this treatise the same is confessed to be no slander The repugnance appeareth diuersly the first title hath apologie the second hath briefe yet neither is euery apologie a briefe nor euery briefe an apologie true it is that the written copy hath a briefe answere but al commeth to one reckoning for euery briefe answere is not an apologie nor contrarywise Nay the same maketh much against M. Cartwright for his friend perceiuing that his 1 M. Cartwrights briefe confessed by I. Throkmorton to be no answere briefe conteined no sufficient answere put out answere and onely left vs a briefe as it were a briefe or writte to summone me to looke to their dealing and craftie cōueyances or els a briefe or summe of their manifolde folies the first title doeth pretend that M. Cartwr is iniuriously loaden with slanderous accusations the second maketh light of the matter and complaineth not at all and sure strange it were if a man should be loaden with so fewe lines and such light paper the first braggeth that al accusations are answered but M. Cartwright seemeth more wise and therefore professeth no such generall answere to be made The first calleth my bookes pamphlets no doubt the writer was angrie with them the second hath more gentle and modest termes is it therefore likely that M. Cartwright will agree with me that euen at the first dash is so farre fallen out with his friend The falsehood of these titles shall be discouered throughout this whole answere and may also in part appeare by this for that they both pretend that I haue slandred M. Cartwright and yet neither he nor his friend that so saucily prateth in the preface shall euer be able to iustifie their pretense for 1 L. 1. ff ad S. C. Turpil slander is a false imputation of matters criminall but the matters which M. Cartwright taketh on him to answere are either most true or not criminous Besides that it is one thing to charge a man with matters criminall iudicially and in his owne defence another to charge him extradicially or iudicially and by way of accusation but that which I alledge is by way of exception and in my defence and not with a minde to accuse Let him therefore that chargeth mee with accusation iustifie his charge and note the time and place when I committed this fault and the wordes of my accusation In deede I mooued certaine questions but there is great difference betwixt questioning and accusing the ende of questioning is resolution the ende of accusing punishment let him therefore shew whom I haue accused or prosecuted in iudgement to haue him punished Last of all the author of the first title complaineth of iniurious dealing but M Cartwright I thanke him doeth friendly discharge me and I doubt not but I shal be able most clearely to discharge my selfe The confession of the aduersary against himselfe is most apparantly set downe in the first title for if all accusations that sauour of slander are answered as the title pretendeth then is M. Cartwright not slandered when if questions be charges as hee saith he is charged with diuers foule and dangerous matters a briefe of which I will here set downe to let him either vnderstand his fault or els if he will not acknowledge it to prouoke him to frame vs a more sufficient answere ¶ A note of certaine speciall matters which haue bene demaunded of M. Cartwright and his consorts and whereto in this his briefe he answered nothing FIrst I 2 Answere to the pet p. 185 q. 2. demaunded of all the disciplinarians of which I take M. Cartwright to be the leader whether those that would ouerthrow not onely the priuileges and liberties of the Church of England but also the whole Ecclesiastical estate their iurisdiction also and liuings seeke not the ouerthrow of Magna charta and infinite statutes and of a great part of the common lawes of the Realme and seeke thereby the dishonour of her Maiestie and the state by requiring at her hands things that tend to the violating of the othe of Princes taken at their Coronation and the ouerthrow of the rewards of learning and whether such as are chiefe doers in these causes are longer to be suffered to proceede in their presumption This I demaunded to this M. Cartwright saith nothing Likewise Ibidem q. 4. I asked whether the booke of Fenner that is entitled sacra theologia and came foorth with the allowance of M. Cartwright conteine not strange diuinitie This question conteineth many members euen so many as there are strange positions concerning the holy Trinitie the Lawe the Gospel the Sacraments and such holy mysteries of diuinitie yet M. Cartwright satisfieth me in nothing Thirdly Ibidem q. 5. I desired to be resolued whether it be not reason to make M. Cartwright recant those dangerous opinions which vnder his credite come foorth commended in that booke And whether hee and his fellowes haue not made a newe booke of prayer and administration of Sacraments and practised the same or some part thereof without authoritie and whether they deserue not to be called in question for publishing of newe confessions of faith and new doctrine and what answereth he forsooth nothing It might also further be demaunded more particulerly of M. Cartwright whether in that communion booke which the disciplinarian faction offred to the Parliament desired to haue it authorized receiued throughout the Realme and which for the most part was either framed by his aduise or allowed by his consent there are not two articles taken out of the Creede namely that of Christes buriall and his descending into hell and whether there is not a newe article added binding all men to beleeue their new discipline making that a matter of faith and whether this be not a plaine violence offered to mens consciences and an alteration of our ancient faith Likewise whether there is not one petition wanting in the Lords prayer and their new paraphrase vpon it Theolog. sacr lib. 1. Likewise whether M. Fenner in his booke of diuinitie which M. Cartwright as it were authorizeth with his letters of commendation doe not confound essence and person in the diuine nature and deuide the persons of the Trinitie into two members and talke foolishly of the eternall generation of the Sonne of God and of the proceeding of the holy Ghost and teach that hatred as it is one of the attributes of God is the essence of God And lastly whether M. Cartwr will allow this for sound diuinitie In his next writ of slanders may it please him to shape vs a direct answere to these matters Ibidem q. 21. Fourthly it was demaunded by what authoritie the ministers of forreine Churches take on them to prescribe formes of discipline and new lawes to our Church Likewise it might be asked by what rule M. Cartwright taketh on him the ministery in our Church hauing no ordination vnlesse it be of deacon according to the lawes
of this Church Fiftly I desired to be resolued Ibidem q. 22. whether all the errours of Barrowisme do not follow and may be concluded of M. Cartwrights and his consorts assertions and whether it bee a matter fit that these men should deale with that sort of sectaries and not rather be constrained publikely to recant their owne foule errors All these questions M. Cartwright answereth with silence Sixtly Ibidem q. 24. I mooued a question whether M. Cartwright and his consorts do not either flatly deny or call in question the principall points of her Maiesties supremacie and whether they take not from her power to ordeine rites and orders for the Church likewise authoritie to nominate Bishops to appoint Ecclesiasticall commissioners and to delegate learned men to heare the last appeale from Ecclesiastical courts to cal synodes and other authoritie giuen to the prince by the lawes of England and endeuoure to bring in forreine lawes and iurisdiction repugnant to the statute of the princes supremacie and prerogatiue and the lawes and liberties both of the Church of England and of her Maiesties subiects if M. Cartwright meant to haue satisfied the doubt concerning his opinion and conceit of her Maiesties supremacie as he goeth about it he ought to haue answered this question directly and particulerly not doing it who seeth not that he slideth away in cloudes of generalitie and priuate conceites of his owne fancy concerning this matter Seuenthly it was demaunded Answere to the petit q. 26. 29. whether by M. Cartwrights rules in those places where they are receiued the Church goods are not spoiled and the liuings of the ministery deuided and rewards of learning taken away and also whether if the same should here be receiued the like wrack would not be wrought and her Maiestie depriued of tenthes and subsidies and a great part of her reuenues and of many faithfull and loyall seruitors which by those lawes being made vnable to liue would also be made vnable to doe her seruice Hee hath nothing to answere that will make for him Eightly it was asked Ibidem qu. 30. whether M. Cartwright and his followers haue not in all places where they haue bene receiued made sectes and diuisions and hardened mens hearts and filled their minds with pride and humorous vanities to which he saith nothing Percase he knoweth it is no slander Ninthly Ibidem qu. 31. I demaunded whether it be not dangerous for this state that M. Cartwright and his partakers haue so much vrged this Church to imitate the examples of Geneua and Scotland considering the dangerous courses which they tooke and the hard effects that followed of them It cannot be denied and therefore M. Cartwright holdeth his peace 10. Ibidem qu. 33. The question was asked whether that the subuersion of the state of the Church which foloweth necessarily of M. Cartwrights disciplinarian deuises is not a great scandale and hinderance to the reformation of true Religion in other places It is most apparent and therefore M. Cartwright forbeareth to answere 11. Ibidem q. 34. It is demaunded whether M. Cartwright doe not as well subiect Princes to excommunication as Sanders or Allen or other Papistes and whether his doctrine is not as pernicious to princes authoritie as theirs It must needs be granted and therefore he passeth by and saith iust nothing 12. Answere to the petit qu. 49. A doubt is made whether M. Cartwright doth beleeue that subiects may rebel against such Kings as they accompt Papists or tyrants as some of that side haue taught and hee passeth by in a graue silence 13. Ibidem qu. 51. It is asked whether M. Cartwright and his felowes haue not assembled in synodes or rather conuenticles and there enacted decreed certeine rules orders contrary to her Maiesties lawes and also subscribed them procured others to subscribe them and by all possible meanes gone about without authoritie to put the same in practise and to discredite and disgrace the lawes of her Maiestie and ancient gouernment of Christ his Church This is most true and therefore passed ouer in silence 14. Idemaunded also whether they haue not in their said orders Ibidem qu. 52. which they call holy discipline taken al authoritie in Church causes from the Christian magistrate and giuen it to their consistories and synodes in so much that the magistrate is not once mentioned in that platforme and further I would know how the sufferance of these proceedings may stand with the maiestie of a Prince and with gouernment Likewise it may be demanded of M. Cartwright how he that hath bound himselfe to this forme of discipline by his word subscription may be thought to allow of her Maiesties supreme gouernment which the lawes of this land doe giue vnto her In this case he is as silent as Harpocrates 15. Ibidem q. 53. I desired to knowe whether M. Cartwright haue not taught that the authoritie which they challenge to their elderships and synodes by their holy discipline as they call it is neither increased nor diminished whether the prince be Christian or heathen and likewise if he do not thinke or haue not taught that the authoritie of a Christian and heathen prince is all one and that a Christian king hath no more to doe with the Church gouernment then any pagan prince or Emperour hath but he will tell vs nothing 16. Ibidem q. 54. I asked M. Cartwright whether he his adherents haue not put the greatest part of their discipline in practise without her Maiesties consent authoritie or allowance and likewise without her authoritie or knowledge haue not both made secret meetings and established diuers newe orders and broched newe opinions and all contrary to the doctrine faith and gouernment of this Church of England this string M. Cartwright dare not touch 17. Ibidem q. 55. I asked him whether hee was not presumptuous if no more in doing these things and whether he ought not to bee brought publikely to submit himselfe for his faults Likewise it may bee here asked of him whether hauing both in Fenners booke and his replies and writings taught written and allowed diuers points of false-doctrine he is not to be brought to a publike recantation for satisfaction of those weake ones that hee hath offended will it please him yet to answere this question directly 18. Answere to the petit qu. 57. I demaunded whether M. Cartwright swore truely in the Starre-chamber when he affirmed on his oth that he neuer affirmed or allowed that in euery monarchie there ought to be certain magistrates like to the Spartaine Ephori with authoritie to controll and depose the king and to proceed further against him seeing he called M. Fenners booke wherein these points are expresly set downe the principles and grounds of heauenly Canaan and doth not onely without all exception allow it but also highly commend it this is also a point which he dare
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 and debarred him from all gouernment for you haue not so much as mentioned him In one of the disciplinarian bookes of common prayer 1 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 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 3 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 4 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 5 Ibidem p. 157. 167. take from him authoritie to determine of Church causes and 6 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 7 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 8 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 1 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 2 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 3 Ibidem p. 303. another place that a prince may make lawes for the obseruation of both tables and punish the transgressors Feckenam 4 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 5 De visib monarch lib. 2. c. 3. Sanders Romano Imperatori esse subiectos And for ciuil causes it is their common opinion that 6 Harding reioynd f. 379. priests may be conuented before ciuil Iudges and for Ecclesiastical causes certeine 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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
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 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 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
all this now I wil briefly note but the proofes you shall see largely deduced in the discourse ensuing First where I doe make diuers questions and some that touch you very nerely you passe the most of them ouer with silence but if you would haue iustified your selfe you should haue answered them al and that in direct and plaine termes I 1 Answere to the petit p. 186. aske you whether Fenners booke which he entitleth sacram Theologiam and which you seeme to allow conteine not strange diuinitie and gladly would I know if you mislike any thing in that booke what the points are you mislike you answere nothing I 2 Ibid. p. 189. demaund of you whether Barowes erroneous conclusions doe not folow of your assertions And what say you to it forsooth nothing I aske if the Prince refuse to reforme the Church how far inferior magistrates and the people may proceed therein and thereto your answere is 1 Ibid p. 194. 195. silence I demaund of you if you and your consorts do not thinke the practises of Geneua and Scotland for the setting vp of their discipline lawfull and worthy to be folowed and to this you say 2 Ibidem p. 195. nothing I demaund further whether you and your fellowes haue not assembled in synodes and conuenticles and there decreed and enacted certeine Ecclesiastical canons and rules subscribed and practsed them contrary to her Maiesties lawes and the statutes of the Realme and you also answer as to other matters I desired to be resolued whether you had disgraced her Maiesties Ecclesiastical lawes reformation gouernment you respect my desires nothing Diuers other matters likewise I demaunded of you vnto which you answere nothing nay in the matters concerning Hackets practise and Martines libels and her Maiesties supremacie you answere imperfectly and vnsufficiently you dare not set downe my whole question nor confesse al was done concerning Copinger and Martin nor wil you answere directly to those particuler points of her Maiesties supremacie which the statutes and lawes giue her and doe you thinke that this kinde of answering is sufficient to cleare you Why then let Sanders Allen and those Papists and traitors which confesse so much in termes as plainely and openly as you do as yet be cleared concerning Stubbs his wil and your dealing with Francis Michel and others you haue also peruerted my meaning and altered my words and maner of writing who then seeth not how litle meanes you had to cleare your selfe being put to these hard shifts and not daring to set downe his words whom you pretend to answere but this we shall see more euidently when wee come to the examination of the particulers of your briefe Further your answer is altogether vnsufficient you do still cry out in your tragicall maner slander slander and yet you doe not vnderstand what is slander you ought therefore to vnderstand that slander is 1 L. 1. ff ad S. C. Turpil when matters criminal are purposely and falsly obiected but those things of which you go about to purge your selfe are either not criminal or els most true in part by your selfe confessed your selfe confesse that some things obiected to you are in their owne nature indifferent how then are they slanderous that you were acquainted with Hackets and Copingers practises and disliked not Martines courses shal be proued that you would not at the first answere to certaine points concerning the Queenes supreme authoritie in causes ecclesiastical you 2 In this booke and in the question concerning that matter confesse how then can you say you are slandered because forsooth as you would insinuate you did afterwards acknowledge it now offer to sweare it and yet you wil be taken halting when you come to the particuler points of that authoritie You deny that you allowed M. Fenners strange diuinitie concerning ouerruling and deposing of Princes by inferior magistrates yet haue not I said more then your own words wil proue and iustifie That which I say cōcerning working of Miracles and extemporal prayers you wittingly as it seemeth mistake and answere not which argueth that your conscience tolde you that I said nothing therein but trueth trueth whereof you are ashamed the execution of wills and purchase of lands is not criminall beside that what I said either concerning such matters or els your maner of employment of your money in effect and substance shal be proued sufficiently what reason then had you so vnaduisedly to challenge me and so deeply to charge me with this hainous matter of slandering nay what meant you or howe durst you once talke of slanders hauing your selfe slandered the ecclesiasticall policie of the Church as vniust the reformation thereof as prophane and impure the authoritie of Bishops practised in this Church as antichristian and contrary to Gods worde the clergie of England as destitute of an ordinary and lawful calling you hauing no other order then Deacon that I know the people of this land 1 Cartwr table as refusing Christ to reigne ouer them the preaching of the word as not orderly the administration of the Sacraments in this Church as not pure nor sincere neither haue you so good reason to charge me as I haue to charge you with slandering me hauing without cause imputed this vnto mee and charged me with shifting and I know not what vnchristian dealing and hauing put foorth and excited your friend to raile on me and charge me with diuers odious matters in the preface to your booke matters which I do the lesse regard for that as hee hath rashly charged me so he hath wickedly blasphemed God saying that God hath blasted my penne with a lying spirit attributing therein the wicked act of lying to God himselfe which is the Spirit of trueth and not only to me which cōfesse my selfe to be subiect to many errors of this M. Cartwright me thinks you should haue had more care and vsed therein more diligence and not suffered such blasphemies to passe in the forefront of your booke But may you say if you haue not slandered me yet you haue wronged me as if it were wrong to deale against the troubler of our peace the chiefe authour of your schisme the disturber slanderer of this Church and state and yet haue I done nothing otherwise then beseemed mee In my first bookes I dealt with you no further then the cause constreined me your importunitie that first began to oppugne the Church prouoked me In my answere to a certaine petition in the behalfe of your selfe and your side I do confesse I dealt with you more particulerly but I was drawen to it by the authors odious questions and courses When the petitioner said Quaere of Matth. Sutcliffe who is euer carping at M. Cartwrights purchases why he may not sel his fathers lands and buy others with the money how could I satisfie the man vnlesse I touched you particulerly blame therefore him that began
So you count the prince as a simple fellow and as a poore gardener among the magnificoes in your elderships You say he may haue a voyce call a counsell and appoint times to meete but he 1 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 2 Devisib monar lib. 2. c. 3. Sanders and 3 Confut. ap p. 304. Harding and in 4 Bellar. de magistr others also If then the Papistes sure you haue no good cōceit of her Maiesties supremacie And this 5 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 6 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 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 1 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 1 Fenneri Theolog Sac. lib. 5. p. 187. giueth authoritie to inferiour persons to restraine their souereigne as did the ephori in Sparta I 2 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 3 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 his booke 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 That is sufficient excepted wherein differing from sundry learned men in our church I
booke which he alloweth as for M. Fenner let him rest in peace he was towardly but in setting foorth this booke 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 4 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 1 Let him shew this was pleased should be no further proceeded in and that am not content with his imprisonment which their honours are 2 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 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 3 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 4 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 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
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 1 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 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 1 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 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 that by his simple dealing in many points especially concerning discipline he betrayed our cause and did giue more aduantage to the aduersary then all his side would haue done good and lastly for that M. D. Fulke very sufficiently and learnedly before him had dealt in the cause neither doth any well aduised man thinke it expedient that he should deale in the publike cause vnlesse his writings might be publikly reuiewed before they were printed which his haughtie spirit could by no meanes endure the which appeareth by his wordes in this place for albeit some part of the preface to his booke was brought to those that had authority to peruse it yet he signifieth that if he could haue chosen it should neuer haue come to their hands it was not therefore his moderation that stayd the printing for he confesseth that some parts were already going to the presse but the insufficiency of his worke and the authors pride that would admit no correction and lastly for that D. Fulke of blessed memory a man more iudicious and learned then he had trauailed therein more sufficiently and perfectly before him and thus much by the way to take away his friuolous excuses of his silence in the cause of discipline in which first he was so fiery and furious Now let vs returne to his foresayd briefe of slanders M. Cartwrights answere being charged how that vpon the comming forth of Martin he is reported to haue said that it was no matter if the bishops were so handled seeing they would take no warning Let it be iudged sayth hee what 1 What guiltines of conscience is it that suffreth him not to deny it christian loue it is to commit such things to print vpon a 2 It is to be testified by witnesse bare report and if the reporters had bene named as in other cases where he doth call out the persons by their names the trueth might haue the better appeared for me I am able to produce witnesses that the first time that euer I heard of Martin Marprelate I testified my great misliking and griefe for so naughty and so disorderly a 3 You misliked the course but not at the first nor that BB. should be abused course as that was and therefore where fol. 51. p. 1. hee asketh when I will condemne the vnlawfull and vnciuill practise of Martin and Penry I aske againe what 4 You take on you the office of a doctour or pastour which is an office to do that very sufficient office or charge I haue to publish condemnation vpon euery vnlawfull and vnciuill 5 This touched your cause neerer then other writings writing that commeth abroad and yet I haue witnesses that euen publikly when I was allowed to preach I condemned all dealing 6 Note that he misliked not Martin but all dealing in that kinde because his side was