^{page 126 note a} In reference to a similar postscript in Charnock's letter, Colleton writes (Just Defence, p. 79): “When maister Cbarnoche wrote his letter unto us, by the appointment of the Cardinalls, for a finall end of their durance as father Owen reporteth, and father Parsons had the perusing thereof a night and a day, it was broughte againe unto him by father Owen, with order from father Parsons to adde that the subordination erected was the order of his Holinesse, who, answering he could not write so, because he knew it not, the other replied, that the Cardinall protector sayd it when he sate in judgement in the cause, and that father Parsons affirmed the same, and therefore he might well and truly write that to his knowledge the archpresbitership was the appointment of his Holinesse. Whereupon the prisoner, being willing to give the fathers the most contentment he could for his speedier riddance out of prison, promised him to write in so large a manner in that point as possibly he could with any truth, and accordingly signified in his letter yet not that he knew the subordination to be the order of his Holinesse, but that he heard the Cardinal to affirme it and also understood it by the credible relation of others. The like wrote Mr. Bishop, and not unlikely on the same persuasion,”On the other hand Signor Acarisio, the fiscal, stated distinctly to both the prisoners apart that the new superiority was not instituted by the pope's command and that the pope himself had told him so (Ibid., p. 34). In any case (as Colleton remarks) no one ventured to affirm that the unusual jurisdiction and faculties annexed to the archpresbytery proceeded from the pope's ordinance.

^{page 126 note b} This document is written on the third page of the preceding letter and in the same hand. The language is, however, not that of the appellants but of their opponents.

^{page 128 note a} Blotted.