. Heywood and would haue had all the Nationall customes of England about fasting for some little diuersitie and difficulties which they found in them to be reduced to the common order of the Romane Church which D. Allen F. Parsons M. Blackwell and others did not allow and F. Heywood yeelded vnto these mens opinions And thus much perchance should not haue bene said here had Fa. Parsons and Fa. Heywood bene friends but they being otherwise and the good Fa. Heywood reclayming himselfe and seeking reformation of manythings in men of his order for which cause notwithstanding his learning and other gifts he was made to liue and die very obscurely the Author of this Apologie is content to say somewhat of him in this case in question although so farre as it might touch the credit of the societie the blame is layed vpon the Secular priestes And because perchance it is too well knowen that some of those priests otherwise zealous men as by their death they made euident remonstrance did long after breake those fasts vpon the warrant of this Prouinciall Councell it is said that F. Heywood yeelded vnto the contrary opinion lest the societie should beare the discredit of so rash an attempt And thus is the calumniation answered which was made against F. Heyw. and no otherwise as the reader may see if he will turne to the places whither this Author sendeth him And it cannot but argue great want of shame in this Author to run with such fowle termes vpon men for saying that which when he cōmeth to salue he knoweth not almost how to deliuer otherwise with any likelyhood of trueth In the 9 page the principall deceit falshood or slander is noted in these words Parietiam modo c. In like maner the Rectors of our English Romane Colledge did goe about many things that were grieuous and asperous to our youthes But for this point you must see it handled at large cap. 5. Apol. where also it is to be answered or the Reader referred to some particuler treatise of this matter But in the same page there is an other slander that is Conspectis c. Card Allen after he had considered and discouered the endeauors of the Iesuits was wont to say that they sought more their owne good then either that of our Countrey or Colledge The proofe here of must now stand vpon the honesty of the Relators but how iustly he or any other might speake it I refer me to any indifferent mans iudgement when the Iesuits would neuer suffer any to be in rest in the College who would not suffer thēselues to be drawne to the societie either by them or their Agents who liuing in the Colledge as the other students did had secret vowes to be Iesuits and perswaded as many as they could to take the same course And England hauing more need to be furnished with such as were most fit to take vpon them the care of soules who can doubt whether the Iesuits in seeking the most towardly youthes to leaue their vocation and become of their order sought more their owne good then either that of our Countrey or Colledge And to the question here foolishly proposed what priuate good can the Iesuits pretend for themselues worth their labors and perils in England more then in the Indies except the good of soules and seruice of God As though they sought somewhat els in the Indies then the good of soules and seruice of God or at the least not so much as in England We answere both according to their proceedings and F. Parsons platforme of Reformation that whatsoeuer they pretend they seeke to keepe not onely the Secular priests in a seruile subiection vnto them but the Bishops also and all the whole State of England hauing already in their platforme or Councell of Reformation set downe all Ecclesiasticall men as pensioners at the discretion of some Iesuits and some Secular priests no doubt of their choosing for auoyding of cōtention diuision And whereas good man he talketh of the Iesuits labours and perils in England who knoweth not how deliciously they fare how gorgeously they are attired how quietly they sleepe in the best and safest houses in England insomuch as it is a marueilous wonder when any Iesuit is in perill And there hath not wanted among the Lay gentlemen that for these respects haue wished themselues Iesuits notwithstāding they haue liued with wife children great friends and as great contentment as this world can yeeld to wealthy protected Catholicks In the 11. page is this falshood noted or slander against Card. Tolet in that he is said to haue bene a fauourer of the Troublesome against their superiors the wordes are these I am tum c. At that time both the Colledge and al the schollers had bene vndone if Car. Toledo had not opposed himselfe as a wall for the said schollers This is iustified by many and in the particular discourse of the troubles in Rome it will be shewed notwithstanding this vant here of all Rome and his Holinesse as though they would witnesse the contrary In the 12. page this Author hath noted great falshood in the narration of the
also what manner of children and of what parents they be that doe obiect this c. But alas good man were they much worse then they are who are saide to obiect this they are by many degrees his betters who is taken to be the Author of this Apologie And if the priests had as impertinently spoken so of the Iesuits as this good fellow speaketh of the priests his folly might haue bene in some sort excused but it being euident that this fellow his speech proceedeth of splene and without either any necessitie to inlarge himselfe so farre or any furtherance to his cause for what doth the quality of this or that man make better or worse the qualitie of another the place noted in this 27. pag. doth shew a iust cause why the priests did say the trueth in that cause For whereas M. Blackwell to the ignominie of the Catholike gentlemen did most vngratefully suggest and most vntruely to the Card. Caietane that the Iesuits did marueils in England in the releeuing of all sorts of people distressed and that they did it out of their owne patrimonies because they were minima not worth the speaking of which they receiued of almes from the Catholikes the priests to shew how palpable this flattery was affirmed as they might iustly that all the Iesuites almost in England were children of poore parents and consequently not like to doe so much in that sort as M. Blackwell did most grossely suggest And let this be sufficient for this time vpon this occasion to prooue that it is no calumniation as the margent would haue the reader to thinke it nor deceit falshood or slander as this table is entituled In the 29. page are diuers things noted as that Pope Xistus was tearmed a Wolfe by the Iesuites and defamed as a most wicked man and certaine propositions maintained about the Stewes which will be iustified to haue beene vttered by F. Weston the Iesuite in defence of M. Archer one of his principal confederates in his faction at Wisbich and generally taken for a Iesuite and cannot therefore but appertaine to the Iesuits betweene whomesoeuer the controuersie first began In the 30. page the priestes are saide to call the authoritie of their superior instituted by Christs vicar Laruam that is a masking vizard which is very false and no modest man would haue auowched it out of that place it sounding no otherwise then thus ad dominium comporandum alienae personae larua vtendum putabant that is they the Iesuits to get dominion thought they must vse a maske of an other person which can beare no other sence then this that they would rule and an other should beare the name and if ought were done amisse it should neuer bee knowen who were the actors But this man must be seene in it and they must be couered by him which euery man knoweth to be a very ordinary course in the world cry out shame vpon it without any touch to authority but to the abuse thereof And whereas Fa. Parsons memorials are here said to bee yet extant intrearing for obteyning of Bishops it is no disproofe to that which is auowched by the priests it being so possible for the same man to vrge mightily the very same matter which he will by some meanes or other crosse And there is sufficient proofe of this kind of dealing in F. Parsons as for example At the parting of some students from Rome hee writ a letter of commendations in the behalfe of one of them and at the very same time hee writ asmuch to the contrary to the very same place insomuch as they to whom those letters came conferring them together could not but maruaile much at this falsehood in him Likewise when M.D. Bishop was to depart from Rome to Paris in the way of great friendship and confidence F. Parsons requesteth him that there might be intercourse of letters betweene them Mary one thing aboue the rest he earnestly cōmended vnto him and that was to certifie him from time to time of M.D. Cecill his carriage and at the same time he writ to M. D. Cecill to doe him the like fauour for M.D Bishop And not long after he sollicited M. Shelborne a reuerend priest then abiding in Paris to certifie him against them both and very likely it was there was some other appointed to pay his debts But imagine what sport there was when these letters came forth and how peeuish they are who will not beleeue that F. Parsons can play all maner of playes for his purpose In the 33. page the principall deceit falshood or slander is gathered out of those wordes Nullo c. no respest being had to the most Catholike Archb. of Glasco I would aske this good fellow what respect was had vnto this Bishop when the Archpriest was made superior without his priuitie or consent ouer all the English priests which then were or after should be resident in his diocesse And if there were no respect had vnto him what deceit falshood or slander was there in saying so But listen I pray you to the conceit which is made hereupon See saith he the strange desire of these men to set strife euery where They would stirre vp the Archb. of Glasco residing in Paris for aboue 30. yeres against the Protector for that he giueth iurisdiction to the Archpriest vpon English Priests in England Scotland and Ireland and yet these men do aske faculties for these three countries but would be vnder no authority in any Now alas good man where hath he his ground concerning this last point that the priests would not be vnder authoritie so often as hee doeth vrge the association intended in England by the Priests hee conuinceth himselfe of this falsehood And if he were set to finde where the Priests asked faculties for those three countries as superiors there he would be sorely troubled But the Reader must take all this vpon his word as also that the Priests minded to set the Protector and the Bishop of Glasco together by the eares when they said that in the institution of this authoritie ouer all the English priests in Scotland there was no respect had to the Catholick Bishop of Glasco How much better might it be said that F. Parsons and his confederats ment to set strife betweene them when so vnaduisedly they procured the Protector to giue such iurisdiction to a strange Archpriest within the dioces of a Bishop in another Nation and no way subiect to any prelate of England In this foolish fury also how forgetteth he that he often saith that the Cardin all did but witnes the authoritie by his letters and setteth it downe in plaine termes that the Priest would stirre vp the Bishop against the Protector for that he giueth iurisdiction to the Archpriest In the Apologie almost in euery place it is said that there was in the Priests at the first comming of the Cardinals letters no lesse then a resistance against the Popes order
hand will iustifie it against him namely in his letter to a lay gentleman dated the 16. of April 1601. where he affirmeth that he writeth vnto him to make him priuie of the great spirituall danger wherein he and all that receiued any sacrament of M. Oswald Needam might be if it were so that the said M. Needam had subscribed vnto a seditious pamphlet these are his words coloured with the name of an Appeale And hauing denounced M. Robert Drewrie to haue incurred the penalties of his Decrees for subscribing to the same Appeale he sent vnto him a forme of submission which he was to make or not be restored And this was the forme of that submission Ego N. confiteor c. I doe confesse and acknowledge that without any iust cause I haue complayned of grieuances and many iniuries offered mee by the most Reuerend archpriest and haue cast vpon him the blame of these dissentions tumuls and deadly warres and that I haue transgressed his wholesome Decrees of all which I humbly craue pardon restitution of my faculties and the remoouing of Censures if I haue incurred them And I recall all these aforesaid and doe greatly wish that I had neuer spoken written or approoued them Moreouer I doe sweare that I will hereafter behaue my selfe peaceably and obediently towards this my Superiour and will procure according to my bounden duetie what lieth in me that others doe the same At London March an 1600 according to our English account The decree which the archpriest made and by the subscribing to the appeale was and is iudged by him to be broken and these grieuous penalties thereby incurred by those who subscribed beareth date 18. Octob. 1600. The words of the decree are these Prohibemus autem sub poena suspensionis à diuinis amissionis omnium facultatum ne quis sacerdos vllo modo suffragia vel scripto vel verbo danda ambiat vel det ad quamcumque causam quā antea nobiscum vel cum duobus ex Assistentibus nostris non constet fuisse communicatam Wee forbid vnder paine of suspension from diuine offices of losse of all faculties euery Priest to go about to take any suffrage or voyce any maner of way either by writing or by word of mouth or to giue any such suffrage or voyce to any matter whatsoeuer which is not knowen to haue bene before communicated to vs or vnto two of our Assistants This is the decree by vertue hereof the Appellants so setting their hands or giuing consent that their hands should be set to the Appeale are said to haue lost their faculties and incurred the consures which were the Law a iust Law is not true the penaltie not being inflicted therein but onely threatned And whereas the Archpriest and his adherents to faue him from those penalties which are due and are ipso facto incurred by those who forbid Appeales to Rome affirme that there was a Libel and an Appeale that his decree was broken and the penalties therein conteined were incurred by subscribing to the Libel and not to the Appeale it is a poore shift and to be vsed but in a few corners for in his letter before cyted he maketh no difference but in the name onely For these are his words concerning M Needam If it be so that he hath subscribed vnto a seditious pamphlet coloured with the name of an Appeale So that now it is too late to make two things of that to which the priests did subscribe Secondly it is a very grosse ignorance to make two matters of that Appeale all writers affirming that Appeales made à grauaminibus from grieuances must expresly conteine them For breuitie sake Lancelot L. 3. Instit Iuris Can. tit de Apella writeth thus Multum autem interest ab interlocutoria vel alio grauamine an à definitiua nam primo casu causam c. There is a great difference betweene appealing from an interlocutory sentence or other grieuance and a definitiue sentence For in the first case the cause of the Appeale must be put downe in writing c. Yea it is so essentiall a point to such an Appeale as no case can be pleaded which is not expressed in the Appeale as is shewed in that Clementine Appellanti de Appellationibus Thus saith the Pope Appellanti ab interlocutoria vel à grauamine iudicis non licet alias causas prosequi quam in Appellatione sua nominatim duntaxat expressas c. It is not lawfull for the Appellant from an interlocutory sentence or from a grieuance of a Iudge to prosecute any causes but such onely as are by name expressed in his Appeale c. If then there be nothing in that which he calleth a seditious pamphlet or a Libel but an Appeale conteining as it ought the causes thereof what a poore shift is this to say that the Archpriest punisheth or denounceth none to haue incurred his penalties conteined in his Edicts for subscribing to the Appeale but onely for their subscribing to a seditious pamphlet or a libell colored with the name of an Appeale or prefixed to an Appeale The whole Appeale is now set forth in English by M Colington in his late booke that euery man may see whether there is any other thing then we haue said that is an Appeale with the causes thereof expressed as it ought to be and as we haue sufficiently proued it being so euident a trueth as no man may without blushing deny it And to conclude this point if we should attribute so much ignorance to the Archpriest and his busie adherents as that they would separate the Appeale from the causes thereof being an Appeale a grauaminibus from grieuances as it lieth open to all mens view to be such then there is a much greater deformitie in his actions who proclaimeth that the Priests haue subscribed to a seditious pamphlet or a Libel annexed or prefixed to an Appeale and that they haue thereby incurred the censures and other penalties conteined in his Edict of the 18. of Octob. 1600. because there is not one name subscribed to any thing but to that which he must confesse is really the Appeale if hee make such a distinction betweene the Appeale and that which he saith is prefixed vnto it And consequently he must confesse that he hath incurred the censures of holy Church and the iudgement giuen against the Bishops in this place of the Apologie Those Kings of England who had the will to prohibite by Statute Appeales to Rome doubtlesse had neuer the grace to goe to Goose faire where not onely they but their Nobles also aswell the Spirituall as the Temporall might haue learned how they might with conscience haue enacted or consented to the making of such a Statute But this one thing was wanting to make perfect their felicitie in this world they neuer eate a goose at that faire where the courtesie is to minister geese to all commers gratis and the Host will not receiue
any money for them onely they must pay for the sawce which according to the custome of the faire they must haue or els they must haue no goose O happy day wherein that faire was first instituted and a secret discouered which no Catholike Kings or Prelats could euer attaine vnto And thrice happy are they who by the light as it should see me of that day did see to make that Statute in the third yere of the Archipres byterie of M. George Blackwell vidi preuaricantes c. 18. Octob. 1600 wherein al right to appeale to Rome being most Catholikely conserued the penalties therein conteined doe onely light vpon such as haue set their hands to that which is prefixed to the Appeale which is nothing els but the causes thereof without which according to the custome and Canons of holy Church the appeale is of no force and are therefore by name to be expressed as we haue before shewed out of the Clementine Appellantide Appellationibus Now it remaineth that we shew when and vpon what occasions the Statutes were made by which the prouisions from Rome and some Appeales to Rome were forbidden First concerning these prouisions there was a statute made either in the 30. or 35. or as some other affirme 25. Edward 1. which was aboue 300. yeeres since wherein it is agreed and established that they should not be suffered There was also the like statute made in the 25. yere of Edw. 3 to the like effect by which it was forbidden that any should be placed in any dignitie without the assent of the King The same is also forbidden in the Parliament holden in the 38. of the same King The occasions of enacting these statutes are set downe as well in that of the 25. of Edw. 1. as elsewhere the iustice of those which were made in the time of Edw. 3. is the more apparant by a letter which hee and his nobles sent in the 17. yeere of his reigne to his Hol. to haue redresse for such defaults as were in that kind committed The Letter was to this effect King Edward and his Nobles perceiuing the derogation that was done to the Realme by such reseruations prouisions and collations of benefices as the Pope practised here in England wrote to him requiring him that sith the Churches of England had beene founded and endowed by noble and worthy men to the end the people might be instructed by people of their owne language and that he being so farre off could not vnderstand the defaults yet his predecessors and hee more then had been vsed by diuers reseruations prouisions and collations made to diuers persons some strangers yea and some enemies to the Realme whereby the money and profits were carried forth their Cures not prouided for according to the founders minds they therefore vpon due considerations thereof signified vnto him that they could not suffer such enormities any longer and therefore besought him to reuoke such reseruations prouisions and collations wholly to auoid such slanders mischiefes and harmes as might ensue and that the Cures might be committed to persons meete for the exercises of the same beseeching him further without delay to signifie his intention sith they meant to bestow their diligence to remedie the matter and see that redresse might be had Giuē in full Parliament at Westminster 18. of May Anno Dom. 1343. Thus far out of Iohn Stow 17. Edw. 3. where he also citeth Auesburie and Honingford Secondly concerning the forbidding of the appeales to Rome we find a Statute made in the 27. of Edw. 3. against those who shall drawe any person in plea out of the Realme of a thing whereof the knowledge appertained to the Kings Court or of such things whereof iudgement was giuen in the Kings courts or should sue in any other courts to defeate or let the iudgements giuen in the Kings Court. To these and other Statutes to the like effect the author of the Apologie affirmeth that the Catholike Bishops neither did nor could assent But whatsoeuer may be said for or against this position concerning the appeales no man can in reason think but that they both might very well and did assent to those statutes which were made against the prouisions or bestowing of dignities in England without the kings consent the causes are so apparantly layd downe by the King and the Nobles for that abridging of his Holines his promoting whom he would and to what dignities hee would in England And thus much may be alledged in the behalfe of the consent of the spirituall Lords to the statute against those appeales That in the new great abridgement printed Anno 1551. there is this clause set to the end of some statutes But the spirituall Lords assented not to this statute And there is no such note set to any of these Statutes which we haue here cited It is also euident that these statutes were not made vpon any heate of emulation against the Clergie for as we finde that in the 38. yeere of King Edw. 3. the statutes against those prouisions made in the 25. and 27. of the same King are confirmed although there be some fauour giuen to the Lords and Prelats offendors so in the 39 yeere of the same King which was the next yeere after we find that the Clergie in England was in as great honour as any Clergie in the worlde as may be shewed by the offices which the Bishops and Priests had then in England For the Bishop of Canterbury was Lord Chancellour of England the Bishop of Bath was L. Treasurer the Archdeacon of Lincolne was Lord priuie Seale the Parson of Somersam was master of the Rolles ten beneficed Priests were masters of the Chancerie the Deane of S. Martins le grand was chiefe Chancellour of the Exchequer Receiuer and Keeper of the Kings Treasure and Iewels the Archd. of Northampton was Chancellor of the Exchequer a Prebendarie of S. Martins was Clerk of the priuie Seale a Prebendarie of S. Steuens was Treasurer of the Kings house the Parson of Auon or Oundell was master of the Wardrobe the Parson of Fenny Stanton was one of the Chamberlaines of the Excheq and Keeper of the Kings Treasury and Iewels Other of the Clergie are noted to haue ben in office also in France in Ireland as well as in England Iohn of Gaunt Duke of Lancaster the fourth sonne of King Edward 3. hauing the gouernement of England committed vnto him in the time of his fathers last sickenesse which was in the 50. and 51. of his reigne disposed so farre of matters and offices as he conceiued some possibility to attaine to the Crown and to depriue his nephew Richard of Burdeaux who was sonne to the Blacke prince Edward the eldest sonne of King Edward the third But perceiuing that it would be hard for him to obtaine his purpose so long as the Church stood in that estate it did and the citizeens of London enioyed their liberties hee laboured to ouerthrow them both
and also all and euery branch article and clause mentioned or in any wise declared in any of the same statutes concerning the making of any offence or offences to be felony or within the case of Premunire not being felonie nor within the case of Premunire before and all paines and forfeitures concerning the same or any of them should from thenceforth be repealed and vtterly void and of none effect King Henrie the eighth also when he was so deuoted to the Catholike faith and particularly to the Sea of Rome as he gaue monethly 60000 angels towards the pay of an Armie vnder Mounsieur de Foy for the deliuery of Pope Clement the 7 when he was holden prisoner in the Castel Angel in Rome by the Duke of Bourbon his Armie and the prince of Oringe Yea when Pope Leo the the tenth esteemed of him as of the best prince in Christendome and either to his deserts or vnder them gaue him this glorious title Defender of the faith he did so far foorth execute the law of Premunire against all forraine prouisions of dignities and authority to be practised within his Realme without his assent as the Cardinal Wolsey notwithstanding an extraordinary affection in the king towards him dared not to exercise his power Legantine vntill he was licenced therunto by the king vnder his hand and broad seale Io Stow. 21. Hen 8. which he pleaded that he had when he was indited afterward in a Premunire for his exercise thereof And yet was the king himselfe a sutor to the Pope to giue that authority to the Cardinal as may be seene in the tenth yeere of his reigne which was about three yeeres before he was intituled Defender of the faith But all aswell princes as other must stand to this good fellow his checke and if they displease him it is enough to haue them accounted in the highest degree of badnesse how pious and godly soeuer hee esteemed them before with the same breath But now concerning that which is sayd by the Priests of Bishop Watson that he refused vpon these statutes all externall iurisdiction offered him ouer his fellowe prisoners this good fellow sayth that it is most contumelious and false Whome shall we beleeue in this case those who were Priests and fellow prisoners with him and were present at the offer and his refusall and are eare witnesses therof or this peremptorie fellow who careth not what passeth him But perchance his reason may ouerpeaze the relation of these witnesses although for many respects most reuerend For sayth hee that had bene to deny his Holines Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction in England Marke I pray you this reason and weigh it with that which is before saide and shewed concerning this point Card. Wolsey would not exercise his power Legantine in England vntill he had licence of his Maiestie as appeareth by his plea before cited and yet neither the king nor he denied his Holines Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction in England as appeareth by that the king of England made request to Pope Leo to constitute Card. Wolsey his Legate in England and behaued himselfe so Catholikely as hee was called Defendor of the faith Also the most Catholike Bishops who liued in the times of many and those most Catholike Princes without al doubt obserued the law yet no way were to be touched as this peremptory companion would haue them with a deniall of his Holines iurisdiction in England And in the Parliament holden 16. Rich 2. the Bishops doe make a difference betweene authoritie in the Pope to excommunicate and the execution thereof in England Moreouer this Doctor Watson when he was made a Bishop hee had licence of her Maiestie who then was before he would take vpon him to vse his Episcopall iurisdiction in England as he related himselfe to some yet liuing of credit And no doubt this was done vpon the same ground that lawe of Praemunire standing in full force in her time as being neuer repealed but rather suffered voluntarily to stand in full force as may be gathered by an acte primo Mariae yet no Catholike doubteth but that her Maiestie did acknowledge the Popes authoritie in England as appeareth by her repealing diuers statutes made by her father to take away the Popes authority in England Anno 1. 2. Philip. Mariae So that the folly of this fellow is exceeding great in giuing this reason why the Bishop could not refuse all externall iurisdiction offered him from his Holines Againe although Doctor Watson were Bishop of Lincolne and had vsed his iurisdiction in that Diocesse by the licence or permission of Queene Mary yet he was neuer Bish of Ely in which Dioces these prisoners liued who offered him that externall iurisdiction so that his refusing all externall iurisdiction ouer his fellowe prisoners is no way to be brought within the compasse of denying his Holines Ecclesiastical iurisdiction in England And if his Episcopal iurisdiction were so inlarged by his Holines that he might haue vsed it ouer all England yet might he most iustly haue refrained from the present exercise thereof in that ample maner hauing neuer had any such license or assent from his Soueraigne according to that Statute which was made 25. Edw. 3. wherein it is enacted that first the Kings license to chuse was to be demanded and after election his royall assent was to be had And as he was not to expect that a Prince of a contrary Religion should legitimate any such authoritie in him so he was to assure him selfe that a Prince of a contrary Religion would take hold of that Statute against him seeing that Princes who were of the same Religion did both enact it and cause it to be most strictly obserued and yet they neuer denyed his Holines Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction in England And by this it is made most manifest how Bishop Watson might acknowledge his Episcopall iurisdiction from Rome and yet refuse to exercise the same without deniall of the Popes Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction in England any more then for 200. yeeres together al the Catholike Bishops in England did before him But I cannot a little marueile that this authour would compare the association intended in England with this Archipresbyterie which is so pontificall or maiesticall as the Title which by vertue thereof he vseth is enough to make such meane men as his fellowes are not to know which way to looke For thus he writeth himselfe George Blackwell by the grace of God and the ordinance of the Sea Apostolike Archpriest of England We will put the case that the association intended had gone forward but then how sayth he would that haue stood without externall turisdiction seeing that one of these two points they must confesse that either they would haue asked confirmation thereof from Rome and consequently it would haue beene an externall iurisdiction as well as this of the Archpr. or else they would haue gouerned absolutely of themselues without any dependance or approbation of his Holinesse And
where who would not subiect himselfe to a Iesuite was to be defamed as a loose companion or libertine and be flarued to death and sufficiencie of M Blackwels person with the helpe perchance of the Iesuites for such is his sixt Instruction Et licet Superior ille ex cōsultoribus Archipresbyteri non sit quia tamen summopere expedit sua Sanctitas id omnino cupit atque precipit vt inter patres sacerdotes summa sit animorum vnio ac consensio Et quia dictus Superior pro sua in rebus Angliae experientia pro eaque quam apud Catholicos habet authoritate plurimum poterit ad omnes Sacerdotum consultationes adiumenti afferre curabit Archipresbyter in rebus maioribus iudicium quoque eius conciliumque exquirere vt omnia euidentius ac maiore lucc ac pace ad diuinam glorinam dirigantur That is And although that Superiour of the Iesuites bee none of the councel of the Archpriest that is of his twelue assistants who were appointed to aduise the Archpriest but are vsed onely as informers and are furthest off from him yet because it is very expedient his Holinesse also doth altogether desire yea and command that there be the greatest vnion that may be and agreement betweene the Fathers the Iesuits and the Priests And because this sayd Superiour of the Iesuits both by reason of his experience in the affaires of England and of the authority which he carieth among the Catholikes can very much further all the consultations of the priests the Archpr. shall haue care to seeke for his iudgement and counsel in matters of greatest waight to the end that al things may more ordinately and with greater light and peace bee directed to the glory of God almost a threedbare worne cloake to couer any disorder Nowe that he hath declared vpon what motiues his Holinesse resolued to make a Subordination hee descendeth to more particulars and telleth his Reader that vpon the aduise of these iollie Counsellors all Iesuites so farre as we know except M. Thomas Allen whose name is here set for the more credit of this consistory because he was nephew to the late Cardinall his Holines resolued according to their opinions and informations in these two points marke I pray you what this author attributeth to his Holines in this subordination to wit to appoint a gouernment and that this man should be the gouernour though for the third point that is about the kinde or manner of gouernment hee iudged not expedient for the present to appoint any other but an Archpriest an ancient dignitie in the Church of Christ This then by this authors relation was the vtmost which his Holines resolued to wit that the kind or manner of gouernment should bee no other then what is vnder that ancient dignitie of the Church namely of an Archpriest Consequently his Holines appointed no other subiection or subordination then such as is to an Archpriest we are therefore to see what belongeth to the office of an Archpriest and in that onely according to his Holinesse appointment we are to obey M. Blackwels person and in no other For such are this authors words though for the third about the kind and manner of gouernment he iudged not expedient for the present to appoint any other but an Archpriest whose office whosoeuer will seeke in the Canons of the Church he shall find to be in another kind then this of M. Blackwels is as it is instituted by the Cardinall in his Holines name for so also is it here confessed in the words immediatly following Lest if hee the Pope should haue begunne with Bishops hee doubted very probably that it would haue caused some great motion in England for auoiding whereof he resolued also for this first time not to write himselfe any Apostolicall letters note here the folly and malice of the Iesuites and others who writ or approoued that scandalous Libell of Schisme in which the Priests were condemned of schisme sedition faction and denounced to bee excommunicated irregular fallen from the Church as Southsayers and Idolaters Ethnickes and Publicans and for what For resisting Apostolicall decrees when there was none but to commit rather the institution of the matter by speciall order to the Protector to be done in his the Popes name And how agreeth this with the Cardinals letter where wee reade these words in the Cardinals own name Dum haec nostra ordinatio durauerit so long as this our ordinance shall remaine And all that followeth concerning the Archpriest his subdelegation and faculties or forme which he was to keepe in the exercise of his subdelegation But his Holinesse sayth afterwards in his Breue of the sixt of April that all was done by him Be it so What is this to the purpose the priests doe not now call that in question nor euer did since the time that they first saw that Breue Where is then the difficultie Whether the priests were Schismatikes seditious factious excommunicated fallen from the Church as Ethnicks Publicans Sorcerers and Idolaters in that they did not yeeld their obedience to a Superiour sayd to haue bene instituted by his Holines but not proued otherwise then by the bare testimony of a Cardinal in a letter to the same man who was to become a Superior which letter beareth date the seuenth of March 1598 and it was more then a yeere before the Popes letters were written as appeareth by their date which is the sixt of April 1599. And the foolish blind obedient must beleeue you and vse Catholike priests like schismatikes who in the space betweene the seuenth of March in the yeere 1598 and the sixt of April 1599 did resist as they are tolde and will not vnderstand any other the Popes order and decrees Loe here then saith this author the grounds of this his Holines resolution so farre as we are informed by them that were priuy thereunto Loe then say I how sottishly the Iesuits vrged a resisting of Apostolicall decrees before the Pope resolued to write himselfe any Apostolicall letters And by this saith he are ouerthrowen all these cauillations And by this say I is ouerthrowen that malitious Libel which was fathered by Iesuits and fostered by the Archpriest and all his seditious adherents wherein the priests were concluded to be Schismaticks excommunicated fallen from Gods Church c. as resisters of the Popes decrees when there was none made as here it is confessed in the Apologie And suspitious coniectures saith he which our discontented brethren in their last bookes haue set foorth about this meaning aswell of his Holines the Protector as of those also that gaue informations for procuring of this authority sinisterly interpreting the one and the other There could be no suspitious coniectures of his Holines meaning For as here it is confessed his Holines declared nothing in a yeere after that he had any meaning or knowledge of this Superioritie instituted by the Cardinall the Protectors meaning
who are of that order yet must this be the argument which is foolishly here insinuated by this authour or else none For of al the Iesuits in England there are none whom these priests obeied at any time in any place Besids that they are al of them inferiour to many priests both for age learning wisedome gouernment and what els belongeth to men But by this hath this authour shewed what his meaning is that forsooth because some Priests haue obeyed some Iesuites therefore all priests must be obedient to any of the Iesuits yea although he be one who immediatly before he became a Iesuite had scant the wit to keepe himselfe cleane But for the auoyding of this emulation it seemed saith this authour in all good mens opinions and the Iesuites aboue the rest or els all is marred when you talke of good men that the onely or chiefe remedie would be to haue this subordination of Secular priests among themselues but so as the Superiour must be at the Iesuites direction as both his instructions and his practise declare And then followeth a proofe out of a letter of 6. Assistants to cleare the Iesuits from the procuring of this subordination against or without the will of the Secular Clergie which testimonie if the vnited Priests were the authours of the Apologie is as cleare as that of which one requested to haue either his fellow asked or himselfe if he were a thiefe This testimony also harpeth vpon the long day at Rome of which we spake before and of the wonders wrought thereupon the 7. of March by certaine letters dated in England in April May and Iuly following Of this letter we shal haue occasion to say more in a particular answer thereunto And here we will leaue the Reader to wonder onely at this marginall note fol. 101. See the letter of sixe Ancient priests the 17. of September 1597. For he telleth not where this letter is to be seene but rather leaueth a suspition that it is yet to be deuised vnlesse he thought it too worthy a thing to be inserted among so many foolish and friuolous impertinencies as with which this Apologie doth swarme The proofe also which followeth that Fa Parsons laboured to haue Bishops in England is most absurd in their vnderstanding who knowe how he can play on both sides and impugne that in which he would seem to be most forward he can send notes of such things as hee would pretend a desire should be kept secret and send them round about the world with the same desire of secrecie He can write his letters in exceeding great commendations to one of some one man and at the same time write to another in the dispraise of the same man And is it a sufficient disproofe of his backwardnesse of hauing Bishops that he laboured with some to haue them in England Can Fa. Parsons so farre ouershoot himselfe as to make his credite so small in the Court of Rome as that any thing can be denied him being assisted by such as expect from him a kingdome or two for their seruice Well saith the Apologie this then being resolued by his Holines that he would haue an Archpriest appointed in England whom all the rest should obey he gaue commission to the said Cardinall Protector to institute the same in his name Howe was this made knowen to the Priests Forsooth the Cardinall shewed that it was his Holinesse especiall order and commandement by these words Speciali mandato nobis iniunxit his Holines hath ordained this vnto vs by a speciall commandement What silly boy would thus haue Englished iniunxit in this place or what is that This which his Holinesse ordained by a speciall commandement the institution of this subordination with these faculties c. could this man imagine that the Cardinals letters would neuer againe be looked on or if he could feare that could he be so impudent as to cite this part thereof for to prooue his Holinesse speciall commandement for the erecting of the Archpriest And to prooue that his Holinesse was mooued by the aforesaid reasons alleaged by him to wit emulation and what els pleaseth him he citeth these words out of the same letter of the Cardinall Rationes abipsis sacerdotibus redditae c. the reasons alleaged by priests for this matter were allowed by his Holinesse and afterwardes he citeth a great part of the letter for so much as concerneth the commendations of the Iesuits and the desire which the Pope hath that the Iesuites and the Priests might liue in peace together Which saith he comming from so high a superiour and directly from Christs vicar himselfe we doe wonder how it tooke no more effect within the heartes of our brethren that impugned the same And our brethren wonder that any man can bee so impudent as to make such a wonder confessing so often as he doth in this Apologie that Christs vicar himselfe would not write at all whereby neither his letters appeared for the institution of this Archpriest nor any commission by which the Cardinall had power to doe it But the Cardinal his word was sufficient saith he and our brethren say no and proue it by the testimonie of all men of knowledge in the Canon and Ciuill lawes who say that the sole testimonie of a Cardinall is not necessarily to be credited in any matter preiudiciall to a third person yet must the blinde obedient beleeue that the priests in not obeying the Cardinals letters did directly withstand Christs vicar himselfe But after he hath cited a part of the Cardinals letter he affirmeth that all was confirmed afterwards by his Holines owne Breue and that all written by the Cardinall and euery parcell there of was by his order consent proper motion and commandement written ordained and sent into England And to this our brethren answere that so soone as they sawe this they did presently submit themselues vnto the order And say moreouer that this is very foolishly brought in to prooue a disobedience in them before this Brcue was written And by this is answere made to the question following But what did this satisfie or quiet them that had resolued to be vnquiet For the priests perceiuing such a deuise of the Iesuits foreseeing how hereby the Iesuits might vnder a maske play their prises more boldly then before sent to Rome as became Catholike priests to know his Hol. pleasure in the meane while these who were resolued to be vnquiet spread Libels abroad against the priests and condemned them of schisme much more such religious stuffe The causes which moued the priests to demur vpon the matters vntill they saw his Hol Breue are set downe at large by M. Io. Collington in his booke intituled A iust defence c. whither we are to referre our Reader and as for the letter of the 6. Assistants it shall haue his place elsewhere to be answered for now we let it passe as a base profe of any thing
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
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
interteine the two priests kindly in his owne chamber They confesse they were interteined after a long difficultie But what authenticall proofe is there that he did it kindly or that it was done without difficultie He told them that they might not talke with any of the schollers and no one of the schollers can say that euer they did talke with any of them but one whom M. Bishop was very desirous to see and he was brought to M. Bishop by the Confessarius of the Colledge who stood by and heard al which passed M. Charnocke did know that there was one in the Colledge whose mother is his cousen germane and neuer coueted to talke with him The quarrell which was against these two priests was for talking with such as were appointed by Fa. Parsons to attend them in the hospitall whereof he who is here said to be the vertuous priest was a Iesuit in a Secular priests coat and shortly after wore a Iesuits coate and died among them And the occasion of this talke was ministred by this vertuous priest and it was not of this present controuersie but about M. Edward Tempest concerning whom it was said that he was hardly dealt withall in regard that such as vsed to intertaine priests at their first arriuall in England were perswaded not to intertaine him And that some of his neerest friends were told that in conscience they could not relieue him An other was a ieast which had chanced about 20. yeeres since in the Colledge of Rome which because it concerned one who was chosen in England for an assistant the matter was taken hainously yet was the occasion hereof also ministred by thaâ— vertuous priest and the matter it selfe was but a mery tale And this is al which was alledged by F. Owen the Iesuit in the name of F. Parsons against the two priests yet doeth this author most shamelesly relate that the two priests had talked that which might raise or renew sedition among the schollers But this and all which foloweth is doubtlesse brought in this place that this author might shew how he could gall his reader with his owne tale as an authenticall testimony for other testimony there is not That also which is here gainesaid of Cardinal Bellarmines letter was said vpon the relation of those who saw it although they haue not the copy to shew And for so much as concerneth the principall point of F. Bellarmines letter to wit the imprisoning of the two priests it is confessed in his Apologie Cap. 4. fol. 120. out of the same letter The priests there being imprisoned in the Colledge is reputed agreat benefit vnto them They thought it not so but onely in this respect that they thought their liues were more in safety in the Colledge then in a common prison But in respect of the common cause without doubt it had bene a great preiudice had they had any hope of iustice But their hope was small when they saw that they were to be infamously caried away to prison before they could get audience But it troubleth this author much that Fa. Parsons should be termed a Iaylor especially there being another who had the keyes of their chambers to bring them meat and all other necessaries but he telleth not who had the keyes all the rest of the day If F. Parsons had not bene seene to weare them at his girdle this matter might haue bene somewhat clenlier caried but it was too open to be excused Next followeth a defence of F. Parsons for his shewing of M. Charnocks handkerchiefs and night coyfes which this author saith were so wrought with silke and gold lace is they might seeme to serue for any Secular prince in the world and the socks for his feete were of so fine Holland as the Commissary said he was well assured that his Holines neuer woare such for his shirts You must imagine that this relation is very authenticall although M. Charnock had neither handkerchiefe nor night coife that any Iesuite in England would vouchsafe to weare they were so meane I haue seene the night coife and it is wrought in deed with silke For it hath a border of blacke silke about it 3. fingers broad and all the rest of the cap is plaine Holland it hath some 6. pennie-worth of gold and siluer edging and as many as haue seene the cappe wonder at the impudencie of this Author who perchance did thinke the cappe would not haue bene kept The conceit which is made of his handkerchiefes is much more ridiculous And by the tale of his sockes this Author bringeth into my minde a tale of a preacher who tolde his parish that Christ fed fiue hundred with such a small quantity and being told softly by the Clarke that they were fiue thousand he bad him hold his peace like a foole and told him that if he could perswade the people that they were fiue hundred he had done a good dayes worke I vnderstand that the Commissary sayd how that his Holines did not weare so fine cloth in his bands But this author thought this was too much to be beleeued and therefore he set it downe the Popes shirts Whereupon saith he conferring with M. Charnocke himselfe in the presence of Fa Parsons and M. Bishop vpon the 8. of Aprill when they were to haue the first fauour to speake together and to walke at libertie in the College at certaine times when answere was made that priests now a dayes for dissimulation are forced to vse such things in England he replied that at the leastwise it was not needefull to bring such strange delicacies to Rome and that albeit in some externall apparell dissimulation might be tolerable in English Priests at home in respect of the times yet in such thinge whereof their vse was onely in secret as night-coifes and sockes and the like he saw no neede of excesse or dissimulation And this was all that passed in this matter vpon the faith of such an honest man as writ this Apologie But now sir one tale is tolde the other is not told which is that M. Charnockes answere was to this effect that Priests traueiling vp down in England were to vse such things as were fit for such persons as they bare in their trauaile especially when they lay not in Catholike houses where they were knowen but in common Innes where neither night-coifes not socks were vsed in secret And for his bringing those things to Rome his answere was that hee had necessary vse of them at his comming out of England making account to returne againe he had little reason to throwe those things away after that they had the first time serued him And if it had pleased them at Rome to haue left his Truncke vnsearched the cap had neuer ben seene in Rome And M. Bishop being requested to say what he knew of this strange delicacie affirmed that he had neuer seene it before But if M. Charnocke had either worne it by the way as he
trauailed in England to the sea coast or at sea where he was not knowen nor willing to be knowen for such as hee was what an absurd exception was this that he did bring such things to Rome as though he ought to haue cast them away But this fellow careth not what halfe tales he telleth to make his Reader beleeue any thing which might any way tend to the discredite of a Priest The long tale which this author telleth of Fa. Parsons departure from Oxford I will omit because it runneth into many particulars of which I haue no knowledge But the trueth is he was expelled and the bels were rong at Magdalene College for his expulsion And this authour his charging the fellowes with the breach of oath when they made knowen his expulsion is very ridiculous The causes of his expulsion I omit to set them downe in this place as they are deliuered vnto vs onely this I note that it was not for religion howsoeuer he might haue an inclination thereunto and might be the worse liked of therefore by some for of this imputation or slander as he called it he offered to a Gentleman of the Temple to cleare himselfe by oth But when the fellowes proceeded to his expulsion and no man stood for him hee requested that he might resigne to which the fellowes yeelded Then did he write in this manner Ego Robertus Parsonus socius Collegij de Baliolo resigno omne meum ius titulum claimeum quem habeo vel habere potere societatis mea in dicto Collegio quod quidem facio sponte coactus die decimo tertio mensis Februarij Anno Domini 1573. I Robert Parsons fellow of the Colledge of Balioll resigne all my right title and claime which I haue or may haue of my fellowship in the same College which I doe of mine owne accord and compelled thereto the 13. of February in the yeere of our Lord 1573. This being done he made request that this might be kept secret for a time and that he might keepe his chambers and scholers as a fellow of the house which was also granted vnto him and thereupon was this decree written as followeth Eodem tempore decretum est vnanimi consensu Magistri reliquorum sociorum vt Magister Robertus Parsonus nuperrimè socius retineat sibi sua cubicula scholares quousque volucrit communia sua de Collegio habeat vsque ad festum Paschatis immediatè sequentis That is It is dereed at the same time by the generall consent of the Master and the rest of the fellowes that M. Robert Parsons late fellow doe retaine his chambers and schollers as long as he will and haue his commons of the College vniill the feast of Easter next following But F. Par. perceining shortly after that his knell had bene rung at Magdalene College and how he was mocked by some in the house he left the College and went to London where he conferred with a Gentleman of the middle Temple about his trauaile to studie phisicke to whom hee offered to take his oath that he was slandered with the name of a Papist and that hee neither was a Papist nor euer meant to be one But withall this is to be noted that this authour appealing fol. 193. to the Registers of Balioll colledge the Registers haue bene sought and there is some little difference in the words of the Resignation for where we haue cited it sponte coactus now there is a dash through and this word non writtē ouer head a manifest signe of some false dealing For it is not likely that in that place would haue bin written for non it maketh a cleane contrary sense Neither is the obiection well solued fol. 197. which brought F. Parsons in suspition of bastardie for there are diuers who confirme as much as the priests said that is that it was the common opinion through out the whole Countrey His quarrels with diuers of his order and others will be iustified and the letter of M. Benstead will also be prooued to be falsified But the patch which is clapped vpon the 201. lease argueth how forward these fellowes are to discredite the priests with most false and scandalous imputations when they themselues are ashamed thereof That which concerneth M. D. Bagshaw is to be answered by himselfe who no doubt knoweth in what cases doubtfull answeres and equiuocations are to be made to curious questions neither is it to be thought that he disallowed thereof but onely of the liberty which is in the Iesuites and their adherents in all their dealings with other men through which all confidence is taken away among men as not knowing what senses these fellowes will alleage that they had in their speeches and actions CHAP. 18. How the Secular priests appealing to Rome and going to his Holinesse for iustice against the vniust slanders of the Iesuits and their adherents are falsly and with great ignominie to the Sea Apostolike compared by this Apologie-maker to Alcymus and to Simon who went to Demetrius and Apolonius heathen persecutors of Gods people and his priests Apol cap. 13. IN the 13. Chapter this Authour vseth gentle perswasions to his discontented brethren and proposeth certaine considerations and a better way for reunion againe as he supposeth In the first consideration occurreth nothing worthy noting his rayling speeches excepted hudling vp of scriptures one vpon another against the disobedient to their Superiours which concerneth the priests nothing at all who neuer disobeyed their knowen Superiours but alwayes submitted themselues vnto them as it is manifestly prooued in all their bookes and more at large in M. Collingtons booke and in M. D. Ely his notes vpon the Apologie He maketh a recapitulation of some matters in the same false vaine in which he writ this Apologie as is sufficiently discouered in this answere to the places quoted by him and in the same kind is his second consideration imputing the iust defence of the priests from the Iesuits imposture of schisme and other grieuous sinnes to emulation hatred pride reuenge libertie and other his owne and his fellowes humours In the third consideration he doeth explicate himselfe how the priests dealt with the Counsell and his first tale soundeth so shamefully false as it were ynough to conuince an indifferent man that this author had no honestie nor care of his credit And doubtlesse had there not bene a great dearth of paper this place should haue had a patch vpon it as was put vpon that malitious and wicked glose against the same man and his fellowes fol. 201. Note I pray you the impudencie of this fellow First saith he as before you haue heard and in the margent he quoteth the 10. and 12. Chapters as soone as euer they vnderstood that their two messengers were restrained in Rome and not like to preuaile then D. Bagshaw was sent for from Wisbich to London to treat with the Counsell c. Could this man