Background

William, Cardinal Allen’s death on 16 October 1594 left English Catholics leaderless. As prefect Allen had supervised the mission itself, overseen the continental seminaries, approved secular clergy for work in England, maintained a fragile peace within the Catholic community, and served as Roman agent. Three candidates were considered as his successor: Owen Lewis, sometime head of the English Hospice, Rome, then Bishop of Cassano and executor of Allen’s will; the elderly theologian and one-time Jesuit novice Thomas Stapleton; and Allen’s controversial Jesuit collaborator Robert Persons. Lewis’s death on 14 October 1595 prevented his elevation. Persons, either freely or under pressure, urged friends and supporters to abandon their campaign on his behalf.Footnote ⁵ Pope Clement VIII summoned Stapleton in 1596 and 1597 presumably to receive the red hat, but the Englishman, arguing ill health, delayed his departure. He never made the trip and died in Louvain on 12 October 1598.Footnote ⁶

As Rome pondered the next step, secular clergy on the mission worked for the establishment of a voluntary association, an ersatz organisation that would, among other things, free them from the Jesuit structure. In the absence of a hierarchy, the Jesuit superior was the only ecclesiastical official in England. Secular clergymen, of course, were not bound to him by holy obedience but he, with delegated authority from the mission’s prefect, influenced their reception into and distribution throughout England, granted faculties within England, and managed the mission’s funds through the Jesuit network. This de facto arrangement left the Society of Jesus in control of the English Church with Garnet the only religious authority in England, Persons, rector of the English College and agent at the Roman curia, and Richard Barret, president of the English College, Douai, and widely acknowledged as a fervent Jesuit supporter. This new ‘sodality’ or association, not overtly intended by all proponents as directed against the Society of Jesus but nonetheless perceived thus by some Jesuits, proposed to elect their own superiors, manage their own alms, settle disputes (presumably among its members), provide mutual assistance (presumably financial and spiritual), and place and move members among acceptable recusant households.Footnote ⁷ According to John Bossy, this association was ‘designed for early conversion into a hierarchy’, a return to traditional ecclesiastical governance.Footnote ⁸ They sought a clear separation of the secular and Jesuit missions. John Mush and John Colleton were the most enthusiastic proponents. Mush had hitherto been friendly with the Jesuits and especially with their superior Henry Garnet.Footnote ⁹ Nonetheless Garnet queried his and Colleton’s motives, and worried that these associations would aggravate relations between secular clergy and Jesuits and in so doing intensify anti-Jesuit sentiment.Footnote ¹⁰ Persons wondered how any organisation, voluntary and without juridical authority, could survive. Such associations might have provided sustenance and support for its members, but they still did not provide a needed ecclesiastical structure. At best associations could expel members, but had no authority or jurisdiction over non-members and laity.

Persons feared it would foster internal division among the secular clergy, between members and non-members.Footnote ¹¹ Jesuit unease about the associations turned Mush against them: he denounced ‘the foule dealyng of the Jesuits w^ch bend them selves thus mightely against our association’.Footnote ¹² By September 1597, the association in the north had collapsed perhaps as a result of Jesuit opposition.Footnote ¹³ A month earlier Persons petitioned Pope Clement VIII on the necessity of establishing some form of hierarchical structure within England for the good of the mission. Any discussion thereof, Persons explained, must remain confidential lest the Elizabethan government learn of the plans and disrupt their implementation. Persons preferred the traditional episcopacy, and nothing novel.Footnote ¹⁴ To prevent further division, he suggested the appointment of two bishops, one resident in England and the other in Flanders. Despite the considerable risk, Persons argued the consolation, the discipline, and the sacramental benefits that would flow from a bishop’s presence in England. He could oversee the distribution of the clergy and in so doing remove a bone of contention between Jesuits and secular clergy. Various archpriests or archdeacons situated throughout the kingdom would assist the bishop. Similarly the bishop in Belgium would have assistants as he funnelled information between Rome and England, examined and approved clergy for the mission, and disciplined difficult clergy summoned from the mission. Neither bishop, Persons advised, should bear the title of an English see lest it increase persecution but instead be in partibus infidelium.Footnote ¹⁵ Other Jesuits, e.g. William Holt, William Weston, and Henry Garnet agreed but with specific reservations.Footnote ¹⁶

The creation of an Archpriest

To the surprise, if not shock, of many, Enrico Caetani, Cardinal Protector of England, reorganised the Roman Church in England on 7 March 1598. Instead of the requested and recommended episcopacy, the cardinal erected as an independent ecclesiastical structure an archpresbyterate, formerly a geographical subdivision of a diocese, and appointed as archpriest George Blackwell, a priest well-known for his pro-Jesuit sentiments.Footnote ¹⁷ To counter Satan’s malicious manoeuvres and to ensure greater unity, Cardinal Caetani, with papal approval, nominated Blackwell as archpriest ‘for directing and governing these Priestes of the English Nation that now converse in the kingdomes of England or Scotland,Footnote ¹⁸ or shall hereafter reside there’. Until the pope or the cardinal erected another type of ecclesiastical government, the archpriest had the authority to assign and transfer secular priests from one residence to another whenever God’s glory demanded. He would resolve their doubts, settle their disputes, adjudicate their controversies, and eliminate any friction. The archpriest could summon to his presence any and all secular priests as long as their safety was in no way jeopardised. Whenever there was an assembly or gathering (presumably of secular clergy), the archpriest presided. For the proper exercise of ecclesiastical discipline, he had authority to punish the ‘disobedient, unquiet, or stubborn’ through suspension or revocation of faculties if previous admonitions had failed to correct the problems. Richard Barret was named Blackwell’s principal assistant. Henry Henshaw, John Bavant, Nicholas Tyrwhit, Henry Shaw, James Standish, and George Birkhead (or Birket) were appointed the archpriest’s consultors within England. The cardinal allowed Blackwell to select six other consultors ‘of auncientnesse, gravitie, and their travailes, but chiefly of their prudence, moderation, and their love of union and concord, not a little also of their authoritie and estimation, which they have in the provinces where they supply your steede and ours’. Semi-annual reports were demanded from each consultor and the archpriest himself. The archpriest had the right to nominate a successor whenever a consultor was captured, left England or died. The cardinal protector had the right to appoint the archpriest’s successor, but the senior consultor within the London area would serve as vice-archpriest during the interim.

By means of this structure, the pope and the cardinal protector hoped to maintain ecclesiastical discipline, and to restore ‘peace and union of minds’ between secular priests and Jesuits. The document exonerated Jesuits from all charges levelled against them and lauded their contributions from their work in the vineyard itself, through seminaries and colleges, and ‘by cherishing the needy, and by very many other meanes, but also in England too, they prosecute the same deeds of charity, and this even to the shedding of bloud, as the event and deeds have demonstrated’. They neither exercised nor aspired to exercise any jurisdiction over the secular clergy. Thus no one should succumb to the temptations of the enemy by stirring up anger against them. On the contrary, secular priests should manifest affection and reverence. Caetani concluded his letter with an admonition:

Separate instructions, dated the same day and forwarded to the archpriest, dealt more specifically with each subject. One concerned relations between the archpriest and the Jesuit superior:

Ordinarily the Jesuit superior would not be involved in matters pertinent to the secular clergy, but the situation was not ordinary. Indeed, as the instruction highlighted, he was not numbered among the ordinary consultors. However, ‘in matters of greater moment’, the archpriest should seek his advice. The instruction, however, did not insist that this advice be followed. Nor did it clarify the nature of ‘matters of greater moment’. Ironically but not surprisingly this instruction intended to promote union, occasioned considerable controversy because a compliant archpriest made the continued influence of the Society even stronger. Caetani explained to Barret and to the nuncio in Belgium, Mirto Frangipani, that ‘this subordination was made by us according to the will of his Holiness’.Footnote ²¹ Caetani informed Blackwell of his appointment via Henry Garnet. On 8 May the Jesuit superior promised Caetani that he would meet Blackwell and relay the news to him.Footnote ²² Garnet rejoiced that the mission finally had some sort of organisation even though all problems had not been resolved, e.g. whether to continue to grant faculties to secular priests.Footnote ²³

Legitimate doubts?

Blackwell learned of his appointment on 9 May; he summoned John Colleton for a meeting on the 12^th. The speed with which Blackwell sent for Colleton suggests that the archpriest anticipated problems and thus wanted Colleton’s immediate recognition. Robert Charnock, whom Blackwell found ‘more temperate and better advised’, accompanied Colleton. Apparently Blackwell urged the two to abandon their campaign for associations as no longer necessary. Neither agreed. Indeed, they questioned Blackwell’s position and authority. So adamantly did Colleton reject what he had read in Blackwell’s letter of appointment that he angered the archpriest who was ‘enforced to leave [his] accustomed temper in speech, and to deal after an austere manner, albeit in way of advice’. Blackwell judged that Colleton ‘knoweth not himself’. But the archpriest could not tell whether their refusal resulted from their dislike of him personally or their unease with the structure itself. If the former, Blackwell was willing to step down upon orders from his superior; if the latter, the archpriest would not countenance any disrespect shown to Cardinal Caetani. He prayed that God would grant them ‘the spirit of unity’, but feared they would persist and resist.Footnote ²⁴ By the end of the month Colleton was collecting names for a petition to Rome along with recommendations for priests to serve as their agent.Footnote ²⁵ Other secular priests supported him because they could not fathom how the papacy would establish something so peculiar. John Mush, for example, dismissed this novel structure as little more than a successful Jesuit ploy to block associations.Footnote ²⁶ Fuelled by rumours that the arrangement was simply a temporary experiment that would only be established and ratified by Rome after its favourable reception by secular clergy, Blackwell’s opponents blamed Cardinal Caetani for their plight. Yet again he had sided with the Society of Jesus. Many recalled with anger Caetani’s support for the Jesuits during recent disturbances at the English College, for which reason they considered him an enemy. Caetani, they argued, created the archpresbyterate on his own authority without papal knowledge, without papal authorisation, and without papal approval.Footnote ²⁷ Thus they demanded assurances that the archpresbyterate rested on more solid foundations than Caetani’s personal judgement.

In August the dissatisfied clergy expressed a willingness to acknowledge Blackwell’s authority temporarily until they had received desired clarifications from Rome, but on certain conditions: they wanted Blackwell to choose a certain number of assistants from their supporters, and to recognise the legitimacy of their appeal to Rome by granting William Bishop and Robert Charnock ‘dismissorial letters’, testimonials, for their trip. Blackwell refused both demands, but promised not to impede their journey.Footnote ²⁸ Shortly thereafter their envoys departed for Rome with their appeal as ‘babes in the woods in the world of Roman officialdom’.Footnote ²⁹ To their request for a bishop ‘chosen by the Priests themselves: & the Jesuites to have nothing to doe therein’, the protesters added three demands previously mentioned by Mush: removal of the Society of Jesus from the administration of the English College (a particularly sensitive issue, because Claudio Acquaviva had seriously pondered Jesuit withdrawal because of earlier disturbances);Footnote ³⁰ a prohibition against the publication of books attacking Queen Elizabeth and her government ‘unles such as the Superiors shall think expedient’; and permission ‘to establish such orders by common consent among themselves, as may bee for the better government of themselves and such other as will condescend to keepe them; & may serve for their more effectuall proceeding in their spirituall warfare’.Footnote ³¹ The simple request for clarification became but one item in an agenda that included an attack on the English Jesuits and their work especially at the college in Rome. More was at risk than the new structure. The appeal to Rome was no longer simply canonical and ecclesiastical: it had become personal. Thus, understandably, Garnet rallied Jesuits and friendly secular clergy to Blackwell’s defence.Footnote ³²

Henry Garnet and John Colleton

John Colleton had tried his vocation as a Carthusian in 1573 after he had discussed the possibility with an English Jesuit John ColumbFootnote ³³ then working in Louvain. Apparently the Jesuit directed Colleton through the Ignatian spiritual exercises—no mean feat in that Columb himself was only a Jesuit novice—in order to discern Colleton’s future. The same Columb later recommended that Colleton leave the Carthusians and try another way of life. Colleton studied at Douai and was ordained in 1576. Captured with Edmund Campion at Lyford Grange in July 1581, he avoided execution because he was able to prove that he had not been in the places where he allegedly conspired against the queen, but subsequently spent the next four years in the Marshalsea prison. After his banishment in January, 1585 he met Robert Persons in Rouen. The Jesuit dissuaded him from entering a religious order. The date of his return to England is not known, but he was there by 1591.Footnote ³⁴ There is no evidence that Colleton harboured any hostility towards the Society of Jesus. Indeed he followed the advice offered by two Jesuits. Nonetheless Colleton complained to Garnet that some unnamed English Jesuits were damaging his reputation by spreading false rumours and stories. Colleton had initially ignored the slander out of fear that he would be accused of hyper-sensitivity. But the lies not only persisted, but grew more outrageous. He himself had heard some of them repeated. He entreated Garnet to inform him of the particulars for which he was being reproached. How had he in ‘word, deede, or demeanour’ proceeded against Garnet or the Society in general. He requested a blunt reply ‘to leave [no] point untouched, or not amplified to the most, whereof you hold me culpable’. Colleton would rather not remain in ignorance of his sins.Footnote ³⁵

Within a week Garnet replied by urging him to look towards the future and not linger on the past. He insinuated, without citing anything specific, that Colleton had played some role in the recent dissemination of lies and slanders about Jesuits among English Catholics, but he was willing to forget that now that the Society’s reputation has been exonerated, presumably in the letter announcing Blackwell’s nomination. There was no need for a vendetta, no reason to pursue the guilty, no desire for vilification. Thus, if Colleton continued to hear of sinister reports about himself, he should examine the veracity of both the reports and the reporters, and not automatically blame Jesuits for preposterous attempts to blacken his name. Protesting that he desired an end to all hostility, Garnet reminded Colleton that the majority of the secular clergy had accepted the archpresbyterate, and suggested that anyone who questioned the structure may be guilty of schism:

Garnet knew that some alleged that Jesuits had devised this ecclesiastical structure in order to impose one of their choosing, their puppet, as superior of the secular clergy, and that they specifically blamed Persons for misinforming the cardinal protector and the pope. To set the record straight, the appellants had dispatched two agents to Rome, but their list of demands, Garnet stressed, included the expulsion of Jesuits from the mission. Many wondered about the secret motivation of these men. Was it ambition or sedition? Did they truly desire only clarification? Or was the question of the archpriest’s authority simply a Trojan horse to disguise their anti-Jesuit programme? For years the secular clergy had asked for an ecclesiastical order. Now, having received what they wanted, the same men opposed the archpriest. And anyone opposed to the archpriest ‘must of force be consequentlie opposite against us’. The unity that all desired for the English Catholics, Garnet claimed, would only come from the universal recognition of the archpriest as their God-given superior.Footnote ³⁶

Colleton admitted Garnet’s reply was not what he had expected. His original letter simply raised the issue of his alleged hostility to the Society of Jesus, and thus he requested details regarding the specific wrongs he had committed. Instead of providing the author with details, Garnet diverted the correspondence to other issues. He had heard from Blackwell that the Jesuits ‘had many exceptions’ against him and he simply wanted to know what they were. Colleton had also heard via the clerical grapevine that the Jesuit Robert Jones was spreading a story that he himself had described the Jesuit administration of the English College, Rome, as ‘a Machevilian government or worse’. When Colleton challenged Jones to prove this allegation, he replied that he would be satisfied if Colleton himself refuted statements attributed to him in Robert Fisher’s campaign against the Society.Footnote ³⁷ Fisher’s statement, Colleton retorted, did not establish his guilt! But Colleton moved to the point of this letter: Garnet’s claim that the archpresbyterate had been set up by the pope. Colleton simply demanded evidence that this was in fact the case. Refusal to accept the archpriest’s authority was not rooted in ambition or sedition: they questioned the order simply because of the lack of documentation ‘because we neither see, nor can heare of any Bull, Breve, or other authenticall instrument coming from his Holiness, for attestation and declaration thereof’. For forty years the pope had been the immediate bishop of the secular clergy, and they could not accept any change in this arrangement ‘without expresse certificate of such his Holines pleasure’. Moreover they could not believe that the pope would deny them ‘the choice of our owne Superior, (a freedome and benefite which the Cleargie everywhere else, and by the Canons of holie Church enioyeth) but by imposing also a Superior upon us, without all our understanding, and not with the lest notice of our liking. . . ’. In fact, many recalled a papal promise that he would never nominate an ecclesiastical superior in England until he had consulted and received information from the secular clergy. A provision in the letter appointing Blackwell confirmed their apprehension. A clause named the senior assistant as acting archpriest upon the death of Blackwell until a new archpriest was appointed by the cardinal protector, not the pope. Thus the appellants concluded that the pope played no role in the establishment of the office and that it was in fact instigated by a cardinal who was partial to the Jesuits. And who had more influence with the cardinal than Persons? No wonder many suspected the Society was behind this. Colleton repudiated Garnet’s complaint that the appellants now rejected the hierarchical structure that they had for so long petitioned:

The suggestion that their refusal to acknowledge the archpriest constituted schism especially angered Colleton. Refusal to recognise the archpriest until the return of their agents with authentic testimony was not schism, and Colleton warned Garnet of the gravity of such charges.Footnote ³⁸ Nonetheless sometime in March of 1599, Blackwell explicitly cautioned him that he might be guilty of schism and, if that were the case, the archpriest would have to take action against him.Footnote ³⁹

William Clarke and Edward Oldcorne

The secular priest Francis [vere William] Clarke and the Jesuit Edward Hall [vere Oldcorne] discussed the archpriest and his authority initially in private conversations but eventually—and fortunately—in correspondence. Unlike Garnet’s exchange with Colleton, Oldcorne and Clarke cited recognised casuists and theologians to support their positions. Clarke had studied at the English College, Rome, from September 1589, to his ordination in March 1592. He was sent to England a month later. Oldcorne had also studied at the English College and was ordained in August 1587. In August 1588 he joined the Jesuits and departed immediately for England.Footnote ⁴⁰ In late 1598 or early 1599, Clarke complained to Blackwell about disturbing rumours that he and his colleagues would be deprived of faculties because of their appeal to Rome. He had asked the archpriest to repudiate these rumours clearly and openly. In another letter along similar lines to Garnet, Clarke mentioned that he had discussed these rumours with Oldcorne, but had found the Jesuit not only unwilling to counteract such gossip but actually anxious to endorse it.Footnote ⁴¹ Shortly thereafter Clarke asked Oldcorne whether he persisted with the accusation or had in fact changed his mind. If he still held that opinion, Clarke wanted to know the theological and canonical grounds for his contention: ‘I pray you to cite me some author, as you affirmed weare of your opinion and resolution, & I will surely consider thereof’. Oldcorne had asserted that Clarke had dismissed the archpriest’s authority as ‘una cosa da niente’, a trifle, a comment that the secular priest did not recall making at his meeting with the Jesuit, but he nonetheless trusted the Jesuit’s memory. Clarke was sure that he had explained clearly that he queried papal approval only because of the lack of demonstrable evidence. Once it had been produced, he was ‘redy to submitte & subiecte my self not only to him but to the basest in gods churche, puttings not only my hands but my head under his feette if I once should ceartenly knowe that it weare his holynes his pleasure & absolute comandment is should be soe’. Clarke’s hesitancy resulted in Oldcorne’s pronouncement that he was schismatic, an excommunicant, and therefore deprived of his priestly faculties. Thus, to the detriment of others, his sacraments were ‘irregular’. Oldcorne repeated his condemnation at Clarke’s departure, and promised to forward ‘authorities cited’ for his position.Footnote ⁴²

Despite his professed unwillingness to say or write anything about such an ‘unpleasant subject’, Oldcorne would elucidate—albeit rapidly because the courier was anxious to depart—reasons for his judgement that Clarke had ‘fallen into schisme, & consequentlie had incurred the penalties due thereunto, viz. excommunication, loss of faculties, etc.’. He cited the Jesuit Gregory of Valencia, specifically his de schismate in which he demonstrated as common doctrine that a person who ‘doth not receive or acknowledg the authoritie of his superior [and] doth impugne or oppose himself into him’ was a rebellious schismatic.Footnote ⁴³ Cajetan, the Dominican Thomas de Vio, supported Oldcorne’s argument: a refusal to accept the archpriest denied papal authority and ruptured unity within the Church. Anyone separating himself from the authority of a legitimate superior ipso facto separated himself from the Church. Oldcorne quoted Cyprian’s ‘the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishop; if anyone is not with the bishop, he is not in the Church’ as particularly apt.Footnote ⁴⁴ To Oldcorne’s direct question, Clarke had replied that he refused to admit the authority of the archpriest because of its uncertain origins. Oldcorne retorted the inadmissibility of such doubts because said authority had been disclosed in letters signed and sealed by the cardinal protector. In conscience Clarke was obliged to believe the cardinal’s word and the word of the apostolic nuncio in Flanders, both of whom had declared that the archpresbyterate was set up ‘ex mandato pontificis’, by the command of the pontiff. In their earlier conversation, Oldcorne mentioned a relevant canon, the existence of which Clarke then denied. For this reason Oldcorne deemed it necessary to cite Pope Gregory IV’s prohibition verbatim.Footnote ⁴⁵ Exercising praeteritio, Oldcorne refrained from mentioning Clarke’s outrageous comments, including the dismissive ‘una cosa di niente’ with a snap of his fingers. The Jesuit admitted that his arguments might not have convinced Clarke that he was in fact in schism, but they should at least have planted such seeds of doubt that he would refrain from all sacerdotal ministry until they had been clarified. To resolve them Oldcorne urged him to submit humbly to his gracious superior Blackwell.Footnote ⁴⁶

Oldcorne’s reply stunned Clarke for its unjust judgment on him and his associates. Without access to any edition of Gregory of Valencia, he could not track down that citation. He therefore had to rely on Oldcorne’s summary. The Jesuit’s argument rested on the assumption that the archpriest had been duly installed in his office by the pope, and that the appellants, well aware of the legitimacy of this authority, nonetheless persisted in resisting it. This was the crux of the matter, Clarke insisted. If he had been certain of papal approval, without qualm and without delay he would submit. He simply sought that certainty through a clear papal declaration. This desire for clarification could not be equated with rebellion so Gregory of Valencia’s teaching was not applicable. Equally irrelevant was Cajetan’s analysis of schism, which, Clarke claimed, Oldcorne had cited tendentiously and erroneously.Footnote ⁴⁷ Clarke differentiated a repudiation of legitimate authority from an anxiety regarding its lawfulness. The former was schism; Cajetan permitted the latter. Henceforth Clarke recommended that Oldcorne ‘be more carefull how you alleadge authors so evident against your self’. Regarding the citation from Cyprian, Clarke again insisted that he did not deny the archpriest’s authority, but simply desired ‘a bull or breef or other papall instrument from his holynes for his approbation . . . .’ Clarke deferred ‘submission untill I weare sufficiently resolved of his authority as lawfull & from his holynes, which will I doe & uppon iuste groundes, as I hope’. In like manner Clarke discussed Gratian’s canon.

Oldcorne had advanced letters from the cardinal protector and from the apostolic nuncio as evidence. However, Clarke pointed out that he had not seen these letters, nor indeed had he heard of them. But even if he had, how did he know that they had not been forged? Or that the letters had been signed unwittingly by the cardinal and the nuncio? Or indeed that the cardinal himself was affirming his own authority with a simple assertion that the pope had commanded it? These are all possibilities and thus reasons why the appellants sought clarification. Often assertions claimed to be true were eventually discovered to be false.Footnote ⁴⁸ Finally, Clarke suggested that the pope may have been misinformed, ‘in which case althoughe the authority shoulde come from his holynes, yet I see no reasons whie we may not appeale to his holyness better informed’. In all, Clarke attributed the Jesuit’s evaluation as ‘uninformed zeal’ (zelum non cum scientia). Moreover he resented partisan Jesuit involvement: if the secular clergy had some qualms about the legitimate authority of the archpriest, they must resolve the issue without Jesuit interference.

The appellants did not ‘divide our selves from a lawfull knowne superior, when as we seeke & have made meanes to knowe whether he be our lawfull superior by his holynes his absolute commande’. Meanwhile he wished that the Jesuits would tend to their own affairs and leave the secular alone but ‘as charitable bretheren concurre with us unto one common worke, the conversion of soles, not hinderinge (as you doe) with your politique practicall devises, your owne peace & ours too: assuringe your selves that if your hands had not been intermedled in these our matters, these iarres & discontentments had not growne amongest us’. In conclusion Clarke demanded satisfaction from Oldcorne for his defamation of the appellants and their cause in the presence of lay persons.Footnote ⁴⁹

Oldcorne, clearly offended by the tone and content of Clarke’s letter ‘stuff with manie bad wordes & uncivil termes’, had expected better. The Jesuit, however, did not respond to Clarke’s interpretation of the cited authorities with the exception of Cajetan’s argument. But here Oldcorne refused to concede the point and insisted that ‘to anie indifferent man manifest, that he concludes in that place the verie same which I inferred (although it pleased you in very bad termes to tell me the contrarie)’. In an extremely short response to Clarke’s considerably longer discourse, Oldcorne moved from the pertinent issue of schism to a defence of the Society. Jesuit behaviour towards secular priests, and especially Clarke, made mock of his claim that the Society sought to dominate the clergy. The Society never did him any wrong or injury; instead it had provided him with faculties. But now, as instructed by Garnet, he informed Clarke that these faculties had been revoked. Oldcorne was willing to provide satisfaction once Clarke had produced evidence of intentional wrongdoing. He was confident that other Jesuits, if challenged, could justify their comments.Footnote ⁵⁰

Clarke opened the final letter in the series with the simple declaration that he had intended no offence in his previous letter, but had tried to compose a quiet, dispassionate explanation. He ‘intended noe evill, nor anie reproche, thoughe in plane tearmes I uttered the truthe I conceaved’. He admitted that Oldcorne might have blushed as Clarke pointed out his misinterpretation of Cajetan. At the risking of pressing his point to overkill, he included more citations from Cajetan to back up his earlier claim. Clarke recommended that Oldcorne consult better casuists. Regarding his comments about Jesuits, Clarke was willing to defend his remarks at a meeting with either Blackwell or Garnet, and warned Oldcorne that he himself must answer some of the charges. Regarding faculties received from Garnet, Clarke renounced them. But, he reminded Oldcorne with more than a touch of irony, revocation of said faculties was not necessary because, if Clarke was an excommunicated schismatic, they had been ipso facto forfeited! Meanwhile he would use the faculties that he had earlier received from Dr. Richard Barret.Footnote ⁵¹