The Collected Works of the Most Reverend Father in God,
William Laud, D.D. Now First Collected.
Volume the Second: Conference with Fisher
Oxford: John Henry Parker.
MDCCCXLIX
[pp i-xxix]

Transcribed by John D Lewis
Murdoch University, Western Australia
May 2001

_________

OXFORD:

[v]

EDITOR’S PREFACE.

   PERSONAL and oral Conferences on the points disputed at the Reformation were not of rare occurrence. In form they were, perhaps, the legitimate successors of the disputations of the Schools; but gradually their technical and scientific shape merged into the more popular, but perhaps more interesting, written controversial discussion of modem times. Archbishop Laud’s Conference, while it is one of the later instances of the ancient method, betrays by its subsequent adaptation to the shape of a regular treatise, that the influence and value of mere scholastic discussion was felt to have passed away. The Conferences, however, of which so many are on record during the first century of the Reformation, must be distinguished. Some were strictly scholastic acts, as those connected with the deprivation of Archbishop Cranmer, and Ridley’s disputations at Oxford; some were formal discussions upon fixed propositions, such as those debated in Westminster Abbey, between the leading divines of the reformed doctrines and their opponents, in 1559; and some were of a more private nature, either for eliciting the truth on the part of the disputants, or for the sake of gaining or retaining a more distinguished convert or adherent to either side.

[vi]   Among these may be mentioned: the disputations conducted by Feckenham, the last Abbot of Westminster, at the Savoy—at Sir William Cecil’s—at Sir John Cheke’s; the Conference between Redmayne and Wilks at Westminster, in 1551; the Conference between Campian the Jesuit, in 1581, assisted by Sherwin, against Nowel, Fulke, and others, in the Tower; the well-known discussion between Rainolds and Hart, in 1583, in the Tower; [Robert] Parsons’ "Review of Ten public Disputations or Conferences, held within the compass of Four Years, under King Edward and Queen Mary, concerning some principal points in Religion;"¹ Fitz-Simon’s dispute with Ussher, then only nineteen years of age, in Dublin Castle, in 1599. During the reign of King James, partly perhaps occasioned by that monarch’s personal taste for theological argument, which was especially exhibited in one of the first transactions of his reign, the well-known Hampton Court Conference, many of these oral discussions were held. Walsingham disputed with Covel and other doctors of the Church of England, in 1604. Bagshaw and Stephens, on the Roman Catholic side, disputed before Lord Clifford, the English ambassador at Paris, against Fairclough, better known under the name of Featley, then Chaplain to the Embassy, in 1612. Smith, subsequently Bishop of Chalcedon, held a personal Conference with Featley, who was much engaged in these disputes. Featley and Goad disputed against Musket (alias Fisher), and Percy, commonly called "Fisher the Jesuit," in 1621. Featley also disputed against Everard, in 1626; and previously, at a Conference held at the house of Sir Humphrey Lynde, in 1623, assisted by Dr. White, he had been engaged in a [vii] similar personal discussion with Fisher and another Jesuit named Sweet.

   These public controversies were not confined to the champions of the two Churches. During the Usurpation, the different sectaries often discussed their mutual differences in this way. Vavasor Powell and John Goodwin held a disputation in Coleman-street, London, in 1649; John Reading disputed publicly in Folkestone Church with Samuel Fisher, an Anabaptist, in 1650; Tombes the Anabaptist, and Baxter "disputed face to face, and their followers were like two armies," (Ant. Wood, in Life of Tombes;) Tombes also held a public dispute against Vaughan and Cragge, at Abergavenny, in 1653. This mode of controversy was recurred to by the Caroline divines, not only in the Civil War, but during the Usurpation, both at home and abroad. Gunning held two or three set disputations with a Roman Catholic priest, for the satisfaction of his patron, Sir Robert Shirley, according to Ant. Wood, who adds that "there was no considerable sect, but he held with them, some time or other, a set public disputation, in defence of the Church of England,"² A public conference was held at Brussels, in 1649, between Morley, and D’Arey, a Jesuit.

   The occasion of one of the most celebrated of these [viii] Conferences, that between Laud and Fisher, is connected with political m well as theological considerations.

   The rise and fortunes of George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham, were so remarkable, that they invested not only with interest, but importance, every thing connected with his family. And during the reign of the Stuarts, the religious professions of those about the Court were matters of earnest solicitude, because of great political consequence, to the King. The mother of the Duke of Buckingham, Lady Villiers, though she had contracted a second marriage with Sir Thomas Compton, a private gentleman, had been created Countess of Buckingham, soon after her son had first received his title.³ This lady was converted to the Roman Catholic communion, by Fisher the Jesuit. It does not appear exactly at what time she joined the Church of Rome. Laud, in his Diary, 1622, April 23, speaks of "the Countess of Buckingham, who about that time was wavering in point of religion;" and in the "History of the Troubles and Trial," &c. p. 226, he says that he "brought the Lady his [Buckingham’s] mother to the Church again; but she was not so happy as to continue with us." At any rate, whether at this time the Countess of Buckingham had actually conformed to the Church of Rome, or whether she was then only in a doubtful state, her change in religion is to be attributed to the arguments of one "Fisher the Jesuit." Her influence with her son was so great, that it was a saying of the time, recounted by Count Gondomar, the Spanish ambassador, with evident reference to her change in religion, that more intercession was made to the mother than to the son.⁴

   Besides being subject to this influence on the side of his [ix] mother, the Duke of Buckingham had other inducements to favour the Roman Catholics; and it was at the time hoped, by a combination of domestic circumstances, to bring him over to that communion. His wife, Lady Katharine Manners, only daughter and heiress of Francis, sixth Earl of Rutland, was also "bred"⁵ a Roman Catholic. Echard says that she was for awhile persuaded by Dr. White to forsake this communion: but was quickly reclaimed by her mother-in-law, "a fiery Romanist." If this were the case, she had been previously brought to some partial, if not entire, communion with the Church of England as early as the year 1619, before her marriage with the Duke, then Marquis, of Buckingham in 1620, by Lord Keeper Williams (Hacket’s Life of Williams). It seems, however, plain that in the year 1622, the Countess of Buckingham, the mother, was either openly or secretly a Roman Catholic; so was the Marchioness of Buckingham the wife; and of the Marquis himself, Archbishop Laud stated on his trial, ("Troubles and Trial," &c. p. 226,) "The Right Honourable the Lord Duke of Buckingham was almost lost from the Church of England between the continual unceasing labours of Fisher the Jesuit and the persuasions of the Lady his mother."

   At this juncture it was, that Dr. White, as he intimates,⁶ was inviteed by the Duke of Buckingham to undertake the settling of his mother: from internal evidence, however, it seems more probable that even in the first instance King James, alarmed for the religious profession of his favourite, suggested a conference as the means really of confirming the Marquis himself, ostensibly for the purpose of settling the Countess. Dr. Francis White, Rector of [x] St. Peter’s, Cornhill, and one of the Royal Chaplains⁷ was selected on the side of the Church of England, and between him and Fisher the Jesuit a personal conference was held in the presence of the Marquis of Buckingham, the Marchioness of Buckingham, the Countess of Buckingham, and Lord Keeper Williams, then Bishop of Lincoln, and subsequently Archbishop of York.⁸ According to Fisher’s own account, (vide infra, App. Nos. II. III. pp. xxiii.–xxvi.) a paper of his addressed to the Countess, came to some hands, unquestionably those of the Marquis, who gave it to Dr. White to answer and "oppugn it in a Conference."

   Shortly afterwards a second Conference was held between the same parties, at which the King himself was present; who "having observed that our adversaries are cunning and subtle, in eluding our arguments brought against them, but of no strength, especially in particular questions, when they come to the kataskeuê and confirmation of their own tenet, was himself pleased to have nine questions of controversy propounded to the Jesuit, that he might in writing manifest the grounds and arguments whereupon the Popish faith in those points was builded." (White’s Preface.)

   Besides the King’s dissatisfaction with the result of these first two Conferences, it appears that the Countess of Buckingham required from the English Divines, according to Fisher, more distinct argument on the doctrine of "a continual, infallible, visible Church." (Vide infra, Conference, &c. p. 2.) To meet this difficulty, the King himself imposed upon Dr. William Laud, then Bishop of S. David’s, the duty of meeting Fisher in a Third Conference before the same [xi] parties. The allusions to this Conference, contained in Laud’s Diary, are these:—

   Strict secrecy on the particulars of these several Conferences had been enjoined on the parties concerned in them; but according to Dr. White, Fisher had "dispersed hundreds of papers on the subject of the Third Conference to his own praise and our disgrace, for had we been school-boys of thirteen years old, he could not have made a reverend Bishop and myself seem more childish and unskilful than he did." (Preface.) White, however, though he "at first proposed to have published in print a narration of his two disputations," (ibid.) yet thought it desirable to wait for Fisher’s written answer to the nine points proposed as the chief errors of the Church of Rome, by King James. These subjects were thus enumerated in "His Majesty’s note delivered unto Mr. Fisher." "Some of the principal points which withheld my joining unto the Church of Rome, except she reform herself, or be able to give me satisfaction, are these: 1. The Worship of Images. 2. The Prayings and offering Oblations to the B. V. M. 3. Worshipping and Invocation of Saints [xii] and Angels.  4. The Liturgy and private Prayers in an unknown tongue.  5. Repetitions of Pater Nosters, Aves, and Creeds, especially affixing a kind of merit to the number of them.  6. The doctrine of Transubstantiation.  7. Communion under one kind, and the abetting it by concomitancy.  8. Works of Supererogation, especially with reference unto the Treasure of the Church.  9. The opinion of Deposing Kings, giving away their kingdoms by papal power, whether directly or indirectly."  (The Answer unto the Nine Points, &c. p. 2.)  To eight of these questions Fisher returned an answer in manuscript, declining a reply to the last "with a rhetorical declamation," (White, Preface,) stating that the rules of his order forbad his interference with state affairs. "But before the nine questions he placeth a large disputation (provided no doubt aforehand, and expecting only a prosperous wind of occasion, to send it abroad,) touching the Rule of Faith, concerning Scripture and Tradition, the Notes of the Church. &c. Then, to counterpoise the King’s Nine Articles, he chargeth our Church with nine remarkable errors, as he accounteth them." (White, Preface.)

   In the meantime, Bishop Laud, as early as Michaelmas 1622, had prepared his Relation of the Third Conference, with especial reference to what he calls Fisher’s "papers full of partiality to his cause, and more full of calumny against the Bishop." (Preface to R. B.’s Answer to Mr. Fisher’s Relation, &c.) It does not appear at what time Fisher delivered his answer to the nine points to the King:⁹ but it was not till April 10, 1624, that White was ready with his "Replie to Jesuit Fisher’s Answere to certain Questions propounded by his most gracious Majestic King James: [xiii] Hereunto is annexed a Conference of the right R. B. of St. David’s with the same Jesuit." For the publication of Dr. White’s work Bishop Laud’s own account of the Conference, already prepared, was delayed; which appeared at length only as an accompaniment to the larger work of Dr. White, and was published under the initials R[ichard] B[aily] the Bishop’s chaplain, and with the title. "An Answere to Mr. Fisher’s Relation of a Third Conference betweene a certaine B. (as he stiles him) and himselfe. The Conference was very private, till Mr. Fisher spread certaine papers of it, which in many respects deserved an Answere. Which is here given by R. B. Chapleine to the B. that was imployed in the Conference. London, Printed by Adam Islip. 1624."

   It was, however, Bishop Laud’s own work, as he subsequently acknowledged, and constitutes, in this shape, the first edition, or rather the original sketch, of the volume now placed in the reader’s hands. How the work came to be afterwards enlarged and published in an independent form, and in his own name, after the author’s translation to Canterbury, Archbishop Laud himself fully explains in his Dedication of it to King Charles, pp. iii.-xviii. of the present Edition.

   On the side of the Church of England, then, Dr. White’s share of the joint Reply to Fisher may be considered as a complement to the argument which, according to the King’s judgment, the oral conferences had only partially worked out; while Bishop Laud’s Relation was designed rather to meet the antecedent question urged by Lady Buckingham, and embraced in Fisher’s preliminary "Disputation touching the Rule of Faith, Scripture, and Tradition, the Notes of the Church, &c."

[xiv]   It appears to be beyond doubt, that Fisher’s "Short Relation of the Conference," and his "Answer to the Nine Points," were at present only in manuscript. Both Dr. White and Bishop Laud, in their respective Answers, in the joint publication of 1624, recite the whole of Fisher’s manuscript papers, section by section, replying to each argument and assertion. Fisher had now to reply, which he did under the pseud-initials A. C. to Laud’s account of the Conference; while at the same time appeared, either from him or an associate, a "Rejoinder to White’s Reply," under the initials J. F. But the chronological order of the works in which the controversy proceeded, may be best understood by the following synopsis:—

   I.  Fisher’s Answer to the Nine Points, &c. presented to the King privately in MS. It was without notes.

   II.  Fisher’s own Short Relation of the Conference, circulated privately, but largely, in MS. This was also without notes.

   III.  White’s "Reply to Jesuit Fisher’s Answer, &c. together with Laud’s Account of the Third Conference; under the initials R. B. London, 1624." This joint production incorporates Fisher’s two MS. works, (I. II.) which are printed in their respective parts, in different type from the body of the work.

   IV.  The "Answer unto the Nine Points, &c. and the Rejoinder unto the Reply of Dr. Francis White, Minister. 1625." This incorporates No. I. and has many notes added by way of answer to White’s part of No. III. Prefixed to this volume is found "The true picture of the said Minister, or censure of his writings." And the whole collection then has the title-page of 1626. This volume is rare: but copies are to be found of it. H. More (ubi sup.) intimates that [xv] the notes are not Fisher’s, "Quo factum est ut denuo revisa prodierint [viz. Fisher’s ‘Answer to the Nine Points’] in lucem docto cum commentario Joannis Floydi,"¹⁰ and Dodd, (Ch. History, vol. ii. p. 106, cf. vol. iii. p. 394,) by merely translating Alegambe (Biblioth. Scriptor. Soc. Jesu), without transcribing the exact titles, seems to attribute the whole work both to Fisher and Floyd in their respective lives; though Alegambe himself, writing in Latin, had, with greater accuracy, given the "Rejoinder to White’s Reply" to Floyd. The truth seems to be, that the whole of the first part of’ the work, "The Picture of Dr. White," together with the Prefaces and the "Rejoinder to White’s Reply," are Floyd’s; the original MS. of Fisher, presented to the king, the "Answer unto the Nine Points," No. I. being for the second time reprinted, as it had already been in "White’s Reply," and being now fully annotated and enlarged by Floyd. As, therefore, White and Laud were associated in No. III.. so Fisher and Floyd were associated in this volume. In catalogues it is usually attributed to Fisher; and the identity of the initials J. F[isher] and J. F[loyd], which are attached to the Epistle Dedicatory, will at once account for the mistake; but not only is H. More’s statement positive as to Floyd’s larger share in the work, a statement corroborated by Dodd’s less direct testimony, but the Dedication to King Charles constantly uses the term "we," with a plain reference to an associated authorship. It appears, then, that as regards No. III., the joint work of White and Laud, Floyd was entrusted to "rejoin " to White, while Fisher reserved himself for an encounter with Laud, which he engaged in by publishing—

[xvi]   V.  Fisher’s "True Relations of sundry Conferences, &c." 1626, incorporating No. II. with notes added by way of answer to Laud’s part of No. III. This is a very rare work, which does not occur either in the Bodleian Library or in the British Museum; and for the loan of the only copy which the present Editor has heard of, he is indebted to the kindness of the Rev. Dr. Routh, the venerable President of S. Mary Magdalene College, Oxford. The whole of its introduction may be read consecutively from p. xix. to p. xl of the present volume (Appendix, Nos. I. II. III. IV.) Thenceforward the body of A. C.’s work is included in Laud’s own Relation, in which it is reprinted and answered paragraph by paragraph. It is not mentioned in the list of Fisher’s works in the Biblioth. Scriptor. Soc. Jesu, nor by Dodd, who follows that collection. Besides this, viz. A. C.’s account of the Conference between Dr. Francis White and Mr. John Fisher, A. C.’s collected volume of 1626 contains two other controversial pamphlets; one, "An Answer to a Pamphlet, intituled: The Fisher catched in his own Net, &c. 1623," pp. 86, (this refers to the discussion held between Fisher and Sweet against Drs. White and Featley, at the house of Sir Humphrey Lynde, in 1623;) and the other, "A Reply to D. White and D. Featley. The First Part, &c. The Second Part, &c. 1625," pp. 181. The title-page of the whole volume is given below, p. xix. It does not appear to have been widely circulated, being printed at St. Omer’s (?), and Laud (vide infra, p. vii.) observes that he did not meet with it till "some years after" its publication.

   VI.  The present work, Laud’s "Relation of the Conference, &c. 1639." To this appeared some specific answers; viz.

   VII.  "A Replie to a Relation of the Conference between William Laude and Mr. Fisher the Jesuite. By a Witnesse of [xvii] Jesus Christ. Imprinted, anno 1640." This is a puritan work of singular dulness and intense bitterness: it is very rare.

   VIII.  "Questions propounded for Resolution of unlearned Pretenders in matters of Religion, to the doctors of the prelatical pretended Reformed Church of England, &c. Paris, [London?] 1657." In the additions to Wood’s Athenae Oxon. (ed. Bliss,) vol. iv. p. 144, this work is styled, an "answer to Dr. Laud’s work." Its author was John Spenser, a Jesuit. (Cf. Dodd’s Ch. History, vol. ii. p. 313, and v. supra, p. [vii], note b.)

   IX.  "Labyrinthus Cantuariensis: or Dr. Laud’s Labyrinth, &c. Paris [?]: Printed by John Billaine, 1658." It purports to be by T. C.[arvell] a Jesuit, whose real name was Thorold. He was of a good Lincolnshire family, and died in London, 1664. Stillingfleet says that the date is fictitious, and that the book did not really appear till 1663. Thorold had two immediate answers: viz.

   X.  "Of the Necessity of Reformation, &c. occasioned by some late virulent books written by Papists: but especially by that intituled Labyrinthus Cantuariensis. By Meric Casaubon. London, 1664."

   XI.  "A Rational Account of the grounds of Protestant Religion, &c. being a Vindication of the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury’s Relation of a Conference from the pretended answer of T. C. By Edward Stillingfleet. 1664." This forms the fourth volume of Stillingfleet’s works in the collected edition of 1709-10.

   John Serjeant, now very aged, who had been the antagonist of Archbishop Bramhall, took part in the dispute at this time, (cf. p. 84, note t): and Stillingfleet replied to him. Abraham Woodhead also engaged in it. It appears therefore that the direct discussion of the famous "Conference [xviii] between Laud and Fisher " ranged over a period of exactly forty years.

   "Fisher the Jesuit," of the Conferences—A. C., of the replies to White and Laud—was only a name assumed by a person named Piersey, Piers, Percy, or Persy, for his name is spelled variously, of whom the following facts are recorded in the Bibliotheca Scriptorum Societatis Jesu, (ed. Alegambe et Sotwell, Romae, 1676)—in Dodd’s Ch. History—and in H. More, (Hist. Soc. Jesu.) He was born in the county of Durham, (Dodd and Wood say in Yorkshire)—and was converted at about the age of fourteen, by the influence of a Roman Catholic woman with whom he had been placed in lodgings by his family, in order to avail himself of the instruction of an elder brother,—educated at Rheims, and subsequently in the English College at Rome. He entered the Jesuit College at Tournay, and while meditating a journey to England in 1596, was seized at Flushing by some English soldiers, and sent prisoner to England, where he was almost immediately thrown into Bridewell. He was frequently imprisoned; but was at length released at the request of Queen Henrietta Maria. He died in London of a cancer, after two years’ illness, being then above seventy years of age; the date of his death is not exactly recorded; but he was alive in 1641. (Cf. Dodd’s Church History, vol. iii. p. 394.)

   But little more is recorded than these leading events of his life. When summoned to the Three Conferences, he was a "prisoner for the Catholique faith." One of his great successes was the temporary conversion of Chillingworth, which is ascribed to him by Dodd,—or rather Hugh Tootle, writing under that name—(Church History, vol. iii. p. 101. Cf. Des Maizeaux’ Life of Chillingworth, p. 6; and Ant. Wood, sub nom.). Not only did he conduct the controversy [xix] between himself and Drs. White and Laud, and the nearly contemporaneous dispute at the house of Sir H. Lynde, but in 1623 we find him in a controversy with Henry Rogers, who wrote "An Answer to Mr. Fisher the Jesuit his Five Propositions concerning Luther," &c. 1623. To this Fisher replied, and Rogers subsequently answered, in the "Protestant Church existent," &c. 1638. In 1625 (cf. Prynne’s Hidden Workes of Darkness, &c. p. 71) "Piersy’s" name occurs first in the writ of pardon, dated 4 May, and issued in favour of twenty Priests and Jesuits, a few days after King Charles’s marriage with Henrietta Maria. It was made a subject of accusation against Archbishop Laud on his trial, that he had connived at Fisher’s release from imprisonment; and that on more than one occasion he had discountenanced his arrest.

   A tedious and circumstantial account of this matter is inserted by Prynne, with his usual prolixity and malignity, in Canterburie’s Doome, pp. 451-453. It certainly does appear, and much to the Archbishop’s credit, that in March, 1634-5, he was instrumental in getting, at least, a commutation of Fisher’s punishment. Under the existing laws against seminary priests, it was felony for one of the Jesuits to be found in England. Fisher had been arrested by Cook and Gray, the messengers, and "after his examination before the Council, the Archbishop of Canterbury and Secretary Cooke went to the King, to know his pleasure what should be done with him; who returning to the Board, the Archbishop delivered the King’s pleasure, to this effect:—‘Master Fisher, kneel down upon your knees, every morning and every evening, and pray for the King for granting you your life; and, to be short, Master Fisher, his Majesty’s pleasure is, that you shall be forthwith banished this kingdom, and all other his [xx] Majesty’s dominions, and you shall remain prisoner in the Gate House, until you put in good security before the King’s attorney, Sir John Banks, never to return again.’ Whereunto Fisher replied: If he had a hundred lives, he would come hither again, or elsewhere, if his superior so commanded him; and utterly refused to put in any security."¹¹ (Canterburie’s Doome, p. 452.) Prynne goes on to say that in consequence he was committed to the Gate House, but was found at liberty in Holborn four months after. This must have been in consequence of Secretary Windebanke’s general policy of releasing all the Roman Catholic prisoners: a catalogue of the Priests discharged by him, to the number of seventy-seven, is produced by Prynne in the "Hidden Workes of Darkness," &c. p. 124, in which we find: "20.—John Piers, alias Fisher, with two sureties in 500l. to appear upon twenty days’ warning: bond dat. 12 August, 1635." Fisher is also alluded to in a letter from Phillips the Queen’s Confessor, addressed to M. Mountague in France: "You may expect some company with you ere long. Crofts, Suckling, Piersy, Jermaine are gone." (Hidden Workes, &c. p. 215.) His works, as catalogued in the Bibliotheca Script. Soc. Jesu, and in Dodd’s Church History, are—

   1.  A Treatise of Faith. London, 1600. With Notes, St. Omer’s, 1614.
   2.  A Defence of his Treatise of Faith, against Wotton and White. St. Omer’s, 1612.
   3.  A Challenge to Protestants, &c. St. Omer’s, 1612.
   4.  An Answer to Nine Points of Controversy, &c., with the Censure of Mr. White’s Reply. 4to. 1625.

   It has already been shown how little of this last work is Fisher’s.

[xxi]   It remains to give some more particular account of Archbishop Laud’s work, now reprinted. Of the first edition, or rather original sketch, appended to Dr. White’s work, sufficient notice has been taken.

   The second edition, or in point of fact the first edition of the complete work itself, was published in 1639, in small folio; its title-page has been facsimiled for the present volume; and follows the Editor’s preface. It was the only edition published during the author’s life.

   The third edition is "A Relation of the Conference between William Laud, late Lord Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, and Mr. Fisher the Jesuite, By the Command of King James, of ever-blessed Memory. With an Answer to such Exceptions as A. C. takes against it. The Third Edition Revised: with a Table annexed. London: Printed by J. C. for Tho. Bassett, T. Dring, and J. Leigh, at the George, the White-Lion, and the Bell in Fleet-street. MDCLXXIII."

   The title-page of the fourth edition, printed in red and black, is "A Relation of the Conference between William Laud, late Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, and Mr. Fisher the Jesuit, by the Command of King James of ever Blessed Memory. With an Answer to such Exceptions as A. C. takes against it. The Fourth Edition revised: with a Table annexed. IMPRIMATUR. C. Alston, R. P. D. Hen. Epise. Lond. a Sacris Domesticis. Jan. 25. 1685/6. London, Printed by Ralph Holt for Thomas Bassett, Thomas Dring in Fleet Street, and John Leigh, MDCLXXXVI."

   A reprint, making the fifth edition, was published "Oxford, at the University Press. 1839." The present edition, therefore, is the sixth.

   The text of the posthumous editions of 1673 and 1686 (the latter being a reprint, with very trifling variations of the [xxii] former) differs in very many, and sometimes important, particulars from that of 1639. In most, but not in all, cases the text of the later editions is an improvement on the original: but the present Editor did not feel himself at liberty to discard the text as left by the author in 1639: especially as the third edition claims to be, and is, "Revised: with a Table annexed;" and it is by no means clear how far all the additions to, or variations from the edition of 1639 received the author’s sanction. That some of the corrections,—for example, the passage at p. 284.,—contain Archbishop Laud’s own second, and matured, thoughts is tolerably plain: and the reason of such additions it is not difficult to trace, as they correct errors in fact, of that sort which an author alone was likely to detect: but on the other hand, certain variations—such as corrections in style—seem rather to betray the editor than the author. While therefore it has been thought preferable on the whole to retain the author’s own text as the basis of the present edition, all the changes introduced in the subsequent editions will be found noted in the margin. In some instances, however, the text of 1673., &c. has been adopted, but in these cases the original reading is also retained in the margin or in notes.

   It may be probably conjectured that the edition of 1673 was prepared for the press by the same Dr. Richard Baily, Archbishop Laud’s Chaplain, in whose name the first edition of the "Relation of the Conference" appeared. Dr. Baily had married a niece of Laud’s, Elizabeth, daughter of Dr. William Robinson, the Archbishop’s half-brother; and it appears by a clause in the Archbishop’s will, to which he was appointed executor, that he stood high in his confidence, and may be regarded as the person to whom all corrections of his works were committed. It is:—

[xxiii]   Item.—I doe lay upon Dr. Baylye, above named, the care of all my papers and paper-bookes, if they can scape the violence of the time .... All which papers and paper-bookes I give unto him alsoe. But with this charge, that hee burne all which hee thinkes not fitt to use himself, that my weaknes whatever it bee, bee not any man’s scorne; and my diligence I am sure cannott bee. As for my Sermons, I leave them likewise to Dr. Baylye’s care; all that are faire written, and have this mark (7) before them, I have revised; and yet I will not have any of them printed, unles they be perused either by Dr. Juxon, Lord Bishop of London, or Dr. Wrenn, Lord Bishop of Ely, or Dr. Steward, Dean of St. Paul’s, my reverend friends, nor yet then unles the times will beare them .... And I do heartily pray my Executor to take care that my booke written against Mr. Fisher the Jesuite, may be translated into Lattin and sent abroad, that the Christian world may see and judge of my religion. And I give unto him that translates it, for his paines, 100l."¹²

   When it is said that Dr. Baily was the probable editor of the edition of 1673, it is meant that it was probably revised for the press by him; for he died, Dean of Salisbury and [xxiv] President of S. John’s College, in 1667. The only addition which this edition of 1673 professes to make to the Author’s own edition, is the "Table annexed." But it is certain that, though uncommon, copies of the edition of 1639 occur with "A Table of the principall Contents," word for word the same as in the posthumous editions. One such copy is in the present Editor’s possession. The subject has a slight interest; because a presentation copy¹³ of the edition of 1639, from Laud to Lord Derby, and now in the possession of the Rev. W. Maskell, in the original binding, has no such Index; and it has been said that this Index, or Table, betrays a bias somewhat inconsistent with the substance of the work. But from a comparison of the two "Tables," it is plain that they are composed from different founts of type; and consequently that the Index to the edition of 1639, is not a mere adaptation to its own paging of that of the edition of 1673; though it seems doubtful whether it is contemporaneous with the authentic publication of the work in Laud’s life-time.

   The present Editor must be considered responsible for the headings of the pages, in which he has tried to give accurately the sense of the author; though, from the great difficulty of compressing an argument or statement into a few words, he fears that if he has not sometimes missed the sense, he has occasionally been led into forced and even ungrammatical expressions.

[xxv]   The other additions of the present Editor are marked with brackets; and, as in the preceding volume, the citations from the Fathers have been verified and given in full.

   It will be found that the present edition incorporates the whole of Fisher’s own Relation of the First Conference, as well as of the Third, to which Laud’s Relation is a reply; a work, as has already been observed, of exceeding rarity. The present edition reprints, for the first time from this source, the whole of the long notes which A. C. added to his printed Relation, as a controversial reply to Laud’s short and original account of the Conference published under Dr. Baily’s name. These notes are not, like Fisher’s original manuscript Relation, incorporated in the Archbishop’s account of the Conference, and they are never cited by Laud except in a fragmentary form, always sparingly, and sometimes with slight but unintentional inaccuracy. In the present edition as in A. C.’s printed Relation, they follow upon his text, and, together with those other portions of that work which Laud omitted, are enclosed in [ ].

   The initials used in this work are,

       B.   Bishop Laud.
       F.   Fisher the Jesuit.
       D.W.   Dr. Francis White.
       L.K.   Lord Keeper Williams, Bishop of Lincoln.
       A.C.   The initials adopted by Fisher in his "True Relations of Sundry Conferences," &c. and especially in his answer to Bishop Laud’s first printed account of his Conference.

   Upon the value and importance of the present celebrated work; it were superfluous in this place to enlarge. But in no edition of it should it remain unnoticed, that so high was [xxvi] the value which King Charles set upon it, that he epitomized it with his own hand, (Life, prefixed to King Charles’ Works, Perrinchief, p. 115; Sir P. Warwick’s Memoirs, &c. p. 82;) and that he advised his daughter Elizabeth to read, and at the same time gave her with his own hands, Bishop Andrewes’ Sermons, Hooker’s Ecclesiastical Polity, and Laud against Fisher. (Thom. Herbert’s Life, apud Ant. Wood; Dugdale’s Short View of the Late Troubles, &c. p. 382; Harris’s Lives, vol. ii. p. 74, note.) Of the spirit in which it was composed, it is a sufficient defence to remember, that it was actually made a charge against the Archbishop on his trial, (Canterburie’s Doome, p. 457,) that in his Epistle Dedicatory to the King, (vide infra, p. x.) he averred that "he had not given him [Fisher] or his so much as coarse language." And of its matter, it may be enough to cite the Author’s own account of his controversial principles. "Secondly, my book against Fisher hath been charged against me; where the argument must lie thus: I have endeavoured to advance Popery, because I have written against it. And with what strength I have written, I leave to posterity to judge, when the envy which now overloads me shall be buried with me. This I will say with S. Gregory Nazianzen, (whose success at Constantinople was not much unlike mine here, save that his life was not sought,) ‘never laboured for peace to the wrong and detriment of Christian verity,’ (Orat. 32,) nor I hope ever shall. [And let the Church of England look to it; for in great humility I crave to write this (though there was no time to speak it): That the Church of England must leave the way it is now going, and come back to that way of defence which I have followed in my book, or she shall never be able to justify her separation from the Church of Rome.]" (Troubles and Trial, &c. p. 1,18.)

[xxvii]   Finally, What Laud’s own dying judgment of his endeavours in this Conference was, may be estimated by the clause in his will, quoted above: but it seems scarcely becoming to do other than to prefix, by way of motto to it, the admission of one of the Archbishop’s bitterest enemies, Sir Edward Deering, who observed that "his own book against the Jesuit will be his lasting epitaph." (Heylyn’s Life of Laud, p. 504.)

WILLIAM SCOTT.

HOXTON,
October 23, 1849.

   The references have been made to the following editions. When a reference occurs but once, the edition in such case is specified with the quotation itself.

Ancan Sylvius, apud Fascie. Rerum, &c., q. v.
Albertus Magnus, Ratisbon., Op., fol. Basil. 1506.
Alliaco, Pet. de, Card. Cameracens. inter Opera Jo. Gerson., q. v.
Almain, Jacob., in Sentent. fol. Lugd. 1527.
—————  Opuscula, fol. s. a. Par. [1517?]
Alphonsus a Castro, Op., fol. Paris. 1571.
Aquinas, S. Thom., Op., fol. Paris. 1615.
—————  Opuscula, ed. Morelles, Antv. 1612.
Aristoteles, Op., ed. Bekker. 8vo. Oxon. 1837.
Assemanni, Cod. Liturgic. Eccl. Univ. 4to. Romae, 1749-67.
Athanasius, S., Op., ed. Benediet. fol. Paris. 1698.
Augustinus, S., Op., ed. Benedict. fol. Paris. 1679-1700.
Azorius, Lorcitan. Institut. Moral. fol. Paris. 1616. et Colon. 1613.
Bandinus, de Trinitate, &c. Lovan. 1557.
Baronius, Annales, fol. Romae, 1607.
Basillus, S., Op,, ed. Benedlet. fol. Paris. 1721-30.
Becanus, Mart., Op., fol. Paris. 1633.
————  Opuscula, fol. Mogunt. 1610.
Bellarminus, Card., Op., fol. Col. Agrip. 1619.
Bernardus, S., Op., fol. Par. 1551.
Bibliotheca Patrum, Max. fol. Lugd. 1677.
Biel, Gabr., in Canon. Miss. fol. Cleyn, Lugdun. 1514.
————  in Sentent. Cleyn. Lugd. 1519.
————  Suppl. in IV. Sentent. fol. Par. 1621.
Boëtius, de Consol. Philos. Basil. 1570.
Bonaventura, Card., Op., fol. Mogunt. 1609.
Bossuet, OEuvres de, 8vo. Versailles, 1817.
Bullarium Magn. &c. fol. Luxemburg. 1727, &c.
Cajetan., Card., Op., fol. Lugd. 1662.
Calvinus, Op., fol. Amst. 1667.
Calvisius, Chron. fol. Francof. 1685.
Canus Melchior, de Locis Theolog. 8vo. Lovan. 1569.
Cappellus de Appell. Eccl. African. 8vo. Paris. 1622.
Caranza, Barthol., Summa Conciliorum, 12mo. Duaci, 1679.
Cassander, Op., fol. Paris. 1616.
Catharinus, Ambros. in Epist. D. Pauli, fol. Paris. 1566.
Cave, Historia Literaria, fol. Oxon. 1740-43.
Chemnitz, Examen Conc. Trident. fol. Genev. 1614.
Cicero, Op., Ernesti, Londin. 1819.
Codex Veteris Eccles., apud Justelli Biblioth. Canon. ed. fol. Paris. 1661.
[xxviii]
Conciliorum Collectio, Binnii, fol. Paris. 1636.
—————————  Labbe et Cossart. fol. Paris. 1671-72.
—————  Summa a Barthol. Caranza, Duaci, 1679.
Corpus Juris Civilis, ed. Van Leeuwen. fol. Amstel. 1663.
Corpus Juris Canonici, ed. Pithoei, fol. Paris. 1687.
Critici Sacri, &c. fol. Londin. 1660.
Cyprianus, S., Op., ed. Benedict. fol. Paris. 1726.
—————  Op., fol. Paris. 1616.
Cyrillus Alexandr. S., Op., ed. Aubert, fol. Paris. 1638.
Cyrillus Hierosolym., S., Op., fol. Paris. 1640.
Damascenus, S. Joan., Op., Lequien, fol. Paris. 1712.
De Dominis Ant. Archiep. Spalat. A Manifestation of the Motives, &c. London, 1616.
—————  id. (Latin) Paris. 1623.
De Marca, de Concordia Sacerdotii et Imperii, fol. Paris. 1669.
Decretalia (Greg. IX.) cum Gloss., fol. ed. Taurini, 1621.
Dionysius Carthusianus, (Dionys. a Rickel de Leewis,) Enarrationes in IV. Evang. fol. ed. Paris. 1542.
Durandus, Ep. Mimatens., in Sententias, fol. Paris. 1508.
Ecclesiast. Hist. Scriptores, ed. Reading., fol. Cantabrig. 1720.
Echard’s Hist. of England, fol. London, 1707.
Epiphanius, S., Op., ed. Petav. fol. Paris. 1622.
Erasmus, Adag. Chiliad. fol. Colon. 1612.
Espeneaeus, Op., fol. Paris. 1619.
Eucher, (Emond,) Op., 4to. Col. 1701.
Euchologion Graecor. Goar. fol. Paris. 1647.
Eusebius Caesariensis, (Pamphili) Hist. Eccles. apud Hist. Eccles. Scriptores, q. v.
Fasciculus Rerum, &c. per Gratium, fol. Colon. 1535.
Ferus, Enarr. in Act. fol. Colon. 1567.
Field, Of the Church, fol. Oxford, 1635.
Gandavensis, Henr. (Goethals) Summa, &c. fol. Ferrariae, 1646.
Gerhardus, Op., 4to. Tubingae, 1776.
Gerson., Joh., Op., ed. Dupin. Par. 1706.
Goldastus, Monarchia S. Romani Imperii, fol. Francof. 1614.
Gorranus in Evangel. Comment. fol. Antverp, 1617.
Gregorius Magnus, S., Op., ed. Benedict. fol. Par. 1705.
Nazianzenus, S., Op., ed. Benedict. fol. Paris. 1778-1840.
—————————  ed. Billii, fol. Paris. 1630.
————  Thaumaturg., S., ed. Paris. 1622.
————  de Valentia, Comment. Theolog. in Summ. S. Thom. Aquin. in Op., fol. Paris. 1609.
Hieronymus, S., Op., ed. Benedict. Paris. fol. 1693-1706.
Hilarius Pictav., S., Op., ed. Benedict. fol. Paris. 1693.
Holkot in Sentent. fol. Lugd. 1497.
Hooker, Richard, Works, ed. Keble, 8vo. Oxford, 1836.
Ignatius, S. apud Patres Apostol., q. v.
Ireneaus, S., Op., ed. Benedict. fol. Paris, 1710.
———————  ed. Grabe. fol. Oxon, 1702.
Isidor. Hispalens. S., Op., ed. Lorenzanae, 4to. Romae, 1802.
Isidor. Pelusiot., S., Op., fol. Paris. 1638.
Jansenius, Concord. Evang. fol. Lovan. 1571.
Junius, Op., fol. Genev. 1613.
Justin Martyr, S., Op., ed. Thirlby, Londin. 1722.
Lactantius, Op., ed. Lebrun, Paris. 1748.
Leo Magnus, S., Op., ed. Ballerini, fol. Venet. 1753.
Llamas, Summ. Ecclesiast. Mogunt. 1605.
Lombard, P., Magist. Sentent., Op., 8vo. Paris. 1575.
Lucanus de Bell. Phars. Variorum, Londin. 1818.
Maldonatus, Comment. fol. Mussiponti, 1596.
Martyr, Pet., Loc. Comm. Genev. 1624.
Maurus, Rabanus, Op., fol. Colon. 1626.
Minutius Felix, Octavius, 8vo. Lugd. Bat. 1672.
Mirandula, Joann. Pie., Op., fol. Basil 1496.
Nauclerus, Chronicon, fol. Colon. 1564.
Novatianus de Trinitate, ad calcem Op. Tertulliani, q. v.
Ockam, cf. Goldastus.
Optatus Milevitanus, S., de Schism. Donatist. ed. Dupin. fol. Paris. 1700.
Origenes, Op., ed. Ben. fol. Par. 1733-59.
Op., Erasm. Interpret. ed. Frobenii, Basil. 1545.
[xxix]
Patres Apostolici, ed. Cotelerius, fol. Amat. 1724.
Paul Sarpi, Hist. Conc. Trident. (vers. Lat.) fol Aug. Trinobant. 1620.
Paulinus, Nolan, S., Op., fol. Paris. 1685.
Pjghius, Albert., Hierarch. Eccles. fol. Colon. 1538.
Platina de Vitis Pontificum, fol. Colon. 1668.
Plautus, Op., Ernesti, Lipsiae, 1760.
Prosper, S., Aquitan. Op., ed. Antelmn. fol. Paris. 1711.
Ramus, Schol. Math. Basil. 1569.
Rogers on the Articles, &c. London, 1585 and 1639.
Ruffinus, Expositio Symboli, apud S. Cyprianum, q. v.
Sa Emmanuel, Lusitan. Aphorism. Colon. 1615.
Salmeron, Comment. &c. fol. Colon. 1614.
Sanchez de Matrimonio, fol. Antwerp. 1626.
Scotus, Duns, Doctor Subtil., Op., fol. Lugd. 1639.
Seneca, Op., fol. Paris. 1607.
Simancas, de Cathol. Instit. fol. Romae, 1575.
Sixtus Senensis, Biblioth. Sanct. fol. Paris. 1610.
Socrates, Hist. Eccles. apud Hist. Eccles. Scriptor., q. v.
Stapleton, Thom., Op., fol. Paris. 1620.
Stella, Enarr. in S. Luc. fol. Antverp. 1622.
Suarez, Op., fol. Colon. 1614. fol. Venet. 1747.
———  Comment. ac Disput. in Summ. S. Thom. Aquin. fol. Mogunt. 1619.
Synesius, Cyren. Op., ed. Petav. ad calcem S. Cyril. Hierosol. fol. Paris. 1640.
Tena. Comment. fol. Londin. 1661.
Tertullianus, Op., cum Novatiano de Trin. ed. Rigalt. fol. Paris. 1673.
Theodoretus, Op., Sirmondi, fol. Par. 1642.
Theodoretus, Eccl. Hist. apud Hist. Eccles. Scriptores, q. v.
Theophylactus, Comment. in Evang. fol. Par. 1635.
——————  Comment. in Epist. ed. Lindsell. Londin. 1636.
Tollet, Cardinal. in S. Johann. fol. Lugd. 1615.
Tostatus, Op., fol. Col. Agrip. 1613.
Tractatus Juris Utriusque, &c. fol. Venet, 1584.
Turrecremata, Summ. de Eccles. Lugd. 1496.
Vasquez, Comment. in Summ. S. Thom. Aquin. fol. Antv. 1621.
Vincentius Lirinensis, 12mo. Colon. 1585.
Waldensis, Thomas, Doctrinal. Fidei, fol. Paris. 1532.
Whitaker, Op., Aurel. Allobrog. et Genev. fol. 1610.
Wittembergenses Theologi, &c. fol. Witebergae, 1584.
Zanchius, Op., fol. ed. Crispini, 1619.

  ENDNOTES:

Note: Initial number/letter, eg. [vi]/a, indicates page number and letter of original footnote. Other endnotes have been gathered from marginal notes in LACT No. 11.