THE EXAMINATION OF M. THOMAS CART­VVRIGHTS late apologie,

Wherein his vaine and vniust chal­lenge concerning certaine supposed slanders pretended to haue bene published in print against him, is answe­red and refuted,

By MATTHEVV SVTCLIFFE.

Calumniari est falsa crimina intendere. Marcianus L. 1. ff. ad. S.C. Turpilianum.

¶ Imprinted at London by the Deputies of Christopher Barker, printer to the Queenes most excellent Maiestie.

Anno 1596.

TO M. THOMAS CART­wright Master of the Hospitall at War­wike, giue these in the Ile of Gerne­sey, or els where hee shalbe then resiant.

ALthough, Sir, many of your good friends and folowers haue both long looked, and much de­sired to heare from you: yet, I doe assure my selfe, they looked for nothing lesse then to receiue from you such a slender and tri­fling pamphlet as this, which goeth vnder the name of your apologie. they expe­cted rather to see those famous obseruations of yours, which you haue written against the Rhemish annotati­ons vpon the new Testament, which they esteeme so highly, or els some such like notable learned, & labori­ous worke against the cōmon enemie. I, for my part, when I first heard, that your name was once againe come in print, and that ye had now at length broken your long kept silence, looked (at the least) for someTanquam ele­phanti partum. great and learned volume in defence of that cause, for which you haue so much practised, and so long and ve­hemently contended; and which you were wont so highly to magnifie. I did well remember how you promised, that for In the front of his first reply. Syons sake you would not holde your peace, nor for Hierusalems sake take any rest. as if this mat­ter of your forged discipline were your onely Syon, and that holy Hierusalem, for which you contended. you tolde vs further, and that (I thinke) in very good sad­nesse, that 1. reply. if euery haire of your head were a life, you ought to afford them al for the defence of your cause. You affirmed [Page]also that your disciplinePreface 1. re­ply. is agreat part of the Gospell: that it is a 1. and 2. reply. matter of faith, and an essentiall note of the Church: that the Church without it, is like a gardenPref. 1. reply. without a hedge: nay finallyM. Cartwr. table. that it is Christes kingdome vpon the earth. I could not therefore thinke otherwise, but that now you had vndertaken the defence and accomplish­ment of that most glorious and necessary worke. Nei­ther could I imagine, that1. Thess. 2. contrary to the Apostles example, you would seeke for glory at mens handes; or els like the princes of the Iewes,Iohn 12. esteeme more the praise of men, then the glory of God: and to come neerer you, that you would abandon the defence of your Syon, yea and of your holy citie Hierusalem, and would suffer your hedge to go downe, and your Church to lye waste, and plainely would renounce a great part of the Gospell, and of your new faith, and all this to talkeThe argument of M. Cart­wrights booke. of the vse of money, and purchases of land, and Hackets and Copin­gers matters, and your owne fancifull opinions, and vaine praises.

Yea, and all that haue heard of your fame, expected farre other matters, then this short pamphlet like two ballades stitched together at your handes: and not on­ly expected, but also desired and wished, that if needes you would take penne in hand, you would trauaile in your former cause, rather then in this priuate quarrell betwixt your selfe and me. and that also was my ear­nest desire. not that I would haue that fire stirred, which once you had kindled, and is now either quenched or well couered; but that I hoped, that by your defence all men should clearely see, first the nakednesse and weakenesse of your cause, which with no eloquent glo­ses you could couer, nor with pretence defend; and next, that the same is not ouerborne by authoritie, as [Page 2]some beare men in hand, but reiected, repelled, and de­spised, as a new forged deuise, repugnant to al antiqui­tie, to all iustice, to al reason, and trueth.

As for this your apologie or briefe answere, as you call it, it satisfieth no mans expectation, or desire, as I thinke. if you respect the principall cause; it is altoge­ther impertinent, if you seeke to iustifie and cleare your selfe, you haue done iust nothing. that is apparent by these particulers. You deny, that you did execute any part of your brother Stubbes his last will. an vnkinde part (you must needes confesse) especially if he requested you, or meant to put you in trust. but what is that to the mat­ter? that you haue dealt in the execution of my Lord of Leycesters will concerning the stocke of his Hospi­tal, you cannot deny. Likewise most apparent it is, that you haue dealt (how wel, I know not) in diuers other ci­uil causes. which is sufficient to make that cause good, for which I alledged that argument. You say also, that you haue not three or foure mannours; and percase you are sorie for it. but what apperteineth that to your elder­ship? I trust you meane not, if you had them to con­uey them ouer to some friends in trust for maintenance of a learned ministery, for want of which your consorts pretend to bee so much offended. Neither is the want of land or fee any blemish to your credit. for many ve­ry honest, and learned men haue not so much as one quarter of your reuenues. you tell vs that you leant not 300. li. to Francis Michel, but only 200. pound. and yet nei­ther is greatly material, whether it be. rather then you would loose either 200. or one hundred pounds, you would percase wish you had neuer spoken worde for your consistorie. you take it in euill part, that I should cal the Hospital, whereof you are master, your Hospitall; [Page]and yet is the speach common, and no harme meant, not is it any aduantage to your cause, whether it be cal­led my Lord of Leycesters Hospital, or your hospitall. if so be you might haue had your foolish course, many learned men would not haue bene so wel mainteined, as the poore of your Hospital. Such like be your com­plaints, where you take your selfe charged to be a man that hath strange conceites concerning extemporall pray­ers, and working of miracles. neither of these matters ap­perteine to your consistorial gouernment, nor great­ly touch you in reputation. Your acquaintance with Co­pingers causes, and allowance of Martins libels, I con­fesse, are foule matters, and touch you in your reputa­tion; yet doe they concerne the consistoriall cause, but litle.

Besides this, albeit your principall drift in this your apologie was to cleare your selfe of all notes of disloy­altie, and lewd opinions, and lewd practises; yet haue you done none of these. nay in those matters that con­cerne Stubbs his will, the purchase of lands, and lending of money, wherin you seeme to haue most aduantage, you do but trifle. all this now I wil briefly note, but the proofes you shall see largely deduced in the discourse ensuing. First where I doe make diuers questions, and some that touch you very nerely, you passe the most of them ouer with silence. but if you would haue iustified your selfe, you should haue answered them al, and that in direct and plaine termes. IAnswere to the petit. p. 186. aske you whether Fen­ners booke which he entitleth sacram Theologiam, and which you seeme to allow, conteine not strange diuini­tie: and gladly would I know, if you mislike any thing in that booke, what the points are you mislike. you an­swere nothing. IIbid. p. 189. demaund of you whether Barowes er­roneous [Page 3]conclusions doe not folow of your assertions. And what say you to it? forsooth nothing. I aske if the Prince refuse to reforme the Church, how far inferior magistrates, and the people may proceed therein; and thereto your answere isIbid p. 194. & 195. silence. I demaund of you, if you and your consorts do not thinke the practises of Ge­neua and Scotland for the setting vp of their discipline lawfull, and worthy to be folowed: and to this you sayIbidem p. 195. nothing. I demaund further, whether you and your fellowes haue not assembled in synodes and conuenti­cles, and there decreed and enacted certeine Ecclesia­stical canons and rules, & subscribed and practsed them contrary to her Maiesties lawes, and the statutes of the Realme: and you also answer, as to other matters. I de­sired to be resolued, whether you had disgraced her Maiesties Ecclesiastical lawes, reformation, & gouern­ment, & you respect my desires nothing. Diuers other matters likewise I demaunded of you, vnto which you answere nothing. nay in the matters concerning Hac­kets practise, and Martines libels, and her Maiesties su­premacie, you answere imperfectly and vnsufficiently. you dare not set downe my whole question, nor con­fesse al was done concerning Copinger and Martin. nor wil you answere directly to those particuler points of her Maiesties supremacie, which the statutes and lawes giue her. and doe you thinke, that this kinde of answe­ring is sufficient to cleare you. Why, then let Sanders, Allen, and those Papists and traitors which confesse so much in termes, as plainely and openly as you do as yet, be cleared. concerning Stubbs his wil, and your dea­ling with Francis Michel, and others, you haue also per­uerted my meaning, and altered my words, and maner of writing. who then seeth not how litle meanes you [Page]had to cleare your selfe, being put to these hard shifts, and not daring to set downe his words, whom you pre­tend to answere? but this we shall see more euidently when wee come to the examination of the particulers of your briefe.

Further, your answer is altogether vnsufficient. you do still cry out in your tragicall maner, slander, slander: and yet you doe not vnderstand what is slander. you ought therefore to vnderstand that slander is,L. 1. ff. ad S. C. Turpil. when matters criminal are purposely, and falsly obiected. but those things, of which you go about to purge your selfe, are either not criminal, or els most true, & in part by your selfe confessed. your selfe confesse, that some things obiected to you are in their owne nature indifferent. how then are they slanderous? that you were acquain­ted with Hackets and Copingers practises, and disliked not Martines courses, shalbe proued. that you would not at the first answere to certaine points concerning the Queenes supreme authoritie in causes ecclesiasti­cal, youIn this booke and in the que­stion concerning that matter. confesse. how then can you say, you are slan­dered? because forsooth, as you would insinuate, you did afterwards acknowledge it, & now offer to sweare it. and yet you wil be taken halting, when you come to the particuler points of that authoritie. You deny that you allowed M. Fenners strange diuinitie concerning ouerruling and deposing of Princes by inferior magi­strates; yet haue not I said more then your own words wil proue and iustifie. That which I say cōcerning wor­king of Miracles and extemporal prayers, you witting­ly, as it seemeth, mistake, and answere not: which argu­eth, that your conscience tolde you, that I said nothing therein but trueth, & trueth whereof you are ashamed. the execution of wills and purchase of lands is not cri­minall. [Page 4]beside that, what I said either concerning such matters, or els your maner of employment of your mo­ney, in effect and substance shalbe proued sufficiently. what reason then had you so vnaduisedly to challenge me, and so deeply to charge me with this hainous mat­ter of slandering? nay what meant you, or howe durst you once talke of slanders hauing your selfe slandered the ecclesiasticall policie of the Church as vniust; the reformation thereof, as prophane and impure; the au­thoritie of Bishops practised in this Church, as anti­christian and contrary to Gods worde; the clergie of England as destitute of an ordinary and lawful calling, you hauing no other order then Deacon, that I know; the people of this landCartwr. table. as refusing Christ to reigne o­uer them; the preaching of the word, as not orderly; the administration of the Sacraments in this Church, as not pure nor sincere? neither haue you so good rea­son to charge me, as I haue to charge you with slande­ring me, hauing without cause imputed this vnto mee, and charged me with shifting, and I know not what vn­christian dealing, and hauing put foorth and excited your friend to raile on me, and charge me with diuers odious matters in the preface to your booke. matters, which I do the lesse regard, for that as hee hath rashly charged me; so he hath wickedly blasphemed God, say­ing that God hath blasted my penne with a lying spirit, attri­buting therein the wicked act of lying to God himselfe, which is the Spirit of trueth; and not only to me, which cōfesse my selfe to be subiect to many errors. of this, M. Cartwright, me thinks, you should haue had more care, and vsed therein more diligence, and not suffered such blasphemies to passe in the forefront of your booke.

But, may you say, if you haue not slandered me; yet [Page]you haue wronged me. as if it were wrong to deale a­gainst the troubler of our peace, the chiefe authour of your schisme, the disturber & slanderer of this Church and state. and yet haue I done nothing otherwise, then beseemed mee. In my first bookes I dealt with you no further, then the cause constreined me, & your impor­tunitie, that first began to oppugne the Church, pro­uoked me. In my answere to a certaine petition in the behalfe of your selfe, and your side, I do confesse, I dealt with you more particulerly. but I was drawen to it by the authors odious questions and courses. When the petitioner said, Quaere of Matth. Sutcliffe, who is euer carping at M. Cartwrights purchases, why he may not sel his fathers lands, and buy others with the money: how could I satisfie the man, vnlesse I touched you particulerly. blame therefore him that began the braule, if you finde your selfe therewith agreeued; and not mee, that did nothing but defend my selfe, and answere.

What should I speake of the harshnesse, and rough­nesse of your stile? your booke it selfe, albeit I say no­thing, will herein say sufficient. against so megre and wretched a discourse, what neede I say any thing?

Yet partly least you should enter into presumption, as if you had triumphed ouer me, and sufficiently iusti­fied your selfe; and partly also to represse that hautines of spirit that possesseth you, and maketh you so impati­ent of due reproofe; and partly to cure your followers of that mad humor, that maketh them suppose you to be a man without blame and error; I haue vndertaken to examine, & to looke into this treatise of yours more particulerly, although otherwise most vnworthy to be refuted, or looked vpon. and the rather for that your friend that hath made the preface before your booke, [Page 5]doeth make such great brags of this defence, and stan­deth so confidently vpon your innocencie, and would haue all my writings esteemed and iudged according to this rule.

I haue also added such questions as you omitted, praying your answer for my satisfaction. if you mislike this course, blame your selfe, that drew me forth to iu­stifie my doings, and would not giue mee any rest by your importunitie. but if you doe still like it, and will further proceede to charge mee with slandering you; then for your owne credite, if not at my request, set downe my wordes truely and wholy, and forbeare to forge and deuise matters calumniously. I haue shew­ed you both in this booke and in my answere to M. Throkmorton a precedent. deale not worse with mee, then I haue done with you. but percase all this request is needlesse. for I trust his example, (who now is si­lent, as it seemeth, for ought he dare auowe) wil teach you not to stirre coles well couered too rashly, nor to prate of needlesse matters foolishly, nor to runne wil­fully into danger, when no man driueth you.

This my answere, albeit you looke not for it, I dedi­cate to your owne selfe, and not without iust cause. challenges they say require answer, andIueunda re­rum verissitudo. one good turne requireth another. all men that haue good minds yeld [...]. like for like, and pay homeQuod a se al­latum est, id sibi relatum puter. Terent. in prol. phorm. as much as they haue receiued. yea gratefull mindesVberiore men­sura quam acce­peris. Cicer. ex Hesiod. pay all with ouerflowing measure. I doe not looke for any thankes at your hands. I know it is an vngratefull world. yet if you will patronize this booke and vouchsafe to stay the vnbridled tongues of your disciples, that in their Bacchanall banquettes and disciplinarian feastes degorge their malice, and speake their pleasures of whom they list, I wil accept it at your [Page]hands as a fauour, and put it into the reckening of your good doings.

More I haue to say vnto you: but the rest you shall receiue in my answere to your challenge, praying you to thinke nothing ouermuch, nor lightly to condemne any thing, before you haue talked with your friend Master Throkmorton, to whom, I doubt not, but you will discommend me, and therefore I desire not to be commended to him. and so commit­ting, and commending you both to your sober thoughts, I bid you, a dieu.

MATTHEVV SVTCLIFFE.

¶ To the Reader.

IT may be, gentle Reader, that either thou mayest thinke mee contentious, that haue entred into this quarrell with M. Cart­wright, being a matter very friuolous, & no way to any good purpose: or els very idle and at great laisure, that haue no­thing els to busie my selfe withall, vnlesse I doe dispute and talke of Hackets & Penries matters, and M. Cartwrights landes and liuings, and also of his domesticall and inward affaires, and his priuate conceits and opinions. But yet, if thou wilt be pleased to consider either the great credite and fame, which M. Cartwright hath amōg his followers, that admire all his vanities; or els the importunitie of him, that made the preface to his booke, that would haue all my writings mea­sured by this false and deceiuable line of M. Cartwrights a­pologeticall challenge, by the which hee supposeth him to bee cleared, and mee to be quite disgraced, and therefore seeketh to discredite all that I haue written in the common cause by the supposed vntruethes and slanders vttered against him, of which he taketh me as conuicted: I trust thou wilt pardon mee, although I doe examine euen these fond toyes, and fan­cies, not worth a straw; and grant, that it is to some good pur­pose, if I doe cleare my selfe of those fonde and ridiculous im­putations, which hee would so willingly, and yet doeth so vn­handsomely fasten vpon me.

I was not ignorant, that wise men doe well perceiue this to bee an vncertaine, and deceitfull rule, considering that such as write best are not voyde of errours, and very learned men doe often slip: yet such is the iustice and clearenesse of my cause in this controuersie betwixt M. Cartwright and me, that I would not feare for once to allowe this rule, and to make the most simple iudge of my dealings herein. the which helpe seeing my cause doth afford me, I thought it not conue­nient [Page]to leaue to such clamorous aduersaries any pretense of aduantage.

I am therefore to pray thee not to accompt mee for this cause either contentious and quarrelsome, or els vnwilling to accept of conditions of peace; but rather to pitie mee, whom such contentious fellowes with their vaine iangling, and clamarous complayning will not suffer to rest. I did ne­uer challenge any as yet; but still wrote against those, that had first entred into voluntary quarrels against this Church and state. such was my discourse against Bellarmine and the Papists: such also were those two bookes which I wrote a­gainst the whole fraternitie of the disciplinarians, and their extrauagant fancies. neither had I to doe either with the au­thour of the petition, or with M. Iob Throk. before they did challenge me. seeing then this my answere to M. Cart­wright is of the same nature, why should the same bee more blamed, then my other doings?

As for my leisure, I assure thee, it was neuer lesse. for yet there are not many dayes passed since the Fleete returned, wherein I was with others in her Maiesties seruice in the iourney of Guadix: and to set my things in order, and to re­fresh my selfe of my former trauailes, some time is required. as for idlenesse, I doe detest it, and M. Cartwright and his friendes (I thinke) will thereof discharge me. yet if his per­emptory dealing, and his proloquutors insolencie would haue suffered mee to rest; I could nowe haue bene content to put o­uer M. Cartwrights briefe vntill the next returne. but being prouoked by both, either to yeelde my selfe to haue done notorious wrong, or els to make answere; although my other busines was great, and my ease none at all, yet haue I thought good to sende them both away with a quicke dispatch to rake vp some new accusation or rather calumniation against me at some other time.

This, certes, is the cause that specially mooued me to looke into this newe matter, although both for the basenesse of the subiect, and vnsufficiencie of the handling of the cause most vnworthy to bee answered, read, or regarded. for (I pray) what doeth it concerne, but M. Cartwrights priuate causes, with which, were I not drawne to it, I am most vnwilling to meddle? yea, and in this cause of his owne, how doeth he be haue himselfe? doeth hee not forbeare to answere the grea­test and most of those questions which are demaunded of him? the examination of particulers, and the reading of this treatise will declare it. To come to the argument of this pamphlet, let vs see how he handleth it. he saith and in great wordes giueth out, that I haue slaundred him, and that, forsooth, in two diuers pointes, whereof the first (as hee saith) concerneth common maners, the second toucheth his owne estate. but when hee descendeth from the toppe of his high stile to talke of particulers, either hee doeth not rightly alledge my wordes, and so faileth in his ground; or els frankly confesseth as much as I say; or els the matters where­with he taketh himselfe to be charged, are not criminall. but suppose I had spoken somewhat, that might offend him; yet I trust his estate is not so high, but that it may be touched. I doe not thinke hee desireth any royallestate, as some haue done; neither any priuiledged place, such as licencious persons seeke. for mine owne part, I must needes say, that I haue not read a more fond and friuolous dispute.

Like to M. Cartwrights booke is that preface which bea­reth a great roume in this small treatise. like lippes like let­tise: both vaine, both deuoyde of wit and learning. yet of the two the preface is more fond, aduancing M. Cartwright to the state of innocencie; and more odious, being fraught with diuers rayling reproches. the authour seemeth to Master Iob Throkmorton an olde friend of mine, who by commending [Page]of M. Cartwright sought to be reuenged on mee. And what he could not winne by commending him, that he seeketh by rayling and Inter hypocri­tas faceros san­niones faceti trendentes con­tra me dentibus suis. Psalm. 35. gnashing his teeth vpon me. such mery ma­licious fellowes well doeth the Prophete describe in his 35. Psalme. and such dealing is not strange in that gentleman, to whom I wish no other paine, then that for his scorning and rayling, for which his owne friendes call him gibing Iob, he doe not in the ende weepe full bitterly. I had thought the euill speede and successe hee had in his last letter would haue admonished him to surcease writing either of letters, or pre­faces. But he is of the number of those whom no harme will make wise, and percase is content especially for M. Cart­wrights sake, to suffer some fewe gentle blowes in deduction of those paines, which otherwise he hath deserued.

Against both the preface, and M. Cartwrights briefe challenge I haue published this briefe answere. by which I trust (by Gods grace) to defend my rightfull cause. thou there­by shalt reape this profite. thou shalt see, that these men, so they could reteine their old credit, could be content to see the cause of their discipline deserted, yea, and M. Cartwright and M. Throkmorton will I trust make so good vse of it, as to learne to master their affections, and to tame their hauty minde, and to rest when they are in the wrong, and to for­beare to drawe men into quarrels that wisheth them all hu­militie, and meekenesse that should bee in men of their sort. I woulde to God, that these that so eagerly pursue mee for sup­posed matter against themselues, would in the ende come home, and make an amends for that publike slaunder and dis­grace they haue offered to the state. But what do I wish that, which will not bee had? such men as are settled in their wic­ked purposes and courses, wil not lightly giue ouer, that which once though vnaduisedly they haue begun. I would therefore if their heades will not bee aduised, yet wish their followers to [Page 8]take heed, how they be abused by them, and to looke for bet­ter ground, then such froward leaders strange conceits.

This answere I pray thee read with patience, and looke not for any great learning in it. for it was deuised on the sudden, and beside that, it is framed vpon a base subiect, and a light matter of fact, and very needlesse, if M. Carwright could so haue bene contented. Is it possible to draw water out of flint, or likely that wee shall gather grapes on thistles? M. Cart­wright doeth not boast of miracles as hee saith, and I neuer professed that I could worke them. what fruite then is to bee expected out of this rockie soile? Well, such as it is, I pray thee accept this discourse. and I would it were better for thy sake. The best is, it shall not be long, nor I hope tedious: and there­fore leauing all other preambles, I come now to the examina­tion of the booke it selfe. But first a few wordes concerning the two diuers titles, that this petit pamphlet hath in two se­uer all places put before it.

The answere to the two Titles. The first title is this.

A briefe Apologie of Thomas Cartwright, against
Whatsoeuer therefore hee is charged with and is not here answered, is no slander.
all such flanderous accusations, as it pleaseth M. Sutcliffe in his seuerall pamphlets, most
I doe him no wrong.
iniuriously to loade him with.

Vnder that title is written this posic.

A
Apply this to Iob Throk. and you shall see it fitteth him well, hauing bene silenced with shame ynough.
righteous man abhorreth lies: but the vngodly sha­meth himselfe, and is put to silence. Prou. 13.5.

¶ The second title is set downe in these wordes.

ANote that hee saith briefe, and forgot answere, that is in the written copy: which shew­eth, that in deede this which M. Cartwr [...] saith, is no answer. briefe of Thomas Cartwright to the printed slaun­ders of M. doctour Sutcliffe deane of Exeter, so farre as they concerne the same Thomas Cartwright.

¶ The Answere.

ALthough titles of bookes be according to the au­thors fancies for the most part; and therefore not much to bee regarded: yet forasmuch as there is some matter in them worthy to bee marked, I thought good to beginne with them. The first thing that I obserue is the contrarietie and repugnance that is in the titles: which argueth, that the authors could not well tell, what to make of this treatise. The second is the notorious false­hood conteined in the titles, which declareth their bad dealing. The last is a plaine confession of the aduersary against himselfe. for if all slanderous accusations be answered, then whatsoeuer M. Cartwright is charged with, and not answered in this treatise, the same is confessed to be no slander.

The repugnance appeareth diuersly: the first title hath apolo­gie, the second hath briefe. yet neither is euery apologie a briefe, nor euery briefe an apologie. true it is that the written copy hath, a briefe answere. but al commeth to one reckoning. for eue­ry briefe answere is not an apologie, nor contrarywise. Nay the same maketh much against M. Cartwright. for his friend percei­uing that hisM. Cartwrights briefe confessed by I. Throkmor­ton to be no an­swere. briefe conteined no sufficient answere, put out an­swere, and onely left vs a briefe: as it were a briefe or writte to summone me to looke to their dealing, and craftie cōueyances; or els a briefe or summe of their manifolde folies. the first title doeth pretend that M. Cartwr. is iniuriously loaden with slanderous accusations; the second maketh light of the matter, and complai­neth not at all. and sure strange it were, if a man should be loa­den with so fewe lines, and such light paper. the first braggeth that al accusations are answered, but M. Cartwright seemeth more wise; and therefore professeth no such generall answere to be made. The first calleth my bookes pamphlets (no doubt the wri­ter was angrie with them:) the second hath more gentle and modest termes. is it therefore likely, that M. Cartwright will a­gree with me, that euen at the first dash is so farre fallen out with his friend?

The falsehood of these titles shall be discouered throughout this whole answere: and may also in part appeare by this, for that they both pretend, that I haue slandred M. Cartwright. and [Page 9]yet neither he nor his friend that so saucily prateth in the preface shall euer be able to iustifie their pretense. forL. 1. ff. ad S. C. Turpil. slander is a false imputation of matters criminall. but the matters which M. Cart­wright taketh on him to answere are either most true, or not cri­minous. Besides that, it is one thing to charge a man with mat­ters criminall iudicially, and in his owne defence; another to charge him extradicially; or iudicially, and by way of accusati­on. but that which I alledge is by way of exception and in my defence, and not with a minde to accuse. Let him therefore that chargeth mee with accusation iustifie his charge, and note the time and place when I committed this fault, and the wordes of my accusation. In deede I mooued certaine questions. but there is great difference betwixt questioning and accusing. the ende of questioning is resolution: the ende of accusing punishment. let him therefore shew whom I haue accused, or prosecuted in iudgement to haue him punished. Last of all the author of the first title complaineth of iniurious dealing. but M Cartwright I thanke him doeth friendly discharge me; and I doubt not, but I shalbe able most clearely to discharge my selfe.

The confession of the aduersary against himselfe is most ap­parantly set downe in the first title. for if all accusations that sa­uour of slander, are answered as the title pretendeth, then is M. Cartwright not slandered when (if questions be charges, as hee saith) he is charged with diuers foule and dangerous matters; a briefe of which I will here set downe, to let him either vnder­stand his fault, or els, if he will not acknowledge it, to prouoke him to frame vs a more sufficient answere.

¶ A note of certaine speciall matters which haue bene demaunded of M. Cartwright and his consorts, and whereto in this his briefe he answered nothing.

FIrst IAnswere to the pet. p. 185, q. 2. demaunded of all the disciplinarians, of which I take M. Cartwright to be the leader, whether those that would o­uerthrow not onely the priuileges and liberties of the Church of England, but also the whole Ecclesiastical estate, their iurisdicti­on also, and liuings; seeke not the ouerthrow of Magna charta, [Page]and infinite statutes, and of a great part of the common lawes of the Realme, and seeke thereby the dishonour of her Maiestie and the state, by requiring at her hands things that tend to the violating of the othe of Princes taken at their Coronation, and the ouerthrow of the rewards of learning. and whether such as are chiefe doers in these causes, are longer to be suffered to pro­ceede in their presumption. This I demaunded, to this M. Cart­wright saith nothing.

Likewise,Ibidem q. 4. I asked whether the booke of Fenner that is enti­tled, sacra theologia, and came foorth with the allowance of M. Cartwright conteine not strange diuinitie. This question con­teineth many members, euen so many as there are strange posi­tions concerning the holy Trinitie, the Lawe, the Gospel, the Sa­craments, and such holy mysteries of diuinitie. yet M. Cartwright satisfieth me in nothing.

Thirdly,Ibidem q. 5. I desired to be resolued, whether it be not reason to make M. Cartwright recant those dangerous opinions, which vnder his credite come foorth commended in that booke. And whether hee and his fellowes haue not made a newe booke of prayer and administration of Sacraments, and practised the same or some part thereof without authoritie: and whether they deserue not to be called in question for publishing of newe con­fessions of faith, and new doctrine. and what answereth he? for­sooth nothing. It might also further be demaunded more par­ticulerly of M. Cartwright, whether in that communion booke which the disciplinarian faction offred to the Parliament, & de­sired to haue it authorized & receiued throughout the Realme, and which for the most part was either framed by his aduise, or allowed by his consent, there are not two articles taken out of the Creede, namely that of Christes buriall, and his descending into hell, and whether there is not a newe article added binding all men to beleeue their new discipline. making that a matter of faith. and whether this be not a plaine violence offered to mens con­sciences, and an alteration of our ancient faith. Likewise whe­ther there is not one petition wanting in the Lords prayer, and their new paraphrase vpon it.Theolog. sacr. lib. 1. Likewise whether M. Fenner in his booke of diuinitie, which M. Cartwright as it were autho­rizeth with his letters of commendation, doe not confound es­sence [Page 10]and person in the diuine nature, and deuide the persons of the Trinitie into two members, and talke foolishly of the eter­nall generation of the Sonne of God and of the proceeding of the holy Ghost, and teach that hatred as it is one of the attributes of God, is the essence of God; And lastly whether M. Cartwr. will allow this for sound diuinitie. In his next writ of slanders, may it please him to shape vs a direct answere to these matters.Ibidem q. 21.

Fourthly it was demaunded by what authoritie the ministers of forreine Churches take on them to prescribe formes of disci­pline and new lawes to our Church. Likewise it might be asked by what rule M. Cartwright taketh on him the ministery in our Church hauing no ordination (vnlesse it be of deacon) accor­ding to the lawes of this Church.

Fiftly I desired to be resolued,Ibidem q. 22. whether all the errours of Bar­rowisme do not follow, and may be concluded of M. Cartwrights and his consorts assertions. and whether it bee a matter fit that these men should deale with that sort of sectaries, and not rather be constrained publikely to recant their owne foule errors. All these questions M. Cartwright answereth with silence.

Sixtly,Ibidem q. 24. I mooued a question whether M. Cartwright and his consorts do not either flatly deny or call in question the princi­pall points of her Maiesties supremacie. and whether they take not from her power to ordeine rites and orders for the Church; likewise authoritie to nominate Bishops, to appoint Ecclesiasti­call commissioners, and to delegate learned men to heare the last appeale from Ecclesiastical courts, to cal synodes, and other authoritie giuen to the prince by the lawes of England: and en­deuoure to bring in forreine lawes, and iurisdiction repugnant to the statute of the princes supremacie, and prerogatiue, and the lawes and liberties both of the Church of England, and of her Maiesties subiects. if M. Cartwright meant to haue satisfied the doubt concerning his opinion, and conceit of her Maiesties supremacie, as he goeth about it; he ought to haue answered this question directly and particulerly. not doing it, who seeth not that he slideth away in cloudes of generalitie, and priuate con­ceites of his owne fancy concerning this matter?

Seuenthly it was demaunded,Answere to the petit. q. 26. & 29. whether by M. Cartwrights rules in those places where they are receiued the Church goods [Page]are not spoiled, and the liuings of the ministery deuided, and re­wards of learning taken away, and also whether, if the same should here be receiued, the like wrack would not be wrought, and her Maiestie depriued of tenthes and subsidies, and a great part of her reuenues, and of many faithfull and loyall seruitors, which by those lawes being made vnable to liue, would also be made vnable to doe her seruice. Hee hath nothing to answere, that will make for him.

Eightly it was asked,Ibidem qu. 30. whether M. Cartwright and his fol­lowers haue not in all places where they haue bene receiued, made sectes and diuisions, and hardened mens hearts, and filled their minds with pride and humorous vanities. to which he saith nothing. Percase he knoweth it is no slander.

Ninthly,Ibidem qu. 31. I demaunded whether it be not dangerous for this state, that M. Cartwright and his partakers haue so much vrged this Church to imitate the examples of Geneua and Scotland, considering the dangerous courses which they tooke, and the hard effects, that followed of them. It cannot be denied: and therefore M. Cartwright holdeth his peace.

10.Ibidem qu. 33. The question was asked whether that the subuersion of the state of the Church, which foloweth necessarily of M. Cart­wrights disciplinarian deuises, is not a great scandale, and hinde­rance to the reformation of true Religion in other places. It is most apparent, and therefore M. Cartwright forbeareth to answere.

11.Ibidem q. 34. It is demaunded whether M. Cartwright doe not as well subiect Princes to excommunication, as Sanders or Allen or o­ther Papistes: and whether his doctrine is not as pernicious to princes authoritie, as theirs. It must needs be granted: and there­fore he passeth by, and saith iust nothing.

12.Answere to the petit. qu. 49. A doubt is made whether M. Cartwright doth beleeue, that subiects may rebel against such Kings, as they accompt Pa­pists or tyrants, as some of that side haue taught: and hee passeth by in a graue silence.

13.Ibidem qu. 51. It is asked, whether M. Cartwright and his felowes haue not assembled in synodes, or rather conuenticles, and there en­acted & decreed certeine rules & orders contrary to her Maie­sties lawes, and also subscribed them & procured others to sub­scribe [Page 11]them, and by all possible meanes gone about without au­thoritie to put the same in practise, and to discredite and disgrace the lawes of her Maiestie, and ancient gouernment of Christ his Church. This is most true, and therefore passed ouer in silence.

14. Idemaunded also whether they haue not in their said or­ders,Ibidem qu. 52. which they call holy discipline, taken al authoritie in Church causes from the Christian magistrate, and giuen it to their con­sistories and synodes, in so much that the magistrate is not once mentioned in that platforme; and further I would know, how the sufferance of these proceedings may stand with the maiestie of a Prince, and with gouernment. Likewise it may be deman­ded of M. Cartwright how he that hath bound himselfe to this forme of discipline by his word & subscription, may be thought to allow of her Maiesties supreme gouernment which the lawes of this land doe giue vnto her. In this case he is as silent, as Har­pocrates.

15.Ibidem q. 53. I desired to knowe whether M. Cartwright haue not taught, that the authoritie which they challenge to their elder­ships and synodes by their holy discipline, as they call it, is nei­ther increased nor diminished, whether the prince be Christian or heathen; and likewise, if he do not thinke, or haue not taught, that the authoritie of a Christian and heathen prince is all one, and that a Christian king hath no more to doe with the Church gouernment, then any pagan prince, or Emperour hath: but he will tell vs nothing.

16.Ibidem q. 54. I asked M. Cartwright whether he & his adherents haue not put the greatest part of their discipline in practise, without her Maiesties consent, authoritie, or allowance: and likewise without her authoritie or knowledge haue not both made se­cret meetings, and established diuers newe orders, and broched newe opinions, and all contrary to the doctrine, faith, and go­uernment of this Church of England: this string M. Cartwright dare not touch.

17.Ibidem. q. 55. I asked him whether hee was not presumptuous (if no more) in doing these things, and whether he ought not to bee brought publikely to submit himselfe for his faults. Likewise it may bee here asked of him, whether hauing both in Fenners booke, and his replies and writings taught, written, and allowed [Page]diuers points of false-doctrine; he is not to be brought to a pub­like recantation, for satisfaction of those weake ones, that hee hath offended: will it please him yet to answere this question directly?

18.Answere to the petit. qu. 57. I demaunded whether M. Cartwright swore truely in the Starre-chamber, when he affirmed on his oth, that he neuer affir­med or allowed that in euery monarchie there ought to be certain ma­gistrates like to the Spartaine Ephori, with authoritie to controll and depose the king, and to proceed further against him, seeing he called M. Fenners booke wherein these points are expresly set downe, the principles and grounds of heauenly Canaan, and doth not onely without all exception allow it, but also highly commend it: this is also a point which he dare not answere directly, and plainly.

19.Ibidem qu. 58. I would also vnderstand whether M. Cartwright and his fellowes haue not confessed on their othes taken in the Starre­chamber, that notwithstanding all that care that hath bene taken for the perfecting of their platformes of discipline, they are not yet re­solued vpon diuers points. and whether they did wisely to sub­scribe to such orders; or dutifully, to animate certaine gentle­men of meane vnderstanding in diuinitie, to present such a con­fused & imperfect platforme of gouernment to the Parliament, that it might be confirmed, and receiued throughout the whole Realme; and last of all whether it were wisdome to dissolue a state already setled, & to embrace a gouernment wherupon the authors themselues are not yet resolued, nor (I thinke) euer will be, and wherein others see notorious absurdities, imperfections and iniustice. doth not he that holdeth his peace, consent?

20.Ibidem qu. 59. I desired to heare whether M. Cartwright and his com­panions do not say vpon their othes, that they meant to haue bene suiters to her Maiestie and the Parliament for the receiuing of their draught of discipline before mentioned, and subscribed vnto by them, as a perfect plat of Church gouernment commaunded by Gods word, and therefore do vtterly disclaime by a most necessary implica­tion her Maiestie to haue any preeminence and authoritie in Ec­clesiasticall causes by the word of God, seeing they do not giue any authoritie in their perfect platforme to the ciuil magistrate, but yeeld all that power to their synodes, classes, and consisto­ries. It may also be further demaunded of him how this forme [Page 12]may be deemed perfect, seeing they confesse they were not yet resolued vpon diuers points. M. Cartwright answereth nothing.

21. I demanded whether M. Cartwright did not vnderstand,Answere to the petit. qu. 60. that Copinger pretended an extraordinary calling, which moued him to attempt matters, that might proue very dangerous. It might also haue bene demaunded of him, whether albeit he would not be acquainted with the particulers of his lewd purposes, yet he knew not that something was in hand, for his and others deliue­rance out of prison, and for the aduancement of the consistoriall gouernment. M. Cartwright standeth mute.

22.Ibidem qu. 61. I doubted whether M. Cartwright mainteyning the ex­communication of princes by the eldership, and other points of Fenners booke doeth not mainteine doctrine as dangerous, as Sanders, Rosse, and Allen, that mainteine the excommunication of princes by the Pope and the Popes proceedings. and yet M. Cartwright resolueth me not.

23.Ibidem q. 75. I demaunded whether M. Cartwright did reueile to any magistrate the letters of Copinger, or his strange deseignements: but he deigneth not to satisfie any such demaund.

24.Ibidem qu. 92. I asked whether M. Cartwrights answere to the Rhemish annotations vpon the new Testament cōtaine not diuers points of doctrine contrary to all the fathers, to the faith of this Church, and all sound diuinitie; and why if it bee otherwise he doth not subiect it to the censures of the learned. and what saith hee? nothing.

25.Ibidem qu. 93. I desired to know whether M. Cartwright or some friend of his did not threaten excōmunication against a certeine mar­chant at Middlebourg, if he would not desist pursuing a seruant of his that had wasted his goods, and whether such courses bee allowable. All, or most of these questions M. Cartwright pas­seth ouer in silence, and doeth not so much as touch them in his apologie, how nigh soeuer they touch him.

Beside these questions, diuers other matters were asked of of M. Cartwright in the Starre-chamber, whereto he hath either answered nothing at all, or nothing to purpose.

Being demaunded,Interrog. 2. how far forth he hath affirmed or alowed the Queenes authoritie Ecclesiasticall to bee restreined by the iniunctions, vnder colour whereof diuers allow and sweare to [Page]the supremacie, that otherwise cōdemne it, M. Cartwright saith, he is not bound to answere, the secret of his opinion (belike) he fea­reth to disclose.

Being demaunded,Interrog. 3. whether he hath mainteined or allowed, that the king being no pastor, doctor nor elder, is to be accomp­ted among the Church gouernours, and whether in a well or­dered Church the prince may ordeine orders and ceremonies in the Church; M. Cartwright saith, hee is not bound to answere, and being reexamined, as the Iudges determined hee ought, he persisted in his former obstinacie. a plaine argument of his peruerse opinion concerning her Maiesties gouernment in causes Ecclesiasticall.

Being demaunded,Interrog. 4. whether he did acknowledge the Ecclesi­astical gouernment established by her Maiestie to be lawful and allowable by Gods word, M. Cartwright answered, that he tooke not himselfe bound to answere: and so persisted being reexa­mined. ergo he thought it not lawfull.

Being demaunded,Interrog. 5. whether he would acknowledge the Sa­craments to be duly and sincerely ministred, as they be ordeined to be ministred by the booke of common prayer, M. Cartwright answered, that he was not bound to answere, and reexamined still refused to yeeld any further answere. doeth he then thinke them to be sincerely and duly administred in our Church?

Being demaunded whether hee thought those that fauourd not the discipline to be accompted Christian brethren in the same sence,Interrog. 6. and as properly as men of his opinion, M. Cartwright refused to answere as to a matter impertinent. behold, I beseech you how he accompteth of vs, that mislike his new disciplinarian deuises.

Being examined whether he thought the Church of England refusing the presbyteriall gouernment to be the true Church in as proper sence,Interrog. 7. as that Church that embraceth the same, M. Cartwright according to his olde tune refused to answere, and said he was not bound.

Being demaunded,Interrog. 22. how farre he hath affirmed that without breach of the peace of the church of England as it is now gouer­ned, men might treat of alteratiō of lawes, & proceed to practise the new discipline, he maketh a sleight & vnsufficient answere.

Being demanded at how many classicall or synodical assem­blies he had bene present,Interrog. 23. & 24. and what was treated in them, hee ei­ther staggreth, or answereth not.

Being demanded,Interrog. 24. whether in their assemblies they had not treated and concluded diuers matters direct contrary to the Ec­clesiasticall lawes, as for example, that vnpreaching ministers are no ministers, that no obedience is to bee giuen to Archbishops or Bi­shops, that their ordination was to be receiued onely as a ciuile ordi­nance; M. Cartwright answereth, that they were treated of, but not concluded, and prayeth not to be pressed to answer further, viz. how farre these matters were liked of. which argueth his dislike of Ecclesiasticall lawes, and presumption in determining against them.

Being demaunded, whether he had not treated,Answere to the interrogat. in Starre-chamber Interrog. 27. or propoun­ded certaine meanes of maintenance for Archbishops, and Bi­shops, deanes and other officers and ministers Ecclesiastical, ha­uing lost their Ecclesiasticall preferments, of which hee then doubted not (so friendly was he to vs) he saith, that hee is not bound to answere. a plaine and euident proofe, that in his con­ceit he had cast vs all out of our liuings.

Being demaunded,Ibidem interrog, 29. whether in a certeine assembly in the county of Cambridge (he being present) it was not concluded, that Homilies and the Apocryphall scriptures were not to be read in the Church, that the calling of Bishops was vnlawfull, and that not­withstanding any sentence of depriuation giuen by them the ministers of the disciplinarian faction were to continue their ministery, and the discipline to be taught, and to bee practised by those that were well in­structed, he denieth that he is bound to answere. whereby it ap­peareth how presumptuous hee was in going about to dissolue her Maiesties Ecclesiasticall lawes and gouernment.

TO conclude this point, compare I beseech you, this answer and apologie of M. Cartwrights with my questions and the interrogatories, whereupon he was examined in the Starre-chamber throughout: and you shall find that he passed by most of my questions in silence, not once daring to touch them, or to looke vpon them; and that hee was no way able to cleare him­selfe of those matters that were obiected against him in the Starre-chamber: and I thinke, he will not, sure I am, he cannot [Page]deny so much to be true. if he doe; let him take what time hee will, and directly and particulerly answere these questions and interrogatories in his next apologie. but I know he neither mea­neth so to doe, nor can well do it. I do therefore conclude first, that (if as he saith and disputeth in his whole answere) all que­stions be charges, or (as the title hath) accusations; then is hee accused and charged with diuers enormous matters. Secondly, if he hath answered all slanderous accusations in this his apolo­gie, then that all these things which are not answered are truely obiected, and are no slanders. Which being granted, it will fol­lowe that his friend had small skill that painted him out in the proper lineaments, as he saith, of innocencie. and if he say, that this is nothing but a cauill; then let him the next time answere all these matters directly and sufficiently; and I my selfe will giue him, not onely the robe of innocencie, which his friend be­stoweth on him, but also wil crowne him with a garland of glo­rie, and place him in the triumphant charet of victory, to his perpetuall honour among all his folowers, that like of his disci­plinarian forgeries.

Those wordes also out of the Prouerbes, which are set vnder the first title, are a most euident testimonie against the author of the Preface, who likewise seemeth to haue fitted to himselfe this sentence. for, if righteous men abhorre lyes, why hath he tolde his Lady so many vaine tales and fables? forsoth, because hee is an vngodly felow. and therefore that is come to passe that folow­eth in the sentence: the vngodly shameth himselfe, and is put to si­lence. for M. Iob Throkmorton in his rude and euil shapen letter hath shamed himselfe, and as a man that is at the ende of his role, hauing reeiued his answere is put to silence. Let M. Cart­wright take heed that his happe be not like his felowes, and that for expected glory he receiue not shame, and stoppe when hee hath runne his course in a suddein silence. This sentence there­fore, albeit the same neither agree with the Hebrew text, nor with the olde Latine translation, nor with the Geneuian transla­tion in English, yet shall passe for once, without correction.

In the second title M. Cartwright calleth me doctor, I trust he doeth it not in scorne. for the time was when himselfe desired both the degree and title of doctour, and yet could not haue it. [Page 14]percase hee was put backe for his innocencie. sure somewhat it was, that made the Vniuersitie deny that to him, that it vseth to deny, but to very few and for iust causes. Beside that, hee would haue doctors to be chiefe men in the new commonwealth of his consistory, and great pillers of the disciplinarian state.

He doth also call mee deane of Exeter, giuing mee an office which himselfe hath condemned as antichristian. but his sen­tence is declared erroneous, and foolish. For what reason hath a master of an Hospitall to condemne a deane? the time was, I thanke him, when hee seemed very carefull how deanes and o­thers, which hee had determined by his magistrale authoritie should loose their liuings, should be mainteined. but now hee is acquited of that care, and turned along to looke to his domesti­call affaires. May it therefore please him to let deanes alone, and looke to his owne reckenings. if not, hee shall well vnderstand, that deanes are in honestie and otherwise, aboue such as hee is, though hee were master of more then one Hospitall, and that himselfe is no such man, but that we may talke of him without incurring scandalum magnatum.

This answere hee calleth a briefe. and what briefe? forsooth a briefe to printed slanders. as if there were any relation betwixt briefes and slanders, or els, as if slanders were properly said to be printed. Sure, if M. Cartwright were so wise as he is taken to be, hee would neuer haue printed these slanders himselfe, nor pub­lished this simple & weake discourse, nor without cause or good purpose brought his name into question. But seeing he would needes haue it so, who can be against it? should the consistoriall elders proclaime a fast and desire God to turne his minde? Nay seeing he will make himselfe the subiect of this dispute, and call me forth to contend with him, let vs begin and see what either his friend in his preface, or himselfe in his briefe returnable 10. dayes before this terme, can say for their defence. and least either might complaine of wrong, they shall both speake in their owne natural language. List therefore I pray you. for here comes in the prologue, a goodly graue fellow, ye neede not doubt.

¶ The preface set before M. Cart­wrights booke, and the an­swere to it.

IF thou be desirous, good Reader, to
Will you see the counterfeite of a dizard?
see the right por­traiture of
He meaneth folly. for inno­cencie dwelleth not here about.
innocencie truely set foorth vnto thee in her
A very proper piece of worke.
proper lineaments; then read this discourse, which is not
Not lōg, nor wise, nor learned.
long.

¶ The Answere.

STrange it were, I confesse, and worth the seeing, if a man might see the right portrait of innocencie, and that truely set foorth in her proper colours and lineaments, as this preface promiseth. but alas where is she? and how shal we come to haue a sight of her? howe shall we knowe her and dis­cerne these proper lineaments that he speaketh of? The prefa­tor like a monte banke he pointeth to this discourse which hee imagineth to be a rare peece of workmanship painted out by M. Cartwright, as it were another Appelles; and promiseth that within we shall see this strange creature he speaketh of. but hee doeth but abuse his reader, to feede him thus with strange fan­cies. We haue sought euery corner of this treatise, and finde no­thing but a rude peece of worke not worth the reading: hard wordes, disioynted sentences, weake proofes, bad answeres, and nothing worthy commendation. as for innocencie, it was not there to be found. nay while we sought for innocencie we found nothing but a certeine odde fellow in a corner, whose head was all distempered with rheumes of discipline, and a number of in­digested conceites, and by him the author of this preface poin­ting at him, and calling all men in, to beholde innocencie. But those that saw them both, and their demeanours as well as I, said that there was nothing els to be seene but a trifling pam­phlet, and that all the Prefators deuise was nothing but a packe of foolery.

But to leaue this felowes painting and pourtraying, that hath no more skill to paint then a cobler to draw like Appelles; and whose bad grace is such, that there appeareth no other worke of his beside distempered humors, reprochfull words, and vaine and idle talke; What more ridiculous prosopaea could be deui­sed then this, to make M. Cartwright that alwayes hated playes and spoke against them, to play a part? and what part? forsooth a womans part, which of all parts he most detested. The especial grace of a prosopopaea is to obserue decorum, the which by this manis no way regarded. for what is more childish then to make an olde man play a childs part? and M. Cartwright to play a wo­mans part? nay what more absurd then to make him as cleare as innocencie? for if this were true, then was he wrongfully con­uented by the Lords in the Starre-chamber. And besides that M. Cartwright was very simple not to be able to shewe vs this cleare innocencie, which is here so inuisibly portrayed. How in­nocent he is shall appeare by his defence and this answere. but this to the prologquutors vaine entrance telling vs of the portrait of innocencie.

¶ The preface.

Being, thou seest, thus prouoked asWho was it, that did thus challenge in­nocencie? and where? she is, or rather, to speake the trueth, thus violently drawen into the encounter by the wretched as­saults of anMen haue great reason to beware of the leauen of the Puritans, and Pharisees. vnleauened mouth: yet marke I pray thee, how shee caries her selfe, and how she comesAll armed like Pallas. whereby it ap­peareth that Iob Threkmorton is not this in­nocencie. for he neuer yet bore armes to do her Maiestie seruice. armed into the field.

¶ The answere.

All this bill is erroneous. Being, saith hee, thou seest, thus pro­uoked. yet he hath better eyes then common, that can see any steppe or likelyhood in M. Cartwrights discourse, of any such matter. I for my part certes neuer prouoked, or encountred or vsed violence to innocencie. neither dealing with M. Cart­wright, the person on whom this vizard of innocencie is vn­handsomly put, were either my reasons so simple, that hee hath yet come foorth to answere them, nor his cause so good, that he might wel put the same vpon any further trial. His dealing ther­fore in this case that abandoned the fielde was rather wretched then mine, as those that fly before the enemie and dare not make [Page]head are most miserable and cowardly souldiers. yea in these matters that he goeth about to answere, he hath so badly acqui­ted himselfe, that beside this fellowe that hath no iudgement, none will cleare him. But could he cleare himselfe in them, yet there are diuers other matters to be obiected to him of which hee shall neuer be able to cleare himselfe. his errours and igno­rance in diuinitie prooued by his commendations of Fenners booke: his implied deniall of her Maiesties prerogatiue and po­wer in making and abrogating Ecclesiastical lawes, and appoin­ting of commissioners and delegates, his malicious purpose to o­uerthrow the present Ecclesiasticall gouernment, his saucie and vnciuil rayling and dealing against the prelacie of England, his notorious vntrueths and forgeries in maintenance of his new deuises: his schismatical meetings and conuenticles, his vsurpa­tion of the ministery without iust calling, his turbulent dealing for his eldership, and many other matters to be obiected against him shal he neuer be able to answere. What a ridiculous matter then was it, that M. Cartwright should still be made to play the part of lady innocencie, a lady that hee and Iob Throkmorton should seeme to be but little acquainted withall? nay how ab­surd was it, that so graue and ancient a man as M. Cartwright, at the bending of whose browes all the aldermen of the Church stood amased, should here be stripped of his priestly ornaments, and put into a womans attire to play innocencie, of whom now we must speake onely in the feminine gender, and make a confu­sion betwixt him and Mistris Cartwright, giuing him the title of she, and disabling him for euer being president of the consisto­ry? this is therefore absurd and ridiculous talking. That which hee saith of vnleauened mouthes is mere rayling. a matter not strange with M. Throkmorton, whose mouth is leauened with Pharisaisme, and blacke with Puritanisme, and distasted with late learning they say of certeine Hebraismes. He telleth vs fur­ther, and taking a stand vpon an oken tree in an iuie bush wil­leth vs to marke. for he hath sprong innocencie like a seely par­tritch out of the bushes of M. Cartwrights booke, and shee for­sooth flyeth out all armed. which is not onely absurd, but very miraculous. For what more absurd, then that she should come forth out of a discourse, and like Pallas come all armed: or more [Page 16]miraculous, then that all this should bee wrought by certeine wordes without all coniuration or legierdemaine of the pro­loquutor?

¶ The preface.

These are no pieces of M. Cartwrights armes. Patience, mildenesse, trueth, and a good con­science, this is herDoe the same peeces serue for armour and weapons? armour, these be her weapons, and with these onely shePuritan innocencie fights: godly inno­cencie is peaceable. fights repelling and stri­king backe all the bitterYet they say M. Cartwright wardeth but badly. darts, that are throwne against her onely with, the Lord rebuke thee; andWitnesse his first and second replies. none otherwise.

¶ The Answere.

It is no marueile although we haue warres, when innocencie her selfe is made such a great fighter, and quarreller. but this is the Prefators art. and yet they say, he is no such great warriour, that all the while that diuers valiant men were on the Seas, and at Cadix in her Maiesties seruice, was either writing such rayling and lewd prefaces in corners, as this: or els calculating the suc­cesse of his deuises by the aspect of the starres, or els feeding his carkase with deintie fare, and his enuious minde with malicious reports. A very hastie fellow to fight in words: so hastie that he had no leysure to fit his sentences. for, I pray you, how are these wordes, patience, mildenesse, trueth and a good conscience, gouer­ned? but his disioynting of sentences is not the worst of his cause. a fouler matter it is, that arming M. Cartwright with in­nocencie, and other vertues and good parts, he forgot both wit, and charitie. right according to his owne brainlesse doings, that in them haue no wit: and according to the Puritan dealings that are commonly without charitie. Besides this, al this description and armour consisting in many vertues, no way belongeth to M. Cartwright. That he hath no good voyce nor face to play in­nocencie, it appeareth by his answeres in the Starre-chamber, by his writings, and all his dealings. As for patience, how can hee claime it, that is so vnpatient of due reproofe, and commeth be­hind M.I. Throk. that now for ought I know holdeth his peace, vnlesse he percase speake in this preface? And what hath hee to do with mildenesse in whose face there is a storme of anger, and in whose writings there is such rough, and rude dealing against lawes, and against his superiours? Now where there is forging, [Page]deuising, and Machiauelian plotting, how can there bee either trueth, or a good conscience? All which courses if they shall be prooued to haue bene vsed in his doings and writings, then it is cleare, that M. Cartwright is no such fighter, nor so wel armed as is reported. which also appeareth in this, that throwing downe his armes wherwith he was wont to fight, and abandoning that cause for which he in time past made such bragges, he doth now onely skirmish with certaine vaine fancies, as Vlisses did with shadowes in his feined descent to hell. Now hee hath lurked a great while, Vt marinae filius Thetidis sub lachrymosa tempora Troiae. if Vulcane would make him a harnesse for his head, it would doe him percase more good, then all his furniture.

Further he telleth vs, that the same things do serue M. Cart­wright who is figured vnder innocencie both for armour and weapons. hee meaneth perhaps to thrust all men through with his head peece. which is a strange case. But what should a man marueile, if this fellow confound armour, and weapons, that would confound both Church and common wealth?

Finally as if M. Cartwright had not bene abused sufficiently by the Prefator in disguising him in the womanish attire and habit of innocencie, he doth here make him play the part of Michael the Archangel, of whom he is made to borow these words, The Lord rebuke thee. a person no way becomming him, hauing in his replies vsed farre other stile and language, and not conten­ding as Michael did about the body of Moses, but about mere shadowes and fancies. Let M. Cartwright take heede so many parts hath hee played, that the Prefator if hee continue on this course a while, make him not play S. George on horsebacke. for that in deede is his best part, threatning so long and striking ne­uer: riding continually, and yet neuer comming to his iourneys end. All the world knoweth and seeth, that neither his deedes, nor his words are angelicall. neither is he so victorious as Mi­chael, being no way able to make head against his aduersaries, or to answere their arguments.

¶ The preface.

FarreHe was not indeede, like Sa­lust, an eloquent Oratour. vnlike to that babling declaymor, who left vs thisHow is it a lesson? lesson of olde: si quam maledicendo voluptatem Note coepisti wt an oe dipthōg. coepisti, eam malè audiendo amittes. If thou haue [Page 17]taken any pleasure in speaking that thou shouldest not: thou must loose it againe by hearing that thou wouldest not.

¶ The answere.

That M. Cartwright was vnlike Salust, or that I faile not, the authour of that oration wherein these wordes were written, is not denied. for neither hath hee the eloquence, nor the skill in Latin, that he that made that oration, had. nor did that authour so fondly talke and vainly write, as M. Cartwright doth. What reason then hath this odde babler, and rayler, to call him a bab­ling declaymer, but to shewe vs, that this sect taketh pleasure to bite both quicke and dead, and to bable without either rime or reason? beside this, what notorious ignorance is it to call these wordes which the Oratour vttereth against his aduersary, a lesson, as it were of a teacher to his auditory? indeed this Prefator doth well practise this supposed lesson, albeit he hath not so well lear­ned the same. For if he had, he would not haue written cepisti with an oe dipthong. hee might therefore doe well to spare to speake Latin, and let vs heare some better English.

¶ The preface.

Well knewe the defender, that howsoeuer this might beeDoth not he feed his flesh as well as others? pleasing to the flesh, or keepeThe Puritans doe wel like this musicke. descant with our corruption, yet hee that sayes, mihi vindicta, had taught him another lesson, Namely that it could in no sort sute with theHere is great talke of sin­ceritie, but no good dealing. sinceri­tie of the Gospell, to giue checke for checke, and rebuke for rebuke. and therfore it is, that in his whole apologie he hath notI report me to his words, beside that, what M. Cart­wright wanteth, that M. Pre­fatour supplieth, wt whose do­ings, he was well acquainted. giuen his aduersary so much, as one glance of reproch.

¶ The answere.

[...]. Nowe off goe the robes of innocencie, and that maske wherewith hee hath bene hitherto disguised, and M. Cartwright is brought foorth, and spoken of in the masculine gender. but that he should be such a mielmouthed fellowe as not to giue his aduersary one glance of reproch hee would be sory. For I pray you what doeth this word slander set in the front of his booke import? and why doeth hee so often charge me with vntrueth, shifting, and vnchristian dealing. Be­sides that, is it likely, that this preface wherin so many reproches and malicious termes are stuffed, should be put there without his priuitie? or must not he iustifie his preface, and answere for [Page]his friends foly? Last of all, if hee spare me here, which I know not for what respect he doth it, yet doeth he not spare my betters els where. But, to cut this felow downe with his owne phrases, he keepeth descant with his corruption, and pleaseth the flesh as much as his felowes. and what needed this briefe, if hee had not sought reuenge, and meant to be quit with his aduersaries? Let him therefore heare his fellowes graue censure, that this his do­ing doeth not sute with the sinceritie of the Gospell, and take this of me that he hath bene taught better lessons. But what praise his doings deserue, we shal better consider of in another place. here it shalbe sufficient for vs to shew, that M. Cartwright would not fare so deintily nor feed so fatly, nor sing so merely as he doeth, if hee did not both please the flesh, and keepe descant with his corruption too. But let him sing descant, and take pleasure in his crochet musicke as much as he list: he is to answere it, and not I. so long as hee breaketh not our patience with his importunate clamours, nor driueth the consort out of tune, I will not con­tradict him.

¶ The preface.

Let this then bee theA paterne whereby to shape out an hypocriticall grimare. paterne (good Reader, whosoeuer thou art) how toThese felowes do wrestle much, but affection foyleth them still. wrestle with thy affe­ctions in the like assaults.

¶ The answere.

In the former part of this preface, you haue seene how the writer hath played the painter: now to teach you, that hee hath more shifts and occupations to liue by then one, he taketh vpon him to play the doctor, and teacheth vs that himselfe neuer learned; to wit, a long lesson of patience. so litle doeth he know in what ground he standeth, or what is conuenient for him, that he preacheth patience out of his preface. Well, seeing hee will needes teach vs lessons, let vs listen what he saith. Let this, saith he, be thy paterne. a mishapen patterne, certes, not worth two pa­tars. for who wrestleth worse then hee, that runneth out of the listes? and who is lesse valiant then hee, that being as it were blowne away with a tempest of his affections, for a simple re­uenge, set out this simple pamphlet good for nothing, but to make patternes for his daughters pincases? The sequele will de­clare the same to be true.

[Page 18]
¶ The preface.

It is lamentable, I confesse, that such vncleane mouthes asƲiz. Of Iob Throk. and his selowes. this, shouldƲiz. As the author of the preface doth. thus take their libertie toM. Cartwr. hath much disgraced him­selfe, to suffer such a lewde and foule mou­thed proctor to plead in commendation of his innocencie and patience. disgrace at will.

¶ The answere.

If this mans mouth had bin cleane, he would not haue vttred so many foule words, as he doeth. wherein I would hee did not bewray as wel the malice of his heart, as the venim of his tongue. but this is but a peccadillio with this man. A worse matter it is, that euen now hauing proposed vnto vs a patterne of patience, and set madame innocencie before our eyes, that gaue not so much as one glance of reproch to his aduersary, he looking be­side his patterne doeth giue reproches to those that are not his aduersaries, and doth degorge his stomacke I know not against whom, calling them Rabshakeh, Senacherib, Shemei, and vn­cleane mouthes. by common construction of speach the words this, and thus, where he saith such vncleane mouthes as this, should thus take, are referred to the next person, that is to M. Cartwright and himselfe. so wisely doth the man couch his wordes, that he condemneth himselfe. and yet I am not ignorant, that he mea­neth others. percase the rout of Martinists and such like, which haue blacke and foule mouthes, and haue taken to themselues libertie to say what they list. If he meane me, as commonly he doth falling into his rayling rage, he is to vnderstand, that I haue wronged none, nor spoken against any, but such as with open mouthes haue too long spoken against her Maiesties lawes and gouernment, the reuerend Prelates of England, the ancient rites and ceremonies of Christes Church. A matter much indeede to be lamented, albeit Martin and his brood, when time was, made a iest at it.

¶ The preface.

But muse not at it, good Reader.Here he loo­seth himselfe in a common place. it hath bene so in all ages, and will be so still. for so long as the Lord giueth Satan leaue to buffet and assaile his Church, so long thou mayest be assured there willNor a Martin, nor such like rai­lers, as this Pre­fator. neuer want a Rabshakeh, a Shimei, or a Senacherib to play their parts.

¶ The answere.

So long as Martin hath any of his race liuing, or M. Cart­wright may command such writers, as the author of this Preface; [Page]there shall not indeed want Rabshakethes, Shimees, and Senache­ribs to raile against Gods Church, and to vexe honest men. All this therefore, albeit spoken against others, yet most fitly may be applied against the heads of this sect. For who I beseech you hath more railed against the Church of England, and the pre­sent gouernment, then the authors of the admonition, then M. Cartwright I Penry, Iob Throkmorton, and such Martinistes? who more like to Rabshakeh, Senacherib, or Shemei then they? they take themselues indeed to be the Church: but that is common to all schismaticks, which professe to be that they are not. Haere­tici & schismatici, saith S. Lib. de fide & Symbolo c. 10. Augustine, congregationes suas Eccle­sias vocant, sed haeretici de Deo falsa sentiendo ipsam fidem violant. schismatici autem discissionibus iniquis à fraterna charitate dissili­unt, quamuis ea credunt, quae credimus. quapropter nec haereticus pertinet ad Ecclesiam catholicam quoniam diligit Deum, nec schis­maticus quoniam dilig it proximum. Lib. 1. contr. Parmenium. Optatus calleth them rebels to the Church, and saith they are cut off from the Church.De si l. ad Pe­trum. c. 38. &. 39. Ful­gentius doth not onely exclude schismatikes out of the Church, but telleth them that eternall fire is their portion. The Church is butIoan. 10. one fold, andRom. 12. one body. how then are they of the Church, that as fishes slipped out of the net as it is written Luke 5. so are they departed out of the folde, and diuided from the body? Are they to be reputed members that haue no better vnion with the parts & true members of the Church? They alledge they are no schismatickes. but that is as cleare, as that schismatickes are no members of the Church. For first they haue deuided themselues from their Bishops, next they haue erected, as it were, new al­tars and formes of sacraments; thirdly they haue ordeined mi­nisters to themselues, and refused the ministers of the Church; and finally haue publikely oppugned both the gouernours and gouernment of the Church. and therefore either is not the Church of England Gods true Church, or these men are schis­matickes. Who then doth not muse at the impudencie of this fe­low, that compareth those that defend the state and peace of this Church against mutinous Martinistes vnto blasphemous Rabshakeh, and such rayling felowes; being himselfe a chiefe rai­ler, and seeing his fellowes to haue railed so iniuriously against the Church of England? As for those whom he accuseth, they [Page 19]would bee much ashamed, if they should not deale more mo­destly then he doth, and farre more charitably.

¶ The preface.

Neuerthelesse herein thou mayestThis sect doeth well comfort them selues with wine and comfits. this ex­hortation is therfore need­lesse. comfort thy selfe, if thou marke howe, and in what sort this reuilingƲiz. Of Martinists, and deformistes. generation is curbed, as it were snaffled and restreined by the powerfull and righteous hand of God, that in the middest of their forwardnes and boldenesse to blunder out what they list without blushing, they can hardly for their liuesWhat a blundring stirre haue we here? blunder out a trueth, as if the Lord in his secret iudgment had purposely and apparantlyO not orious blasphe­mie, of a wicked tongue! bla­sted their penne with a lying and distempered spirit.

¶ The Answere.

We do in deed much comfort our selues considering the spe­ciall prouidence of God, and diligent care of the magistrate, that hath curbed and snaffled the mouthes of the Martinistes, which like wilde asses lift vp their heeles and put foorth their rayling tongues against the fathers of this Church, and the chiefe go­uernours of the Ecclesiastical state. Neither are we to feare, that such odious declaymers as this, that hath now taken to himselfe a litle more libertie then ordinary, shall still be suffered to blun­der out their tempestuous and railing speaches. As for those that haue written in defence of the lawes of England and ancient rites of the Church, they are not to take it to heart, albeit by this lewd fellow they be railed at, as a reuiling generation, that blun­der out vntrueth without shame. It is the fashion of heretickes, schismatickes and wicked companions to raile at honest men. so did Celsus and Porphyrius raile against the Christians, the Ar­rians against Athanasius, the schismaticall Donatists against S. Augustine, the Anabaptists against true beleeuers. What then although this railing Prefator do degorge his malice against vs? why? hath he not also blasphemed the holy Spirit of God? doth he not say, that God doth blast mens pennes with alying spirit, attri­buting the wicked action to God, which is the fountaine of trueth and all goodnesse? reade the words, and examine them; and you shall finde it to be as I say. He saith not, that God doth send out wicked spirits, or suffer wicked spirits of lying to blast mens pennes: but, that God blasteth mens pennes with a spirit of ly­ing: as if Gods breathing or Spirit did infect mens pennes with [Page]lying. Looke on it M. Cartwright, and be ashamed to haue such blasphemies in your booke. at the least reproue him for it. as for Iob Throk. whose stile this seemeth to be, he is ashamed of no­thing. Is it not sufficient for you to abuse men, but you must also blaspheme God? And you my masters of the rayling sect of Martinistes, before you accuse others of reuiling, and blundring out vntruthes, looke on your selues and your felowes. I thinke M. Cartwright will not deny, but in his bookes he hath written many vntruethes, and both he and others are still blundring out their consistoriall conceits, in which there is neither trueth, nor reason. But this man had onely care to speake euill, that which should be his special care, he doth not regard. for he proueth no­thing. I trust M. Cartwright, who is now canonized by this Pre­fator, and become S. Innocent, or rather innocencie it selfe, will reproue him for it: and therefore I forbeare further to distemper his discrasied braine.

¶ The preface.

All which if thou finde verifiedBut if this bee gainesaid, and iust exception taken a­gainst it, all this is but a foo­lish fancie. without all gainsay and exception in the writings of M. D. Sutcliffe & others of thatI wonder what haire these men be of, that haue not one haire of an honest man. haire, and withall if thou see these men that doe thusIs any more heady or de­sperat then your selues? hea­dily and desperatly lash on in disgrace of others, to bee them­selues in their seuerall accusations so palpably taken tardie, that the very walles andThis stonie rhetoricke is able to mooue any stony heart. stones of the streete may conuince them of vntruth: if, I say, thou finde this to be true (and forIf this bee your proofe, I desire no better proofe of your foolery. proofe thereof I referre thee to this short and modest de­fence) haue patience in thy selfe, and giue the glory to God, who doth thus, thou seest, in his wisdome make a way and pas­sage for the clearing of the innocent, euen through the mouth andEuill come to him that maliciously thinketh. malice of the accuser himselfe.

¶ The answere.

If any man be able iustly to prooue, that to be verified in any writings which this man affirmeth, and no way is able to auerre: then let me receiue shame, and this man glory. Nay if I do not iustifie as much as I haue affirmed, let mee haue punishment: which will wonderfully content this malicious generation. nay I will not take vantage of his wordes which giue colour to any contradiction or gainsaying. But if I doe not iustifie such mat­ters, as I haue affirmed; let law passe. But if I do not onely gain­say, [Page 20]but iustly gainsay M. Cartwr. defence, which is the whole proofe of all this proud bragge: then let me haue this bragging fellow esteemed a vaine man without all iudgement, or mode­stie. Of what haire he is, I will not dispute, they say and I see, he hath not one haire of an honest man. He saith also, that other my felowes writings shalbe apparantly conuicted of vntrueth with­out all gainsay. and for proofe referreth vs to this braue defence of M. Cartwright. But his assertion is very impudent, and his proofe ridiculous. for how doth M. Cartwright conuince those against whom he saith nothing? was not the Prefator ashamed to shuffle things thus together? sure neither my friends nor I am afraid of any thing M. Cartwright either hath said, or can say a­gainst vs. Neither do I thinke that he shall speed better then his friend Iob Throkmorton did the last yeere. he bragged much of his defence against my slanders, as he called them. but the mat­ters are prooued so true, that albeit the man hath great lust to bite and grinneth and grumbleth in corners, like a rough haired water spaniel, yet I do not once, as yet, heare him openly barke. And I hope likewise in this treatise so to refute this briefe, that M. Cartwright will be aduised, ere he send me foorth his reply. by which I doubt not, but to make cleare that I haue not disgra­ced any wrongfully, nor bene so vnaduised, as this man giueth forth very vnaduisedly, and impudently. There shall it appeare also whether I haue bene taken so tardy, that the stones and walles may conuince me of vntrueth, as he affirmeth very ridicu­lously. for what more blockish deuise, then to make stones and walles disputers? Are these fellowes so powerfull that they can make walles to speake, and so dul that they cannot conuince me, when stones and walles can do it? The walles he saith shal con­uince them. ô braue floure of thetoricall amplification worthy to proceed from a man made of doogeon, nay made of stone, and to bee set in a wall to confute all men that shall contradict the fancies of Puritanisme! But ynough is said of these great brags. of the performance you shall heare more hereafter. as also who be those innocents, and malicious accusers he prateth of.

¶ The preface.

Concerning such things as it pleaseth him soIf constantly, then vertuously. con­stantly toNo bastardes shall bee fathered on him. father vpon M. Cartwright, and others by [Page] I neuer fathered any thing on him by heresay onely. heresay and report, IDoe you not heare I. Throk. cornemuse. cannot but muze that a man of hisOf what coat, iacket or ier­kin are ye. coat and calling is no more smitten and abashed at it then he is. for presuppose, that one should heare by report, that M. Sutcliffe was once taken withA ridiculous deuise nowe newly cogged by Iob Throk. or some such mate. Aske Beza whether it be true. false dice at Geneua, and thereupon being forced to fly the towne, should euer since beare a kind of inueterat hatred & malice to M. Beza and theI neuer hated them, nor had to doe with them, or they with me. elders there: this being knowē only to vs byLie not so impudently. report (how true soeuer the thing might bee in it selfe) I would faine know for my learning, whether this were aequa lāce, or how it might sute with any measure of indifferencie, forthwith without any furtherCan you shewe that I pub­lish matters only vpon heresay? if not, blush. examinatiō to spred it abroadin print.

¶ The answere.

I must needes confesse, that if I did ground my selfe in those matters which I affirme concerning M. Cartwright vpon a bare hearesay, or report without further examination, I had cause to be ashamed. the more shame for this impudent companion to forge and cogge a matter not so much as vpon hearesay, but without hearesay. and to charge me withThis is as true, as that my plate if at pawne at a butchers house in Warwike. false dice and driuing out of Geneua: matters which (God let me so euer enioy his fa­uour) as I neuer, so much as heard reported my selfe, before I read the same in this preface. so farre am I from being guiltie of this ridiculous coggery. To satisfie those that knowe mee not, I answere first that I neuer could play nor vsed to play at dice in my life. secondly that I neuer was before the elders of Geneua while I was there. thirdly, I neuer hated them nor had cause to hate them, albeit I enquired whether any such Ecclesiastical of­ficers were euer in the Church or no. fourthly M. Beza, and the elders will giue testimonie of the vntruth of this matter, and I doubt not but Beza, if he could haue said any such thing of me, rayling at mèe for no cause, would not haue spared mee in this point. fiftly M. Francis Brace a gentleman of Worcestreshire, and M. Miles Bodley a knowne minister of this Church can te­stifie that I came from Geneua with credite, and with the fauour of Beza and others the chiefe men of that citie. for with them, I came thence. Lastly if any such thing had bene, it would haue bene spoken of before this, it being 17. yeere since I came from thence. this report I thinke M. Throkmorton deuised taking the paterne from himselfe being a cogging felow, and driuen, or at [Page 21]least running away out of the Parliament house for his lewd misdemeanors. the same toucheth me nothing. And thus much for this bald matter, and shamelesse slander to imitate my friend Iobs words. As for those matters, that I obiect against M. Cart­wright, they are of another nature. at least grounded vpon sure proofes of records, confessions, witnesses, reasons, and such as M. Cartwright examining, shall confesse his fellow Prefator to bee vnwise to deuise this matter, or to compare it with his. as more euidently shall appeare hereafter.

¶ The preface.

And yet this ye shallName the particulers, and examine Master Cart­wrights briefe. finde to bee an vsuall and ordinary course with M.As honest a man as I. Throk. or M. Cartwright, and neuer called in question, as they haue bene. Deane of Exeter in his solemneI enforme against none, but deale with them on the way. infor­mations, and personall pleadings againstI speake much against Hacket, Copinger, Wiggin­ton, Vdal, Penry, Throk. Are these your good men? goodmen.

¶ The answere.

I would to God the men, against whom I plead, were so good, as they would seeme to be. sure I am, none are such as they should be. for then would not M. Cartwright nor his felowes so violently haue oppugned the Ecclesiasticall regiment of the Church of England, nor contumeliously haue disgraced the re­formation begunne by her Maiestie, nor impugned the princes authoritie so baldly, nor railed against the chiefe prelates so im­petuously; neither was Hacket hanged drawen and quartered, nor was Penry hanged, nor did Copinger pitifully languish away, nor was Iob Throkmorton endited, nor were M. Cartwright and his fellowes conuented in the Starre-chamber for their good­nesse. Note therefore, that if sometimes speaches passe against them, it is not for their goodnesse, but for other matters: and that this Forespeaker hath no reason either to call these goodmen, or to condemne those that defend Religion, iustice, lawes, and go­uernment against the malcontent mothes, and perturbers of this state.

But whatsoeuer men they be, I do neither informe, nor begin any quarrell against them. I did answere the author of the peti­tion, and did not challenge him. Likewise I answered M. Iob Throkmorton, and the man cannot say, but he is answered. Nei­ther did I publish any thing against M. Cartwright, but diuers [Page]yeeres after hee had reuelled against the clergie of the Church. Personally I dealt against none, but such as had personally dealt against vs, and professed themselues enemies of the Church.

The matters that I charge them withall are built vpon other grounds then hearesay. and that shall M. Cartwright well per­ceiue when we come to refell his friuolous answeres. M. Throk­morton hath found so firme reasons alledged against him, that he hath giuen ouer to contend vainely with wordes. and I doubt not, but others vpon triall shall finde the like. What an impu­dent felow then was this to say, that my vsual & ordinary proofs stand vpon hearesay. but if any did; yet doe they excell Throk­mortons answeres. for we cannot hearesay that he hath publikely as yet, answered any thing in defence of his calumnious letter. so that it should seeme, his defence standeth neither by trueth, nor hearesay. More wisdome therefore were it for him, not to name the Deane of Exeter in such scornefull maner, when all scorne him rather, that was ouerthrowne in his own challenge, and ne­uer shewed himself either at home or abroad to haue any value.

¶ The preface.

Your partiall dealing, and corrupt iudgement hath made you very re­marquable. Marke it who list in him. if the case concerne any of these disciplinarians, hee is of thatIs this any dispraise, to want nei­ther wit, nor matter? good na­ture and ready wit, that rather then he will be to seeke for matter, he wil not sticke to rake the channel some­times, & take whatsoeuer comes next to hand, though it lye all to be troden andThis raking and seraping of mat­ters together, doeth argue, that this man talketh like a channel taker. trampled on in the streetes, yea and of that which, I beleeue, the poorest scauanger in a towne would bee loth to stoupe for, hee with a litle helpe and forbishing of M.Can you disproue his suruey? Surueyor of discipline, frameth for the most part someAs yet, in truth you are silent, and say nothing to these conclusions. irrefragable and tem­pestuous cōclusion against these new platformers. and then for sooth to the presse it must in allVnlesse the platformers had too much posted in setting foorth their deuises, they would not haue set forth so crooked formes. post hast with some rhetoricall varnish of innouation: as ifAlbeit I could make quidlibet ex quolibet, yet can I not deuise what to make of this foolish discourse. quid­libet ex quolibet, or as if the poorest and mostOur records are drawne out of M. Cartwrights replies, and their owne writings. Will they then call them patcheries? pat­ched recorde vnder the Sunne (that blasheth it may bee, to see the light) were euidence strong ynough a­gainst aDoe you call your selfe so? why then doe you blame others for so ter­ming you? Precisian.

¶ The answere.

He that list but to marke this kinde of writing, hee cannot I [Page 22]thinke be much enamored with the author. What a stirre is here with raking of channels, and talking of scauangers? ô miserum le­ctor obturanasum. our author all besmited with dirt, & inface to infacetior rure, is drawing of a draught of phrases from the cha­nel, and from vnderneth mens feete. a very base and filthy kind of stile. Besides that, very wisely he setteth downe matter, that maketh against himselfe. for first he confesseth, that the things I obiect are so common, that they are to be found in the streetes, and in the channels. belike they are foule matters. Next he saith, that I want no matter. which is true, and yet no great commenda­tion for me. for hee should haue a barren head, that dealing a­gainst this sect, should want matter. thirdly he confesseth, that my conclusions are irrefragable and tempestuous. which declareth the goodnesse of my cause, and the weakenesse of the aduersary. yea and albeit he should not confesse it, yet would the silence of Iob Throkmorton, that of a clamorous Martinist is now made a si­lentƲarro lib. 3. de ling. las. Harpocrates, proue the same. As for that which he saith a­gainst those euidences which I haue produced in my writings, they are such as Iob Throk. cannot disproue, and M. Cartwright wil not deny, yea and all indifferent men cannot but allow. Nay the most things, that I obiect are prooued out of M. Cartwrights replies, Martins libels, Iob Throk. authenticall writings, which I trust this fellow wil not call patched records, nor thinke so base­ly on them, that they are to bee throwne downe the channels, and trampled on with mens feete: or if he cal these records base and patched; reprehend me for calling M. Cartwrights bundle of replies, a fardle of foolery. Diuers things you shal see confessed. some things are proued by the records in the Starre-chamber. yea and against M. Throkmorton there be diuers matters of re­cord to be shewen. which I hope hee will not, and sure I am, hee may not deny. And doth hee call these things patched records, and torue papers cast foorth into the streetes, which no scauan­ger would stoupe for? sure his aldermen which nowe and then consist of such scauangers, botchers, and base people would be glad to haue such records to iustifie their doings withall. and yet albeit they moile in the mire, and rake the channels for all mat­ters, they can finde nothing that maketh for them.

He obiecteth also vnto me my posting things (as hee calleth it) [Page] to print, but hee much forgetteth, how this hath bene the com­mon fault of his consorts, that haue so posted to set foorth their protestations, declamations, & replies, that for haste they forgot their dutie to their superiors, and had no laysure to correct their lewd speaches, & heretical opinions. As for my selfe, (I must cō ­fesle, I should be much ashamed to set foorth such patcheries, as this preface, or as M. Cartwr. briefe, or M. Throk. letters, & libel­ling deuises, and such admonitions, protestations, declamations and triobolar libels, as this sect hath published within these few yeeres. Lastly he telleth me, I make quidlibet ex quolibet; and yet I cannot make a good Church officer of any of these new el­ders, nor a good elder of a scauanger, nor albeit I should re­found him, a wise man of the author of this preface.

¶ The preface.

Now there be thatYour thoughtes are con­ceited, your opinions foolish. thinke, that of all other charges thus strangely and vnworthily imposed vpon this reuerend man, the charge of ignorance, & that his works should be aAll earned men that read them, will testifie the same. fardle of fooleries, is the most out of ioynt and approching neerest toIf he were not past shame, he would not thus trifle. impudencie. But sure for mine owne part, I do not thinke so; neither doe I see, why his aduersary might not with as great reason, yea and with as good a conscience appeach him of ig­norance, as of disloyaltie. For allow that ourWil they deny his replies to bee a fardle of foolerie? it shalbe prooued. vniuersities to­gether with foreine nations may sufficiently controll the re­porter in the one, yet this letteth not, but that the countreys, and places of the mans resiance, can forThere is now great need. where is then this plentifull testimonie? need, giue as plen­tifull testimony in the other. and therfore why a man of that easie gift, and rolling veine, soI neuer slipt into heresie, nor disloyaltie as this sect hath. slipper in the seare, as M. Sut­cliffe, should make it more deinty to spare M. Cartwr. in his learning, then hee doth in his loyaltie (hauing the like war­rant and authoritie for both) IMarke howe this felowe confesseth, hee seeth neither reason nor sence. see neither reason, nor sence.

¶ The answere.

Here the Prefator mooueth a needlesse controuersie, whether M. Cartwright may with better reason be charged with ignorāce, or with disloyaltie. A matter which I not so much as thought of; and very preiudiciall to M. Cartwrights credit, whether it bee resol­ued or disputed on. and yet this Prefator not onely disputeth it, but resolueth it also and saith, How others thinke, that to charge M. Cartwr. with ignorance is mere impudencie. so many vniuersities, [Page 23]Churches, and nations being able to controll it: and that he may with equall reason bee charged with disloyaltie, and ignorance. a matter founding very harshlie (I thinke) in M. Cartwrights eares. for which I referre the man ouer to be bastonated and corrected by M. Cartwright. that which he saith against me, whom he suppo­seth to haue charged M. Cartwright both with ignorance, and disloyaltie, remaineth of me to be answered. He saith first, that others thinke, meaning his owne consorts. but if the Prefator wil not beleeue what honest men vpon iust cause report, it skilleth not much, what such companions thinke. He giueth M. Cartwr. the title of reuerend. yet doth he litle deserue it, that neuer reue­renced his superiors, nor respected antiquitie, nor cared for lawe or dutie. He disputeth, as if I should charge M. Cartwright sim­ply with ignorance, which I doe not remember. true it is, that I do charge him with ignorance in diuers points. and that charge is neither strange, nor vndeserued, nor vntrue. His ignorance in all antiquitie is totoo apparant. for al his plot of discipline is no­thing, but a mere mistaking of ancient histories. all olde writers do testifie, that the ancient Church next after the Apostles had diuers degrees of ministers of the word, and commonly name them, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. that appeareth out of Diony­sius commonly called Areopagita, out of Ignatius, Tertullian, Cy­prian, Eusebius, Hierome, Augustine, Theodoret and al the fathers, whose words are often cited by vs to that purpose. The authors of theCent. 2. c. 7. de gubernat. eccles. Centuries confesse, That the fathers of the Church that suc­ceeded the Apostles, had degrees of persons in the Church. And yet M. Cartwright imagined, that all Bishops and ministers of the word were equall; and went about to proue it out of the Centu­ries. The ancient fathers giue authoritie to Bishops ouer tea­ching elders; hee abrogateth all authoritie from them, and ma­keth them equall, and all one. They speake onely of elders that were ministers of the word; M. Cartwright affirmeth, that the priests that came to the councell of Nice, (of which mētion is made inIn vita Con­stantin. lib. 1. Eusebius andLib. 1. c. 8. Socrates,) were gouerning elders. But he should remember, they gaue no definite voice, and should haue bene excluded from the company of their wiues, if Paphnutius had not resisted the purpose of those, that would haue that decree passe: which to interpret of elders onely gouernours, is mere ig­norance [Page]in matter of history, and direct against M. Cartwr. plot.

His ignorance in the fathers appeareth both by the former ar­gument, and by his continuall misallegation, and misconstruing of them. To goe no further, examine that chapter or1. reply. section which hee hath framed to prooue that the election of ministers ought to be made by the people. And also1. reply. p. 99. & 100. those places where he would proue, that Bishops whereof the ancient fathers make mention, were onely pastors of one parish, and had none other pastors or parishes, but one vnderneth them.

His ignorance of diuinitie is testified to the world, first, by his vnaduised approbation of Fenners booke, which is the ouer­throw of all diuinitie, although called by M. Cartwright holy di­uinitie, and approued for an excellent peece of workemanship: next, by the newe confession of faith, and newe formes of sacra­ments set downe in that new Communion booke, whereof hee was either chiefe author or chiefe fauourer and approuer. Lastly in that new discipline, which hee falsly affirmeth to bee drawne out of Gods word.

His ignorance in the Latin tongue is made famous by that E­pistle of his, that is set before Fenners booke, which is the onely thing of his, that euer I saw in Latin, and is full of soloecismes. In the beginning there is a grosse soloecisme in these wordes: Tua legens, &c. subijt mentemde Mose viro Dei historia. Likewise an improprietie in these words coelestis Canaan axiomata. for axio­mata signifie rules of arte, not lawes of state. These words, vt me adomnia mea officia quae in te proficisci possunt arctius deuinxeris, haue bad sence, and a barbarous phrase. In the 2. page lin. 14. communices, is put for communicaris nay, as it seemeth he vnder­standeth not Latin well. Cyprian hath sportulantes fratres in a certeine Epistle. this he2. reply. tract. eldership. imagined to be brethren of the basket, where it may appeare Cyprian mean [...] brethren, that receiued wages. So that if he were to be charged with disloyaltie, as well as with ignorance, in some points, yea & not very difficult nei­ther, it were no wisdome for I. Throk. to be his halfe.

I doe also call his replies a far [...]le of fooleries, [...]haynous, and odious crime. yet I suppose there is no learned man, that thin­keth otherwise. M. Whitakers giueth a very hard censure vpon his second reply, wherein notwithstanding M. Cartwright see­meth [Page 24]most to triumph. Quem Cartwrightus (saithIn a certeine letter to be showne. he) nuper emisit libellum, eius magnam partem perlegi. ne viuam, si quid vn­quam viderim dissolutius, ac penè puerilius. Ʋerborum satis ille qui­dem lautam ac nouam suppellectilem habet, rerum omnino nullam, quantum ego iudicare possum. Deinde non modo peruersè de princi­pis in rebus sacris at (que) Ecclesiasticis authoritate sentit, sed in M. Whitaker toucheth him as­wel for disloyal­tie as vnlearned writing. Papi­starū etiā castra transfugit, à quibus tamen viders vult odio capitali dissidere. Ʋerùm nec in hac causa ferendus, & alijs etiam in parti­bus tela à Papistis mutuatur. denique, vt de Ambrosio dixit Hiero­nymus, verbis ludit, sententijs dormitat, & planè indignus est, qui à quopiam docto refutetur. That which I say in generall, he saith in particular. neither doe I thinke, that either any Vniuersitie, or sound learned man will say the contrary. Against the first reply this may be said, that if he shew learning in any thing, it is in the treatise of election of ministers. which notwithstanding is ei­ther translated or stollen out of aIn append. ad catal. test. verit. treatise of Illyricus of the same argument. That which he hath of Archbishops and Bishops, as most of his other deuises, he boroweth of Caluin, and Beza. and indeed to say trueth, he is most skilful in Caluins institutions. but take him beyond that, and he wandreth and turneth like a ma­riuer tossed on the sea without helpe of starre, or compasse. I will not speake of his stile, that is so hard and rough, and so stuf­fed with farre fetched, and out stretched metaphors. This booke of his will giue testimonie, how vnpleasantly he writeth. and I meane not to folow him further, then is necessary to iustifie my former sayings; which vpon peine of hearing the lye, I am com­pelled to mainteine. But saith he, Vniuer sities, Churches, and nati­ons will giue testimony of his learning. true, and oft times they giue it vpon fauor or other respect. which whether it be done in him or no, I will not examine. for I deny not, that M. Cartwright is a man learned. but that hee is excellently learned, and not igno­rant in the points wherein I haue iustly noted him, that would be proued.

As for the charge of disloyaltie, I doe not thinke, that I haue simply and directly layd it vpon M. Cartwright. yet, if any such matter should haue bene spoken, it might reasonably well haue beene iustified. M. Whitaker in the place before recited doth touch him for the same matter: and his books published abroad [Page]do sufficiently conuict him. In aDisciplina eccl. sacra Dei verbo descript. certeine forme of discipline, about which M. Cartwright and diuers others had long beaten their heads, and which they professe to be that discipline, which they desire, as drawen out of the Scriptures for the good gouernment of the church, all gouernment is giuen to the eldership, and the princes authoritie neither excepted, nor mentioned. to this forme M. Cartwright subscribed. Beside this, if disloyaltie be nothing, but a course either repugnant, or diuers from lawes & dueties; it is no such heinous matter to charge him with disloy­altie. for what are his replies, and all his actions, but contradi­ctions, and spurnings, and mutinous repinings against lawes and gouernours? I need not to obiect vnto him his familiarity with I. Throk. a man so wel acquainted with Penry, Hacket, and Copinger, nor his owne knowledge of their generall bad intenti­ons. neither will I put him in remembrance of all his negotia­on about the new discipline, and the new Communion booke: nor his secret consultations, nor his intelligences with men of for­ren nations, and all for alteration of the ecclesiasticall state, & lawes. I will not say all, vntill I be vrged. in the meane while M. Cart­wright hath reason rather to thinke mee patient in suffering his abuses, then himselfe abused, or iniuried in this point, that is therein touched so gently: and euill doth this Praefator deserue at his hands, that giueth occasion to looke vpon the mans olde sores, which were now bound vp; and to rub vp matters both forgiuen, and forgotten. himselfe, certes, was not wise, to re­new this quarrell, which he will, ere long, wish ended, and bu­ried in silence. the whole brotherhood of deformity will wish he had bene well couched in a soft featherbead, to dreame of a new plot of reformation. But doth the Praefator say, the coun­tries & places of his resiance giue plentifull testimony for his loyalty; as if guilty persons conuicted by witnesses, and euident proofes, were to be acquited for generall testimonials giuē to euery bo­dy vpon euery light occasion. It is a common saying, thatPlus creditur vni affirmanti quammille ne­gantibus. one witnesse in the affirmatiue prooueth more then 1000 in the negatiue. how can they then that knew not these matters cleere him, that is conuicted by witnesses, and his owne writing? the Praefator therefore, that could neither see reason, nor sense in my doings, seemeth to haue litle sence of seeing, neither hath he any great [Page]iudgement in discerning. he denieth all, but what proofe doth he bring for his deniall? iust nothing; but slipping into his hun­ters veine, sayth, I am slipper in the seare. which kinde of stile doth argue this preface to be I. Throk. a better hunter then wri­ter, and a man of so slipper and light behauior, as that Th. Cart­wright for all his great learning, can not defend him nor garde him from iust reprehension.

¶ The preface.

TheThe best of this Preface and treatise, is starke nought. best is, thou hast here by this meanes (good Rea­der) in the euennesse andHow then happeneth it, that he complaineth of wrong? equabilitie of the Doctors hand towardes this man, an vnfallible line layed before thee, whereby thou mayest measure all the rest of hisAll these are nought but railing words of a chafing Pro­loquutor. reproches so vnconscionably throwen vpon others. for hath he dealtMore truely, Christianly, and charitably, then he hath dealt with the whole Clergie of England. truely, modestly, charitably, and Christianly with this man? then make thou no doubt or question, but he hath af­foorded full as good measure to others. On the contrarie, hath he made no bones hand ouer head, and that beyond allI haue kept better compasse then M. Cartwright. compasse of Christianitie, to speake his pleasure of this man, being a man so notably graced inBy gifts he fareth the better. gifts, and one that hath so many vncontrollableWhat notable graces, & cer­teine euidences of honest cari­age of himselfe he hath, doth cuill appeare by this Briefe. euidences of his wise, and dutifull cariage of himselfe?

¶ The answere.

It should seeme, that Iob Thr. who (I thinke) was the rude author of this vnpolished & vnciuill preface, would very glad­ly take some aduantage of my vnaduised dealing (as he taketh it) with M. Cartwright, to cleere himselfe: as if that which I sayd against him were nothing, because it is not true, as he be­leeueth, that I bring against M. Cartwright. but it will not be. This therefore is to be put among the rest of his odde, or rather madde conclusions, which in his moody passion he frameth be­side all mood and figure. his argument standeth vpon particu­lars, and therefore hath no good sequele. for he that speaketh vntrueth in one thing, may well speake trueth in other things; and although a man shoulde vnciuilly demeane himselfe to­wards one; yet doth it not follow, that he should doe it against all. for if that were granted, then were not M. Cartwr. and Iob Throk. to be credited in any thing, vttering so manifolde vn­truethes in many things. nor were they to be so well accounted [Page]of among their consorts, that haue so misdemeaned themselues against the Prelates of this Church, & diuers other honest men.

To let the aduantage of the bad sequele of this argument go, I will not sticke to grant M. Throk. this fauour, that my dea­lings with M. Cartwright be taken as a patterne of the rest of my writings. such is the assurance of my plaine, and honest dea­ling with him, and of his bad dealing & misdemeanors against the state. God is my witnesse I haue not charged him wittingly with vntrueth, nor dealt vnconscionably with him: and that I hope to make good either by M. Cartwrights owne wordes, or by euident and sufficient proofes. and so not onely M. Throk­mortons cause will still lie in the suddes, but M. Cartwr. also will winne small grace by his calumnious, and erroneous briefe. Be­sides all this, there is no small difference betwixt M. Carwright and M. Iob Throkmorton. he is a man not vnlearned nor vnciuil, nor furious: M. Iob is neither well learned, nor stayd, nor wise. but be he what he will, I will, by Gods helpe, iustifie my doings to be farre more charitable, iust, and honest, then either his, or M. Cartwrights. how well they are able to cleere themselues of vnconscionable, and vnhonest practises, doth partly appeare by that which is sayd against Iob Throk. and he can not answere; and partly shall more appeare in this Treatise, against M. Cart­wright, and as oft as they shall dare to stand vpon their preten­ded, and puritan innocency. Neither haue I, as he leudly affir­meth, taken things hand ouer head, or rashly spoken what I li­sted, but with good reason & deliberation, and that according to good dealing, and a good conscience. for proofe whereof, I appeale, not onely to all iudicious and in different readers, but also to M. Cartwrights owne weake discourse; wherein, either in effect hee confesseth as much as I say; or els can not prooue that I haue done him wrong. Wherefore let these vnciuill termes of vntrue, and dishonest, and vnconscionable dealing, and such like, be esteemed as the froth of the foule mouth of an angry and clamorous aduersary, that hath more malice in his stomacke then wit in his head, and more audaciousnesse to af­firme, then power to proue, or cause to vtter. Of M. Cartwrights giftes I will not dispute. of his honest cariage, I will reason no more then I am vrged to; and that in his proper place.

[Page 26]
¶ The preface.

If he haue done this (as the reading of thisThis Apologie will rather condemn him, thē cleare him. apologie wil make it cleare vnto thee) then what reason hast thou to maruell, if thou see him now and then mostFoule and shamefull words, without cause vttred. fowly and shamefully ouer-reach himselfe against others, that are farreI. Throk. short of M. Cartw. and both short of duetiful dea­ling. short of this man in iudgement and sufficiencie?

¶ The answere.

What reason this babling felow hath to repeat these wordes so often in this preface, which should be so short; let the reader iudge, vnlesse he meant with his tediousnesse to recompence M. Cartwrights breuitie, I see none. With like reason he begin­neth to be angry with his reader, and to chide, and say, What reason hast thou to maruell? as if any had cause to maruell at any thing here, saue the presumptuous follie of the author of this preface. I for my part, how short shaped so euer M. Throkmorton may be, and of what small iudgement and sufficiencie he is, I may truely say, I haue offered him no wrong, nor M. Cartwright neither. Nay, albeit I had sayd more, yet should I neither haue ouer-reached my selfe, nor their deserts. Let him therfore cease his foule speaches, and shamelesse outcries, and stay vntill he heare what I shall say to M. Cartwrights apologie. which is so farre from clearing either of these two, that both of them, I doubt not, will wish it had bene in a cleare fire, when first it was printed.

The preface.

It isI pray you, where? written of Socrates, that being vniustly put to death without cause: while he wasHe imagineth he went to hanging. going to execution, hisWould M. Throk. wife doe the like in like case? wife followed him aloofe off, howling, and weeping, and crying aloud: ô my husband dieth guiltlesse, dieth guilt­lesse. Whereupon the good old man looking backe vpon her with a frowning and angry countenance, repliedNot one word so. thus: why thou foolish woman, wouldest thou haue me die guiltie? This being a speach of an heathen man voyde of the true knowledge of God, willDo you beleeue the resurre­ction of speeches in your puri­tan creede? rise vp (I feare) in iudge­ment against many ofVs puritanes, that want no corruptions. vs, that professe christianitie in this age, whose common corruption is such, that when wee are wrongfully burdened with any matter of disgrace, we fret at nothing more, then that the thing isTherfore to makey our wor­ship leaue fretting, nothing shall bee obiected here but trueth. false, that is so [Page]charged vpon ourBraue heads to beare char­ger. heads. Why, if I were guiltie, (saiethNo wise man will so say. one) or if it were true that they report of me, it would neuer grieue me: whereas in trueth (if wee did rightly consider of it) it should grieue vs andThis humilitie puritās want as well as Lombards. humble vs most to be guiltie, or that these things should be true, that are thus blowen abroad against vs. Wilt thouWill ye see a Frier frapart begin to preach? know then good rea­der, how to cary thy selfe when thou artHe telleth not how. thus iniuriously delt with by any false charge or imposition? Looke vpon theNot vpon I. Throk. nor his consorts. example of the holy Saints and seruaunts of God in the Scriptures, and as thou seest them doe, so doe thou. Anna when she was charged by Eli to beThese men when they are charged truely, do not answere so mildly. drunken, did not fret or snuffe at it, or looke vpon the man with a disdainfull eie, but in much patience and modestie made answere: Nay my lord not so; I haue drunke neither The puritans are vnlike to Anua, for diuers of them can not well dine without good claret wine and sacke: & some drinke rosa solis, and sinna­mom water. wine nor strong drinke, but haue powred foorth my soule before the Lord: count not thy handmaid a wicked woman, for of the abundance of my griefe haue I spoken, &c. S. Paul likewise when he was charged by Festus to bee beside him­selfe was (we see) no whit distempered, or inflamed with it, but made answere in all wisedome and reuerence: I am not These felowes are not char­ged to be mad, but when they are in deed besides themselues. mad most noble Festus, but I speake the wordes of trueth and sobernesse, &c. this then must be thy course (good reader) and these be theM. Throk. neuer found them yet. steps that thou must tread in. thou knowest whose counsell and admonishment it is, not to suffer I trust Iohn Penry did not suffer, but as a malefactor. as a malefactor. Looke thou to that then in any case.

Hic
This prefator albeit he haue a brasen face, yet hath nothing to doe with this brasen wall.
murus aheneus esto,
Nil conscire sibi, nulla pallescere culpa.

Keepe thou still aListen M. Throk. good conscience, and let theTo haue cleare hearts, these felowes degorge their filthy stomacks. cleare­nesse of thy heart and innocencie of thy hands be as a wall of brasse vnto thee, and leaue the rest to the Lord, to doe what seemeth good in his owne eyes. and then if Satan doe rage, or hisSuch were the Martinists. instruments doe reuell or reuile neuer so much, ter­ming thee a drunkard, a mad man, a traitor, a conspirator, an innouator, or what they will els: bee not thouWhy then is this prefator thus troubled? troubled or dismaied with it, but rather reioyce & giue God thanks. For if thou be able truly to say with the Apostle: by honor and dishonor; by good report and cuill report; as de­ceiuers [Page 27]and yet true, &c. then (howsoeuer the blood thirsty mayAs the dogged Martinists did. gnash and grind their teeth at thee) thy conscience may be atThe reprobate past feeling, are at peace with themselues. peace, and thou mayest cheerefully answere thy good friendes (that are peraduenture agrieued to see the falshood and indignitie of the impositions laied vpon thee) as Socrates Before he reported these words otherwise. did to his wife. Why my As Socrates spoke to his wife, so the puritans speake thus to theirs. masters, would you haue me suffer guiltie, or bee slandered and euill spoken of deseruedly? Thus doing what knowest thou whether the Lord (who hath the hearts of all men in his hands) willIf M. Throk. & M. Cartw. vnderstand this of themselues, they doe but dreame. make thy condemners to be thy clearers, and thy enemies thy friends, yea and turne all this storme and tempest ofThat which is sayd of M. Throk. and M. Cartwr. shalbe prooued to be no vntrueth, storme at it as much as they list. vntrueths to thy further peace clearing, and securitie in the ende? for was there euer a more bitter and malicious enemie, then Saul was to Dauid? and yet we see how the Lord forced this wretched man (after many false surmises, and vniust ielousies of treason and conspiracie a­gainst him) to pronounce sentence forThese men are more like Saul, then Dauid. Dauids acquitall in these words, thou art more righteous then I.

¶ The answere.

All this is nothing, but a vaine declamation of an idle felow to exhort men to patience. wherein the author pleaseth him­selfe far better, then he contenteth others. For what, I pray you, maketh this to purpose, how patiently or impatiently this sect doeth heare their faults reprooued? It is written, saieth the pre­fator, of Socrates. but where I pray you? forsooth no where, saue in this preface, or in some such like trifling ballade or pam­phlet. For Socrates was not led to execution, as this felow, that hath the feare of the gibbet still before his eies, imagineth; but died of poison in his owne house, asIudic. Socrat. Plato and other witnesse: who make no mention of the houling of his wife, vpon which this supposed discourse is grounded.

He telleth vs further, how the speach of Socrates shallrise vp in iudgement against many puritans: which is a very strange case. for if speeches rise vp, beware of M. Cartwr. replies, that are so full of wordes without matter, and are light like bladders full of wind, and likely to flie sarre abroad. The rest of this discourse is an idle digression, wherein the author falleth into a foolish chafe with those, that fret when they are falsly accused; and is [Page]angry that all his consorts are not so patient as was Anna, Da­uid, Paul, and other of Gods seruants. but he hath no reason. for his felowes bee liker to railing Shimei, and such malcontents as Shibah, or Ahitophel, or like Ieroboam. For so these men would haue vs all to worship and fall downe before their church-al­dermen, which are nothing but a packe of golden calfes like those of Bethel, & would turne men from a setled state to seeke a new church discipline, as Ieroboam turned the children of Is­rael from the seruice of God, to embrace a newe worship in Bethel.

Further he exhorteth all that loue the eldership, to suffer false reproches patiently. yet I know none that reprocheth them falsly. nor doeth Iob Throkmorton cease whining, albeit he can say nothing for himselfe, nor can M. Cartwright keepe silence, albeit he would seeme patient, as appeareth by his briefe. euill therefore doeth this exhortation sit in this mans mouth.

He doeth also exhort men, not to suffer as malefactors: but this commeth somewhat to late. for Iohn Penry and diuers of his consorts haue suffred as malefactors already. For answere of the rest of this section, I referre you to the notes in the margent of the text: a woorthie answere for such vaine wordes.

¶ The preface.

And who knowes, whether the Lord may worke theNo doubt he would, if I had committed like offence. like effect and remorse in M. Sutcliffe ere he die, euen to force him in like maner (after all hisCease your foolish railing. & prooue that I haue vniustly ac­cused any. bundle of outcries and vniust accusations) toO fond and simple felow, as if I had done like Iob Throk. I know not what! passe the white stone on the be­halfe of the accused, and himselfe to pronounce: That cer­tainly Thomas Cartwright and What hath Egerton to doe here? St. Egerton are more righteous then he, and thereupon to addeSpeake for your selfe. & play the foole still, I will play no part in your fooleries. farther as the same Saul did afterward, I haue sinned, I haue plaied the foole, I haue erred exceedingly, in slandring & belying the innocent.O vaine man to talke thus, what is good for others, that knoweth not what is good for himselfe! Sure I am, it were happy for him, if he might liue to do this of conscience. but whether he doe or no, labour thou alwayes (good reader) so toI walke not then in the way of puritans, nor sit not in the seat of scorneful Martinists. walke as thou mayest not iustly be touched with any thing that may be a staine to thy holy profession.

¶ The answere.

Here toward the ende of his preface, the author forgetteth [Page 28]himselfe, and falleth into a dreame. wherein he imagineth that in the end M. Cartwright and M. Egerton, and I shall become friends: which is not vnlikely. but not in that sort, which hee fancieth; but rather when Th. Cartwr. and M. Egerton shal haue publikely retracted their errors, and acknowledged the wrong they haue done to the church of England. which if reason and conscience mooue them not to doe: yet I hope law will in the end enforce them. But if they refuse to stand to law, and wil still rage and raile against the ecclesiasticall state: rather will chil­dren throw stones at them as against mad men, then wise men passe any white stone of absolution on their side. As for my part, I haue not written any thing cōcerning the cause of this church, whereof I need to stand in doubt as they haue done. Wherefore the prefator may doe wel to turne his speach to his friends, that percase may hearken to his aduise, and folow it. He knoweth, that in this cause I am his aduersarie, and am well acquainted with his folly; wherein I leaue the man still rauing like those that cast stones into the aire, and so proceed.

¶ The preface.

And so harbouring still in thy brest theHe is altogether a stranger to this crooked generation. comfortable guest of a good conscience (as an asswagement of all the mi­series andDoeth he not plainly con­fesse himselfe to be a malcon­tent. discontentments of this life) cease not to pray in theHe saieth well in the spirite: for voyces of prayer, or prayses for her Maiestie, or the state we seldome heare to proceed out of their mouthes. spirite for the peace of Hierusalem, and for her right excellent maiestie, that hath bene so long Gods good instru­ment of that happy peace, that as Iosua commaunded the Sunne to stand, till he were auenged on his enemies, so the Lord would commaund thisThis sunne-shine the disci­plinarians haue much obscured with the mistes of their turbu- Ient stirres. sunne-shine of our peace to stand, and neuer to goe downe, till all theThen should M. Cartw. and I. Throk. lie in the mire. enemies of his church bee brought lowe to the dust. and as that was the longest day that euer was, so this hauing bene alreadie by the mercy of God the happiest, may also prooue by the pow­er of God to be [...]. the longest reigne that euer was. That the date of her life may (if it please the Lord) end with theƲae generationi huicà fermē ­to Tharisaorum. Bornard. in cant. last date, and dissolution of this earth, to theDiligamus non verbe & lin­gua, sed opere & veritate. 1. Ioan. 3. continuallblisse and renowne of this land, to the terror and amazing of the wicked, to the comfort and reioycing of the godly, and to her owne euerlasting peace, and happinesse in the life to come.

¶ The answere.

Of all the guestes that come to the synoddicall meetings, & houses of these sectaries, there is no greater stranger, then this guest called Good conscience, that he talketh of. for neither in their publike writings against the church, and chiefe gouer­nours thereof, nor in their priuate negotiations and contracts, doe they (for any thing I can learne) vse either good consci­ence, or good dealing. Other good fellowes there are, that doe frequent their houses more often, as pride, disdaine, ma­lice, enuie, hatred, detraction, lying, oppression, follie, furie, and such like, with which they are better acquainted. but it is an ea­sie matter to hide soule matters vnder faire wordes. Wolues are disguised oft times in sheeps clothing: and poyson is sometimes giuen in honie: Impia sub dulci melle venena latent. Take heed therefore of malcontents, that cut mens throtes with their good conscience: and doe not straight thinke, that these men loue her matestie, for that they make such glosing and flattering prai­ers. it may be, in ore mel, in corde fel. All men honour the sunne in the midst of the firmament, but when night commeth, they fall on sleepe and forget all. And of them wee may truely say, That they flattered with their mouth & dissembled with their tongue, Psal. 78. but their heart is not vpright. for if these kind of men had truely loued her maiestie, and from their heart prayed for her, they would not haue prayed for her in spirit only, as this man would haue his consortes to doe, but expressed their affection in their words: they would also in their prayers as other good subiects doe, haue expressed and giuen to her, her due stile. they would not haue couertly and cunningly taken from her all power in ecclesiastical gouemment, as they haue done, not once so much as mentioning either her, or her roiall authoritie in their booke of holy and synoddicall discipline, to which M. Cartwright and many others subscribed, they would not haue impugned her lawes, and by right and wrong sought to haue altered her go­uernment, and to haue established new lawes and orders in this church. they would not haue disgraced that blessed reformati­on which wee doe enioy by her meanes, neither wouldGilby p. 66. 88. & 142. & Moti­on with submiss. p. 31. 32. 33. they haue resembled her to Ieroboam, Ahab, Iehoram, Ahas, Gedeon, Nadab, Saul, Iehu, and Asa in those points wherein they failed [Page 29]in their duties toward God. neither would M. Cart. haue made her maiestie and all princes subiect to the eldership. which is no­thing els but for the supremacie of the Pope, to bring in the su­premacie of the eldership, and (as he2. part 2. reply, pag. 65. & 92. saieth) to make princes to licke the dust of their feete. so that where we had wel hoped that we had bene deliuered from kissing the Popes feete, they would make vs not onely to kisse the feete of a packe of base pezants and artizans, but also to licke the dust vnder their feete. Much (I doe know) they doe brag of their loialtie and good minds. but giue me the heart, and let them leaue their glorious wordes. What seruice at any time haue they done her maiestie at home or abroad, in armes or in peace, in the church or common wealth? nay rather where haue they not bene readie toMartin was then published to make a muti­nie at home, when the Spani­ards were on the coast, to fight with vs abroad. crosse those that haue bene readie to doe her seruice, and to trouble the state at home, as valiant men defended the same abroad? they may do well therefore to haue a more principall regard of her maiestie, and their dutie towards her hereafter, & not either to shut her out of their discipline, as they haue done, or els to preferre Th. Cartwr. innocencie before her safetie, as this wret­ched prefator hath done, painting him out first in many strange colours, and gilding, as they say, earthen pots in many golden words, and not remembring her, saue in the last clause, and to no purpose. Which fault to amend, let vs desire God not onely to shield her from her open enemies, but also to discouer all her dissembling friends, and to gard her from their trecherous pra­ctises, and lewd disgraces; that she may bee no lesse victorious ouer her open foes, then secured from her pretended friends. But enough of this malicious, and yet most worthlesse & grace­lesse preface. Let vs now come to M. Cartwrights briefe, which is the foundation of the prefators vaine brags, & that thing that gaue the title to this worke, and with whom our principall pur­pose is to deale, if it may so please his highnesse, who scarce vouchsafeth to looke downe vpon me, or to speake to me in his Treatise. the words of his briefe, I set downe truely and entierly, least thereby hee might thinke to escape with some ad­uantage.

THE EXAMINATION OF M. Cartwrights Apologie.

M. Cartwright.

HIsGreat wordes small reason. slanders are either inDoe slanders consist in breach of duties? breach of necessary dueties imposed vpon all Christians, or in things which in their nature beingWho euer heard of any man slandered for vse of things indiffe­rent, beside this abbre­uiator? indifferent, are by him (in respect of mineIf he haue any royall or honorable estate put on him by ye eldership, it is more then I knew. estate) giuen out as things of no good report.

All these wordes M. Cartwright doth falsly entitle D. Sutcl ffes charge. So litle had he to say, if he would haue reported my words as I spoke them. In the former kinde is his charge of conspiracie with Hacket and Copinger, to a mutuall communica­tion with Copinger by word, wri­ting, and consenting fol. 10. p. 2. and fol. 44. p. 2. and that he did not dissuade him, but rather willed him, that he should attempt nothing but by aduise, and that he should be wise and circumspect. Which wordes he setteth downe in a diuers letter, from the letter of his owne booke: as if they were wordes of a letter of Thomas Cartwright to Copinger. fol. 48. p. 2.

Matth. Sutcliffe.

THe Prologue ended, now commeth M. Cartwright in to play his part: but so vnhandsomely, as that euery iudicious reader complaineth, that he is greatly abused both by the Pro­logue and by him. The Prologue tolde vs of a man that should play innocency, and come in armed with patience: but M. Cart­wright that should doe the feat, faileth in both: for neither doth he deale iustly, as becommeth innocency; nor patiently, as ar­med with patience. The first is prooued by diuers reasons tho­rowout this whole treatise, and here especially in that he chan­geth [Page 30]and falsifieth my words. The second is euident, in that he crieth out of slaunders, and hath neither patience to beare, nor wisdome to forbeare. Oh that he could aswell endure to heare himselfe reprooued, as commended! certes these impatient complaints of slanders had not needed. but I see, men natural­ly loue to feele themselues clawed, and thinke themselues wor­thy of all praise: and M. Cartwright himselfe, for all his suppo­sed innocency, is not yet sufficiently purged of this humor. There is nothing that tendeth to the exalting of his credit and reputation, but he embraceth it: he is content that Chap. to F. 1585. speciall pray­ers be made for him. A certeine follower of his signifieth that vpon M. R. to F. newes of his deliuerance, the society being called together, there were Psalmes of thankesgiuing, & prayers, & a Sermon made for the same. It pleaseth him that his adherents make such ac­count to see him, to conferre with him, to reade his bookes. I would gladly know (saythGelibr. to F. one) when I might come from Oxford to London to see M. Cartwright. I thanke God (saythFar. to Litl. another) I haue satisfied in part my longing with conference with M. Cart­wright, of whom I thinke, as she (he meaneth the Queen of Saba) did of M. Cartwright another Salomon. Salomon. Fenner writing against M Bridges, p. 120. sayth, that the forme of gouernement set downe by M. Cartwright, is com­manded by God. he hath percase consulted with God himselfe. We want books (Gel. to F. an. 1586. sayth one Gellybrand) whereby we may come to the knowledge of the trueth. I meane (sayth he) T. C. books. A braue direction to come to the trueth. One Gayton in a letter to Field prayeth him to remember to reserue for him one of the rare birdes books: and sayth that well he may be called Cartwright. viz. for well writing. How birdes may write, and how he may allude from the name of Cartwright to cunning writing, I forbeare to dispute. for it were to no purpose to aske reason of euery action of these men. M. Cartwright also doth well like to heare of his owne praises. commonly they call him most reuerend, as did oneChap. to F. Chapman. Gayton calleth him a rare bird, & that is no owle, but some phenix.Far. to Littl. one doth esteeme him, as the Queene of Sheba did Salomon. Wiggington Exam. Wigg. confesseth, that Arthington, Copinger, and Hacket, the very day that the two first made their Proclamati­on in Cheapeside, tolde him that M. Cartwright had done more a­gainst Antichrist then any in the world, since the Apostles times. [Page]but yet that is nothing in respect of that which one writeth toCholm. to Field 1582. Field of that man. Sicut discipuli (sayth he) olim presto habue­aunt ipsum dominum: ita magistrum Cartwrightum dominum me­um habeo praesentem. He compareth himselfe and his fellowes to the Apostles, and M. Cartwright to Christ. and M. Cartwright disdeineth not to be called of his fellow minister lord. nay M. Trauerse disdeinfully checkethTrau. def. p. 32. M. D. Bridges for that he sayd, Cartwright, without giuing him his titles. all this pleaseth and contenteth M. Cartwright reasonably well. but now that I do plainly tell him the trueth, he is offended, and crieth out of slan­ders. Is it not verified in him, that is commonly sayd, that flat­terie procureth friends, and trueth enemies? Well, let vs see what reason he hath to complaine thus grieuously of slanders.

His slanders (sayth M. Cartwright) but whose slanders, his conscience percase would not suffer him to set downe: or if his conscience, that is herein hardened, would suffer him, yet by Gods iust iudgeement he did not, to declare the wrong he hath herein done to mee. for if by slander hee meane that which in Latine wee call calumniam, I haue not slandered him; forff. ad S.C. turpil. l. 1. ca­lumnia est criminis falsi in alium intentio: as hath bene shewed. but that which I say, either is not criminous, as himselfe in part confesseth, saying, that my slaunders are but reports in matters indifferent: or els very true, as shalbe auerred.l. eum ff. de iniurits. Eum autem qui nocentem infamauit, non est bonum, aut aequum ob eamrem condem­nari. If by slander he meane that which we call iniuriam, & vnde actio iniuriarum oritur, then haue I not iniuried him, nor slande­red him; for my writings, as they were all begun and published in defence of lawes and orders, so was there nothing in them but according to law.ff. de iniuriis. l. iniuriarum. Is autē, sayth Ʋlpian, qui iure publico v­titur, non videtur iniuriae faciendae causa hoc facere. iuris enim exe­cutio non habet iniuriam. but with M. Cartwright and his con­sortes it is not so cleere; for first they haue iniuriously vttered wordes to the disgrace, not onely of particulars, but also of the whole clergie of this Church of England: and therefore by the lawes of the Romanes are condemned; and that first, for vtte­ring reprochful words: & next for their infamous writings.l. Item apud labeon. §. ait praetor. ff. de iniuriis. qui aduersus bonos mores conuicium cui fecisse dicetur, in eum iudicium dabo, sayth the Pretor or chiefe Iustice of Rome. Hi qui, sayth [Page 31] ff. eod lib. illud. §. si quis librum. Vlpian, librum ad infamiam alicuius pertinentem Listen M. Throl morton. scripserit, composuerit, ediderii, Listen M. Cartwright. dolóue malo fecerit, quo quid eorūfieret, eti­amsi alterius nomine ediderit, de eare agere (sc. iniuriarum) licet. These are therefore libellers, slanderers, and by law not to be re­ceiued as witnesses in iudgement, nor to make testament. I would be very much ashamed, if they had any such matter to obiect against me.

And yet notwithstanding both his owne guiltinesse & mine innocency M. Cartwright, as I perceiue, meant to charge me with slanders, and that not onely in breach of necessary duties, but in things indifferent also, as he sayth. a matter very strange, and new, and to expresse them liuely, like to his fancie of discipline: that is, fantasticall, and very absurd. for neither is the breach of duty the obiect of slander, nor doe reports in things indifferent bring infamy, but so long hath the man beene striuing about things indifferent, as he calleth them, that he knoweth not the difference of things simply euill, or absolutely good or indiffe­rent. Beside that, he shall finde by particulars, that either I doe not obiect the matters which he would inforce vpon me, or that I do prooue them sufficiently. Wherefore, vnlesse his estate, of which he here speaketh, be greater then I do imagine, it will be no slander to tell him, that his diuision of slaunders, and first en­trance into his purpose is very rude and simple: and that hee doth me wrong to challenge me either for slander or wrong of­fered to him. and that shall appeare, by the grace of God, tho­rowout this whole discourse.

The first thing wherein hee chargeth me to haue slaundered him, is conspiracie with Hacket and Copinger: a matter, that I vt­terly disauow. Why then doth hee not iustifie his charge, and bring in his proofes? in the places which he quoteth in my an­swere to Throkmortons letter, there is no such matter. Nay, I do not so much as name conspiracie in respect of his dealings with them. if any do charge him, it is his owne guilty conscience, that doth charge him, and his foltring tongue that runneth per­case vnawares vpon the truth. for mine owne part, I do neither charge him, nor can I discharge him. good dealing therefore re­quired, that he should haue set downe my wordes as I wrote them, and not thus falsely to forge odious matters, and so to re­fute [Page]them. is this the sincerity hee professeth? is this the good dealing wee are to expect at his hands? and doth hee thinke to discharge himselfe, or win credit by this dealing? Praetor edixit, saythPrator. ff. de iniuriis. Vlpian, qui agit iniuriarum, dicat quid iniuriae factum sit. quia qui famosam actionem intendit, non debet vagaricum discri­mine alienae existimationis, sed designare & certū specialiter dicere, quam se iniuriam passum contendit. Why then doth not M. Cart­wright specifie the iniurie, and prooue it by direct words, or wit­nesses? doth he not see, that euen heathen men do abhorre and condemne this vnchristian and vnciuill kind of dealing?

Indeed I confesse that I wrote first that M. Cartwright had in­telligence of Copingers matters. and that M. Throkmorton gent­ly confesseth, and Edm. Copingers letters testifie: secondly, that M. Cartwright had secret conference with Copinger. and that is partly testified by Copingers letters, and partly confessed by Iob Throk. and somehat by M. Cartwr. himselfe; albeit the same was done indirectly by interposed persons. thirdly, that he con­sented, as it seemeth, to Copingers deuise for the violent deliuerance of him, and certeine his companions. and this Copinger Ʋid. fol. 44. p. 2. writeth, and diuers presumptions proue, which anon shalbe examined. but M. Cartwr. to make the charge more heinous, leaueth out the wordes, as it seemeth, and where I speake of consenting to one matter, he applieth it to all Hackets treasons, where with I doe not charge him. Nay, where M. Throk. sayth that I woulde faine haue M. Cartwr. M. Egerton, and M. Vdall to be traitors and conspirators, I doe plainely deny it, and disauow it. I would then haue all men iudge, what maner of dealing M. Cartwr. vseth in this place, nay I would himselfe would consider it: and then if he haue but common reason, he must needs be ashamed. fourthly, I confesse I wrote, that M. Cartwright did not dissuade Copinger, but rather willed him, that he should attempt nothing but by aduise, and that he should be wise and circumspect. and that these wordes were of a diuers letter from the rest of the booke. but the rea­son was not to signifie this to be M. Cartwrights, but Copingers letters: as M. Cartwright might haue seene, if he had not beene blinde, and would haue confessed, if he had not meant to quar­rell, and by false iugling to take some litle aduantage. further I doe not charge M. Cartwright. why then doth he charge mee [Page 32]further? and this that I haue said is most true. Why then doth he without cause cry out slanders, slanders? do I charge him so farte as he saith? or do I not say truely in that I haue reported of him? Yes verily. and I doubt not but the trueth will appeare by his owne singlesoled answere to the foresaid supposed obiections, that here foloweth.

¶ M.All this booke being igno­rantly and corruptly pointed, I haue corrected, not meaning to take aduantage of smal matters. Cartwrights answere.

Hacket was a man whom to my knowledge IDo I say you did? neuer saw. so was Arthington vntill he was freed of hisWe Englishmen say, em­prisonment. prison he en­dured for hisAnd hath his trechery no o­ther more speciall name with you? misdemeanor. With Copinger I had ac­quaintance vpō occasiō of M. Ambrose Copinger, chiefe officer to the right honourable the Earle of Warwike. for comming to his houseErgo not voluntarily. necessarily for the setling of the estate of the hospitall of theAre not you of those, that haue mens persons in admirati­on for hope of aduantage? right honourable the Earle of Leicester: there I met with this Copinger sundry times, some three or foure yeeres before this lewd practise brake foorth With the former two I had neuerI do not charge you with it. but with the thirde actour you had. cōference either by letter, or otherwise by message sent from them to me, or from me to them.

Betweene Copinger and mee touching this matter I am charged with, thisM. Throk. and Copingers let­ters do speake further. onely passed which followeth: While I was inYou wil not deny, but it was for iust causes. prison in the Fleete, M. Rafe Hockenhull pro­pounded vnto mee, as things he desired to be resolued of in the behalfe of one of his acquaintance, whether there were any Apostles, Prophets, and Euangelists in these dayes. I answered, that those callings ceased many hun­dred yeeres agoe, and as no Apostles were euer hereafter to be looked for, so the otherIf all were ceased, how hap­peneth it, that these are some­time expected? and why more then Apostles? two were not to be expected, vnlesse God in the vtter wast and desolation of the Church did extraordinarily raise them vp for th'erection of aWil you haue Gods Church layd sometime in dust, and new made as Adam was of clay? church out of the dust and that therfore there was no vse of such menBut if the Church lye wast, as some of your consorts say it doth in England, then you con­fesse these callings haue place here. amongst vs. To a second question, how & by what markes such a one, as thought himselfe one of these might in deed know, whether he were so or not; I answered, that this doubting of the matter, was an eui­dent and an inuincible argument that hee was none. for that such as haue a calling immediatly from God, are not toWhat is this, but to giue the bridle to all fanaticall spirits to range vp and downe without restreint? aske counsell of flesh and blood, as those that haue the [Page]vndoubted testimony of Gods spirit vnto their spirits, that they are called of him. Whereupon M. Hockenhull telling me, that it was Copinger which had entred into such con­ceit of himselfe, IThis and that which folow­eth would be prooued. for Co­pingers and Throk. letters im­port the plaine contrary. desired him to deale with him, for dis­swading him from such frantike opinions; which he told me he did accordingly. And afterwards somewhile before his lewd practise brake foorth, hee admonished some of his kinred before Copinger himselfe, that if hee belonged to him, he that day before the morow would make him fast ei­ther in Bride well, or Bedlem. After some space of the demand of these questions, he sent by M. Then did not M. Hockenhull take him for a Bedlem mate. Hockenhull to entreat, that he might come to me into the Fleete. for that if he might so do, hee did not doubt, but he would shewe mee such euident tokens of an extraordinary calling, as I should haue no power to deny it, and that he would for further se­curitie in this matter, come wayting vpon M. Hockenhul in aThis shewed hee had some bad practise in hand, wherewith hee would not haue M. Cart­wright endangered. blew coate. To whom I returned this answere, that if he came to mee, I would not once so much as speake with him, for that his disease was of that kinde as needed some other remedy then disputation. And if he desired to be re­solued of the trueth in that matter, there wereHe thought him not vnwor­worthy to bee conserted with, but would not nowe conferre with him himselfe for feare of danger. other both for their learning and libertie more fit to deale with him, then I was. Not long after this the same M. This also sheweth him to be no Bedlem foole. Hockenhul told me, that because Copinger might not come vnto me, he had written me a letter, which hee had sent by him. To whom I saide, I would receiue none from him, and so retur­ned his letter withoutBut will you deny that you heard it read, or knewe the ef­fect, or returned answere, all which Copingers letters testifies so much as once taking it into my hand, or looking vpon the superscription.Nothing lesse. Whereby may appeare, how vntrue it is, that I and Copinger had mutu­all conference by word & letters, to whom in my know­ledge IIt is ynough, if hee wrote to you. neuer wrote in my life: assured I am, neuer since he entred into this wretched practise. After this I heard of M. Hockenhull, that Copinger would enforme her Maiestie of certeineWhy did not M. Cartwright bewray this to some magistrate? horrible treasons committed by per­sonages of high calling both in Church and cōmon wealth. which as I alwayes esteemed vaine, knowing the broken wit of the man, so when by report I vnderstood theThen had he intelligence of matters as they passed. parti­culers thereof (which argued oneTyndarus imputed also mad­nesse to one that might bewray him. Plaut. in captiuis. and it is an ordinary practise so to do. berened of common [Page 33]sence) I desiredWhy did hee not tell M. Ambrose Copinger of this? for­sooth hee meant onely to wipe his handes, and let the man run on. old M. Michel, that if Copinger came to the right honourable my very good Lady the Countesse of Warwike for her mediation vnto her excellent Maiesty for such matters, as he would deliuer, he would signifie that although I knewe her wisdome otherwise able easily with­out any writing to sound his folly, yet that it would please her to take this notice of me, which otherwise she might be ignorant of, that he was ouertaken with strange conceits of some extraordinary calling, and giftes hee was farthest from.

Againe, this whole matter of Hackets conspiracy be­ing by commission to certaine of her Maiesties most ho­nourable counsell, and otherwise and graue men commen­ded to be examined: I leaue it to be considered whether M. D. Sutcliffe bee so quicke sighted as by himselfe and hisInquisitors finde out here­tikes, not conspirators. inquisitors, hauing (for any thing I can learne) but theI had beside that Iob Throk. letter to a Lady. same grounds her Maiesties commissioners had, to finde out that, which men of so great wisdome and circumspecti­on with so great meanes as they had of commandement o­uer all that might bring any light vnto that matter, could notOf fauour they winked at lesser faults and of grace passed ouer M. Wigginton, M. Throk­morton, and M Cartwright. find out: and whether this dealing of his be not some charge of want in themIt was neither of these, but their fauour, and the clemencie of these times. either of wisdom in not finding it out, or of fidelitie in not once calling me to th'answere of it.

Moreouer Arthington being compact in this conspi­racie with Hacket and Copinger, if there were anyNo man sayeth hand, but head. hand of mine in that wretched practise, in all likelyhood Arthington must needes beHee as a simple man was an instrument, and no deuiser. and therefore knew litle. priuie vnto it. hee is a man aliue, let him be examined, & a man also whom IWhat neede this to bee re­peared that is not to purpose? neuer spoke too, nor caused to bee spoken with in my life. HisI do neither accuse him, nor reason in this sort. reasons to induce his Reader to thinke his accusations to be true, are (soDoe you confute & remem­ber not what? ö braue S. Inno­cent! farre as I remember) these: the first is touching our mutuall conference by letters, which isNot neuer can bee. for that he had intelligence of Copingers matters by letters & otherwise, which is all I said, he confesseth. al­ready answered. Another, my concurrence with Copin­ger in fasting. I confesse that as there was iust cause for humbling my selfe in fasting, in feeling the displeasure of her excellent Maiestie, and others in great authoritie vn­der her, so did I sometimesM. thinkes, if he had much bestowed himselfe therein, hee should haue bene more spent, and lesse fatte. bestow my selfe in that exer­cise. but that I did it the same day that Copinger and his [Page]complices, or at the least with any notice either giuen to him of my fasting, or recetued frō him of his fasting, IAnd Copinger confidently affirmeth it, who is rather to be beleeued in this case, being a man not partiall against M. Cartwright. vt­terly deny, as a thing most vntrue. A third reason is, that Hacket and his fellowes commended mee at the crosse in Cheape aboue the writers of our age. I acknowledge their great foly in that commendation, or madnesse rather, whō amThat is true. but the questi­on is not, what is true, but what the traitors spoke and thought. scarce worthy to beare the bookes after many that haue liued and yet doe liue in this age, yea andI haue not seene the like hu­militie in this man, for this ther­fore, transeat. in this Church of our land. But M. D. Sutcliffes report herein is not vpright, for although I was not present, yet I heard of diuers, that were standers by, that their excessiue prayseA notorious vntruth refuted by all Copingers letters of M. Carwr. and by the standers by, and by witnesses examined, and on record. was of Thomas Cartwright, that had bene sometimes, when heeThe Barowists and others say, hee is in deede much chan­ged. first wrote in the cause of the discipline of the Church, but not of him as he now was, for that, as was said, hee was falne away from his former loue. Lastly, that M. Cartwright saith hee was a medler in those matters, and well vnderstood them, it appeareth by a letter of I. Bow­mans a seruant in Oundle to Wigginton: I desire (saith he) to send me the copy of a writing which you had from M. Cartwright vpon the court matters, when goodman Hacket was with you the first time. M. Wigginton I am assured neuer receiued from mee anyAske Iohn Bowman. writing during the time of my imprisonment, or after­wards, or at any time of my life to my best remembrance; whereof let M. Wigginton that liueth be examined. But if hee had receiued a writing of theM. Cartwright cannot salue his credite, vnlesse hee put the court into the Starre-chamber. ô wretched excuse! court matters in the Starre-chamber, howe thereof can it bee concluded, that I was a meddler in this matter, let all men iudge. for my part IYou will not vnderstand it. but if you medled not, why had Wigginton those intelligences from you, but to disperse them, and to make your faction ready? vnderstand no sequele of it. Vpon all which both wit­nesses, and reasons, I leaue it to be iudged, how vntrue it is, that M. D. Sutcliffe doth charge mee with,Hee doth most peruersly al­ledge my words, and marre my meaning. touching the matter of Hacket, and Copinger, &c. both in wordes, writing, and consent, whichA ridiculous defence. neuer spake with them of it in my life, neuer wrote vnto them, nor receiued writing or message from them, further thenIob Throkmorton saith more then this. I my selfe haue confes­sed. Whereof let it also bee further iudged, whether I was consenting to thatTo some part you were, as Copingers & Throkmortons let­ters signifie, and your selfe con­fesse here. wretched practise.

Matth. Sutcliffe.

Thus you haue heard M. Cartwrights long answere to a short matter. or rather an answere abounding with words, & deuoid of all good matter, and (to say as you shall finde it by examina­tion) so vnsufficient and disioynted, as that I doubt not, but if my wordes were rightly set downe, and not either cut shorter, or made longer as a certeine tyrant did his vnwelcome guestes, his owne answere would cleare me both of slander, and iniurie.

The first exception therefore that I may iustly take to his an­swere, is this, that he omitteth, & dare not set downe the words of my bookes, wherein he taketh himselfe to be charged. the se­cond is, that he answereth not to these matters, wherewith hee saieth he is charged. the third is, that he forgeth matters neuer meant nor intended by me. the last is, that hee misplaceth my words, and peruerteth my meaning, and yet answereth nothing sufficient to cleare himselfe.

The first is prooued by the words that folow: In my answere to the petition of the disciplinarians I demanded this question,Pag. 197. Whether M. Cartwright and some of his felowes and folowers, had not intelligence of Hackets and Copingers practises, and whether they vnderstood not, that Copinger and his felowes or some of them pretended not to haue an extraordinarie calling, which mooued them to attempt matters which might prooue very dangerous to thēselues; and whether also they knew not, that the actions which they purposed to attempt by vertue of their calling did tend to their deliuerance out of prison, and to the aduancing of the holy cause, as they termed it; and did not thereupon hold a fast, and pray, that God would giue successe to such meanes, as should be attempted for their deliuerance, and for the setting vp of their discipline: and whether M. Cartwright and the rest did not well vnderstand, to what end extraordinarie callings did tend; and lastly, whether these points being to be prooued against them, they haue not bin mercifully dealt withal, that haue not therfore bene called in question. I did aske further if M.G. Wiggington did not cōfirme Coping, in his purposes, and was not well acquainted with his bad practises. I did likewise demand if M.P. Wentw. did not in a letter written to Ed. Copinger pray God to direct him, and did not by Iosuahs words encourage him. and whether M. Iob Throk. did not write a letter to the same man to aduise him: and whether M. [Page]Cartwr. M. Egerton, M. Charke, and Vdall did not receiue letters from Copinger concerning his entended practise, and M. Egerton write to him againe. of all which this may be collected, that M. Cart­wright either by himselfe or his friends, knew all this practise. In my answere to Iob Throk. I sayd,Fol. 10. p. 2. that M. Cartwright did neuer so resolutely answere Copinger, but that he still hoped to haue his al­lowance, and that Copinger dealt with him, not so much concerning reuelations, Pag. 44. as extraordinarie callings. And in another place I say, that great mercy hath bene extended to M. Cartwright, hauing run such a course against lawes, and being so deeply engaged in Copin­gers cause; that hee is not further called to answere. all which M. Cartwright hath passed by for the most part, and buried in silence.

That M. Cartwright hath not satisfied so much as concerneth these points of Hackets practises, is euident by his answere. for he hath not answered any of these particulars: which he must doe before he be cleared. That he forgeth matters, it is prooued euident by that which is said alreadie. for he saieth, that I charge him with conspiring with Hacket, and communication with Copin­ger: which is vntrue. The last point is also prooued by com­paring my wordes with his answere. for where I say M. Cartw. was The answ. to I. Throk. letter f. 44. p. 2. engaged in Hackets and Copingers cause conferring both by word and writing, and consenting (as it seemeth) to his deuise for the deliuerance of himselfe and other his companions then in prison: he leaueth out the wordes, as it seemeth, and addeth this worde, communication: and where I say, he seemed to consent to his deuise concerning the deliuerance of the prisoners, he would haue it, that I simply charge him with consenting to all his conspiracie. such manifest force must hee offer to my wordes, before hee could make any shew of answere. yea, & when he hath done all this, what doeth he answere that may satisfie either his friends or e­nemies concerning these matters?

I sayd in effect hee had intelligence of Hackets and Copingers practises, and liked them as far as they pretended the aduance­ment of his consistorian discipline, albeit I will not say, he knew the particulers of the course they meant to holde. And that this is true, is proued, first by Copingers words, who had no reason to speake vntruth: then by M. Throkmorton his deare brothers let­ters, [Page 35]lastly by M. Cartwrights owne confession. From you, saithIn his letter to M. Cartwr. da­ted 24. of Febr. Copinger to his reuerend friend M. Cartwright, I receiued this message, that I should attempt nothing, but by aduise of those, which you would procure to counsellme. Afterward he desireth, that mun­day being appointed by M. Cartwright for conference might holde, M. Throkmorton In his letter to a certeine Lady. saith, that hauing recouered himselfe, he signified to M. Cartwright in the Fleete what had passed betwixt M. Copin­ger, and himselfe. How then could hee be ignorant of matters, hauing such a good intelligencer as M. Throkmorton, who knew whatsoeuer passed? M. Cartwright in this answere confesseth how M. Hockenhul caried diuers messages betwixt himselfe and Copinger, and one letter also of Copingers to him. Likewise that he knew how Copinger meant to discouer certeine horrible trea­sons (as he pretended) to her Maiestie, and what the particulers thereof were. which argueth, that M. Copinger would conceale nothing from his louing and reuerend friend (as he calleth him) M. Cartwright.

To all this what answereth M. Cartwright? he saith, first that heneuer saw Hacket to his knowledge, nor yet Arthington vntill af­ter his imprisonment. But what then? haue not many enterteined practises of treason, and rebellion with the Pope, and Spanish king, that neuer saw their persons? it sufficeth that they haue re­ceiued letters, messages, or meanes from them. the which course M. Cartwright held in his busines likewise. for albeit hee knewe not Hacket nor Arthington, yet he confesseth hee was acquain­ted with Copinger, and receiued messages from him by M. Hoc­kenhull. The parts therefore of this answere are like the of spring of Cadmus, which killed one another. Besides the confession, it must be remembred, that Iob. Throkmorton brought intelligen­ces from Copinger to M. Cartwright. Lastly M. Copinger doeth write very familiarly to M. Cartwright, and saith in effect, that although hee might not come to him without danger to both, yet desi­red to be approoued of him, promising to declare to him, or such as hee should appoint, both generalities and particularities, so farre as he de­sired to looke into them. For before that, he wrote, that he had en­tred into a course that was likely to bring danger to himselfe. If then M. Cartwr. refused to cōferre with Copinger, or to receiue letters frō him, it was only for feare of approching too nere to danger.

Secondly, he alleageth for himselfe, that albeit he was in deed acquainted with Edmund Copinger, and had assoiled the sayd Ed­mund two questions propounded to him by M. Hockenhull, and had receiued a message from him first, and afterward seene a letter of Copingers written vnto him: yet he answered the questions little to Copingers fatisfaction; and that he would neither receiue his mes­sage, nor read his letters; And further, that he disswaded Edm. Co­pinger from his frantike conceits by M. Hockenhull, and gaue no­tice to the countesse of Warwike, that M. Copinger whereas hee ment to discouer certaine treasons to her maiestie, was not to bee re­garded, as a man ouertaken with strange conceits of an extraordina­rie calling. But all this is either vnlikely, or els maketh nothing for M. Cartwrights clearing. for albeit he might make shew by M. Hockenhull to dissuade Copinger from his course, & seemed to reiect his conference, and his letters: yet in truth his meaning was onely to keepe himselfe from danger, and not to breake of Copingers pretended enterprise. for that doeth Copinger plainly affirme, and reason confirme. For first M. Cartwrights answere concerning extraordinarie callings not so ceased, but that in the wast of the Church they might haue place, did stirre vp him to thinke, that discipline which M. Cartwright compareth to a wall and hedge being wanting, this church admitteth such callings. yea, and Copinger himselfeIn a letter to M. Charke. saith, that it cannot be deni­ed but the waste of the church is great, and that there was place for extraordinarie men. Secondly, if M. Cartwright meant to haue delt peremptorily: he might easily haue cut Copinger short by publishing his follies, and giuing warning to all his folowers to auoyd him, but to doe that was not for his profite. Lastly, albe­it he gaue some notice to the countesse of Warwike of the mans weakenesse; yet was it not such as stopped his course, which he might haue done, if he would haue told all.

That these things which M. Cartw. telleth vs, are vnlikely, it partly appeareth by Copingers letters, who rested satisfied with M. Cartwrights messages; which otherwise he would not haue done: and partly by the dealing of Throkmorton, and P. Went. M. Egert. and others, who still delt with Copinger, with whom if M. Cartwr. had refused to deale, they would haue shunned him as a serpent. Further the same is prooued by M. Hockenhuls en­tercourse, [Page 36]who would not haue come so often from him with letters and message, if he had bene a man frantike, or light hea­ded, and cast off by M. Cartwright. Againe, the same is confir­med by M. Cartwrights owne wordes, and confession. for if hee had thought him vnworthy to be talked with, he would not so often haue heard of him, nor sent him ouer to be conferred with all by others. Lastly, that Copinger was neither frantike, nor so accounted of, appeareth by his well written letters, by his que­stions, by his sober behauior, by his cunning practises, and last­ly, by the opinion ofHe calleth Edm. Copinger his deare brother. Iob Throk. and P.W. that wrote to him as a man of some note among that sect. neither seemeth hee to haue other folly, then the common folly of puritans, who be­ing otherwise not vnwise, yet hold frantike & foolish opinions.

Thirdly he saieth, that if he had bene guiltie and not detected of these matters, that either the commissioners in that cause had not vsed diligence or faithfull dealing therein. which is a very disho­nourable surmise against men of such honour, and no way con­cludeth for M. Cartwr. purpose. for we may not thinke, but that they saw both Wiggingtons and M. Cartwrights, and others dea­ling, and were notwithstanding content with the punishment of the chiefe heads of that conspiracie. Besides that, time that bringeth matters to knowledge, hath declared things that then lay hid, and Iob Throkmorton and M. Cartwright themselues haue told tales.

His last argument to prooue his innocencie, is this, that Ar­thington cannot accuse him of these matters. which is rather a ri­diculous conceit, then a sound argument. for those that ma­nage any such wicked plot, do not make all their partakers ac­quainted with all their secrets.

Neither doeth he auoyd such matters as may bee alleaged to iustifie so much, as I sayd against him. nay, he doeth not onely mistake my obiection, but the reasons also. He saieth, that the first reason of my accusations was drawen from his conference. yet I doe not accuse M. Cartwr. nor doe I obiect that which he pre­tendeth, nor doe I reason as he saieth. yet if to prooue that M. Cartwr. had intelligence of Copingers matters I sayd, there did letters and messages passe betwixt them, it is no bad reason, nor is it answered.

Neither doe I say, because they salted together, that M. Cart. was guiltie of Copingers practises. yet if they fasted and prayed together that God would giue good successe to the matters then in­tended, it is not likely but M. Cartwright vnderstood what was intended; for who doeth pray for such things, as hee know­eth not?

Thirdly, I should reason ridiculously to say, that euery one whom the traitors named and praysed, were priuie to their treasons. I would therefore wish that M. Cartwr. would shew, where I do thus reason, as he doeth charge me. yet if I should say, that M. Cart. did so demeane and cary himself, hat these traitors suppo­sed they had great interest in him, and therefore praysed him so highly; I thinke I should not say amisse. Further methinkes it is some fault to giue occasion, as he hath done to the Baroists, and these Hacketians thus furiously to oppugne the church. There­fore doeth S. Augustine De eiuit. Dei, lib. 20. & 21. say, that the last iudgement is defer­red, that heretikes and schismatikes that hurt after their death by their actions, writings, and examples, may receiue punish­ment according to their demerites. But saieth M. Cartwr. their prayse was excessiue, and I am not woorthy to beare the bookes after many that liue in this age, yea, and in this church of our land. A goodly matter, and woorthie to be noted! as if any did either charge him, or suppose him to be so admirably well learned; or as if that were the question here, and not rather; what mad conceit these mad fellowes had of him. Hee saieth therefore further, that they commended him as he was first, and not as he was now: A matter that I neuer heard before this, nor can beleeue. for Copinger did still speake of him with reuerence: and all that euer heard the wordes as farre as I can learne, say as I haue re­ported. But whether it bee so, or no; sufficient it is, that these traitors had such a great conceit of his writings which he doeth auowe; and many doe very well like, and these traitors com­mended as setting foorth the groundes of those things, for which they did striue, and in tumultuous sort seeke to winne them. My report therefore is very right, and M. Cartwright by his fauour is fowly either mistaken, or in his owne ginnes taken.

Lastly, sayth he, M. Sutcliffe concludeth, that I was a medler [Page 37]in these matters, vpon aduantage of certeine words of a letter of one Iohn Bowman of Oundle. true. but neither doth this conclusi­on amount so farre, as M. Cartwright would force it, (for I doe not there conclude, that he consented to Copinger, as he doth af­firme) nor can he deny, but that my reason is good to shew him to be a busie medler in these causes. therefore doth he answere first, that he neuer wrote to M. Wiggington in his life to his re­membrance. as if many things of his come not from him by his seruants and frends, which he neuer wrote, and as if it were not his practise to deale all by third persons, as appeareth in this matter of his with Copinger. Hee answerreth therefore further, that it might be some writing of the Court matters in the Starcham­ber. as if M. Cartwright or any els were so simple, that he could not distinguish the Court from the Starre chamber. Now that this writing should come to Wiggintons hands, and at such time as Hacket was with him, it is a plaine presumption, that M. Cart­wright had some interest in Wigginton and Hacket, and these two in him: vnlesse he would haue vs surmise, that all happe­ned by chance without any purpose of his, and that the Court matters Bowman speaketh of were rather concerning the ciuill state then their disciplinarian causes.

Wherefore if we consider Copingers letters to M. Cartwright, that doe plainely argue the approbation of his purpose, though percase not the particular meanes for feare of himselfe; and also M. Cartwrights answere of extraordinary callings not ceased now, especially in the ruines of the Church, which Copinger tooke as granted; and the messages sent to and fro by M. Hoc­kenhull Confessed by M. Cartwright. betwixt M. Carwright and Copinger; and how that M. Cartwrights Proued by their letters & Copin­gers examinatiō. frendes, viz. M. P.W. M. Egerton, M. Ʋdall, M. Charke, and a certeine lawyer, who in these causes kept nothing backe from him, knew of the dangerous course that Copinger had entred into, and how that M. Cartwright hadThat Cartwr. confesseth, & M. Egerton did the like. put him ouer to be conferred withal by others of his frends, and how he him­selfe hadThat doth Co­pinger affirme. once appointed him a time to confer with him which for feare of danger he durst not holde; and howM. Throk. let­ters to a lady. M. Throk. ac­quainted him with all matters, that had passed betwixt Copin­ger and him, and howeThat appeareth by Copingers let­ters. M. Cartwright and others of his friends did fast and pray about those matters, that were then entended [Page]by Copinger, and how thatThat M. Cart­wright confes­seth. he heard the particulars of the trea­sons, that Copinger meant to vtter, and vnderstood of his famili­aritie with Hacket by M.See M. Throk. letter. Throkmorton; and howIohn Bowman doeth testifie so much in a letter to Wigginton. intelligen­ces did flie from him as from a head into the countrey abroad, and so came to Wigginton and Hacket. How can any indifferent man thinke, but that M. Cartwright had notice and intelligence of Copingers matters, so far as himselfe desired? and who doub­teth of his consent, when hee communicated these matters to no magistrate, nor others, but such as he supposed would be assi­stants, and ayders to the building of his Babylonicall eldership, which by confusion of tongues we see is now come to nothing? that therefore which I doe say, is most true; as standing vpon confession, witnesses and records: and that which he answereth is most weake and simple, as standing onely vpon his bare and simple deniall, which hee is bound to make. that cannot be an­swered, this is refuted with diuers letters, witnesses, and good arguments. sure if innocency should pleade in this simple sort, all the standers by would take her for counterfeit, and the Iud­ges condemne her as guiltie. but this is onely the ridiculous conceit of the Prefator. M. Cartwright when he hath read this treatise (I thinke) will not stand vpon any such high points, e­specially when he seeth no point of his answere left sound, and vnshaken.

M. Cartwrights answere concerning the report of his miracles.

Being (as I feele my selfe) short of the ordinary works of myI pray you what is your cal­ling? calling, both inDid neuer any worke mira­cles but men perfect in all du­ties? generall duties of Christianitie, and in the particular way of the gouernment of mine owne fa­mily: woe should be vnto me, if I should vainly boast of mi­raculous workes, which my selfe haue especially written a­gainst, inBut he condemneth not ex­traordinary callings: therfore not miracles. condemning extraordinary callings, whereof mi­racles are the seales. yet M. D. Sutcliffe seemeth toA false collection, and leu­der reason. I neither insinuate; nor albeit other esteeme them, doeth it perteine to M. Cart­wright. insi­nuate thus much (I say insinuate) for that the brethren he brandeth to haue them in estimation (I doubt not) he mea­neth to be men so fauouring me, as they would be loth to doe it, if they thought it would not stand with my good liking. Nowe let the towne wherein I dwell be examined, whether any voice tending heereunto did euer comeIf not from you, yet from your followers, which is all I sayd. from me. and [Page 38]as I thinke none can be produced, that will glory in this fol­ly; so my desire is, that when this legend shall come foorth,All this stirre M. Cartwright maketh against his followers, that are the men onely I know speake of his miracles. there may be for the credit of him that setteth it out, the names of the reporters, and likewise of the brethren layde downe that are guilty of the dotage hee speaketh of; that thereby they may be cleered, or otherwiseHe should rather cleare him­selfe, then talke of condem­ning others. passe condemna­tion of the folly he chargeth them with.

Matth. Sutcliffe.

In this answere M. Cartwr. doeth me some wrong, but him­selfe & his cause much more. for he chargeth me, as if I should say, hee wrought miracles, or promise to set out his miracles, which in trueth I do not.M. Cartwright hath a great faci­litie in imposing of matters falfly, and confuting that which no man holdeth, easily. nay I do not so much as say that his le­gend is promised to come forth, as he vntruly writeth; but that it shall appeare whether he liked of reuelations or not, when the legend of his miracle; shall come forth. he doth himselfe wrong when he thinketh himselfe slandered, when no man speaketh of him, nor doeth so much as mention any matter criminall. for I thinke it not such a hainous matter for a man to thinke that God doeth worke some things by him miraculously. Let all men iudge what a braue briefe of slanders we haue here, when this is recei­ued as one of the capitall slanders concerning breach of neces­sary dueties imposed vpon all Christians. what more vaine and ridiculous dealing can be imagined? the which shall better ap­peare by answere to his owne words.

Woe, sayth he, should be to me if I should vainly boast of miracu­lous works. as if any man did charge him with this matter. as for my selfe, I do not so much as insinuate any such like thing. nay I do rather laugh at his folowers great folly, that do admire such a troublestate, as a saint, and imagine, and giue out, that he wor­keth miracles, when himselfe doeth denie it. but percase albeit he doth not vainly boast; yet it may be he boasteth not vainly. Why then doth he say, Wo to himselfe? forsooth, because, as he sayth, he is short of his dueties both in generall and particular, and also hath condemned extraordinary callings. yet this second is false: for God, In the answere to the obiection concerning Co­pingers matters. sayd hee before, doeth extraordinarily raise them vp in the desolation of the Church. the first is not concludent. for God hath wrought miracles by diuers, that haue come short of their duties.

Yet he saith, I do insinuate that he boasteth of miracles. and why? because he sayth the brethren would not els like of them. a worthy reason! for if M. Cartwright did boast of all things which his fancifull followers doe like of, he should boast of more vanities and fooleries, then he hath haires of his head. further, he would haue the towne examined, wherein he dwelleth, whether any voice did euer come from him by way of boasting of his miracles. as if it were not anoyance enough to examine his vaine answeres, but we must examine all his fantasticall disciples, yea and others to. or as if his followers might not giue out, that hee is an holy man, and worketh miracles, and yet he not able to worke o­ther miracle, then as iuglers doe, that make all that behold them wonder, when they doe nothing but play a litle legierde­maine.

Yet because he will needes haue me examine the matter, I haue bene content to doe him this fauour: and doe find that in deed, albeit I haue not hitherto sayd so much, yet hee hath not onely boasted, but also most vainly boasted of his miracles, if we may beleeue his hearers, for they say that oneTestified by diuers honest men in War­wike. Chaplin of Warwike being taken sicke in the hall of the hospitall, where M. Cartwright contrary to lawes of hospitalitie had reuelled at him, and threatened Gods iudgement against him for his sup­posed drunkennesse; he not long after the mans death going vp into the pulpit, and taking the historie of Ananias and Saphira Act. 5. for his text, did there say, that Chaplin was striken, as was Ananias and Saphira. which is nothing els but to compare him­selfe to Peter, and to make the death of Chaplin no lesse mira­culous, then the death of Ananias and Saphira. Onely this see­med to be all the difference, that Peter did not rashly iudge of Ananias and Saphiraes death, nor declare them vnwoorthy of buriall, whereas M. Cartwright did, as Chaplins wel willers com­plaine, thunder out his detestations against Chaplin being dead, and said he was vnworthy of christian buriall. such is the mans christian modestie and discretion.

In the end, to make all sure, he desireth that when the legend of his miracles shall come forth, there may be for the credite of him that setteth it foorth, the names of the reporters, & likewise of the brethren laid down, that are guiltie of this dotage. Wherein I cānot but won­der [Page 39]what he hath to doe, to accuse others of dotage, especially his owne deare friendes, hauing nothing to answere for him­selfe. He doeth not say, whether about Warwike he hath not heard reportes of his miracles: nor doeth he tell vs, that he hath condemned such reports, or denied that he can worke miracles. but would haue those condemned of dotage, that meane to set foorth the legend of them. yet neither haue I sayd that he wor­keth miracles, nor can I beleeue any such matter. This is in deed his owne folly, that ridiculously gloried as they say, in the death of Chaplin; and of his folowers, that beleeue that in trueth hee can worke miracles. for that is the speach of his credulous dis­ciples about Warwike: and I my selfe haue heard those that stoutly haue maintained so much to my face. and that first for the strange death of Chaplin. Secondly, for that oneThese matters of Browne and Harris will be te­stified: and I thinke himselfe will not deny that there is such a report. Browne di­ed, after that M. Cartwr. had denounced Gods iudgements a­gainst him for denying that he had begot his mayd with child: and yet his wife and others say, the poore man was impotent & vnable to doe it. Thirdly, for that one Harris being threatened with Gods wrath by M. Cartwr. not long after languished and died. But the man was a weake felow, and being for displeasure and because hee was no friend to M. Cartwrights discipline, by one Dulhams meanes pressed foorth for a soldier, died for feare and griefe, as they say: where note by the way that all the report of M. Cartwr. miracles consisteth in the discouraging, & killing of poore christians. therefore doeth he well to deny, that hee doeth worke miracles. for this is nothing but miraculous ma­lice, which they report of him: and I am much to thanke him, that taketh my part against those, that doe make him a saint, & a great worker of miracles, and that denieth all the legend that goeth through the hands of simple people which by his fained holinesse, and strange grimaces, and pretensed gestures, haue bene deceiued.

But did he worke miracles, or not; how vnaduisedly hath he in this place made such outcries of slaunder vpon my wordes? where is the slander? and how is it prooued? is it not a miracle that M. Cartwr. should thus fowly be mistaken? let him there­fore heare what the law faieth; He that bringeth his action of in­iurious or slaunderous speaches, l. praetor ff. dein­iurijs. saieth the Romane praetor, must [Page]name the wrong, and signifie his proceeding directly. if not the par­tie accused goeth quit, and the accuser is to be condemned of calumniation. which is right the case of M. Cartwright. for hee sayth, he is slandered. yet can not say wherein, nor deny that which I haue sayde, nor well gainsay the common report. let him therefore haue the sentence of the law.

¶ M. Cartwrights answere to these words: being examined in the Starre chamber vpon certeine points of her Ma­iesties supremacie, he refused to answere, & pleaded, that he was not bound.

I refused it, as esteeming itDoe the lordes pro­pound matters imper­tinent? and is it imper­tinent to declare him­selfe a loyall subiect? impertinent to that cause, not otherwise. vnto which afterward, vpon commandement I gaue answere in writing vnto her Maiesties most honourable coun­cell. and to her MaiestiesBut not to the parti­cular points of it. supremacy I haue bene sworne at the least fiue or sixe times. and if there be doubt of any change of my iudgement, I am ready to take theYou take the othe, but interpret the lawe contrary to ye meaning. oth againe.

Matth. Sutcliffe.

Behold I beseech you a hainous slander, for which not onely M. Cartwr. but the whole consociation of Puritans is grieuously scandalized. I said, that M. Cartwright refused to answere direct­ly being examined in the Starre-chamber. Well, what saith M. Cartwright? doth not he confesse as much, as I said? he cannot deny it. His words are plaine. I refused it, saith he. but if he had not confessed it, yet would the record in the Starre-chamber haue conuinced him. Now then, when himselfe confesseth, and the record testifieth as much as I say, how happeneth it, that his owne wordes are so cleare, and mine reputed scandalouse? or why should not hee aswell be thought to slander himselfe, as I, seeing he confesseth that very matter, which I do obiect? But, saith he, I refused it, as impertinent. as if that were materiall for what cause he refused it, the question being onely whether hee refused it, or no. But to take away all excuse, it shalbe proued, that it was very pertinent, for first, what more pertinent to con­uince him of notorious disloyaltie, then to shew that hee had a bad conceit of diuers points of her Maiesties supreme authoritie? Beside that, iudge (I pray you) whether euery one is not bound to yeeld an answere to his superiors in all matters that touch his [Page 40]alleagiance. Last of al, it cannot be surmised, that so honourable and wise Lords and Iudges would require answere to matters impertinent; neither if it were impertinent, had M. Cartwright reason afterward to answere it, as he did.

Therefore to make his matter most cleare, he saith, hee hath bene sworne fiue or sixe times to her Maiesties supremacy, and is So Feckenā ab­bot of Westmin­ster to Bishop Horne, said, he was ready to sweare. a­gaine ready to take the othe, if any doubt bee made of his iudgement therein. As if there were any question of other matter, then whe­ther he once refused to answere concerning matters of her Ma­iesties supremacie, or no. Beside that, diuers Papists haue bene often sworne, that now are of a contrary opinion: yea and some of them pretend readinesse to take the othe, yea and take it, but with those qualifications, and interpretations, that do sufficient­ly testifie their bad minds. According to the meaning of the statute I thinke he will not take the oath. for then he should de­clare, that the Queene hath power to establish and disanull Ec­clesiasticall lawes, to appoint Ecclesiasticall Iudges, officers and commissioners, to heare appeales or to appoint delegates to heare them when they are made from Ecclesiasticall courtes, to nominate Bishops, to receiue first fruits and tenthes of Ecclesi­asticall liuings, and such like rights & priuiledges, as the statutes of this land giue her. but that he may not, nor (I thinke) wil not do, for that the lawes of their discipline deny it. if so be he would, I confesse, he should satisfie me in this point: but hee should vt­terly ruinate the foundation of his aldermens consistoriall iuris­diction, to whom they giue most of these things. Yea & I doubt, whether others would be satisfied. for as in religion it is a note of an hereticall disposition, to doubt of the grounds of our faith; so in policie it is a note of a disloyall person, to doubt of the prin­ces lawfull authoritie, which the statutes giue her. In which case seeing you were once, albeit now you vtterly deny it; I pray you let vs not haue you too much boast of your innocencie, and that in such long Prefaces, as that before your short briefe: especially seeing heretofore you haue written and done many things to the praeiudice of her supremacie in Ecclesiasticall causes.

In the booke of your holy discipline, wherein you hold, that a perfect forme of Church gouernment, such as is prescribed in Gods word, is conteined, you haue vtterly excluded the princes autho­ritie, [Page]and debarred him from all gouernment. for you haue not so much as mentioned him.

In one of the disciplinarian bookes of common prayer,This booke they sought to haue confirmed by act of Parlia­ment. and administration of Sacraments you leaue out the Christian ma­gistrate, in another there is some mention made of him, but it is in the ende of the booke, and after all the officers of the Church described.

Thirdly in direct termes you say, that the Christian magistrate can no more be an officer of the Church, 2. reply. p. 420. then the pastors can bee ma­gistrates. how then can he be supreme gouernor of the Church, that is no gouernor at all,2. repl. 2. parl. p. 147. as you say? You hold also, that a Chri­stian magistrate hath no more authoritie in the Church, then a hea­then prince. which is sufficient to exclude him out of the Church gouernment. Finally you do subiect him to the excommunication of your elderships, and place the magistrate among those that are to obey, and the elders among commanders.

Fourthly you wil not deny, but that the Papists deny her Ma­iesties supremacie in causes Ecclesiasticall. how then can it be said, that you hold a good opinion of it, when you in your books do giue her no more authoritie then they, and abridge the same as farre as they doe?2. repl. p. 48. Doe you not deny, that the prince ought to be called the head of particuler and visible Churches within his domini­ons? Do you not likewiseIbidem p. 157. & 167. take from him authoritie to determine of Church causes, and1. reply p. 192. power to ordeine lawes and ceremonies? It cannot be denied, your wordes are plaine. all which you borow from the Papists. They subiect the prince to the Pope, you to your elderships, neither can you shew any other difference be­twixt your selfes, and them. For where you say first, that you doe not exempt your ministers frō the punishment of the ciuil magistrate, as the Papists doe their Priestes, you erre in both. for both would you claime immunitie for your ministers, and they do not simply exempt their priestes, but in certeine cases. The authors of theAdmonition 2. p. 65. admonition would haue themselues and their companions by act of Parliament exempted from the authoritie of Iustices, and from their enditings and finings. In yourLib. 2. reply, you would haue the au­thoritie of the ciuill magistrate to descend from Christ, as God, and not as mediator; whereof it followeth, that Christian princes haue no rule ouer their subiects as Christians, but onely as men; [Page 41] De visib. mo­narch. lib. 2. c. 3. as Saunders also holdeth. all of you deny, that any appeale is to be admitted from the determination of the synode to the prince. How then are not the synodes exempt from princes iurisdiction, when the prince hath no authoritie ouer them? yea and in Suffolke certeine of this sect in a supplication to the Lords of her Maie­sties counsell affirme, that it was a hard course, and tending to the discredit of the ministery, that their ministers should be presented be­fore the Iudges and endited, arraigned and condemned. Contrary­wiseAgainst the a­pologie of the Church. p. 306. Harding saith, that good Kings may put Bishops and priestes in minde of their duties, and bridle both their riot and arrogancie. And inIbidem p. 303. another place, that a prince may make lawes for the obser­uation of both tables, and punish the transgressors. Feckenam To bishop Horne. offe­reth to sweare, that her Maiestie hath vnder God the soueraintie and rule ouer all persons within her dominions, whether they bee Ec­clesiasticall or temporall. Fatemur personas Episcoporum qui in toto orbe fuerunt, saithDe visib. mo­narch. lib. 2. c. 3. Sanders, Romano Imperatori esse subiectos. And for ciuil causes, it is their common opinion, thatHarding re­ioynd. f. 379. priests may be conuented before ciuil Iudges. and for Ecclesiastical causes cer­teineAct. of Parlia­ment anno 1584. acts. 2. ministers of Scotland refused to answere before the king.

Secondly you say, that the Papists will haue the prince to execute whatsoeuer they conclude, be it good or bad; which you will not. For you graunt the prince authoritie to set order where there is no law­full ministery, and to stay vnlawfull decrees of lawfull ministers. As if theHard. confus. apol. p. 304. & 317. Papists did not grant as much: or as if Papists held, that the princes were to execute wicked decrees. Againe it is euident that you would haue all men to stand to theAdmonit. determination of your synodes. And albeit your synodes doe decree bad things, yet you wil not giue princes authoritie to iudge them. How then can they stay them? will you giue them extraordinary authori­tie? that is your meaning. But how shall wee know when they worke by ordinary, when by extraordinary authoritie? Beside that, you deny this extraordinary authoritie as long, as there is a lawfull ministery. And albeit your doings be vnlawfull, yet you will not be stayed by the prince.

Thirdly you2. p. 164. affirme, that you do not vtterly seclude the prince from your Churchassemblies. for oftentimes a simple man and (as the prouerbe saith) a gardner hath spoken to purpose. So you count the prince as a simple fellow, and as a poore gardener among the [Page]magnificoes in your elderships. You say, he may haue a voyce, call a counsell, and appoint times to meete, but he 2. lib. 2. p. 157. & 156. may neither iudge nor make orders, but ought to confirme and execute the decrees of the coūsels. And do not the Papists the like? It is most apparant both in our owne countreymens writings as inDevisib. mo­nar. lib. 2. c. 3. Sanders andConfut. ap. p. 304. Har­ding and inBellar. de ma­gistr. others also. If then the Papistes; sure you haue no good cōceit of her Maiesties supremacie. And thisIn a certeine epistle concer­ning M. Cartur. reply. M. Whitaker and others haue noted before me, lest you imagine me to be the author of this charge.

Fiftly being demaunded by me, whether the disciplinarians, whose leader and as it were oracle you are, do not in effect deny the principall points of her Maiesties supremacie, and take from her power to ordeine rites and orders for the Church, and right to nominate Bishops, and to appoint Ecclesiasticall commissio­ners, and to delegate learned men to heare the last appeale from Ecclesiasticall courts, likewise authoritie to call and gouerne sy­nodes, and other prerogatiues and rights giuen to the prince by the statutes and lawes of England: and finally whether you doe not endeuour to bring in forreigne lawes & iurisdiction repug­nant to the statutes of supremacie, and her Maiesties preroga­tiue: you answere nothing. Which is nothing els, but a plaine confession, that you dare not directly, and in plaine termes de­clare your opinion concerning the foresaid matters; and doe in­deede abridge her Maiestie of a great part of her royal autho­ritie.

Lastly when you were called vpon your othe in the Starre-chamber to answere to diuers points of her supremacie, you shew your selfe to haue a peruerse opinion, and therefore dare not answere directly. BeingInterrog. 3. demanded whether you haue not taught or allowed, that the prince being neither pastour, nor elder, is to bee accompted among the gouernours of the Church, or among those that are to be gouerned: and also whether in a well ordered Church he may ordeine orders and ceremonies therein: doe you not say for all answere, that you are not bound to answere? and do you not persist therein? Now how can it be supposed, that you allow the prince to be supreme gouernor, that will not acknowledge him to be any gouernor of the Church at all? or howe can it be said you allow the points of her Maiesties supremacie, that will not [Page 42]confesse she hath power to make orders or to ordeine ceremo­nies for the Church? True it is, that you offer to sweare to the su­premacie: so likewise doeth Fecknam. I doe here presently (saithFecknam to Bishop Horne. Fecknam) offer my selfe to receiue a corporall othe vpon the Euan­gelistes, that I doe verily thinke and am perswaded in my conscience, that the Queenes highnesse is the onely supreme gouernour of this Realme, and of all other her Maiesties dominions, &c. and that shee hath vnder God the souereintie and rule ouer all maner persons Ec­clesiasticall and temporall. And yet he doeth not beleeue the seue­rall points of her Maiesties authoritie, nor acknowledge them. So likewise it may be, you will acknowledge her Maiesties au­thoritie in generall termes, and yet wil not acknowledge the se­uerall points of her authoritie. You doe also offer to sweare to the supremacie, but you haue a peruerse interpretatiō, by which you ouerthrow all the chiefe points of it in effect. Your pretence is the interpretation of the iniunction. which kinde of bad dea­ling, and meaning you detected sufficiently in your answere to the 2. interrogatory in the Starre-chamber. For being demaun­ded howe farre foorth you haue affirmed or allowed the Queenes au­thoritie Ecclesiasticall to berestreined by the iniunctions, you say, you are not bound to answere. By which it appeareth, that you thinke the iniunctions restreine her authoritie, and that so farre, as you dare not tell vs what you thinke. Wherefore if in deede your opinion be sound cōcerning her Maiesties supremacie, answere these matters directly, and tell vs what she may do, & what she may not doe by the lawes of your discipline: and whether you meane to holde your former opinions, or renounce them. For whatsoeuer you sweare; your bookes, and the Queenes autho­ritie giuen her by the lawes of this land, cannot stand together.

M. Cartwright, answere being charged to haue highly com­mended M. Fenners booke, which Fenneri Theo­log. Sac. lib. 5. p. 187. giueth authoritie to inferiour persons to restraine their souereigne, as did the ephori in Sparta.

I You vtterly mistake it. take it, M. Fenner giueth no such authoritie, but onely where the lawes of the land doe establish such an au­thoritie, as the ephori in The ephori were of Sparta, the city, not Lacedemonia the countrey. Lacedemonia had. and if M. Fenner did, yet how doth my epistle commendatorie set be­fore [Page]his booke Because you allowe it, and commend it, and set it out. make me of his iudgement? as if he that commendeth a booke iustifieth whatsoeuer is in the booke, or as if notwithstanding M. FennersAnd more presumption, made notorious by his extra­uagant diuinity. singular learning (which for his age many, I doubt not, both at home and a­broad do esteeme) you allow it, and disal­low it to? or can you deny that you commended his rules, as [...] coelestis I CanCanaan? might not, or doe not differ from him in some things conteined in his booke. besides, hee himselfe confessing, that by oth in the Starre-chamber I haue disa­uowed the allowance of any such opinion, which hee fathe­reth of M. Fenner, let it be considered with With a good minde to shew your contradictions, and how hardly you are drawen to obe­dience. what minde he so often rubbeth vpon this point. and both for this and the former charge, I leaue it to be considered with what What ciuill honesty haue you to charge me with slande­ring you, or vrge me to moue these matters? Christian modestie M. Sutcliffe may now the If you quiet not your selues you must heare it the fourth & fifth time. second and the third time mooue question (and that in print) of those things to our discredit, which her Maiesties most honourable councell was pleased, shoulde be In lawe wee conuent you not, in writing we may dis­course vpon these things as oft as you pretend innocency. no further proceeded in, and that he is not You doe not content your selues with it, albeit neuer so light in respect of your faults. contented with that im­prisonment we endured, which their honours are satisfied with.

Lastly, my iudgement in sundry matters of the disci­pline That is sufficient. excepted, wherein differing from sundry learned men in our church, I haue the consent of many worthy chur­ches, and godly learned, both of this and Speake not this for shame, for before Caluins time, your fancies were neuer heard of. other ages, I would be ashamed for that singular mercy God had shewed mee by her Maiesties most gratious gouernment, to come Yet I haue beene in many places in her Maiesties seruice, where I could not see you. behind M. Sutcliffe in any duty, that my poore hand is able to reach vnto.

What is this to Fenners cause? And that hee If I dare you, it is because I knowe you cannot. dareth me not once, but sundry times to answere touching these matters of discipline, I thinke it not so Why did you then first be­gin this braule? fit for mee to vndertake it, there being so many better able thereunto then I, especially in this declining and forgetfull age of mine. and yet if my answere might haue either that At Geneua you may haue both. allowance of print, or passage that his hath, and none other were found, I my selfe in this weake­nesse I am in, would not be behinde with answere to any thing that he hath bene able to alledge in this behalfe, A ridiculous surmise. if there be any thing in his writings, the answere where of is not already set downe by such as haue written in that cause. and that my silence in the cause of discipline is not altoge­ther [Page 43]of the I do thinke M. Cartwright able to do, and write well. but not in this cause. inabilitie or feare M. D. Sutcliffe would so willingly fasten, or rather force vpon mee, let this be for an An argument most weake, for it is more easie to refute the Rhem [...]sts false annotati­ons then to establish newe found conceits. argument, that where I was set That should be done by the learned fathers of the church. on worke by the right honourable Sir Francis Walsingham for the answere of the annotations of the Iesuites vpon the New testament, & had trauailed therein to a rude and first draught of a great part thereof: vnderstanding from some in authority, that I might not deale with it, I did not onely not set any thing out my selfe, but also Good for you, and for the cause. earnestly laboured by letters and frends here, and in Scotland both the hinderance of the prin­ting some parts thereof, which being brought to Sir Francis afterward (much against my will) came into the hands of diuers, to whom I would Such is the pride of these men: they will not suffer their doings to be corrected. neuer haue let them come.

In the margine oueragainst these words (hinderance of the printing) is this note placed.

And This note serueth to vnder­proppe the former weake argu­ment. but to no good effect. for the vnsufficiency of this, might deter him from attemp­ting the other labour. if he stayed the publishing of that whereunto he was once allowed by authority, it is not in all likelyhood to be thought, that he would hastily publish any thing of him­selfe, howsoeuer he might be persuaded of the trueth of it.

Matth. Sutcliffe.

In this answer there are two principall questions, that should haue bene resolued by M. Cartwright, if he meant to conclude ought against me. the first is, whether he did highly commend M. Fenners booke or no, wherein this strange position mentio­ned in the title of his answere is conteined; the second, whe­ther granting so much as I charged him withall, he was herein slandered, as in euery of his seuerall accusations he pretendeth. of these two questions M. Cartwright resolueth nether. with what face then can hee say, that he is slandered, not being able to deny any thing which I say, nor to iustifie his wrong imputa­tion of slaunder? did hee thinke, that I should neuer returne to looke into these matters? if he did, what hope hath he to make them good?

Beside this wrong, where I say that Fenner giueth authoritie to inferior persons, as indeed he doth: he cunningly foisteth in superior persons. as if either he meant toIf he say, that a prince may be ouerruled by in­feriors, he deni­eth the princes souereignty. if in such common wealths where the magistrates haue indeed su­periors, he deny their authority, he speaketh, as a man ignorant of antiquitie and state. denie the princes supre­macie, or their authoritie (if any such may be) that haue autho­ritie ouer the prince or king; as the Romanes had ouer kings, [Page]that were their vassals and tributaries, of which wee talke not, nor make any question. such goodly discourses maketh M. Cartwright all muffled about the eyes with the maske of inno­cency, so that he could see nothing, vnlesse it were to misalledge my words, and to answere nothing to purpose. yet least his cli­ents and followers might thinke, he had sayd great matters; let vs examine euen this nothing.

He sayth, that M. Fenner giueth no such authority, as is sayd, but where the lawes of the land doe establish such an authoritie as the Ephori in Lacedaemonia had. A matter, as I shewed, that made not to purpose, and which is also very false. for M. Fenner, as M. Cartwright should not be ignorant, speaketh of lawes drawn out of the word of God, to which all princes ought to submit their scepters. further he speaketh generally. he therefore that taketh it otherwise, doth both mistake and misconstrue.

Driuen from this ground hee flieth to the second, and sayth, that hee is not of M. Fenners iudgement. which sitteth him not well to say, vnlesse he will contradict himselfe in his epistle. for the matters conteined in M. Fenners booke hee calleth [...], leges, & iuracoelestis Canaan. Now, I trow, he wil not deny Gods lawes, or as he calleth them the lawes of heauenly Canaan be­side this he reuiewed the book and corrected it as appeareth by these words. Cupiebam (saithThe words of M. Cartwrights epistle before M. Fenners booke. M. Cartwright) libellū hunc quem sanè praeclarum abs te accepi, nec indignum, vt ei legendo vadimoni­um (quod dicitur) deseratur, pro voto & postulato tuo meliorem & cultiorem ad te remittere. ad quam rem quid attulerim, tu apud te statues. hauing then corrected what he thought amisse, will not M. Cartwright defend the rest; especially hauing made all so neat, and fine? thirdly as those that l. lex cornelia. ff. de iniuriis §. si quis librum. publish and commend, or write or make books conteining slandrous matter, are to answere for what­soeuer is therein conteined, so they that publish and commend books conteining hereticall and trecherous, and leud opinions, are to answere for them much rather. in what case then is M. Cartwr. that by his excessiue commendations hath giuen vent to this booke, which no wise man I thinke will valew? is not he periured, that denieth that doctrine on his oth, which is contei­ned in the booke which he alloweth? as for M. Fenner let him rest in peace. he was towardly, but in setting foorth this booke, [Page 44]too forward; yea and percase M. Cartwrights iudgement there­in did not a litle abuse him.

Thirdly hee goeth on, and would haue it considered, with what minde I doe so often Belike this point galled him, and therefore he would not haue it touched, or rubbed. rubbe ouer this one point, seeing in the Starre-chamber he disauowed this opinion fathered vpon M. Fenner as I doe confesse. as if it were sufficient to deny it, when a man hath done leudly: or els if a man might not note his notorious con­tradictions, that is still opposing himselfe against the state. let him therefore rather consider, how vnchristianly he hath dealt with many good men, and recant the wrong hee hath done in disgracing of this church of England, and the state, and call backe his leud epistle, and that leud booke that hath, and doeth still giue occasion of iust offence, let him also be sory for his oth so rashly taken, and ashamed of his notorious contradiction in this matter. finally, let him deny, that the eldership hath autho­ritie to correct & excommunicate princes; and giue vnto them their due and right, and he shall neither be further rubbed, nor heare more of me.

Fourthly, to presse mee downe with the authoritie of the Starre chamber, he goeth on, and yet leaueth it to be considered, with what christian modestie I may so often, and that in print mooue question of things to his discredite, which her maiesties most honora­ble counsell Let him shew this. was pleased should be no further proceeded in, and that am not content with his imprisonment, which their honours are A manifest vn­trueth. sa­tisfied with. as if christians either vsed not, or might not talke of matters examined, and ended in courts of publike iustice, espe­cially so long as they did not controll them or mislike them. nay therefore are such matters heard publikely, that men may haue notice of them, and talke of them. and sometimes the sentences and proceedings of iudges are published abroad, that men may talke of them; that by the punishment of law breakers, and dis­loiall persons, others may bee warned and restrained from run­ning into such like disorders. Assuredly, if the strange opinions, and vndutiful behauiour of these men, as they are well knowen to the iudges, so had bene well knowen to the people; men would neuer haue either admired them or folowed them, or praised that discipline which they seeke for. Neither do I thinke, that there is any order in the Starre chamber to the contrary, [Page]Why doeth not M. Cartwright note it, if he know any such mat­ter? it was their honors pleasure to shew him great fauour, and to accept of a certaine submission he made, as I haue heard: but that he should be quite discharged, I cannot beleeue. for M. Cartwright may remember, that he standethHis bond is in the court of the commission for causes ecclesiasti­call. bound to appeare at any time within 20. dayes warning giuen to him. which ar­gueth that albeit he be dismissed vpon hope of amendment; yet he is not discharged. dismissed he is of great fauour, & through her maiesties exceeding clemencie. but if he runne on his olde courses, and accuse those of wrong that did him exceeding fa­uour, he may percase vnderstand what formerly he hath deser­ued. and if he be not delt with all iudicially by lawe, yet may it please him to giue vs leaue to talke of his misdemeanors extra­iudicially, vntil such time as he reforme them. He is loth to haue hisAll this sect doeth stand more vpon their cre­dite, albeit the same be litle, then vpon the trueth of their cause. credite touched; yet hath not hee spared his superiors, a­gainst whom hee hath delt. why wee should not handle these points, there is neither law, nor commandement, nor reason to the contrary.

What cause then hath M. Cartwright to insinuate, that I haue made a breach of christian modestie in speaking of them? may not a man with christian modestie note the faults and errors of these men, especially when they goe about to defend them? I neuer sought quarell, nor entred into these matters, before I was thereto vrged, and prouoked. M. Cartwright (I thinke) doth know that I did not so much as mooue question of these mat­ters, before I was drawen into them, by a lewd and contentious companion of that sect, that in a booke entituled A petition, would needs name me, and mooue diuers questions to the dis­grace of the present gouernment of the church, of which I am a minister, and therefore deepely therein interessed; and to the discredite of diuers good men, and my good friends: nor before that Iob Throk. a great champion of puritane chiualrie, and a no­ble pillar of Martinisme, would needes charge me with slande­ring of the whole brotherhood of deformation, and goe about to iustifie the chiefe heads, and maintainers of that faction. be­ing then named in print, and railed at in print, and called foorth in print to iustifie what I had sayd; how could I with any hone­stie forbeare to answere in print? nay so farre am I from infrin­ging [Page 45]any point of christian modestie in this behalf, that I should greatly haue offended on the other side, if being charged with diuers bad opinions and misdemeanors, I should haue negle­cted them, and held my peace. Ruffinus doeth not thinke him to be a christian, that being noted of heresie, doeth dissemble the mat­ter, and hold his peace. and Lawyers say, quod negligere famam crudele est. hee that striketh must not thinke much to haue his blowes warded. [...], saieth Achilles. Iliad. 1. but these felowes when like Thersites they haue railed and spo­ken euill of others, yea of princes; doe disdaine to heare them­selues iustly reprooued, and most arrogantly disdaine to haue themselues touched. most vaine therefore, and causelesse is this complaint.

But I deale very hardly (as he thinketh) and vnchristianly, that am not content with his imprisonment, which satisfied their lord­ships. which is a matter more, then he knoweth; sure more then I can learne, or beleeue. for albeit of fauour it pleased them, and of their great benignitie and clemencie to inflict this punish­ment only; yet how knoweth he, that they were satisfied there­with; especially seeing they are not yet discharged? but were it true, yet what a ridiculous point is it to thinke, that men may not speake of matters, for which malefactors are imprisoned, e­specially when they or their friends doe repine and grudge at their punishment, and pretend hard dealing and iniustice, as the petitioner and Iob Throk. did in the behalfe of M. Cartwr. and o­thers? neither was the imprisonment of M. Cartwr. so grie­uous, or costly to him, that either himselfe or others should com­plaine, or lament for the remembrance of it. So soft was his ly­ing, so trim was his lodging, so pleasaunt was his company, so daintie was his fare, so great were the giftes hee had, so dili­gent was his wife to rake in rewards; that many braue men of good desert, that serue her maiestie in her warres would bee content (the shame onely except) to exchange the commodity of their places with him. but if these men haue not what they would, or if their pillowes lie not right, they thinke all men doe them wrong, that doe not pitie them. yea, albeit they murmure at their iudges; yet would they haue no man to open their mouth against them.

Lastly, he entreth into comparison with me, and saieth, bee would be ashamed to come behind me in any duetie. wherein it had bene good if he had hired M. Throk. or some of his friends to speake for him. This domesticall testimonie of himselfe sauou­reth strongly of folly and arrogancie, & is litle to be respected. yea, albeit his deserts were greater, yet is the comparison odi­ous, and loth I am to follow M. Cartwright in this vanitie. yet thus much I may say for my selfe: that I neuer was imprisoned for any vndutifull and disloyall opinions and misdemeanors, as he hath bene, neither did I euer hide my head in corners as hee hath done: nor did I euer so neerely touch her maiesties royall prerogatiue, her reuenues, and her lawes, as M. Cartwright did; nor euer haue I written bookes in defence of a new gouernment of the church, nor maintained the same directly against lawes, as he hath done and doeth. Againe I thinke M. Cartwright was neuer employed in her maiesties seruice, as I haue bene now this fourth time: yea while I was in her seruice in the iorney of Gua­dix, hee emploied all his time and labour in setting foorth and printing this most simple briefe. ô what brags would he make, if euer he had done her maiestie seruice, that is not now asha­med to brag of his duetifull behauiour towards her maiestie, whose whole time hath bene emploied in oppugning that ec­clesiasticall gouernment, which by her authoritie is established! so litle doeth he shame to looke into the crooked course of his whole life and studie.

For answere therefore to this obiection, M. Cartwright doth insinuate, that all other matters being equall, he is behind me onely in his iudgement in matters of discipline. which is vntrue. for not­withstanding that iudgement, he might haue done her maiestie seruice, if he had would, as I haue done. Beside that, this onely dealing of his about his fancifull discipline is matter sufficient to conuict him of notorious misdemeanors, and vndutiful cariage of himselfe, as hath bene declared. neither is his defence of any moment, where he saieth, that many are of his opinion. for in eue­ry lewd practise there are lightly many consorts; and heretikes and schismatikes want no folowers. Beside that, it is vntrue that many worthy churches and godly learned of this and other ages are of his opinion. for before Caluins time his discipline was neuer [Page 46]heard of. and albeit now some churches doe embrace his opini­ons herein: yet doe they not consent with M. Cartwright in many points. nor I thinke did they allow any negotiation and practise for the establishing of his new discipline in this land by forging, railing, libelling, and disloiall dealing. Would therfore M. Cartwr. doe me this fauour in two other sheetes of paper to shew that godly learned men of other ages were of his opini­on, and that other churches allow his courses, hee should cleare himselfe of the suspicion of a great and notorious vntrueth.

The rest of M. Cartwrights answere in this place is nothing, but an idle digression nothing pertinent to the clearing of the obiection concerning his iudgement of Fenners booke, and the authoritie by him giuen to certeine Ephori to ouerrule princes, yet least hee should compleine hee were not answered, I am to craue pardon, if I examine this also. He saith first, that although I dare him not once, but sundry times to answere touching these mat­ters of discipline, yet it is not so fit for him to vndertake it. To this I answere first that albeit I should dare him, yet it is no slander to his worship that I dare him. it is rather shame for him, that hee commeth not forth being dared. Secondly he doth mee wrong to say, I dare him. for he dare do any thing, yea things very ab­surd, and vnlawfull. But in deed I doe in diuers points challenge him to mainteine his bolde and rash assertions, and that not to stirre contention, but to shew that albeit he dare do it, yet he can not mainteine his cause. Thirdly I do mainteine, that there is no man that hath more reason to answere in these causes then hee. and that first, for that he in this Church first of all in large books defended these opinions. Now why should any bee thought more fit to speake, then hee that first made challenge, and entred the liftes in defence of this cause? Secondly there is none whom that side doth more desire should answere then M. Cartwright. Thirdly they imagine that none is more able. Fourthly the cause of others is deserted. Fiftly none promised or bragged so much as he. Lastly of all men, I would that M. Cartwright should spe­cially answere, that when it appeareth, how the patriarch of dis­cipline can say nothing; his followers that are abused, might soonest be mooued to change opinion. And if neither his aduer­saries prouocation, nor his friends desire, nor his owne reputa­tion, [Page]nor his cause deserted, nor his owne great words and brags do moue him: I see no excuse he can haue, but the impossibilitie of defence, and the vntrueth of matters heretofore defended by him.

He pretendeth age and forgetfulnesse, but the first is not suf­ficient, the second is absurd. for he ought not to forget his duty, nor what he is to say for himselfe. Hee saith also, that others are more able. but I dare say, he beleeueth it not, and his friendes by no meanes will admit it. Therefore when no iust excuse can be alledged of silence, he proceedeth saying, that if either his an­swere might haue allowance of print or passage, himselfe in that weak­nesse hee is in, would not be behinde to answere any thing, that I haue bene able to alledge in these matters. as if hee might not as well print and passe his bookes at Geneua or Heidelberg, as he did his first and second replies. Beside that, if the matters he standeth on be such as he saith, then ought he to care for no allowance, nor passage. for if discipline bee a part of the Gospell, and so con­stantly to be defended, as that he ought to giue his life for it, yea so many liues as he hath haires of his head; these are no iust ex­cuses why he should flie backe. Further, when hee printed his first bookes he desired neither passage nor allowance, why then should hee nowe desire it, more then then? Is his heate of zeale cooled, or is he growne wise? nay he saith he is growne weake. percase he hath taken some rheume or cold that hath disordred the records of his fancie, which is the proper seate of his disci­pline. But this is no allowable excuse, especially seeing he doub­teth not but to answer whatsoeuer I haue bene able to alledge: for so he saith. Yet his friendes doe rather looke for performance. For his bragges, I say nothing, but as the Poet saith, [...]. Let vs see your promises atchieued, and then crow out your victory.In Theatet. Plato saith, it is a crauenly cocke, that crieth so loud before the fight.

That M. Cartwright meaneth not to deale further in this mat­ter, I take this as a presumption, for that hee doubteth whether there bee any thing in my writings, which is not answered already by those, that haue written in that cause. for that is onely a cloake for his sluggishnesse, and the weakenesse of his consistoriall disci­pline. but such a cloake, as beareth out neither wind, raine, nor Sunne. I wonder that he should make such an exception, and [Page 47]that not without some note of a hard forhead and conscience. For he knoweth that the books I haue writen, whereof one is in Latine, the other in English, are directly against their discipline, which argument none to my knowledge euer handled seueral­ly and purposely either before mee, or after mee. Other bookes that haue bene written in this cause are rather for defence of the present gouernment, then against their newe discipline. How then can my bookes be saide to be answered in other treatises, that are rather written to oppugne our gouernment, then to de­fend theirs? especially seeing in my bookes all these arguments are answered which here and there others haue written for the new discipline. Somewhat I confesse hath bene written since, but nothing to the purpose, nor orderly, nor schollerly. As for M. Beza it pleaseth him to raile on me, & giue me euil language which God forgiue him, and I forgiue & forget, but to the mat­ter he answereth nothing. Nay his discourse is such as rather we do pitie the man for his age and weakenes, then value any thing he hath said. and yet both M. D. Sarauia hath answered him, and so haue I, and haue the booke ready to be printed, if any be­ginne but once to stirre in the cause. Wherefore good M. Cart­wright either let me haue publike, or priuate answere to content mee, or els leaue of your bragging promises. if not, whatsoeuer you say, all your folowers will mislike you, and your aduersaries take your silence for confession.

In the end of this answere of his, he goeth about to prooue, that his silence proceedeth not altogether from inabilitie or feare, be­cause hauing proceeded to a rude His answere consisting of di­uers pieces, col­lected by diuers of the fraternity in Cambridge, knowen to be of small sufficiency, he hath no such cause to tell vs of his great labours taken, & learning shewed therein. draught of an answere to a great part of the Iesuiticall annotations vpon the New testament (of which hee maketh a great bragge) yet being countermanded he did not publish them, nor (as he sayth in the margent) vseth hastily to pub­lish any thing, howsoeuer he might be persuaded of the trueth of it. but of all others, this reason is most simple and least concludent. for the case is farre different betwixt the publication of his an­swere to the Rhemish annotations, (which I know not why he calleth Iesuiticall, or his answere, being pieced together by di­uers other) and this expected defence of discipline. for that was neuer expected at his hands, nor promised, nor could without o­thers helpe be performed: this was both much expected, and in [Page]his first replies in effect promised, and this he thought himselfe once able to performe. beside that, all his partakers desired his defence of the new discipline, which they expected would be a worke very compleat, and the rather they desired it, because o­thers abandoned the cause. but his answere to the Rhemish an­notations, wrought out in the monasterie of S. Laurence for the most part very rudely, beside his owne followers, none expe­cted, & some wise men thought meet should be stopped, both for the discordance of the parts, & for yt by his simple dealing in many points, especially concerning discipline, he betrayed our cause, and did giue more aduantage to the aduersary, then all his side would haue done good. and lastly for that M. D. Fulke ve­ry sufficiently and learnedly before him had dealt in the cause. neither doth any well aduised man thinke it expedient, that he should deale in the publike cause, vnlesse his writings might be publikly reuiewed before they were printed, which his haughtie spirit could by no meanes endure. the which appeareth by his wordes in this place. for albeit some part of the preface to his booke was brought to those that had authority to peruse it, yet he signifieth that if he could haue chosen, it should neuer haue come to their hands. it was not therefore his moderation, that stayd the printing (for he confesseth that some parts were already going to the presse) but the insufficiency of his worke, and the authors pride, that would admit no correction; and lastly, for that D. Fulke of blessed memory, a man more iudicious, and learned, then he, had trauailed therein more sufficiently, and perfectly before him. and thus much by the way to take away his friuo­lous excuses of his silence in the cause of discipline, in which first he was so fiery and furious. Now let vs returne to his fore­sayd briefe of slanders.

M. Cartwrights answere being charged, how that vpon the comming forth of Martin, he is reported to haue said, that it was no matter, if the bishops were so handled, seeing they would take no warning.

Let it be iudged (sayth hee) what
What guiltines of conscience is it that suffreth him not to deny it?
christian loue it is to commit such things to print vpon a
It is to be testi­fied by witnesse.
bare report. and if the reporters had bene named, as in other cases where he doth call out the persons by their names, the trueth might haue the better appeared. for me I am able [Page 48]to produce witnesses, that the first time that euer I heard of Martin Marprelate, I testified my great misliking and griefe, for so naughty and so disorderly a
You misliked the course, but not at the first, nor that BB. should be abused.
course, as that was. and therefore where fol. 51. p. 1. hee asketh when I will condemne the vnlawfull and vnciuill practise of Martin and Penry? I aske againe what
You take on you the office of a doctour or pastour, which is an of­fice to do that, very sufficient.
office or charge I haue to publish condemnation vpon euery vnlawfull and vnciuill
This touched your cause neerer, then other writings.
writing that commeth a­broad? and yet I haue witnesses, that euen publikly when I was allowed to preach, I condemned all dealing
Note that he misliked not Mar­tin, but all dealing in that kinde, because his side was thereby neere­ly touched in that kinde, and sound themselues vnable to answere.
in that kinde.

Matth. Sutcliffe.

M. Cartwright would accuse me of want of christian loue in committing these things to print (as hee sayth) vpon bare re­port. but all men doe see a great want in him of Christian wis­dome, to accuse others for reporting such things, as himselfe dare not deny. what proofe therefore needeth, when hee dare not deny what is alledged, or what needeth other accuser, when his owne conscience doth accuse him of speaking these words? and yet if other proofe be required, it shall be testified by him that heard it, although now I forbeare to name my frend, that is loth to come in print. in olde M. Bodleyes house the words were spoken. and if the man were aliue, I suppose he could witnesse them. besides him there are diuers about Warwike which will testifie, that he sayd, it was the iustice of God, that bishops whose cal­ling was vnlawfull should so be handled by Martin. let no man ther­fore doubt of the truth of this report.

But sayth he, I am able to produce witnesses, that I misliked so naughty a course. which shal not need. for I wil not deny, but he misliked the course. yet not at the first, but after that himself felt the smart; sure, that bishops should be railed at, he did not mis­like. and woorthy it is to be marked, that he sayth he misliked the course, and not the purpose and thing that Martin aymed at. yet certes if he had misliked either the course or the malici­ous matter of those execrable libels, hee would one time or o­ther haue publikely, or priuatly declared his mislike of those matters and courses, and rebuked the authors, and neither haue read the books nor suffered his frends to reade them. doing any [Page]of these, how can it be thought that euer hee misliked that bi­shops should be so vnchristianly, & consistorianly dealt withall?

He answereth that he had no office to condemne euery vnlawfull and vnciuill writing. I grant. yet being either preacher, or doctor, or priuate lay man, he might haue declared his opinion; especi­ally seeing so many did depend vpon it. therefore hee sayeth, that being allowed to preach, he condemned all dealing in that kinde. which I can hardly beleeue. for how is it likely he should con­demne Martin, vsing so familiarly the authors of Martin, viz. Iohn Penry, that was not many yeeres agoe hanged; and M. Iob Throk. whom God preserue from hanging. besides that, he can not deny, but that either he hath the booke, or hath had or read the booke, and heard that his partisans do commonly reade the bookes.Cod. de. famos. libell. l. vnic. Now the ciuill lawes condemne not only the authors of libels, but also all such as haue them, or finde them, and doe not teare them, and burne them. in what case then shoulde M. Cartwr. be, that not onely hath by his scoffes and flowers of railing traced out a way for Martin, but also had the books of Martin, and is so well acquainted with the authors? the truth is, that M. Cart­wright and his confraternitie of disciplinarians, so long as the li­bels of Martin went currantly thorow euery mans hands with­out all answere, or opposition, so long they liked them well, and much ioyed in their brother Martin, as a woorthy champion of discipline, and a braue authour of their reformation. but when as one began to whip him as an ape, another to bang him as an asse, another to cut him downe with an hatchet, and that diuers of the brotherhood beganne to see themselues soundly lashed, and felt themselues vnable to proceede in this course: as men vnwilling to see their owne faults in print, and impatient to be touched in their credit; they began a litle to reproue libelling: not because they misliked their mery madde frend Martin, but because they would reproue & speake against those, that spoke against themselues. so M. Cartwright percase condemned all dealing in that kinde, albeit he do well loue and like M. Throk­morton, and prayse his Martinicall writings. Well therefore it may be said, that albeit he liked well of Martin, yet he condem­ned all others dealing in that kinde, and that he is notwithstan­ding guilty of slandring many good men, liking so well the au­thours [Page 49]and libels of Martin. that I haue slandered him in repor­ting thus much, he hath no reason, nor witte to say: for were it vntrue; yet euery vntrueth amounteth not to slander; and be­ing most true, and not directly denied, howe shamed he not, to note this as a slander?

M. Cartwrights answere being charged, that he commen­deth extemporall prayers most highly, as being vttered by the holy Ghosts secret inspiration, and for that when the time was, he would scarse be induced to like of a prescript forme of prayer.

Where in my reply, or in treatise of
Who can make any sence of all this sentence?
what matter I remem­ber not, nor M. Sutcliffe (I beleeue) shall euer shew that Tho. Cartwr. hath so litle knowledge of diuinity as to
He hath affirmed worse matters.
affirme, that the extemporall prayers of any (how able soeuer in these dayes) are vttered by the holy Ghosts secret inspiration. and in what place, or time, and in whose hearing could I scarcely be
In your first reply pag. 106. where you argue as long as you can against it.
indu­ced to like of a prescript fourme of prayer? the
They shall be noted to your griefe.
noting of these circumstances which he doeth diligently, yea curiously (where hee thinketh they may serue the turne) woulde easily haue be­wrayed the vntrueth thereof. my continuall
Your practise is no good rule. no not of your owne opinions.
practise in the ministerie witnesseth against it. for in the space of fiue yeeres I preached at Andwerpe, and Middleborough, I did euery Sun­day reade the
Who prescribed you that forme?
prayer out of the booke. and all the while I prea­ched at Warwike, there were fewe sermons I euer made there, but (to my remembrance) I did shut vp the
viz. extemporall.
prayer either be­fore, or after the sermon with the Lordes prayer. besides that, the prayer before the sermon ordinarily was a set &
All this prooueth not prescribed.
accusto­med forme of prayer, howsoeuer I read it not out of the booke, and likewise was that after the sermon some small part excep­ted, where in my prayer I applied some principall pointes of the doctrine then handled. all
Al which is beside your purpose, and maketh no­thing for you.
which I would not haue done, if I had not allowed, yea well liked also a prescript forme of prayer. and hitherto of the former kinde of
Neither are they slan­ders, nor concerne they necessary duties.
slaunders concerning the breach of necessary dueties imposed vpon all Christians. the se­cond of things
Note how he is slande­red for things indifferent.
indifferent in their owne nature followeth. for as touching his charge of
Odious railing, a thing put among things indiffe­rent.
odious and
Do I say you are igno­rant in railing?
ignorant railing &c. I referre my selfe to indifferent iudgement vpon the bookes which are extant.

Matth. Sutcliffe.

The beginning of M. Cartwr. answere to this charge, hath no sense to be picked out of it: which I take to be the correctours fault, and so let it passe. his meaning is, that I can not shew either in his reply or other treatise of his, that he hath so litle knowledge in diuinity, as to say that the extemporall prayers of any in these dayes are vttered by the holy Ghosts secret inspiration. wherein he doth himselfe wrong to call his knowledge of diuinitie in question. for to say what I finde, if he approue M. Fenners booke so farre as his epistle commendatory pretendeth; his skill in diuinitie is nothing singular. the same doth appeare by strange points hol­den in his replies. but better should I iudge, if leauing his busie kinde of dealing against the state, hee had written any booke concerning points of faith. Yea in this very point in hand I do wonder how he hath here slipped. for being charged by me for better liking of extemporall prayers then any prescript forme of prayers, as is true indeed, and shall be verified against him: here very ignorantly he falleth into the contrary errour, and sayth, hee is not so ignorant of diuinity, as to affirme that the extemporall prayers of any in these dayes are vttered by the holy Ghosts secret in­spiration. which is to deny the working of the holy Ghost in the prayers of the godly, and to contrary the holy apostle, whichRom. 8. sayth, that the holy Ghost helpeth our infirmities when we know not what to pray, as wee ought. and if our prayers were not ayded by Gods holy spirit, they would not please God. so that to charge him herewith; is no slander, nor if I should so say, is it criminall to say, that extemporall prayers of godly men deuoutly and discreetly conceiued are vttered by the inward motions of Gods holy spirit inspi­ring them. but indeed I do not charge him herewith, but say, that M. Cartwr. doth commend extemporall prayers, as vttered by the holy Ghosts secret inspiration. which is true. for whereas the authours of the admonition doAdmonit, to the Parliam. say, that in the time of the apostles the minister spowred forth hearty supplications to the Lord, as the spi­rit moued them; M. Cartwright doth take on him the defence of this admonition. beside that for my part I neuer heard M. Cart­wright refuse to vse extemporall prayers. and I doubtnot, but he thought he prayed by the motion or assistauce of Gods spi­rit. yea and all the brotherhood, as they are mistermed, doeth vse long extemporall prayers both before meat and after meat, [Page 50]especially at great feasts; for then they make longest prayers, now they doubt not, but they pray as the spirit giueth them vt­terance. although indeed some of their speaks do rather sauour of the pot, then of any goodnesse, finally, all the Baroists vpon these foundations, and the common practise of extemporall prayers, haue condemned all prescript formes of prayer, which declareth that they vnderstood M. Cartwright as I do.

Secondly he asketh me, in what time & place, and in whose hea­ring he could scarcely be induced to like of a prescript forme of pray­er. and saith, that if these circumstances had bene set downe, the vn­truth of my allegation would haue appeared. and that his continuall practise in the ministery doth witnesse against me. Wherein I cannot chuse but wonder that hee should so much forget himselfe, and wilfully abuse his reader. For first he may remember, that the ad­monition which he taketh on him to defend doth holde, that in the primitiue Church the ministers were not tyed to any forme of pray­ers inuented by man. And that my L. of Canterbury refuting this error, he goeth about to1. reply p. 106. answere his reasons, and yeeldeth not till afterward; so that it appeareth he was not easily induced. he may also remember, that hee would In the end of his first reply. haue all Apostolicall orders now receiued and vsed. Beside that, his continual practise is to vse no prescript forme of prayers, but such as himselfe deuiseth, and so do the whole race of these sectaries, yea and so often times haue they bene heard to commend extemporall formes, and to dislike prescript formes, that I wonder how it cōmeth to passe, that M. Cartwright should here mainteine the contrary. But let vs see his reasons. First saith he, my continuall A weake rea­son. for his pra­ctise is not al­wayes according to his opinion, and doctrine. He was wont to speake against dispensations, and non residence; and yet now is non resident from his charge, and pray­ed to be dispen­sed with, as they say. practise in the mi­nisterie doth witnesse against it. a matter notoriously vntrue. For as long as he was in Cambridge, hee prayed as it pleased himselfe, and vsed formes by himselfe deuised. And so like wise doe all his followers, and those haue I heard most cōmended which prea­ching continually, yet euery day vsed new formes. And albeit M. Cartwright did read prayers at Antwerp and Middleborough out of the booke, as hee saith, yet that doth not shew that those prayers were prescribed to him. neither were his formes of pray­er at Warwike such as this Church of England prescribed, but such as himselfe deuised. Yea although he said the Lords prayer, yet in that sort it was not to him prescribed, as he said it. I beseech [Page]you therefore iudge what a hainous slander this is to say, that M. Cartwright scarce could bee induced when time was to like of a pre­script forme of prayer, when hee is not able to shew that either by doctrine or example he approued prayers publikely prescribed, nor would euer suffer himselfe to bee tyed to the orders of the Church of England. And thus much is sufficient for answere of his slanders supposed to be published by me against him, con­cerning breach of necessary duties. Wherein it may clearely ap­peare, that either hee doeth lewdly collect that which was not meant, or seeke to shunne that, which cannot bee auoyded. Did you euer before this heare of a man so slandred with trueth, and matters not criminall? but belike the man was podagricall, and cried before we came neere him.

Now wee are to proceed to examine his second branch of slanders concerning matters indifferent, the which is as strange as the other. so strange are they both, that in no good authour I euer read the like. But before we beginne; a word or two con­cerning that wrong that M. Cartwright thinketh to be done to him being charged, as he saith, with odious rayling. which yet I trust hee will not count slander, both for that it is left out of his diuision, and for that it is most euident, and true. That he raileth vnciuily these particulers testifie. his aduersaries he cōpareth to dogs & gheese. the ministery of England he calleth rouing, his ad­uersaries learned workes he calleth dung. the Bishops he calleth Popish & antichristian. Me he doth charge with vnchristian and immodest dealing, & suffreth his friend in the preface to cry out with full mouth against me. Infinite are his flowers in this kind. which I doubt not in euery mās accompt are odious, yet should I do him wrong to call it ignorant, the man hauing so good skill and so excellent a veine herein. onely let him not vse it to much, nor bragge of it. For the more skill he sheweth herein, the lesse commendation he shall deserue. odious railing, and Christian discretion hardly meete together in one man. But let vs pro­ceede to the rest.

M. Cartwrights answere being charged not to haue refused the execution of his brother Stubbes his will.

I was not (saith he) so much as
That argueth your euil deserts towards him.
named in my brothers will, [Page 51]and to put of M. Sutcliffes shift of answer he hath made to ex­cuse himselfe in his latter booke, that by the word of last will he
Set downe my words, and they will conuince you of vntrueth.
would vnderstand any conueyance lately made before his death, wherein trust was committed vnto mee, I answere that my brother Stubbes did neuer either long before, or soone
How could hee com­mit trust being dead?
af­ter his death put me in trust with any of his
How happeneth it then he so soone resigned the things morgaged?
worldly estate ei­ther by word, or writing.
But there percase was.
Neither is there (as M. Sutcliffe surmiseth) any vnkindnesse of my brothers towards me, in not putting me in trust, which would not that way bee employed, or my vnkindenesse towards him, who trusted him with my whole estate that way. And that my brothers wife and kinred rested not satisfied with my dealing,
Neither, as your bad conscience testtfieth.
either is an vntruth of M Sut­chffes, or a most causelesse complaint of their behalfe. For where in regard of my wifes portion of two hundred pounds, I had an annuitie in fee simple, for default of payment whereof after his death, (besides th'annuitie and arrerages) I had a lease of anhundreth jeeres
This either was in trust. or else intollerable vsury.
granted me of certeine pastures to the yeerely value of sixe pounds by estimation for a peper­corne onely, I was content (to the end the lands might be
What became of your annuitie then?
sold for the satisfying of my brothers
Were you none of them?
creditors) freely and for nought to release my interest in that lease, which the lawe for want of payment of th' annuitie did euidently cast vpō me. Also to yeeld vp mine annuitie for the
A great matter! vnlesse the annuitie were, as it were a cloake for vsury, and therefore great.
same summe of money I had paid to my brother, without both which my brothers land would haue found no conuenient sale for the paiment of his creditors vntill this day. And of my dealing herein I take
They knew not all.
witnesse S. Robert Germin of Suffolke, M. Atkins, and M. Tindall of Lincolnes Inne: who were (in deede) the men my brother tru­sted with his worldly estate: and who (in my iudgment) acqui­ted the trust my brother reposed in them accordingly.

Matth. Sutcliffe.

I will not deny, but there might be some mistaking in him that brought mee this report of M. Cartwrights dealing in the execution of M. Stubbes his will. for, as M. Cartwright affirmeth, and by perusing his will I finde, his brother did not so farre trust him. But assuredly my purpose was not to wrong him. neither to my knowledge haue I done it, were all true that M. Cartwr. saith, which not withstanding I am not bound to beleeue. For I [Page]do notAnswere to the petit. p. 8. & 9. say, as M. Cartwright vntruly affirmeth, that he was con­tent to be executour to his brothers Stubbēs his will, but that he re­fused not the execution of his will. And that was not onely re­ported to me, but beleeued, for that common humanitie and the office of a kinsman and brother required it at his handes, and for that in truth M. Cartwright confesleth, that there were dealings that passed betwixt him and his brother in trust. But bee it, that he was either not so greedy as to desire, or so inhumane and vn­kinde as to refuse in part to execute his brothers will going in his countreys seruice, and hauing none neerer to him then M. Cartwright; what slander is this? Is it a dishonest part to exe­cute his brothers will? nay it is a rude and inhumane part to re­fuse to do it. But may not ministers deale therein? yes: and as ho­nest men as M. Cartwright too. neither doth Cyprians case con­cerne our times. Why then should this bee a slander? forsooth (percase) because he hath taught, that ministers may not be ex­cutors of willes, nor deale in ciuil causes. and therfore he would be loth to deale in matters of willes. Why then doth he deale in ciuil causes? why doth he deale in leases, in money, in lands, and all those things that executors deale in? why is he still master of an Hospitall? and if to charge him in this bee no slander, sure no slander it is to charge him in the other. Vntruth it may bee, but certes no slander. What then if neither it be vntrueth, nor slan­der? hath M. Cartwright any cause to complaine? assuredly for ought M. Cartwright hath said as yet, there is not any vntruth in any words to be found. For if so be M. Stubbes did neuer offer it, nor name M. Cartwright his executor, then true it is which I say, that he refused it not. And why? because it was neuer either offered or meant. But because indeed I supposed there had bene some intendement in M. Stubbes to put trust in him, it shall bee shewed that in that sence he hath not refuted my words.

He saith first, that he was not named in his brothers will. Admit it were so. yet diuers doe administer goods, that are not named in the testators will: those especially that haue trust put in them. Beside that, he doth not deny, but he might be named in the sce­dule mentioned in the will, and which is a part of the same. Thirdly he confesseth that he yeelded vp a lease worth 6. pound yeerely aboue all reprise for nothing, and his annuitie for the [Page 52]summe his brother had of him: which declareth, that this was a matter of trust. for I doe not beleeue, that M. Cartwright was so tender hearted, as to giue a way his things for litle or nothing. Fourthly why should mistresse Stubbes & her friends complaine of M. Cartwright, if nothing was put to his trust? that her com­plaint should be causelesse, is ridiculous. that she complained, his conscience well knoweth, and it shall be verified if he will. but seeing he will needes shew himselfe so vnkinde, as to abre­nounce his brothers last requestes, and so inhumane as not to see his brothers last will executed, be it so: and let this be put among the vnciuill and vnnaturall rules of puritanisine. yet if he deale in the businesse of his hospitall according to my lord of Leicesters or my lord of Warwikes last will, I doubt not, but he will proue an executor of a will. but forsooth he will not ex­ecute any mans wil, but great lords. howsoeuer it is; my argu­ment which in my answere to the petition I made against M. Cartwright and his discipline standeth firme. for if M. Cartwr. deale in the gouernment of his hospitall, and other ciuill cau­ses of his owne; albeit hee take himselfe to be a minister of the worde; then either hee doeth against his owne rule, or els hath no reason to exclude ministers from dealing in ciuill cau­ses. but it appeareth he dealeth in ciuill causes, yea and that as may by his owne simple tale be presumed, very hardly. for if be­side his annuity and writing for it, hee had a lease woorth 6. li. yerely for one peppercorne, it appeareth that hard dealing in his conscience weigheth not so much as one pepper come, especi­ally if he meant to take the aduantage.

M. Cartwrights answere to a certeine question of mine con­cerning purchasing of land and buying of leases.

Heere (sayth he) is a Heere is impudent dealing. shew my words to this effect if you can. charge of a purchase of three or foure good mannours, and two good leases, and both got (for the most part) by the Doe you say so your selfe? I say it not. spoile of the hospitall, except the price of some small cottage &c. for the purchase of three or foure mannours, I neuer purchased any mannour in my life, but the mannor of Saxmund. M. Caluin neuer pur­chased so much: yet was he as learned as Master Cartwright. ham in Suffolke, whereof I haue yet but the moity, neither shall haue these foureteene or fifteene yeres, if one M. Iohnsons leaese be auailable, as hither to he hath enioyed it by If by you, then you do enioy it. mee, who haue [Page]not disturbed his possession. the rent that hee yeeldeth for the one halfe of the demaines is but thirtie shillings by yeere. the rent of the demaines that I receiue (although Are you a racker of rents, and tormentor of tenants? enhan­ced as farre as the tenant may bue thereof) is but 26. li. by yeere, the other rents for copyholds come yeerely to a 3. li. or there abouts, as I His forgetfullage, of which he spoke lately, maketh him forget the iust of his rents. remember. so that the whole of that I re­ceiue commeth to litle aboue 30. li. by the yeere. to Was not your landes solde long before your purchase? pur­chase this, I sold of the inheritance my father and grand­father left, as faire a house for a farme not only as is in that towne where it standeth, but in diuers townes about, which had betweene eight or nine score acres of arable land be­longing vnto it with Small matters in that coun­trey: all lying common. commons, medow, and pasture agree­able to the farmes in that countrey, by yere more then three times worth the valew, that either my father, or I receiued for it. and yet we receiued All is betweene, nothing iust. betweene eight and nine pounds yeerely of clere rent Tell what you solde it for, and it will appeare that Sax­mundham cost you much more. discharged of all quit rents. that M. Sutcliffe may the better I haue no leasure. and I trust you tell true. enquire into it, the farme is si­tuat in Waddon in the county of Cambridge, where I had also a coat with a close adioyning vnto it, which I sold when I did sell the other. Now Name, where I say it. where he sayth, I purchased my landes with my hospitall, I know not why hee should so often terme it Because you are master of it forsooth. my hospitall, rather then (as it is truely called) the hospitall of the right honourable the earle of Leicester. but this I know and professe constantly, that neither I Nor did any to your vse, not your wiues vse, or chil­drens? nor any for me purchased one foot of Percase you haue bestowed all in leases or other commo­dities. land for me since I came to the hospitall. I solde an annuitie in fee simple of That seemeth to be bought for one hundred pound. which is no vsury. 12. li. 10.5. by yeere since I came thither, as my lord chiefe Iustice of her Maiesties Common plees doeth well As if he remembred all fines and bargaines made before him. knowe, before whom I acknowledged a fine. It is no matter, your reue­nues being great other wayes. leases of the hospitall I ne­uer made but one onely, for which the house and What receiued you? not I re­ceiued 30. li. and because he draweth me to these accounts of the hospitall, I will offer, and in the hearing of any equall and indifferent auditor will make it cleere, that besides my Trauell about ciuill causes. continuall trauell for the setling & suites of the hospitall, which I (neuer brought vp there to) would not haue vnder­taken for any money, but Why haue you your sti­pend? onely for conscience and duety to the poore hospitall my An executour of his will in that. L. trusted me with: I haue layd out of mine owne purse Can you charge the hospi­tall with no more? 40. marks ouer & aboue that which I [Page 53]haue Let vs knowe your allow­ances, and wee will confesse it to. receiued, or am like to receiue, vnlesse the stocke which is holden from the house be recouered this partly may appeare by an account I gaue vnto her Maiesties commis­sioners who had charge (among others) to enquire and cer­tifie the whole estate of the Who hath made it poore, hauing such good reuenues? poore hospitall. Now for the two leases in Welborne, they were Might not other landes also be bought to M. Cartwrights vse by his friends aswell as these leases? bought by a friend of mine, who being the principall dealer is left Because the question is on­ly concerning M. Cartwright. out, whether to draw more enuy to me, let it be iudged, especially of that which hereafter shall appeare. I confesse I should haue had a part therein, but they were neuer enioyed either of him or me, but were I trust you had money for them. released to M. Morgan, for that he was not able without his What conscience then had you first to take them? vtter vndoing to perfourme them. and where he I say not so. I onely talke what might be made of them. which I hope M. Cartwright looked well to. saith they were worth to me two hundred marks by the yere, they neuer haue bene nor wil be worth to vs both two bundred farthings in all. More then that (albeit my L. chiefe Iustice of England dealeth very honourably with vs) yet I referre it to his iudgement (if his lordship will be plea­sed to speake in so priuate a matter) that we are great Of gaine hoped for, or in M. Cartwrights owne opinion. loo­sers by M. Morgan. and M. Morgan (if hee haue but a sparke of good nature) shall be constrained to He eried out of your biting vsury, they say. confesse our kinde and christian de aling with him both in releasing his bargaine for a Where is that summe now bestowed? summe far vnderneath the valew it was worth, and Not without consideration, I trust. forbearing him many yeeres with much pati­ence, after the forfeiture of his recognizaence, and many promises broken with vs. now where he excuseth these two last charges of being executor to my brother Stubbes, and of purchase of lordshippes (as hee doeth excuse many other things) in that he doth propound it onely in a question; it is You are vnwoorthy to be accounted a disputer, that take this for granted. vnworthy of any answere, not onely because a Straunge logike like to the strange discipline. quēstion doth more strongly sometimes auow then a bare affirmati­on, but because he is so violently and bitterly caried against the petitioner for the things he hath set downe by The reason is for that hee seemeth not to doubt of his questions. way of question, and for his Where do I make such ex­cuse? shame you not to deuise these soolish shifty? excuse of being mistaken by the re­port of others. I referre it once againe to iudgement, how it fitteth with the credit of a minister of the Gospell, to publish (and that inprint) If you can proue, that I do so, you shall haue the garland, and bee crowned king of the Consistory. what soeuer he receiueth by report to the discredit of a Where were you ordeined minister? minister of the Gospell. and vnlesse M. Sutcliffe will I will bring forth God wil­ling, that whereof you will be much ashamed. bring foorth his reporter, some will happily [Page]conceiue, that it is the inuention of his owne head. and Do you doubt of that, you affirmed euen now? if he did receiue it by report, yet seeing hee would blow it a­broad by so strong a blast, as the print, at the least he should not haue simply affirmed it, but set it downe as a report. lastly, where he saith, he desireth not to be acquainted with my estate, he forgetteth himselfe. for in his former booke (as I remember, for I haue You were not then wise to speake without booke so mere­ly imagined vatrueth. not the booke at this present) hee It standeth you vpon to shew where. promiseth to be a diligent surueyour, or auditour of mine and other mens lands. and in deed he is ouer diligent, that can find lands of mine in Hane you indeede neither land, lease nor fee, your selfe nor other to your vse in Nor­folke nor Warwike shire? Warwikeshire and Norfolke, whereof I my selfe, nor any of my friends know not one foot. yet M. Doctor Sutcliffe admonished in this behalfe of his It will appeare otherwise. for indeed albeit I haue not af­firmed that hee hath three or soure mannours, yet hee hath in value more rent then some fiue or sixe mannours in Eng­land. vntrueth set foorth in his former booke, and occasioned thereby to correct himselfe, feareth not in this later to af­firme boldly, that if he haue done amisse, it is because hee hath set downe too litle, too much (sayth he) I haue not set downe. f. 69. p. 2. f. 70. p. 1.

Matth. Sutcliffe.

M. Cartwright in the title of his answere doth directly af­firme, first that I charge him with the purchace of 3. or foure good mānors, & secondly that he hath purchased them with the spoile of the Hospitall. and thirdly by both these charges would he insinuate, that he is grieuously slandred. These three points therefore doe rest orderly to be discussed. To the first I say, that I do not charge him to haue purchased 3. or 4. Lordships. why doth not he that so boldly auoucheth this of me, and pleadeth so long against me for it, set downe my wordes or note the place where they are to be found? Is he determined still to vse such peruerse and strange dealing? In deed I confesse that I asked a question of Tho. Cart. how a man might by selling a coat and a few acres of land buy 3. or 4. lordships. But euery one that asketh a question especial­ly in matter of fact, and concerning other mens dealings doeth not affirme so much as hee maketh a question of, for then were questions and affirmations all one, and it were vnlawfull to aske question in any doubtful cause. And then should the petitioner and other of M. Cartwr. consorts that haue made many questi­ons of very odious matters, affirme the same. which were a point very dangerous not only to the authors of the booke, but to the [Page 54]whole Puritan faction, that so well liked it.

The petitioner doth aske whether men ought to incurre penal­ties for opinions they helde doubtingly. Quest. 1 yet it is heresie to doubt of matters of faith, and disloyaltie to doubt of the princes title and right to the crowne. So that I trust he wil not affirme, so much as is conteined in his question.

Secondly he demaundeth, Quest. 2 whether the forme of prayers and ad­ministration of Sacraments, the attire of ministers, and other cere­monies of the Church of England are more agreeing to the Church of Rome, or the Apostles and primitiue order. I trust M. Cartur. wil not affirme thus much in behalfe of the author of the petition.

He asketh of me why M. Cartwr. Quest. 10 may not sell the landes he had frō his father, and buy other with the money, as well as some of the Bi­shops, &c. Yet he is not so to be vnderstood, as if hee said, that Bi­shops sel their fathers lands, & buy others. For few of them buy, whatsoeuer they sell, and few may bee compared herein to M. Cartwright, and his fellowes. who vnder pretence of refusing li­uings haue by begging, and whining, and shifting, and com­pleyning of persecution enriched themselues & their children: while Bishops haue hardly bin able to beare the charge of their office and place.

He also demaundeth whether the Archbrshop; Quest. 13 of Canterbury should not rather be called Popes, then Primates. yet I trust hee will not affirme it. he hath a litle more honestie, as I thinke.

He asketh further, whether Christ being before the Bishops, Quest. 17 and should answere as Bambridge and Iohnson did, should not bee com­mitted. yet I hope he is not so blasphemous a wretch, as to com­pare Christ with such fellowes; or so lewd, as to say that hee should be conuented, or committed.

An other question is likewise demaunded, Quest. 22 whether ordinaries haue not contriued, promulgated, and published articles (hee mea­neth orders) in their owne name, without her Maiesties assent. yet I doubt, whether he wil stand to affirme so much.

He asketh whether Ecclesiasticall Iudges are not in the Praemu­nire, Quest. 27. & 34. yet dare he not auouch it.

Like wise the distracted Abstractor doth frame many odious interrogatories, which albeit he be, as they say, a mad felow, yet he will not affirme, neither I hope wil M. Cartwright make affir­mations [Page]of them. Hee asketh whether the Bishops haue not made vnle arned and criminous ministers, and suffered them to continue all her Maiesties reigne. And, whether the Archbishop haue not dispen­sed contrary to Gods word, and may exercise absolute authoritie, and whether the Archbishop being an excommunicate and simonia­call person may resort to the Pope for absolution. Yet I thinke the man hath more shame and modestie then to affirme any such matter. Is it not then a matter very ridiculous, that M. Cart­wright will haue questions to be affirmations? Beside that, it is very dangerous to his faction, that hath moued so many dange­rous questions. but to affirme that a question doth more strong­ly auow then an affirmation, as doth M. Cartwr. is most strange and absurd. Neither doe I so reason against the petitioner, as if euery word of his questions were by him auerred and affirmed, but first because his questions are for the most part grounded vp­on matters of Law, of which euery one is to take notice; Next for that he doth not onely make a question, but also declare his owne opinion. As for example, one of his questions is this.

Quaere of Matth, Quest. 10 Sutcliffe, &c. why M. Cartwright may not sell the lands he had from his father, and buy other with the money, as well as some of the Bishops, who by bribery, simony, extortion, racking of rents, wasting of woods and such like stratagemes waxe rich, and pur­chase great Lordships for their posteritie. Beside this in other pla­ces he hath fufficiently declared his meaning. as for my case it is quite contrary, I speake of matters of fact, wherein I am igno­rant, and desire to be resolued, and yet M. Cartwright will do me no fauour, and disdeineth out of his high throne of the eldership to speake to me a poore Christian, desirous to learne of his wor­ship. Well therefore doth hee to adde, that sometime a question doth more strongly auow, then an affirmation. for it is some what to much to say, that it doth so at all times: and not true that it doth so at any time. But were it true, yet should he winne nothing but discredit, to reason thus of particulars. for although sometime M. Cartwright doth say wel, yet he doth not so alwayes.

But suppose yt indeed I had signified, that M. Cart had purcha­sed lands, and bought leases more in value, then 3. or 4. good lordships: yet should it be no slander. and that first, because it is true. and next because it is no dishonestie to purchase, or prouide by ho­nest [Page 55]courses for his wife and children. The first appeareth by these particulers. he confesseth that he hath bought the mannor of Saxemundeham, the moity whereof is worth about 30. li. yeerely. now hee knoweth there be diuers mannors that are not 5. li. rent. Secondly he cannot deny, but he with one Fludde had two leases of M. Morgan worth 200. markes, as both M. Fludde and M. Morgan and others wil iustifie. He had also his brothers lands tied for his annuitie, which since that he hath sold as is said for a great summe. Let him therefore tell vs what he hath done with his money and al that he hath gotten since. for either must it be employed in lands, or leases, or some trade, or els at vse. but this he denseth, and I thinke he vseth no trade, and therfore that remaineth. Beside that M. Cartwright hath large contributions, and gifts, and cannot chuse but win well by his Hospitall. What is then become of all he hath gotten? Hath he spent it in almes? he is none of those that meaneth to merit by almes deeds. Hath he spent it in hospitalitie? nay he cōmonly feedeth at other mens trenchers. Doth he spend it in seruants? he keepeth few or none, and that the rather to moue men to giue largely. His apparell is not costly. At London he spendeth nothing in Innes. What then remaineth, but that his money should goe to encrease his reue­nues? for I know none so vncharitable as to thinke that he hi­deth his talents in a napkin.

But saith he, he hath gained litle by the Hospitall, saue trauel and charge. for the Hospitall oweth him fourtie markes. as if it were not an easie matter to gaine well, and by clayming large allowances when he spent litle to make the Hospitall indebted to him. A­gaine he saith, that he hath sold away the two leases in Welborne and his annuitie. as if so be he had not money for them. and I trust his conscience would not suffer him to be a looser by them. For ha­uing payd 420. li. for Morgans leases, he and his felow had 600. pound againe. a small gaine when you deale with men of good cleane consciences.

Further he saith, that he hath no lands in Norfolke nor Warwik­shire. yet in the section next before hee confesseth, that hee had lands of his brother Stubbes bound for his annuitie, and who wil beleeue, but that he hath employed the money that came of the annuitie and leases that he solde, or els hath some others to do it [Page] [...] [Page 55] [...] [Page]for him, either to his owne vse, or to his wiues or childrens vses? and all this, albeit I desire not to bee acquainted with his estate, I haue by certeine intelligence vnderstood. M. Cartwright saith that in a certeme booke (he knoweth not where) I promise to bee a surueyor or auditor of his and others lands. but vnlesse he can shew the place, we must record it as vntruth. And in the meane while we take him for a man that speaketh he knoweth not what, and that is written he remembreth not where.

By this which is confessed, and I haue learned, it appeareth that if I had said, that his reuenues are more then some 3. or 4. Lord­ships, yet the vntrueth had not bene such as is pretended. for you see what is confessed, and what is more, euery man may conie­cture. But in deede I doe not say so much, but doubting of the matter, because of the vncerteintie of mens reports, I only asked the question, wondering in deede, how of so litle beginnings he could arise to such wealth, and not beleeuing, that such a simple ferme as Waddon is, and the fermes are in that countrey (albeit the number of acres were so great, as he affirmeth, and I doe not beleeue) and which (I doubt not) was spentmost during his a­bode in Cambridge, and in his trauel, could be sold for a fift part of that money, which now he is worth in lands and goods.

I need not therefore to make an excuse, as being herein abu­sed by others; neither did I: although M. Cartwright very vn­truly sayth, I did so. and therefore referreth it to iudgement a­gaine, how it standeth with my credit to report whatsoeuer I he are by report. to whom I answere, that this maketh little for his credit to speake vntruth, and to forge matters neuer said, nor thought. let him shew first where I excuse my selfe by report. next where I report whatfoeuer I heare of others. and lastly, that these mat­ters against him stand vpon report onely; and are vtterly false. if not, then whether he be minister or not (which iustly may be doubted) he must vnderstand, that hee hath done me wrong. and if hee be a minister, that hee hath taught falsly, and charged me vntruly, and is farre more at ease then his fellow ministers, which hath gotten so great wealth, and is at so litle charge.

To the second point of his charge I aunswere, that I neuer sayd, that he hath gotten three or foure mannours by the spoile of his hospitall. why then doth hee charge me with so saying? [Page 56]is this the sincerity of the doctours of discipline to exclaime vp­on men for slanders, and yet not to be able to shew any good matter, but such as they forge themselues? that I neuer sayd so, what proof need I, but that he doth not in one word go about to answere any such thing? Beside this looke my books, there will no such matter bee found. Indeede I may say that the stipend of his Hospitall being toward 50. li. is a good helpe to him, and I say that the lawe presumeth that hee hath gotten most part of his wealth by his Hospitall. and that is true, as appeareth by the coun­cell ofc. Inquirendum de peculio cleric. Rhemes, andc. si quu sane. codem. Toledo, and diuers otherdoctores in c. inuestigandum codem. canons, that hold that the wealth of priestes commeth by the Church liuings. and yet that it is so in his case, I will not directly affirme considering the great gifts he was wont to haue by those of his side. But now that simple fooles do cease offering to this saints shrine, and that the idolatrie and superstition thereof is discouered, it seemeth, he is much offended.

The third point is easily cleared. for if he were neuer charged with spoyling his Hospitall, as himselfe afraide of some shadow that troubleth his conscience doth surmise: how can he be said to be therein slandered? That in his purchases he is not slandred, it doth appeare by that which is said before.

And this may bee ynough, and percase to much for my clea­ring touching this matter. for what perteineth it to me, what M. Cartwright hath purchased, and how? onely thus much it ma­keth for the cause, that M. Cartwright hauing atteined to so great wealth and liuing, by what meanes fewe men know; hee hath no reason to compleine of persecution, or to exclaime and cry out against the liuings of the clergie, and to offer them as it were a praye to those rauinors, that would helpe to aduance his strange nouelties. Neither (I thinke) wil he do so any more, nay now he hath much a doe to hide what he hath gotten himselfe, and would gladly if he might goe cleare away with it: and can­not well doe it, vnlesse we beleeue his bare word, which is lesse then a bare report, which notwithstanding hee little esteemeth. That he cannot thus clearely cary away the matter, his owne suspicious answere sheweth. he doth not tell vs when he solde his fathers ferme, nor what he had for it. neither dare he declare what he paid for Saxemundham mannor, nor whether M. Iohn­son [Page]that enioyeth the moity of the demaines payd him any con­sideration. He doeth likewise concele from vs, what money M. Stubbes had for his annuitie, and what the money was he ought him. Likewise he telleth vs not, what he gaue with his daughter Mary, nor what he meaneth to giue with his other daughters. He doeth not tell vs what M. Morgan had of him for his leases, nor what money hee had backe from M. Morgan. neither doth he set downe his stipend of his Hospitall, nor what money hee hath leant to M. I. Throkmorton, nor what corne, or other things hee hath had of him; nor any particulers whereby it may ap­peare, that all his wealth may rise out of his fathers ferme, his wiues portion, and his Hospital. Nor dare he shew what sheepe and cattell he hath, nor what his wife hath got by making mair. who can therefore beleeue otherwise, then that hee hath more then he dare make shew of, or that he hath lesse, then I supposed hee had? if hee will yet say otherwise, then let him answere to these points directly, and I will my selfe acquite him, if hee can discharge himselfe. If he dare not, let him not henceforth say a­ny more that I haue slandred him.

¶ M. Cartwrights answere concerning the employ­ment of his money.

What store of money I haue, IYet despise not poore men, not exclaime a­gainst the supposed ti­ches of the clergie. am not bound to giue M. Sut­cliffe accompt. what skill I haue to make vse of it, may partly ap­peare by the leases of M. Rather by his confes­sion, and outcry against your dealings. Morgan. and now it will further ap­peare by my dealing with M. Francis Michel. Where first, as before he wouldI do not so make him, nor shut out the other. but he may haue interest notwtstanding any spech of mine. make mee alone the owner of the two leases, shutting out the principall dealer: so here for the ende before re­hearsed, bee maketh me M. Michels creditor for 300. pound, whereas the recognizance he forfeitedSuch packing I see is vsuall with these men. was to my friend, and not to mee, and his principall debt was onely 200. pound, and not 300. pound. Now when the day of payment approched, hee came to me in the Fleete, and offered me interest to for beare, which IBut your friend would not. vtterly refusing, did notwithstanding at his earnest sute and compleint of his distresse yeeld to forbeare the debt, and gaue him a writing of my hande to this effect, that I wasBut his friend perhaps would haue the forfeite or interest. for mine owne part, content to forbeare him with these conditions, first that my grant should not bee hurtfull to myViz. His factor for v­sury as it seemeth. friend not then in [Page 57]towne, and secondly that it should not be preiudiciall to the prin­cipall summe of 200. pound. and whereas hee saith in the mar­gent, that hee will prooue thisI say no such matter. but speake onely of the note, which in effect is not denied. interest by shewing the note of mine owne hand, let him shew the note, and let him shame either me or himselfe. And if that be not sufficient to cleare myIt consisteth not in these petit toyes. righ­teousnesse in this cause, I appeale to his owne father M. He can say farte more then I haue alledged, if he list. Mi­chel, who was priuie to the whole course of our dealing with his sonne. and we are so farre from takingBecause where it is not, it cannot be had. interest of him, that to this day being about fiue yeeres at the least, since the money was due, we haue not receiued so much, as the principall which wee onely demaunded of him, although wee had sued out the forfei­ture of his recognizance. And touching the matter of interest, albeit I haue alwayes bene ofWhat is your opinion against all antiquitie? iudgement for the lawfulnesse of it, so it bee with such caution as charitie (the rule of dealing with our neighbour) be notHowe can that bee, when wee should lende without vsury? broken: yet in the time of my grea­test necessitie, when I was beyond the sea, I receiuing assurance onely for theIs it bare that com­meth without interest? bare money I left in the hands of my friendes, did meuerBut had you not after 10. in the hundred? couenant with them for the value of one peny; but was content with what soeuer they themselues of their owne accord did allow, whether any thing orThat your friends did doubt of and therefore gaue you largely. nothing, Which dealing al­lowed of those that are the most bitter aduer saries of interest, M. Sutcliffe may thinke with himselfe, how vntruly hee dealeth with me in hisI charge him no fur­ther [...]he [...] [...]is owne wri­ting chargeth him. accusation of double vsance.

In the margent ouer this word note lin. penult, these words are set: here M. Sutcliffe is put to the iumpe of apiece of his credite.

Matth. Sutcliffe.

Vpon sight of a certeine note drawen out of the originall of M. Cartwrights hand, I do collect by that which merchants say, that he meant to haue double vsance, I do not charge him with it. onely I affirme, that merchants say hee had double vsance. why then doth hee charge me vntruely? beside that, why doth he not cleare himselfe, if he account it a slander? that he can not do it, it is too too manifest. for first he alloweth vsury, & next answereth this note of his owne simply: and thirdly he may be conuicted by witnesses. I haue (sayth he) bene alwayes of iudge­ment for the lawfulnesse of interest. wherein hee sheweth him­selfe to haue small iudgement, not being able to distinguish [Page]interest, that is in all contracts so much as concerneth a mans profit or losse, from vsury that is in lone of money: and second­ly, allowing vsury contrary to all diuinity, law, and reason. nei­ther doth his exception auaile him. for vulesse charity be inQuid foeuerari? quid hom inē oc­cidere? Cato a­pud Cic. off. li b. 3. cut­ting of throats, charity is not in vsury, but in lending freely. the note doeth testifie that he forbore his money so iustly two mo­neths which merchants in their exchanges obserue, that hee is vehemently to be suspected for receiuing double vsance, M. Morgan much complained, that he was eaten vp with vsurie. and M. Michell, if he were called vpon his othe, would say this money of M. Cartwright did him no good.

Besides vsury there appeare diuers bad practises in M. Cart­wrights dealings. first it is no signe of honest meaning, to make bonds to a third person, it argueth that he meant to haue that, which he was ashamed to take. besides it is no good course to entangle yong men in bonds, their fathers being yet liuing. thel. 1. ff. des. C. Macedonian. Romanelawes make such bondes voide. neither doeth it any whit relieue him, that hee sayth, he hath not yet his principall. for vsurers oft times loose all. whatsoeuer M. Cartwright had, he meant to haue large allowance. for he had iudgement for the forfeiture. thirdly, nothing woulde content M. Cartwright but a recognizance, to shewe that hee meant to haue lande for money.

But sayeth hee, what vse I can make of money, appeareth by the lease of M. Morgan.In the written copy which M. Cartwright him­selfe gaue out, it is 14. li. 10.5. but because it is too much to take so much for 100. li. hee taketh his penne, setting down 12. li. 10. s. confuting him­selfe wt his owne hand, & making no conscience to tell vntrueth, and therefore his bare word is no­thing: at ye most, it is but bare proofe. true. for M. Morgan did grealy complaine of your hard dealing, the same also appeareth by the note made to M. Michell, yea and by the mans testimony. but nothing ma­keth the same more euident, then the dealing with M. Stubs, for to take an annuity of 12. li. 10. s. yerely for one hundred pound (as it seemed you did, and must confesse, if you will tell what money he had of you) and afterward to release the annuity for an hundred pound, is nothing but to take 12. li. 10. s. yerely for the vse of an hundred pound. Likewise he that deliuereth out two or three hundred pound, or such a summe of money vpon a lease, and afterward releaseth his bargaine for his money again, and percase halfe so much more, cannot escape the note of a bi­ting vsurer. how nere this was to M. Morgans case, I report me to M. Cartwrights conscience, and M. Fluddes and Morgans te­stimony, [Page 58]which must needes testifie that for 420. li. they recei­ued 600. li.

He sayth further, that the recognizance wherein M. Michell stood bound to his friend was but for 200. li. yet the copy of the note which was vnder M. Cartwrights hand doth mention 300. li. but M. Cartwright hath gotten the originall into his handes, and so presumeth to say what he list. but first the writer shall te­stifie against him, and next his owne conscience. but sayth he, let him shew me the note, thereby either to shame him, or my selfe. and in the margent it is sayd, that I am put to the iumpe of a piece of my credit. as if it were not sufficient that there was such a note. or as if my credit depended on such patched notes. will M. Cartw. say on his credit that there neuer was such a note, and that it was only for 200. li. he will not, I am assured, & therefore what need solemne proofes where the matter in question cannot be denied?

He alledgeth also, that he cannot yet haue his money of M. Michell, which is the case of many that lend for interest, and abridgeth the suspition of vsury nothing. Lastly, to shewe his good dealing, he sayth, he had nothing for his money, but what his friends voluntarily gaue. but that hee doeth not specifie, neither doth hee shew whether he expected the same or not. which if he did would conuince him of mentall vsurie, all this defence therefore is defectiue. for neither doth he alledge matter suffi­cient for his discharge, nor bringeth any other proofe, then his owne single and bare word, which I beleeue no more, then I beleeue M. Throk. word if he should be examined at the barre, and pleade not guilty. he that is charged can doe no lesse then deny, but where be his witnesses? where be the proofes?

Thus you haue heard M. Cartwrights defence of himselfe in matters needlesse, if he could haue contented himselfe; wherein albeit he would blot others, and cleare himselfe, yet all falleth out against him, and maketh for his aduersary, it may be M. Cartwright will thinke otherwise, and reply, but if he purpose to salue his credit, let him no more forge and deuise matters on his owne head, and as hee pleaseth himselfe, but let him deale plainly, and set downe my wordes as I wrote them, not as him­selfe wresteth them, and then I doubt not, but his owne eyes [Page]will see, and his owne confcience condemne his owne errours. all the worst I desire him is, that he may see them, acknowledge them, and amend them, if he will not amend them, yet let him make an end of these foolish challenges, that will be accepted, (he may assure himselfe) much to his hurt, and preiudice. if he will make no end of quarrelling, let him not complaine, if his follies be layd open to the world. and if he will needs write, let him leaue these trifling controuersies, and employ his wit, and labour in the common cause. if he will both quarrell and trifle; I can not for my part, but be sory to deale with so quarrelsome and trifling an aduersary: and his friends lament, that he hath fallen on such a base and worthlesse argument. only I. Throkm. percase will take pleasure in these courses, and furnish him with store of prefaces, such as is set before this briefe: but he had better consult with wifer heades, and take an other course. it may be hee will not heare me: I will therefore forbeare to vrge him further, & commend him to God, and leaue him to the counsell of his best friendes.

¶ Escapes amend thus.

Fol. 3.2. line 27. reade, clere you? fol. 4. b. line 15. reade, particularly? fol. 7.2. line 32. reade seemeth to be. fol. 17. a. line 35. reade, vnchristian dealing? fol. 17. b. annot. 1. grimace, fol. 20. b. annor. 3. reade, are ye? fol. 23. a. line 35. reade definitiue.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this EEBO-TCP Phase II text, in whole or in part.