THE EXAMINATION OF M. Cartwrights Apologie.

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 (sayth Gelibr. to F. one) when I might come from Oxford to London to see M. Cartwright. I thanke God (sayth Far. 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 one Chap. 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 to Cholm. 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 checketh Trau. 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; for ff. 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, sayth Prator. 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.

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, saith In 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 himselfe In 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 of He 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 had That Cartwr. confesseth, & M. Egerton did the like. put him ouer to be conferred withal by others of his frends, and how he him­selfe had That doth Co­pinger affirme. once appointed him a time to confer with him which for feare of danger he durst not holde; and how M. Throk. let­ters to a lady. M. Throk. ac­quainted him with all matters, that had passed betwixt Copin­ger and him, and howe That 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 that That 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 how Iohn 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.

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 one Testified 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 one These 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.

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 likewise Ibidem p. 157. & 167. take from him authoritie to determine of Church causes, and 1. 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 the Admonition 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 your Lib. 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. Contrary­wise Against 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 in Ibidem 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, saith De visib. mo­narch. lib. 2. c. 3. Sanders, Romano Imperatori esse subiectos. And for ciuil causes, it is their common opinion, that Harding re­ioynd. f. 379. priests may be conuented before ciuil Iudges. and for Ecclesiastical causes cer­teine Act. 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 the Hard. 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 the Admonit. 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 you 2. 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 in Devisib. mo­nar. lib. 2. c. 3. Sanders and Confut. ap. p. 304. Har­ding and in Bellar. de ma­gistr. others also. If then the Papistes; sure you haue no good cōceit of her Maiesties supremacie. And this In 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. Being Interrog. 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 (saith Fecknam 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. Fenners And 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.

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 to If 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 (saith The 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 standeth His 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 his All 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 y ^t 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.

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.

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, which Rom. 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 do Admonit, 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 to 1. 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.

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 not Answere 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.

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 y ^t 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 of c. Inquirendum de peculio cleric. Rhemes, and c. si quu sane. codem. Toledo, and diuers other doctores 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.

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 in Quid 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. the l. 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 w ^t his owne hand, & making no conscience to tell vntrueth, and therefore his bare word is no­thing: at y ^e 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.