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
they list In the first Chapter of the Apol. fol. 2. this author affirmeth that the principall or onely ground of this our present contention and scandalous controuersie is an emulation partly of lay men against Priests and partly of Priests against religious men especially the Fathers of the societie And in the 11. Chap. fol. 161. he sayth that the whole world knoweth that this cōtrouersie is of Priests with the Archpriest and that the stomacke against the Iesuits is for standing with the Archpriest By which besides the contradiction it appeareth how this poore mans memory doth faile him euen in the deciding betweene whome the controuersie is which hee vndertaketh to handle and determine 13 In the same Chapter fol. 6. and 7. the beginning of the association of secular Priests is attributed to the Priests vpon their comming into England A malicious deuise for to discredit the association intended by the priests after they were frustrated of their designments by F. Parsons dealing at Rome whereas his comming to Rome was in the yeere 1597. and not before as appeareth in this place and the association began in the yeere 1595. and F. Parsons was tolde thereof before hee came out of Spaine for Rome 14 Cap 3. fol. 20. The Iesuites care for pure stuffe to make priests of The bookes which are set out by the Priests are sayd to be done by such as went ouer Seruingmen Souldiers and wanderers which is most apparantly false if those were the authors which in the beginning of this Apologie are held to be 15 Fol. 21. It is sayd That the whole bodie and name of Iesuites is impugned which is most false as may appeare in the booke to the Inquisition pag. 5. 16 Cap. 6. fol. 27. D. Norden is saide to haue bene striken by God with a strange accident of repressing his tongue by dumbnesse vntill hee died which is most false hee dying no more strangely then all persons vse to die according to the maner as the sickenesse doth take them It is well knowen that he died of a Lethargie and that he spake many times after he was first taken therewith and died in all points as became a Catholike priest as there are many to witnesse who were present 17 Cap. 8. fol. 98. His Holines is sayd to haue resolued to yeeld to the erecting of a gouernment in England vpon a mature deliberation taken of certaine letters which by the date there set downe were written in England after that this gouernment was erected Conferre them with the date of the Card Caietanes letters of the institution of the Archpriest Martij 7. 1598. and the first of these here cited wil be seene to haue bene written in England about a moneth before 18 Fol. 109. The falsehood which is layd to M. Blackewel in his proposing false instructions and affirming them to haue been annexed to his Commission is shuffled ouer with an assertion that his instructions came with his letters which no man euer doubted of The exception was against those which were proposed for such and were not such 19 In the same leafe M. Blackewell his persisting in this error that we could not appeale from him to his Holines is shifted first in this maner We are sure he did not say it in the sense they take it Secondly thus Many men in the world might say this in diuers cases wherin Appeale is cut off by his Holinesse consent and order A couple of good ieasts The first is common to that sort of people to flie to secret senses to iustifie any thing whatsoeuer passeth them And it were not altogether so intolerable if they would vnder the pretence that sometime men may aequiuocate by the example of our Sauiour other his saints onely vse it to saue themselues from being taken for such as they are but they will pleasure their friends with the like and be as ready to giue a sense of other mens words as their owne but with this difference that if they can possibly deuise how to draw other mens words to an euill sense they will peremptorily affirme that those men spake their wordes in that sense And this their frowardnes towards others is sufficiently discouered cap 2. Apol fol. 16. where the priests assertions that authority is not an infallible rule of trueth and that but one vpon earth is warranted from error and not he in all things are called in question by this author vpon some his imaginary senses But in the late spritish manifestation of spirits cap. 1. hee discouereth himselfe egregiously in this kinde where confessing that Statutes haue bene made both by our ancient kings of England and by our protestant princes by which they haue forbidden prouisions from Rome of dignities Benefices he telleth his Reader very peremptorily that they priests do conspire and iumpe with the protestant and in a false and hereticall sense obiect the statute of Praemunire Which also he would seeme to proue by giuing a reason why the olde statutes were made as though neither the statute were to bee interpreted according to the contents thereof whatsoeuer was the cause of the making thereof nor the absolute prouision of dignities from Rome forbidden because the motiue of that statute was to keepe the treasure of England within the land which was raised by the benefices at that time annexed to the dignities But to make this his cauill more plaine the dignity of a legate had no spirituall liuing annexed vnto it and yet did those Catholike princes hold him to haue incurred the penaltie of the Statute of Praemunire who would exercise a power Legantine in England without the Soueraignes consent as may appeare by the answere of Card. Wolsey when they endighted him in a Praemunire vpon those statutes constrained thereunto sayth the history to intitle the King to his goods and possessions Iohn Stow 21. Hen. 8. My Lords iudges the Kings highnesse knoweth whether I haue offended his Maiestie or no in vsing of my prerogatiue Legantine for the which I am indited I haue the Kings license in my coffers vnder his hand and broad Scale for the exercising and vsing thereof in the most largest wise the which are now in the handes of my enemies Therefore because I will not stand in question with the King in his owne cause I will here presently confesse before you the inditement and put me wholly to the mercy and grace of the King trusting that he hath a conscience and a discretion to consider the truth and my humble submission and obedience wherein I might right well stand to the tryall thereof by iustice c. By which it appeareth that although his Maiesty who then was were mooued by some of his counsell infected with Luthers doctrine to condemne the Cardinal for vsing his power Legantine yet it is euident by this that when the King was most Catholike and the Cardinal also the Cardinall would not exercise his authoritie Legantine without the Kings license and
the King gaue it to him vnder his hand and broad Seale which conuinceth that whatsoeuer was the motiue of making those statutes all prouisions of dignities from Rome were forbidden and not those onely which had temporall liuings annexed vnto them And hereby also may it be seene how ready these fellowes are to interprete other mens words in the worst sense which they may affirme most peremptorily that the speakers or writers had those senses which it most pleased their aduersaries to giue them And thus much for this point Onely this is to bee added that although this new manifester of spirits hath in this place recanted somewhat of his rashnesse vttered in the Apol. cap. 2. fol. 15. concerning the chiefe purpose of those statutes of Praemunire yet he hath left somewhat in this manifestation of spirits which he must in some other place recant or shew himselfe a very obstinate impostor that is concerning the time of the enacting those Statutes which were long before the time in which hee here sayth they were made as may appeare by the booke of Statutes The second shift is as apparant as this For although many men in the world may say as much as the Archpriest said in diuers cases wherein Appeale is cut off by his Holinesse consent and order yet no man in the world who professeth to be a Catholike will say it and stand peremptorily in it without some warrant by this clause in their Commission appellatione remota or to that effect which is not to be found in the Commission which M. Blackwell had as may appeare to those who will reade ouer the Cardinall Caietane his letters by which he made him an Archpr and Superiour ouer the Seminary priests residing in England and Scotland 20 Cap. 9. fol. 123. There are letters of the 18. of March 1598. from Flanders brought out against the two Priests that went from England to Rome about an authoritie not then knowen in England as by the date of the letters of institution it may be euidently gathered which was at Rome 7. Martij 1598. 21 Fol. 125. 126. 127. There are letters brought out to proue that his Holinesse was prouoked by them to imprison the two priests whereas the date of the first of them is after the date of F. Bellarmine now Cardinall his letter to F. Parsons wherein he signified that his Holines had that resolution if they came to Ferrara for his letter beareth date the 17. of October 1598. as appeareth fol. 120. Apol. and the first of the other letters are from Doway 25. Octobr. 1598. as appeareth fol. 125. 22 Fol. 132. A most audacious imposture It is said that M. Charnocke said and swore before that their onely comming was to supplicate c. whereas there is no such matter said or sworne by M. Charnocke as may appeare fol. 129. where his oath is put downe without this word onely which is here thrust in by the author for his purpose 23 Fol. 128. F. Parsons exhortations were the students onely informations The whole English Colledge is said to haue knowen what passed at Rome in this matter when the two priests were there deteyned prisoners which no one being present at any thing which passed is a most grosse and impudent imposture 24 Cap. 10. fol. 141. It is affirmed That the two Priests who were deteyned as prisoners at Rome were presently set at libertie vpon the sight of the Breue and assurance that neither they nor any of their side in England would euer stirre more in these affaires Which may euidently appeare to bee most false for the Breue was brought vnto them within two or three dayes after the date thereof which is 6. Aprilis and the whole Colledge will witnesse that one of them was not set at libertie vntill the 6. of May following although the other had this libertie vpon the 22. of April 25 Fol. 143. A marucilous presumption of the blinde reader his dulnesse There is very good vse made of the false dating of the Breue which is knowen to haue bene vpon the sixth of April 1599. and not long before that is fol. 140. it is twice so cited Yet here for the credit of F. Parsons the Reader must take the Breue to beare date the 21. of the said moneth 26 Fol. 154. This Authour should haue shewed what meanes M. Char. had to liue in Lorraine It is sayd that M. Charnock being at Paris it was there resolued that he should go into England vnder pretence of lacke of meanes to liue abroade and that onely for fashions sake hee should aduise Card. Burghesius which is very false as the principall of our Nation then liuing in Lorayne can testifie M. Charnock hauing been there almost a yeere and neuer receiued any thing from them who confined him there nor from England notwithstanding he had written diuers times both to Rome and into England for some maintenance as some of them haue testified in their letters to the Archpr. dated the 11. of April 1600. from Liuerdune 27 Fol. 168. A shameles disseâ—…ling of the cause of these present controuersies This Author inueigheth bitterly against the priests and would haue his Reader most ridiculously to thinke that the priests had no iust cause to stirre as now they doe but that they tooke occasion as hee sayeth vpon an angry Epistle of the Archpriests vnto them and most impudently quoteth a place in the priests booke to his Holilines pag. 62. where his Reader may see that the contents of that Epistle was a publication that they were schismatiks and that hee had receiued such a resolution from Rome which we leaue to any indifferent man to iudge whether it was a iust cause for the priests to stirre for the purging themselues of this wicked slander 28 Fol. 177. This Author boldly demaundeth touching the two priestes who were imprisoned at Rome among other questions all which will bee answered in their places had they not licence after all examinations made to goe and speake with his Holines if they would Whereas all the English Nation then in Rome wil testifie that they were kept close prisoners long after their examinations were made and the one not dismissed out of prison vntill two dayes after that the other was departed from Rome by which it appeareth that they were not together at liberty after their first imprisonment nor licensed to goe to speake with his Hol. 29 Cap. 13. fol. 201. It is affirmed that M. Bensted was pursued so narrowly vp and downe London soone after conference with D. Bagshaw as he was taken neere the Tower and soone after made away in recompense of this his contradiction to the D. A most malicious suggestion For so good friends saith this fellow in this place are the persecutors vnto them as none that dissent or disagree from them shall finde any fauour And to make this Narration seeme the more probable the priest himselfe is brought
M. Colington as is here falsly noted in the margent for about that time M. Collington lay very little at or neere London and they and some others thought it very fit that there should be an association of such priests as would liue vnder rule to take away that slander which the Iesuits their fauourites to further their ambitious attempts had generally spread abroad against the priests to wit that they liued not vnder rule And thus much concerning this first falshood and the deluding his Holinesse with this tale that the association was a new deuise of such as were in those broiles at Rome and would not remaine in that peace which was commended vnto them and commanded by his Holines in the yere 1597. The second falshood is more deceitfully although as grosly conueyed in putting his Holines in mind what was his second motiue in the ordaining our easie and sweete Subordination forsooth the letters and requests of diuers of the grauest priests of our nation which after we shal cite And because he wil seem to deale faithfully in this cause he putteth this note in the margent Ca. 9 10. Apol. by which his Hol. is giuen to vnderstand that those letters and requests of the grauest priests by which he was induced to make this subordination are to be found in the ninth and tenth Chapt. of the Apol. But now what if there be not any letters or requests in the ninth or tenth Chapt. concerning any such matter what a shamelesse felow is this informer In the ninth chapter fol. 125. begin certain letters of some priests and others follow but these are not neither can be the motiues of his Holinesse to make this Subordination they are written particularly against M. D. Bishop and M. Charnock because they presumed to goe to his Holines about this Subordination already made as it was And this is euident to those who will vouchsafe to turne vnto the chapters In the tenth chapter there is lesse matter if lesse may be for this purpose that I cannot but marueile how this fellow durst tell his Holines such a lewd tale But perchance this good fellow had this policie he set in the margent the 9 and 10. chapters hoping that his Holines if he should chance to cause them to be turned into Latin would be so tired with seeking in the ninth as he would rather beleeue they were in the 10. chapt then be so troubled againe perchance this marginall note was set but in the English Copie where it would serue well enough for those which haue such a facilitie in beleeuing such like felowes as this is as they will runne ryot with them howsoeuer their conscience disclaimeth it Perchance it was mistaken and this 9. and 10. chapters were put in the margent in stead of the eighth And this we are induced to beleeue the rather because at the beginning of the eighth chap. this very matter is handled and some letters cited and for the better satisfaction of the reader I will here set downe the place at large to which as I suppose this felow alludeth and had rather his Reader should misse the place then hit it because retaining a confused remembrance of such matters he should runne away with it without further examination of the trueth or the likelyhood thereof These are the words in the Apology cap. 8. fol. 98. When his Holinesse heard the former state of the matters in England Flanders and other places and of the murmurations of some against the Fathers of the societie set down aswell in the foresaid contumelious Memoriall as by diuers other letters and relations which came to the Protectors sight and by him was related to his Holines and namely when he receiued great store of priuate and publike letters out of England against the sayd Memoriall of Fisher and some one with aboue an 100. hands at it other with 40 and 50 all in fauour and commendation of the Fathers their labours and behauiour in England against the sayd slanderous Memoriall and many other in seuerall letters of principall men which are yet extant when also diuers of these did expresly demaund some Subordination and gouernement of Secular priests to take away this emulation of some few against the Fathers and that two lately came out of England at that very time one a Iesuite the other a secular priest each of them vrging the same in the behalfe both of the one and the other order his Holinesse after mature deliberation resolued to yeelde thereunto hoping thereby to quiet all c. And so he goeth forward and sheweth how it was consulted vpon and of whom opinions were asked to wit of F. Parsons F. Baldwin who was one of the two which lately came out of England as appeareth by the marginall note in that place M. Doctor Haddock M. Martin Array M. Iames Standish who was the other which came out of England as appeareth by the same marginall note although falsly sayd to bee a secular priest hauing giuen his name long before to become a Iesuite and gaue it out here in England that his going ouer was to enter into their order others that had laboured in the English vineyard perchance Fa. Warford another Iesuit such like but those matters we shall handle there in that place Here onely we haue noted this relation out of the 8. chap. to help the fauourers of this Apologie that they wander not through the woods to no purpose if they follow not the path which their author sheweth thē and so bring them where they may find somewhat although not that which they looke for after a long seeking where there is nothing at all of this matter And if this be not the place which is meant in this Epistle there is none in all the Apologie For this quotation in the margent fol. 101. in the same chapt See the letter of 6. ancient priests the 13. of September 1597. is a poore proofe and to say the trueth it would bee more for the others credit if there were none at all cited in the Apologie For if any man will be so indifferent in this case as but to looke vnto the dates of the letters here cited in the beginning of the eighth chapter in the Apologie which by the Contents seemeth to bee the place which must iustifie as much as is suggested in this Epistle and conferre them with the date of Cardinal Caietane his letter by which this Subordination was appointed in England he shall finde that they were all written after the Cardinals letters some longer some lesse while and consequently after his Holines his determination to make this Subordination and therefore could not be any motiue thereof The letter of the Card. Caietane by which the Subordination was appointed in England beareth date the 7. of March 1598 as appeareth in that 8 chapter fol. 102. And the letters by which his Holines is sayd to haue been mooued to make this Subordination in England and
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
publique submission and in expresse words acknowledged his errour in that he had not so long a time obserued that saying Qui nescit dissimulare nescit viuere he that knoweth not how to dissemble knoweth not how to liue How farre foorth M.D.B. noted in the margent was a cause of that visitation I know not but if we doe not mistake the man hee was sent into England long before this visitation came to the College And as for the other two Priests whose names are set in the margent in this sort G G.E.G. who are said to haue conspired with the Councell in England and for more grace and gratification haue writ two mischieuous bookes the one saith this authour against D. Allen the other against F. Parsons and the Iesuites giuing them vp to Walsingham the Queenes Secretarie affirming also among other points to make the parties more odious as our men their successours doe at this day that these men depended of Spaniards and were enemies to their Countrey We heartily wish that this authour may liue in as good credit as the one of them liueth after all his trouble in Italy or elsewhere and die as penitent as the other died after his troubles in France He who writ against the Iesuites was too priuie to their actions aswell in England as elsewhere to be deceiued in them And if the Appellants be the men whom here this authour meaneth by these words their successors they may purge themselues very well from any offence in hauing the like thought For it is well knowen that Fa. Parsons in Spaine caused many aswell others as Priestes to subscribe as priests to the title of the Infanta now Dutches of Burgundie Fa. Tancard also hath made many to set their handes to three blanks although some refused to do it as they haue themselues reported at their returne into England We haue moreouer vnderstood that Fa. Parsons was a chiefe dealer in the sending of those Armadoes which the Spaniards haue set out for the inuasion of our Countrey and there are in England with whome hee dealt most earnestly to goe in the Nauie which was set out in the yeere 1596. who refusing to be imployed in any action against their Countrey were for that cause sent away from the College told that it was not conuenient that they should stay in the College where they had giuen example of such repugnance There is moreouer sufficient proofe that after the euill successe of the Spanish attempts Fa. Parsons carried a youth to the king of Spaine who pronounced a certaine speech for the purpose which being ended Fa. Parsons began to vrge the king to giue one attempt more affirming that he silly fellow would write his letters into England and nothing doubted to effect what should be to the great furtherance of such a iourney We haue also certaine intelligence that the Iesuites had deuised a meanes to haue had the tower of London seazed into their hands and how they would haue it held vntil the Spaniard came to rescue them Diuers of their letters haue bin shewed to diuers prisoners for proofe against them when they haue answered in defence of the Iesuites that they thought them free from such stratagems And amongst the rest there is one of the 10. of Iune 1596. wherein there are these wordes It may be if the kings faintnesse and pusillanimitie hinder vs not as heretofore it hath the Armado will be with you about August or September This is one good helpe Ireland wil be onely for vs. The Earle of Tyrone and Odonell would gladly haue helpe from hence and they are well contented to let the Spaniards haue certaine holdes and forts for their vses This will greatly pleasure to trouble and disquiet England and in the mean time serue for harbour for the ships that shall passe that way c. It were necessary you should make it knowen aforehand that no Cath. man or woman shall take harme either in body or goods Let euery man be quiet till the Spaniards be landed then shall there presently proclamation be made of all securitie There were 200. copies of these proclamations printed in Spaine Certaine other letters also haue bene seene of Fa. Parsons to his fellow Iesuits in England wherein he hath wished that the Catho would vnite themselues together set vp a king of England And in his letters of the 24. of Ianu. 1600. to the Earle of Anguise he confesseth that he dealt in such matters for 8. or 10. yeeres But if all these and many other as infallible proofes did faile vs F. Parsons booke of Succession would so farre conuince his dealing in State matters in the behalfe of Spaine as the Appellantes may without scruple charge him with it yet without any intention to make him more odious knowing it a thing very impossible if they were so minded And thus much concerning this authour his folly in indeuouring to gall the Appellantes with the name of Successors to such as affirmed that the Iesuites depended of the Spaniards and were enemies to their Countrey The next fit of emulation here mentioned is against D. Allen when he was to be made a Cardinall and it is set out with a very rich margent and much to our present matter in controuersie I warrant you But not beeing able to preuaile in this against the Card himselfe sayth this author they began to set more earnestly against the Iesuits his chiefest friends and constant defenders as well in stirring vp the schollers in Rome against the Fathers that gouerned them as also to make a faction against them by Secular Priests in England as may appeare by a letter of the Cardinals owne written most earnestly not sixe moneths before his death to a priest named Mush c. There is a speciall Treatise comming forth of the troubles of that Romane English Colledge to which I am to referre the Reader and to note no other thing in this place then that the misdemeanours of the Iesuits was the cause of all those troubles But concerning this foolish assertion that there was a faction against the Iesuits by Secular priests in England the cōtrary is most cleare as all England may witnesse and there is a letter extant of M. George Blackwell the now Archpriest wherein hee inueigheth mightily against those who had made the report that the priests and Iesuites were at strife Ianuary 1596. to th◠C. Caietane And this letter is kept in the English Colledge at Rome registred as an Oracle although perchance not for this clause so much as for the immoderate but false extolling of the Iesuits in doing infinite deeds of charitie out of the profits of their patrimonies nam minima sunt c. sayth M. Black it is not worth the speaking of which they receiue of almes c. And whereas the Card. Allen his letter is here brought to testifie a faction of either the schollers at Rome or the Secular priests in England against the
in Religion he would haue put the law in execution against them An other note which this authour maketh is that by the Countrey the Priests must needes meane themselues only that is to say some fiue or sixe that opposed themselues at the beginning for that his Holinesse had not asked their consents See I pray you how this fellow stil thrusteth in his Holinesse in this action who was not knowen in 12. moneths after to haue dealt therein except what might be gathered by the imprisonment of the two Priests who went out of England to Rome to haue shewed what they and others thought meete hee should vnderstand although this their imprisonment being such and in such maner before they had audience was an argument to some that it was not his action and that aswell his Holinesse in particular as that Sea and those who did fly thither for succour were too too much abused and this imprisonment of the two priests was about ten moneths after the institutiō of the Archipresbyterie How handsomely would this fellowes musicke sound were this string in tune vpon which he harpeth so often But it being so generally knowen that his Holines was not seene in the action vntill his Breue came which was aboue a yeere after the institution of the authoritie no man but he who is past shame would so often vrge his Holinesse or disobedience to his Holinesse And in this place he giueth this cause in mockage why fiue or sixe opposed themselues at the beginning for that his Holinesse had not asked their consents Alas poore man how faine he is of any foolish conceite to bring the priests into a contempt with the Catholikes Whose consent did his Holinesse aske when he confirmed the authoritie by his Breue I am well assured that he asked not the consent of any of them and yet if the Pope be of any credit or his Breue of the 17. of August 1601. they did all presently without delay yeeld themselues So that this absurd fiction of this fellow is too too apparant I would also demand whether his Holinesse had the consent of any of the Secular priests in England when this authoritie was first instituted and of how many If he had not the consent of them as doubtlesse he had not more then what M. Standish a Iesuit by promise abusing the priests gaue for them in their names who sent him not why is this vrged against fiue or sixe as though all the rest had giuen their consents to the institution thereof If he had the consent of the priestes why was there such canuasing for voyces or hands to be set to a letter which began thus Olim dicebamur Why were so many threatned Why were others who were not to be threatned sollicited with Now it is Fa. Parsons deuise you must not deny your hand Againe to an other you shall not deny me to set your hand vnto it And afterward his hand was set to it and he knew not thereof nor gaue any consent thereto And in this kind did the Iesuits labour and posted from one to another to get consents after that they sawe some to forbeare to yeelde themselues vnto it What deuises were vsed to others for their liking hereof may also be gathered by M. Blackwels behauiour in this point who sending for M. Collington and M. Charnocke vrged them to like thereof and threatned them that vnlesse they would positiuely affirme that they did like thereof he was to send information to Rome that they did dislike thereof notwithstanding they would giue no other answere then this vnto him that they did neither like nor would dislike but would beare themselues as became Catholike priests to do And this was all the opposition which was made at the beginning and it was by fewer then 6. or 5. for it was by these two only which were enow and are as many and perchance one more then at the beginning vse to oppose thēselues against springing heresies errors falshoods or the misdemeanors of such as aduenture to shew themselues in priuate before they appeare more openly to the world The causes of this opposition as this fellow tearmeth it are discoursed vpon at large by M. Iohn Collington in his booke lately set foorth of this argument And thus much in answere of that which this author noteth vpon the priests wordes which he citeth in this place After these notes taken vpon the priests words he declareth his opinion of the statute of Premunire in this maner And as for the Statute of Premunire by them mentioned it is not so ancient as they make it but was begunne to be treated about the time that Wickliffe rose vp when emulation was in heate against the Clergie and the chiefe purpose thereof was at the beginning to prohibite appellation to Rome in the first instance vnder the paines aforesaid and the worst kings of England euer since haue most vrged it and it was not made as these men say by our Catholike Bishops and Prelates nor could in conscience but sorely rather against their wils was it passed in Parliament by the streame of Temporall power and emulation against them c. If the priests did speake of a Statute of Premunire according to the opinions of men well seene in the lawes of our Realme how impertinent is this to tell vs what the chiefe purpose thereof was at the beginning and this being so that the chiefe purpose thereof was to prohibite appellation to Rome in the first instance and therefore no Catholike Bishop or Prelate could in conscience agree to the making thereof doeth not this fellow shew himselfe to be past shame in bringing in this conceite to the infinite discredit of the Archpriest and his tutors We will here omit how the Archpriest who according to his sixth instruction is to doe nothing of moment without the aduise of the Iesuites when he sent first to speake with M. Collington and M. Charnocke stood very stiffely vnto it In his letters to M. Collington that we might not appeale from him to Rome vntill it was often inculcated vnto him how dangerous that proposition was We wil also here omit his commandements vnto vs not to goe to Rome first to pleade our cause in hand for to this perchance answere may be made that he had procured that it should be first heard in Flanders before his Holinesse his Nuncio to whom when our brethren presented themselues and shewed themselues readie to haue their cause heard no one appeared for the Archpriest although he had before giuen out by his letters what potent aduersaries the priests should there find in this behalfe The Nuntio his letter to M. Blackwell and the Nuntio himselfe had written vnto him to come or send some instructed in his cause Wee doe here aske with what conscience haue his godly tutors aduised him and he attempted to punish such as haue appealed to Rome because they haue appealed to Rome as his owne
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
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
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
and how it was ordained and intimated by the Protector called in question by some discōtented brethren without reason or authoritie and how great troubles haue ensued thereof And first he beginneth to declare the motiues or causes of this Subordination in this maner When his Holines heard the former state of matters in England Flanders and other places and of the murmurations of some against the Fathers of the Societie set downe as well in the aforesaid contumelious Memoriall as by diuers other letters and relations which came to the Protectors sight and by him was related to his Holines and namely when he receiued great store of priuate and publique letters out of England against the said Memoriall of Fisher and some one with aboue 100. hands at it other with 40. and 50. all in fauour and commendation of the Fathers their labours and behauiour in England against the said slanderous Memoriall And in the margent there is this note See the letters of the Northern Priests 24. Martij 1598. and others 20 of April and others after 30. Iuly And others of the South in great number 18 of May and of the quiet sort of Wisbich 27. of March 1598. it followeth in the text and many other in seuerall letters of principall men which are yet extant but are not yet to be seene when also diuers of these did expresly demand some subordination and gouernment of Secular Priests to take away this emulation of some few against the Fathers as though all but a few would haue had them to haue bene their masters and that two lately came out of England at this very time one a Iesuit the other a Secular Priest bate me an ace quoth he for M. Standish had giuen his name before to become a Iesuite and therefore a vassaile of theirs although he retained still the habite of a Secular priest that vnder that habit he might the more cunningly deceiue his Holines each of them vrging the same in behalfe of the one and other order a couple of fit Proctors for the purpose But when all this was done What then Forsooth his Holines after mature deliberation resolued to yeeld thereunto hoping hereby to quiet all as well for that the Secular priests should by this meanes haue gouernours of their owne as also for that the Fathers by all likelyhood should remaine free from all matter of calumniation about gouerning Secular priests for the time to come How currant would this tale be if one of the most necessary matters there were not that the Archpriest must aduise still with the Iesuits in his greatest affaires for so he is commanded in his instructions and consequently the Fathers by all likelyhood do not remaine free from all maner of calumniation as he termeth it about gouerning Secular priests And doubtlesse if it be a calumniation to say the Fathers do gouerne the Secular priests what is it when they are not said to gouerne but doe really gouerne by order as is said from his Holines in great matters and of their owne great deuotion in all other by the Archpriest his blinde obedience vnto them But now to the maine motiue of this Subordination and that which caused his Holines to consult for some moneths and to seeke for informations out of England of the quiet at the least for the fittest men for gouernment as this author immediatly suggesteth we must conceiue some such strange miracle as that there was some extraordinary day weeke or moneth in which this motiue was made consultation had and information giuen In this chapter fol. 102. it is confessed and if it were not it would bee otherwise prooued that the Cardinals letters by which the authority was instituted did beare date the seuenth of March in the yeere 1598. This then being dispatched at that time what time would a reasonable man haue allowed for the trauailing of the motiues thereof out of England to Rome How many wil he gesse those moneths to be which are here said by this author that his Hol. tooke to consult and to haue intelligence from the quiet in England of the fittest men for gouernment and could heare but of seuen in all England wherof one was dead to wit M. D. Henshaw The sunne who kept his course in England and saw how the Iesuites were calumniated as men that would gouerne the Secular priests stayed his course at Rome for the space of fiue or sixe moneths And whereas the Romanes had gotten the start of vs in England for some tenne dayes in the course of the yeere now the English had gotten the start of them and made their seuenth day of March come many moneths after ours For as it is sayd this authoritie was made at Rome vpon the seuenth of March 1598 and it was made vpon certaine informations as appeareth here in the margent fol. 98. which were sent out of England some the 24 of March some the 27 some the 20 of April some the 18 of May some the 30 of Iuly in the same yere 1598 to which if we should allow a time for the motiues to trauaile to Rome and some moneths for his Holinesse to consult and send backe againe into England for informations of the fittest men for gouernment I trowe the same would haue rested himselfe well at Rome howsoeuer hee laboured elsewhere to haue an authoritie instituted vpon these motiues consultations and informations vpon the seuenth of March at Rome in the same yere 1598. And least that they should bee idle at Rome any time of this long day In Rome also saith this Author the opinions were asked by the Protector of the principall English that resided there and could best informe as namely Father Parsons that had often aduice from thence from his fellow Iesuits and therefore could the better informe for his owne purpose Fa. Baldwin lately come from England a iolly bold yong fellow but a Iesuite and therefore a principal man M. D. Haddocke M. Martin Array whose fayrest game was to please the Iesuits M. Iames Standish who had giuen his name to the Iesuits to become one of their Order and others that had laboured in the English vineyard perchance Fa. Warford who was become also a Iesuite and helped to make vp a very fit Iurie to passe vpon the priests as also M. Thomas Allen nephew to the late Cardinall and diuers else not worthy the naming yet might very well be of the Councell the plot was so wisely cast who concurring with the opinion of letters comming out of England hee hath before told you what letters and when they were written some of them in Aprill some in May some in Iuly as also with diuers other principall men that wrote thereof from Spaine Flanders and other places some diuine intelligencers both of the necessitie of some Subordination to be made they had belike vnderstood of the Iesuits their ambitious humor wherewith they had begun to trouble all England namely about their insolent Agencie in Wisbich
was written the sixt of Iuly 1597. but what doth or can this concerne the priests comming to his Holines toward the later end of the yeere 1598 to deale about a matter which was not before the 7 of March in the same yere 1598 as appeareth by the date of the Cardinals letter Apologie ca. 8. fol. 104 There is also a piece of another letter of the same man to to the Cardinal Protector of the first of May 1598 which although it were written after that the Subordination was instituted yet it was written before that it was knowen in England for to our remembrance we had no knowledge thereof vntill it was May here with vs. But howsoeuer this was it was impossible that it could concerne the two priests their comming to his Holines for this was not so suddenly determined in England although vpon the first sight of the Cardinals letter the Archpriest was told that there was iust cause for them to goe to his Holinesse By this then it appeareth that D. Stapletons letters which were to Fa. Parsons and to the Protector could not induce his Holinesse to imprison the two Priests who came to deale about the Subordination Let vs now see what the second testimony auaileth him This testimony was of principall men who writ some moneths saith this author fol. 124. before these two messengers came ouer into Flanders he sayd France 120. but their negotiations in England were heard of and knowen and these principall men of whom the most principall standeth for the priests and is ioyned with them in affection and action in Rome at this present writ their letter to the general of the Iesuites vpon this voice which they heard when you doe iustice you shal make also peace a heauy saying for such as will bee prooued to haue done as great an iniury as may be by a publike diffamation of schisme and what not against Catholike priests without iust cause But what is this to the purpose how was his Holinesse vpon this letter resolued to imprison the two priests who were in the way to him for and concerning the Subordination which was made the Generall perchance of the Iesuits did shew this letter to his Holinesse and thereby the negotiations of these two and their fellowes came also to be knowen to his Holines all this goeth very currant But what if those men now become principall neither heard of these 2. priests as dealers in this action nor of any other not onely not in particular but neither in general What if they could not possibly heare that there was any Subordination knowen in England and much lesse that any did delay to admit thereof when they writ this letter to the Generall of the Iesuits How shamelesse will this author be iudged who would bring these principall men their letters as a motiue to his Holinesse to imprison these two priests before he would heare what they had to say This Subordination was made at Rome the seuenth of March in the yere 1598 and if the messenger had stridden a blacke horse to bring it into Englād yet could there not be any negotiations in England conueniently either by these two priests or others concerning the same in so short a time as that these 17 principall men vnlesse they were altogether attending as it were to haue entertained the same messenger in Flanders considered maturely of the negotiations which were in England could burnish vp a letter and dispatch it vpon the eighteenth of March in the same yeere 1598 as here is cited in the margent fol. 123. Now follow the letters of diuers zelous men When as this author saith these messengers were in their way indeed for the other were written especially those of the 17. principall men when the priests were in their negotiations before they set forward as it is said fol. 124. these men writ indeed very sharply and with such confidence as they might giue some suspition to a wise man that all was not well in England but yet there is no perswasion to haue the messengers cast into prison vntill they were heard a duetie which they might challenge if in no other respect yet at least for their trauaile in Gods Church for which they deserued a good opinion of the gouernours thereof The first here cited are from Doway 25. Octob. 1598. to the Protector to which some haue acknowledged their error in subscribing These letters doe not cleare Fa. Parsons for being the cause of his Holines resolution to imprison the two priests for in this Apologie it is confessed fol. 120 that his Holines was resolued vpon the 17. of October 1398. to cast them into prison for such date doeth the letter beare which F. Bellarmine now Cardinal is said to haue written to Fa. Parsons to informe him that his Holines so greatly misliked their troublesome fact that hee had told him that if they came to Ferrara he would cause them to be imprisoned If these then of the 25. of Octob. came too late to put such a resolution into his Holines head what shall wee say of these which came after for the next letters are from M. D. Worthington to the Protector and these beare date the 30. of October from Bruxels Next March D. Peerse who was the first in the ranke of the 17. principall men but now God knoweth what place he shall haue and among whom for that he is ioyned with the priests in Rome and in that action D. Caesar Clement that succeeded D. Stapleton in the office of assistance-ship to the Nuntius in Flanders in all English affaires a man that was neuer in England but to giue him his right the fittest man for that purpose as matters go and worthy to succeed D. Stapleton or any farre greater man then he in that kinde of managing English affaires D. Richard Hall three doctors but what these or other writ most earnestly and grauely to the same effect as the other did by al likelyhood this author knoweth not For as he saith he had not the copies of their letters when he writ this Apologie but hee met with a letter of M. Licentiat Wright deane of Cortrac in Flanders to the Protector which is here set downe in the Apologie wherein this deane hath litle cause to thanke this author who would discredit him so much as to set downe his iudgement of two priests whom he neuer saw And although his letter doe exceed the limits of all modestie yet doeth it not any whit auaile this author for proofe of that for which it is brought that is that his Holines was thereupon resolued to imprison the two priests for this letter beareth date 10. Nouembris 1598. as appeareth here fol. 126 which was a faire while after his Holines had that resolution as appeareth by F. Bellarmine now Card. his letter of the 17. of Octob. 1598. cited by this author fol. 120. yet goeth this fellow on very smoothly and not without great applause of the
are cited in this 8. chapter fol. 98 beare date some the 27 of March some the 20 of Aprill some the 18 of May some the 30 of Iuly the soonest the foure and twentieth of March 1598 all which must needes argue not onely an egregious falshood in this Epistle-maker but a notorious impudencie in telling his Holinesse to his teeth that hee did make an easie and sweete Subordination vpon the letters and requests which he had neuer heard of nor possibly could they not hauing been written or thought vpon by the Inditors long after his Holinesse is sayd to haue thought vpon the Subordination and caused it to be made by the Card Caietane And as for the note in the margent fol. 101. it is not probable that a letter of that moment would not haue been set in the booke much sooner then any other With the like libertie this Epistle is continued His Holines is told that all good and obedient Catholicks were much contented and comforted with this subordination which is a most iniurious insinuation against many who to make no odious comparisons haue shewed themselues in all points as hath become the best most obedient Catholicks Neither are there any letters at all in the 9. Chap. of the Apol. of this thankesgiuing as the Pope is here told and those which are in the 8. cha are not from any of the Laitie but from some priests all whose names are for some causes omitted in this Apol. except the first subscriber the last which perchance was therefore thought necessary to be set downe to proue that at the least there were two to a letter and that the middle names might bee as many in number as are here supposed But it was a marueilous good chance that the first subscriber and the last were such as their names might be knowen But perchance vnder the name of all good and obedient Catholicks the English Clergie is also to be vnderstood of which a few saith this Epistle-maker not the twentieth part and those for the most part such as had bene troublesome before in Rome presumed to impugne the same subordination calling first in question the said Cardinals letters c. Fa. Parsons was told in Rome that doublesse the greater part of the priests was not contented with this subordination when for his purpose he vrged further how many the messengers did certainely know to approue their mission as appeareth Cap. 9. fol. 131. they not being willing to depose for more in this kinde then they had either spoken withall or receiued letters from them to this effect answered accordingly that they had certaine knowledge of some 14. or 15 which number is now deceitfully tossed vp and downe as though they had no knowledge of any more or did come in the name of so few against all the rest yet where there was iust cause if they had bene fewer yea if there had bene no more but those two who went to Rome they had ben enough because iustice hath alwayes more with it then against it But to this purpose if those 14 or 15 which were named by M. Charnock in his examination were here set downe the falshood of this felow would be euident to those who know the men when he suggesteth to his Hol. that they were for the most part such as had bene troublesome before in Rome Concerning the calling this subordination in question how it was procured how far forth it did binde before the Breue came and other difficulties which the priests had they haue not desired to haue them muttered in corners as may appeare by their bookes to which their aduersaries silence would haue beene somewhat more for their credit then their shuffling answere And as for the euill successe which their two messengers had whome at the first they sent to Rome all the world knoweth that not long after his Holines comming thither they were infamously apprehended by Iesuits and Sbirri all their writings were taken from them they were kept asunder in close prison and were not suffered to speake with any to aske counsell nor to see the Copie of such accusations as were put vp against them at such time as they did demand it to make their answere before the two Cardinals Caietane and Burghesius 17. Feb. 1599. and yet they were kept afterwards close prisoners vntill the 8. of April by which time all matters were concluded as their aduersaries would as appeareth by the date of the Breue which was the 6. of April 1599. The notorious falshood also which here is suggested to his Holinesse in these words Who that is the two Priests finding not such successe * At Rome there as they required their fellowes in England for remedie began to deale more closely with the Counsell telling them as hath appeared since by the euent and by their latter bookes that this subordination was not for Religion but for State practises as in this Apologie is declared more particularly And in the margent is set this note Apol. cap. 10.12.13 But whosoeuer wil examine the tenth Chapter he shall find a few idle and doubtfully proposed assertions or rather foolish coniectures which are in as great neede to be proued as this is here In the twelfth Chapter there is not one word wise or other to this purpose In the thirteenth Chapter there is some proofe brought for that which is here proposed to his Holinesse But the proofe is such as it would haue made a man of little modestie to haue blushed with the very conceite thereof Marke I pray you what a narration there is fol. 209. For this is it which is ment as may appeare by this marginall note D. Bagshaw But aboue all other meanes the fowlest is and ought most to mooue a good conscience their ioyning secretly for a time but after more openly and now most euidently with the common enemie and persecuter First as before you haue heard 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 Councell c. The Pope is tolde in this Epistle that the Priests deale closely with the Councell but in the Apologie the Catholikes are told that it hath bene secretly for a time but after more openly and now most euidently The Priests haue alwayes bene readie to giue an account in what and how farre they haue vsed that fauour which her Maiestie and the honorable Councell are said to haue shewen vnto them and all men are to thinke that they would not haue gone to Rome if they had done any thing which Catholike priestes might not doe But marke I pray you the substantiall proofe to which his Holinesse is referred and let it be duely examined 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 treate